AV1611 Bible Forum Archive

AV1611 Bible Forum Archive (https://av1611.com/forums/index.php)
-   Doctrine (https://av1611.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   Biblical Marriage - "Joined Together" or "Yoked Together"? (https://av1611.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1346)

George 06-10-2009 08:17 PM

Biblical Marriage - "Joined Together" or "Yoked Together"?
 
The following list of Scriptures equals ALL of the verses in the Holy Bible with the words “Yoke”, “Yokes”, “Yoked”, and “Yokefellow”.

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”
[2 Timothy 2:15]

Please read the verses and study them according to the “principles” for Bible study laid down in Isaiah 28:10 & 13.


Isaiah 28:10
For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
Isaiah 28:13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

After you have read and studied all of the verses – Tell me if a Biblical marriage is being "joined together" or is it being “yoked together”?


“YOKE” – OLD TESTAMENT
{41 Verses = A “Burden” or “Servitude”}
Quote:

Genesis 27:40 And by thy sword shalt thou live, and shalt serve thy brother; and it shall come to pass when thou shalt have the dominion, that thou shalt break his yoke from off thy neck.

Leviticus 26:13
I am the LORD your God, which brought you forth out of the land of Egypt, that ye should not be their bondmen; and I have broken the bands of your yoke, and made you go upright.

Numbers 19:2
This is the ordinance of the law which the LORD hath commanded, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, that they bring thee a red heifer without spot, wherein is no blemish, and upon which never came yoke:

Deuteronomy 21:3
And it shall be, that the city which is next unto the slain man, even the elders of that city shall take an heifer, which hath not been wrought with, and which hath not drawn in the yoke;

Deuteronomy 28:48
Therefore shalt thou serve thine enemies which the LORD shall send against thee, in hunger, and in thirst, and in nakedness, and in want of all things: and he shall put a yoke of iron upon thy neck, until he have destroyed thee.

1 Samuel 6:7
Now therefore make a new cart, and take two milch kine, on which there hath come no yoke, and tie the kine to the cart, and bring their calves home from them:

1 Kings 12:4
Thy father made our yoke grievous: now therefore make thou the grievous service of thy father, and his heavy yoke which he put upon us, lighter, and we will serve thee.

1 Kings 12:9
And he said unto them, What counsel give ye that we may answer this people, who have spoken to me, saying, Make the yoke which thy father did put upon us lighter?

1 Kings 12:10
And the young men that were grown up with him spake unto him, saying, Thus shalt thou speak unto this people that spake unto thee, saying, Thy father made our yoke heavy, but make thou it lighter unto us; thus shalt thou say unto them, My little finger shall be thicker than my father's loins.

1 Kings
12:11 And now whereas my father did lade you with a heavy yoke, I will add to your yoke: my father hath chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions.

1 Kings 12:14
And spake to them after the counsel of the young men, saying, My father made your yoke heavy, and I will add to your yoke: my father also chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions.

2 Chronicles 10:4
Thy father made our yoke grievous: now therefore ease thou somewhat the grievous servitude of thy father, and his heavy yoke that he put upon us, and we will serve thee.

2 Chronicles 10:9
And he said unto them, What advice give ye that we may return answer to this people, which have spoken to me, saying, Ease somewhat the yoke that thy father did put upon us?

2 Chronicles 10:10
And the young men that were brought up with him spake unto him, saying, Thus shalt thou answer the people that spake unto thee, saying, Thy father made our yoke heavy, but make thou it somewhat lighter for us; thus shalt thou say unto them, My little finger shall be thicker than my father's loins.

2 Chronicles
10:11 For whereas my father put a heavy yoke upon you, I will put more to your yoke: my father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions.

2 Chronicles 10:14
And answered them after the advice of the young men, saying, My father made your yoke heavy, but I will add thereto: my father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions.

Isaiah 9:4
For thou hast broken the yoke of his burden, and the staff of his shoulder, the rod of his oppressor, as in the day of Midian.

Isaiah 10:27
And it shall come to pass in that day, that his burden shall be taken away from off thy shoulder, and his yoke from off thy neck, and the yoke shall be destroyed because of the anointing.

Isaiah
14:25 That I will break the Assyrian in my land, and upon my mountains tread him under foot: then shall his yoke depart from off them, and his burden depart from off their shoulders.

Isaiah 47:6
I was wroth with my people, I have polluted mine inheritance, and given them into thine hand: thou didst shew them no mercy; upon the ancient hast thou very heavily laid thy yoke.

Isaiah 58:6
Is not this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke?

Isaiah 58:9
Then shalt thou call, and the LORD shall answer; thou shalt cry, and he shall say, Here I am. If thou take away from the midst of thee the yoke, the putting forth of the finger, and speaking vanity;

Jeremiah
2:20 For of old time I have broken thy yoke, and burst thy bands; and thou saidst, I will not transgress; when upon every high hill and under every green tree thou wanderest, playing the harlot.

Jeremiah 5:5
I will get me unto the great men, and will speak unto them; for they have known the way of the LORD, and the judgment of their God: but these have altogether broken the yoke, and burst the bonds.

Jeremiah 27:8
And it shall come to pass, that the nation and kingdom which will not serve the same Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, and that will not put their neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, that nation will I punish, saith the LORD, with the sword, and with the famine, and with the pestilence, until I have consumed them by his hand.

Jeremiah 27:11
But the nations that bring their neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, and serve him, those will I let remain still in their own land, saith the LORD; and they shall till it, and dwell therein.

Jeremiah 27:12
I spake also to Zedekiah king of Judah according to all these words, saying, Bring your necks under the yoke of the king of Babylon, and serve him and his people, and live.

Jeremiah 28:2
Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, saying, I have broken the yoke of the king of Babylon.

Jeremiah 28:4
And I will bring again to this place Jeconiah the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah, with all the captives of Judah, that went into Babylon, saith the LORD: for I will break the yoke of the king of Babylon.

Jeremiah 28:10
Then Hananiah the prophet took the yoke from off the prophet Jeremiah's neck, and brake it.

Jeremiah 28:11
And Hananiah spake in the presence of all the people, saying, Thus saith the LORD; Even so will I break the yoke of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon from the neck of all nations within the space of two full years. And the prophet Jeremiah went his way.

Jeremiah 28:12
Then the word of the LORD came unto Jeremiah the prophet, after that Hananiah the prophet had broken the yoke from off the neck of the prophet Jeremiah, saying,

Jeremiah 28:14
For thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; I have put a yoke of iron upon the neck of all these nations, that they may serve Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon; and they shall serve him: and I have given him the beasts of the field also.

Jeremiah 30:8
For it shall come to pass in that day, saith the LORD of hosts, that I will break his yoke from off thy neck, and will burst thy bonds, and strangers shall no more serve themselves of him:

Jeremiah 31:18
I have surely heard Ephraim bemoaning himself thus; Thou hast chastised me, and I was chastised, as a bullock unaccustomed to the yoke: turn thou me, and I shall be turned; for thou art the LORD my God.

Jeremiah 51:23
I will also break in pieces with thee the shepherd and his flock; and with thee will I break in pieces the husbandman and his yoke of oxen; and with thee will I break in pieces captains and rulers.

Lamentations
1:14 The yoke of my transgressions is bound by his hand: they are wreathed, and come up upon my neck: he hath made my strength to fall, the Lord hath delivered me into their hands, from whom I am not able to rise up.

Lamentations 3:27
It is good for a man that he bear the yoke in his youth.

Ezekiel 34:27
And the tree of the field shall yield her fruit, and the earth shall yield her increase, and they shall be safe in their land, and shall know that I am the LORD, when I have broken the bands of their yoke, and delivered them out of the hand of those that served themselves of them.

Hosea 11:4
I drew them with cords of a man, with bands of love: and I was to them as they that take off the yoke on their jaws, and I laid meat unto them.

Nahum
1:13 For now will I break his yoke from off thee, and will burst thy bonds in sunder.
“YOKES” – OLD TESTAMENT
{3 Verses = A “Burden” or “Servitude”}
Quote:

Jeremiah 27:2 Thus saith the LORD to me; Make thee bonds and yokes, and put them upon thy neck,

Jeremiah 28:13
Go and tell Hananiah, saying, Thus saith the LORD; Thou hast broken the yokes of wood; but thou shalt make for them yokes of iron.

Ezekiel 30:18
At Tehaphnehes also the day shall be darkened, when I shall break there the yokes of Egypt: and the pomp of her strength shall cease in her: as for her, a cloud shall cover her, and her daughters shall go into captivity.
“YOKE” – OLD TESTAMENT
{6 verses = “Yoke of Oxen” – Paired Together for “Work”}
Quote:

1 Samuel 11:7 And he took a yoke of oxen, and hewed them in pieces, and sent them throughout all the coasts of Israel by the hands of messengers, saying, Whosoever cometh not forth after Saul and after Samuel, so shall it be done unto his oxen. And the fear of the LORD fell on the people, and they came out with one consent.

1 Samuel 14:14
And that first slaughter, which Jonathan and his armourbearer made, was about twenty men, within as it were an half acre of land, which a yoke of oxen might plow.

1 Kings
19:19 So he departed thence, and found Elisha the son of Shaphat, who was plowing with twelve yoke of oxen before him, and he with the twelfth: and Elijah passed by him, and cast his mantle upon him.

1 Kings
19:21 And he returned back from him, and took a yoke of oxen, and slew them, and boiled their flesh with the instruments of the oxen, and gave unto the people, and they did eat. Then he arose, and went after Elijah, and ministered unto him.

