• 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.

Don't muzzle the ox...

MarvelousMarvin

MarvelousMarvin

Member
Real Person
Male
Does this apply to taking wives?

1 Corinthians 9:9-10 NKJV (9) For it is written in the law of Moses, "YOU SHALL NOT MUZZLE AN OX WHILE IT TREADS OUT THE GRAIN." Is it oxen God is concerned about? (10) Or does He say it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written, that he who plows should plow in hope, and he who threshes in hope should be partaker of his hope.

2 Timothy 2:6 NKJV The hardworking farmer must be first to partake of the crops.

1 Corinthians 3:6 NKJV I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase.
Click to expand...

In light of what the Lord has laid on my heart about ministering to the widows and orphans of our society (James 1:27; the widows and orphans are single moms and their kids) does this mean that the minister should be the first take one (or more?) widows as his woman in a Holy Union, just as the farmer is the first to take for his own food that which he has sown, watered, cultivated, and harvested?

The context of 1 Corinthians 9:9-10 is that a minister should be paid for his work in ministry. The context of 2 Timothy 2:6 is that one will not receive the expected reward if one does not work according to the rules of the endeavor, and that of 1 Corinthians 3:6 is that various factions had arisen in Corinth, some claiming to follow Paul, others Apollos, and Paul was reminding them that we all should follow Christ rather than some teacher. (Reminds me of modern-day denominationalism! "I'm a Baptist," or "I'm a Nazarene," or "I'm a Pentecostal," or whatever denomination one might be part of. We should follow Christ as revealed in the Bible, not some man or man-made doctrine.) Paul uses the metaphor of planting and watering, which are activities of a farmer.

Ministering to widows and orphans is much like planting and watering. It could be argued that the temporal reward (harvest) for such activity would be to increase the family of some man who is living according to the Bible's teaching on patriarchy. (The eternal reward will be given by Christ when we get to Heaven.) So maybe the minister should have the "right of first refusal" in taking any widow under his ministry as his woman in a Holy Union (assuming that the widow is also willing to enter into that Holy Union), and adopting her kids as his own. (Unofficial adoption, in nearly all cases, because of the secular non-Biblical laws governing family structure. The exception might be if one particular widow becomes his legal wife and there is no biological father who will object to legal adoption of her kids by her legal husband.)

Just something to think about...
 
Dr. I'm not sure I am following the thought line clearly here.

I indeed think the ole rule of one sense-meaning of each text with many various applications is a true hermeneutical rule that has proven itself over the centuries. So are you saying there is an application of that text to the sequence or avenue in which a leader who oversees people can from that pick to take to himself one in need?

There is for sure room for providence to work in that way. A leader who is out making disciples will likely find among those disciples someone the Lord is leading his way. In fact, I have taught that this is one of the best ways to find a lady. Instead of looking for a lady men need to be busy sowing in the fields and making disciples of anyone the Lord leads to him. Discipleship in the Great Commission is the heart and soul of why we are here. I also am a firm believer that one of the many reasons why so many men do not find a lady is because they are not about the King's business. Why would the King grant another member to a man if he is not concerned about winning and making new member's in God's kingdom? Why would God's heart be inclined to grant a man a new member if that man's heart is not broken over lost people and the Great Commission?

However, on another note, I think there is indeed a need for any leader not to use his position in such a way that the people there are used for the end goal and that can indeed be a serious error that creeps into ministerial circles. Some people minister in order for that to be the means unto their end goals and in such cases the ministry often becomes less focused and weaker.
 
So maybe the minister should have the "right of first refusal" in taking any widow under his ministry as his woman in a Holy Union
Click to expand...
good grief, NO

but a man who wants to lead others in following YHWH should step up to the plate early and often :D

steve, just a wanna-be ;)
 
So maybe the minister should have the "right of first refusal" in taking any widow under his ministry as his woman in a Holy Union
Click to expand...
*eyebrows flying upwards* :o Wouldn't the woman involved have something to say about that? If she wanted to marry the pastor, no "right of first refusal" would be necessary. If she didn't, WANT to try to force his suit upon an unwilling, um, victim? :?
 
PolyDoc said:
So maybe the minister should have the "right of first refusal"
Click to expand...

