How to rebute, a thief rebuttle to Ezekiel 23.

[DiscussingTheTopic]

There is an argument that God describes himself as married (possibly metaphorically) to two women at the same time in Ezekiel 23 and Jeremiah 3.

The argument would be that God is trying to describe certain Jews as being like bad adulterous women, because they really are bad. So he would not describe himself as being like a polygynist (even metaphorically) unless polygyny is not bad, because it would carry the same idea that if you do something bad in a metaphor (at least this one) you are bad, at least if you are going to be consistent for this metaphor.

I am not saying that God literally married the women. I am not saying that God did not create a body and literally marry the women with the body, but if he did the metaphor is still valid, just as Hosea might have married a literal woman, and yet a lesson was taught out of the events. There is no reason he could not have created a literal body and had literal physical relations.

How would one respond to people who say God referred to himself as being like a thief in a metaphor? Although in 1 Thessalonian 5 it is the day that is like a thief and in Mathew 24 it could either be the day or God (embodied in the Son of Man) but one could try to argue that the implication is that it is God who is like a thief.

I have some ideas, but I want to hear other peoples perspectives.

 

[Doc]

In 1 Thessalonians, it says He will come "like" a thief, not that he WAS a thief! Clearly Paul was classifying this metaphorically.

From all indications, God Himself is revealing through Ezekiel two distinct covenant relationships. He is not saying, "It's LIKE I am married" or "It's AS IF I am married", but rather is saying that the 'marriage' relationship is there.

I personally do not view Ezekiel 23 as a metaphor, but rather God stating a spiritual relationship that He had with both Israel and Judah.

 

[MarvelousMarvin]

In the OT, adultery is used to describe not only a woman who violates her marriage covenant, but also, a person who is in a marriage-like covenant with God and who violates that covenant. (What many would call "backsliding.")

The relationship between the Children of Israel and YHWH is a marriage covenant (which is still in force, contrary to what the replacement theologians might try to say), as is the relationship between a born-again believer and Yeshua. And, in fact, that description is used by Paul.

For example, in 1 Corinthians 6:15-20, he describes the physical relationship that a man might have with a harlot as being a one-flesh relationship, the same as the physical relationship between a man and a woman with whom he has a legitimate marriage covenant (see Genesis 2:24). He then describes that physical relationship as being a type of the spiritual relationship between each individual believer and Christ.

YHWH did not create a physical body and enter into a relationship on a physical level with two women, but He did have a marriage covenant with Israel and Judah (and/or the other names used to describe His wives in Jeremiah 3 and Ezekiel 23.) If He had created a physical body and entered into a literal physical relationship with two literal, physical women, then the Messiah would have come through that line rather than the line of King David - and, in fact, would have been the first male child born to whichever one of the women was chosen to be the mother of His firstborn. Also, Jesus could not be called "the only begotten Son of God" if, in fact, YHWH had done so. Unless, of course, YHWH and His wives had only female children...The truth is, there is absolutely no Scriptural evidence that YHWH did that, but that His marriage to two women was, in fact, a spiritual relationship for which physical, human marriage is a type.

IMHO, God instituted marriage as a type of the relationship between Himself and His people. (There are other reasons He instituted marriage, of course, but this typology is at or near the top of the list of those reasons.) As usually happens, sinful man has corrupted the type and elevated it above that which it is supposed to typify. Thus, we have (willfully-) ignorant ThD's, D.Div.'s, pastors, SS teachers, etc., condemning something that God instituted and attempting to explain away the examples He has given us in His Word.

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

If He had created a physical body and entered into a literal physical relationship with two literal, physical women, then the Messiah would have come through that line rather than the line of King David - and, in fact, would have been the first male child born to whichever one of the women was chosen to be the mother of His firstborn. .

I do not see that that would have to necessarily be true.

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

In 1 Thessalonians, it says He will come "like" a thief, not that he WAS a thief! Clearly Paul was classifying this metaphorically.

From all indications, God Himself is revealing through Ezekiel two distinct covenant relationships. He is not saying, "It's LIKE I am married" or "It's AS IF I am married", but rather is saying that the 'marriage' relationship is there.

I personally do not view Ezekiel 23 as a metaphor, but rather God stating a spiritual relationship that He had with both Israel and Judah.

If he is married wouldn't that mean there was a physical relationship and that the children mentioned were physical children?

If it was like he is married....

it says He will come "like" a thief, not that he WAS a thief! Clearly Paul was classifying this metaphorically.

