F
felix
Guest
I don't understand why is said this.
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
I don't understand why is said this.
F
felix
Guest
Does Scripture says that?
If it is pretty adulterous to marry a wife, when still married to another..., then most of the children of Israel are bastards, a result of adultery, who cannot come into the assembly of God for even 10 generations.
If it is pretty adulterous to marry a wife, when still married to another..., then you blaspheme God the Father by saying He allowed adultery in the law He gave to Moses.
If it is pretty adulterous to marry a wife, when still married to another..., then Samuel the prophet's father was an adulterer too.
You can stand with Jethro if you like but I stand for Scripture.
handy
Member
Only, it seems the Scriptures that you like... as in quoting Matthew 5 rather than 19...
Jesus already explained that Moses added divorce into the Law because of the hardness of men's hearts.
As for the "most of the children of Israel are bastards"... 100% of the children of Isreal are sinners who violated God's principles in almost every way. God's lovingkindnesses and forgiveness knows no bounds.
Jesus already explained that Moses added divorce into the Law because of the hardness of men's hearts.
As for the "most of the children of Israel are bastards"... 100% of the children of Isreal are sinners who violated God's principles in almost every way. God's lovingkindnesses and forgiveness knows no bounds.
F
felix
Guest
(Matt 19:8-9) He said to them, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery."
What about Matthew 19?
Jesus said, it is adultery to "divorce and to marry another".
Just to clarify, it was not Moses who added divorce into the Law because of the hardness of men's hearts, but God gave the law to Moses who commanded the people of Israel to follow.
And because of His loving kindness and forgiveness, bastards cannot enter the assembly of God for even until 10 generations and bastard's parents had to be stoned. You add further insult to scripture by suggesting that Jacob is an adulterer and he had to be stoned.
Did you see that just twisting one scripture verse for your convenience will make you twist every possible verse in scripture.
handy
Member
Believe me, Felix, it's not my intent to twist scripture nor do I think I have...
But, I believe we should look at the issue of polygamy with Matthew 19 very much in mind. Because divorce, some that is clearly stated God hates, was added because of the hardness of men's hearts, we know that things which are not part of God's plan, which are not part of His stated will, things that He even says outright that He hates, will be added because of the sinfulness of men.
I truly believe that the polygamy of the old testament times falls firmly into this category. Polygamy was not something that God established. God created a wife for Adam... even at a time when several wives would make much more sense in fulfilling the commandment to be fruitful and to multiply and fill the earth. If there was ever a time when God should have provided numerous wives... that would have been it.
That He didn't and that He never commanded any man to take more than one wife makes it pretty clear that polygamy came about because it was common in the area and men simply did it.
All examples of polygamy are in the Old Testament. In the New Testament (and we do live under this new covenant) polygamy isn't even hinted at for God's people. By this time, divorce was common enough that Jesus made it clear it was not God's will, as a matter of fact, He hates it. Therefore we see that Christians are not to divorce. And yet, even now... the church is more and more ignoring that and just going right along with worldly society... much as the old testament men did with polygamy.
As far as a bastard not being able to enter the assembly even up to 10 generations... well... neither could the descendants of one who married a Moabite. (Deuteronomy 23:3) And yet, we see that Ruth the Moabite married Boaz and her great-grandson did pretty well in the land of Israel. Is this because God regularly ignores His own edicts... no, but it does prove what He said, that He will show lovingkindness to those who love Him and also that He will not hold the sins of the father against the sons. (Exodus 20:6; Ezekiel 18:20)
But, that was then... this is now. We are no longer under the old covenant but under the new and under the new covenant we are held to not only follow the letter of the law but the spirit as well. Everywhere we see marriage discussed in the New Testament, it is between a man and a wife. There is no place where one can point to that even suggests a Christian man can have more than one wife and any who does so are not to be considered for leadership positions in the church.