Job 1:3
His substance also was seven thousand sheep, and three thousand camels, and five hundred yoke of oxen, and five hundred she asses, and a very great household; so that this man was the greatest of all the men of the east.

Job 42:12
So the LORD blessed the latter end of Job more than his beginning: for he had fourteen thousand sheep, and six thousand camels, and a thousand yoke of oxen, and a thousand she asses.
“YOKE” – NEW TESTAMENT
{6 Verses = A “Burden” or “Servitude”}
Quote:

Matthew 11:29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

Matthew 11:30
For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

Luke
14:19 And another said, I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to prove them: I pray thee have me excused.

Acts
15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

Galatians 5:1
Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

1 Timothy 6:1
Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.
“YOKED” – NEW TESTAMENT
{1 verse = “Yoked together” – Paired Together for “Work”}

Quote:

2 Corinthians 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
“YOKEFELLOW” – NEW TESTAMENT
{1 verse = “Yokefellow” – Paired Together for “Work”}

Quote:

Philippians 4:3 And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life.
After having read and studied all of the verses – can you see WHY I say that being “YOKED TOGETHER” has absolutely NOTHING TO DO with a BIBLICAL MARRIAGE?

Being “yoked together” may describe Muslim marriages, or Hindu marriages, etc., but being “YOKED TOGETHER” has absolutely NOTHING TO DO with a BIBLICAL MARRIAGE!

I think most Christians can “discern” for themselves the truth of the Scripture (just from the “words”) - without the “aid” of a Dictionary; or a college education; or the ability to be able to conjugate verbs, or tell the difference between nouns, pronouns, verbs, adverbs, adjectives, or prepositions! Can you imagine Peter, James, or John using “grammatical rules” to teach God’s Holy word? Give me a break! :eek:

My wife and I are NOT “YOKED TOGETHER” in marriage. We are NOT A “TEAM”, NOR are we “PARTNERS” in this life. God has JOINED us together in ONE BODY (One Flesh), of which I am the HEAD. She is NOT my SERVANT (or SLAVE), NOR is she my MASTER. She is my HELPMEET and life’s COMPANION; and there is no one on this earth who means as much to me as she does! NOT my parents; NOT our children; NOT our grandchildren; NOT our great-grandchildren; and NOT my dear and close friends. Only Almighty God is more precious to me than my wife.

The very idea that a genuine Biblical marriage is “like” being “yoked together”, goes against every Biblical precept presented in the Bible! When two oxen are “yoked together” to do work, they must be “EQUALLY YOKED” – that is they must be “EQUALS”. How can I be the head of the body if my wife and I are “EQUALS”? How can the Lord Jesus Christ be the HEAD of HIS BODY – IF we are “EQUAL” with Him? It doesn’t “work” and that is WHY so many “Christian” marriages fail in the Western world today!

I wouldn’t care if all the Dictionaries in the world said that a Christian marriage is like being “yoked together” - you couldn’t PROVE it from the Scriptures; NOT unless you are the kind of person who is adept at “twisting’, “wresting” and CHANGING the Holy words of God!

Ephesians 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh
. {“JOINED” – NOTyoked together”! ONE FLESH – NOT 2 separate (but “equal”) “workers”!}
32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.


See if you can find that in the Muslim Koran or the Hindu Vedas. :confused:

Psalms 33:4 For the word of the LORD is right; and all his works are done in truth.

Biblestudent 06-10-2009 10:32 PM

Aloha, Brother George!

:amen:
1 Corinthians 6:17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

Ephesians 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be
joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

Fredoheaven 06-11-2009 05:26 AM

And the scripture cannot be broken. Even our Lord defined it or the word "yoke" which means a burden. All of the O.T. scripture references and even the N.T. refers to bondage or burden. Anyone can look closely about the word and how Christ define it in Matthew 11:30.

Matthew 11:30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light

Thank you sir for an excellent study.

custer 06-11-2009 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by George (Post 21965)

I think most Christians can “discern” for themselves the truth of the Scripture (just from the “words”) - without the “aid” of a Dictionary; or a college education; or the ability to be able to conjugate verbs, or tell the difference between nouns, pronouns, verbs, adverbs, adjectives, or prepositions! Can you imagine Peter, James, or John using “grammatical rules” to teach God’s Holy word? Give me a break! :eek:

{{{Pam ducking}}} George...I don't have the gloves on!

{{{Pam ducking}}} I don't expect a reply; I just have an observation -

We should be very thankful that Peter, James, John, and other writers (Bible or otherwise) were/are able to "tell the difference between" parts of speech...without that ability there would be no written or spoken language!

Pam
www.custerfamilyfarm.com

greenbear 06-11-2009 04:28 PM

Thanks for this study, George. You distinguished so clearly between the concepts of servitude and being joined as one flesh. Christian marriage is such a beautiful type of Christ and His redeemed body, as you illustrated with your lovely description of your own marriage to Renee. May God bless you for your faithful teaching of his Word.

Jennifer

Renee 06-11-2009 06:08 PM

Re: Biblical Marriage - Joined together or yoked together
 
WE ARE NOT YOKED TOGETHER

Matthew 19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

Mathew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

Matthew 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

Mathew 19:6Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Mark 10:7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

Mark 10:8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

Genesis 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Ephesians 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.


I find it very enlightening that when the Bible speaks of yoking two things together it is to work or a burden I am not yoked to George, and he is not yoked to me. We have been joined by God and we are one flesh.

Perhaps one of the many reasons many marriages don’t work is because they are yoked! When you are yoked and do not agree it is impossible to walk together. When you are yoked it is easy to unyoke, you just take off the harness. When you are one, you are only half of a person and think of the other person as the one who makes you whole. I have said to George, “you complete me”. We are not a team, When God looks upon us He sees George as my head. George will be responsible and answer to God for anything he may have made me do wrong, (remember Abraham and Sarah?). And I will be responsible for all the times I have not been submissive to him. I am his help meet, not just a helpmate, I try to meet his every need, for that is the purpose that God has made me for.

Genesis 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

We are one flesh in many ways. We have been married now for 48 years, and The Lord has truly blessed us. We are not only one flesh, but one heart and one mind. One cannot truly understand one flesh until they have lived many years with a person. It takes a lot of work and a lot prayer and a lot of faith in God and His Word, and His written word.

I am trying to figure out what race I belong to, or for that matter what race does George belong to? I have 3 different bloods running in my veins, and he has 7, that gives our children 10. What part of their body is Chinese, Spanish, Filipino, Swedish, Indian, French Canadian, Scottish, and what have you. I can’t even count the different types of blood our Grandchildren have. Ham, Shem, Japheth, we have them all! What is race now days? You are either a saved soul or a lost soul, all God sees is the Blood of Christ.

I have seen many divorces between saved people, and don’t tell me it takes two to tango. It takes two to make a marriage work, but only one to destroy it.

I’ve seen a marriage where the guy was saved and married an unsaved idol worshiper steeped in Catholicism and they are still married today after many, many years. God sanctified their marriage and their Children. The wife was saved a few years into their marriage and all seven children made professions of faith, granted the way of the world has claimed some of them for a season. Where is the condemnation? 8 souls were saved through that joining.

Mark 10:4 and they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.

Mark 10:5And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.


Like the divorce issue; because of the hardness of our heart, God provided a way of not condemning interfaith marriages. It is not His will or His way, but His permissive will. He knows the deceitful heart of men and made a way by which the unsaved is sanctified. The saved cannot become unclean so God sanctifies the unsaved because they are one.

There are marriages that we would not condone today that in the beginning were allowed. The only wife for Seth was his sister, a big no no today.

In the Love of Chrirst,
Renee

greenbear 06-11-2009 07:28 PM

Renee:
Quote:

Like the divorce issue; because of the hardness of our heart, God provided a way of not condemning interfaith marriages. It is not His will or His way, but His permissive will. He knows the deceitful heart of men and made a way by which the unsaved is sanctified. The saved cannot become unclean so God sanctifies the unsaved because they are one.
Now that is the answer I've been looking for! Thank you, Renee.
Romans 11:33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!

Grace and peace,

Jennifer

Jassy 06-11-2009 09:29 PM

I've been reading the exchanges here and I have learned much.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Renee (Post 22012)
WE ARE NOT YOKED TOGETHER

Genesis 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

We are one flesh in many ways. We have been married now for 48 years, and The Lord has truly blessed us. We are not only one flesh, but one heart and one mind. One cannot truly understand one flesh until they have lived many years with a person. It takes a lot of work and a lot prayer and a lot of faith in God and His Word, and His written word.

What a lovely example for all of us here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Renee (Post 22012)
I am trying to figure out what race I belong to, or for that matter what race does George belong to? I have 3 different bloods running in my veins, and he has 7, that gives our children 10. What part of their body is Chinese, Spanish, Filipino, Swedish, Indian, French Canadian, Scottish, and what have you. I can’t even count the different types of blood our Grandchildren have. Ham, Shem, Japheth, we have them all! What is race now days? You are either a saved soul or a lost soul, all God sees is the Blood of Christ.

I can understand that - what difference does it make? We are all ONE MIND in Christ... if we are in the Body of Christ. I personally love:

1 Corinthians 1:10 - "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Renee (Post 22012)
I have seen many divorces between saved people, and don’t tell me it takes two to tango. It takes two to make a marriage work, but only one to destroy it.

Yes, I've also seen this. I know of a Christian friend whose brother was married to a woman that left him and their children, to run into the arms of a MINISTER that she had met at a Christian conference out of state!! The husband was devastated. And their children were very confused and I'm sure that the result of it is yet to come - as the children are growing up and they're angry with things.