 

[MarvelousMarvin]

dtt wrote, in response to my statement about the Messiah:

I do not see that that would have to necessarily be true.

Yeshua Ha'Mashiach was without sin because He was the begotten Son of God. All who can trace their paternal lineage back to Adam (through the male line) have an inherited sin nature:

1 Corinthians 15:22 NKJV (22) For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.

Remember, "the wages of sin is death," (Romans 6:23) so if we did NOT have an inherited sin nature, we would not die "in Adam."

This hypothetical human form of YHWH would be without sin, as was Yeshua Ha'Mashiach. Any child born to the hypothetical human form of YHWH and any human woman would not have this inherited sin nature. Yeshua Ha'Mashiach uniquely fit this description, except that YHWH did not take on human form to become His father, but the conception was accomplished miraculously by the Holy Spirit rather than through a literal physical human body. (Luke 1:35) God the Father has one and only one begotten son, but millions of adopted sons and daughters - including you (if you who are reading this are born again) and me. Yeshua Ha'Mashiach is, in literal, actual, fact, God come in the flesh.

The Greek word translated as "begotten" is "monogenēs" and means "only born." According to Thayer, it is a Greek word that is used only of sons or daughters. Therefore, the NIV and many other modern translations are incorrect when they say "one and only" or something similar - we who are born again IAW John 3:16 are sons of God, but by adoption (spiritual birth), not by physical birth.

Since Yeshua Ha'Mashiach is described as the only begotten son of God, that would absolutely rule out any possibility that YHWH donned a human body and literally married two physical human women. As a human, He would obey His own command to humans to be fruitful and multiply, if He did, in fact, don a human body and literally marry two human women as some might try to interpret Ezekiel 23 and Jeremiah 3. (Yeshua was murdered before He reached the age when men usually married in that culture.)

As already stated in my first post to this thread, God instituted literal, physical human marriage as a type of the relationship between Himself and His people, but sinful man has corrupted the type and elevated the resulting corruption above that which the original type typifies.

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

Polydoc I am not very convinced by your arguments that if God created a physical body and married a woman the children would have to be the Messiah. If by this you mean die and rise from the dead and provide forgiveness of sin, etc.

Jesus was not created out of a sexual union that I know of.

From what I understand he pre-existed the body that was created inside the virgin Mary and the body is ruled by God, I am not so sure another spirit was created when Jesus body was created, formed and or prepared inside the virgin Mary.

Where as if God created a physical body, and had physical relations with women, the child produced might have a different spirit inside it, that is the spirit might be a new spirit with a new personality. Hence if God created a body and produced a son through physical means, it could very well be different qualitatively than Jesus, not having God's spirit alone in it, but also having a unique human spirit like Adam who was not the Messiah. I am assuming Adam had a spirit that was not God's spirit and that Adam was not the Messiah. What I am saying is not necessarily the only possibility but one of many alternative possibilities the fact that there are other possibilities severely calls to question the one-hundred-percentism of the way your claim is worded

The main thrust of my argument is that I see absolutely no Biblical or reasonable grounds that it must happened that way as the only possibility if God creates a body and uses it for physical relations.

 

[MarvelousMarvin]

dtt: you are correct in saying that Yeshua existed before the Incarnation. He is, after all, God come in the flesh. (See 1 John 4:1-3)

My understanding of the requirements for a Messiah Who is to be the perfect sacrifice for sin, as was Yeshua, include the fact that He must be sinless. That is foreshadowed by the whole animal sacrifice system found in the Torah. (One requirement for a lamb to be offered as a sacrifice for sin was that it had to be without blemish.) Only someone whose Father was without sin could fit that description spiritually. (And remember - the sacrifice of a lamb was the foreshadowing of the perfect sacrifice of the Lamb of God.)

If YHWH created a body and took two (or more?) human women in marriage, then any children born to their physical unions would be without sin - until such time that they might commit another "original sin." ("Original" to them, that is.)

Yeshua's Father is, of course, YHWH, acting through the Holy Spirit to cause conception in Mary's womb. There was no human father involved in the process. How was it accomplished? IMHO, our finite minds would find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to understand it. We can't even understand how a baby is conceived by the "normal" method! Sure, we can explain the mechanics of it, right down to the chemical reactions involved in an egg being fertilized by a sperm - but that does not explain how a HUMAN, with body, soul, and spirit, comes into existence, it just explains how the body does. Another important point to note is that right from the first Messianic prophecy in Genesis 3:15, the promised Messiah is called the seed of the woman.