But, I believe we should look at the issue of polygamy with Matthew 19 very much in mind. Because divorce, some that is clearly stated God hates, was added because of the hardness of men's hearts, we know that things which are not part of God's plan, which are not part of His stated will, things that He even says outright that He hates, will be added because of the sinfulness of men.
I truly believe that the polygamy of the old testament times falls firmly into this category. Polygamy was not something that God established. God created a wife for Adam... even at a time when several wives would make much more sense in fulfilling the commandment to be fruitful and to multiply and fill the earth. If there was ever a time when God should have provided numerous wives... that would have been it.
That He didn't and that He never commanded any man to take more than one wife makes it pretty clear that polygamy came about because it was common in the area and men simply did it.
All examples of polygamy are in the Old Testament. In the New Testament (and we do live under this new covenant) polygamy isn't even hinted at for God's people. By this time, divorce was common enough that Jesus made it clear it was not God's will, as a matter of fact, He hates it. Therefore we see that Christians are not to divorce. And yet, even now... the church is more and more ignoring that and just going right along with worldly society... much as the old testament men did with polygamy.
As far as a bastard not being able to enter the assembly even up to 10 generations... well... neither could the descendants of one who married a Moabite. (Deuteronomy 23:3) And yet, we see that Ruth the Moabite married Boaz and her great-grandson did pretty well in the land of Israel. Is this because God regularly ignores His own edicts... no, but it does prove what He said, that He will show lovingkindness to those who love Him and also that He will not hold the sins of the father against the sons. (Exodus 20:6; Ezekiel 18:20)
But, that was then... this is now. We are no longer under the old covenant but under the new and under the new covenant we are held to not only follow the letter of the law but the spirit as well. Everywhere we see marriage discussed in the New Testament, it is between a man and a wife. There is no place where one can point to that even suggests a Christian man can have more than one wife and any who does so are not to be considered for leadership positions in the church.
Danus
Member
UHG! I can't believe this is still being discussed. Since this thread is a joke, here we go.
A Mormon acquaintance once pushed Mark Twain into an argument on the issue of polygamy. After long and tedious expositions justifying the practice, the Mormon demanded that Twain cite any passage of scripture expressly forbidding polygamy.
"Nothing easier," Twain replied. "No man can serve two masters." :p
A child at a Christian school was studying the early days of Mormonism in his class. He wrote on his paper,"The early Mormons believed in having more than one wife. This is called polygamy. But we believe in having only one wife. This is called monotony" :p
The FBI recently captured a hard core Mormon leader in Las Vegas--Warren Jeffs, a polygamist who was arranging marriages of older men to underage girls.
You know you're doing something wrong when you're busted in VEGAS. :p
A little boy was attending his first wedding. After the service, his cousin asked him, "How many women can a man marry?" "Sixteen," the boy responded.
His cousin was amazed that he had an answer so quickly. "How do you know that?"
"Easy," the little boy said. "All you have to do is add it up, like the minister said: 4 better, 4 worse, 4 richer, 4 poorer" :p
Polygamist wedding vows: I promise to love, honor and cherish you -- for about two days a month. :p
A Mormon acquaintance once pushed Mark Twain into an argument on the issue of polygamy. After long and tedious expositions justifying the practice, the Mormon demanded that Twain cite any passage of scripture expressly forbidding polygamy.
"Nothing easier," Twain replied. "No man can serve two masters." :p
A child at a Christian school was studying the early days of Mormonism in his class. He wrote on his paper,"The early Mormons believed in having more than one wife. This is called polygamy. But we believe in having only one wife. This is called monotony" :p
The FBI recently captured a hard core Mormon leader in Las Vegas--Warren Jeffs, a polygamist who was arranging marriages of older men to underage girls.
You know you're doing something wrong when you're busted in VEGAS. :p
A little boy was attending his first wedding. After the service, his cousin asked him, "How many women can a man marry?" "Sixteen," the boy responded.
His cousin was amazed that he had an answer so quickly. "How do you know that?"
