-
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.
Parallel pictures
- Thread starter Maddog
- Start date
We may not be on the same page here..... I believe that the Father has a son. The Son has an assembly of people whom make up his two wives.
The Holy Spirit is from the Father and is shared by all those in the covenant with the Son. The Holy Spirit does not have a marital relationship with anyone.....
That said.... I still respect that others may come to sincerely held beliefs that are not in agreement with mine....
I think I am pretty much on the same page as you. I think it is the Son that has the assembly of people who make up the Bride and/or Brides. I don't think the Father or the Holy Spirit have a marital relationship with anyone.
When we see YAHWEH being married to Israel/Samaria and Judah/Jerusalem in the Old Testament, I think that is the Son. When we see the Pillar of fire, Column of smoke leading Israel in the wilderness, I think that is the Son. When Moses met with YAHWEH on Mount Sinai, and received the Law, I think that was probably the Son.
When we see God walking with Adam and Eve in the garden, I think that was probably the Son.
In the future, when the Lord wipes every tear from the eyes of the Redeemed, I think it will be the Son.
After all, He is "God with us".
I might be wrong of course. I am a small finite creature, and YAHWEH is far too wonderful for me to fully understand.
This is how I see it as well....
I believe that is how it was always taught to me growing up as well but, if you track scripture from front to back, you realize that these are the same two wives that Christ takes as part of the new covenant as his brides. That would be a violation of the law of God for the son to marry his fathers wives.
With the understanding that Christ was the mediator between God and man from the beginning it all falls into place. All the stories of the fathers son getting married and him going back to prepare a place for his brides etc, it all makes perfect sense.
The son of a man dying in no way affects the marriage of the father and his wives but if the son himself is the one married to them, then his death has a direct and immediate effect on the wives marital status. For the one, House of Judah, she is instantly widowed. For the other, House of Israel, her marital bond is also broken. Hers prevented her from ever coming back to her first husband, Christ.
Both wives then need to come back into covenant with him. Thus the prophecy of the new covenant that is to come.
Personally, I am looking forward to the marriage supper of the lamb.
I always thought that too.
One passage that made me reevaluate is Jude verse 5 where we read this.
"Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe." (Jude 5 ESV).
That is quite a shocking thing to read. I had always assumed it was the Father doing both those things.
Some translations render this verse as "the Lord" rather than "Jesus". There are textual variants in the manuscripts.
The best evidence however seems to support the idea that "Jesus" is the word used in the original text.
That seems to accord with Romans 7 where we read that the death and resurrection of the Son terminates one bond, and established a new union.
Yes! Come Lord Jesus
I think we tend to have a vague impression that the Old Testament is about God the Father, and that the New Testament is about the Son.
That isn't right. It is all one big beautiful story about how our God saves a people for Himself.
He is another, and related question.
We often read about adoption/sonship. We read that God is our Father, and we are His children.
Does the language of adoption and sonship specifically refer to our relationship with the Father, while our language of marriage and lordship specifically refer to our relationship with the Son?
We often read about adoption/sonship. We read that God is our Father, and we are His children.
Does the language of adoption and sonship specifically refer to our relationship with the Father, while our language of marriage and lordship specifically refer to our relationship with the Son?
I will render my understanding... As individuals, we are the children of Christ. Yes, through adoption / grafting in....
As an assembly, we make up the whole of the household of Christ. Either through the House of Judah or the House of Israel. We are further divided into tribes. But at the corporate level we make up the two nations that he calls his wives. Interestingly, this is exactly to whom the new covenant is prophesied unto. The House of Israel and the House of Judah.
As children, we should see our lives while in our mortal bodies as the gestation period. IF we are born again into a spirit body, we will never die the second death. That is the true salvation that we hope for as Paul also said he hopes for.
We, as children that do not make it to the end of their gestation cycle, are not born, in this case, of the spirit. Scripture tells us repeatedly that we must endure unto the end for our salvation sake.
Also, Because we as individuals are not a bride, our salvation or lack of it, has no effect on the prophecy of the new covenant with his two brides.
He will have his two brides at the marriage supper of the lamb whether I make it or not. You may make it and I may make it but if either of us fall away, the marriage will go on.
Humbly I disagree. Ezekiel 16 specifically refers to "LORD" who is Yahweh(Jehovah)who adopts the filthy newborn found in the mud and blood on the side of the road. I always understood that to mean Our Heavenly Father. Unless you conflate Yahweh with Jesus, Yahweh is in covenant with Jerusalem- later defined as Ahola(sp) and Aholibah(sp).