So after further reflection and study, looks like you are correct in saying that the offspring of the hypothetical YHWH-in-a-specially-created-body and a human woman would not necessarily have to be the Messiah. In fact, you didn't quite go far enough - that hypothetical offspring would be the seed of YHWH-in-a-specially-created-body, not the seed of the woman, and therefore, could not be the promised Messiah.

But I stand by my statement that there is no Scriptural evidence that such a hypothetical situation took place.

A human marriage is a type (or maybe, more accurately, a shadow) of the relationship between YHWH and His people, not the other way around. Ezekiel 23 and Jeremiah 3 describe the real thing. The relationship between a believer and Yeshua is the real thing. (See Ephesians 5:32 and other NT passages)

But the human marriage relationship that my woman and I have (including the physical, emotional, and spiritual aspects of that relationship) is a type (or shadow?) of the real thing.

Just as YHWH told Moses to build the tabernacle, a copy (shadow) of the real thing in Heaven, so we are told to build marriage relationships with our women - shadows of the real thing.

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

Polydoc, I do not think 100% of what you said follows through logically, but I do not think it is worthwhile to post a response as sometimes discussion forums mysteriously get locked or edited. And I have a funny feeling that it would be futile to respond on this topic due to risk that...

so can we just go back to the original question of how to refute the argument that Ezekiel 23 does not really show that some cases of polygyny are OK because of the thief statements.

 

[MarvelousMarvin]

fair enough, dtt.

The refutation is simple. Let's take Jeremiah as our example:

Jeremiah 3:14 NKJV "Return, O backsliding children," says the LORD; "for I am married to you. I will take you, one from a city and two from a family, and I will bring you to Zion.

NT:

1 Thessalonians 5:2 NKJV (2) For you yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so comes as a thief in the night.

and

2 Peter 3:10 NKJV But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.

and

Revelation 3:3 NKJV Remember therefore how you have received and heard; hold fast and repent. Therefore if you will not watch, I will come upon you as a thief, and you will not know what hour I will come upon you.

and

Revelation 16:15 NKJV "Behold, I am coming as a thief. Blessed is he who watches, and keeps his garments, lest he walk naked and they see his shame."

(All emphasis in preceding Scripture quotes is mine.)

in Jeremiah, YHWH did NOT say, "It is as if I were married to you," but rather, He said, "I am married to you." But in the quoted NT passages, Yeshua said he is coming "as a thief," not that He is a thief.

Big difference!

The LDS church talks about our supposed "heavenly mother." According to that false teaching, our "heavenly mother" and our Heavenly Father are up in Heaven making a bunch of heavenly babies who need bodies here on Earth...thus the false FLDS (and mainstream LDS until Oct. 6, 1890) teaching, based on that and the false doctrine of "celestial marriage" rather than on what the Bible teaches. When I first heard that false doctrine, I was driving a propane transport (9,200 gallons of liquid propane; in case of fire, evacuate everyone within a one-mile radius...) and was still riding around with the man who taught me the propane business, who happened to be a retiring Mormon elder. On this particular occasion, I was driving, he was riding shotgun, and we were discussing theology. When he said something about "our heavenly mother," I almost drove off the freeway!

But the Mormons are wrong. YHWH is Spirit, as Yeshua told the Samaritan woman at the well. (John 4:24) If one reads the entire passage in Jeremiah 3, it becomes clear that He is not talking about two literal women, but about two sister nations, Israel and Judah, and is personifying them as women who have broken their marriage covenants by whoring after false gods. Same for the other two "wives" passages, Ezekiel 23 and Jeremiah 31. In fact, Jeremiah 31:32 gives us the key (which also supports my contention that our earthly marriages are a shadow of the real thing in Heaven): marriage is a covenant relationship, and that is exactly what YHWH has with both Israel and Judah - and Yeshua with each individual born-again believer, each local congregation of Believers, and the general body of Christ, which is made up of of all Believers.

Therefore, it is not necessary to make up something not found anywhere in the Bible and say that maybe YHWH created a special human body for Himself and literally married two literal, physical, human women.

In the "as a thief" passages, Yeshua is telling us HOW He will come - suddenly, at an unknown time. (Sorry, Mr. Camping!) In the passages about YHWH's wives, He is really MARRIED to two figurative women - that is, He is in a covenant relationship with two sister-nations.