"Easy," the little boy said. "All you have to do is add it up, like the minister said: 4 better, 4 worse, 4 richer, 4 poorer" :p
Polygamist wedding vows: I promise to love, honor and cherish you -- for about two days a month. :p
handy
Member
Pizzaguy
Member
:yes:yes:yes:yes:yes
Pizzaguy
Member
If the two become one, what does the three become?Right Reba... I can't even figure out how any guy can go about getting wife number 2 without violating several Christian principles regarding marriage, not the least of which is the fact that the husband's body isn't his own to do anything with in the first place.
Pizzaguy
Member
It takes considerable arrogance to have posted the stuff you have in this thread, then accuse someone else of ANYTHING.
F
felix
Guest
Divorce:
(Deut 24:1) "When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts [it] in her hand, and sends her out of his house
Jesus does not even change the law. Neither did He add anything to the law.
Now look at what the guy is asking Jesus:
(Matt 19:7) They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?"
If you carefully look, what he said was not the same as what the law says.
Now, again, look at what Jesus answered:
(Matt 19:8) He said to them, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.
His answer was basically that "divorce" (even with uncleanness) was itself was not from the beginning but because of the hardness of man.
Now, Jesus technically corrects the guy with what the law actually says:
(Matt 19:9) "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery."
Hence, i can't see any difference in the law and what Jesus said regarding divorce except adding the fact that: divorce was because of hardness of men.
Polygamy:
Coming to Polygamy, the law allows it as we see in Deut 21:15. There is no reference to Jesus disallowing it.
While polygamy is allowed, it is "always better" and "recommended" for Christians to have one wife as in Titus 1:6;1Tim 3:2; 1Tim 3:12. While it is good and recommended to have one wife, having more than one wife is not a sin.
Underage
Not sure what age constitute underage according to governments but as long as a woman attains puberty, she can be married according to Scriptures as we see in Song 8:8.
I had provided all my views based on Scripture and let me know if it deviates.
(Deut 24:1) "When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts [it] in her hand, and sends her out of his house
Jesus does not even change the law. Neither did He add anything to the law.
Now look at what the guy is asking Jesus:
(Matt 19:7) They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?"
If you carefully look, what he said was not the same as what the law says.
Now, again, look at what Jesus answered:
(Matt 19:8) He said to them, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.
His answer was basically that "divorce" (even with uncleanness) was itself was not from the beginning but because of the hardness of man.
Now, Jesus technically corrects the guy with what the law actually says:
(Matt 19:9) "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery."
Hence, i can't see any difference in the law and what Jesus said regarding divorce except adding the fact that: divorce was because of hardness of men.
Polygamy:
Coming to Polygamy, the law allows it as we see in Deut 21:15. There is no reference to Jesus disallowing it.
While polygamy is allowed, it is "always better" and "recommended" for Christians to have one wife as in Titus 1:6;1Tim 3:2; 1Tim 3:12. While it is good and recommended to have one wife, having more than one wife is not a sin.
Underage
Not sure what age constitute underage according to governments but as long as a woman attains puberty, she can be married according to Scriptures as we see in Song 8:8.
I had provided all my views based on Scripture and let me know if it deviates.
handy
Member
Felix...
You're good at following the letter of the Old Testament law.
But, as has been pointed out, you miss the spirit of the law... God created only one wife for Adam, not several wives. That is very significant in understanding the mind of God on this matter. God never promoted polygamy, only allowed it as it crept ever inward into His people (just as He allows divorce), and in the New Testament, the covenant that we actually are held accountable to, there isn't even the hint that polygamy is OK...
A question I would like you to answer:
How can a man look upon a woman to have sex with her (your definition of biblical marriage) when he has a first wife and not violate Matthew 5:28?
Also,
If a woman has full authority over her husband's body, how can he then give that body to another woman?
You're good at following the letter of the Old Testament law.
But, as has been pointed out, you miss the spirit of the law... God created only one wife for Adam, not several wives. That is very significant in understanding the mind of God on this matter. God never promoted polygamy, only allowed it as it crept ever inward into His people (just as He allows divorce), and in the New Testament, the covenant that we actually are held accountable to, there isn't even the hint that polygamy is OK...