I loved your true story about the saved man and his unsaved wife, who was later saved and all 7 of their children made a profession of faith! What a LOVELY and encouraging example of what faith can accomplish! Indeed, where is the condemnation? Thank you for your post.

Jassy

Brother Tim 06-12-2009 07:59 AM

I must interject a comment here:

Anecdotal illustrations are always dangerous to establish facts. There are likely as many and possibly many more stories of Christians who became mates of unsaved persons, who later greatly regretted that decision.

One of my sisters got married to an unsaved catholic who had pursued her for years. During that time, she had lost her fiance and his parents in a traffic accident while they were travelling to Florida for the wedding. After a period of time, she married the catholic. Much later (17+ years) after a rough marriage, she finally consented to a divorce. She later confided with my mother that she knew 3 weeks into the marriage that she had made a mistake.

I would tend to say that the story told above was a very minority exception to the rule.

While the "yoke" reference and argument are on target regarding marriage, the rest of the passage uses obvious disconnects as back-up evidences for the mandate: "what fellowship", "what communion", "what concord", "what part"... All of these are evidences that there will be discord in any type of relationship. There is also the admonition about walking together in agreement (Amos 3:3).

I could never counsel a believer to marry or even court a non-believer.

custer 06-12-2009 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Tim (Post 22026)
I must interject a comment here:

Anecdotal illustrations are always dangerous to establish facts. There are likely as many and possibly many more stories of Christians who became mates of unsaved persons, who later greatly regretted that decision.

One of my sisters got married to an unsaved catholic who had pursued her for years. During that time, she had lost her fiance and his parents in a traffic accident while they were travelling to Florida for the wedding. After a period of time, she married the catholic. Much later (17+ years) after a rough marriage, she finally consented to a divorce. She later confided with my mother that she knew 3 weeks into the marriage that she had made a mistake.

I would tend to say that the story told above was a very minority exception to the rule.

While the "yoke" reference and argument are on target regarding marriage, the rest of the passage uses obvious disconnects as back-up evidences for the mandate: "what fellowship", "what communion", "what concord", "what part"... All of these are evidences that there will be discord in any type of relationship. There is also the admonition about walking together in agreement (Amos 3:3).

I could never counsel a believer to marry or even court a non-believer.

:amen: and :amen:

Renee 06-12-2009 09:22 AM

Joined Together or Yoked together
 
Hi Brother Tim,

Quote:

I could never counsel a believer to marry or even court a non-believer


Neither would I Brother Tim. I'm only saying it is possible for that kind of marriage to work.

Quote:

I would tend to say that the story told above was a very minority exception to the rule


There is hardly any difference in the divorce rate between two saved souls and two unsaved. I don't know the number of one saved soul and one lost soul so I cannot comment on that. Yes Brother Tim, our marriage may be in the minority, I know it has survived; "But by the grace of God".

There has been, like you said "many discords in this type of relationships" Our marriage has been through many of these discords and I thank God that He is able give us the grace and faith necessary to carry us through them. His Grace has been sufficient and I thank Him for it. I thank Him for Giving me a saved husband through whom I was sanctified, and the children given us that are also saved.

I do admit that it is easier in a household if it is the man that is saved, and the women is thought by example from her youth that he (the husband) is the head of the woman.

In Christian Love,
Renee

Brother Tim 06-12-2009 09:35 AM

Quote:

I do admit that it is easier in a household if it is the man that is saved, and the women is thought by example from her youth that he (the husband) is the head of the woman.
Sadly, this is becoming a very rare circumstance.

George 06-12-2009 09:56 AM

Re: "Biblical Marriage - "Joined Together" or "Yoked Together"?"
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Tim (Post 22026)
"I must interject a comment here:

Anecdotal illustrations are always dangerous to establish facts. There are likely as many and possibly many more stories of Christians who became mates of unsaved persons, who later greatly regretted that decision.

One of my sisters got married to an unsaved catholic who had pursued her for years. During that time, she had lost her fiance and his parents in a traffic accident while they were travelling to Florida for the wedding. After a period of time, she married the catholic. Much later (17+ years) after a rough marriage, she finally consented to a divorce. She later confided with my mother that she knew 3 weeks into the marriage that she had made a mistake.

I would tend to say that the story told above was a very minority exception to the rule.

While the "yoke" reference and argument are on target regarding marriage, the rest of the passage uses obvious disconnects as back-up evidences for the mandate: "what fellowship", "what communion", "what concord", "what part"... All of these are evidences that there will be discord in any type of relationship. There is also the admonition about walking together in agreement (Amos 3:3).

I could never counsel a believer to marry or even court a non-believer
."


Aloha brother Tim,

You said: "I could never counsel a believer to marry or even court a non-believer." To which all genuine Bible believers would agree. But WHY "must" you have to "interject a comment here"? WHY would you post a Post that only encourages the naysayers and gnat strainers (see Pam's Post following yours)? :confused: WHAT "Profit" was there in your Post? Has either my wife, Renee, or myself EVER "encouraged" a saved person to marry a lost person?

By the Posts that I have made here and on the Thread "Love and Race", haven't I made it perfectly "clear" that I am in complete agreement with you when it comes to: "I could never counsel a believer to marry or even court a non-believer".? BUT what happens WHEN a believer DOES MARRY a non-believer? Hmmm? (It happens you know) Do we SHUN that believer? Do we SEPARATE ourselves from that believer? Do we treat this couple (that are "married") any DIFFERENTLY than a saved couple that are married? Hmmm?

Your Post is disconcerting because it took away from my wife's "testimony" and then ENCOURAGED Pam to throw her two cents in (once again).

Where is the "EDIFICATION"? WHERE is the "PROFIT"? WHY "must" you "interject a comment here"? NO ONE was encouraging ANYONE to marry a lost person! You took away from a "personal testimony" (that blessed some of the brethren), and substituted an "anecdotal" story that PROVED NOTHING!

If the DIVORCE RATE for "Christians" is only 5% less than the DIVORCE RATE for the lost, could we not substitute literally thousands of "anecdotal stories" of two "Christians" that got married and later on got divorced? Would that PROVE that two "Christians" SHOULDN'T MARRY? Hmmm? :confused:

I am trying to figure out WHY you just had to comment??? :confused: WHAT were you trying to accomplish? I don't pretend to know your motive, but what I do know is that you diminished my wife's "personal testimony" and "ENCOURAGED" a naysayer!

I have tried to be fair with you - when at times you have "joked" or "made light" of a serious issue that I have presented in the past, but this tops it! :mad:

The following are some of my quotes from the Thread "Love and Race":
Quote:

"Let's be absolutely clear - I have never recommended (on the AV1611 Bible Forums) that a saved person marry a lost person. I do not recommend it; but IF a saved person IS MARRIED to a lost person I DO NOT CONDEMN them or their "Marriage", and neither does God - and neither should you!"

"I am going to say this for the last time: "I always recommend that a Christian marry "in the Lord". And "I DO NOT RECOMMEND marrying a lost person". Did you get that? Is that CLEAR NOW?"
Could I be more clear? Your dismissal of my wife's "personal testimony" (as just an anecdotal story) is a personal affront to her and uncalled for. You offended my wife, and personally I do not appreciate it one little bit! :eek:

custer 06-12-2009 10:30 AM

George,
Why must you be so contentious? The exchange between you and Tim is none of my business, but I AM involved because Tim brought up the Amos 3:3 thing again...

Why do you only go on ranting about supposed "naysayers" instead of discussing that (and other) clear scripture?

Tim did NOT say or imply that you actually counsel saved people to marry lost people...

Pam
www.custerfamilyfarm.com

greenbear 06-12-2009 10:47 AM

I believe that regardless of any possible wrong motives or missteps on the part of anyone involved in this thread, God has been glorified because the truth of the matter is this:

Renee
Quote:

Like the divorce issue; because of the hardness of our heart, God provided a way of not condemning interfaith marriages. It is not His will or His way, but His permissive will. He knows the deceitful heart of men and made a way by which the unsaved is sanctified. The saved cannot become unclean so God sanctifies the unsaved because they are one.
Romans 11:33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!

Jennifer

Renee 06-12-2009 11:45 AM

Biblical marriage
 
Greenbear,

I look forward to meeting you in Glory. Your heart is tender toward the truth, and has not been hardened. Sometimes we christians have a very hard heart and a stiff neck.

May God continue to give you understanding of His word, wisdom and faith to accept it and strength to follow it.

In Christ Love,
Renee

greenbear 06-12-2009 12:15 PM

Renee,

Thank you for your kindness. Yes, won't it be wonderful to meet in person in our glorified bodies? Perhaps we'll even recognize each other on the way up!

Jennifer

Brother Tim 06-12-2009 03:39 PM

George and Renee,
I sincerely apologize if what I said offended you. It was not in any way intended to diminish anyone's personal testimony. The fact is that I as a pastor have experienced far more troubled marriages than secure marriages both for saved/unsaved couples and second marriages (either or both partners). I was concerned that my general sense of this thread was that the Bible did not discourage mixed marriages. I disagree with that.

I have the sad reality that within my own family, a brother has been through multiple marriages, a sister has divorced (not due to immorality), and a son has married a divorced woman with preteen children. I have had to speak to each of these regarding their particular situations. I have struggled with presenting the truth with pure love and no hint of condemnation. It is not something I wish on anyone else.

