logo
Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline sirgodfrey  
#1 Posted : Wednesday, July 29, 2009 9:46:40 AM(UTC)
sirgodfrey
Joined: 10/2/2008(UTC)
Posts: 512
Location: North Carolina

http://www.chabad.org/li...h-law-allow-polygamy.htm

Heard Yada and Ken speak in the most recent YadaYahweh broadcast concerning Torah. One of the points brought up was that Yahuweh was, in a sense, a polygamist (hope i'm not sounding disrespectful lol) because of His marrying of Yisra'el and the Ekklesia.

Thoughts? Insight?

This is sort of in-league with the question that I have had about concubines for some time and how scripture does not condemn it. It has been mentioned before, but I don't remember receiving any real substance on the issue/topic.

More thoughts? More Insight?
Offline Matthew  
#2 Posted : Wednesday, July 29, 2009 10:41:49 AM(UTC)
Matthew
Joined: 10/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,191
Man
Location: São Paulo, Brazil

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 2 post(s)
Here are a few sections where kp mentions polygamy and concubines:

1) http://theownersmanual.n...ex_and_Family_Ties.Torah

Quote:
(73)Do not withhold food, clothing or conjugal rights from your wife. “If he takes another wife, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marriage rights. And if he does not do these three for her, then she shall go out free, without paying money.” (Exodus 21:10-11) What the rabbis said to do here was such a no-brainer, God never even mentioned it. What He did say was intended to protect subsequent wives from abuse. It is abundantly clear that Yahweh’s intended pattern for marriage was two people, a man and a woman, joined as one for a lifetime. However, strange as we may find it, He never overtly prohibited polygamy—although He made sure that every time we see it in practice in the scriptures, there’s trouble attached. Caveat emptor. This admonition in Exodus says, in our vernacular, You think you’re such a stud that you can handle two wives? Very well, I see it as a sign of arrogant stupidity, but knock yourself out. Just be aware that you’re going to have to be twice the man you were before—twice the man I made you, by the way. You can’t short-change your new wife in any way, not in financial matters, not in attention, not in support, and not in the bedroom. And if you find out the hard way that you can’t keep up your end of the bargain, don’t come crying to me when she cleans out your bank account. Okay, that’s a paraphrase, but you get the idea.

In a symbolic sense, Yahweh Himself is polygamous. He has separated Himself from His “first” wife, Israel, because of her unfaithfulness (see the book of Hosea). And now He has betrothed Himself to a new bride, the Ekklesia of Christ, who looks forward to consummating the union at the “marriage supper of the Lamb,” spoken of in Revelation 19. According to His own Law, Yahweh is prepared to treat the Church with the same level of devotion He affords to Israel. Will He restore Israel to her former place of blessing? Yes, but only after she repents of her wickedness. (Actually, it’s more complicated than that: see #78.) And how does Yahweh view this potentially awkward three-way relationship between Himself, the Church, and Israel? Brace yourself for some really heavy symbolism, and read the Song of Solomon. The key is: Solomon represents the Messiah, the Shulamite is the Church, and the daughters of Jerusalem are, well, the daughters of Jerusalem—Israel.


2) http://theownersmanual.n...ving_Your_Neighbor.Torah

Quote:
(886)Respect the right of the firstborn. “If a man has two wives, one loved and the other unloved, and they have borne him children, both the loved and the unloved, and if the firstborn son is of her who is unloved, then it shall be, on the day he bequeaths his possessions to his sons, that he must not bestow firstborn status on the son of the loved wife in preference to the son of the unloved, the true firstborn. But he shall acknowledge the son of the unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.” (Deuteronomy 21:15-17) Though we may find it strange (as is the case with slavery), Yahweh never specifically outlawed polygamy. The reason, we may surmise, is the same: He had lessons to teach us that could most readily be understood in the context of this practice. Israel was, of course, quite familiar with this very scenario, for Jacob had ended up with two wives and two concubines, but only one of these women was really loved. Reuben, his firstborn, was the son of his unloved wife, Leah. Yet though Jacob recognized his status as the firstborn son, we read of no double portion being bestowed upon him, but rather a curse: “Unstable as water, you shall not excel.” (Genesis 49:4) (If you want to know why, read in Genesis 35:22 about what Reuben had done.) Rather, Jacob de facto bestowed the firstborn’s double portion on Joseph, the first son of his beloved Rachel, by “adopting” Joseph’s two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh (see Genesis 48:16).

