Job 31:1, thoughts?

[Mojo]

Given that several early church fathers thought the 'if he burns let him marry' of 1 Cor 7 was an assent to polygamy, IF necessary, one could make an argument that it did show a lack of self control and that the requirement was for 'a wife' (as in one and only one).

However if I recall correctly, there was also much discussion over this particular verse on whether or not widowers qualified; particularly those who remarried. Which frankly strikes me as quite silly.




Many would argue a man with even 1 isn't very sensible.

The path to the Hellenized/Romanized church happened pretty quickly. Many of them argued based on that frame of reference, not a Hebraic one.

 

[Slumberfreeze]

I would be cautious in speaking ill of G-d’s servants in the Old Testament, especially when G-d speaks of, Moses at least, like this:

Hmmm. I hold Moses and David in great respect, and do not speak ill of them, but I speak with candor about their lives and the example they left, and they were murderers both. So reads my bible. If it seems that I speak too freely about their shortcomings, remember that John the baptist was greater than both of these men, and I am greater than John the baptist. And yet there are few who fear to speak ill of me!

God has opened these men's lives and faults bare to His children, that we might learn from them. Moses was disqualified from entering the promised land because of his outburst of wrath.An elder simply can't be that kind of guy. This wasn't a spurious attack on Moses on my part, you provoked me against him when you announced his candidacy for the eldership! Remember also, that Elder is a voluntary position. A man doesn't serve as Elder against his will. Moses' calling was a different one, where he indeed attempted to turn down the job but was not allowed to, because Prophet is NOT a job you can turn down. Neither is King, for that matter. Nor was Abram's calling voluntary.

Anyone can be used of God, regardless of merit. In fact, God takes special delight in taking the unqualified and doing something awesome with them, so that His power and His glory would not be usurped by His chosen servant.

Eldership, however, is pure meritocracy. A man must be a seasoned, proven, and established exemplar of Christ-like virtue to be considered for the role. That's a tall order for anyone in the OT. Still, no disrespect intended, I learn from their mistakes and learn from their successes. I owe them all a great deal for suffering the indignity of allowing me to learn from them.

but the fact remains that Paul did list a reason in the verse and it is not a reason that would limit it to only one.

You have to do some verse dissection to make what you say true. The reasoning that

but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of he church of God?

is related to the verse that directly precedes it, which is

He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity

not the mention of his required marital status two verses earlier which is listed in rapid fire succession with other, unrelated qualifications:

An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable,hospitable, able to teach,

Which mean his "temperate" quality must be considered whether or not his household is well managed, as must his "Prudent" quality, so must also his "Husband of one wife" quality be considered independently of the state of his household.

Is a man with two wives always lacking in self control?

No, but IMO he's doing a terrible job of having "one" wife. I'm not gonna do the 'mia' dance in Greek, because that's the point where my plain sense becomes everyone's nonsense, as you put it.

My plain sense in English:

Say I tell my son that in order to go out scavenging for canned goods in the irradiated wasteland that my hometown has become, he must take one iodide potassium pill an hour before we leave the house. About an hour after we leave the house my son starts vomiting and I freak right the heck out.

"BOY" says I "Did you not take your pill???

"Heck, Pa, I took 3!"

"I told you to take 1!"

"Well I figured you meant at least 1!!!"

"Not if we were gonna be running around! Jeez kid, where's your head? I need a man who can follow orders, not one that I have to drag back to the bunker 'cause he has ideas!!"

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

Given that several early church fathers thought the 'if he burns let him marry' of 1 Cor 7 was an assent to polygamy, IF necessary, one could make an argument that it did show a lack of self control and that the requirement was for 'a wife' (as in one and only one).

However if I recall correctly, there was also much discussion over this particular verse on whether or not widowers qualified; particularly those who remarried. Which frankly strikes me as quite silly.




Many would argue a man with even 1 isn't very sensible.

Here is the problem with limiting it to one and only one, it can bring similar problems that
the catholic church has had (aside from the fact that catholic theology is anti biblical on almost every point). A man could desire to be an elder and not marry more than one, but still “burn” on the inside and not tell anyone until he has an “affair” and brings shame on the body of Yeshua. This actually happens pretty frequently. We have a birds eye view of the problems that can be caused, with this verse being understood as one woman only. Marriage is something that helps to keep us from sinning, our G-d given needs can be met in the marriage bed, which is “honorable among all and the bed undefiled”.