A question I would like you to answer:
How can a man look upon a woman to have sex with her (your definition of biblical marriage) when he has a first wife and not violate Matthew 5:28?
Also,
If a woman has full authority over her husband's body, how can he then give that body to another woman?
NinaMMitchell
Member
VERY good question.
F
felix
Guest
Bible marriage is not based on lust like courting, dating etc. It is based on asking the bride's father.
This was Paul's opinion not commandment. Just to add, 1Tim 2:12; 1Cor 11:10 are contrary to what Paul mentions as his opinion in 1Cor 7:4.
Last edited by a moderator:
handy
Member
Felix... you have repeated in a number of places on this forum that biblical marriage is having sex with the person...
This has nothing to do with the arrangements of how the two people got together in the first place...
So I ask again, how can a man look upon a woman to have sex with her, when he has a first wife and not violate Matthew 5.
As for 1 Corinthians 7, you are misunderstanding what is Paul's opinion... Paul's opinion was that it was better for people to remain as they were, if single then remain single, due to the present distress (which he mentions in verse 26).
1 Corinthians 7:4 is not Paul's own opinion, this is a fact... as a married woman, my body is my husband's... his body is mine. I have a duty to my husband, he has a duty to me. This is part of the Paul's reason that if people were single during that time, they should remain so.
Looking at the passage:
7 Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman.
There has been a lot of speculation on this part, what exactly was Paul referring to... whether the "it is good for a man not to touch a woman" was the topic of what the Corinthians wrote to him about and he is now going to address it, of if they asked in a general way if they should be marrying and Paul is saying that it is good for a man not to touch a woman...
Some have said that the question posed to Paul was whether or not Christians... all Christians married or not, should remain celibate. It seems that the Corinthians were reacting to something that they wished Paul to clear up... given the fairly carnal nature of the Corinthian church, the tendency for people to over-react and go too far in an opposite direction when confronted with sin and the fact that Paul tells them to "stop depriving one another", I think this is the most logical explanation for Paul's words in this chapter.
Either way, his subsequent comments become clear, he gives his opinion, based upon the troubles present at the time, he feels that if someone is single, they should remain single. But, if they are married, they are to remain married and not only remain married but fulfill all the duties of a married couple.
<sup class="versenum">
</sup>
<sup class="versenum">2 </sup>But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. <sup class="versenum">3 </sup>The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. <sup class="versenum">4 </sup>The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. <sup class="versenum">5 </sup> Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. <sup class="versenum">6 </sup>But this I say by way of concession, not of command.
None of this is Paul's opinion... he is stating the truth about husbands and wives... that because we are hardwired for sex and will seek it in an immoral way, we should marry if we don't have self-control. And, if two are married they have a duty to each other... the husband's body is the wife's, the wife's body is the husband's. This isn't opinion, this is fact... And the "concession" Paul speaks of here is the idea that a couple can deprive one another for a short period of time...but he's making it clear, this isn't commanded of God... that God is saying a married couple must somehow have a "fast" from sex in order to devote themselves to prayer... but that if they feel they should, then go ahead, but only for a short period of time.
<sup class="versenum">7 </sup>Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that.
<sup class="versenum">8 </sup>But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. <sup class="versenum">9 </sup>But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
Now this is Paul's opinion, that he wishes all could be single like he is, unfettered by duties to anyone but God. A man who has a wife and a woman who has a husband must first meet the needs of their spouse. A single person is free to devote themselves entirely to the work of the church. However, even in giving his opinion here, Paul states that if a single person or a widow lacks self-control, it's better to marry.
<sup class="versenum">10 </sup>But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband <sup class="versenum">11 </sup>(but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.
Now Paul is going back to what is truth... not his opinion, but what is commanded by God.
This is why Paul (and because of the inspirational nature of the Scriptures, the Holy Spirit) is not "contrary" to Paul's opinion.
