Common retort:
“So then is God prompting bisexuality? The ecclesia is made up of both male and female”
-
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.
(In a Nutshell) Your Hermeneutical Approach
- Thread starter Mojo
- Start date
“So then is God prompting bisexuality? The ecclesia is made up of both male and female”
You’ve stoned your disobedient children?
Common reply: “So, seas run and mountains jump?”
Psalms 114 When Israel went out of Egypt,
The house of Jacob from a people of strange language, Judah became His sanctuary,
And Israel His dominion.
The sea saw it and fled;
Jordan turned back.
The mountains skipped like rams,
The little hills like lambs.
What ails you, O sea, that you fled?
O Jordan, that you turned back?
O mountains, that you skipped like rams?
O little hills, like lambs?
Tremble, O earth, at the presence of the Lord, At the presence of the God of Jacob,
Who turned the rock into a pool of water,
The flint into a fountain of waters.
Show me the verse that requires me to stone disobedient children.
When speaking with a typical Christian, I have to adopt their understanding of scripture somewhat in order to demonstrate to them a number of principles.
They all believe in the new covenant so I can start there. It establishes common belief and it is a truth that we can build upon.
Ask them if they know what the new covenant is and where it is defined in the bible. They generally speaking have NOT A CLUE. So, I take them to Hebrews. Hebrews because they have a misconception that the books from Matthew thru Revelation ARE the new covenant and they have confidence in those scriptures.
I read this to them.
Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
Heb 8:9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
Heb 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
I ask if they know where this is quoted from. I show them this prophecy of the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-34
Then I ask if they know who the two brides are that he is talking about marrying. Who is the House of Israel and the House of Judah?
I show them Exekiel 23 and explain how the two sisters were in Egypt and God brought them out via Moses. I show them Jeremiah chapters 3 and 4. This demonstrates that He married them at Mt. Sinai and now in Jeremiah he chose to divorce one of his two wives, the House of Israel.
I begin to tell them how in chapter 3 he cites the law that shows how that woman, the House of Israel was forbidden to come back to him and in the same breath says, return to me. By this point, it is clear that the new covenant is a marriage covenant.
We know that God cannot sin so I will show them how he loved her so much that he knew the only way for her to come back to him was for him to die breaking that marital tie. He would wrap himself in flesh and die on the cross for her sins (adultery) freeing her from the law of the husband as Paul speaks about in Romans 7:2
Through the process of this conversation, we are talking about Jesus having two wives the whole time. First in his first two marriages, then after he is resurrected, in his next two marriages.
The bible clearly teaches us that he is sinless and an example for us to live by. The whole of this story teaches us the story of our salvation and redemption and the truth of biblical families at the same time...
Shalom...
They all believe in the new covenant so I can start there. It establishes common belief and it is a truth that we can build upon.
Ask them if they know what the new covenant is and where it is defined in the bible. They generally speaking have NOT A CLUE. So, I take them to Hebrews. Hebrews because they have a misconception that the books from Matthew thru Revelation ARE the new covenant and they have confidence in those scriptures.
I read this to them.
Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
Heb 8:9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
Heb 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
I ask if they know where this is quoted from. I show them this prophecy of the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-34
Then I ask if they know who the two brides are that he is talking about marrying. Who is the House of Israel and the House of Judah?
I show them Exekiel 23 and explain how the two sisters were in Egypt and God brought them out via Moses. I show them Jeremiah chapters 3 and 4. This demonstrates that He married them at Mt. Sinai and now in Jeremiah he chose to divorce one of his two wives, the House of Israel.
I begin to tell them how in chapter 3 he cites the law that shows how that woman, the House of Israel was forbidden to come back to him and in the same breath says, return to me. By this point, it is clear that the new covenant is a marriage covenant.
We know that God cannot sin so I will show them how he loved her so much that he knew the only way for her to come back to him was for him to die breaking that marital tie. He would wrap himself in flesh and die on the cross for her sins (adultery) freeing her from the law of the husband as Paul speaks about in Romans 7:2
Through the process of this conversation, we are talking about Jesus having two wives the whole time. First in his first two marriages, then after he is resurrected, in his next two marriages.
The bible clearly teaches us that he is sinless and an example for us to live by. The whole of this story teaches us the story of our salvation and redemption and the truth of biblical families at the same time...
Shalom...
Ah, so you’re saying we shouldn’t use the metaphor of Christ and the assembly as prescriptive for christian marriages? Maybe we should just stick with the rules God already laid out in Scripture that directly pertain to human marriage.
Christ chose Abraham to begin a family with. If Christ were to marry individuals, then he would have married Abraham. Christ does NOT marry individuals, he marries Nations. So, from Abraham, he built his two nations that he would then take as wives.
We, individuals, are called all over scriptures, the "children of God"....
We are his offspring, the progeny he is promised to have.
I point out to them that this particular "red herring" is actually anti-Biblical "Atheist Argument 101" --
among the 'Torah-literate,' and dating back centuries, that particular process is called the mishpat, or judgment, "that has NEVER been done."
There is no record in history of any son actually being stoned. But LOTS of 'em have been threatened with it...
It is intended as a deterrent.
Most people who follow the Ten Commandments don't know what they are! Cite all ten! I say. And they cant.
It’s ok, not everyone gets the point.
What do you mean?
I wasn’t making an argument, I was illustrating the illogical nature of the “Christ-only-has-one-bride-so-we-should-too” argument.
It is not my mission in life to justify myself to everyone.
A lot of that did literally happen, maybe all of it. I see the parting of the sea. Water from rocks, earthquakes and all the stuff. I’m not sure why you think I can’t take this passage literally.
But hyper-literalism also requires accepting how different passages of scripture is wordy themselves. I wouldn’t be being literal if I treated the poetry of praise and worship like the actual historical accounts.
I’m not saying anything. I’m merely asking questions in the form that many skeptics of the validity of polygyny might have. I’m trying to force all of us to refine our message.
We often jump halfway into the story when speaking with people of our beliefs. We make assumptions about what people are willing to accept based on us already having accepted and believing.
But many fundamental and devout Christians can quote them. They reject polygyny. What’s your reply after that?
So then not all scripture is meant to be hyper literal? Who defines the qualifications?
Are they just naturally self evident?
But the point was that Christ marries the ecclesia plural (members of the body) not just that he has more than one bride.
Maybe not you individually, but offering that child up to the elders and men of the city.
Deuteronomy 21:18-21
“If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard. Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear.”
Last edited: