Gematria

[Anonymous]

As for analogies, metaphors, & other rhetorical devises; they are precisely that. Rhetorical devises. They prove nothing beyond their use as figures of speech.

They prove far more than that! God would NEVER describe Himself as doing something sinful...even in an analogy!

Laws ALLOWING for polygamist practice prove no more then lawas allowing for divorce prove anything. Jesus was clear that many laws were mere concessions to hard hearthedness. Statutory laws prove nothing re: fundamental principles of intrinsic justice.

You can't compare polygyny with divorce. God is on record stating that He "Hates" divorce...but He did allow it because of the hardness of men's hearts. There is no statement from God ANYWHERE in the Bible where He stated He "Hates" polygyny. If polygyny is sinful...why is there no prohibition against it anywhere in the Bible.

Blessings,
Fairlight

 

[VictorLepanto]

Re: Polydoc,

It is late & I can't develope an elaborate argument for you. As to your contempt for the Pagan, it is unbiblical. Every Pagan practice is not evil simply b/c it is Pagan. It certainly true that the Greco-Roman world was basically a monogamous culture, though they were permissive of divorce. This hardly makes monogamy wrong. St. Paul quotes Pagan Greek philosphers in praise of God. He take Pagan Greek hymns to Zeus as actually being honoring to God. So even Pagan Greek religion had some truth in it. Laws regarding monogamy are no unjustly coercive then laws against incest. This is noteworthy b/c Denmark just legalized adult incest.

I can't imagine what you think the Ephesians quote is supposed to prove. If anything it discredits your position. "He who loves his WIFE loves himself" Only those who love a WIFE love themselves, thus if you love WIVES, you don't love yourself. Christ loves His "CHURCH" (singular), He gave Himself for "HER," He "sanctifies" & "cleanses" "HER." What do you think your proving here. Christ has a bride, a church.

 

[Anonymous]

Victor,
Welcome to BF. I hope you enjoy our fellowship and study.

St. Paul quotes Pagan Greek philosphers in praise of God. He take Pagan Greek hymns to Zeus as actually being honoring to God

I am interested to see where this takes place.

Christ loves His Church. True, but He also addresses multiple churches in the first part of the Revelation. Also many of the Pauline epistles were addressed to "the church at or, of". Multiple churches that He loves, so that analogy doesn't prove polygyny wrong. Earlier you asked for someone to show where God commanded plural marriage. I would like to see where marriage itself was ever a command.

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

Earlier you asked for someone to show where God commanded plural marriage. I would like to see where marriage itself was ever a command.

1. I would like to see where God commanded a man to marry one wife. Because if it is necessary for God to command a man to marry more than one wife in order for a man to marry more than one wife, then why not make it necessary for God to command a man to marry his first wife in order for a man to have more than zero wives?

2. It has been commonly stated that people in polygyny led a life of sin and therefor polygyny should be forbidden. There are numerous examples of people who married one woman who were later led to a life of sin
A. Adam and Eve who sinned and brought death into the world
B. Job who was told to "curse God and die," (See Job 2:9 NIV 2010) was obviously having marital difficulties in what may have been monogamy and who was not listed as having more than one wife although he might have had more than one wife
C. Peter who denied Jesus and was not listed as having more than one wife, although he might have had more than one wife
D. Nabal the fool who was not listed as having more than one wife (I am assuming Nabal sinned with very good reasons for that assumption although I am not sure if I can prove that)

3. Jesus was not listed as having any wife and did not sin, where as Adam was married to one listed wife and sinned. Those who argue monogamy is better than polygyny because of a lack of sinless examples have a deep problem in endorsing monogamy for Jesus had no listed wife or wives and may have been unmarried.

It does not say that God forced Adam to marry Eve in Genesis 2, perhaps if he remained unmarried to her, they would not have sinned together, it could have all been the downfall of his choice to live a married monogamous life, instead of a single life. We do not know if the command to multiply was given before or after they married, therefor this cannot be argued as a command for them to marry.

4. There is potentially a command to have more than one wife who he cannot divorce for the person who has already had sex with more than one women.

28If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 King James (KJV)

5.