But in the final analysis, God did acquire a body. After all, Yeshua is God come in the flesh.

His body was born just like yours and mine, except that His conception was a miraculous act of the Holy Spirit rather than the natural act of a human father. Yeshua really is the seed of woman, not man. (See Genesis 3:15)

Luke 1:35 NKJV And the angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.["]

 

[MarvelousMarvin]

ps-

Often, we who believe in polygyny as taught in the Bible are accused of "doing it just for the sex." But, as we all know, NO marriage that will survive more than a year or so is about sex, it is about a man and a woman being in a covenant relationship with each other. (And with YHWH.) Sex is a rather enjoyable by-product of that relationship, not the reason for it. That removes one excuse for the "as a thief" false comparison. It is not necessary for YHWH to have a physical relationship with Israel and Judah in order to be married to them.

During the betrothal period in traditional Jewish weddings, the man and woman were considered married, often for about a year, but did not consummate that marriage until their wedding day. In fact, during the betrothal period, the man was called the husband of the woman. (There is no Hebrew or Greek word for "wife." When an English translation says "wife," the translators were seeing the possessive form of "woman," using that and the context to determine that "wife" was the correct word to use. As in, "She is my woman.") In like manner, YHWH is in a marriage covenant with Israel and Judah. So He is married to them, literally - not figuratively.

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

What about commands to have children if he is literally not figuratively married?

Were the children they had in Ezekiel 23 literal and or figurative children?

 

[Jim]

Since Ez 23 is the topic and instead of creating another, I would like to ask this. Can a man marry sisters? Lev.18:18 appears to say you cannot. Then in Ez.23 God says that he does. Watcha think?

 

[CecilW]

Since Ez 23 is the topic and instead of creating another, I would like to ask this. Can a man marry sisters? Lev.18:18 appears to say you cannot. Then in Ez.23 God says that he does. Watcha think?

Discussed at length elsewhere.

Lev 18:18 is not a blanket statement of prohibition against marrying sisters, tho some choose to apply it that way. It contains a modifying clause.

In the case of some sisters, that modifying clause would prohibit a man from marrying both. In the case of others, it would not apply and, in fact, the sisters are so close that forcing them to separate by marrying different men would be mean.

God is ALWAYS intensely practical.

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

Since Ez 23 is the topic and instead of creating another, I would like to ask this. Can a man marry sisters? Lev.18:18 appears to say you cannot. Then in Ez.23 God says that he does. Watcha think?

Discussed at length elsewhere.

Lev 18:18 is not a blanket statement of prohibition against marrying sisters, tho some choose to apply it that way. It contains a modifying clause.

In the case of some sisters, that modifying clause would prohibit a man from marrying both. In the case of others, it would not apply and, in fact, the sisters are so close that forcing them to separate by marrying different men would be mean.

God is ALWAYS intensely practical.

If you do not have a bad motive such as vexation (King James) or rivalry (NIV, NASB, Amplified), then it is not forbidden by Leviticus 18 but might be forbidden elsewhere.

1) to bind, be narrow, be in distress, make narrow, cause distress, besiege, be straitened, be bound

צָרַר

tsarar

verb

a) (Qal)

1) to bind, tie up, shut up

2) to be scant, be cramped, be in straits

b) (Pual) to be bound, be tied up

c) (Hiphil)

1) to make narrow for, cause distress to, press hard upon

2) to suffer distress

2) to show hostility toward, vex

a) (Qal)

1) to show hostility toward, treat with enmity, vex, harass

2) vexer, harasser (participle)

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex ... 6887&t=KJV

http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cf ... JV#conc/18

Also it is interesting to notice that even if you marry a woman and her sister with the express purpose of Vexing her it carries no death penalty in Leviticus 20, that is Leviticus 20 has a death penalty for many of the offenses in Leviticus 18 but does not carry a death penalty for the Leviticus 18:18 offense of marrying a woman and her sister to vex her, Leviticus 20 does not even mention anything against marrying a woman and her sister. On the other hand Leviticus 20:14 carries the death penalty for marrying a woman and her mother which seems connected to Leviticus 18:17 that forbids marrying a woman and her daughter. Unless I missed a command in Leviticus 20 by not reading careful enough in which case let me know.

Now according to the Bible If the woman has a daughter/son who is not genetically related to her new husband (she is a widow or divorced and had a daughter with another man) is it legal to marry both a woman and her grand-daughter so long as the grand-daughter is not genetically related to the grandmother's most recent husband if the grand-daughter is at least 18 years old? This would not have to be a large age gap it could be a 36 year old man marrying an 18 year old and a 54 year old.

