-
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.
seeking you thoughts
- Thread starter Aussies
- Start date
Interesting post Aussies, I hadn't linked monogamy that far back to OT pagan deities.
Maybe you could do a separate thread on that later? We know from scripture that the ancient world spreading out from Noah uniformly practised polygamy and respected other men's wives. Abraham feared for his life because he thought a man coveting Sarah would kill him to get her - no consideration of divorce there! Same "morality" as David exhibited 1000 years later: divorce was unthinkable in the ancient world, better just to kill the husband.
Later scripture informs us the Babylonians and Persians practised polygamy, but is silent about Greece and Rome, so does not contradict what anthropologists are keen to tell us. So every believer can agree this contrast:
the Divine Creator made male and female differently and we believe the righteous God who gave the law to Moses which commanded polygamy:
(Rom 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.)
By contrast, the law of monogamy was introduced by lecherous rulers who only wanted the commitment of looking after one sexual partner and the children that by their own laws they considered legitimate.
After I had first removed the "scriptural" arguments prior to AD70, I might as a
second stage try to take out the assumed "moral high ground" that monogamists think they stand on before letting them move on to a
third stage where they attempt to prove monogamy from what Paul wrote. Broken homes, and abandoned women and children are all part of the damage that is caused by legally enforced monogamy.
There is no sex without responsibility in the Bible, but human laws against polygamy are designed to facilitate exactly that.
The reason for the second stage (above) is that I don't think that there is enough strength left in any argument from the epistles after AD70 (the third stage) to counter what was done under the Melchisedek priesthood in Abraham's day or later under the law of Moses. Jesus didn't didn't change marriage in the Gospels and it was the risen Christ who taught Paul the Gospel that he preached
Gal 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
Gal 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
So for me the monogamy-polygamy argument is all about the epistles, but here Paul was guiding the early Christians who had enough problems and persecutions in the monogamy-only Roman world without the leaders of the ecclesias having more than one wife!
Maybe you could do a separate thread on that later? We know from scripture that the ancient world spreading out from Noah uniformly practised polygamy and respected other men's wives. Abraham feared for his life because he thought a man coveting Sarah would kill him to get her - no consideration of divorce there! Same "morality" as David exhibited 1000 years later: divorce was unthinkable in the ancient world, better just to kill the husband.
Later scripture informs us the Babylonians and Persians practised polygamy, but is silent about Greece and Rome, so does not contradict what anthropologists are keen to tell us. So every believer can agree this contrast:
the Divine Creator made male and female differently and we believe the righteous God who gave the law to Moses which commanded polygamy:
(Rom 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.)
By contrast, the law of monogamy was introduced by lecherous rulers who only wanted the commitment of looking after one sexual partner and the children that by their own laws they considered legitimate.
After I had first removed the "scriptural" arguments prior to AD70, I might as a
second stage try to take out the assumed "moral high ground" that monogamists think they stand on before letting them move on to a
third stage where they attempt to prove monogamy from what Paul wrote. Broken homes, and abandoned women and children are all part of the damage that is caused by legally enforced monogamy.
There is no sex without responsibility in the Bible, but human laws against polygamy are designed to facilitate exactly that.
The reason for the second stage (above) is that I don't think that there is enough strength left in any argument from the epistles after AD70 (the third stage) to counter what was done under the Melchisedek priesthood in Abraham's day or later under the law of Moses. Jesus didn't didn't change marriage in the Gospels and it was the risen Christ who taught Paul the Gospel that he preached
Gal 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
Gal 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
So for me the monogamy-polygamy argument is all about the epistles, but here Paul was guiding the early Christians who had enough problems and persecutions in the monogamy-only Roman world without the leaders of the ecclesias having more than one wife!
Just to be clear with what I am saying, it is true that Juno (queen of heaven) and Jupiter (a Baal god) had their foundation before the time of Jeremiah and we know that he directly referred to the queen of heaven. The main point though is that both of these gods were the roman gods of marriage in the "1st CE". Thus they were being worshiped by the Romans when Christ and the apostles walked the earth. When that is understood the entire argument changes. It is due to the worship of the Romans toward these two that the Roman religious doctrine required monogamy and rejected polygamy and concubinage, but allowed for divorce (for both husband and wife for any reason) temple prostitution along with many sexual freedoms.
