The fruit of monogamy = fornication with whores and prostitutes = wickedness in the land. If you’re participating in this behavior then you also risk drinking the cup of wrath that goes with it. Such a Christian should repent to the high priest and King Jesus.
Sorry - “enforced monogamy.” Some men are created to have zero wives. Some one wife. Some multiple wives. And women are forced to compete with a very small pool of godly men - which causes women to “steal men” and force divorces. It causes acts like sleeping with prostitutes and whores - which also causes divorces. All this contributes to a rise in kids without fathers. Rise in homosexual and lesbians. And now trans. Fruit of forced monogamy thanks to churches worldwide that are fornicating with Satan by agreeing to be tax exempt. Love of money is root of all evil. Even if some of them know polygamy isn’t a sin - they don’t want to be kicked out or lose their tax exempt status and starting paying taxes to Uncle Sam.
What High Priest?
Please stop stating your opinion as fact.
Sorry - “enforced monogamy.” Some men are created to have zero wives. Some one wife. Some multiple wives. And women are forced to compete with a very small pool of godly men - which causes women to “steal men” and force divorces. It causes acts like sleeping with prostitutes and whores - which also causes divorces. All this contributes to a rise in kids without fathers. Rise in homosexual and lesbians. And now trans. Fruit of forced monogamy thanks to churches worldwide that are fornicating with Satan by agreeing to be tax exempt. Love of money is root of all evil. Even if some of them know polygamy isn’t a sin - they don’t want to be kicked out or lose their ti
Lord Jesus said some people are born eunuchs. Paul had this gift (1 Corinthians 7). He had zero wives. And this lack of desire for wives he said was a gift. But he also concluded not all have this gift - we all have different gifts. If you burn with lust - then get married. It’s obvious he didn’t burn with lust since he had no wives.
Just for the sake of argument, at what point is a male informed that he was created to be a eunuch, monogamous, or created to be a polygynoust?
The Greek definition of eunuch could be someone that voluntarily abstains from marriage. So it could be simply the Creator gave them little to no desire for women. Perhaps they have a different mission/purpose in life. For example, Paul’s satisfaction were his followers of the way. He cried for them. He was happy for them. He was angry with them. He called Timothy his beloved son. He was like a father to them through Christ because he had no wives/children himself. If Paul burned with lust he probably wouldn’t be as focused on the special mission Jesus gave him. So it would make sense the creator took that desire away from him. And Paul calls it a gift in 1 Corinthians 7.
Hebrews 4:14-16
I’ll give you that, but when you state that some men were created for monogamy and some created for polygyny, where do you find that in scripture?
I do believe the majority of men were created for polygamy - to be fruitful and multiply. It’s a small pool size that prefer no wives or just one.
Not actually correct I was put forward to be a priest in the Celtic Catholic church and the Greek Orthodox church and that is not the case I can tell you first hand that it is not a hard and fast pre requisite. I didn't go through seminary but was presented by two bishops for the office so that may be the difference.
You don’t know what fornication is. It’s not a single sin, it’s the totality of the sexual Laws. When we’re told to abstain from fornication it doesn’t mean that we can’t have sec with the church and the government’s blessing. That would mean every other sexual sin could be tolerated in the assembly.
I have to disagree strongly with this! Obviously, the husband who has divorced his wife need not divorce his new wife, but Deut 24:1-4 explicitly forbids the wife who was divorced from returning to her first husband, and Jeremiah speaks of this scenario and says that if this were to occur, the land would be polluted.
My mother did just that, and she thought about remarriage, but remained single and celibate. She took Paul's writings on the topic seriously. When the husband grants his wife the Bill of Divorce, Jesus taught that except in the case of porneia, he causes her to commit adultery. So marrying the divorced woman, is biblically considered adultery, but the responsibility for the adultery occurring appears to be placed on the husband who granted her the Bill of Divorce. I don't see any difference in putting away with or without this Bill of Divorce, because this is contrasted with the first part of Matthew 5:31, where Jesus said "You have heard it was said that whoever puts away his wife must give her a Bill of Divorce, but I say unto you...". This whole argument that Jesus was saying that the man can put away his wife as long as he gives her the Bill of Divorce, seems to ignore the first part of that verse!
I commend your mother and appreciate your point of view. What is your insight for a woman whose husband has abdicated his throne, i.e. abandoned her as if he ceased to exist?
It’s been explained numerous times, putting away isn’t a divorce.
If she remarries, he is held responsible for her committing adultery.
My understanding, too, which relates to other threads and comments here dealing with covering and reproach.
putting away is separating, with or without the Bill of Divorce. Jesus was saying that the Bill of Divorce doesn't make it right. The only allowable reason for divorce, is porneia.