Jacob hadn’t actually violated the Torah, of course, for it hadn’t yet been handed down. But Yahweh now wished to establish the normal order of things: the firstborn (even if he was the son of an unloved wife) was to receive the status of leadership and the double portion of the inheritance. Since Yahweh never supported human institutions and traditions for their own sake, we must ask ourselves why. What did He wish to teach us with the Law of the firstborn? Remember first that God is, in a manner of speaking, polygamous Himself. That is, He characterized the Nation of Israel as his “wife”—one who was subsequently unfaithful to him. Then, manifested as Yahshua the Messiah, God took a second “wife,” the ekklesia or called-out assembly of believers (a.k.a. “the Church”)—called the “bride of Christ.” This is clearly less an “arranged marriage,” and more a love match, than Yahweh’s union with Israel. As part of this “bride,” I can assure you that there is real passion in this romance.

What, then, is the point of the Torah’s precept? I believe it’s a prophecy. When Yahshua receives His kingdom, the nation of Israel—now restored and cleansed—will function as the “firstborn son” among nations, receiving a double portion of honor, authority, and blessing. The sons of the Church (the Millennial gentile believers), while enjoying the blessings of the kingdom, will look to Israel as their honored “eldest brother,” holding the uncontested position of leadership among Millennial mortals. This is in direct contradiction to the “Onward Christian Soldiers” mentality so prevalent a century ago that insisted the Church had replaced Israel in the plan and the heart of God. Yahweh begs to differ.


3) http://theownersmanual.n...08_Offering_Advice.Torah

Quote:
(807)The spiritual status of your victim can affect your punishment. “Whoever lies carnally with a woman who is betrothed to a man as a concubine, and who has not at all been redeemed nor given her freedom, for this there shall be scourging; but they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. And he shall bring his trespass offering to Yahweh, to the door of the tabernacle of meeting, a ram as a trespass offering. The priest shall make atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before Yahweh for his sin which he has committed. And the sin which he has committed shall be forgiven him.” (Leviticus 19:20-22) Yahweh isn’t condoning slavery here, but He is once again using it as a teaching aid, employing a cultural situation to demonstrate a spiritual truth. In other words, just because we don’t have concubines any more in our society (or the means to present trespass offerings to Yahweh, for that matter), we aren’t free to ignore what Yahweh is saying to us.

We need to sort out the symbols in order to get to the heart of the matter. The nature of the offense is sexual contact with someone you’re not married to, but with a twist. Normally, this kind of thing would fall under another precept, either (1) rape (the penalty for which is death); (2) adultery, i.e., sexual relations with someone legally joined to another (the penalty for which is also death); or (3) fornication, i.e., sex with someone not promised to another (the penalty for which is the payment of a dowry, accompanied, if the woman’s father allows it, by marriage with no possibility of parole—no divorce, for any reason, ever).

The twist here is the status of the woman: she is (1) a slave, human property belonging to another man; and (2) betrothed, that is, engaged to be married (tantamount to being legally married, though the marriage has not been consummated), whether to her owner, her owner’s son, or to a third party, e.g., another slave. The word translated “concubine” in our text (shiphchah) really just means “maid-servant,” but the supporting description (that she “has not at all been redeemed nor given her freedom”) makes it clear that she is a slave, and not merely hired help.

This distinction is important to comprehend, for sexual contact is a ubiquitous metaphor in scripture for spiritual relationships. Israel is portrayed time and again as Yahweh’s unfaithful wife because of her liaisons with Ba’al and other false gods; Paul speaks of the ekklesia as Yahshua’s spotless bride: “For I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.” (II Corinthians 11:2) Yahweh refuses to share our affections. He loves us, and wants us all for Himself—an exclusive, monogamous, lifelong, unswervingly faithful relationship. What, then, does our text’s reference to the violated concubine mean? I believe it is a metaphor for people who are already in spiritual bondage, “owned” by someone other than Yahweh. “Lying carnally” with someone in this state is thus a picture of presenting someone else’s false doctrine to them. Example: a Muslim is told by a Catholic priest that he must accept the authority of the Pope. Or, a Catholic converts to the Mormon faith (or Jehovah’s Witnesses, or Orthodox Judaism, or you fill in the blank) in the belief that this other religion is the road to salvation. We’re talking about jumping out of the frying pan into another frying pan. The “concubine’s” position may have changed, but it has not improved. She is still a slave, still in bondage, still in need of redemption. The only solution that would have actually helped her would have entailed her marriage to Yahshua, clothed in a wedding garment of pure light, with a bridal gift of her freedom from slavery to sin. But the false lover/rapist/seducer has only made a bad situation worse.