In contrast, Jesus is the Bridegroom and the church(ekklesia- the called out ones) is the bride.
Is the church the new name for Israel and churches are the New Testament fulfillment of the Old Testament Israel? To me that starts to go down a wrong path. Accompanying that is the movement which declares itself non-christian but follows yehashua(sp) Jesus on the basis of the various names. If you don't hold to the "true" names of God then you are not following the "right" (little g)god. It is almost cultic in my opinion.
I start to bristle when someone tells me I am worshipping the wrong god because I mispronounce His name. I follow the pattern of Jesus's words as he taught, "Our Father Who art in Heaven, hallowed be Thy Name..." That verbiage rather excludes all the bad entities.
In contrast, Jesus is the Bridegroom and the church(ekklesia- the called out ones) is the bride.
Is the church the new name for Israel and churches are the New Testament fulfillment of the Old Testament Israel? To me that starts to go down a wrong path. Accompanying that is the movement which declares itself non-christian but follows yehashua(sp) Jesus on the basis of the various names. If you don't hold to the "true" names of God then you are not following the "right" (little g)god. It is almost cultic in my opinion.
I start to bristle when someone tells me I am worshipping the wrong god because I mispronounce His name. I follow the pattern of Jesus's words as he taught, "Our Father Who art in Heaven, hallowed be Thy Name..." That verbiage rather excludes all the bad entities.
@Maddog
The Name YAHWEH/Jehovah/I Am does seem to be used of the Son as well as the Father.
"And Yahweh rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Yahweh out of heaven," (Genesis 19:24 Legacy Standard Bible)
There are apparently two distinct YAHWEH in view here. There seems to be One YAHWEH here on earth, executing judgement on Sodom, and a different YAHWEH in Heaven agreeing and providing the fire and brimstone.
I take the first to be the Son/Logos, and the second to be the Father.
YAHWEH also appeared to Abraham right before this in Genesis 18, at the oaks of Mamre, giving the promise of Isaac's birth, and discussed the upcoming destruction of Sodom. I take this to be YAHWEH the Son/Logos.
In the New Testament, Jesus seems to apply the Divine Name to Himself.
"Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” (John 8:58 LSB)
I think He just said "before Abraham was, I am YAHWEH/Jehovah/I AM".
The Name YAHWEH/Jehovah/I Am does seem to be used of the Son as well as the Father.
"And Yahweh rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Yahweh out of heaven," (Genesis 19:24 Legacy Standard Bible)
There are apparently two distinct YAHWEH in view here. There seems to be One YAHWEH here on earth, executing judgement on Sodom, and a different YAHWEH in Heaven agreeing and providing the fire and brimstone.
I take the first to be the Son/Logos, and the second to be the Father.
YAHWEH also appeared to Abraham right before this in Genesis 18, at the oaks of Mamre, giving the promise of Isaac's birth, and discussed the upcoming destruction of Sodom. I take this to be YAHWEH the Son/Logos.
In the New Testament, Jesus seems to apply the Divine Name to Himself.
"Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” (John 8:58 LSB)
I think He just said "before Abraham was, I am YAHWEH/Jehovah/I AM".
I respect that. And, I count your disagreement as good faith on your part. We all must be bereans.
I do NOT conflate Jesus to his Father.
I believe that the church IS the ekklesia in the wilderness as is quoted here:
Act 7:37 This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear.
Act 7:38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:
I know that people call the messiah by many names. Jesus is the most common in the USA. Yeshua, Yehosah, Yehosawah and many many more.
There are many that claim they know the exact proper enunciation of his name. I do not know of a definitive way to pronounce it and I am not offended by the many other names that people use, regardless of how original or modern they attempt to use.
I believe his NAME is his authority, reputation and power anyway, way more than how it is pronounced.
Not a bad pattern.
To the theology now... If God the Father was married to the House of Israel and to the House of Judah, then why the promise of a new marriage covenant? He never divorced the House of Judah so it would mean that he is still married to her.
Only the Son dying would cause/allow the need for a new covenant.
And that is my take on it. I hope this is not offensive as I am not trying to be in anyway. I love you guys for digging into the word even if we don't come to the exact same conclusions!
This has been the most convincing argument for me on the matter.
Ummmmm......do you remember Lord divorcing Israel in Old Testament?
I do believe husband can't marry again woman he divorced unless husband dies. And since Lord wants to save everyone.......
Last edited:
No... He did not divorce "Israel".... Israel was two nations and the one was called the House of Judah and the other was called the House of Israel.
He refers to them as two sisters, the daughters of one woman. Exekial 23.
