This is a BS answer. Moses who the commandments was given to had three wives. "If he take him ANOTHER wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money." (Exo 21:10-11, KJV)
Why do more black men understand this than white men? Are white men just too scared of women to speak up? Or do they prefer the Roman law over Gods law?
@David yeh but still it is ideal. in fact marriage is picture of christ the husband and wife as the church. there is only one church. So when man take more than one wife the image of the husband is distorted. where husband is now seen by his children as unjust and unloving according to my research. Even when husband try he best to be good. I was kind surprised when watch how video on secular people and pitch to canada government on why polygamy should be ban that almost use christian like language about marriage as first order in society. If change that, you will change whole society. You know is only one standard for holiness and we should try to live up too it.
Tje word for first in tje Greek is Mia literally means first it was saying a bishop can not be divorced amd it only alpies to bishops otjer wise tje rest would of tje verse would have to apply such as saying a Christian must have a wife have kids cant get drunk fight
@@spark300c The Catholic Church is the one who claims that they are that one true church, however, Christ portrays Himself as a husband to five women, here, and God Himself portrays Himself as a husband to two women, so if you don't like this parable, you are really going to have trouble with that one!
Just sticking to 1 woman. That's clearly biblical a man with a woman. Anything after that doesn't clear my conscience . So personally I believe more in Jesus than thoughts on marriage. Banking on JESUS
@@raavila95cool. Polygyny isn’t required for anybody so that’s great for you and your conscience. Jesus doesn’t say anything about polygyny or monogamy in the NT, except he describes himself as the groom of ten virgins. Also, if you believe in the Christophony on Sinai then the King of Kings provides for polygyny in the law.
a most ridiculous take from a man who can't accept Gods clear permission time and again that men can have multiple wives. such a shame most pastors can't just be honest.
Just because you can doesn’t mean it’s a good thing. The Bible says you can become one flesh with a prostitute-and that definitely wasn’t meant as a good thing. Genesis chapter 2 describes how the one flesh union between a man and a woman is supposed to look. And it doesn’t look anything like polygamy.
@@cbtam4333 Then why didn’t God clarify it was wrong? Even after many Godly men in the Bible practiced it (polygamy)? You would think that’s something God would be very clear about if it were so. You just say it’s bad or it isn’t how it’s supposed to look like because of culture not because God says so…
I don’t agree with Pastor John’s interpretation of the parable, to me these virgins are no bridesmaids (as the Bible have never mentioned this, regarding salvation). they were all supposed to be part of one bride, the church (the body of Christ), the faithful virgins were accepted by Jesus and given salvation, while the unfaithful virgins were denied salvation.
@@charismaadugyamfi760 the bride of Christ, is every Christian with eternal life as parts of 1 whole. Imagine a pie is sliced in 10 pieces, it doesn’t become 10 pies, they are 10 parts of one pie. The church is Jesus bride, the church consists of all the believers (the faithful brides represent the parts of the one bride) You reasoning would contradict the Trinity “how can 3 entities be part of one God”, well because the ways of God are different from the ways of man.
I’ve heard this take before but looking at how the Bible references the church as the bride, it makes more sense to exegesis the verse that way that some will make it to the kingdom and others won’t when he returns. I think I saw more info on that tho…
The parable does not equate the virgins as bridesmaids. The only reason for this guy to try this is that he has a real problem with polygamy and he needs to find an out. The parable calls them virgins and not bridesmaids. That is why its called the parable of the 10 virgins and not 10 bridesmaids. This parable is NOT about polygamy itself. That is not the point of the parable or story. That is clear is that Jesus uses a story based on polygamy. Would Jesus use a parable that uses a foundational premise that he fundamentally disagreed with, place himself in that setting that at the end of the story has him doing something he disagrees with? For example would Jesus build a parable with the setting being prostitution where a man (or Jesus) in the story goes to a brothel to meet 10 prostitutes and he hooks up with 5 of them? I don't think he would. The setting is not appropriate for Jesus to build a parable on that setting. But Jesus has no problem with having him as the bridegroom going to 10 virgins and being with 5 of them. Remember as well the passage in Genesis about Adam and Eve was written by Moses who had more than one wife. Clearly Moses is not seeing any claim of monogamy being some sort of the ideal standard in Genesis 2 that many claim. Nobody knows Star Wars better than George Lucas or nobody knows Harry Potter better than J.K Rowlings. We should accept the truth that nobody knows Genesis better than Moses. If Moses did not recognize Genesis 2 establishing monogamy, you probably should not either. The author of any text is ALWAYS the expert on that text. Not people living 3000 years later.
I think this parable does teach a few different lessons wrapped up in one parable. Godly wives are like wise virgins who a groom accepts for marriage. Foolish virgins are not accepted by the groom for marriage. Jesus told a parable in which He accepted marriage with five wise virgins. Jesus rejected marriage with five foolish virgins. There are spiritual and marital lessons here for men considering polygyny marriage told by Jesus. If polygyny marriage is meant for a husband and your wife(s), this parable may help the husband and if he already has his first wife with understanding God's will for them in marriage. (See the parable at Matthew 25:1-12).
I see the 10 virgins as US the People. We are many, some will be prepared and go in the House with Jesus. The other ones will be left out because they were not diligent.
Oh wow and he ends with "it's not even about marriage." Wow by the time he is done you wouldn't even recognize the text he is twisting. It is clearly and obviously about Jesus marriage to his brides.
Look at the Greek of “the bridegroom” in verse 5.. it’s in the genetive form.. meaning possessive. Jesus didn’t say “the bride groom” Jesus said “their bridegroom”.. the groom belonged to the 10 virgins. Jesus said the groom belonged to them going into the wedding 🤯 They didn’t belong to the bride (which is what brides maids means) they belonged to the groom and he them.
@@JuanMendoza-qd5lm He has demonstrated no facts-it’s not in the Bible. He just needs it to be. The parable never alludes to a bride. The same can be said for other parables told by Jesus that involved a wedding. Not every parable Jesus told involving weddings had the bride representing the true followers of Jesus. Sometimes Christ’s followers were represented by the guests or attendees at the wedding. A clear example of this is in Matthew. 9:14, 15. A common theme in the wedding parables is people who were meant to attend the wedding who don’t make it in, either because they opt not to go (Matthew 22:1-10), or because they are not recognized as legitimate guests and are therefore stopped from attending (Matthew 22:11-14). The parable of the 10 virgins is in the latter category.
@@cbtam4333 Except in Mathew it clearly defined the church as the wedding guests... And in the 10 virgins parable the entire parable was describing the church waiting for Messiah. The issue is YOU want to assert it's another meaning when scripture is literally speaking for itself. YOU want to add to the mouth of God and ignore that the original Greek Septuagint clearly uses the plural "Marriages" when the 5 finally meet the bridegroom .
@@JuanMendoza-qd5lm Your line of argument is very curious. You accept that the church can be symbolized not only by the bride but by those attending the wedding. You accept that the parable of the 10 virgins is meant to represent believers awaiting the Messiah. But you think I’m asserting a totally different meaning when I identify the 10 virgins as wedding attendees representing those awaiting the Messiah? On the contrary, what I said is entirely consistent. Moreover, the Septuagint doesn’t help us as it’s the Greek translation of the Old Testament, and we’re discussing a parable in the first book of the New Testament.
Scripture (both Old & New Testament) consistent uses the word virgin for a young woman of marriageable age who is presumed to be a virgin. Nowhere is it used exclusively for a bride.
In those days culturally speaking being a woman virgin and marriage were held at a higher standard, I feel like that was a much better system. Maybe that’s why the divorce rate is so high now-a-days.
He's misapplying historical norms and conflating it with modern norms. The ancients didn't consider concubines wives, but they often took them. Royals had multiple wives, but any one with wealth had other wives. Not too mention, Leviticus states that a man must take on his brothers wives, if his brother were to die and it was a father's duty to take his sons wife if he died.
Well that sad part, was the Eisegesis he employed when it comes to Matt 19:4. He ripped that verse out of its context and claimed that it was about marriage, when it was clearly talking about divorce, and Jesus was making the case for why divorce is wrong. Jesus was not talking about polygamy at all in that pasage. PIper also ignored verse 6, which clearly states that they are no longer two, but one flesh. How can you end up with three, if the husband and first wife, are not two, but one?