 

[MarvelousMarvin]

dtt wrote:

but might be forbidden elsewhere

Where? I have done an exhaustive search for all prohibited sexual/marriage relationships over the past 15-16 months, and found no "sister" prohibition other than Leviticus 18:18.

Note that most other "thou shalt nots" in Leviticus 18, Leviticus 20, and Deuteronomy 27 talk about the relationship uncovering the nakedness of someone other than the woman (father's nakedness, etc.), but not Leviticus 18:18. Maybe that's why it is not a death-penalty offense. But what is the penalty? Having two sisters constantly fighting...?

It is not even called any negative things, such as "wickedness" (v. 17, about woman and daughter, etc.) as are most other prohibitions.

Maybe this is one situation when it would be the right of an existing wife to exercise "veto power" to prevent marriage, but only if the wife exercising that "veto power" is the sister of the potential wife. Just a thought...

One more question: is it wrong to marry a woman and her brother's (or sister's) daughter? (i. e., niece) In Navajo culture, the children of your siblings are treated as your own kids, and the kids even call an aunt "mother" and an uncle "father." But that is Navajo culture, not Mosaic Law. Any comments?

 

[MarvelousMarvin]

dtt wrote:

What about commands to have children if he is literally not figuratively married?

Were the children they had in Ezekiel 23 literal and or figurative children?

Your second question answers your first. YHWH and His wives did have sons and daughters.

Because "Oholah the elder and Oholibah her sister" are not literal women, but "Samaria is Oholah, and Jerusalem is Oholibah," then the sons and daughters must also be figurative sons and daughters, even though the marriages to the two sisters is literal. (i. e., there is a marriage covenant, etc.)

[minor speculation]
Maybe we Gentile believers are some of those sons and daughters...?
[/minor speculation]

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

[minor speculation]
Maybe we Gentile believers are some of those sons and daughters...?
[/minor speculation]

Wouldn't that mean it is metaphorical/figurative/allegorical then unless they are physical sons and daughters?

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

Maybe this is one situation when it would be the right of an existing wife to exercise "veto power" to prevent marriage, but only if the wife exercising that "veto power" is the sister of the potential wife. Just a thought...

Or maybe she is stuck with her sister, and can place no argument against it unless the intention is to vex the sister. That is perhaps if the foreseen result is vexing the sister but there is no intention to vex the sister it is not forbidden but if the intention is to vex the sister it is forbidden even if it does not result in a vexed sister.

So if the husband says, "You will just have to learn to get along with her I do not intend to marry her to vex you I intend to marry her because I want to marry her," maybe the wife should just let his husband marry her and learn to get along with her sister, or try to convince her father not to let her sister marry her husband, unless the husband catches along ahead of time and forbids his wife to tell her father not to let him marry her sister.

 

[MarvelousMarvin]

I (finally!) got myself a copy (the paperback edition) of Tom Shipley's book, Man and Woman in Biblical Law. (http://www.newcovenantpatriarchy.com/) He has an excellent exegesis of Leviticus 18:18. According to Brother Shipley (sure hope he's at the conference!) what would "vex" a wife would be if she is childless and you take her blood sister as a wife in order to have kids. In a case like that (according to Shipley, and I agree), a man should look for a second wife (who will hopefully not be barren after marriage) among people not related to your first wife. (I'm paraphrasing Shipley's exegesis.)

In Ezekiel 23, YHWH portrayed Himself as being married to two sisters at the same time. That is absolute proof that polygyny not sin. It is also proof that the prohibition of Leviticus 18:18 is not a general prohibition against marrying two sisters, but rather, marrying two sisters is only prohibited under certain circumstances. ("to vex her") (See pp. 128-129 in the paperback edition of the book.)

If your first wife has kids, then it is OK to marry her sister. But what if your first wife has no kids, and both she and her sister are past child-bearing age? Is it then OK to marry the sister? (IMHO, yes, because you are not marrying her to "make up" for your first wife's childlessness.) That situation probably rarely, if ever, happened in a society that accepted polygyny as the norm. But it might be frequent in our society, because some couples might be childless for any number of reasons, and not discover the truth about Biblical Marriage until the wife and her available-for-marriage (possibly widowed) sister are both past child-bearing age.

Would it be OK to marry a whole bunch of sisters...?