sadanyagci said:
Cecil said that if God meant something so simple, He would not have put the qualifier in there to begin with. This applies to any language. You can't just throw that reasoning out as not applying to Hebrew.
To the uneducated in Hebrew, they look at an English translation and think they can parse it out using the rules of the English language--but that's not how things work. Cecil has completely failed to provide any evidence that this is a "qualifier" when Hebrew indicates it is a result. To hold his view, you have to see the phrase "to vex her" as relating to the subject, when, in point of fact, it relates to the object. It's a common mistake of those who desire to read things into Scripture that isn't there.
What we don't understand is the reticense on the part of, apparently, everyone here to admit that there are certain rules and restrictions that God placed on relationships. And the argument of "why didn't God just say it, plain and simple" falls on deaf ears with us. We think he did! He said it *right there*: Do not take two sisters to wife, for you will vex them for life". God also gave us chapter after chapter after chapter of life lessons of how vexatious two sisters who are married to the same man can be--in the lives of Leah and Rachel.
There is wisdom there. Strong and powerful wisdom--that is being ignored for ... why? Freedom to have twins? We just don't get it.
You state that uncovering nakedness is evil in and of itself, instead of being a euphemism for intercourse, or even what it literally states. This is your assumption. You assume to make a law of this, when the language matches the other at least as much, if not more. You then press this upon others.
You seriously misunderstand. The phrase "uncover nakedness" is an idiom--not a euphemism. Those are two very different things. And we never said nakedness was evil in and of itself. That was a straw-man argument used by someone (if memory serves, also Cecil) to ridicule our perspective to distract from the eternally serious issue of going against what God said quite clearly.
The phrase "uncover nakedness" is used specifically in Scripture to describe one thing and one thing only: sexual defilement. Most often, it is used to reference incest. In a couple instances, it is also used to reference improper sexual behavior. The loving and proper relationship between a man and his wives in sexual activity is never described in Scripture with such language. Only in those specific verses we posted is it used--and in every one, it is quite clear that the verses are discussing sexual defilement.
To argue that it's not sexual defilement, "if it doesn't vex them" is asinine and a complete reversal of the teachings the Lord is giving.
Our concern about such a thing is that advocating a false teaching places the teacher of such a thing in a seriously more dangerous position upon judgment day. Our perspective is to be much, much more conservative: Scripture clearly says it's a bad thing. Even if you can't understand Hebrew and see the "to vex her" as a qualifier, you have to admit that it must be a completely *unusual* experience. In fact, we can only see that such a thing would ever be allowed by God's will in the case where He was giving another life-lesson to people who were too blind to read it in the Word for themselves. As he gave the harlot to Hosea to teach the nation of Israel about their idolatry, so we could imagine such an occurrance to teach people how really heinous it is.
You are fitting your view upon the scripture, through your assumptions. That is the problem.
Odd, we see it the other way around. We see people bound and determined not to read it clearly and simply, seeing it as a convluted thing instead of a very, very simple statement: don't do this, it's sexual defilement, it vexes those who do it for life.
Such should not divide brothers and sisters in the Lord.
Why this mention again of dividing the brethren? Are you so committed to this particular understanding of this particular verse that you would break faith over it? We certainly are not. We see the sin and we are warning you of it. You are ignoring it and living your life as you see fit--advocating it to others. Ours is just a warning to brethren and pointing out that you may not have a clear understanding here.
As you said, what does it hurt if we choose not to take sisters? Nothing. We are not in violation.
As you have said, if God leads you to this, then you'll do it. That's fine and dandy.
Why espouse it and open the door to everyone? Why not acknowledge the *extremely serious implications* that Scripture points out? It seems to us that in the rampant desire to validate all forms of plural marriage, the cart has run away with the horse and good sense has been tossed out.
You can't simply wish away such a serious statement as "sexual defilement" on a whim of "Well, I don't think I'm doing it to vex her...." And for those seeking a clear message from God, show me the verse that says, "It is perfectly fine for a man to marry two sisters." We see that God *has* given a clear message: "Marrying sisters is sexual defilement and vexes them for life." Then he gives us chapter after chapter after chapter showing how vexatious a relationship it can be with Leah's and Rachel's life-lesson.
But all that gets swept under the rug. Why? It makes no sense in our eyes.
Cecil calls it "pesonal repugnance." Interesting because the one expressing that repugnance is God, we're just pointing out that it's there. God is the one who described it in harsh language, not us. We just said, "hey, look, God said this." We're overlaying nothing on the verse. The verse says it is sexual defilement. It says it will vex the participants for life. Simple. Clear. Plain. It is our human desire to find loopholes that seeks to "qualify" something that is quite clearly a result.
There is also this confusion between being "sisters in Christ" and "genetic sisters". God has very clearly cut off genetic relations in Scripture from being valid or acceptable. He has also very clearly indicated we should keep within tight communities of spiritual relations.
We've been seriously disappointed to see how this discussion has proceeded. Instead of hearing people say, "It is our strongest desire to please God, to be sure that we are not breaking any of His guidelines or mandates, we see the inherent danger in any such union" we hear them say instead, "Oh, hey, free love, take anyone you want, there's just a little, teensy qualifier in there, pay it no real mind..."
It started off as an interesting discussion but is turning into a serious doctrinal concern.
Next, I guess the mandate that no man in church leadership can be married to more than one wife will also be subverted, eh?