Exactly... This scripture describes them. ◄ Luke 16:15 ► New International Version He said to them, "You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of others, but God knows your hearts. What people value highly is detestable in God's sight. New Living Translation Then he said to them, “You like to appear righteous in public, but God knows your hearts. What this world honors is detestable in the sight of God. Jude 1 4For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you.They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality Jude King James Version 1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called: 2 Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied. 3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. 4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. 5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not. 6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. 8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities. 9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee. 10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves. 11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core. 12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots; 13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever. 14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, 15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him. 16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage. 17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; 18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts. 19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit. 20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost, 21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life. 22 And of some have compassion, making a difference: 23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh. 24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, 25 To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen. 3 John 1 Revelation 1
@@TouchnotDAnointingof136DZion We have no need to justify that which is never called sin. Polygyny is never called immoral either. Paul tells us to put away slander from our lips. Repent!
To those questioning God's approval of polygamy, let's see what the Bible says. Abraham was a polygamist. Jacob, who later was renamed Israel (from whom the 12 tribes of Israel came) was a polygamist. These were hardly men who discounted God's will. The most telling evidence comes in 2 Sam. 12:7-12. Here we have the prophet Nathan quoting God in condemning David for his adultery with Bathsheba. In verse 8, God says that He (God) gave David his master's wives and then goes on to say that if he (David) wanted even more, God would have given him more. But because of his sin, verse 11 says that God is going to take away David's wives and give them to another individual man who will have his way with them. If God hates polygamy, why did God give David those wives? And why did God offer to give David even more? More importantly, why would God take those wives from David and give them to another INDIVIDUAL man rather than giving them to several men so that the women would have monogamous marriages? Regarding Paul stating that Christian leaders be restricted to having one wife, such restrictions indicate that polygamy was found in the early Christian church. If everyone was monogamous, why would Paul feel the need to include that restriction? It would be like prohibiting leaders from being idol worshipers or unbelievers. Since the church contained none such, such prohibitions would be silly. Specifically banning polygamy for leaders shows that polygamy WAS practiced in the early Christian church and that polygamist men might have been considered to be bishops if it weren't for this restriction. Such a ban wouldn't have been needed had there been no polygamy in the church. Having extra wives and the extra kids that they'd produce would require polygamist men to spend more time with family and less of their time on other matters than monogamist men. They'd have less time to dedicate to being a church leader and tending to the needs of the flock. Because of this, men with just one wife would be better suited to serve the Christian community as a leader. Paul wasn't condemning polygamy but rather simply making sure that church leaders had time to adequately deal with the responsibilities of being church leaders. Banning such leaders from practicing polygamy also kept them from possibly offending potential Greek converts whose culture denounced polygamy. In 1 Cor. 10, Paul tells Christians to abstain from allowed behaviors if those behaviors could cause non-believers to be offended and reject the Christian message. The bottom line is that polygamy is in no way condemned by God in the Bible. In an ancient letter between two brothers who were Christian shows that polygamy occurred in the early Church - www.foxnews.com/science/christian-letter-bible-discovery-rare
not only that their many problem with polygamy it self with treatment of women. the problem with divid that he had combines that are like a Mistress. which confusing because how paul preach on sexually morality was more in line of the monogamous ethos. On the writings of it seem that paul felt that bishops that had a mistress was not ok. even though person could legally get around the law of having one wife by having a mistress. It why in greek he used term bishop had to be a one woman man.
@@spark300c Monogamy has problems too. Are you one of those "prosperity gospel" followers who believes that if something bad happens to someone, they must be living in sin? You are making this stuff up about Paul preaching in line with a monogamous ethos.David's problems were a direct result of his adultery and subsequent murder of Uriah. Scripture clearly teaches this.
@@danieldeluca4936 I not make up Paul support the monogamous ethos. After all he said husband of one wife. Most men want to get married if the paster takes more than one wife he creates incels. These incels will not respect the past because they feel they force out of society. In fact men have kill people because of polygamy. In order ensure social stability monogamy must be enforce. That concept of sexual morality is that for sociality stability. Let face your girl you do not understand.
@@spark300c That is a real stretch to assume that Paul supported a monogamous ethos, simply because of the fact that he said that certain men seeking certain specific positions of leadership were required to be a one woman man. I learned a new word (incel)! Cool! In some cultures there are more men that want to get married, than there are women available to marry, and yes, if the pastor takes more than one wife, there won't be enough women to marry. I have a mathematical solution. Every man gets two wives, but they must wait until 40, to get married. If every wife produces four children, there will be enough adult women so that all the incels can find a wife. Then when the men get older and die off, their widows can remarry, so that a man can marry a third or fourth wife. It's actually Biblical. Paul says that a widow should not be supported by her church, unless she is 60 years old. Instead, she should remarry. With polygamy, she won't have a problem finding a husband. The younger men have no business getting married early. They should mature and work on building up their financial empire, so that they can support two or more wives.
Scripture and other writings of the time consistently refer to betrothed brides as "virgins". On top of that there is no historical evidence for ancient Hebrews having bridesmaids. So John piper tells us not to image details and insert them into the parable, then he imagines details which have no historical likelyhood and inserts them into the parable to fit his desired interpretation. Also when he sites what God's design for marriage is he leaves out any scriptures where God tells us that he is a polygamist. Ezekiel 23 is the most obvious and there are more if you are interested in the truth.
Hi Ryan. I don't think i quite understood your message . It looks to me like you are saying that God is a polygamist. Could you clarify what you mean ? And if you've actually meant that The Lord is truly a polygamist ,would you give me the passages you are referring to? If that's Ezekiel 23 why would you point at that? I read it just a couple of minutes ago and it absolutely doesn't look like something that comes even close to meaning that The Lord is a polygamist , obviously i'd like you to correct me if you think i am wrong ,but i truly wonder what could come to your mind to think that way ( if this is what you actually meant... Again i didn''t quite get your message) I truly wish you peace and i hope God's grace is with you!
@@petnotobg5245 thanks. Yes I meant that Adonai himself describes himself as having two sisters as wives in Ezekiel 23. He describes himself as having more than one woman several times in Jeremiah as well. Also Jesus is obviously describing himself as being the bridegroom to ten waiting virgins (5 of whom he accepts to go marry him). I can go on if it would be helpful to you and I appreciate the friendliness of your conversation. The main point i would like to make is that Adonai, and Jesus both describe themselves as having more than one woman at one time. We cannot remake God into our own image or change his commands if we do so then we place ourselves as judges over God.
No problem , brother.I'd appreciate it if you actually send me the passages you are referring to you. In my opinion the meaning of Ezekiel 23:4 (Where God says the two sisters are His) is not that these women are his wives but instead that they are of His people/or are generally His as in His creation, His possession. Of course we cannot place ourselves as judges over God. He is perfect. I hope God's grace is always with you!
@@petnotobg5245 In Jeremiah, He says that they begat children for Him. C'mon man! Jeremiah is explicit about this. He goes on to say that they committed adultery against Him, by following other gods. Only a wife, is capable of committing adultery against her husband, and he is the only one she could possibly be committing adultery against.
@@danieldeluca4936 yes the scripture is explicit that Adonai had two wives who both bore him children. Piper and many others are attempting to create a god in their image.
I would take the virgins as representing the church which we collectively are, but the church is a single unit. Jesus is marrying a single unit, thus it has nothing to do with polygamy.
