I have heard bible teachers say that anyone who thinks the ten virgins were potential brides doesn’t understand Jewish tradition and they say that traditionally the bride would have a bunch of her virgin friends with her during her wedding. I’m not saying that’s true, just that that is the line they like to use. Anyone know what the actual wedding traditions were at the time of Christ’s ministry?
-
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.
When bringing up the subject of PM, what's the first verse you would use?
C
Cap
Guest
The response I give is, then who is the bride? And why would I care to be a bridesmaid? I want to be the bride.
Not my go to either.
David is the easiest to establish. He's well known to all. He's the author of some of the most intimate of scripture. He is not easily disparaged. The obvious lack of condemnation of all his other wives juxtaposed to the raging condemnation of taking someone else's wife is stark!
I really like Jeremiah 3:14
Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion:
This one removes all possibility of it being sin or tolerated as it’s God himself who states he’s married to both and He will take one of a city and two of a family.
When they try to discredit it by saying that it’s only referring to a spiritual marriage, ask if the relationship between Christ and his bride is physical or spiritual. Typically they will say spiritual. Then take em to Ephesians 5 where husbands are commanded to love their wives as Christ loved the Church. No one believes that a husband is supposed to only love his wife spiritually. A husband is to love his wife(s) in reality as Christ loves spiritually and physically.
Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion:
This one removes all possibility of it being sin or tolerated as it’s God himself who states he’s married to both and He will take one of a city and two of a family.
When they try to discredit it by saying that it’s only referring to a spiritual marriage, ask if the relationship between Christ and his bride is physical or spiritual. Typically they will say spiritual. Then take em to Ephesians 5 where husbands are commanded to love their wives as Christ loved the Church. No one believes that a husband is supposed to only love his wife spiritually. A husband is to love his wife(s) in reality as Christ loves spiritually and physically.
My question about the 10 virgins has always been, which one is the bride? Not that it really proves anything, but why didn’t Jesus say, a bride and 9 virgins?
This is one of the great things about taking your kids to retreats, you don't have to bring it up or even explain it. And they don't seem to question it. My step-daughter was 11 when she came for the first time and we had to remind her that there were polygynists there afterwards and even then she just didn't seem that phased.
Because in the morning there weren't going to be any virgins...#bestfaithever .
Bahahahaha!!
I'm not aware of an argument which can refute the below (which isn't a good way to talk with friends, because it’s argumentative, but here it is):
1. Genesis 38 - Levirate marriage (which would require almost always require polygamy) is required BEFORE the law.
2. Deuteronomy 25 - Levirate marriage is required IN the law.
3. Matthew 22 - Levirate marriage is discussed AFTER the law and Jesus doesn't modify it (like he did with divorce in other passages).
Here's all 3 passages: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+38:8,Deuteronomy+25:5-6,Matthew+22:23-33
In other words, this makes it unreasonable to say "Plural families were only for Old Testament." Why? Because these verses, which cover a huge chronological span, show plural families are constantly TOTALLY FINE - before the law, in the law, and after the law.
1. Genesis 38 - Levirate marriage (which would require almost always require polygamy) is required BEFORE the law.
2. Deuteronomy 25 - Levirate marriage is required IN the law.
3. Matthew 22 - Levirate marriage is discussed AFTER the law and Jesus doesn't modify it (like he did with divorce in other passages).
Here's all 3 passages: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+38:8,Deuteronomy+25:5-6,Matthew+22:23-33
In other words, this makes it unreasonable to say "Plural families were only for Old Testament." Why? Because these verses, which cover a huge chronological span, show plural families are constantly TOTALLY FINE - before the law, in the law, and after the law.
Last edited:
I like this approach. I think there’s an additional passage that can be used with this approach as well. 1 Corinthians 7:39
The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.
The Levirite widow had to marry within her husbands family. In this passage, it seems to me that the command is still the same, though it’s not his physical family (though it could be) but rather his spiritual family (only in the Lord)
Also the man in 1 Timothy 5:16 is mentioned as a believing man who has widows,
In verse 8 it says that if any man provide not for his own, especially for those of his own house, he’s worse than an infidel and has denied the faith.
So now we have a pre, during and post law command that follows the Levirite principles.
C
Cap
Guest
Do bridesmaids have to be virgins?
This is the approach I universally use. I attempt to just use the simplest of logical, reasons, and examples. If they can’t see it simply, then why waste your “pearls” to them. I also stay clear of debating or arguing with others. I go with the intent of sharing the truth with Love about marriage that THEIR question(s) initiates. Then you have a way to humbly bow out of the conversation if they argue with you or attack you personally. Like, “Hey you asked me.” Finally, we need to Love them to the truth about anything, even polygyny.
I don't use a verse to start a conversation. I use a T-shirt. I have a half dozen poly-themed shirts, some subtle, some blatant. I wear them at work and in public (but not yet at church functions). I get a surprising number of strangers who walk up and start a conversation.
Note that if you do this you need to have a very broad set of arguments, including purely secular ones, because you won't be approached by just church-folk.
By far the best shirt I have found for this is a simple triad, such as this:
www.zazzle.com/polygamy_t_shirt-235908148427977280
Note that if you do this you need to have a very broad set of arguments, including purely secular ones, because you won't be approached by just church-folk.
By far the best shirt I have found for this is a simple triad, such as this:
www.zazzle.com/polygamy_t_shirt-235908148427977280
C
Cap
Guest
These are really cool. And a good place to put all these super memes that are all the rage now.
So I just had a conversation with some friends of ours. We were catching up on Families and I mentioned that we weren’t going to the church we had been because I’d been studying something that apparently I wasn’t allowed to study in the Bible and we’d been asked to leave. After a few minutes of other conversation he asked would I mind telling him what it was about. I kinda gave him an out by saying that it was a very polarizing topic and kinda shrugged it off. He responded that he’s one of the most nonjudgmental people in the world so I told him it was polygamy. We had a good conversation after that for a few minutes and it ended with him saying that as long as I don’t expect him to believe the same way, we’re cool.
That why my universal theme is use logic, reasoning, etc from THEIR questions or curiosity. Then if the simple logic, nature, and examples still spark even more wanting to learn then ya bring the good wine of scriptural authority to the supper table.
In particular I contrast the stories of Abigail and Bathsheba and point out that in both cases David was already married.
It is hard to go wrong with either Exodus 21:10 or 2 Chronicles 24:2-3 either.
Last edited:
Matt 5:31-32 pretty much sums up the fact that she is still married to her husband in God's eyes, even if he goes out and marries another woman or cheats on his wife. I like to intentionally misquote that part about whoever marries her that is divorced, and then correct myself. I will say, "Whoever marries her that is divorced whose husband has not remarried, oh wait...it doesn't say that. OK whoever marries her that is divorced whose husband has not committed fornication, oh wait! It doesn't say that either. Whoever marries her that is divorced commits adultery with her. No if's and's or but's!" Then I bring up Rom 7:2 I Cor 7:39 and also I Cor 7:10-11, which make it clear that the woman is still bound to her husband as long as he is still alive. I used that in an email exchange with my pastor. The only thing he could come back with, is an assertion that I was on the wrong track, but no specifics.