George, I am sorry that previous posts where I attempted to add a little humor was offensive to you. If you will direct me to those posts, I can be more specific with my apology, but at this point, I am not aware of any, that is, the Holy Spirit has not reprimanded me. It appears that I have gotten on your short list, and that saddens me, for it was in no way intentional.

I was very puzzled about why you, George, would get so upset about my referring to Renee's story as "anecdotal". I just now went back and re-read that post. She started the story:
Quote:

I’ve seen a marriage where the guy was saved and married an unsaved idol worshiper steeped in Catholicism and they are still married today after many, many years...
The story continues on to speak in the third person, as if this was someone that Renee knew. I had no idea that she was speaking of your own marriage. I can see why you were upset, but I think the anger was not justified. How could I have known?

God has shown great grace with your marriage. You must know that it is a fairly rare exception. Thank God for His mercy.

Brother Tim 06-13-2009 09:06 PM

In the "Love/Race" thread that morphed into "saved/unsaved" discussion, several who often pointed out that there is no Scripture forbidding marriage between a Christian and non-Christian also without exception (that I can find) strongly explained that none would recommend or encourage such a marriage. My question is "Why?"

I stated that I could not counsel a believer to marry a non-believer. I would do all that I could to discourage such. Why? Because I believe that the Scriptures taken as a whole do not allow for such a choice, just as marrying a divorced person is not allowed.

George, Renee, Jennifer, and others:
What would you say to a person who came to you with this question. "I am in love with a person who does not believe in the Bible as the Word of God. We are compatible in many other areas and I have known this person for much of my life. We fit each other very well. Could you show me in Scripture where I am wrong to get married?"

Now this in no way gives me permission to reject those who have so married. Mercy and grace still overrule law. When my son announced that he was in love with a divorced woman, my wife and I did all we could to discourage the relationship. Despite our best efforts, it estranged our son from us and built a thick wall between us and his girlfriend. This went on for almost five years. As their relationship went all over the place, we tried to show as much compassion as humanly possible. As time went on, it appeared that they were moving apart. Then he went to Basic training. The distance created a bond. When he returned and it was evident that things were stronger than ever, I sat down with them and in essence split myself into two separate persons, parent and pastor. As a father, I was going to accept whatever decision that was made and love them both as only a father can. As a pastor, I warned them that their choice to get married would open the door for God's judgment as He chose. In either case, I would help however I could.
They married three days before he left for Iraq. We are working very hard to show my new daughter-in-law and our two new grandchildren that there is no condemnation with us. And yet, I know that there are dark times ahead.

greenbear 06-13-2009 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Tim (Post 22106)
In the "Love/Race" thread that morphed into "saved/unsaved" discussion, several who often pointed out that there is no Scripture forbidding marriage between a Christian and non-Christian also without exception (that I can find) strongly explained that none would recommend or encourage such a marriage. My question is "Why?"

I stated that I could not counsel a believer to marry a non-believer. I would do all that I could to discourage such. Why? Because I believe that the Scriptures taken as a whole do not allow for such a choice, just as marrying a divorced person is not allowed.

George, Renee, Jennifer, and others:
What would you say to a person who came to you with this question. "I am in love with a person who does not believe in the Bible as the Word of God. We are compatible in many other areas and I have known this person for much of my life. We fit each other very well. Could you show me in Scripture where I am wrong to get married?"

Now this in no way gives me permission to reject those who have so married. Mercy and grace still overrule law. When my son announced that he was in love with a divorced woman, my wife and I did all we could to discourage the relationship. Despite our best efforts, it estranged our son from us and built a thick wall between us and his girlfriend. This went on for almost five years. As their relationship went all over the place, we tried to show as much compassion as humanly possible. As time went on, it appeared that they were moving apart. Then he went to Basic training. The distance created a bond. When he returned and it was evident that things were stronger than ever, I sat down with them and in essence split myself into two separate persons, parent and pastor. As a father, I was going to accept whatever decision that was made and love them both as only a father can. As a pastor, I warned them that their choice to get married would open the door for God's judgment as He chose. In either case, I would help however I could.
They married three days before he left for Iraq. We are working very hard to show my new daughter-in-law and our two new grandchildren that there is no condemnation with us. And yet, I know that there are dark times ahead.

.................................................. .................................................. .......................................
Tim,

I am sorry that you have had to deal with the heartbreak of having your son marry a divorced woman. I know that is not what a father hopes for his child. This issue is very troubling and hard to come to grips with.

Quote:

I stated that I could not counsel a believer to marry a non-believer. I would do all that I could to discourage such. Why?
Because I believe that the Scriptures taken as a whole do not allow for such a choice, just as marrying a divorced person is not allowed.
My answer to the question "Why?" would be simply because they will have trouble in the flesh. Unless the unsaved spouse becomes a believer the saved spouse will never know the full joys of a christian marriage. The children have a split and confused example and world view from their parents. There are so many reasons you could probably fill a library of books with them.

Why do you believe that the scriptures taken as a whole do not allow for such a choice? You are saying that you agree with Pam's position? What scriptures can you bring to the table to show that it is not allowed in the same way that marrying a divorced person is not allowed? There are verses that deal specifically with marrying divorced people. There are a couple of exceptions to that rule like if the divorcee is a believer married to an unbeliever who left him/her then they are free to remarry.

Quote:

George, Renee, Jennifer, and others:
What would you say to a person who came to you with this question. "I am in love with a person who does not believe in the Bible as the Word of God. We are compatible in many other areas and I have known this person for much of my life. We fit each other very well. Could you show me in Scripture where I am wrong to get married?"
I would probably refer the couple to Paul's instructions to husbands and wives. Perhaps scriptures on raising godly children. I would describe in vivid detail the problems they will encounter. What I would not do is to refer to various scriptures that have no direct bearing on the issue and /or take them out of their context and apply them in a way they weren't intended to be applied.

My overriding concern in the Love and Race thread has been the misapplication of scriptures by certain individuals in an attempt to try to back up their personal opinions with the Bible, whether it be inter-racial marriage or marriage between believers and unbelievers.

The dispensation of grace as I understand it has few commandments. There is the exhortation for wives to submit to their husbands as to the Lord, husbands to love their wives like Christ loves the church, women not to teach men and to be quiet in public assembly, not to divorce, not to marry a divorced person, no fornication, no adultery, if there are more I can't think of them right now. All of these things can be clearly and in more than one place shown to be taught.

The Bible is perfect and infinite. If man would take one word away from it or add one word to it the infinite perfection suffers. The Bible is a system that's completely integrated within itself. I'm sure Will Kinney or bibleprotector could explain what I'm trying to say much better than I am. I think there are unseen, unintended consequences to building any kind of teaching on verses that only seem to apply in some general way, or verses that when examined, don't apply at all. I don't think we should lean to our own understanding when interpreting the scriptures. We shouldn't make them mean something they don't because we think it would help us to do a good thing or accomplish a worthy purpose.

Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

1 Corinthians 1:19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

Romans 11:33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!

George and Renee have obviously lived their lives closely connected to this issue. Renee seems to me to have expressed the deepest insight into God's purpose and provision for sinful man in this matter:
Quote:

Like the divorce issue; because of the hardness of our heart, God provided a way of not condemning interfaith marriages. It is not His will or His way, but His permissive will. He knows the deceitful heart of men and made a way by which the unsaved is sanctified. The saved cannot become unclean so God sanctifies the unsaved because they are one.
We must remember that God's purpose is to save whosoever will believe on His Son and His method is grace. His purpose is not to have us perfectly keep commandments and always make the right decisions. He knows that's not going to happen.

These questions can become so complex if you really think about them. For example, do two people become married in God's eyes when they sleep together? How many people are virgins when they marry, even within the church? Are they commiting adultery when they sleep with a second person? Are they commiting adultery when they finally marry? If you dig too deep you realize it becomes as much of a morass as the inter-racial marriage issue. That is, how to determine your exact mixture of different nationalities to find a suitable mate.

Jennifer

custer 06-14-2009 01:58 PM

greenbear,

I am NOT going to try to quote you, because when I QUOTE YOU EXACTLY, you accuse me of manipulating your words!!! ??? !!! So, I'll just say that I am responding to your post #20!

First of all, why in the world do you people equate running cross-references with wresting the scriptures? Who put the cross-references in there? Are they there for a reason? Why are they there? It is truly mind-boggling (and sad) how many things you cheat yourself out of by in essence denying that "ALL scripture...is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" Keep in mind that I am commenting on this AS A DISPENSATIONALIST...I know that we are in the age of grace and that our doctrine comes from Paul; but II Timothy 3:16 SAYS that if it's not there for doctrine, then it IS there for either reproof, correction, or instruction in righteousness!!! What about that is hard to understand?
My personal opinion (that you like to refer to) has nothing to do with what we find by using cross-references...if we believe (and I hope we all do) that God put EVERY SINGLE WORD of that King James Bible in there for a reason, then why would the cross-references not be relevant??? I am SOOOO not being ugly, but this is not rocket science! I am VERY THANKFUL for the way the Bible is put together!

For you (or anyone on here) that believes the Bible teaches we can't marry a divorced person, what can we do with I Cor. 7:27-28:
27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.
28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned;...

I am asking this because I have NOT studied it; I just knew those verses were there and wonder how they fit with saying that we are commanded not to marry a divorced person...just from those verses, it's not logical to say that the person marrying the "thou" in verse 28 WOULD BE sinning by joining in the marriage. In other words, if it's not sin for one of the spouses, why would it be sin for the other? I hope my question makes sense!