What difference did it make that these women were virgins? Why did that matter? If they were just bridesmaids, then call them that. But notice that they were identified as virgins and also that it was the groom and not a bride who met up with them and the five virgins went in with the groom to the marriage. Socially appropriate for groom to be meeting up with virgins late at night? This implies groom has intimate relationship with these women. One woman who is suppose to be the only bride is never mentioned. Matthew 25: 1-12 1 Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom. 2 And five of them were wise, and five were foolish. 3 They that were foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them: 4 But the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps. 5 While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept. 6 And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him. 7 Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps. 8 And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are gone out. 9 But the wise answered, saying, Not so; lest there be not enough for us and you: but go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves. 10 And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut. 11 Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us. 12 But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not. -------------------- The bridegroom is Jesus and the virgins are the church. Christians. Virgins represent purity in the parable and THAT is the church, the bride, that Jesus the groom is to marry. So in the parable, the groom is to marry the virgins. End of story. It's clear. There isn't one bride. There are five virgins which represent the true Church and the groom is Jesus who marries the brides. The brides are virgins because virginity represents purity. "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". - EPHESIANS 5:27 Anyone who still doubts that the five virgins in the parable are the ones the groom is to marry should simply ask yourself this: Why it was such a "big deal" to a groom that mere bridesmaids didn't have oil in their lamps and that he would refuse to open the door and tell them to leave and even go so far as to say to them, "I know you not". In other words, it is with these virgins who he thought he knew and loved and was to marry but they greatly disappointed him. My friends, it is because the one groom was to marry all of these virgins who were to become his brides on the wedding day. Polygamous marriages existed then and still exist today. Finally, if we do not accept that the virgins were to become brides for the groom to marry - then where is the bride? The parable symbolizes Jesus using the groom but where is the all-important one bride which suppose to be the symbol of the Church? Throughout this parable the virgins and THEIR relationship to the groom is important but no one bride which is suppose to be the Church is identified - except for the five virgins who are to be the brides. BY THE WAY, THE SCRIPTURES DO NOT IDENTIFY THE VIRGINS AS SUPPOSEDLY BEING "BRIDESMAIDS". THE SCRIPTURES TELL US THESE WOMEN WERE VIRGINS. Only people against polygamy prefer to ASSUME OR ASSERT the women were bridesmaids. No, they were virgins as the bible clearly states and which the bible also clearly states would make these brides-to-be (yes, BRIDES-TO-BE because they were NOT bridesmaids, so who were they?) "holy and without blemish" according to Ephesians 5:27. How pathetic and desperate to refer to the virgins as "bridesmaids". Using labels or other titles to desperately change the FACT WHO THESE WOMEN WERE TO THE GROOM! These women were VIRGINS and there is a reason there is an undeniable relationship described between these VIRGINS AND THE GROOM. Since the women liberation movement and other social change movements - virginity is not as valued in our society as it was in Jesus' culture and day. So this IS another contributing factor as to why modern Americans can especially find it easy to assume the virgins were merely "bridesmaids". But no, they were not simply bridesmaids. They were highly valued brides according to this parable! There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for it to matter to a man whether bridesmaids are virgins or not. But it does matter to a man if the bride(s) are virgins. At least, it use to matter. "We should always be ready with our lamps trimmed and full of oil so we won’t be caught in the darkness when the bridegroom (Jesus) comes!" but even here we are assuming we should be the wise virgins! Not the bride! My friends, the bride is suppose to be the Church which marries the groom Jesus. But yes, in this parable, the wise virgins are the ones with the most important relationship with the groom - they are to be the brides. Oh, and throughout this story the virgins are only concerned about the groom and never any concern about a bride. These virgins all knew they were to be the brides on the wedding day. I believe we can all see how extremely important the relationship of the virgins are to the groom in this parable. But we only want to accept that fact . . . just up to a certain point. Most people refuse to accept what appears obvious to me because of their bias against polygamous marriage. Even while at the same time they know polygamous marriage was alive and well in that part of the world and throughout the writings of Moses which they were all very well versed in. Anyway, that bias leads to a confused understanding of that parable. Because the whole parable makes more sense logically, historically and culturally when it is understood as taking place in the context of a groom simply marrying five virgins. Well, Jesus could have explained about being wise and prepared with probably thousands of other parables instead. With an open mind and heart, maybe one parable can teach more than one lesson. Yes? Also consider this. Do you think it is thoughtful and considerate to the five wise virgins the groom lets into the marriage that he now supposedly is expected to reject four of them for marriage? Suppose to make his decision right there at the marriage site and reject the other four? Really? I don't think so. In this parable Jesus is telling us the groom allows the five virgins in to the marriage because they are wise and were faithful to the groom. The groom marries these five wise virgins only since the other five virgins did not remain faithful to wait and have wisdom to be prepared for him when he arrived to marry them. The marriage in this parable is a polygamous marriage. I don't see a more accurate, honest and fully coherent way of understanding this parable otherwise. But religious scholars and theologians don't like this narrative. They didn't like it in the Old Testament as well. They don't like that God in the Old Testament and Jesus in the New Testament had NO ISSUE with men having more than one wife. That's why so many anti-polygamists hate this parable Jesus spoke. Jesus used a polygamous marriage in a parable and that goes against the world elite narrative. Jesus using a polygamous marriage in a parable without condemning polygamous marriage. Why didn't Jesus tell this parable but simply with one bride which represents the church and the bridegroom which represents Jesus? But Jesus had no problem with polygamy and thus the reason Jesus had no issue with a groomsman representing Jesus and five virgins representing the church. They hate this. Because we also see in the New Testament, Jesus Himself telling a parable concerning a polygamous marriage and Jesus made no issue against polygamy. Then, finally, there are those who say that the parable is probably not based on a true story. Well, it doesn't have to be based on a true story. The point is Jesus has no problem using a POLYGAMOUS MARRIAGE to illustrate a spiritual truth. Whether the polygamous marriage He used to illustrate or teach the spiritual truth actually happened or not still reveals to us that Jesus made no issue against polygamy. In fact, Jesus used the story of a man marrying multiple women during the same wedding ceremony to teach a spiritual truth. So Jesus definitely had no problem or issues with polygamy. In the parable, the groom represented Jesus Himself! We even call Jesus "Son of David" (David a polygamist and man after God’s heart) and then question where God stands on polygamy. 8 wives: 18+ children: King David is described in the Hebrew Bible as king of the United Monarchy of Israel and Judah. Many important figures had more than one wife, such as in the instances of Esau (Gen 26:34; 28:6-9), Jacob (Gen 29:15-28), Elkanah (1 Samuel 1:1-8), David (1 Samuel 25:39-44; 2 Samuel 3:2-5; 5:13-16), and Solomon (1 Kings 11:1-3).
The bride is where you would expect a bride to be-inside getting herself ready for the wedding. Where else would she be? Outside trimming lamps and going shopping for oil on her wedding night? That makes no sense.
I feel like the key explanation was lacking here. The virgins were bridesmaids, not brides. It wasn't common for Jews at the time of Christ to have more than one wife, but it was common - as it is now - to have multiple bridesmaids.
biblehub.com/matthew/25-1.htm The old Aramaic Bible says they are going to meet the Groom AND the bride. The new corrupted translations say bridegroom!!! We are the guests not the bride.
Note: in the early (Jacobean era) English translations, "thou/thee/thy" signifies a Hebrew singular you. "ye/you/your" signify a Hebrew plural you. (same holds for the Greek.) The first part of psalm 45 is about the bridegroom. Here is the second part: PSA 45 Hearken, O daughter (singular), and consider, and incline thine ear; forget also thine own people, and thy father's house; So shall the king greatly desire thy beauty: for he is thy Lord; and worship thou him. And the daughter of Tyre shall be there with a gift; even the rich among the people shall intreat thy favour. The king's daughter (singular) is all glorious within: her clothing is of wrought gold. She shall be brought unto the king in raiment of needlework: the virgins her companions (best friends) that follow her shall be brought unto thee. With gladness and rejoicing shall they be brought: they shall enter into the king's palace. Instead of thy (singular; no longer referring to the companions but to the King, or to the singular bride or to the union as "one flesh") thy fathers shall be thy children, whom thou mayest make princes in all the earth. I will make thy name to be remembered in all generations: therefore shall the people praise thee for ever and ever. _ Hope this helps someone.
Reading the books of the New Testament, we probably asked ourselves more than once: *"Why 2000 years we do not see those miracles that accompanied the Сhurch of Christ in the I century, as described in the New Testament?"* Why do the so-called preachers of Christ have to prove that Jesus really existed and atheists boldly deny the historicity or divine origin of Christ? Maybe because the Сhurch of Christ has not existed for 2000 years? The Сhurch does not exist in the form in which it is presented in the books of the New Testament, but there are Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant and other christian sects claiming to be the place of the Church, but they not have the only thing that distinguishes the divine from the human and is characteristic of just the Сhurch of Christ -the reinforcement of the word with signs, that is, miracles (Mark 16:15-20). Therefore, some researchers doubt the historicity of Christ, and some of them are not opposed to declaring him a an ordinary philosopher, teacher. But even if Jesus were an ordinary philosopher, his disciples would be ordinary followers of Jesus. And they would not dare to write about the miracles that not only Jesus, but also his disciples, could perform. If there were the Church in our time as described by the authors of the New Testament books, where miracles are performed, the sick are healed, where prophesied, and the dead are raised, no one would doubt the historicity of Christ. Then there would be the same controversy throughout the world as in the first century - Jesus the Son of God or the false prophet who seduces the world by miracles. As a result, we can say that the emergence and development of christian sects and atheism was the result of the fact that over the 2000 years the Сhurch of Christ did not exist. Find *"The Mystery about the Church of Christ"* video on CZcams. The video reveals the prophecy of the disappearance and reappearance of the Church of Christ before the End of the World. Watching this video will give hope to all who sincerely seek God and will interest those who are not too lazy to think freely. Click on my name to watch the video (The video is in Russian, but English subtitles are included).