Paul tells married people, presumably monogamous and polygynist alike, ”Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.” 1 Corinthians 7:5
Does this mean almost everyone has a lack of self control? And if so, wouldn’t limiting to one (something G-d doesn’t seem to do anywhere else in scripture) give opportunity to temptation by the enemy?

I don’t think that a man with more than one wife is necessarily lacking self control at all points in his life. Say a man married a wife at the age of 20 and then married a second at the age of thirty. Now that same man is 60, he is known for his faith and good works, he is not looking to take more wives, and he rules his house well, his children are following Yeshua. He is disqualified from being an elder? Perhaps he did lack some self control as a younger man, but that doesn’t mean he always would. We are all growing in Yeshua and maturing. It seems to me that the self control argument, in regard to marriage, is weak.

 

[rockfox]

The path to the Hellenized/Romanized church happened pretty quickly. Many of them argued based on that frame of reference, not a Hebraic one.

Even Christ was preaching against some of the influences of Hellenization. It was a huge problem that metastasized when the Greeks became dominant in the church. All down hill from there.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

This wasn't a spurious attack on Moses on my part, you provoked me against him when you announced his candidacy for the eldership! Remember also, that Elder is a voluntary position. A man doesn't serve as Elder against his will.

Kudos for using the word “spurious”, I love that word!!

I did provoke you in that and for that, I do apologize!


Being an elder is a voluntary position and one that I don’t feel called to, nor do I think the qualifications need to be made “fair” just to allow anyone in. I just don’t see that verse as translated lining up with the totality of scripture. It seems to line up really well with the Roman idea of monogamy only, though.

 

[Slumberfreeze]

Being an elder is a voluntary position and one that I don’t feel called to

I'm with you there. That's some headache I don't know that I want...

 

[andrew]

If you guys are assuming that if a man takes a second wife it is because he lacks self-control, which it appears that you are, then you are simply wrong. It seems this conversation has morphed somehow....

 

[andrew]

Further, on that logic, a man with one wife, if he took a wife pursuant to Paul's 'better to marry than burn' instruction, presumably wise instruction, would then be disqualified as an elder on the 'lack of self-control' argument. Does that make sense?

 

[Verifyveritas76]

We also have a great example of this Mia idea in Moses IMO. God’s chosen man and leader for not just a few hundred, but probably several million, takes another wife. Presumably, Miriam and Aaron are either proposing this monogamy only principle for leadership, or they’re racist. Either way, God makes it pretty clear that it is a non issue for the leader to have more than one.

In Malachi, Judah is another example. The last and largest of the remaining tribes in the land ergo the leader and the issue is not that he took another, but that he abandoned the first and apparently disenfranchised his inheritance through her.

On the NT side you also have direct instruction that a man must provide for his widows. A man who does this is worthy of double honor. You could end the verse there without any violence done to the scriptures, but then he adds especially if they labor in the word.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

Further, on that logic, a man with one wife, if he took a wife pursuant to Paul's 'better to marry than burn' instruction, presumably wise instruction, would then be disqualified as an elder on the 'lack of self-control' argument. Does that make sense?

I think there is still some ingrained feeling, perhaps brought about by our cultural upbringing, that plural is still a little bit icky. I can’t find anything in scripture to indicate it is less holy or less godly to have more than one. I think that cultural feeling (in the Roman Empire) is what brought about the false doctrine of monogamy only in the first place. Either polygyny is just as holy and the bed as undefiled as monogamous marriage (and therefore not forbidden for elders) or there is a strong argument that christians shouldn’t engage in it.

 

[andrew]

I think there is still some ingrained feeling, perhaps brought about by our cultural upbringing, that plural is still a little bit icky.

That's what I'm getting here, which seems a bit weird. All the energy behind mia = 'there can be only one' is based on the idea that one is somehow morally superior to more-than-one (however delicately it may be stated), and then presumably celibacy is even mo bettah than one. Celibacy IS better than one, according to Paul, if you're an apostle, but you still have a right to take along a believing wife, a la Peter. And there's no logical way to stop at just one without ascribing some sort of 'one is better' test (that is, a man who has only one wife is somehow morally superior, more self-disciplined, whatever (again, however you want to say it) than a man who has more than one).

The only unambiguous limit in the Christian scriptures is the injunction to kings not to "multiply wives" (or horses, or money), which is not really about marriage as much as it is about wealth. Past a certain point (which is a subjective judgment, not an objective test), wealthy men and community leaders should be giving back to their communities, their people, not hoarding or being self-indulgent. (From a practical rulership pov, especially not hoarding or being self-indulgent in a way that would cause widespread envy and resentment....)