A. There is a command not to forbid marriages that God has not forbidden

1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.
1 Timothy 4:1-3 NIV 2010

B. God has given permission to marry either
i. A woman you own through warfare

10 When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.
15 If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love,

Deuteronomy 21:10-15 NIV 2010

ii. A woman you have bought or someone else sold to you

7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.
Exodus 21:8 Or master so that he does not choose her
Exodus 21:7-11 NIV 2010

C. A woman is either owned by i. The man who wants to marry her (Deuteronomy 21 and or Exodus 21) ii. Someone else (Exodus 21)

Since the women is owned by someone (even in the case of divorce and widowhood in which case she owns herself)

if you combine women under category i and ii that will include all women

All single women can be involved in polygynous marriage (except for the exceptions) because in both case i and case ii a married man is permitted to marry a woman. For when the permission is given it does not say it is only given to single men but married men and to add the word single would be adding to the word of God and contrary to the clear references for how to interact with multiple wives, furthermore it would be illogical that God accidentally omitted the word married to men when he paid so much attention to the woman's marital status in Deuteronomy 22 and no mention of the man's marital status in Deuteronomy 22.

D. Therefor anyone who forbids a married man who is lawfully allowed to take an additional woman in marriage who he owns or he has purchased from someone else (all cases except for the specific exceptions such as the same man marrying both a woman and her daughter, etc.) from marrying that woman is involved with a doctrine of demons taught by a hypocritical liars with seared consciences.

 

[steve]

victor, as my esteemed wife so rightly said many years ago:

"If G-d could plainly state that He wanted the Israelite men to not cut the forelocks of their hair, and to cut the foreskins from the penises of babies, He sure could have figured out a way to state that it was not acceptable to have more than one wife."

to have to glean by way of typology and natural thought what the heart of YHWH desires on such an important subject......
you are welcome to obey what you feel that He wants, but you remind me of the pharisees who derived new laws by going beyond what He said and attempting to discern what He meant to say.

 

[MarvelousMarvin]

VictorLepanto said:

I can not address vague assertions, please give specific citations.

It is very plain that God describes Himself as a polygynist. Yes, it is only metaphorical, but God would never use something that He declared to be sin as a metaphor in describing Himself.

Ezekiel 23:1-4 NKJV The word of the LORD came again to me, saying: (2) "Son of man, there were two women, The daughters of one mother. (3) They committed harlotry in Egypt, They committed harlotry in their youth; Their breasts were there embraced, Their virgin bosom was there pressed. (4) Their names: Oholah the elder and Oholibah her sister; They were Mine, And they bore sons and daughters. As for their names, Samaria is Oholah, and Jerusalem is Oholibah.

God very plainly states, in this metaphor, that He was married to two (count 'em, two: Ohilah {#1} and Oholibah {#2}) and that they bore sons and daughters. See also Jeremiah 3:6-14 (especially verse 14) and Jeremiah 31:32 (along with its context.)

The Bible also says that sinful, idolatrous Judah was given into the hands of Babylon. Babylon was a tool of chastisment in God's hand. Does this make Babylon holy, & just in God's eyes?

Babylon was punished for what they did to God's (metaphorical) wives, Israel and Judah. God often uses the wicked to carry out His purpose by allowing them to do something, but that does not make anything the wicked do just and holy in God's eyes (Romans 14:23b NKJV "...for whatever is not from faith is sin." and Romans 8:28 NKJV "And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.") The wicked do what they do because they are wicked, not because God causes them to do it. God makes those things work together for the good of His people even though Satan intends it to cause harm.

James 1:13-15 NKJV Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. (14) But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. (15) Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.

God allowed Babylon to sin (just as He allows you and me to sin if we so choose), but He used that sin as a means of chastising His (metaphorical) wives for their sin.

In the line beginning w/ Noah, the sinful line from Ham through Canaan (note the pun on Cain) is associated w/ incest.

Is it a pun in Hebrew? I'm not a Hebrew scholar (but I aspire to be one) and would like to know how it is a pun.

Incest was not a sin until the law was given to Moses.

Romans 5:13 NKJV For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

(See my discussion below of why the law prohibiting incest was given to Moses.)

This is the progress of sin that is being illustrated here. From the sin of Adam (the forbidden fruit) to Cain (murder) to Lamech (murder & polygamy), & them from Lamech to Ham & Canaan (incest).