In Early English bible versions there is a BRIDE/WIFE in the parable who is with the bride groom. Note below: 1750 Douay-Rheims Bible Then shall the kingdom of heaven be like to ten virgins, who taking their lamps went out to meet the bridegroom and *** the bride.***
That only shows the bias that the translators of that version had. It is not found in the original Greek Τότε ὁμοιωθήσεται ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν δέκα παρθένοις, αἵτινες λαβοῦσαι τὰς λαμπάδας ἑαυτῶν ἐξῆλθον εἰς ὑπάντησιν τοῦ νυμφίου. Where νυμφίου means "bridegroom".
Oh the ways we have to twist ourselves to fit into our narrow cultural western Christian worldview. 1) Why in the world would being a virgin be a requirement to accompany the bridegroom to the wedding feast? 2) This is assuming bridesmaids were actually a "thing" in 1st century Jewish weddings, which doesn't appear to be the case. 3) Why would 10 virgin brides"maids" accompany the bridegroom to the wedding if they were bridesmaids? Wouldn't they be helping the BRIDE? ... none of this makes ANY sense, but 10 virgin BRIDES waiting on their GROOM and 5 not being ready / prudent and getting left behind makes 100% sense. The amount of distortion and misreading of this text required to come to this conclusion is shocking, but not surprising because if we just read it as is, and allowed it to mean what it does, with ALL the polygyny in the OT, we'd as western christians have to just accept that God has no issue with multiple wives, not in the OT, not in the NT. That my friends, is just too shocking to our systems.
@Just be , just be broo Didn't you just make the case that it's already a problem with "monogamy only" ...? I'm not too concerned with the secular pagan realm, if a Christian man is having trouble finding a wife, I'm concerned about that, and I'd have to know why given the numbers it should not be hard for a Christian man to find a wife. A Christian woman finding a good man is another story though based solely on the numbers. But I do suppose a lot of the secular reasons women are passing over men bleeds over into the church as well, so there are probably plenty of instances where women are passing over good Christian men, if I had to guess. All that said, I'm concerned with us teaching and preaching the truth, the word, faithfully, and I trust that God's plan for marriage (which includes both monogamy and polygyny) allows the cards to fall where God wants them to, if we faithfully follow Him and His ways, not our own.
@Just be , just be broo I understand what you're saying, but I'm trying to illustrate to you that what you're claiming is going to happen is already happening and you're admitting that while also claiming polygyny will cause it. "I find men who push polygyny are either simps or just narcissists who want all the women for themselves. " Well, you would have to be more specific, there are going to be secular pagan men who promote hooking up with many women and they "deserve to" because they are high value, but that is not the context in which I am concerned. Biblical polygyny is not red pilled Kevin Samuels high value men.
@Just be , just be broo "Moses allowed it for the hearts of man, just like divorce. The Almighty has never been for it, as it goes against his original design why didnt he make more wives for adam? " We simply cannot say that, Jesus did not ever tell us Moses allowed polygyny because of the hearts of man just like divorce, you're adding to the text, we are warned not to do that. Hebrew polygyny existed WELL before Moses. God had plenty of opportunity to tell them to stop all the way up to Moses, and during His working with Moses to write the Torah. He did not tell them to stop, and so we should not assume anything about it and we should obey His commandments and statutes. Jesus had the opportunity to speak clearly on the matter, and He had nothing to say regarding the practice. Jesus is God, Jesus was there in the beginning, and He was there giving Moses the Torah. If Jesus was ok with Jacob having 4 wives, and Jesus didn't say anything about it while He was here in physical form, we should not put those words in His mouth. Adam and Eve were created and put in a perfect Garden, with no sin or death, one perfectly made woman from him and delivered to him by God would have probably sufficed. But they led us to sin and death, and now we live in a fallen world where life isn't perfect and we don't live in the ideal. There are MANY instances in which there simply are not enough good men to cover all the women who need cover. The Christian church today is a prime example of that. Regardless of all the hypergamy, and 80/20 stuff, that matters but it's not a reason to hide and continue to suppress the truth. There are many evils that need to be sorted out among God's people, women passing over (good) men for sinful reasons is one of them, but hiding the truth on polygyny isn't going to solve that. There are also many good women who simply cannot find a good worthy man, widows with young children who need good fathers, good single humble Christian women who genuinely can't find a good Godly man to commit to her, and not the ones who are just overlooking good men. These women should be able to choose from a pool of qualified men who have the capacity, not just "single" men who don't want to commit or cannot provide or force them to look to unbelievers. The balance of things will sort itself out, we have tried monogamy-only for 1500 years and it's not working, we need to return to teaching that there is no monogamy or polygyny, it's just marriage. How many wives a man covers is entirely context dependent and based on who God wants him to cover, he needs to seek God's guidance on that, and so do the women.
@Just be , just be broo "he just tolerated it like slavery, child marriage, tax collection, divorce, remarriage, interracial marriage etc." This is just a really bad take, respectfully. What you're attempting to do is lump in polygyny with other emotionally charged issues and claim that God merely tolerated it. No, 100% no. God does not tolerate sin. When and where people sin, He told us not to, He doesn't tolerate any sin. Polygyny is not a sin. There's nothing for him to tolerate. God Himself describes Himself as having 2 brides (Israel and Judah) ... He would not describe Himself in a sinful manner. When you approach scriptures with the false presupposition that polygyny IS sin, you ultimately write that into the scriptures as you read them, this is the problem most Christian's have (myself included at one point). We need to really test our presuppositions and make sure we are starting from the right point before making judgements about issues like this, because it affects so many other parts of our understanding of scripture and lessons.
First let me say, I have enjoyed John Piper for years. But, without any malice meant at all, he misses it here altogether. Anyone listening should study this issue for themselves. I'll leave it at that.
Can you explain what he misses? I thought he was spot on: Be vigilant, be ready --know God deeply & intimately because none of us have all the time in the world to get it right
Anyone that questions the Bible is sitting as a judge of the Word because they don't know the Word ...nor are they doers of the Word. If you know Jesus and believe the Bible you have in your hands is the pure Word of God then pray and God will reveal the truth to you. And we as Christian people need to be in agreement what is the pure Word of God. After 3 years of study I can tell you it's not the many other versions people think are easy to read. It's the King James version. And, no, Jesus did not advocate for polygamy. Duh...
@@SummerofKittyLove You cannot discern between Exegesis and Eisegesis. PIper lied when he said that Jesus was talking about marriage in Matt 19:4. He was talking about divorce.
@@monalisa72775 You don't know the Word of God. Jesus wasn't promoting polygamy, but He sure wasn't condemning it in Matt 19:4! Piper ripped that verse out of context. Oh, and if you really want to know what the Word says, read it in it's original Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic.
The parable of virgins I would like a primary source that talks about the Jewish wedding structure being this way. If not, this is circular reasoning. The reason being you assume polygamy to be wrong so therefore this could not mean polygamy. But if polygamy was not wrong then this is polygamy. What you say the clear teaching of scripture is, contradicts what the scripture is saying when it is clearly stated. You say the clear teaching of scripture shows Jesus saying there’s only one husband and one wife that’s the model. He did not say that. Jesus was talking about divorce not marriage. You infer it applies to monogamy. But the other parable with the virgins is directly saying they are waiting on the groom. On that one you infer that the meaning is not what it actually says. I do believe the clear teaching of scripture is clear most of the time. But sometime culture matters. For instance women having long hair and men having short hair is about procreation. You don’t get that directly from scripture but you get that from what was understood at the time based on procreation beliefs written by the father of medicine Hippocrates. Hippocrates wrote that hair hollow and acted like a straw to aid and a woman’s ability to conceive by drawing the man’s sperm up into her uterus. he also taught that men and women both had sperm located in their head. So if a man had long hair, the sperm would not be able to go down and out properly. Tele prostitutes would shape their head. One of the reasons was to avoid pregnancy since they had no hair to draw the sperm up into their uterus. But think about what the parable is saying and apply that to Christians. Is Jesus telling the five faithful virgins they will never marry Jesus because they’re not who he is marrying, they’re just simply bridesmaids. So after His wedding with the mystery bride, who is not mentioned, the faithful virgins are suppose to go away from Him to find a different groom because that groom is not theirs. This makes no sense.