I realize that doesn't settle the mia question (begging the question, etc), but I agree with AFM&MH that this idea that having more than one wife is somehow associated with a lack of self-control in a way that having one wife in the first place is not (and apparently is beyond question) is basically jut a little residual cultural conditioning talking.

 

[IshChayil]

Right on!

We also have to dig into what "lust" means, or rather what ἐπιθυμέω (G1937) means. I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with looking at a married woman and finding her to be [sexually] attractive, or enjoying the sight of her.
I will forbear to synthesize a treatise on the matter, and simply provide links.
I do not endorse all of the positions held by these two, but I think they're pretty much right with respect to their exegesis regarding "lust".
https://www.jasonstaples.com/bible/most-misinterpreted-bible-passages-1-matthew-527-28/
https://biblicalgenderroles.com/what-is-lust/

ב"ה​

Hey I just wanted to clarify / comment a little on the definition of this word and how the 1st article you linked to refers to it.
He uses a technique I find quite useful for getting at the underlying Hebrew "behind the Greek" as it were; tracing back to the LXX to see which Hebrew words mapped to the Greek word. The author of the article informs us:
Well, as it turns out, the Greek word usually translated “lust” in this passage (ἐπιθυμέω; epithumeô) is precisely the word for “covet” (Hebrew חמד) in the Tenth Command in the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament), which says: [passage about do not covet neighbors wife]
this is all true, and good work and I think very likely what Yeshua had in mind.
It is worth noting, however, that this greek word ἐπιθυμέω epithūmēō also maps back to אוה ʾāwāh — (in Piel - to wish, desire / in Hitpael - to crave for, wish for)
It maps to this lemma 19 times and to the covet word 6 times.
BDAG (bigshot Greek lexicon) defines this Greek word:
ἐπιθυμέω impf. ἐπεθύμουν; fut. ἐπιθυμήσω; 1 aor. ἐπεθύμησα (θυμέομαι ‘set one’s heart on a thing’; Aeschyl., Hdt.+).
① to have a strong desire to do or secure someth., desire, long for w. gen. of the thing desired
② to have sexual interest in someone, desire, w. acc. of pers. (referring to γυναῖκα; cp. En 6:2)
Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., pp. 371,372). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

The other bigshot Greek lexicon, covering the classics + Christian lit I think nails it:
ἐπιθῡμέω, set one’s heart upon a thing, long for, covet, desire,...
Liddell, H. G., Scott, R., Jones, H. S., & McKenzie, R. (1996). A Greek-English lexicon (p. 634). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

(literary references deleted from both dictionary entries)
***** more detailed analysis of this word follows ... if this bores you move along citizen *****
***** I won't source each page, just the tome this comes from, if anyone wants the whole article let me know and I'll upload it *******
***** emphases are mine ****
1. ἐπιθυμία, ἐπιθυμέω are not found in Homer, but they are pre-Socratic, and common later. The words denote the direct impulse towards food, sexual satisfaction etc., and also desire in general.
....[tons deleted]....
In Greek philosophy ἐπιθυμία is the waywardness of man in conflict with his rationality. It is estimated ethically rather then religiously.
2. In Hebrew and Jewish religion there is condemnation not merely of the evil act but also of the evil will. The Decalogue forbids stealing and the desire for the goods of others, including their wives.
.....
In the OT and Judaism ἐπιθυμία is an offence against God, who demands of man total obedience and love from the whole heart, Dt. 5:5.
...
3. In Jewish Greek ἐπιθυμία and ἐπιθυμεῖν can denote a sin. This usage is plainly dependent in part on the Stoic usage, and in part a result of the above development in Judaism. The lines converge. The LXX uses ἐπιθυμία and ἐπιθυμεῖν predominantly for constructs of the stems אוה and חמד. ἐπιθυμία is mostly vox media. But without addition ἐπιθυμία is also used for base and ungodly desire, e.g., at Nu. 11:4, 34; 33:16, 17; Dt. 9:22; ψ 105:14. ἐπιθυμία κάλλους is sinful sexual desire in the male, Prv. 6:25; Susanna 32; cf. Sir. 40:22.
...
We find a similar combination of Stoic and Jewish elements in the use of ἐπιθυμία and ἐπιθυμεῖν in 4 Macc. The theme here is that what rules over the impulsive in man is reason, and the impulsive includes first of all ἐπιθυμία, with which are ranged ἡδονή, φόβος and λύπη (1:22, 23), and which arises out of sensuality (1:3; 3:11–16) and sexuality (2:4, 5). In Josephus ἐπιθυμία is mostly vox media, but it can also be used for sinful desire.
...
4. In Rabbinic theology the equivalents of NT ἐπιθυμεῖν are הִתְאַוָּה and חמד, and for ἐπιθυμία we have יֵצֶר הָרַע, except that this denotes a general disposition in man rather than the actual impulse in concrete individuality. For this the term is תַּאֲוָה.
Büchsel, F. (1964–). θυμός, ἐπιθυμία, ἐπιθυμέω, ἐπιθυμητής, ἐνθυμέομαι, ἐνθύμησις. G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley, & G. Friedrich (Eds.), Theological dictionary of the New Testament (Vol. 3, pp. around 170ish). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