My answer would be "no"......This has the scary potential of becoming yet another "tradition of men" and we have too many of those already. :(
 
PolyDoc wrote:
So maybe the minister should have the "right of first refusal"


My answer would be "no"......This has the scary potential of becoming yet another "tradition of men" and we have too many of those already.
Click to expand...

I think Dr. Marv might be thinking more along the lines of a spiritual overseer who has oversight over the disciples under his care. In that light it might occur where the elder who is over a set of sheep guides a particular sheep spiritually and in that guidance if someone asks or pursues the lady and does so while he is either unsaved or is not a good match the elder might then guide the lady and man in a different direction. In such a case it might turn out to be kind of a right to refuse as in some of those cases the spiritual overseer/elder is functioning as the spiritual father when there is no earthly father over the woman. For sure we have many ladies today who have come to faith and their fathers are pagan or are not involved in the lady's life. It might be in those cases where something out of the norm occurs like this. I think it would not be the norm but in abnormal cases it might occur where a leader guides the lady and in that guidance over time he winds up with the lady due to providence leading them to that conclusion. But as I noted earlier I think a man of character who already has a lady and is an overseer would try his best to place that lady with a man who does not have a lady if possible. God can always overrule such an effort but a good faith effort is always honorable and in the spirit of love towards our neighbor.
 
Polydoc, I often like your posts but this is not one of them.

The potential for abuse, or the perception of abuse, is too high.

Servant leadership is very important.

ylop
 
ylop said:
Polydoc, I often like your posts but this is not one of them.

The potential for abuse, or the perception of abuse, is too high.
Click to expand...

Just sounds cultish to me, just another David Koresh, Warren Jeffs type atrocity.

:oops:

B
 
Polydoc might not be saying what it sounds like. He may need to clarify further so it can be clearer.
 
Keith,

If the OP's theory were that the pastor might fill in, in a Father role, (which, btw, would only apply to women who had never been married -- check the OT rule!), with the right to speak up and refuse as unsuitable another man's suit, I could see it.

But the whole "Don't muzzle the ox" idea SOUNDS more like a "Pastor gets first dibs on the new meat, everybody else gets whatever's left" theory.

My mind immediately flashed to the scene in Braveheart where the English Laird claimed "the ancient right of prima nochte", though that isn't precisely the above theory. However, I suggest that the end results might well be similar. Huge resentment, heartache, and perhaps violence.

Marvin's a good guy, and I'm sure he wrote it this way to tweak our tail feathers a bit and rouse up some discussion, rather than seriously proposing the theory to which we all seem to object so strenuously. But since it is a theory that does seem to mark cults (David Koresh, for example) and the FLDS, I consider it a good thing that he brought it up for examination and discussion. We all hate to see Scripture misquoted or misused to support untenable theories and practices.
 
If the OP's theory were that the pastor might fill in, in a Father role, (which, btw, would only apply to women who had never been married -- check the OT rule!), with the right to speak up and refuse as unsuitable another man's suit, I could see it.
Click to expand...

That was what I thought he might be referring to although it is vague and a little unclear as it seems.

Oh, as far as the rule, yes that was the OC rule but the NC law under Christ would broaden that principle to take that OC principle plus more and apply to any lady (or man) who is under overseers. A wise person seeks counsel and thus a NC woman (or man) would do the same under her/his spiritual leaders as well since a wise person would place themselves under wise leaders who would be there to be an aid to them in making wise decisions. In the NT era it was indeed the practice of the believers to go to their spiritual leaders/elders for godly counsel. Many of them did not have any spiritual parents to consult with and many had lost their mates when coming to believe in Christ. The elders were the family role models to which the believers could go talk to and seek wisdom from as they tried to live for Christ.
 
Marvin, through reading your posts over the last year or so, I know you have a heart that desires to please the Lord above all else, so I know you didn't intend for your post to come over as "Warren Jeffs' Dream Scenario"!!!

Seriously though, I see the same potential for major abuse, but if the church has the proper authority structure (a plurality of elders), that would be one small step in the right direction to keep pastoral misuse and abuse from happening in this situation.

Katie
 
but if the church has the proper authority structure (a plurality of elders)
Click to expand...