You may want to reread that. Ezekiel 23 has to do with 2 sisters who took part in adultery and fornication. It never talks about them being married. God also wanted all women to be taught not to do what they did.
@@vision-dz6cm what you are saying is absolutely wrong. They both committed adultery against Adonai, so they were both married to Him. Adonai is a polygamist. The scripture literally says their names were Oholah and Oholibah. It says "they were mine" and at the end of the chapter after describing their adultery Adonai says "Then I alienated Myself from her, As I had alienated Myself from her sister." Clearly Adonai is saying he married two woman at once and they committed adultery against him so he removed himself from them. Jeremiah also bears witness to Adonai having more than one wife. You are lying about Adonai and about his words with your generalized statements that go directly against Adonai and his words.
@@vanorsdelry I just reread Ezekiel 23 and realized my mistake. First of all if you look up Adonai it tells you the name means lord. So it's reasonable to assume Adonai is supposed to represent God. Here is Ezekiel 23 verse 4 straight out of the King James Version; "And the names of them were Aholah the elder, and Aholibah her sister: and they were mine, and they bare sons and daughters. Thus were their names; Samaria IS Aholah, and Jerusalem Aholibah." Look closely at the last line. During that time, Jerusalem had turned its back on God and began to follow the customs of its neighbors, the Samaritans. If you don't believe me open your Bible and read it from there. It will say the same unless it is a newer version which means the same just worded differently.
@@vision-dz6cm it doesn't change at all that God clearly describes himself as a polygamist with two women committing adultery against him. God is a polygamist.
@@vanorsdelry It was not two women. It was two places. Two nations. When he said they were his, it meant they served him. If you think being married to someone makes the person "yours" see a therapist. God was never "married" to Jerusalem and Samaria. God often uses parables to make things easier to understand but not to be taken completely literally.
Most pastors LIE about this, plural marriage and families are just fine, God gave Jacob 4 wives for example. Plural marriage is the image of Jesus and his bride.
To those questioning God's approval of polygamy, let's see what the Bible says. Abraham was a polygamist. Jacob, who later was renamed Israel (from whom the 12 tribes of Israel came) was a polygamist. These were hardly men who discounted God's will. The most telling evidence comes in 2 Sam. 12:7-12. Here we have the prophet Nathan quoting God in condemning David for his adultery with Bathsheba. In verse 8, God says that He (God) gave David his master's wives and then goes on to say that if he (David) wanted even more, God would have given him more. But because of his sin, verse 11 says that God is going to take away David's wives and give them to another individual man who will have his way with them. If God hates polygamy, why did God give David those wives? And why did God offer to give David even more? More importantly, why would God take those wives from David and give them to another INDIVIDUAL man rather than giving them to several men so that the women would have monogamous marriages? Regarding Paul stating that Christian leaders be restricted to having one wife, such restrictions indicate that polygamy was found in the early Christian church. If everyone was monogamous, why would Paul feel the need to include that restriction? It would be like prohibiting leaders from being idol worshipers or unbelievers. Since the church contained none such, such prohibitions would be silly. Specifically banning polygamy for leaders shows that polygamy WAS practiced in the early Christian church and that polygamist men might have been considered to be bishops if it weren't for this restriction. Such a ban wouldn't have been needed had there been no polygamy in the church. Having extra wives and the extra kids that they'd produce would require polygamist men to spend more time with family and less of their time on other matters than monogamist men. They'd have less time to dedicate to being a church leader and tending to the needs of the flock. Because of this, men with just one wife would be better suited to serve the Christian community as a leader. Paul wasn't condemning polygamy but rather simply making sure that church leaders had time to adequately deal with the responsibilities of being church leaders. Banning such leaders from practicing polygamy also kept them from possibly offending potential Greek converts whose culture denounced polygamy. In 1 Cor. 10, Paul tells Christians to abstain from allowed behaviors if those behaviors could cause non-believers to be offended and reject the Christian message. The bottom line is that polygamy is in no way condemned by God in the Bible. In an ancient letter between two brothers who were Christian shows that polygamy occurred in the early Church - www.foxnews.com/science/christian-letter-bible-discovery-rare
@@chrisinidaho4569 What do you mean Jacob never discounted God's will? He literally fought God! The reason the Bible talks about God being the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob is because they are drastically different. Abraham was one of God's most loyal servants. Issac is a servant of God but he isn't mentioned as much as his father and sons. Jacob lied to his father and tricked his brother. Then instead of facing judgement, he ran away. I wouldn't consider these actions to be pleasing to God. Yes in the end he served God, but that doesn't mean he never discounted God's word.
@@vision-dz6cm Jacob/Israel wrestled against an angel (unknowingly). God was always with Jacob and was blessed by God. God never condemned Jacob for polygamy and blessed him with the 12 tribes of Israel. There is no way you can condemn Jacob's polygamy. Isaac is hardly mentioned and wasn't a polygamist. God seems to favor polygamists. Until his sin, David was God's favorite though he was a polygamist given his wives by God. 2 Sam. 12:7-12 has God giving an INDIVIDUAL man all of those wives to openly have sex with. There is NO WAY anyone can logically claim that God hates polygamy.
@@chrisinidaho4569 1st I'm not condemning Jacob's polygamy. 2nd The Bible says God is no respecter of persons. Meaning everyone has the same respect from God regardless of position, so David was not God's "favorite". 3rd When I pointed out the things Jacob did it was to show Jacob was not a pure man. 4th Jesus is occasionally referred to as the Angel of the Lord. Jesus is also referred to as God in human form. Therefore the Angel of the Lord is God. However when it says an angel or angels then it is not referring to God.
It was a requirement for young women of marriageable age but not yet married to be virgins. That’s why they were called virgins; they were presumed to be virgins if they had a good reputation; otherwise they’d be in deep trouble. So a group of women who were young, past puberty, of marriageable age, but not yet married were often called virgins. It has nothing to do with any special requirement to be a virgin in order to be a bridesmaid; bridesmaids were reputable young women and were therefore presumed to be virgins and often called such. So a group of bridesmaids or any other group of such women could be called virgins as a matter of course. It wouldn’t signify anything more in the parable than that. On the other hand, the idea of 10 brides marrying 1 bridegroom on a single night is the more laughable notion. Polygamous marriage at the time was not that common, and when it did happen it was usually sequential over time (not simultaneous) and involved far fewer than 10 wives. The notion of one man having a spectacular wedding night with 10 virgins may appeal to some, but it is not for that reason any less outlandish.
I agree with your first paragraph. As far as it being outlandish for someone to marry multiple virgins on the same night, I disagree, I think that is just your personal opinion…
Polygamy at the time was SO common that the Romans had to write into their laws a legal protection for Jews to practice it without breaking the Roman Law which applies to all other cultures in the Roman empire. You literally have no facts and keep asserting your mere opinions as truth.
@@rager4able Only rich old men could afford to have 10 wives, and that would be rare at any time or place in history. That many wives would be added sequentially, not all in one day. Show me one example to the contrary. Plus, marriage was supposed to be consummated on the wedding night. Just do the math. Nope. That might be somebody’s fantasy, but not real life.
@@JuanMendoza-qd5lm That’s because Jewish law at the time permitted it. But it’s legality was not an indication of its prevalence. In the patriarchal period and in the period of the Judges, polygamy was fairly common among Jews. But by the late Second Temple period around the time of Jesus, it had become much more rare, albeit still permitted, based on what I’ve read from Jewish and secular historians. As with other aspects of Jewish law that did not comport with Roman laws or mores, Jews used their influence to seek for and often obtain exemptions.
@@cbtam4333 Where's is your evidence to the contrary? You have none. And if you want to put the words of a secular historian on the same level as God then knock yourself out. I'm not. But I'll still wait for that evidence.