Another thought on Paul not giving a lot of direct commands for us...The letters he wrote were to specific churches or people and dealt with the issues that were relevant to who he was writing to at the time. It doesn't make sense that he would admonish the saved folks in Galatia not to have a sex-change operation, for example! It simply wasn't pertinent to them! So can you prove from the Bible, IN PROPER CONTEXT, that a believer today shouldn't have such an operation? This example is like the others I brought up in the "love and race" thread that nobody wants to comment on! If you are saying or intimating (and you are/have) that I am making up Bible commands to fit my personal opinions or preconceived ideas, then why can't you deal with these examples? Now, I can be sarcastic, BUT THAT QUESTION WAS NOT SARCASTIC...I REALLY WANT TO KNOW! When I raised examples in the other thread (post #86,) you ignored them and changed the subject (post #95) back to the race issue (which, again, I'd like to discuss, but at another time.) Yes, I realize this topic SHOULD have a thread of its own!

Pam
www.custerfamilyfarm.com

custer 06-15-2009 03:41 PM

George,

THIS IS NOT A PERSONAL ATTACK ON YOU! There is no need to get riled up and take it that way!

Your idea that two oxen being yoked together "must be EQUALS" so (according to you) they can't be a picture of a "genuine Biblical marriage" IS NOT FACTUAL! We cut hay a couple of weeks ago and did some of the raking with a friend's draft horses; they are joined with a harness, not a yoke, but the idea is the same. THERE WAS A LEAD HORSE...THE LEADER...THE HEAD HONCHO! One of the two knew better what to do and how to do it; he LED the other, and they both pulled the rake together! (Same thing goes for sled dogs.) Also, I have read about oxen and only ever found that they are to be matched, not according to leadership ability, but according to temperament and willingness to work! And, do you raise cattle? We do and have for years!!! And in any group of cows/steers (whether it's a pair or a hundred,) THEIR IS ALWAYS A DOMINANT ANIMAL!!! So, the picture of being "yoked together" is perfectly compatible with the man being the head of the woman.

As for YOUR definition of "yoked" - "paired together for work" - that is completely inconsistent with your stated desire to use the Bible to define itself! In your enthusiasm to avoid the word "joined" and substitute YOUR OWN "pair" or "paired," did you check out how the Bible uses "pair?" Yes, a yoke of oxen is a pair, but so is the "pair of turtledoves" in Luke 2:24, which are NOT connected to each other in any way; and the "pair of balances" in Revelation 6:5, which is ONE instrument referred to as a pair only because it has two pans. (If the "pair" of pans was actually "paired together" [per YOUR definition,] the tool could not perform its intended task! Instead, the "pair" of pans is JOINED TOGETHER by a center beam!) This is a PERFECT example of why it DOES make such a difference whether a word is a noun or a verb! (Can you imagine trying to communicate with someone who spoke using only nouns?) Along the same lines, I can have a yoke ("pair") of oxen in my pasture that are NOT "paired together;" if the "pair" is 200 yards apart, they are still considered a "yoke" of oxen, even though they are not "yoked together" at the time! In order for the "pair" to be "yoked together," I must put them together (join them, if you will) with a physical piece of wood or iron - the "yoke." I apologize if this sounds scattered or repetitive - it is the most basic element of language...that words can and do have very different meanings; this is the way that we talk and the way the Bible is written.

And, George, I agree with you that comprehending these truths DOES NOT require a college education; I DON'T HAVE A COLLEGE EDUCATION! You jumped to conclusions when I told you that I kept a 4.0 in my college English courses; the ONLY reason I mentioned it was because YOU called into question my ability to "read English!" Almost twenty years ago, I started nursing school, but I quit before I even finished my "core courses" when I learned that my place was at home with my family. I wouldn't advise ANYONE to go to college - PERIOD - apprenticeship and on-the-job training are much more practical, "real-life," not to mention inexpensive ways to learn and are, therefore, infinitely preferable!

On top of having a very limited education, I AM BLONDE!!! But am I the only one who noticed that you (George) incorrectly assigned the definition of YOUR OWN CHOOSING to "yoke" in Num. 19:2, Deut. 21:3, I Sam. 6:7, Jer. 28:10, Jer. 28:12, Jer. 28:13, and Jer. 31:18? The "yoke" in these verses is CLEARLY an actual piece of wood or iron used to join two oxen together - not a figurative or representative "burden" or "servitude." (READ THE VERSES...George has them in the original post above.) While there are many places in scripture where a "yoke" IS figurative for such, a physical yoke IS NOT THE BURDEN OF THE OX!!! It is an instrument that connects the animals to each other and, by extension, to their "burden." The burden is the load that they pull; the burden is NOT the yoke itself! [Again, figuratively, "yoke" IS used to mean "burden," because the purpose of putting on the yoke is to work.] In addition, there are eight times in your study, George, where YOU assign either "burden," "servitude," or "paired together for work" as the definition of "yoke" when it is painfully obvious in the verses that "yoke" simply means "pair." (Again, George has these verses above for us to check out: Jer. 51:23, I Sam. 11:7, I Sam. 14:14, I Kings 19:19, I Kings 19:21, Job 1:3, Job 42:12, and Luke 14:19.) Please look at them all, but (for example) notice Luke 14:19 - "...I have bought five yoke of oxen..." George, you say that's "a burden or servitude;" the Bible is simply specifying a number. Or, how about I Sam. 11:7 - "...he took a yoke of oxen, and hewed them in pieces..." You say that those oxen are "paired together for work;" the Bible says it was two oxen chopped up in pieces!

If you (George) feel the need to point out YET AGAIN that "Pam just can't let go," (Love and Race post #92) notice that the reason I am still here commenting is that you conducted a biased one-sided study supported with FALSE INFORMATION! So, like I've said before, a response (although welcome) is not necessary - it WAS necessary to put out the TRUTH to be weighed against your study! Is it possible that you honestly don't see that this has nothing to do with me being "determined to be right" (Love and Race post #92) and everything to do with SOMEONE posting the TRUTH? (If it helps, you could pretend someone else wrote it!)

Pam
www.custerfamilyfarm.com

custer 06-16-2009 09:07 AM

Plus, for anyone who is interested, the Lord doesn't seem to have a problem with Samson comparing his WIFE to a YOKED HEIFER...we know it was a "yoked heifer" because it says "plowed with my heifer;" I can't find in the Bible where you can plow with only one ox! So SCRIPTURALLY, there's 'being yoked' connected with a marriage relationship! (Judges 14:12-18)

Pam
www.custerfamilyfarm.com

George 06-16-2009 10:34 AM

Re: "Biblical Marriage - "Joined Together" or "Yoked Together"?"
 
Aloha all,

Please take note of "custer's" radical "ATTITUDE". This woman is a perfect "example" of what I was referring to as the "Westernized" (or "Americanized") woman. {It's known as HUMANISTIC "FEMINISM"!}

Please check out her pernicious Posts and review her comments in regards to me (a harmless old curmudgeon :rolleyes:). The woman is "OBSESSED" with yours truly, simply because I have spoken the truth.

Notice how she will "IGNORE" the overwhelming number of proof texts as to the meaning of "yoke" and how she desperately runs to ONE text (and takes it out of "context") to prove her preconceived ideas. This woman is not only "out of order', she is also "OUT OF BALANCE"!

This is the woman who, early on, claimed: "I disagree with most of what has been posted on this thread, but I DON'T want to argue - I would like to try to understand where y'all are coming from!"; and who has done NOTHING but ARGUE (and is STILL "ARGUING") since she joined our happy little group! :( "Christian" women should NOT be so disingenuous! And this is one of many reasons why I REFUSE to have anything more to do with the woman. She is OUT OF "ORDER" and OUT OF "BALANCE"! :confused:

She is a typical "EXAMPLE" of the typical MODERN Westernized (or Americanized) "Christian" woman, who REFUSES to receive instruction, and is in REBELLION against God's "ORDER" and against His Holy word!

You can do NOTHING for these kind of "Christians". It is "an EXERCISE IN FUTILITY" in trying to "reason" with them. They are determined to be "RIGHT" at any and all costs - even if it means making a complete fool of herself.

This is the result of HUMANISTIC training and education, which produces SOPHISTS - yes even "CHRISTIAN" SOPHISTS! :eek:

This woman has been nothing but argumentative, contentious, and combative since she came here. She has done nothing but agitate, disrupt, and disturb the fellowship that most of us seek here. And the "FRUIT" of her contentiousness has been confusion, discord, and division.

I have dealt with these Westernized (or Americanized) "Christian" women for over 50 years - there is NOTHING that we can SAY or DO that will CHANGE them. :eek: If we all IGNORE her - she will go away, or she will "get so out of hand" (i.e. OUT OF "ORDER") that she will be "banned".

Proverbs 13:10 Only by pride cometh contention: but with the well advised is wisdom.

Proverbs 17:14
The beginning of strife is as when one letteth out water: therefore leave off contention, before it be meddled with.


Proverbs 18:6 A fool's lips enter into contention, and his mouth calleth for strokes.