I believe that this is not just about one form of the marital union (polygamy) but about worship.
Think about it, if God had to come into line with these two pagan gods, gods that he had always taken a stand against and thus make polygamy and concubinage a matter of sin and only accept monogamy, thus changing the standards as set out in both the law and the customs of their forefathers (Acts 24:14 ), then YHWH would become a vassal god as he would be under the direction of the superior (Baal) god Jupiter. If that's not absolutely offensive to any worshiper of God then nothing is.
With just a little thought this teaching as presented by Christendom is the most God dishonoring teaching that has ever been perpetrated against the Christian church. It has only been able to continue due to the self-righteous attitude of Christendom in seeking a "morally higher" standard than polygamy.
Just to illustrate my point; If God allowed us to walk down a three lane road (concubinage, polygamy, monogamy) and another god required that we reject two of those three lanes and only accept monogamy, If we still stayed on the same road but only walked in the one lane and criticized any who dare to walk in the other two lanes, then who is it that we actually worship?
I'm was not under the impression that this changed. The Pharisees brought it up to him. It may have fallen out of favor. Or even outlawed by Romans.
When he said I haven't come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. "Fulfill" is to bring to highest expression.
So if there was a change, it went from just biological brothers to brethren.
In other words, this widow should not be single among you.
Mat 26:53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?
Mat 26:54 But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?
Mat 26:55 In that same hour said Jesus to the multitudes, Are ye come out as against a thief with swords and staves for to take me? I sat daily with you teaching in the temple, and ye laid no hold on me.
Mat 26:56 But ALL this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled.
So my understanding, is that "all" was "fulfilled" at the crucifixion when Christ said "It is finished" and the veil of the temple was ripped in two by angelic power, signifying that at that point the law had "waxed old" (crucifixion) and was ready to pass away (AD70 future to when Paul wrote).
Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
Christ entered heaven as our priest after the order of Melchisedek and the change of the priesthood from the Levitical to the Melchisedek order necessitated a change of the law at that point.
Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
and that no change of the law (polygamy, widows or anything else) could occur before Christ had fullfilled ALL the law by subnitting to the crucifixion.
Gal 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
Gal 3:14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
Mat 26:54 But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?
Mat 26:55 In that same hour said Jesus to the multitudes, Are ye come out as against a thief with swords and staves for to take me? I sat daily with you teaching in the temple, and ye laid no hold on me.
Mat 26:56 But ALL this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled.
So my understanding, is that "all" was "fulfilled" at the crucifixion when Christ said "It is finished" and the veil of the temple was ripped in two by angelic power, signifying that at that point the law had "waxed old" (crucifixion) and was ready to pass away (AD70 future to when Paul wrote).
Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
Christ entered heaven as our priest after the order of Melchisedek and the change of the priesthood from the Levitical to the Melchisedek order necessitated a change of the law at that point.
Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
and that no change of the law (polygamy, widows or anything else) could occur before Christ had fullfilled ALL the law by subnitting to the crucifixion.
Gal 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
Gal 3:14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
Yes, polygyny is never prohibited in Scripture, but can be required (at least three obvious such cases; some are above, others an “exercise for the reader”.)
YHVH never gives instruction for how to do something He prohibits. (For example, no word about wearing a condom when “a man lies with a man as with a woman” to avoid a plague.)
YHVH calls Himself (through two or more witnesses) the Husband of more than one 'wife' – and the picture of two houses, both guilty of idolatry/adultery/whoring and sent into an exile that still persists, cannot be understood without an acknowledgment of His Truth, and finally, EVERY example of relationship between Yah and mankind is of the “one-to-many” type: Creator, King, Master, Savior, and, yes, Husband.
Here's an article I wrote on the topic many years back:
Hit Me With Your Best Shot
People who first find the Biblical Families website often ask a number of similar, and of course imminently reasonable, questions:
"Does Scripture REALLY say it's OK for a man to have more than one wife? How can this be true?"