Such abstract speech , nothing concrete. John 7:16 . Malachi 6:3. Hebrews 13:8. Then shall The KINGDOM OF HEAVEN be likened unto 10 VIRGINS , which took there lamps, and went forth to meet the BRIDEGROOM. Wow another author of confusion and abstract thought.
@@petnotobg5245 When Jesus comes back to receive us, will we be forever with him, or will we be like bridesmaids, who simply return to their homes after the wedding? Think about it.
Im not arguing for Either Way…but just to point out it’s applicable to not take the writings of these texts So LITERALLY. The Adam and Eve explanation CAN be SEEN As the Model or Design of Man and Woman, but Not Necessarily “a Rule” or Specific Principle, No?. A PRINCIPLE of the DESIGN/MAKE UP of Man and Woman, Yes?, but Not NECESSARILY, even, a “commandment” of How Relationships between Men and Women MUST be, Right?
Isn’t it weird they start out with the assertion that Jesus didn’t approve of polygyny when Jesus never says anything remotely close to that? It’s like they want to play God by making the rules and also deceive you to take their anti-biblical opinions as axiomatic.
The LESSON coming from this is irrelevant, PASTOR JOHN, to the reason WHY 10 virgins were used. He could just said "people" for that lesson. Also, "that assumption (polygamous) is not necessary" he says... haha. Well at the same time, JOHN is assuming the necessity of that to NOT be needed. Both are assumptions, however John is the only one who assumes it's better to ignore the part about the virgins.
Seriously? these kinds of questions should be prohibited. Oh, "Did Jesus endorse leaving home and spending all your money on drinks and harlots so you can come to God?" so irrational.
@@nikkiq5124 Ezekiel 23:4, but it becomes even clearer when you read the entire passage and not just one verse. Chew on that for a while and then see if you can rationailze that away, or if instead, you are forced to a different conclusion than the one that you wish to arrive at.
@@danieldeluca4936 yes it is clear that when the Constantine created the Roman church several things were hidden-chiefly the validity of polygyny and the reality of fallen angels.
I wouldn't say that.. it is about ten. but it also says neither touch the oil nor the wine. and there were five and there were five sparrows as well. and there is the parable of the rich man who had saved up and it is said that in the hour that his soul was required of him who didn't watch and whom beat the servants who had not and worried not about where their next meal would come. as it is said "he will come like a thief in the night"
This is interesting. I have to say I disagree that that was bridesmaids, I do believe that the scripture was actually making reference to brides. Polygamy was not uncommon in that day. But just because it's described in the Bible does not mean it's prescribed. Polygamy always resulted in broken families, broken relationships, and drama drama drama lol. It is the same today. Polygamy is never Successful by standards of love, peace, and unity in a family.
Polygamy did not always result in broken families, relationships, or drama. You know nothing about polygamy. I know someone who has three wives and he has been married to them for well over 20 years! While polygamy may not be prescribed for everyone, it is certainly not forbidden for everyone!
@@danieldeluca4936 does not mean happily married for 20 years. How many abusive relationships last 20 years? Just because you know one family you think is successful means I know nothing of polygamy. Logical fallacies discredit you.
Monogamy experiencing the high divorce rates past decades. Husbands and wives not wearing their wedding rings. Monogamous marriages where the husband and wife decide they need to try "swinging". Then monogamous marriages where wife sometimes approves of husband having a "side chick". Many monogamous marriages where they "wife swap" with other monogamous couples. Then there is the high rates of domestic disputes of husbands and wives in monogamous marriages. So is exactly how you define or compare "success" of monogamy marriage and polygynous marriage is interesting. You strike me as being a hypocrite. The reality is God has provided us with His divine polygyny marriage Laws which shows He absolutely approves polygyny marriage. God is wiser than you about relationships and marriage. You are better off to learn from Him Who knows more about human nature and marriage than you do.
She is quite correct in assuming they must be His brides since Jesus uses the word for being intimate with one's wife in that He said "I never KNEW you", and "knowing a woman" in the bible means to sleep with her.
Pro-polygamists need for this parable to be about a man deflowering 10 beautiful young women in one wedding-and it being okay with God because they are “married.” It would justify promiscuity-so long as it is brought into a marriage and thereby “legitimized.” So they will read things into the passage to that end, no matter how far-fetched. Logic, common sense and sound exegesis are clearly no match for the baser instincts. Matthew 19: “Why then did Moses permit us to divorce?” “Because of the hardness of men’s hearts. Whoever illegitimately divorces his wife and marries another COMMITS ADULTERY.” [The fact that sex with a second wife is within a legal marriage does not mean it is not adultery in God’s eyes. Pro-polygamists, are you listening?] “If that’s the case, it’s better not to marry.” [If that’s how strongly they felt about it, treating adultery against a wife as a capital offense may have resulted in either too few marriages or much more rampant promiscuity. But it still wouldn’t justify any form of adultery.] “Not everyone can receive this, but only those to whom it has been given. Those who have ears to hear, let them hear.” To those who defend polygamy, do you have ears to hear?
I just lost my job last Tuesday. Could you send me $100 so I can put gas in my car to go to these job interviews? I have one on Sunday, 4 on Monday and one on Tuesday. $Thelittleprayercafe
This is a BS answer. Moses who the commandments was given to had three wives.
"If he take him ANOTHER wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money." (Exo 21:10-11, KJV)
I know that he had two. who was the three
Why do more black men understand this than white men? Are white men just too scared of women to speak up? Or do they prefer the Roman law over Gods law?
@@Papasquatch73 He had a couple of Kenite Father in laws.
PREACH BROTHER!
The Creator never condemned his men that had multiple wives. Abraham, Jacob, David, Gideon, Solomon, etc.
How ever paul made it standard where paster only can have one wife.
@David yeh but still it is ideal. in fact marriage is picture of christ the husband and wife as the church. there is only one church. So when man take more than one wife the image of the husband is distorted. where husband is now seen by his children as unjust and unloving according to my research. Even when husband try he best to be good.
I was kind surprised when watch how video on secular people and pitch to canada government on why polygamy should be ban that almost use christian like language about marriage as first order in society. If change that, you will change whole society. You know is only one standard for holiness and we should try to live up too it.
Tje word for first in tje Greek is Mia literally means first it was saying a bishop can not be divorced amd it only alpies to bishops otjer wise tje rest would of tje verse would have to apply such as saying a Christian must have a wife have kids cant get drunk fight
spark300c wrong intripritation
@@spark300c The Catholic Church is the one who claims that they are that one true church, however, Christ portrays Himself as a husband to five women, here, and God Himself portrays Himself as a husband to two women, so if you don't like this parable, you are really going to have trouble with that one!
Jesus was not “opposed” to polygyny. In fact polygyny is totally biblical. John Piper is a priest of Rome more so than Zion.
Just sticking to 1 woman. That's clearly biblical a man with a woman. Anything after that doesn't clear my conscience . So personally I believe more in Jesus than thoughts on marriage. Banking on JESUS
@@raavila95cool. Polygyny isn’t required for anybody so that’s great for you and your conscience. Jesus doesn’t say anything about polygyny or monogamy in the NT, except he describes himself as the groom of ten virgins. Also, if you believe in the Christophony on Sinai then the King of Kings provides for polygyny in the law.
@@Peter-tg9zv where does he talk about 10 virgins
Matt 13:13
That is why I use these parables, For they look, but they don’t really see. They hear, but they don’t really listen or understand.
@@Peter-tg9zv ur cursed! I rebuke u in Jesus name
a most ridiculous take from a man who can't accept Gods clear permission time and again that men can have multiple wives. such a shame most pastors can't just be honest.
Yes, that verse can still apply to polygamy
"The 2 become 1 flesh" you can become one with each one of your wives in marriage
Just because you can doesn’t mean it’s a good thing. The Bible says you can become one flesh with a prostitute-and that definitely wasn’t meant as a good thing.
Genesis chapter 2 describes how the one flesh union between a man and a woman is supposed to look. And it doesn’t look anything like polygamy.
@@cbtam4333 Then why didn’t God clarify it was wrong? Even after many Godly men in the Bible practiced it (polygamy)? You would think that’s something God would be very clear about if it were so.
You just say it’s bad or it isn’t how it’s supposed to look like because of culture not because God says so…
I don’t agree with Pastor John’s interpretation of the parable, to me these virgins are no bridesmaids (as the Bible have never mentioned this, regarding salvation). they were all supposed to be part of one bride, the church (the body of Christ), the faithful virgins were accepted by Jesus and given salvation, while the unfaithful virgins were denied salvation.