Proverbs 22:10 Cast out the scorner, and contention shall go out; yea, strife and reproach shall cease.

greenbear 06-16-2009 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by custer (Post 22266)
Plus, for anyone who is interested, the Lord doesn't seem to have a problem with Samson comparing his WIFE to a YOKED HEIFER...we know it was a "yoked heifer" because it says "plowed with my heifer;" I can't find in the Bible where you can plow with only one ox! So SCRIPTURALLY, there's 'being yoked' connected with a marriage relationship! (Judges 14:12-18)

Pam
www.custerfamilyfarm.com

custer-

You are actually using Sampson's metaphor for the sex act with his wife as support for your assertion that scriptures using the "Yoked" metaphor apply to the marriage relationship? That's a good one! I don't know whether to blush or roll around on the floor laughing!!! :pound:

custer 06-16-2009 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenbear (Post 22272)
custer-

You are actually using Sampson's metaphor for the sex act with his wife as support for your assertion that scriptures using the "Yoked" metaphor apply to the marriage relationship? That's a good one! I don't know whether to blush or roll around on the floor laughing!!! :pound:

INCOMPREHENSIBLE!!!

I know that I'm naive, but PLEASE, am I the ONLY one who has NEVER seen any "sex act" in Judges chapter 14???

And, if "plowed with my heifer" WERE a reference to a "sex act," the "metaphor" would DEFINITELY (duh!) be related to the marriage relationship!

INCOMPREHENSIBLE!!!

greenbear 06-16-2009 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by custer (Post 22278)
INCOMPREHENSIBLE!!!

I know that I'm naive, but PLEASE, am I the ONLY one who has NEVER seen any "sex act" in Judges chapter 14???

And, if "plowed with my heifer" WERE a reference to a "sex act," the "metaphor" would DEFINITELY (duh!) be related to the marriage relationship!

INCOMPREHENSIBLE!!!

Did you READ what I wrote??? Let me quote myself for you again. This is approaching absurdity.
Quote:

You are actually using Sampson's metaphor for the sex act with his wife as support for your assertion that scriptures using the "Yoked" metaphor apply to the marriage relationship? That's a good one! I don't know whether to blush or roll around on the floor laughing!!!
Please note that I am assuming Sampson's words "plowed with my heifer" refer to the sex act or I would not have referred to it as "Sampson's metaphor for the sex act." Sheesh!!! What I find so hilarious is that you use a man's description of having sex with his wife as evidence that "yoked" passages can apply to marriage when it has been clearly shown that they do not!!! And here we are now arguing about Sampson plowing with his heifer and what does it all mean! Unbelievable!!! I have been chuckling all day long. :pound:

custer 06-16-2009 08:35 PM

Well, greenbear, I'm glad I can be a source of amusement for you!

I have to admit, I was about to post that your thoughts are completely incoherent, but I think it's just better to assume that you and I are incapable of communicating our thoughts in written form...fair enough?

For the record, I did NOT "use a man's description of having sex with his wife as evidence" FOR ANYTHING... I do NOT believe now nor have I ever believed that "plowed with my heifer" has ANYTHING to do with sex!!! If "plowed with my heifer" is "Samson's metaphor for the sex act," as you assume, then in verse 18, he accused thirty people of sleeping with his wife (the thirty guys from verses 11-18!)

Again, I am NOT arguing about ANYTHING...you are the one who defined the "metaphor!" I simply wanted to know how you got that idea (the "sex act" thing) from the passage...I still don't know!!!

I am really sorry that we seem to have a communication problem almost every time we talk; I wish I knew how to fix that!

Pam
www.custerfamilyfarm.com

custer 06-16-2009 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by George (Post 22269)

Notice how she will "IGNORE" the overwhelming number of proof texts as to the meaning of "yoke" and how she desperately runs to ONE text (and takes it out of "context") to prove her preconceived ideas. This woman is not only "out of order', she is also "OUT OF BALANCE"!

THIS IS A BOLD-FACED LIE!

I have spent hours reading all the verses from the study and their contexts - and everybody following this thread can see that I dealt with SEVENTEEN verses of scripture in my post #22, not ONE, like you assert. (YOU chose to "IGNORE" all those scriptures AND facts!) If you are done with your elementary schoolyard bullying tactics, can we discuss YOUR thread? If you don't want to talk TO me, then tell everyone else on here what is wrong with my post #22...

If you feel the need to defame ME once again (who's "OBSESSED" with who here?,) don't waste the time that we're supposed to be redeeming by typing it all out AGAIN...everybody here already knows what you think of ME; instead, please comment on the verses and the study of the words themselves!

Pam
www.custerfamilyfarm.com

greenbear 06-16-2009 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by custer (Post 22298)
Well, greenbear, I'm glad I can be a source of amusement for you!

I have to admit, I was about to post that your thoughts are completely incoherent, but I think it's just better to assume that you and I are incapable of communicating our thoughts in written form...fair enough?

For the record, I did NOT "use a man's description of having sex with his wife as evidence" FOR ANYTHING... I do NOT believe now nor have I ever believed that "plowed with my heifer" has ANYTHING to do with sex!!! If "plowed with my heifer" is "Samson's metaphor for the sex act," as you assume, then in verse 18, he accused thirty people of sleeping with his wife (the thirty guys from verses 11-18!)

Again, I am NOT arguing about ANYTHING...you are the one who defined the "metaphor!" I simply wanted to know how you got that idea (the "sex act" thing) from the passage...I still don't know!!!

I am really sorry that we seem to have a communication problem almost every time we talk; I wish I knew how to fix that!

Pam
www.custerfamilyfarm.com

I know it's not right to laugh at you but I must admit that if I didn't find it so amusing I wouldn't have continued with this nonsense.

OK, Pam. I see where I lost your trail. It was Post 26. I missed one letter: an "N". You typed "NEVER" and I read it as "EVER". It was incomprehensible to me that someone wouldn't know that Samson was describing sex with his wife with the phrase "plowing with my heifer".
Quote:

INCOMPREHENSIBLE!!!

I know that I'm naive, but PLEASE, am I the ONLY one who has NEVER seen any "sex act" in Judges chapter 14???

And, if "plowed with my heifer" WERE a reference to a "sex act," the "metaphor" would DEFINITELY (duh!) be related to the marriage relationship!

INCOMPREHENSIBLE!!!
Quote:

For the record, I did NOT "use a man's description of having sex with his wife as evidence" FOR ANYTHING...
Oh, yes you did, custer! :p


Quote:

I do NOT believe now nor have I ever believed that "plowed with my heifer" has ANYTHING to do with sex!!! If "plowed with my heifer" is "Samson's metaphor for the sex act," as you assume, then in verse 18, he accused thirty people of sleeping with his wife (the thirty guys from verses
11-18!)
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT SAMSON DID!!! What does your mind's eye see Samson accusing these men of doing with his wife, if it's not sex? Anything? Anything at all?? Use your imagination!!!


Please read Judges chapter 14... with understanding.

Jg*14:1 ¶ And Samson went down to Timnath, and saw a woman in Timnath of the daughters of the Philistines.

Jg*14:2 And he came up, and told his father and his mother, and said, I have seen a woman in Timnath of the daughters of the Philistines: now therefore get her for me to wife.

Jg*14:3 Then his father and his mother said unto him, Is there never a woman among the daughters of thy brethren, or among all my people, that thou goest to take a wife of the uncircumcised Philistines? And Samson said unto his father, Get her for me; for she pleaseth me well.

Jg*14:4 But his father and his mother knew not that it was of the LORD, that he sought an occasion against the Philistines: for at that time the Philistines had dominion over Israel.

Jg*14:5 Then went Samson down, and his father and his mother, to Timnath, and came to the vineyards of Timnath: and, behold, a young lion roared against him.

Jg*14:6 And the Spirit of the LORD came mightily upon him, and he rent him as he would have rent a kid, and he had nothing in his hand: but he told not his father or his mother what he had done.

Jg*14:7 And he went down, and talked with the woman; and she pleased Samson well.

Jg*14:8 And after a time he returned to take her, and he turned aside to see the carcase of the lion: and, behold, there was a swarm of bees and honey in the carcase of the lion.

Jg*14:9 And he took thereof in his hands, and went on eating, and came to his father and mother, and he gave them, and they did eat: but he told not them that he had taken the honey out of the carcase of the lion.

Jg*14:10 ¶ So his father went down unto the woman: and Samson made there a feast; for so used the young men to do.

Jg*14:11 And it came to pass, when they saw him, that they brought thirty companions to be with him.

Jg*14:12 And Samson said unto them, I will now put forth a riddle unto you: if ye can certainly declare it me within the seven days of the feast, and find it out, then I will give you thirty sheets and thirty change of garments:

Jg*14:13 But if ye cannot declare it me, then shall ye give me thirty sheets and thirty change of garments. And they said unto him, Put forth thy riddle, that we may hear it.

Jg*14:14 And he said unto them, Out of the eater came forth meat, and out of the strong came forth sweetness. And they could not in three days expound the riddle.

Jg*14:15 And it came to pass on the seventh day, that they said unto Samson's wife, Entice thy husband, that he may declare unto us the riddle, lest we burn thee and thy father's house with fire: have ye called us to take that we have? is it not so?

Jg*14:16 And Samson's wife wept before him, and said, Thou dost but hate me, and lovest me not: thou hast put forth a riddle unto the children of my people, and hast not told it me. And he said unto her, Behold, I have not told it my father nor my mother, and shall I tell it thee?

Jg*14:17 And she wept before him the seven days, while their feast lasted: and it came to pass on the seventh day, that he told her, because she lay sore upon him: and she told the riddle to the children of her people.

Jg*14:18 And the men of the city said unto him on the seventh day before the sun went down, What is sweeter than honey? and what is stronger than a lion? And he said unto them, If ye had not plowed with my heifer, ye had not found out my riddle.

Jg*14:19 And the Spirit of the LORD came upon him, and he went down to Ashkelon, and slew thirty men of them, and took their spoil, and gave change of garments unto them which expounded the riddle. And his anger was kindled, and he went up to his father's house.

