• 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.

Job 31:1, thoughts?

Slumberfreeze said:
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?"



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.




>.>

<.<

>.>

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"
Click to expand...

This is required reading for any woman who is thinking of becoming yours... :D
 
Nah, I'll pass. If you think ceremonial uncleanness is what 'icky' stood for, and think that had anything to do with what we're talking about, then I'll leave you with that thought.
 
Making the requirements list for an elder, the seat of doctrine on the subject of the morality of having more than one wife, (and that’s what this all boils down to) is not good hermeneutics. Taking a part of a verse, that is by almost any measure, vague, and then using it to establish doctrine is completely backwards. One must take the clear verses on any subject and use those to establish what the verses, that are more vague, are saying.

IF those verses are creating new doctrine, it is one of the most bazaar (and inconsistent) ways of doing it. Not one time in all of scripture does G-d put a specific numerical restriction (by command) on the number of wives any man can have. (At least not that I am aware of.) For Paul to do so and give zero explanation as to why, cuts the feet out from under the argument that he is establishing a new law. The only place in scripture, that even comes close putting a restriction in number, is that of the kings of Israel who were not to multiply wives. But that is far from a number. When speaking of how Solomon’s wives turned his heart away, the Bible doesn’t even say he had too many! It says he married the wrong ones! :eek:

I think @andrew did a good job of clarifying that there is no difference (morally) between monogamous and polygynous marriage. Which Takes away the last vestige of any reason why Paul would given such a command. This brings us back to how doctrine is established in scripture. It isn’t established in verses that are vague. The status quo (that of polygyny being just as holy and therefore not any kind of a bad example to G-d’s people) is maintained. Anything else is really just conjecture. Paul isn’t restricting the number, he is giving a minimum requirement.
 
Asforme&myhouse said:
Making the requirements list for an elder, the seat of doctrine on the subject of the morality of having more than one wife, (and that’s what this all boils down to) is not good hermeneutics.
Click to expand...

For this to be true, they've have to argue that we're all required to marry. But they don't, because that would be Paul contradicting himself. It's plain that the passage applies to elder's only. It just show's how desperate they are to find reasons against polygamy and how weak their position is.
 
andrew said:
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....)
Click to expand...

Agreed. I have long thought that Duet 17:17 applied to only Kings back then, because back then they were the only ones that could afford to multiply wives. They lived off the labor of others and not their own. Back then pretty much everyone else had a limited income compared to a king. However today, say if you were a gazillionaire, that same principle would apply to you, too.

Basically you can have as many as you can support. And you should stop at the point of having more than you can actually have a relationship with if you can support more.
 
Asforme&myhouse said:
Making the requirements list for an elder, the seat of doctrine on the subject of the morality of having more than one wife, (and that’s what this all boils down to) is not good hermeneutics. Taking a part of a verse, that is by almost any measure, vague, and then using it to establish doctrine is completely backwards. One must take the clear verses on any subject and use those to establish what the verses, that are more vague, are saying.
Click to expand...
If you're interested, we took apart the issue regarding Bishop having more than one wife fairly deeply:
Biblical Families: What in the world is an ἐπίσκοπος (episkopos) i.e. "bishop"?
 
IMO, this ties in very closely to the Melchizedek thread. Once you understand the Melchizedek priestly order of things and the responsible one, it puts the proper emphasis on who and what the Bishop actually is and the limits to his influence and authority as well as his responsibility.

Even though I have known this for quite some time, my recent escapades with our recently estranged assembly has forced me to completely reevaluate what I consider to be an acceptable level of oversight from a “Bishop”, or as I like to call em, pastor/popes. At the moment, God is doing some interesting things in our family structure and for the first time in forever, the feeling of liberty is almost overwhelming and exhilarating.

It has brought new insight into the verse, “Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free. (Whether you intend it that way or not). We had no intentions of leaving our assembly, yet their response to Biblical truth was to exorcise it. Funny how truth will forcibly cause separation between two parties if one of them is not willing to go where truth is.
 
Right. On.
 
God had a set standard. Jesus quoted that standard in
Matthew 5:28 (ESV)
"But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

This woman is married. 1st century custom of clothes made distinguishing married from unmarried from divorced from widowed fairly easy. Many worldly co-workers had a penchant for this at lunch. They loved girl-watching & making salacious comments like: "Oh, she's married. Let me give u a baby for your hubby to raise."

Job desired to be righteous that he took an extra step away from what God said & intentionally restricted himself. The problem is that people read this verse & believe that this is the minimum standard & that we should step back again. If males cannot look on virgins then how can any male marry or ever look on his own bride?

Like the false interpretation of
Leviticus 18:22 (ESV)
"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."
The verse can ONLY refer to male homosexuality. Any inversion to make the "male" gender neutral (hence either-or) renders all sex immoral & the entire verse becomes nonsense.
 
Tesfalcon said:
1st century custom of clothes made distinguishing married from unmarried from divorced from widowed fairly easy.
Click to expand...

I've heard arguments like this brought to bear in different theological controversies and it is fraught with minefields. Many who were 'so sure' about the culture of the day turned out to be very wrong.

The problem is, which culture? The Mediterranean world of that day was a mix of many different cultures. Even within just the Hebrews there were likely differences due to the diaspora and the affects of Hellenization and Roman colonization. On top of that all, what we 'know' about any one culture is all too often a fragmentary guess.

Just look at us for example, how often do our clothing fashions change?
 
rockfox said:
I've heard arguments like this brought to bear in different theological controversies and it is fraught with minefields. Many who were 'so sure' about the culture of the day turned out to be very wrong.
Click to expand...

To be fair his point does not rest on the clothing argument. It was more of a side point.

I think we are over thinking this verse. The verse, because it mentions adultery, is specifically about illicit desire for a married woman, but the principle that Jesus is describing could be applied to illicit desire for a single woman as well (the desire to fornicate) (and probably many other sins). The principle is that if you have wrong doing in your heart, even if you have not actually performed the wrong doing in real life, you are still sinning.

So for example, if you looked at a single woman with fornication in your heart and you had no desire to marry her you have already committed fornication with her in your heart.
 
andrew said:
That's what I'm getting here, which seems a bit weird. All the energy behind mia = 'there can be only 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.
Click to expand...

For anyone interested, we have a good Biblical Families investigation into the various vagaries of mia / heis (1-ish)

FYI, even if we are to follow the limit on wives concerning Kings, talmud records that limit (for kings) to be 18 wives....
I think we're all within limits...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top