I found it interesting in that article that the word in question developed to mean the yeṣer hārāh (evil inclination), a Jewish term for the ever-present temptation to sin.

Processing it all....
Whenever we see "heart" used, (as commit adultery in your heart...) if we assume the Messiah was speaking to His followers in Hebrew, or Jewish Aramaic, the word heart refers to the mind.
So to "love the L-rd Your G-d with all your heart..." means to love him with our whole mind. This leads me to process the information of the shades of meanings of this word group (lust,desire,covet) toward the renewal of our minds (romans 12:2). We are to endeavor to learn discipline mūsar. We train ourselves if we weren't trained this way in our youth... there is that short instant when a man may notice the form of a lady who is clad unmodestly; it's what we do in the moments which follow the instant of that hunger.
Do we transfer the that spark to our mind (Hebrew: lev / levav ) and feed it there, or do we sanction it and cut it off, mumble a prayer or a comment to our body to behave differently.
When a woman is available, it seems not sinful to consider her, ahem, physical benefits, but if she even has a boyfriend then it becomes a dangerous game.

it is also possible to covet ḥāmad another man's wife for any of her other attributes: the way she cares for him, the way she respects him, is fiercely loyal to him, her great wealth, and of course her physical form. So if Yeshua was speaking to expanding (adding to) the interpretation of coveting, it seems this example is only with regards to sexuality; so it may be an intersection of הִתְאַוָּה and חמד sexual desire, longing, appetite PLUS covetousness.

 

[IshChayil]

To what is he referring and why has he made a covenant with his eyes? Is she newly married? A Virgin? Thoughts?

ב"ה​

It is the Jewish practice of looking downward when walking in a city; some count the stones they see or something like this to avoid lusting after a woman who may be married or seeing a scantily clad lass. If you see a beautiful woman there is a blessing for G-d:
“Blessed are You, O L-rd, our G-d, King of the universe, who has such as this in the world”; (Talmud, Berakot 58b).

From a commentary I have on Job:
The reading “virgin” recalls Ben Sira’s warning (Ecclesiasticus 9:5): “At a virgin do not look, / Lest you be trapped into sin with her.” Ben Sira goes on to elaborate his warning:
Don’t look around in the city gate;
Don’t roam about in the streets.
Avert your eyes from a pretty woman;
Don’t gaze at beauty that is not for you.
By a woman’s beauty many have been destroyed;
Her lovers she burns with fire.
Don’t eat with a married woman,
Don’t take liquor with her;
Lest she draw (your) heart to her
And in bloodshed you go to Perdition.
(The translation is from the Hebrew text of the Cairo Genizah.) Rashi quotes Pirqe Abot de Rabbi Nathan to the effect that Job’s piety was such that he would not even look at an unmarried woman, for fear that when she was married he might feel attracted to her.
Pope, M. H. (2008). Job: Introduction, translation, and notes (Vol. 15, p. 228). New Haven; London: Yale University Press.

So the whole "covenant with my eyes", it reminds me of a covenant I made with my hands. Years ago, I would at times not act when something would fall; I would bump into a glass on a table and watch it falling slowly thinking "nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!". I decided that was rediculous so I started talking to my hands, "next time catch those things; you serve me, you can do it, I'm in charge." When my hands would successfully move fast and catch something, I'd compliment the hand, "good job".
I know it sounds silly but I improved my reaction in those situations. It is the same with the eyes, and training them to look downward at inappropriate times or to the side as Job used to do. The eyes should serve us as we serve our L-rd.

 

[Mojo]

Rashi quotes Pirqe Abot de Rabbi Nathan to the effect that Job’s piety was such that he would not even look at an unmarried woman, for fear that when she was married he might feel attracted to her.