"Why would anyone - man or woman - want to do so?"
And even, "Why does it matter?"
There are explicitly Scriptural answers (as ultimately, this is what really matters anyway) to each of those, of course. You will find them here. But there are also practical answers, which similarly seem to boil down to just what He said: if you are obedient, you will be blessed, but those who sow rebellion will reap curses. For example, even those who think, "well, polygyny will NEVER be for me", might at least recognize that a society where Biblical patriarchs take additional wives can't help but be superior to one marked by record numbers of single mothers and fatherless children, just as the Bible teaches!
Over the years, it has become clear to me just how ENTIRELY consistent Scripture is on the issue of marriage. That consistency, of course, includes the fact that a man may make more than one marriage Covenant. To confirm all of the many references and teachings ultimately requires a book; there are some good ones linked from this site as well, along with (eventually!) a full exegesis of the topic from Scripture.
But it is also to be expected that Believers will have their own "favorite" arguments. My own concept of that hit-me-with-your-best-shot, favorite has matured over time.
For example, I was once impressed by a simple, logical response to the Biblical question, when I heard it put this way:
"You can't show me ANYHWERE in Scripture where polygyny is prohibited, but I CAN show you where it can be required!" *
Even though I later realized that there was more than ONE such potential "requirement" in Scripture, I have now come to conclude that there are even more compelling proofs.
For example, isn't God CONSISTENT? Doesn't He call "sin", sin, and ultimately even say, "have no fellowship" with such? After all, He doesn't ever command "thou shalt NOT" do something like murder, theft, or adultery, and then give rules or procedures for how to do it anyway, does He? **
But I think that the most important reason for each of us to understand the whole Truth of what God REALLY Wrote about marriage, ALL of it, is because to do otherwise about something SO important in His Word is an attempt to utterly ignore and even deny the character of God Himself!
Not once, but at least TWICE, God specifically refers to Himself as the Husband of two wives: both the prophets Ezekiel and Jeremiah (in chapters 3, and 23, respectively) tell a strikingly-similar story, whether the polygyny reference is to the nations of Israel and Judea, or to Jerusalem and Samaria.
Can God sin? And does He not say He is the same yesterday, and tomorrow?
How can we claim to want to "know Him", when we deny obvious Truths He teaches us about Himself?
Speaking of which, our Redeemer Himself clearly confirms that Truth again, when -- far from condemning polygyny -- He tells the "Parable of the Ten Virgins"! When the Bridegroom comes, He takes those five who are prepared with the "oil" of the Holy Spirit in to the wedding with Him.
I can't help but think that it is important for those who claim to believe in Him, and who claim to eventually want to be "Brides of Christ" (and, yes, that plural is deliberate, and important) that they must then also want to truly "know Him". What could be more important?
Every significant relationship that God describes in His Word is ultimately what mathematicians would call of a "one-to-many" type:
One King has multiple subjects;
One Master has multiple servants;
and one Husband will have multiple brides.
Isn't it a bit presumptuous for a subject of the King to deny that truth? Or for one who claims to be His "bondservant" to tell the Master how many others he may have? Or for us to say to Him, "there can be only one", and "you will have no other beside me?"
Why else does He so often teach in prophecy of TWO houses, TWO sticks, multiple "branches" (including those "grafted in"), FIVE prepared brides, seven letters to SEVEN churches, and TWELVE tribes? Like the "marriage supper of the Lamb", they ALL speak of an ending where we are many****, but He is our One King, Master, and Bridegroom. Shouldn't it be obvious that He uses the many examples of polygyny in the Bible to teach lessons about love, provision, covering, and family that a "Monogamy Only" tradition not only ignores, but denies?
[And, yes - throughout history almost every denomination, from the smallest assemblies to a Church which ruled empires and armies, has wanted to claim the title "Universal", or "One True Church", and declare Itself the Sole Rightful Bride of Christ. Others need not apply. Wars have been fought over less.]