Ham was not descended from Cain and Lamech. He, just like his father Noah, was descended from the Godly line of Seth. Cain's line ended at the Deluge of Genesis chapters 6-9.

As to Ham's sin, it was probably not just seeing his father's nakedness and laughing about it (as you correctly observed) but it might have involved homosexual rape. Your theory that it might have been incest with his father's wife might also be correct. However, a plain reading of the text indicates that Canaan had already been born before Ham's sin, and so he was not the result of any incest that might have taken place. (Unless Noah was dead drunk 24/7 for 9 straight months!) The two (incest with Noah's wife {who may or may not have been Ham's mother} and homosexual rape of his father) are not mutually exclusive, but could both be true. (Or false.)

There is nothing in the Biblical record that says that the wife of Noah who was on the Ark was the mother of any or all of Noah's sons who were on the Ark. Noah might have had other wives and children who did not believe him and so (literally!) missed the boat. If true, then some of Noah's other wives might have been the mother(s) of Shem and/or Ham and/or Japheth. But this is just conjecture, since the Bible does not give us all the details.

Every example of a nation associated w/ some product of a bygamist or incestuous union becomes an enemy of Israel.

All humanity is the result of incestuous unions. Adam married HIMSELF! All of Eve's DNA came from Adam. (Genesis 2:23 NKJV "...bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh...") Adam's sons married Adam's daughters. That includes Murderer Cain as well as Godly Seth. (There was no one else for them to have married.) Incest was forbidden under Mosaic law not because it is intrinsically evil, but because of the degeneration of human DNA that resulted from sin. As our DNA became more and more corrupted, it became dangerous for close relatives to produce offspring because the children were more likely to inherit a combination of defective genes that would result in birth defects. Human DNA is now so corrupted that it is dangerous for first cousins to have children together. In a few more generations, it may become dangerous for second cousins to marry and have children. (Or maybe it already is.) God's Law has always been that one human should do nothing that will harm another, so by instituting laws prohibiting incest He was not changing His law, but telling us that something which was formerly not harmful has become harmful because of the cumulative effects of sin and decay.

Abraham married his own half-sister.

Genesis 20:12 NKJV But indeed she is truly my sister. She is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.

Abraham only took Hagar as a concubine, she was never counted as a wife. {...} Thus all of the supposed examples of polygamy in Pentateuch are disposed of. Your fallacious Biblical defense of polygamy is vapor wishful thinking.

Genesis 16:3 NKJV Then Sarai, Abram's wife, took Hagar her maid, the Egyptian, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan. {emphasis added, both bold and italics}

Whether Hagar was a wife or (as you say) a concubine, it was still polygyny.

Keturah was a wife and she bore children for Abraham.:

Genesis 25:1-2 NKJV Abraham again took a wife, and her name was Keturah. (2) And she bore him Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah.

And even though Sarah had already died, Hagar was (as far as we can tell fom the Biblical record) alive at the time Abraham married Keturah, and was still his wife. There is no record of Hagar's death before Abraham married Keturah. Abraham did not disown Ishmael, and God promised Abraham that He would bless Ishmael.

Abraham had an unknown number of concubines:

Genesis 25:6 NKJV But Abraham gave gifts to the sons of the concubines which Abraham had; and while he was still living he sent them eastward, away from Isaac his son, to the country of the east.

Hagar and Ishmael had long since departed from the presence of Isaac by this time. Concubines (plural) means it was polygyny.

 

[MarvelousMarvin]

VictorLepanto said:

I can't imagine what you think the Ephesians quote is supposed to prove. If anything it discredits your position. "He who loves his WIFE loves himself" Only those who love a WIFE love themselves, thus if you love WIVES, you don't love yourself. Christ loves His "CHURCH" (singular), He gave Himself for "HER," He "sanctifies" & "cleanses" "HER." What do you think your proving here. Christ has a bride, a church.

The context of my quoting Ephesians 5:25-28 was to refute the idea that Biblical marriage, whether monogamous or polygynous, (and by implication, Biblical patriarchy), is somehow repressive to women.