Now this might explain some things about that covenant. He may have been looking ahead to a potential future sin?

 

[Slumberfreeze]

If you guys are assuming that if a man takes a second wife it is because he lacks self-control, which it appears that you are, then you are simply wrong. It seems this conversation has morphed somehow....

I really wasn't assuming that. @Asforme&myhouse threw that out there and I took a swing at it. I don't think he necessarily believes that either, the way I read it. It was more about "Well what about this potential case?"

Further, on that logic, a man with one wife, if he took a wife pursuant to Paul's 'better to marry than burn' instruction, presumably wise instruction, would then be disqualified as an elder on the 'lack of self-control' argument. Does that make sense?

I get you. I don't think I follow the logic straight across, though. 'Burning' is more or less the natural state of a young, celibate, single man. At least, that was my experience. The answer for that is marriage, as Paul states. If the man is able to be satisfied with the prescribed answer for the common appetite, I find no grounds to label him intemperate; or put him in the same category as a man whose passions were such that he must marry, so he does, only to find he still burns and is not satisfied. Such a man may not be a bad man, but I can no longer call him 'temperate' with a straight face.

Once again I'm not under the impression that those who take a second wife are 'burning' or 'lacking in self-control' .... then again, I've been on this website long enough to know that in some cases that's as good a descriptor as any.

I think there is still some ingrained feeling, perhaps brought about by our cultural upbringing, that plural is still a little bit icky.

That's what I'm getting here, which seems a bit weird.

>.>

<.<

>.>

Y'all talkin' about me? You must be talking about me.

Don't get me wrong. I thought the bible was pretty clear that women are icky. Marriage with them is icky, sex with them is icky, and living with them is icky.

Once a month they are icky for 7 days and during that time everything she touches is icky and everyone she touches is icky. (Leviticus 15)

Any time a man has sex with a woman, they are both icky, for a while, unless the woman is on her 7 day icky-fest, in which case the man is extra icky (Also Lev 15)

Ahimelech didn't mind bending the rules to feed David's hungry men, as long as those men hadn't been touching icky women (1 Samuel 21)

Jesus acknowledged that dealing with icky women was hard, but it was usually a necessary icky. But the few people for whom it ISN'T necessary should stay away from icky women (Matt 19)

Paul echoes this and says it's good not to touch icky women, and better if you don't, unless you have to. (1 Cor 7)

The 144,000 who are privileged to follow the Lamb wherever He goes have a few characteristics, one of which is they were never made icky by women (Rev 14)


The issue has always been that women are icky. An intended and necessary and super fun kind of icky, but still pretty icky. I've just outlined for you where I got my thoughts on the ickiness of women. Cultural conditioning didn't put those verses there. Cultural conditioning would mostly like me to ignore the greater part of these passages.

Different vessels are used for different things. David's hands were necessary and anointed vessels, but they weren't temple-building hands. They were too icky for that. (Bloodshed, not women, but I'm pointing to a precept). Just because marriage to a woman is respectable and the marriage bed is kept holy and un-defiled, doesn't mean that it isn't still a dirty job. A dirty job, by the way, that disqualifies a man from entry into certain elite circles.

I deeply suspect that whoever the men are that the Father has reserved the right and left hand of Jesus for are celibates both. I think I'm digressing...

So to circle back: Plural is only icky because Singular is icky.

It would be great if Elders could do without women and families. Men with the single minded devotion that Paul had towards God would make fantastic Elders, living only to please God. But since (like I've said) Eldership is a meritocracy, a man must prove he can handle a family before he takes charge of the family of God, so must be married with children.

Women are great (sort of), and I'm a big fan (at times) and I'm fully down to have more than one (If Papa has another one picked out for me). Nevertheless, women aren't the highest good, they are (So I see Jesus and Paul saying) kind of a concession, something only to be indulged in because you have to, with the understanding that most men pretty much have to.

Like Little Caesar's 6 hours into a 14 hour road trip. If you didn't have to eat it, you'd probably wait for something better but you don't know when that's gonna be and you're not NOT going to stop and put a whole one in your face, and you kinda like Little Caesar's, actually, even though you know it's crap and is gonna give you some heartburn tonight that only seems like it's worth it.

And there's nothing wrong with being a real man and eating two Hot & Ready's, (as long as you really are up to it and you're not just showing off, eventually pulling over so you can hurl at the side of the road)

I think the rule amounts to "Any given passenger in the car can go without eating at Little C, or can stuff himself stupid. It's whatever. The driver, though, has to eat something, but not too much"

 

[Mojo]

How does one respond to this???