How can one bride be divided into 10 people stop making things up
@@charismaadugyamfi760 the bride of Christ, is every Christian with eternal life as parts of 1 whole. Imagine a pie is sliced in 10 pieces, it doesn’t become 10 pies, they are 10 parts of one pie. The church is Jesus bride, the church consists of all the believers (the faithful brides represent the parts of the one bride)
You reasoning would contradict the Trinity “how can 3 entities be part of one God”, well because the ways of God are different from the ways of man.
I’ve heard this take before but looking at how the Bible references the church as the bride, it makes more sense to exegesis the verse that way that some will make it to the kingdom and others won’t when he returns. I think I saw more info on that tho…
The parable does not equate the virgins as bridesmaids. The only reason for this guy to try this is that he has a real problem with polygamy and he needs to find an out. The parable calls them virgins and not bridesmaids. That is why its called the parable of the 10 virgins and not 10 bridesmaids.
This parable is NOT about polygamy itself. That is not the point of the parable or story. That is clear is that Jesus uses a story based on polygamy. Would Jesus use a parable that uses a foundational premise that he fundamentally disagreed with, place himself in that setting that at the end of the story has him doing something he disagrees with?
For example would Jesus build a parable with the setting being prostitution where a man (or Jesus) in the story goes to a brothel to meet 10 prostitutes and he hooks up with 5 of them? I don't think he would. The setting is not appropriate for Jesus to build a parable on that setting. But Jesus has no problem with having him as the bridegroom going to 10 virgins and being with 5 of them.
Remember as well the passage in Genesis about Adam and Eve was written by Moses who had more than one wife. Clearly Moses is not seeing any claim of monogamy being some sort of the ideal standard in Genesis 2 that many claim. Nobody knows Star Wars better than George Lucas or nobody knows Harry Potter better than J.K Rowlings. We should accept the truth that nobody knows Genesis better than Moses. If Moses did not recognize Genesis 2 establishing monogamy, you probably should not either. The author of any text is ALWAYS the expert on that text. Not people living 3000 years later.
I think this parable does teach a few different lessons wrapped up in one parable. Godly wives are like wise virgins who a groom accepts for marriage. Foolish virgins are not accepted by the groom for marriage. Jesus told a parable in which He accepted marriage with five wise virgins. Jesus rejected marriage with five foolish virgins. There are spiritual and marital lessons here for men considering polygyny marriage told by Jesus. If polygyny marriage is meant for a husband and your wife(s), this parable may help the husband and if he already has his first wife with understanding God's will for them in marriage. (See the parable at Matthew 25:1-12).
Lol he says beware of imaginary interpretations after he theorizes what the virgins were for.
Yes, based on this scripture, Jesus did endorse polygamy… polygamy is totally good
Right on. Strict monogamy is Greco-Roman law and nowhere in the Bible is polygyny prohibited or even spoken against.
@Just be , just be broo women have always outnumbered men throughout history and at times considerably
I see the 10 virgins as US the People. We are many, some will be prepared and go in the House with Jesus. The other ones will be left out because they were not diligent.
It is biblical endorsed in every place possible
Oh wow and he ends with "it's not even about marriage." Wow by the time he is done you wouldn't even recognize the text he is twisting. It is clearly and obviously about Jesus marriage to his brides.
Look at the Greek of “the bridegroom” in verse 5.. it’s in the genetive form.. meaning possessive. Jesus didn’t say “the bride groom” Jesus said “their bridegroom”.. the groom belonged to the 10 virgins. Jesus said the groom belonged to them going into the wedding 🤯
They didn’t belong to the bride (which is what brides maids means) they belonged to the groom and he them.
Trying so hard to read into the text what is not there.
@@cbtam4333Facts don't care about your feelings. You have to assert your mere opinions and add to Scripture in order to soothe your ears.
@@JuanMendoza-qd5lm He has demonstrated no facts-it’s not in the Bible. He just needs it to be.
The parable never alludes to a bride. The same can be said for other parables told by Jesus that involved a wedding.
Not every parable Jesus told involving weddings had the bride representing the true followers of Jesus. Sometimes Christ’s followers were represented by the guests or attendees at the wedding. A clear example of this is in Matthew. 9:14, 15. A common theme in the wedding parables is people who were meant to attend the wedding who don’t make it in, either because they opt not to go (Matthew 22:1-10), or because they are not recognized as legitimate guests and are therefore stopped from attending (Matthew 22:11-14). The parable of the 10 virgins is in the latter category.
@@cbtam4333 Except in Mathew it clearly defined the church as the wedding guests... And in the 10 virgins parable the entire parable was describing the church waiting for Messiah. The issue is YOU want to assert it's another meaning when scripture is literally speaking for itself. YOU want to add to the mouth of God and ignore that the original Greek Septuagint clearly uses the plural "Marriages" when the 5 finally meet the bridegroom .
@@JuanMendoza-qd5lm Your line of argument is very curious. You accept that the church can be symbolized not only by the bride but by those attending the wedding. You accept that the parable of the 10 virgins is meant to represent believers awaiting the Messiah. But you think I’m asserting a totally different meaning when I identify the 10 virgins as wedding attendees representing those awaiting the Messiah? On the contrary, what I said is entirely consistent. Moreover, the Septuagint doesn’t help us as it’s the Greek translation of the Old Testament, and we’re discussing a parable in the first book of the New Testament.
Scripture (both Old & New Testament) consistent uses the word virgin for a young woman of marriageable age who is presumed to be a virgin. Nowhere is it used exclusively for a bride.
In those days culturally speaking being a woman virgin and marriage were held at a higher standard, I feel like that was a much better system. Maybe that’s why the divorce rate is so high now-a-days.
jesus was speaking against divorce adding to scripture is the worst sim brothers
Mandla well said!
What a convoluted and tortured answer. Big thumbs down.
He's misapplying historical norms and conflating it with modern norms. The ancients didn't consider concubines wives, but they often took them. Royals had multiple wives, but any one with wealth had other wives.
Not too mention, Leviticus states that a man must take on his brothers wives, if his brother were to die and it was a father's duty to take his sons wife if he died.
Thumbs down on video = number of polygamists who watch this video.
Well that sad part, was the Eisegesis he employed when it comes to Matt 19:4. He ripped that verse out of its context and claimed that it was about marriage, when it was clearly talking about divorce, and Jesus was making the case for why divorce is wrong. Jesus was not talking about polygamy at all in that pasage. PIper also ignored verse 6, which clearly states that they are no longer two, but one flesh. How can you end up with three, if the husband and first wife, are not two, but one?
Exactly...
This scripture describes them.
◄ Luke 16:15 ►
New International Version
He said to them, "You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of others, but God knows your hearts. What people value highly is detestable in God's sight.
New Living Translation
Then he said to them, “You like to appear righteous in public, but God knows your hearts. What this world honors is detestable in the sight of God.
Jude 1 4For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you.They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality
Jude
King James Version
1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:
2 Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied.
3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.
9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.
11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.
12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;
13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.
14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.
17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;
18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.
19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.
20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,
21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.
22 And of some have compassion, making a difference:
23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.
24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,
25 To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.
3 John 1
Revelation 1
@@TouchnotDAnointingof136DZion are you saying These verses apply to people who believe polygyny is not prohibited?
@@TouchnotDAnointingof136DZion We have no need to justify that which is never called sin. Polygyny is never called immoral either. Paul tells us to put away slander from our lips. Repent!
There is no sin in doing polygamy
To those questioning God's approval of polygamy, let's see what the Bible says. Abraham was a polygamist. Jacob, who later was renamed Israel (from whom the 12 tribes of Israel came) was a polygamist. These were hardly men who discounted God's will.
The most telling evidence comes in 2 Sam. 12:7-12. Here we have the prophet Nathan quoting God in condemning David for his adultery with Bathsheba. In verse 8, God says that He (God) gave David his master's wives and then goes on to say that if he (David) wanted even more, God would have given him more. But because of his sin, verse 11 says that God is going to take away David's wives and give them to another individual man who will have his way with them.
If God hates polygamy, why did God give David those wives? And why did God offer to give David even more? More importantly, why would God take those wives from David and give them to another INDIVIDUAL man rather than giving them to several men so that the women would have monogamous marriages?