However, to answer your assertion that it discredits my position: if I had two wives, and I loved them both (which I would), would that not mean that I would then love myself twice as much? I love Wife A. Therefore, I love myself. I love Wife B. Therefore, I love myself. I love them both. Therefore, I love myself twice as much as I would if I only loved one wife. Simple arithmetic!

"Only those who love a WIFE love themselves" ??? Does that mean that an unmarried person does not love himself? Like the Apostle Paul? He was probably not married, at least after his conversion on the Damascus Road. IMHO, he was married before that but his wife (or wives) left him with the help of the High Priest and the Sanhedrin, who probably declared Paul's marriage(s) to be null and void because of his conversion to the hated sect of the People of the Way. That, of course, would mean that he had no wife to love, and so could not (by your reasoning) love himself at the time he wrote Ephesians.

"if you love WIVES, you don't love yourself" ??? Christ has many churches. The church at Ephesus, the church at Smyrna, the First Baptist Church at Denver, the underground church at Bejing, etc. Does He love only one of them? Does the fact that He loves all of them somehow mean that He hates Himself?

And don't try to say that it is not possible for a mere man to love more than one wife at the same time. I have two daughters. I love them both. After the second was conceived and I started loving her (even before I knew whether the unborn baby was "him" or "her"), I did not stop loving my first daughter, nor did my love for her in any way diminish. Had I been fortunate enough to have had a dozen children, I would love all of them. The same is true of a Godly man who has more than one wife – he loves each and every wife, and loving one in no way diminishes or negates his love for any other wife he may have.

Funny thing about love...the more you give away, the more you get! Wonder if it's possible to get too much?

 

[Tlaloc]

It struck me last night that Victor would get snowballed when posting here. Perhaps we could allow a more orderly and productive conversation by allowing him to debate with one person address their objections before moving on to the next?

If thats agreed upon I'd suggest either alit53 to go first since she replied first or Polydoc, since he has covered the most at once. If we do this, once my turn comes I will resume from Victors last post to me (I constrained myself from posting now with difficulty, as his reply as good as admits he misused the Galatians passage, and I can play with his words a bit since he misused the word affection as well, it would have been a fun post).

If that's not a good idea, I'll just post, I just want to make things easier for our new member and give him time to digest the arguments rather than give him the temptation to use getting overwhelmed as a reason to intellectually bail.

Steve,

You're wife said something very wise there, I'm sure going to use that line at some point

 

[MarvelousMarvin]

Tlaloc said:

It struck me last night that Victor would get snowballed when posting here. Perhaps we could allow a more orderly and productive conversation by allowing him to debate with one person address their objections before moving on to the next?

Good idea, so unless alit53 defers to me, I'll wait. I'm working on answers to Victor's posts off-line (typing them in my word processor) and so can continue writing, but will defer posting what I write until it's my turn.

It's not often that someone will have the intestinal fortitude that Victor is displaying by going right into the proverbial lion's den as he is doing by joining our forum. That makes me admire him no matter how much he and I might disagree about Biblical Marriage. If you are honest with yourself and continue putting your nose in the Book that God wrote, you might soon find that we are right.

BTW, welcome to our forum, Victor. Please don't take anything I say as a personal attack. I try to attack the message, not the messenger, if the message is something with which I disagree. I sometimes fail in that attempt, and for those times, I apologize in advance. I'd love to meet you in person and buy you dinner someday! Hopefully, my brother in Christ, we can disagree agreeably.

 

[Anonymous]

It struck me last night that Victor would get snowballed when posting here. Perhaps we could allow a more orderly and productive conversation by allowing him to debate with one person address their objections before moving on to the next?

I don't think this is necessary. I've conversed with Victor for over a month on another forum, I can attest to the fact that he is not easily intimidated and can handle whatever we dish out. I don't think he needs special handling.

Blessings,
Fairlight

 

[VictorLepanto]

Ezekiel 23:1-4 NKJV The word of the LORD came again to me, saying: (2) "Son of man, there were two women, The daughters of one mother. (3) They committed harlotry in Egypt, They committed harlotry in their youth; Their breasts were there embraced, Their virgin bosom was there pressed. (4) Their names: Oholah the elder and Oholibah her sister; They were Mine, And they bore sons and daughters. As for their names, Samaria is Oholah, and Jerusalem is Oholibah.