That should be enough. Those who want to truly "know Him", much less potentially be invited to enter the wedding feast as one of His brides, should be willing to do so on His terms, and not ours. Anything less is a denial of His Truth, and His character, as Written.
But, I have observed something else over several years of teaching about this topic as well. "Monogamy Only" has become such an "idol" -- a doctrine based solely on the traditions of men -- that, like all sacred cows, it is put away only reluctantly. At least one more question always seems to follow. "Well, OK, polygyny may be PERMITTED - maybe He reluctantly allows it. -- but, but -- it's NOT God's Best, or 'not His original plan!' "
"And....what about Adam*** and Eve?"
The answer remains the same, though - doesn't it?
Did God not "know the end from the beginning"? Did He not recognize -- indeed, isn't that the whole message in His story, the "Rock" upon which all else is built -- that "God would send Himself a Lamb for the sacrifice"?
There are many other such responses as well. But they all have a similar theme, whether it is pointing out the hubris of those who would put themselves in His place, and "judge" His Word, or simply deny the Truth of what He has Written, and that it is a unified whole:
"The Law ["Torah"] of the Lord is perfect..." (Psalm 19:7 )
We are not to "add to" it, nor "subtract from" His teaching (Deut. 4:2, 12:32, etc.). And that includes "adding to" His teaching about marriage things that He did not put in there! (One could even observe that some might call such "forbidding to marry" a very bad thing. See I Timothy 4:1-3!)
Finally, read Isaiah 4:1-3. Can it really be that this time when "seven women will take hold of one man" for marriage, and in repentance, would hold such a promise, without that, too, being a part of His plan, and a blessing?
The trouble with "adding to" His Word a "doctrine of men" based ultimately on a pagan tradition, is that it denies the essential consistent message of His Word. "Let God be true, and every man a liar." Our advice to those who honestly seek to "know Him" is to remain teachable, and be like the Bereans of Acts 17:11. Search out the Scriptures for yourself, and see if these things be True.
And may God bless you in your study.
Mark
----------------
* The "Law of the Levirate"; Deut. 25:5-10, is commonly cited.
But there is also I Cor. 7:10-11! Think about the fact that the departed wife may not remarry, but her abandoned husband can. When she repents and returns...
Dubious translations, such as the “husband of a wife” of I Tim. 3:2 and Titus 1:6, have been addressed in many places.
** Deut. 21:15 and Exodus 21:10, obviously. "If a man has two wives," or "If he takes another wife," can hardly be denied.
But the real irony is that the 'church' which gets so worked up about calling something which God permits "wrong" will then turn around and eventually accept something (like State-licensed "marriage", and eventually homosexual 'civil unions') which He flat-out prohibits.
Perhaps that shows the power of mammon, or why He so consistently advises us to be careful to "choose this day Whom you will serve". Maybe it's even why He uses the images of "harlotry" and "whoredom" to describe what "serving mammon" has ultimately always done when (another Jesus, which we have not preached, "least in the kingdom")
*** Do you mean the presumed "Original Monogamist" - the Man By Whom Sin Entered the World? I find it more than a bit humorous that people who talk in other contexts about "first use" and "original plan", while claiming that polygyny is often portrayed "negatively" in the Bible, will then ignore the implications of the most famously failed marriage in all history being Monogamous!
**** Ultimately, we are to be echad in Him, of course from the Hebrew word which means 'one'. His title, 'Elohim' is a unity, but the word itself is in fact plural.
@Aussies, there was a guy in Europe back in the '90s predicting that biblical polygamy would become a huge shibboleth for the church, dividing true church from posers. At the time I was reluctant to go that far with it, but over time I have come to the conclusion that it's a real deal. I'm no man's judge, but a person's relationship to the truth of what the bible plainly teaches and doesn't teach about marriage makes a pretty good proxy for assessing what that person's relationship is to the witness of the scriptures generally, the voice of the Spirit, and the traditions of men.
thanks FH2, great to find so many people to talk to!
@torahlovesalvation - what is replacement theology?
@torahlovesalvation - what is replacement theology?