Jg*14:20 But Samson's wife was given to his companion, whom he had used as his friend.


You mention cross-references.
Quote:

First of all, why in the world do you people equate running cross-references with wresting the scriptures? Who put the cross-references in there? Are they there for a reason? Why are they there?
Who do you think put the cross-references in there?

As a friend of mine says, you "have to read the scriptures with Holy Spirit eyes."

We shouldn't rely too heavily on second-hand opinions about what the Bible says when we can get it straight from the Author Himself.

BornAgainBibleBeliever514 06-17-2009 09:49 AM

I highly doubt that "plowed with my heifer" refers to any sort of sex act whatsoever. Samson was calling the obvious, that they had used his wife against him.
Since there is no mention whatsoever of the Philistines having sex with the wife (nor yet Samson), but rather threatened her with burning, there is no way to extrapolate a sexual metaphor.
Now I know that in modern-day slang the term "to plow" can be used in an ugly, sexual way, however there just isn't any reason to read that into Judges 14.

Ironically, an heifer is a young cow that hasn't yet given birth, which can depict a newlywed wife. (Not what I'd call my wife, but...) Also, Numbers 19:2 and Deuteronomy 21:3 refer to an heifer as normally being destined to the yoke (unless offered for sacrifice). Now was Samson also implying that he is yoked to her? I'm not sure. She was outside of Israel, yet it was the Lord's will. I doubt that is good grounds to sanction lopsided relationships/marriages.

The Judges 14 passage has nothing to do with sex acts, although it does lend a bit of credibility to "being yoked" referring to marriage, although the initial scriptures given for a difference between being yoked and being joined are still evident as well.

I've heard 2Cr 6:14 used so often to come against lopsided relationships, I'm interested to see how this plays out.

:popcorn:

greenbear 06-17-2009 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BornAgainBibleBeliever514 (Post 22312)
I highly doubt that "plowed with my heifer" refers to any sort of sex act whatsoever. Samson was calling the obvious, that they had used his wife against him.
Since there is no mention whatsoever of the Philistines having sex with the wife (nor yet Samson), but rather threatened her with burning, there is no way to extrapolate a sexual metaphor.
Now I know that in modern-day slang the term "to plow" can be used in an ugly, sexual way, however there just isn't any reason to read that into Judges 14.

Ironically, an heifer is a young cow that hasn't yet given birth, which can depict a newlywed wife. (Not what I'd call my wife, but...) Also, Numbers 19:2 and Deuteronomy 21:3 refer to an heifer as normally being destined to the yoke (unless offered for sacrifice). Now was Samson also implying that he is yoked to her? I'm not sure. She was outside of Israel, yet it was the Lord's will. I doubt that is good grounds to sanction lopsided relationships/marriages.

The Judges 14 passage has nothing to do with sex acts, although it does lend a bit of credibility to "being yoked" referring to marriage, although the initial scriptures given for a difference between being yoked and being joined are still evident as well.

I've heard 2Cr 6:14 used so often to come against lopsided relationships, I'm interested to see how this plays out.

:popcorn:

Born Again,

Thanks for your input. However, I couldn't disagree more.

I don't think it's necessary for it to even be seen as a metaphor for sleeping with a woman (which of course I think it's clear it is) to see the error of using that verse to support this idea of being "yoked" as having anything whatsoever to do with the marriage relationship.

The idea of being yoked is not even in the passage.

Is any reference to cattle and marriage or a wife within the same passage now to be used as evidence of "yoked" relating to the marriage relationship?

Did you read George's exposition on the topic that absolutely destroyed the argument that "yoked" scriptures have anything to do with marriage?

I have to say that I am quite surprised by the ideas that a few people on this board have about how to correctly interpret the scriptures. Live and learn, I guess.

Oh, well. At least we have the correct Bible, right?

greenbear 06-17-2009 11:15 AM

Not the first time and I'm sure not the last, but the most obvious and relevant point escaped me for a little while.

If you want to use Jg 14:18 as a scriptural evidence that "yoked" applies to marriage not only do you have to fabricate the concept of a "yoke" being implied in the verse but you also have to explain how it supports your argument even then.

Samson is accusing these Philistine men of "plowing with his heifer"; these men being as the farmers doing the plowing, not as the other ox being yoked to her. How does that have anything to do with marriage being "yoked" together?

George 06-17-2009 12:09 PM

Re: "Biblical Marriage - "Joined Together" or "Yoked Together"?"
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by greenbear (Post 22315)
Born Again,

Thanks for your input. However, I couldn't disagree more.

I don't think it's necessary for it to even be seen as a metaphor for sleeping with a woman (which of course I think it's clear it is) to see the error of using that verse to support this idea of being "yoked" as having anything whatsoever to do with the marriage relationship.

The idea of being yoked is not even in the passage.

Is any reference to cattle and marriage or a wife within the same passage now to be used as evidence of "yoked" relating to the marriage relationship?

Did you read George's exposition on the topic that absolutely destroyed the idea that "yoked" scriptures have anything to do with marriage?

I have to say that I am quite surprised by the ideas that a few people on this board have about how to correctly interpret the scriptures. Live and learn, I guess.

Oh, well. At least we have the correct Bible, right?


Aloha sister greenbear,

:amen:To all of your comments. It also amazes me that some Christians either cannot, or will not, settle Scriptural matters in their hearts, but will instead leave themselves "open" to "SPECULATION" and "SUPPOSITION".

There isn't any way that Judges 14:18 cited by "custer" (in her desperation to disprove" the simple teaching about the difference between being "yoked together" and being "joined together") has anything to do with the sex act; or being "yoked together"; or being joined together"!

The use of the word "plowed" in the verse has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with being "YOKED"! It's pure "SPECULATION" on "custer's" part and a GROSS MISUSE of Scripture to boot! {No surprise there. :tsk:}

What is sad to see is BornAgainBibleBeliever514's willingness to give any "credence" to these "FLIGHTS OF FANCY" by "custer".

BornAgainBibleBeliever514's quote:
Quote:

"Now was Samson also implying that he is yoked to her? I'm not sure. She was outside of Israel, yet it was the Lord's will. I doubt that is good grounds to sanction lopsided relationships/marriages.

WHY would any Christian, with an ounce of "DISCERNMENT" - NOT "be sure"? When a Christian starts dealing with what someone in the Bible is "IMPLYING" - they are dealing with "SPECULATION" and "SUPPOSITION"; and if they aren't real careful they will fall into ERROR!

The Judges 14 passage has nothing to do with sex acts, although it does lend a bit of credibility to "being yoked" referring to marriage, although the initial scriptures given for a difference between being yoked and being joined are still evident as well.

This is known as "DOUBLESPEAK" or "speaking out of both sides of your mouth at the same time"! The passage does NOT lend itself to even a little "bit of credibility to "being yoked" referring to marriage". How could it - IF the words "YOKED" and "MARRIAGE" are NOT in the passage? :confused: From the "words" in the verse - HOW in the world would anyone, with a sound mind, get the ridiculous idea that there was any "credibility" at all to "custer's" conjectures? :tsk:

I am baffled as to WHY "Christians" are willing to accept or entertain the idea that personal "speculation" about Bible issues (or doctrine) is an acceptable (or legitimate) form of Bible study.

I've heard 2Cr 6:14 used so often to come against lopsided relationships, I'm interested to see how this plays out
."
I do not understand WHY BornAgainBibleBeliever514 is "interested to see how this plays out"? I wonder - has he read the Thread and all the Posts? And if he has read all of the Posts - WHAT is LEFT to play out?

If by reading all of the Scriptures that I posted in the original Thread, a person cannot make up their own mind as to whether a Biblical marriage is "yoked" or "joined", I don't know how much MORE would have to "play out" before a person could know for sure which it is - since there are NO MORE Scriptures to be cited concerning the issue. :confused:

greenbear 06-17-2009 02:21 PM

Aloha, brother George.

Thanks for your encouragement. Along with you, I'm not sure what's left to play out, either. I guess you either get it or you don't. I just don't get how people don't understand the "plowing with my heifer" meaning, though. What do people think Samson is talking about, then?

I only jumped back in this thread because I was so amused that custer brought out Jg 14:18 as an argument for her "yoked" case and by now we all know what I think it means!!! Lol.

Now I can beat a dead horse along with the best of them but I am convinced there remains absolutely no sign of life in this horse so in my mind it is dead and buried.

I think I'll follow the advise of some people wiser than myself and instead of engaging in profitless debating I will spend more time in the Bible. What a concept. Duh.

custer 06-17-2009 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by custer (Post 22278)
INCOMPREHENSIBLE!!!

I know that I'm naive, but PLEASE, am I the ONLY one who has NEVER seen any "sex act" in Judges chapter 14???

And, if "plowed with my heifer" WERE a reference to a "sex act," the "metaphor" would DEFINITELY (duh!) be related to the marriage relationship!

INCOMPREHENSIBLE!!!

In light of the most recent incomprehensible posts (by George and greenbear, just to be clear,) I thought it was necessary to quote myself above.