God very plainly states, in this metaphor, that He was married to two (count 'em, two: Ohilah {#1} and Oholibah {#2}) and that they bore sons and daughters. See also Jeremiah 3:6-14 (especially verse 14) and Jeremiah 31:32 (along with its context.)

Wow!

I awoke in the middle of last night, I heard loud weeping. I searched my house to find where the sound was coming from. I realized it was coming from bookshelf. It was my Bible. It was crying from being abused so horribly.

Did you read this text? It says "daughters," not wives. As for the rest of your interpretation, I'll get back to you later. Is this really the best you can do? What desperation drives men to so torture the word of God & force her to confess their own self invented "truth."

 

[MarvelousMarvin]

VictorLepanto said:

Is this really the best you can do?

I'm not even warmed up yet. But my wife is off work tomorrow and I want to spend time with her. So I won't have time to properly continue your education about God's metaphorical wives until Tuesday.

Stay tuned!

 

[Anonymous]

Did you read this text? It says "daughters," not wives.

Victor...if you read further down in Ezekiel 23 you will see the two women referred to as being "adulteresses" and having committed adultery. Clearly by the reading of the text they were indeed "wives"

Ezekiel 23:43-45 KJV"Then said I unto her that was old in adulteries, Will they now commit whoredoms with her, and she with them?

44Yet they went in unto her, as they go in unto a woman that playeth the harlot: so went they in unto Aholah and unto Aholibah, the lewd women.

45And the righteous men, they shall judge them after the manner of adulteresses, and after the manner of women that shed blood; because they are adulteresses, and blood is in their hands."

Blessings,
Fairlight

 

[VictorLepanto]

Victor,
Welcome to BF. I hope you enjoy our fellowship and study.

St. Paul quotes Pagan Greek philosphers in praise of God. He take Pagan Greek hymns to Zeus as actually being honoring to God

I am interested to see where this takes place.

Christ loves His Church. True, but He also addresses multiple churches in the first part of the Revelation. Also many of the Pauline epistles were addressed to "the church at or, of". Multiple churches that He loves, so that analogy doesn't prove polygyny wrong. Earlier you asked for someone to show where God commanded plural marriage. I would like to see where marriage itself was ever a command.

In Acts 17:16-33; St. Paul preachs his famed sermon to Areopagites in Athens. The whole passage has most to do w/ Epimenides. It is Epimenides who was responsible for the raising of the alters to the "Unknown God" (or Agnotheos) in Athens. That is an occasion for another post as it is a long story, though an interesting one. A story that St. Paul obviously knew, as he found it interesting from a Christian perspective. St. Paul again quotes Epimenides in Titus 1:12.

The Epimenides quote occurs in Acts 17:28:

In Him we live & move & have our being;

The Aratus quote then is:

For we are indeed His offspring

The Epimenides quote, which is also quoted in Tit. 1:12, is from a work known as the Cretica. It is from a supposed hymn from man named Minos which is addressing to the god Zeus.

This is the context from original source:

Minos to Zeus:
They fashioned a tomb for thee, Oh holy one [that is, Zeus -Me]
The Cretans always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies [ref. Titus 1:12 here]
But thou are not dead: thou livest & abidest forever,
for in thee we live, & move & our being.

The Aratus quote is taken from Phenomena (a work on astrology):

Let us begin w/ Zeus, whom we mortals never leave unspoken
For every street, every marketplace is full of Zeus.
Even the sea & the harbor are full of this deity.
FOR WE ARE INDEED HIS OFFSPRING.

The Cretans had a cave, which they claimed was the tomb of Zeus. The Cretans apparently were "God-is-dead" theologians. Even though Epimenides was also a Cretan, he didn't like this idea that God is dead. Thus his ironic quote about Cretans always being liars. This statement had long become proverbial. Epimenides thought this tomb was empty. Thus St. Paul's reference to him, as St. Paul was also preaching God w/ an empty tomb.

Epimenides also saved the Athenians w/ his alters to "Agnotheos." That will be another thread I suppose.

St. Paul also quotes the atheistic philosopher Epicurus in I Cor. 15:32, but that is not an approving quote.

As to your ref. to Rev.:
The RSV Bible gives the passages thusly:

2:1...the church inEphesus...
2:18...the church inThyatira...
...church in Sardis...