Yes. On the deep end of the pool, in the dead of winter, without a lifeguard.
Very well stated!
The mystery of iniquity exalts self above the knowledge of God, and deludes men into thinking they are God.
That is the real "slippery slope" plaguing the world today, and effecting far too many believers.
Another point I might make would be that YHWH uses strong language in calling male homosexuality an abomination. He never uses that word, or any other word to condemn polygyny, but according to proverbs 17:15 He does call one that would condemn a just man living polygyny an abomination.
Last edited:
@Quartus, we have a wide range of people on this forum from many theological perspectives. Some take the law being "fulfilled" to mean it is done away with, others take it to mean that it was truly and completely expressed and is still valid. We have both mainstream Protestant and Torah-observant people here. Just a heads-up, because it means your statements regarding the law being done away with are actually a lot more controversial than you may have realised. This is a separate issue, see here for a discussion on it.
I don't want to say what I think the answer is, or get into a long discussion about it. I just want to point out that the position you are assuming is not necessarily the one that everyone else will hold. And that's ok. We don't all have to agree on this issue to come to the same conclusion on plural marriage, nor does an argument for plural marriage have to have this issue at the heart of it (potentially side-tracking the discussion in a completely different direction).
Paul on the other hand teaches that a widow is free to marry a believer. Paul is talking about all widows, not just the tiny subset of widows whom levirate marriage applies to. This is not a contradiction at all, but a completely separate instruction. It just means that all widows are free to marry believers - and a widow to whom levirate marriage applies to is still free to marry her husband's brother provided he is a believer.
In the same way, if I tell one of my children to "read Gulliver's Travels", and then tell all of my children "read a book", I haven't changed my instruction at all. I haven't told the first child he can read whatever he likes, I still want him to read the specific book I originally instructed. That's still a book, there's no contradiction with the second instruction. I want all of the kids to read a book, and one to read a specific book. I've just added a more general instruction to a wider set of people that does not contradict my earlier specific instruction to one individual.
This is very true. It means that regardless of what we believe about the status of the law today, Jesus cannot be argued to have opposed polygamy. Whether or not a believer today must do so, He obeyed Torah, and his teachings were consistent with Torah. Torah did not forbid polygamy, and neither did He.
Here's where it gets more controversial. Yes,we are told the law changed. But we are not told it was abolished, just that something changed. What changed? v13-14 talks about the tribe the high priest comes from, while v27 refers to specific daily sacrifices that are no longer required with Christ as High Priest. Does Hebrews 7:12 mean that the entire law changed, including marriage laws, or is it simply speaking about specific laws such as the laws regarding the High Priest that are actually referred to in that chapter?
I don't want to say what I think the answer is, or get into a long discussion about it. I just want to point out that the position you are assuming is not necessarily the one that everyone else will hold. And that's ok. We don't all have to agree on this issue to come to the same conclusion on plural marriage, nor does an argument for plural marriage have to have this issue at the heart of it (potentially side-tracking the discussion in a completely different direction).
Levirate marriage is a very specific situation that actually would not apply to most widows. When a brother died leaving a wife who had no children, his brother was to marry her specifically in order to give her a son to inherit the first brother's assets. Furthermore the widow was not commanded to marry the brother, but the brother was commanded to marry the widow - there was no restriction on who the widow could marry if the brother refused to carry out his duty. Most widows already have kids, and levirate marriage wouldn't apply to them at all.
Paul on the other hand teaches that a widow is free to marry a believer. Paul is talking about all widows, not just the tiny subset of widows whom levirate marriage applies to. This is not a contradiction at all, but a completely separate instruction. It just means that all widows are free to marry believers - and a widow to whom levirate marriage applies to is still free to marry her husband's brother provided he is a believer.
In the same way, if I tell one of my children to "read Gulliver's Travels", and then tell all of my children "read a book", I haven't changed my instruction at all. I haven't told the first child he can read whatever he likes, I still want him to read the specific book I originally instructed. That's still a book, there's no contradiction with the second instruction. I want all of the kids to read a book, and one to read a specific book. I've just added a more general instruction to a wider set of people that does not contradict my earlier specific instruction to one individual.
