• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Taking the opportunity while it was there.

frederick

frederick

Seasoned Member
Real Person
Male
During the Bible study yesterday afternoon, we were discussing some of the various reasons we find in the Bible that can motivate or compel someone to murder. Among the things I presented was trying to cover up another sin, and used David as an example. The discussion was going well; I pointed out David knew he had done wrong in taking Bathsheba and having a sexual relationship with her because she was the wife of Uriah so attempted to cover it up. What raised a few eyebrows was when I commented (just extemporaneously), that David was known to have had a number of wives and concubines of his own at that time and he could have just gone and had sex with any of them, and that would have been right and proper. But instead, he sinned in taking the one wife Uriah had and then attempted to cover up his sin through deceit which culminated in murdering Uriah. It seemed appropriate to add at that point that God said, through the prophet Nathan, that He had given David his wives and, if that weren't enough, He would have given David more.

Not wanting to allow the study to get derailed, I didn't stop but just kept talking and moved straight on to the next point so no one got to say anything at the time BUT the looks on their faces surely said a lot.

As the Lord wills, next Thursday the study concerns adultery so this will be my first ever experience of teaching on the sin of adultery and, at the same time, defending polygyny. In light of the discussions that have been raised during other studies, I'm sure next week's will generate some controversy! :eek::oops::)
 
frederick said:
What raised a few eyebrows was when I commented (just extemporaneously), that David was known to have had a number of wives and concubines of his own at that time and he could have just gone and had sex with any of them, and that would have been right and proper. But instead, he sinned in taking the one wife Uriah had and then attempted to cover up his sin through deceit which culminated in murdering Uriah. It seemed appropriate to add at that point that God said, through the prophet Nathan, that He had given David his wives and, if that weren't enough, He would have given David more.
Click to expand...

It is hard to argue with that, since that seems to be explicitly the point that the prophet Nathan is making, which is one reason why what David did was so wrong. He was not satisifed with his flock but had to have Uriah's one sheep.
 
In my opinion this is one of the strongest arguments against the monogamy only views held by so many people. (Although I have been pleasantly surprised recently how many people I have spoken with who actually agree that it is moral)
 
Go for it man! We need to be more upfront and unapologetic in all the truths in Gods word. Believers need to be shook up in almost every area now but it's not going to come from clergy. In the last year someone posted a pastor giving a sermon about Abigail having the wrong man. If I was in the audience I would have wanted to point out that yeah the RIGHT man was already married!!!
 
frederick said:
During the Bible study yesterday afternoon, we were discussing some of the various reasons we find in the Bible that can motivate or compel someone to murder. Among the things I presented was trying to cover up another sin, and used David as an example. The discussion was going well; I pointed out David knew he had done wrong in taking Bathsheba and having a sexual relationship with her because she was the wife of Uriah so attempted to cover it up. What raised a few eyebrows was when I commented (just extemporaneously), that David was known to have had a number of wives and concubines of his own at that time and he could have just gone and had sex with any of them, and that would have been right and proper. But instead, he sinned in taking the one wife Uriah had and then attempted to cover up his sin through deceit which culminated in murdering Uriah. It seemed appropriate to add at that point that God said, through the prophet Nathan, that He had given David his wives and, if that weren't enough, He would have given David more.

Not wanting to allow the study to get derailed, I didn't stop but just kept talking and moved straight on to the next point so no one got to say anything at the time BUT the looks on their faces surely said a lot.

As the Lord wills, next Thursday the study concerns adultery so this will be my first ever experience of teaching on the sin of adultery and, at the same time, defending polygyny. In light of the discussions that have been raised during other studies, I'm sure next week's will generate some controversy! :eek::oops::)
Click to expand...
Especially when you read the original definition of the word “adultery.” A woman at work threatened me, screamed, and cussed at me only because I read what the original meaning of adultery IS. My prayers are with you.
 
Last edited:
The plan at this stage is to teach the biblical definition of the word adultery and then use David as subject for the discussion. I'll keep control of the discussion but allow it to develop and morph as we go. At least, that's the plan.
 