I want to make it perfectly clear that I had never even heard of ANYONE believing a "sex act" was alluded to in Judges 14...and, frankly, I think it takes a dirty mind to have read that into the passage! These 30 men in the passage did not sweet-talk and sleep with this woman - they threatened to KILL her, for crying out loud! Plus, as my 16-year-old son pointed out after hearing all this garbage, we're talking about ONE woman, THIRTY men, and SEVEN days...what in the world?????? FILTH!!!
Also, in verse one of chapter 15, Samson decides he wants to "go in to" his wife...does anybody actually think he would WANT her if he thought she had been with those other men??? (Yes, he had a harlot in 16:1, but that's different than choosing a wife! Right, men?)
Greenbear's "Samson's metaphor for the sex act" was a clever tool of the devil to plant that nasty thought in the mind of everyone reading this thread EVERY TIME we read Judges 14 from now on!

And, BornAgain, there is much left to play out yet...you won't get any answers out of George, though - he refuses to tell anyone how or why he posted a "study" with the glaring errors I mentioned in my post #22! (That's where I have SEVENTEEN verses that prove he is in error, plus I showed where his practical example (headship) was completely WRONG!) So far, George simply WON'T/CAN'T address the obvious problems with his "exposition" (as greenbear calls it;) I call it part exercise in "copy and paste" and part fluff. The only things edifying were the opening remarks and scripture!

Pam
www.custerfamilyfarm.com

greenbear 06-17-2009 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by custer (Post 22337)
In light of the most recent incomprehensible posts (by George and greenbear, just to be clear,) I thought it was necessary to quote myself above.

I want to make it perfectly clear that I had never even heard of ANYONE believing a "sex act" was alluded to in Judges 14...and, frankly, I think it takes a dirty mind to have read that into the passage! These 30 men in the passage did not sweet-talk and sleep with this woman - they threatened to KILL her, for crying out loud! Plus, as my 16-year-old son pointed out after hearing all this garbage, we're talking about ONE woman, THIRTY men, and SEVEN days...what in the world?????? FILTH!!!
Also, in verse one of chapter 15, Samson decides he wants to "go in to" his wife...does anybody actually think he would WANT her if he thought she had been with those other men??? (Yes, he had a harlot in 16:1, but that's different than choosing a wife! Right, men?)
Greenbear's "Samson's metaphor for the sex act" was a clever tool of the devil to plant that nasty thought in the mind of everyone reading this thread EVERY TIME we read Judges 14 from now on!

And, BornAgain, there is much left to play out yet...you won't get any answers out of George, though - he refuses to tell anyone how or why he posted a "study" with the glaring errors I mentioned in my post #22! (That's where I have SEVENTEEN verses that prove he is in error, plus I showed where his practical example (headship) was completely WRONG!) So far, George simply WON'T/CAN'T address the obvious problems with his "exposition" (as greenbear calls it;) I call it part exercise in "copy and paste" and part fluff. The only things edifying were the opening remarks and scripture!

Pam
www.custerfamilyfarm.com

The Lord judge between me and thee, custer.

custer 06-17-2009 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenbear (Post 22340)
The Lord judge between me and thee, custer.


:amen: and :amen:

greenbear 06-18-2009 03:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by custer (Post 22337)
In light of the most recent incomprehensible posts (by George and greenbear, just to be clear,) I thought it was necessary to quote myself above.

I want to make it perfectly clear that I had never even heard of ANYONE believing a "sex act" was alluded to in Judges 14...and, frankly, I think it takes a dirty mind to have read that into the passage! These 30 men in the passage did not sweet-talk and sleep with this woman - they threatened to KILL her, for crying out loud! Plus, as my 16-year-old son pointed out after hearing all this garbage, we're talking about ONE woman, THIRTY men, and SEVEN days...what in the world?????? FILTH!!!
Also, in verse one of chapter 15, Samson decides he wants to "go in to" his wife...does anybody actually think he would WANT her if he thought she had been with those other men??? (Yes, he had a harlot in 16:1, but that's different than choosing a wife! Right, men?)
Greenbear's "Samson's metaphor for the sex act" was a clever tool of the devil to plant that nasty thought in the mind of everyone reading this thread EVERY TIME we read Judges 14 from now on!

And, BornAgain, there is much left to play out yet...you won't get any answers out of George, though - he refuses to tell anyone how or why he posted a "study" with the glaring errors I mentioned in my post #22! (That's where I have SEVENTEEN verses that prove he is in error, plus I showed where his practical example (headship) was completely WRONG!) So far, George simply WON'T/CAN'T address the obvious problems with his "exposition" (as greenbear calls it;) I call it part exercise in "copy and paste" and part fluff. The only things edifying were the opening remarks and scripture!

Pam
www.custerfamilyfarm.com

I don't base my interpretation of scripture on any commentary. The only reason I'm listing these three is to show I am not some lone sick freak way out in left field here. I fear I'm about to be figuratively burned at the stake as a pervert or have to pin some scarlet letter to my blouse. Sheesh.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
Judges 14:18

If ye had not ploughed with my heifer - If my wife had not been unfaithful to my bed, she would not have been unfaithful to my secret; and, you being her paramours, your interest was more precious to her than that of her husband. She has betrayed me through her attachment to you. Calmet has properly remarked, in quoting the Septuagint, that to plough with one's heifer, or to plough in another man's ground, are delicate turns of expression used both by the Greeks and Latins, as well as the Hebrews, to point out a wife's infidelities...

In this sense Samson's words were understood by the Septuagint, by the Syriac, and by Rabbi Levi. See Bochart, Hierozoic. p. 1, lib. ii., cap. 41, col. 406. The metaphor was a common one, and we need seek for no other interpretation of the words of Samson.

John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
Judges 14:18

and he said unto them, if ye had not ploughed with my heifer; meaning his wife, whom he compares to an heifer, young, wanton, and unaccustomed to the yoke3; and by "ploughing" with her, he alludes to such creatures being employed therein, making use of her to get the secret out of him, and then plying her closely to obtain it from her; and this diligent application and search of theirs, by this means to inform themselves, was like ploughing up ground; they got a discovery of that which before lay hid, and without which they could never have had the knowledge of, as he adds:

ye had not found out my riddle; the explanation of it. Ben Gersome and Abarbinel interpret ploughing of committing adultery with her; in which sense the phrase is used by Greek and Latin writers4; but the first sense is best, for it is not said, "ploughed my heifer", but with her.


Matthew Poole's Commentary on the Holy Bible
Judges 14:18
Ver. 18. If you had not employed my wife to find it out, as men plough up the ground with a heifer, thereby discovering its hidden parts: he calls her
heifer, either because he now suspected her wantonness and too much familiarity with that friend which she afterwards married; or because she was joined with him in the same yoke; or rather, because they used such in ploughing.


I really don't understand the reason for these hysterics. My viewpoint on the meaning of this verse is not exactly unheard of.

The idea that Samson is saying all 30 men had sex with his wife is preposterous. One would be enough, don't you think? I believe Samson suspects his friend who he ended up giving her to. And just because Samson suspects adultery doesn't mean she actually committed adultery. It could be that no one had sex with his wife. Even if one of the men had sex with her, how could we be sure it wasn't rape?

When the thirty men had expounded his first riddle, Sampson responded with yet another riddle; If ye had not plowed with my heifer, ye had not found out my riddle.

A true riddle consists of a figurative and a literal description of an object in the form of a basic metaphor or allegory. It has two or more meanings. Riddles can be solved by verbal skill or through adaptive or versatile imagination.

allegory, a story or visual image with a second distinct meaning partially hidden behind its literal or visible meaning. The principal technique of allegory is personification, whereby abstract qualities are given human shape—as in public statues of Liberty or Justice. An allegory may be conceived as a metaphor that is extended into a structured system.http://www.answers.com/topic/allegory

Allegory communicates its message by means of symbolic figures, actions or symbolic representation. Allegory is generally treated as a figure of rhetoric, but an allegory does not have to be expressed in language: it may be addressed to the eye, and is often found in realistic painting, sculpture or some other form of mimetic, or representative art.

The etymological meaning of the word is broader than the common use of the word. Though it is similar to other rhetorical comparisons, an allegory is sustained longer and more fully in its details than a metaphor, and appeals to imagination, while an analogy appeals to reason or logic. The fable or parable is a short allegory with one definite moral. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory

If ye had not plowed with my heifer, ye had not found out my riddle.

Remember, a riddle has at least two meanings. In this riddle I believe there are actually three levels of meaning.

1)Literally plowing the ground with an ox to reveal the hidden parts of the ground.
2)Figuratively employing methods of uncovering Samson's secret from his wife. The idea of revealing secret things or hidden parts does have the feel of sexual immorality.
3)Although given in language rather than an image, this analogy is also addressed to the eye and can be pictured by the imagination. The physical form of a plowman behind the plow and...well, hopefully we all get the idea.

I can't foresee any circumstance that would compel me to respond to this thread again, short of being labeled as a harlot. No... not even then. I believe custer will have to play out the rest of this (whatever "this" is) by herself or maybe she'll find someone to take George's and my spots.

custer 06-20-2009 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenbear (Post 22315)

The idea of being yoked is not even in the passage.

greenbear,

This has been discussed SCRIPTURALLY already - see my post #23. You seem to read and comprehend my posts very selectively! The fact that the heifer is being plowed with, means that she IS YOKED! So, how can "the idea of being yoked" NOT be in the passage??? Still, both you and George clung to this side-note of mine while TOTALLY IGNORING my post #22...you know, the one with SEVENTEEN scriptures that ARE AGAINST George's conclusions!

WHY??? GEORGE???

Also, regarding your last post, you would have profited more by taking your own advice (from your post #35) and "spend more time in the Bible" (as would we all.)

Pam
www.custerfamilyfarm.com


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:37 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

Website © AV1611.Com.
Posts represent only the opinions of users of this forum and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the webmaster.

Software for Believing Bible Study