Agreed, Samuel, case in point:
If “all” was finished in the sense of the English word, as opposed to a better translation like “revealed,” then “heaven and earth” would have already 'passed away', as He said, and there wouldn't be any need for His return to do anything else, like regather the lost tribes still in exile, reign on "earth," or render any judgment with the sword of His Word, etc, etc.
And besides, Deuteronomy 13 says that would disqualify Him as Messiah, or even a real prophet.
Again, read the “and” syntax, and follow the logic. “ALL” is not fulfilled UNTIL “heaven and earth” pass. They're still here.
or is it just a bad translation?
...since 'instruction' is a broader term than "law", especially when men tend to conflate His instruction with their often incomplete understanding of it.
There was, after all, a precedent for a broader priesthood than Levites, of which the cohenim were a subset anyway, long before there was a tribe of Levi.
IOW, some of us would simply contend that the same fallen men who decreed a change in the law of marriage (and aren't even CLOSE to being done yet!) also decreed that some guy (arguably, "another jesus, whom we have NOT preached") did away with His "law" too.
If “all” was finished in the sense of the English word, as opposed to a better translation like “revealed,” then “heaven and earth” would have already 'passed away', as He said, and there wouldn't be any need for His return to do anything else, like regather the lost tribes still in exile, reign on "earth," or render any judgment with the sword of His Word, etc, etc.
And besides, Deuteronomy 13 says that would disqualify Him as Messiah, or even a real prophet.
Again, read the “and” syntax, and follow the logic. “ALL” is not fulfilled UNTIL “heaven and earth” pass. They're still here.
or is it just a bad translation?
...since 'instruction' is a broader term than "law", especially when men tend to conflate His instruction with their often incomplete understanding of it.
There was, after all, a precedent for a broader priesthood than Levites, of which the cohenim were a subset anyway, long before there was a tribe of Levi.
IOW, some of us would simply contend that the same fallen men who decreed a change in the law of marriage (and aren't even CLOSE to being done yet!) also decreed that some guy (arguably, "another jesus, whom we have NOT preached") did away with His "law" too.
Last edited:
OK thanks for the explanations and apologies if some things I said could be taken the wrong way, I will try and get my head round some other ideas. I'm in the UK, maybe not as familiar with some views as you might expect in the US.
Better to assume I know nothing of theology, I haven't studied it, just the Old and New Testaments and happy to discuss from those.
I have another read through all the points again later, but I certainly don't mean to say that the law was done away with completely, but (in common with every Christian who doesn't offer all the animal sacrifices) amended in some respects but not others: priesthood being one of them (Ps 110, as detailed in Heb 7-8). but no amendments possible to polygamy before the crucifixion, I will stick with that one!
Christ is a great finisher -
the author and finisher of our faith (Heb 12:2)
Joh_17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
Joh_19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.
My understanding of what was finished is underlined - his work on earth was finished, and the law was fulfilled (though obviously not all prophecy was fulfilled).
heavens and earth - my understanding is that here they refer to the Jewish nation (he was speaking to Jews and expounding Daniel's prophecies (Matt 24:15) - compare
Isa 1:2 Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth: for the LORD hath spoken...
Isa 1:9 Except the LORD of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah.
Isa 1:10 Hear the word of the LORD, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah.
or how come Jacob was quite clear what Joseph's dream was all about?
Gen 37:9 And he dreamed yet another dream, and told it his brethren, and said, Behold, I have dreamed a dream more; and, behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance to me.
Gen 37:10 And he told it to his father, and to his brethren: and his father rebuked him, and said unto him, What is this dream that thou hast dreamed? Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down ourselves to thee to the earth?
Gen 37:11 And his brethren envied him; but his father observed the saying.
so also
Mar 13:30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.
Mar 13:31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.
Luk 21:32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.
Luk 21:33 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.
taking a generation as 40 years, AD70 is literally within that time frame.
Better to assume I know nothing of theology, I haven't studied it, just the Old and New Testaments and happy to discuss from those.