He DID divorce the House of Israel but not the House of Judah. Jeremiah 3 , 4
The point you made about the husband not being able to remarry a woman whom has gone off and married herself to another is true. But his death broke all marital bonds and freed him/her from this conundrum.
Here's a framework I use to remember the significance of the Biblical Holy Days. It feels relevant here. One thing I keep in mind is that if the "slave girl is purchased from the land of sin" then she's probably already got a tawdry history.
---------
• The slave girl is redeemed/bought from the land of sin. – Pesach
• She’s betrothed and starts to learn how to be a good wife. – Shavu’ot
• The groom announces and comes to get her for the wedding. – Yom Teruah
• They both are purified/cleaned in the mikveh. – Yom HaKippurim
• They are married and there is a great feast. – Sukkot
• Live happily ever after. – Shemini Azteret
---------
• The slave girl is redeemed/bought from the land of sin. – Pesach
• She’s betrothed and starts to learn how to be a good wife. – Shavu’ot
• The groom announces and comes to get her for the wedding. – Yom Teruah
• They both are purified/cleaned in the mikveh. – Yom HaKippurim
• They are married and there is a great feast. – Sukkot
• Live happily ever after. – Shemini Azteret
Last edited:
Deuteronomy 24
3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;
4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before Yahweh: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which Yahweh thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
-------
Over the last year or so I've thought about this quite a bit. If she is defiled, the former husband may not take her back. It is abomination.
It's as bad as lying with an animal or men committing sodomy.
So then we see that Yeshua has two brides, and one of them is divorced and plays the harlot. He says he has already divorced her. So His crucifixion, how does that change anything in this relationship?
She is still in truth His ex wife. Yet He says He will take her back. So how is this not sin? How is this not abomination?
I don't mean to speak heresy or imply that the Father or Son are sinning. However we often make a starting argument about the righteousness of polygyny to a person who does not grasp the Biblical truth of it. We say "would God describe Himself as a sinner or use a metaphor which accepts sin?" This is a common statement we make and I don't want to stand against it.
Isn't this "ex-wife whom He will take back" framework a contradiction to that viewpoint? I don't find myself with double-minded thinking (contradictions in my logic) very often and I don't allow them to remain for long if I can. Open to new views about this problem.
Currently it feels like the reasoning I hold is "that's just how much He loves us, that He would do an abominable thing." But then He wouldn't be sinless, or the Messiah. Either that or an "abomination" is not sin which is certainly not an argument I would make and don't expect anyone else to either. "Thou shalt not cause the land to sin."
It is no heresy to try to understand the mysteries of God. Your question is clearly an attempt to honor God and understand his word.
Peace!
As with so many of our understandings that are biblically based, it is not the strength of a single scripture that we stand on but it is upon the basis of many scriptures together that form the strands of our belief and understanding.
I will attempt to lay this out as best as I can.
Scriptures in Leviticus 18 tell us whom we cannot have sex with.
Sex being the final act in confirming the marriage covenant, it follows that we cannot marry these people.
verse 16 clearly states that we cannot have sex with our brothers wife.
Lev 18:16 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it is thy brother's nakedness.
But, after your brother is dead, we have a scripture telling us TO marry your dead brothers wife. (By command if she is without a man-child)
This command is found in Duet 25:5-10.
Clearly the death of the brother has broken the bond of marriage or the remaining brother would be bond by the Lev 18:16 law preventing him from being with her.
I do not know how you feel about the Apostle Paul but he uses this principle to explain that it is the death of Christ that causes the people to be freed to marry Christ again.
Rom 7:1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
Rom 7:2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
Rom 7:3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
Rom 7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
Dead to WHAT law? The law that states that you cannot be married unto another if your husband is alive and has not divorced you. The law of marriage. That specific law is the only law at play here.
What does the law of marriage state? Well, a couple of things... If you are still married to the man, you as a woman cannot be with another man or it is adultery. The law also states that if your husband has divorced you, then you are free to marry another man.
The law also states that if your were divorced and then you married another man, that you cannot marry a former husband of yours regardless of how you became freed from your last husband.
Death of the husband breaks the law of marriage. So, that woman is free to marry again and there is no restriction against her with regard to the man that died.
If death breaks that marital bond law, then that man would be considered a bachelor if he were to miraculously rise from the dead.
This is the key element that Satan failed to grasp as he fought to kill Christ. He unknowingly, created the conditions for the House of Israel to once again enter into a marital covenant with Christ!
I pray this is clear and has answered your question. If you have additional questions or if I have not made the case succinctly, let me know. Shalom..