Do I laugh, cry, or better yet....just throw up my hands and cry uncle?

 

[andrew]

Yeah, that just confirms it.

Slumber, let's just say you have a much lower view of women than I do. And a different view of sex. And a different interpretation of what AFM&MH meant by icky. And some other differences....

God's judgment, pre-fall, was that it was not good that man be alone. When God made man and woman, it was very good. He who finds a wife finds a good thing. But you know all that.

I don't know any way to say this other than if you are ever married to more than one woman it's going to change your view of women. Or maybe your view of women needs to change before there's ever going to be a second. That's a real possibility.

I see the same thing happening with children. In our culture, the 'need to reproduce' or whatever other reason one might have for wanting children is deemed more than satisfied when one has had two or at most three. Push past that and a lot of people look at you sideways. Push past six or seven and they'll tell you to your face how they feel about that. The idea is that there's some purpose children serve that is fulfilled once one has a small number; beyond that they are seen as a drain, and the desire and willingness to have more is seen as a curiosity at best. The idea that children are an inherently good thing, and more is better, and much more is much better, just doesn't compute in our culture.

I think we're gonna hafta agree to disagree here....

 

[rockfox]

Eh, they're a good kind of icky .

 

[Joleneakamama]

Push past six or seven and they'll tell you to your face how they feel about that. The idea is that there's some purpose children serve that is fulfilled once one has a small number; beyond that they are seen as a drain, and the desire and willingness to have more is seen as a curiosity at best. The idea that children are an inherently good thing, and more is better, and much more is much better, just doesn't compute in our culture.

My hubby has a sis who felt that way, but has changed her mind and now "sticks up for us" and tells others (who probably think we're crazy) that we are NOT on welfare, and take care of our own.

That video shared here recently totally cracked me up, because much of it is so true... or at least seems to be, especially the 'world view' of home birth.

We have nine children, and I'm inclined think our maker made children, to make the parents grow... and grow up.

I have met a few adults who had no siblings, and married folk that never had children, and there is a definite difference between some of those who have only had to care for self, and those who have chosen to raise a family.
I know that having children doesn't make anyone caring, or responsible, plenty of abused and abandoned children prove that, but avoiding responsibility and just living for self is not a virtue, just more politically correct.

Hubby has people tell him, when he shares the size of our family to "Give your wife a break." He just tells 'em they need to take that up with me! Lol

We agreed on four to six before marriage........ and then agreed to keep going. Unity in purpose is such a beautiful thing!

 

[Slumberfreeze]

How does one respond to this???

Do I laugh, cry, or better yet....just throw up my hands and cry uncle?

You join the throng of people I've exasperated. I am quite unreasonable...

Slumber, let's just say you have a much lower view of women than I do.

I honestly wonder if that's true. If it helps, my view of men isn't better...

I don't know any way to say this other than if you are ever married to more than one woman it's going to change your view of women.

I'm certain! My first wife was quite the eye-opener.

Or maybe your view of women needs to change before there's ever going to be a second. That's a real possibility.

Solomon's view of women was demonstrably lower than mine. I can say that I've found one virtuous/wise woman, and married her. Solomon apparently couldn't find any, and yet managed to marry a whole lot. (Ecc 7:28).

I think we're gonna hafta agree to disagree here....

That would be fine. I honestly didn't expect this thread to go as well as it has for me. Although, I would like to know your thoughts about the passages I've alluded to. Obviously women are a good thing, and it's not good to be alone, and all that. My explanation of why Job won't look on a virgin and elders are permitted one wife is colored by passages about the uncleanness of women that crop up in the Torah, the Tanakh, the Gospels and Epistles and onward to Revelation, that I've mentioned.

Which I don't bring that up to sound more impressive, but to point out that while I know God gave Adam Eve and it was very good, I also temper that with the incident of the serpent and fruit.

What I desire more than agreeing to disagree is to hear your take on women that encompasses the verses that I've mentioned, that brings the total light of scripture to bear on them. If I'm viewing women through poop-colored lenses, tell me how these passages apply differently so that I can see what you see. But if you just ignore those verses, and allude to still other verses, then I have to conclude that my view might not be that far off from the truth after all. I don't want to go round and round, but I have a handful of verses that seem to just be left out of the equation. And then, once I know your mind, I would be happy to leave it at that.

Eh, they're a good kind of icky .

Right. Like honey.