I have another read through all the points again later, but I certainly don't mean to say that the law was done away with completely, but (in common with every Christian who doesn't offer all the animal sacrifices) amended in some respects but not others: priesthood being one of them (Ps 110, as detailed in Heb 7-8). but no amendments possible to polygamy before the crucifixion, I will stick with that one!
Christ is a great finisher -
the author and finisher of our faith (Heb 12:2)
Joh_17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
Joh_19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.
My understanding of what was finished is underlined - his work on earth was finished, and the law was fulfilled (though obviously not all prophecy was fulfilled).
heavens and earth - my understanding is that here they refer to the Jewish nation (he was speaking to Jews and expounding Daniel's prophecies (Matt 24:15) - compare
Isa 1:2 Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth: for the LORD hath spoken...
Isa 1:9 Except the LORD of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah.
Isa 1:10 Hear the word of the LORD, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah.
or how come Jacob was quite clear what Joseph's dream was all about?
Gen 37:9 And he dreamed yet another dream, and told it his brethren, and said, Behold, I have dreamed a dream more; and, behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance to me.
Gen 37:10 And he told it to his father, and to his brethren: and his father rebuked him, and said unto him, What is this dream that thou hast dreamed? Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down ourselves to thee to the earth?
Gen 37:11 And his brethren envied him; but his father observed the saying.
so also
Mar 13:30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.
Mar 13:31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.
Luk 21:32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.
Luk 21:33 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.
taking a generation as 40 years, AD70 is literally within that time frame.
First, I want to say that I think it's awesome you are on this forum and engaging in dialogue. You are going to find MANY posts on here challenging what you have assumed is settled doctrine, and many posters on here willing to challenge you even further. But, as long as you maintain an open attitude, and a cheerful spirit willing to be challenged, you will get on just fine. See the "statement of faith" page on the website. The Apostle' Creed is pretty short and direct. It specifies the most basic of orthodox Christian thought. Judging by your posts so far, it seems you agree with it. Anything else after that, and this forum allows for exploration, but your points will be best received if they are backed by solid, biblical references (which you are already doing). Unlike other forums, the mods here do a good job of keeping things from getting too heated, but most of us self moderate.
Now, to your post:
*Note: this is my opinion.
Going back to jots and tittles, I don't see how pre crucifixion or post crucifixion changes anything regarding the Law. Yes, the ultimate sacrifice was made "once for all" but it was done "according to the scripture".
Post crucifixion still necessitates sacrifice. God requires a sacrifice. Without shedding if blood there is no remission. The only "change" to the Law is that the sacrifice of Christ remains effectual in perpetuity, but, still, a sacrifice is required. Since we can't physically sacrifice Christ again, the way we make his sacrifice applicable is to ask God to make it applicable (repentance...getting saved...converting...coming to faith...whatever term you choose to use). God cannot change. Even more, we are told that we are to become living sacrifices ourselves.
I realize there are changes in circumstances that might see a change in the "letter of the law", but never it's spirit, or overriding message of holiness. Laws about how to maintain a field or how to treat a slave are not directly applicable to a non slave owning accountant, but the spirit of conservancy, and treatment of employees still stands.
So, once again, my personal approach to scripture is that there needs to be no distinction made in scripture to pre crucifixion , gospels, post crucifixion, Paul, the epistles, post 70ad, etc. Its all scripture, and as such cannot contradict. It's a distinction that the RCC, LDS and other movements make, and I don't want to go there.
This is just a brief explanation of my recollections and laziness to not find links
Replacement theology is most closely associated with, but not limited to, Reformed/Protestant churches. It's a doctrine that holds that in the NT/Church age (post crucifixion/Pentecost) the "Church" has replaced Israel. Any prophecies or references to the nation of Israel in OT are for the Church, not the Israelites. For the most part, many adherents see the Law in contradiction with Grace, and as such, view it with suspicion.
Did I get it right? Someone correct me and my laziness not to find links.
