Perhaps God will once again endorse mankind's polygamy? Are there not cultures even today where Christians have multiple wives?
There exists good evidence that we are not multiplying the nation (Christianity) today.
In spite of the conversions into the faith, birth rate is the primary way that the church grows (or shrinks) over time.
__________________ "It is inhumane, in my opinion, to force people who have a genuine medical need for coffee to wait in line behind people who apparently view it as some kind of recreational activity." Dave Barry 2005
I am a firm believer in the Old Paths
Articles on such subjects as "The New Birth," will be accepted, whether they teach that the new birth takes place before baptism in water and Spirit, or that the new birth consists of baptism of water and Spirit. - THE PENTECOSTAL HERALD Dec. 1945
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves
Careful now... The last time this was discussed I think a certain married "Dr." started hitting on some AFF ladies! LOL!
__________________ "It is inhumane, in my opinion, to force people who have a genuine medical need for coffee to wait in line behind people who apparently view it as some kind of recreational activity." Dave Barry 2005
I am a firm believer in the Old Paths
Articles on such subjects as "The New Birth," will be accepted, whether they teach that the new birth takes place before baptism in water and Spirit, or that the new birth consists of baptism of water and Spirit. - THE PENTECOSTAL HERALD Dec. 1945
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves
Perhaps God will once again endorse mankind's polygamy? Are there not cultures even today where Christians have multiple wives?
There exists good evidence that we are not multiplying the nation (Christianity) today.
In spite of the conversions into the faith, birth rate is the primary way that the church grows (or shrinks) over time.
Since this thread's title is "Love and Sex God's Way", I think we should dig deeper into the sex ethics of the Bible. Biblical sex ethics are both strange and troubling. Let's look at a statement made in the first post,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pastor Keith
Within the pages of scripture you have various sexual sins being committed, polygamy, love triangles, disobedient marriages between unbelievers and believers. Homosexuality, incest, loveless marriages, divorces, rape, son sleeping with stepmother, adultery, false rape allegations, etc.
Here Pastor Keith lists the biblical sins as he understands them. We've discussed polygamy. It's evident that if studied out, polygamy wasn't a "sin" per se. It was often commanded by God, and multiple wives were often seen as a blessing given by God. So polygamy can't really be seen as a "sin" of Scripture.
If you don't mind, we can progress through this list. For example the next item listed is "love triangles". LOL Here I think "concubinage" can be addressed. But before we address "concubinage" from a biblical perspective we have to understand what it is. Here are some definitions,
"A female slave responsible for bearing children to insure continuation of the family name. Access to the royal concubines was viewed as a legal claim to the throne, hence they were accorded special protection. Concubines were viewed with affection by their husbands and any assault on their well being might be cause for vengence. Although frequently their function was to provide sexual gratification ("man's delight"Eccl. 2:8) they might also be given considerable responsibility." - Eerdman's Bible Dictionary, pg. 233 f.
"The difference between a wife and a concubine was less marked among the Hebrews than among us, owing to the lack of moral stigma. With regard to children of wife and concubine, there was no such difference as our "illegitimacy" implies. The state of concubinage is assumed and provided for by the law of Moses. A concubine could generally be either (1) a Hebrew girl bought of her father; (2) a Gentile captive taken in war; (3) a foreign slave bought; or (4) a Canaanite woman, bond or free. Free Hebrew women might also become concubines. To seize on royal concubines for his use was often a usurper's first act. Such was probably the intent of Abner's act, 2 Sam. 3:7, similarly the request on behalf of Adonijah was construed. I Kg. 2:21-24." - Smith's Bible Dictionary, pg. 122 f.
Essentially a concubine is a lesser wife, a mistress if you will, that had legal rights issued her by the Law of God.
Let us see what the Bible actually says about concubinage.
Sarah asks Abraham to have sexual relations with Hagar. There is no hint of God's displeasure with either Sarah or Abraham, and no condemnation of what we might consider Abraham's "adultery". (Gen. 16:2)
Abraham had sons by several concubines, (Gen. 24:6). Inasmuch as Abraham is held forth to us as the premier example of faith and close relationship with God (e.g. Galatians and Hebrews 11) it is passing strange that God would not say something about his concubinage, in order to at least warn us, if concubinage is indeed a sin. Did God disapprove of this practice, and yet never hint at such displeasure to this great man of faith, whom He called his "friend"? Keturah is named as Abraham's concubine, (I Chron. 1:2-3).
Timna was concubine to Esau's son Eliphaz, (Gen. 36:12). We read that one who buys a female slave must be fair to her. If he takes "another woman" he may not neglect the first one. This "ordinance" is God's law, (Ex. 21:1, 8-10). This is essentially God's allowance for a man having more than one intimate partner.
Gideon had a concubine who bore Abimelech, (Jdg. 8:31). He was a valiant warrior, a faithful servant and he died without God ever rebuking him or correcting his concubinage.
There is also a story about a Levite that takes a concubine for himself. She leaves to play the harlot against him. He is called her "husband," (Jdg. 19:1-3).
Saul is married to Ahinoam, (I Kg. 14:50), and has a concubine named Rizpah, (2 Sam. 3:7).