Thanks everyone for your encouragement. This is quite a learning curve as I've not had the opportunity of a proper Bible study group to teach this to before. I'd be grateful for your prayers in regard to this whole situation as one woman who knows about the study and my personal situation is already slandering my name among some of the local people. For the sake of my wives and the testimony of the gospel, I'm wanting to avoid it all blowing up. I'm always thankful for the knowledge of God's sovereignty over our lives.
 
frederick said:
The plan at this stage is to teach the biblical definition of the word adultery and then use David as subject for the discussion. I'll keep control of the discussion but allow it to develop and morph as we go. At least, that's the plan.
Click to expand...
Good call. I would let the conversation(s) “organically” grow. When I led/taught Bible studies, I made it a point to remind myself it is “our” Bible study. I was kicked out for merely hinting at polygyny (and others). I would ask questions that made them think. Like, “If David . . . , then why didn’t . . .? Try to pose questions to them to go search. My prayers are with you. Not to discourage you, but based on personal experience and scriptural support, the odds are not in your favor. Truth is tuff to swallow for many. Finally, many times the one that learns the most is the teacher and not the students.
 
My suggestion is Be very careful to let the scripture speak for itself. If folks are truly wanting to follow the scriptures they will not have any thing to come against you with. If you interject your opinions that will not go over very well. Allow God to speak to them through his word.
 
So here's a brief update regarding the study. After outlining where we'd been in our study I said something like; "To correctly understand adultery we'll first have to make sure we understand biblical marriage." There was no objection to doing that so we went to Genesis Chapter 2 and read the account of the creation of the man and the woman and God Himself bringing the woman to the man. The study nearly stalled when I got them to re-read Gen. 2:25 and take particular note of this perfect "creation ideal" for a wedding/marriage taking place with both the man and woman naked! There was some embarrassment from one young woman who wants to be married, when it was suggested she have a truly biblical wedding. Anyway, I took the opportunity to point out the naturalistic fallacies associated with the "creation ideal" and that seemed to be discussed and accepted without any problem. We then had a look at the accounts of Isaac's and then Jacob's acquiring of wives and discussion around how that fitted with the example in Genesis Chapter 2. There was quite a bit of interest in how Jacob's first two wives gave their maids to Jacob to be his wives and become surrogate mothers. Aaaannnnnddddd, that's as far as we got! Only two and a half pages through my seven pages of teaching notes. No drama, raised voices, calls for the Bible teacher to be burned at the stake.... nothing. Almost a let down after my past experiences. So we'll see what happens next week and may the truth of the word of God prevail. :) :bible:
 
Last edited:
This is great to hear. I think the key point to keep front of mind in such discussions is that you are not actually talking about polygamy. You're talking about something else (adultery in this case). Everything is directed towards this goal. Now if someone else in the discussion sees a need to go off on an obvious tangent about polygamy because of some of the points raised, you can go with them for a bit but make sure you then pull it back on topic yourself. So you're never the one pushing polygamy, you're the one keeping the discussion focussed elsewhere - nevertheless polygamy is taught...
 
frederick said:
Exactly. So I have to define marriage to include the freedom to have more than one wife, or the law on adultery doesn't fit biblically. It's going to be very interesting for the study next week. I'll update again after that.
Click to expand...

It would be interesting ti have in hand the current dictionary definition of adultery and the definition from 150 or 300 years ago to demonstrate that our definition has only recently changed and that it pays to dig in Scripture to understand v. Simply accepting
The word filtered through modern changing definitions.... opens a broader can of worms about context and original intent.

Blessings.
 
For those of you not aware, I'm teaching a group whose second language is English so the challenge is to keep the explanations simple enough to be understood by all. As you are all aware, even for those with English as a first language some theological concepts are hard to understand so there is a lot of explaining as we go for these people. The misunderstandings can be hilarious at times but we're all learning so the simpler the better.
 
1 Timothy 5:8 is a great go to verse for adultery/covenant breaking. A man that doesn’t provide for his own is worse than an infidel (apistos -without fidelity, untrustworthy). Is it any wonder that a synonym for adultery is infidelity? Is it too much of a stretch to say that the man that doesn’t provide these basics is worse than an adulterer?
 
Good to hear that you're making progress. Ive gotten this far with several folks, but then they pull out the "ideal" card and start down the road of progressive revelation leading us to monogamy. May your crowd not be so disposed.

Keep it up brother.
 
Verifyveritas76 said:
My response to the intent of monogamy from the garden is to ask, How do you quantify or prove Gods intent from the garden story? Intent there is strictly assumed re monogamy. Monogamy as His intent is impossible to prove from that story.
Click to expand...
That's a very good point thank you, and another way to address the fallacy.
 
Verifyveritas76 said:
My response to the intent of monogamy from the garden is to ask, How do you quantify or prove Gods intent from the garden story? Intent there is strictly assumed re monogamy. Monogamy as His intent is impossible to prove from that story.
Click to expand...
Where I go with that one is that YHWH’s obvious intent is that every woman have a husband, which isn’t possible in today’s world with some families being in polygyny.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top