Whenever we read scripture we interpret it based on the pre-existing theological perspective we have grown up with. We might not know the technical labels theologians use to describe that theology - nevertheless we still believe it. To pick a really simple example, most Christians will read a statement like "let us make man in our image" and interpret the "us" to be referring to the trinity, because we have been always taught that. They will then use this verse as a proof-text for the trinity. But the trinity is an extra-biblical theological viewpoint, and not the only viewpoint consistent with such statements (e.g. binitarianism, father + son = God, spirit is an impersonal force, is equally consistent with this particular passage).
So it is very good to study scripture and get our understanding directly from it. But we must recognise that we do read it through the glasses of theology, even if we've never studied theology, and what we think scripture means may not be what scripture actually says (in that case "God is plural"), but rather what we have always been told it means (in that case, "God is three"). We do this automatically without even knowing we are doing so.
So definitely keep studying scripture. But I would encourage you to go a step deeper, and consider things like "what do I actually believe from my upbringing?". "What other views exist?". "What does that word actually mean in Hebrew / Greek?". "Where else is it used?". "I think this passage proves one viewpoint - but there are people who believe the opposite, how do they interpret this passage? Could I have missed something I should be considering?".
I am not criticising you, I think it is great how you're bringing things back to scripture. I am just trying to point out that you know a lot more theology than you may realise!
@Mojo
thanks for your clarification about replacement theology . I certainly couldn't agree with the definition you gave. I believe
Luk 1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David
Luk 1:33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
On earth, In Israel. From Jerusalem.
all literal except "for ever" and "no end" are in the Greek sense rather than the English, to the extent explained and required by the Kingdom of Christ ultimately becoming the Kingdom of God:
1Co 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
thanks for your clarification about replacement theology . I certainly couldn't agree with the definition you gave. I believe
Luk 1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David
Luk 1:33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
On earth, In Israel. From Jerusalem.
all literal except "for ever" and "no end" are in the Greek sense rather than the English, to the extent explained and required by the Kingdom of Christ ultimately becoming the Kingdom of God:
1Co 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
Here is my perspective, with references, for consideration.
I think asking someone if they believe in replacement theology is a lot like asking a man if he has stopped beating his wife.
If he says yes, it implies he used to, and if he says no, it implies he still is.
The way that particular doctrine is worded means you are partly wrong either way. To say you believe the church "replaced" Israel, implies that they were left out of the church, and to say the church did not "replace" Israel, is also to imply that Israel is elsewhere.
Scripture says YHWH would make the new covenant with both houses of Israel (Jer 31:31-34) to me this is all the proof that is needed, but there is a bunch more scripture that supports that this is what happened, including Hosea ch 1, Ezekiel 37:20, Isaiah 62:2 which prophesies a new name for God's servants, and Isaiah 65:15 which also mentions that new name with some other interesting stuff connected to it. There is also the dry bones in Ezekiel, and the interpretation of the vision, and many new testament references connecting the "Gentiles" to those prophesies like Romans 9:25 And 10:19. When the ten tribes were cast out scripture said that in three score and five years Ephraim would be broken, and be not a people. ( Isaiah 7:8) this means that the people YHWH was speaking of in Deut. 32:21 (which verse Paul referenced in Romans 10:19) could easily be the foolish nation of Israel/Ephraim/Samaria.
Another point that connects the ten tribes to the gentiles is that the word itself implies a familial relationship, (from the Latin gentilus of the same gens clan or tribe) and the word it was translated from most frequently (Goy in Hebrew) was used by Jacob prophesying over Ephraim in Gen 48:19.
If Goy (often translated gentile) meant non Israelite, Jacob would be stating in this verse that his descendant (grandson) was going to father multitudes that were not Jacob's descendants. Does anyone think that was even possible?
There are many other places showing the way Goy was used, that prove beyond doubt that Goy could never mean non Israelite. Just grab a concordance and look down the list of references for the word Nation for number 1471
Don't read Strong's definition and assume it is right, check the context Goy is used in.
Excellent advice here!
It is as effective as rewriting the Scriptures to redefine terms, and it changes what people see dramatically.