& so on, all the same.

I scanned all the other Bible versions, I checked the original Greek. Most English versions give "in." The original Greek is "en." This shows the King Jimmy translation is defective. It is THE church, which is in these places. If my wife takes a trip to Europe, & she sends me post cards from each city she visits; it would be crazy for me to say that I have one wife in Athens, another in Prague, another in Vienna, etc. Christ has one bride, his Church, he might find HER in many cities, but she is one Church.

More importantly, Christ said:

...I will build my church...

Mat. 16:18
Christ founded one Church, His Church. If there is another, someone else founded it. Who ever that is, I don't care. I want nothing to do w/ it or any other Church, save the ONE He founded for us to enter into. He has one true & pure bride. He & she will adopt us as her children, if we will allow it. If we refuse the invitation that the one true Christ & His one true bride give to us. That is our business.

Most critically, this is our one true saviour's prayer for His one true bride the Church:

The glory which Thou has given Me I give to them, that they may be one even as we are one
I in them & Thou in Me, that they may become perfectly one,so that the world may know that Thou hast sent Me & hast loved them as Thou hast loved me.

The glory which God the Father has given to His Son is the eternal unity of His eternal begetting. The Father & Son are one in union w/ the Holy Spirit. Would you all have us to be worshipping 3 gods, as the Moslems claim? It is the perfect unity of Christ's holy, one, true Church which shows the unity of Christ & the Father to world. If you have a different doctrine then this, take it up w/ Christ. These are His holy words, not mine.

 

[VictorLepanto]

Victor...if you read further down in Ezekiel 23 you will see the two women referred to as being "adulteresses" and having committed adultery. Clearly by the reading of the text they were indeed "wives"

Blessings,
Fairlight[/quote]
If I have a daughter, & if she fools around on the side w/ someone other then her husband, then she is an adulterer. I do not marry my daughter just b/c she is cheating on her husband.

 

[steve]

Tlaloc said:

It struck me last night that Victor would get snowballed.......

Good idea, so unless alit53 defers to me, I'll wait.

knowing ali's heart as i do, it is safe for me to say that she will gladly defer to you.

 

[Anonymous]

If I have a daughter, & if she fools around on the side w/ someone other then her husband, then she is an adulterer. I do not marry my daughter just b/c she is cheating on her husband.

God states very clearly that the two women were His. No other husband was mentioned or even inferred.

Blessings,
Fairlight

 

[WomanSeekingGod]

The two women referred to in Ezekiel 23 represents Jerusalem and Samaria. Traditionally throughout Scripture those two have always been referred to as belonging to, married to, and cheating on God. To call them daughters is to go against Scripture.

Who else would Jerusalem and Samaria be married to?

WomanSeekingGod

 

[VictorLepanto]

If I have a daughter, & if she fools around on the side w/ someone other then her husband, then she is an adulterer. I do not marry my daughter just b/c she is cheating on her husband.

God states very clearly that the two women were His. No other husband was mentioned or even inferred.

Blessings,
Fairlight

The women, allegorically representing Jerusalem & Samaria, are referred to as the "daughters of one mother." They are never called wives. They aren't even called adulterers. You have no reason to suspect these women are supposed to be married in this passage. The women are of one mother & Adonai says "They are mine." This implies He is their father. The bride of Adonai is Israel. He has only one bride always. This is about both the Northern & Southern kingdoms betraying God by trusting in pagan worldly powers over God.

I am really astonished by the outrageous eisegesis of scriptures which I find on this site. I have to wonder what drives people to so desperately read such a tendencious meaning into scripture.

 

[VictorLepanto]

The two women referred to in Ezekiel 23 represents Jerusalem and Samaria. Traditionally throughout Scripture those two have always been referred to as belonging to, married to, and cheating on God. To call them daughters is to go against Scripture.

Who else would Jerusalem and Samaria be married to?

WomanSeekingGod

They are part of Israel, It is Israel which is the bride of God. These to places are daughters of Israel metaphorically.

Even if this tendencious reading were allowable, it proves nothing. A figure of speach where God has two wives doesn't prove God approves of polygamy. God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son. Would you conclude from this that God approves of human sacrifice?