However, we’re only halfway done with the precept. Unlike the case of the common “adulterer,” the seducer isn’t guilty of his victim’s spiritual downfall, since she was already in bondage. You can’t murder a corpse, though it is possible to desecrate one. So his life is not forfeit, but he is to be punished—“scourged.” Forgiveness is possible (though by no means automatic) in this case. Upon repentance, a trespass offering (the asham, appropriate for “mistakes”) may be brought. The ram of the trespass offering, of course, is actually Yahshua the Messiah. His blood alone atones for our trespasses at “the door of the Tabernacle”—the Plan of God. How does this work? Perhaps the best example we have of a repentant “concubine seducer” is the Apostle Paul, a Pharisee who ceased trying to convert pagans to rabbinical Judaism and began leading them to the Messiah instead. I know of former Mormons, former Catholics, and even a few former Muslims, who no longer lead the lost astray but now serve Yahweh with gratitude and commitment. Their sins have been atoned by the blood of Yahshua. No longer do they “seduce concubines.” Now they “present them as chaste virgins to Christ” if they can.
Offline Noach  
#3 Posted : Wednesday, July 29, 2009 1:04:37 PM(UTC)
Noach
Joined: 7/5/2007(UTC)
Posts: 127


I haven't heard Tuesday's broadcast yet, but this is definetely a point where I think Yada and Ken are trying too hard to separate the Ecclesia from Yisrael. The Torah states that Yahuweh has only one bride and one covenant with one group of people - Yisra'el. The Ecclesia is Yisra'el. We are adopted into the covenant through our trust in Yahuweh's salvation. The Ecclesia is interchangeable with Yisra'el. I think Yada and Ken are getting too caught up in the natural born vs. adopted aspects.

Noah
Offline kp  
#4 Posted : Thursday, July 30, 2009 5:14:37 AM(UTC)
kp
Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,030
Location: Palmyra, VA

We (or at least I) don't work hard at all trying to separate Israel from the Ekklesia, Noach. Scripture does it for me, in manners blatant and subtle, every time I turn around. Once you're attuned to the truth, it's everywhere you look.

But it's not a case of "us against them." For the purpose of illustration, let's say I have two sons (I have many, but let's not complicate things). They are not the same person, but they are both related to me in exactly the same way, both loved equally, both given equal shares in my will (such as it is). Sometimes one of them drives me crazy with his foolish behavior, while his brother is holding it together pretty well, and sometimes the roles are reversed. But no matter what happens, one of them cannot usurp or absorb or replace the other. They remain distinct entities. I love them both, have sacrificed for them both, and hope for the success and happiness of both. Yes, okay, they are "one" in the sense of being "ken's family," but they are not one person---they are two very different personalities, with different aptitudes, skill sets, and goals. And I wouldn't have it any other way.

Call me crazy, but I believe that's how Yahweh sees Israel and the Ekklesia.

kp
Offline Noach  
#5 Posted : Thursday, July 30, 2009 8:15:32 AM(UTC)
Noach
Joined: 7/5/2007(UTC)
Posts: 127

I am with you KP, and I agree that Yahuweh refers to both groups separately, but these groups make up Yisra'el as a whole. He doesn't have a separate covenant with adopted Yisralites. Yisra'el is made up of the natural born and adopted, two distinct entities, but part of the same group. His covenant with Yisra'el has always been open to adoption. The problem I see is if we assume Yah has a separate bride or covenant apart from Yisra'el. Or if we state that Yah is a ploygamist to try to defend this type of assertion, when polygamy is clearly not the model He established. We former gentiles like to hang on to this type of religious thinking for some reason.

Noah
Users browsing this topic
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.