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:
“YOKES” – OLD TESTAMENT {3 Verses = A “Burden” or “Servitude”} Quote:
“YOKE” – OLD TESTAMENT {6 verses = “Yoke of Oxen” – Paired Together for “Work”} Quote:
“YOKE” – NEW TESTAMENT {6 Verses = A “Burden” or “Servitude”} Quote:
“YOKED” – NEW TESTAMENT {1 verse = “Yoked together” – Paired Together for “Work”} Quote:
“YOKEFELLOW” – NEW TESTAMENT {1 verse = “Yokefellow” – Paired Together for “Work”} Quote:
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” – NOT “yoked 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. |
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. |
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. |
Quote:
{{{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 |
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 |
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 |
Renee:
Quote:
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 |
I've been reading the exchanges here and I have learned much.
Quote:
Quote:
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:
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 |
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. |
Quote:
|
Joined Together or Yoked together
Hi Brother Tim,
Quote:
Neither would I Brother Tim. I'm only saying it is possible for that kind of marriage to work. Quote:
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 |
Quote:
|
Re: "Biblical Marriage - "Joined Together" or "Yoked Together"?"
Quote:
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:
|
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 |
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:
Jennifer |
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 |
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 |
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:
God has shown great grace with your marriage. You must know that it is a fairly rare exception. Thank God for His mercy. |
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. |
Quote:
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:
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:
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:
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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. |
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!!! :pound: |
Quote:
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:
Quote:
|
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 |
Quote:
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 |
Quote:
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:
Quote:
Quote:
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:
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. |
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: |
Quote:
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? |
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? |
Re: "Biblical Marriage - "Joined Together" or "Yoked Together"?"
Quote:
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:
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: |
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. |
Quote:
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 |
Quote:
|
Quote:
:amen: and :amen: |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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 06:28 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, 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.