1 Timothy 2:12 and 1 Corinthians 11:10 have nothing to do with marital relations... it has to do with the submission a wife has to the headship of the husband in the family. These two truths do not contradict each other at all, they are simply different facets of the marital relationship. Ephesians 5:22-33 supports the submission/headship relationship, while also making clear the exclusive nature of "the TWO (not three, four, 150) shall become ONE."
S
This has nothing to do with the arrangements of how the two people got together in the first place...
So I ask again, how can a man look upon a woman to have sex with her, when he has a first wife and not violate Matthew 5.
As for 1 Corinthians 7, you are misunderstanding what is Paul's opinion... Paul's opinion was that it was better for people to remain as they were, if single then remain single, due to the present distress (which he mentions in verse 26).
1 Corinthians 7:4 is not Paul's own opinion, this is a fact... as a married woman, my body is my husband's... his body is mine. I have a duty to my husband, he has a duty to me. This is part of the Paul's reason that if people were single during that time, they should remain so.
Looking at the passage:
7 Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman.
There has been a lot of speculation on this part, what exactly was Paul referring to... whether the "it is good for a man not to touch a woman" was the topic of what the Corinthians wrote to him about and he is now going to address it, of if they asked in a general way if they should be marrying and Paul is saying that it is good for a man not to touch a woman...
Some have said that the question posed to Paul was whether or not Christians... all Christians married or not, should remain celibate. It seems that the Corinthians were reacting to something that they wished Paul to clear up... given the fairly carnal nature of the Corinthian church, the tendency for people to over-react and go too far in an opposite direction when confronted with sin and the fact that Paul tells them to "stop depriving one another", I think this is the most logical explanation for Paul's words in this chapter.
Either way, his subsequent comments become clear, he gives his opinion, based upon the troubles present at the time, he feels that if someone is single, they should remain single. But, if they are married, they are to remain married and not only remain married but fulfill all the duties of a married couple.
<sup class="versenum">
</sup>
<sup class="versenum">2 </sup>But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. <sup class="versenum">3 </sup>The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. <sup class="versenum">4 </sup>The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. <sup class="versenum">5 </sup> Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. <sup class="versenum">6 </sup>But this I say by way of concession, not of command.
None of this is Paul's opinion... he is stating the truth about husbands and wives... that because we are hardwired for sex and will seek it in an immoral way, we should marry if we don't have self-control. And, if two are married they have a duty to each other... the husband's body is the wife's, the wife's body is the husband's. This isn't opinion, this is fact... And the "concession" Paul speaks of here is the idea that a couple can deprive one another for a short period of time...but he's making it clear, this isn't commanded of God... that God is saying a married couple must somehow have a "fast" from sex in order to devote themselves to prayer... but that if they feel they should, then go ahead, but only for a short period of time.
<sup class="versenum">7 </sup>Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that.
<sup class="versenum">8 </sup>But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. <sup class="versenum">9 </sup>But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
Now this is Paul's opinion, that he wishes all could be single like he is, unfettered by duties to anyone but God. A man who has a wife and a woman who has a husband must first meet the needs of their spouse. A single person is free to devote themselves entirely to the work of the church. However, even in giving his opinion here, Paul states that if a single person or a widow lacks self-control, it's better to marry.
<sup class="versenum">10 </sup>But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband <sup class="versenum">11 </sup>(but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.
Now Paul is going back to what is truth... not his opinion, but what is commanded by God.
This is why Paul (and because of the inspirational nature of the Scriptures, the Holy Spirit) is not "contrary" to Paul's opinion.
1 Timothy 2:12 and 1 Corinthians 11:10 have nothing to do with marital relations... it has to do with the submission a wife has to the headship of the husband in the family. These two truths do not contradict each other at all, they are simply different facets of the marital relationship. Ephesians 5:22-33 supports the submission/headship relationship, while also making clear the exclusive nature of "the TWO (not three, four, 150) shall become ONE."
S