David has ten concubines whom he leaves in charge of his house while fleeing Absalom, (2 Sam. 15:16). Absalom has intercourse with the ten concubines on the roof of the palace, in sight of all Israel, (2 Sam. 16:21,22). David isolates the ten concubines and has no more relations with them, (2 Sam. 20:3).
David grows old and cold, so his servants find a "beautiful young virgin," Abishag, to lie with him to keep him warm, (I Kg. 1:1-4). Why a "beautiful young virgin"? Obviously, it is the excitement that would increase the "heat" so David would be warm. She was to "service" David, or "to be familiar with" him in a sexual way, (Strongs #5532). The Septuagint renders it "to excite him". The natural body of even an extremely beautiful woman would provide no more physical "warmth" than any of the many wives and concubines David already had. And since David has so many women already, what difference does one more make? Abishag becomes his concubine. lol David had sons by several wives, "besides the sons of the concubines," (I Chron. 3:1-9).
As per custom, Solomon "inherited" all of David's wives and concubines, including Abishag, then proceeded to add hundreds more! Adonijah asks to have Abishag for wife. Solomon is enraged and has Adinijah killed (I Kg. 2:17-25). Solomon acquires a "herem" of concubines and wives (Ecc.1:8). Caleb, Jerahmeel's brother, had a wife and two concubines, Ephah and Maachah )I Chron. 2:42-48).
Manasseh's "Syrian concubine" bears Machir (I Chron. 7:14
Rehoboam "took 18 wives and 60 concubines (II Chron. 11:18).
The Song of Solomon praises the beauty of the "Shulamite" maiden and chooses her above 60 queens, 80 concubines and virgins without number (Song of Solomon 6:4-9). This is amazing in light of the fact that virtually the whole church sees this story as an allegory of Christ's love for his church. If God detests or even disfavors polygamy and concubinage, why do we think he would put Christ in even this figurative position?
The practice of concubinage, with God's approval, proves that God does not fundamentally care about the number of intimate partners a person might have. It would appear, that God does not care fundamentally about the sex act as such. He cares that the people involved not do what is harmful to each other. Romans 13:10 says, "Love does no wrong to his neighbor, love therefore is the fulfillment of the law." In sex as in all else, God requires that we not harm others. Otherwise, He is not demonstrably concerned with who has relations with whom or how often. As with polygamy, concubinage demonstrates the Biblical reality that sexual activity is not inherently dirty. It appears that, at least in the OT, God's demand isn't that one man has relations with only one woman for life. Concubinage, just as polygamy, provided a God approved outlet for greater sexual desire of the male. If providing for the actual fulfillment of the sexual desire is not wrong, then obviously the desire itself is not wrong. Even God seems to acknowledge this, by accepting, and even legislating in favor of concubinage.
It shocks me because so many of these men are regarded as "holy" and some even wrote Scripture (David and Solomon). It's entirely possible that both David and Solomon wrote a psalm or a proverb after having been with a different woman that evening than the night before.
...
It shocks me because so many of these men are regarded as "holy" and some even wrote Scripture (David and Solomon). It's entirely possible that both David and Solomon wrote a psalm or a proverb after having been with a different woman that evening than the night before.
Very strange and disturbing.[/INDENT]
David and the others that are heroes to us and who were anointed by God to write what has become our Bible were human. God never has used perfect people because he never had any to use.
David and the others that are heroes to us and who were anointed by God to write what has become our Bible were human. God never has used perfect people because he never had any to use.
Amen. They weren't perfect people. But my question is that biblically, they violated no inherent sexual ethic of God. It appears that God allowed for their desires as long as they operated within the Law. Again, it would appear that God, at least in the Old Testament, isn't so much concerned with the sex act itself as we in our Puritanical culture might envision him as being. God is concerned with justice and how people treat their partners.
Biblically forbidden sex practices appear to be:
• Adultery – Sexual activity outside of the marriage covenant.
• Fornication – Indiscriminant and promiscuous sexual activity.
• Sodomy – Homosexual rape, male temple prostitution, and anal sex between males.
• Incest – Sexual activity with close relatives.
• Rape – Forced sexual activity with a woman.
• Bestiality – Sexual activity with animals.
• Pedophilia – Sexual activity with children.
• Harlotry – Sexual activity as a religious rite or for money.
• Lust – The desire to actually commit adultery.
The Bible appears to allow for the following sex practices:
• Monogamy – Marriage consisting of one man and one woman.
• Polygamy – Marriage consisting of one man and more than one woman.
• Concubines – Mistresses recognized within the marriage covenant.
• War Brides – Arranged marriage with female prisoners of war.
• Levirate Marriage – The marrying of a dead brother’s first wife, even if the living brother was already married.
• Servant Marriage – The arrangement of marriage between servants.
• Eunuchs – Celibates who cannot (or choose not to) copulate with the opposite gender.
• Erotic Literature & Poetry – Writings of an erotic nature (Song of Solomon).
• Erotic Entertainment – Erotic dancing (exemplified by the Shulamite and her erotic dance before her countrymen).
• Sexual Fantasy – Sexual thoughts about another (exemplified by the Shulamite and her Lover).
I understand that the NT is different. But again, it was written under the Roman Empire. In Rome things such as polygamy were illegal. So we don't see these issues in the first century. I can't help but wonder however, what if Rome hadn't prohibited the practices of the Jews? Would the NT be more like the OT?
Linear Mode