Great point sister. There was no such thing in the NT as single elder ruled churches. All of the elders in a region worked together and they kept each other in check and balance. That indeed made a huge difference in the lives of the people as the elders were in covenant with each other to help each other as well.
 
:oops: I'm guilty of a poor choice of words. Dr. Allen, in his second post of this thread, came closest to figuring out what I intended to say.

Instead of:
... "right of first refusal" ... (assuming that the widow is also willing to enter into that Holy Union) ...
Click to expand...
I should have written something about the minister being the first to show others the way (that is, be an example - practice what we preach!) by taking a second woman in a Holy Union, and quite reasonably, she would most likely be someone that he is shepherding. (But not always!) And even that does not adequately say what I had in mind when I wrote up the initial draft, then thought about it for a couple of days and started revising it. The phrase, "right of first refusal," was something I had intended to change before posting it, but somehow, it slipped through from my initial draft to the article as posted. The parenthetical "(assuming...)" was an effort to clarify (in the early stages of editing) what I was thinking, which it obviously did not! (Cecil, you apparently missed that parenthetical qualifier.)

I had no intention of implying that the woman does not have the right to refuse entering into any kind of relationship with any man. In fact, the woman has every right to say no. Even in the OT patriarchal society, the woman had that right - look at the example of Rebekah. She was asked by her father if she wanted to go with Abraham's servant to become the owned woman of a man she had never met. She could have said no; otherwise, why would her father ask?

So I apologize for the poor choice of a phrase.

Also, I could have been a bit more clear that I was not trying to say that 1 Corinthians 3:6 is somehow tied to 1 Corinthians 9:9-10 and 2 Timothy 2:6, other than that the concept I was trying to draw from it is the metaphor of farming. ("I planted, Apollos watered...") Ministry, including ministry to widows and orphans, is much like farming. We who are shepherding others plant and water seed (the Word of God) in their lives.

Ylop, you are right - this was not one of my better articles. :oops: It needed a bit more editing before being posted.
 
See Marvin? I knew you was a good guy! :lol:

Still, I could see how the scripture could be misused, and appreciate the opportunity to comment on it.

Keith, the OT husband/father had binding authority. NT? Here you seem to be suggesting more along the lines of a well-respected advisory. If so, I agree. If you re suggesting the level of binding authority inherent in the original OT law, we're back at loggerheads. :roll:
 
CecilW said:
My mind immediately flashed to the scene in Braveheart where the English Laird claimed "the ancient right of prima nochte", though that isn't precisely the above theory.
Click to expand...

Cecil - same thought here, also an older movie with Charlton Heston - ylop
 
Hey polydoc, dont feel too bad. Sometimes my posts are so reprehensible they simply disappear of their own accord!

Actually I think it is good to have ideas out in the open and thrash them around a bit. So thanks for bringing it up.

The other issue I have against this concept is the commoditisation of women.

For biblical families to work in western society, we must always remember that each person is unique and special, a sovereign individual, who can choose their own destiny (in this life anyway).

Regards,

ylop
 
Hey there, Marine!

In all of the revising of your original post, I'd like to put forth a thought that in some ways is a follow on conceptually to Ylop's "woman-as-commodity" objection.

Sadly, we live in a world where pastors and priests have given Christianity a real shiner due to their sexual and financial misconduct that stems from a deeply held belief that because they are pastors, they are entitled to certain things.

I am struggling with the whole idea of a minister "harvesting" in any way shape or form out of a concept of "temporal reward."

One of the aspects of PM that is so revolutionary in a positive sense is that a woman has the right to apply to the best possible family available, which certainly diminishes the "Warren Jeffs" poly-predator stereotype. And if you were going to continue on with the "free market" aspect of this revolution, the family to whom she is applying has the right to not seal the deal if it is not a good fit all the way around.

If Isa 4:1 is in effect, there'll be a sister wife tsunami that will preclude any concept of "harvesting," and guys might be scrambling just to keep up!

Just some thoughts... :)
 
alit53 said:
If Isa 4:1 is in effect, there'll be a sister wife tsunami that will preclude any concept of "harvesting," and guys might be scrambling just to keep up!
Click to expand...
... or get out of the way, intact, with who they already have! :o
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top