Regarding Paul stating that Christian leaders be restricted to having one wife, such restrictions indicate that polygamy was found in the early Christian church. If everyone was monogamous, why would Paul feel the need to include that restriction? It would be like prohibiting leaders from being idol worshipers or unbelievers. Since the church contained none such, such prohibitions would be silly. Specifically banning polygamy for leaders shows that polygamy WAS practiced in the early Christian church and that polygamist men might have been considered to be bishops if it weren't for this restriction. Such a ban wouldn't have been needed had there been no polygamy in the church.
Having extra wives and the extra kids that they'd produce would require polygamist men to spend more time with family and less of their time on other matters than monogamist men. They'd have less time to dedicate to being a church leader and tending to the needs of the flock. Because of this, men with just one wife would be better suited to serve the Christian community as a leader. Paul wasn't condemning polygamy but rather simply making sure that church leaders had time to adequately deal with the responsibilities of being church leaders. Banning such leaders from practicing polygamy also kept them from possibly offending potential Greek converts whose culture denounced polygamy. In 1 Cor. 10, Paul tells Christians to abstain from allowed behaviors if those behaviors could cause non-believers to be offended and reject the Christian message.
The bottom line is that polygamy is in no way condemned by God in the Bible.
In an ancient letter between two brothers who were Christian shows that polygamy occurred in the early Church - www.foxnews.com/science/christian-letter-bible-discovery-rare
not only that their many problem with polygamy it self with treatment of women. the problem with divid that he had combines that are like a Mistress. which confusing because how paul preach on sexually morality was more in line of the monogamous ethos. On the writings of it seem that paul felt that bishops that had a mistress was not ok. even though person could legally get around the law of having one wife by having a mistress. It why in greek he used term bishop had to be a one woman man.
@@spark300c Monogamy has problems too. Are you one of those "prosperity gospel" followers who believes that if something bad happens to someone, they must be living in sin? You are making this stuff up about Paul preaching in line with a monogamous ethos.David's problems were a direct result of his adultery and subsequent murder of Uriah. Scripture clearly teaches this.
@@danieldeluca4936 I not make up Paul support the monogamous ethos. After all he said husband of one wife. Most men want to get married if the paster takes more than one wife he creates incels. These incels will not respect the past because they feel they force out of society. In fact men have kill people because of polygamy. In order ensure social stability monogamy must be enforce. That concept of sexual morality is that for sociality stability. Let face your girl you do not understand.
@@spark300c In fact, for the vast majority of polygamous marriages mentioned in Scripture, there is no record of any problems that occurred.
@@spark300c That is a real stretch to assume that Paul supported a monogamous ethos, simply because of the fact that he said that certain men seeking certain specific positions of leadership were required to be a one woman man. I learned a new word (incel)! Cool!
In some cultures there are more men that want to get married, than there are women available to marry, and yes, if the pastor takes more than one wife, there won't be enough women to marry. I have a mathematical solution. Every man gets two wives, but they must wait until 40, to get married. If every wife produces four children, there will be enough adult women so that all the incels can find a wife. Then when the men get older and die off, their widows can remarry, so that a man can marry a third or fourth wife. It's actually Biblical. Paul says that a widow should not be supported by her church, unless she is 60 years old. Instead, she should remarry. With polygamy, she won't have a problem finding a husband.
The younger men have no business getting married early. They should mature and work on building up their financial empire, so that they can support two or more wives.
we have to talk about five wise virgins and their properties
Scripture and other writings of the time consistently refer to betrothed brides as "virgins". On top of that there is no historical evidence for ancient Hebrews having bridesmaids. So John piper tells us not to image details and insert them into the parable, then he imagines details which have no historical likelyhood and inserts them into the parable to fit his desired interpretation. Also when he sites what God's design for marriage is he leaves out any scriptures where God tells us that he is a polygamist. Ezekiel 23 is the most obvious and there are more if you are interested in the truth.
Hi Ryan. I don't think i quite understood your message . It looks to me like you are saying that God is a polygamist. Could you clarify what you mean ? And if you've actually meant that The Lord is truly a polygamist ,would you give me the passages you are referring to? If that's Ezekiel 23 why would you point at that? I read it just a couple of minutes ago and it absolutely doesn't look like something that comes even close to meaning that The Lord is a polygamist , obviously i'd like you to correct me if you think i am wrong ,but i truly wonder what could come to your mind to think that way ( if this is what you actually meant... Again i didn''t quite get your message) I truly wish you peace and i hope God's grace is with you!
@@petnotobg5245 thanks. Yes I meant that Adonai himself describes himself as having two sisters as wives in Ezekiel 23. He describes himself as having more than one woman several times in Jeremiah as well. Also Jesus is obviously describing himself as being the bridegroom to ten waiting virgins (5 of whom he accepts to go marry him).
I can go on if it would be helpful to you and I appreciate the friendliness of your conversation.
The main point i would like to make is that Adonai, and Jesus both describe themselves as having more than one woman at one time. We cannot remake God into our own image or change his commands if we do so then we place ourselves as judges over God.
No problem , brother.I'd appreciate it if you actually send me the passages you are referring to you. In my opinion the meaning of Ezekiel 23:4 (Where God says the two sisters are His) is not that these women are his wives but instead that they are of His people/or are generally His as in His creation, His possession. Of course we cannot place ourselves as judges over God. He is perfect. I hope God's grace is always with you!
@@petnotobg5245 In Jeremiah, He says that they begat children for Him. C'mon man! Jeremiah is explicit about this. He goes on to say that they committed adultery against Him, by following other gods. Only a wife, is capable of committing adultery against her husband, and he is the only one she could possibly be committing adultery against.
@@danieldeluca4936 yes the scripture is explicit that Adonai had two wives who both bore him children. Piper and many others are attempting to create a god in their image.
I would take the virgins as representing the church which we collectively are, but the church is a single unit. Jesus is marrying a single unit, thus it has nothing to do with polygamy.
What difference did it make that these women were virgins? Why did that matter? If they were just bridesmaids, then call them that. But notice that they were identified as virgins and also that it was the groom and not a bride who met up with them and the five virgins went in with the groom to the marriage. Socially appropriate for groom to be meeting up with virgins late at night? This implies groom has intimate relationship with these women. One woman who is suppose to be the only bride is never mentioned.
Matthew 25: 1-12
1 Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.
2 And five of them were wise, and five were foolish.
3 They that were foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them:
4 But the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps.
5 While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept.
6 And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him.
7 Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps.
8 And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are gone out.
9 But the wise answered, saying, Not so; lest there be not enough for us and you: but go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves.
10 And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut.
11 Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us.
12 But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not.
--------------------
The bridegroom is Jesus and the virgins are the church. Christians. Virgins represent purity in the parable and THAT is the church, the bride, that Jesus the groom is to marry. So in the parable, the groom is to marry the virgins. End of story. It's clear. There isn't one bride. There are five virgins which represent the true Church and the groom is Jesus who marries the brides. The brides are virgins because virginity represents purity.
"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". - EPHESIANS 5:27
Anyone who still doubts that the five virgins in the parable are the ones the groom is to marry should simply ask yourself this: Why it was such a "big deal" to a groom that mere bridesmaids didn't have oil in their lamps and that he would refuse to open the door and tell them to leave and even go so far as to say to them, "I know you not". In other words, it is with these virgins who he thought he knew and loved and was to marry but they greatly disappointed him. My friends, it is because the one groom was to marry all of these virgins who were to become his brides on the wedding day. Polygamous marriages existed then and still exist today.
Finally, if we do not accept that the virgins were to become brides for the groom to marry - then where is the bride? The parable symbolizes Jesus using the groom but where is the all-important one bride which suppose to be the symbol of the Church? Throughout this parable the virgins and THEIR relationship to the groom is important but no one bride which is suppose to be the Church is identified - except for the five virgins who are to be the brides.
BY THE WAY, THE SCRIPTURES DO NOT IDENTIFY THE VIRGINS AS SUPPOSEDLY BEING "BRIDESMAIDS". THE SCRIPTURES TELL US THESE WOMEN WERE VIRGINS. Only people against polygamy prefer to ASSUME OR ASSERT the women were bridesmaids. No, they were virgins as the bible clearly states and which the bible also clearly states would make these brides-to-be (yes, BRIDES-TO-BE because they were NOT bridesmaids, so who were they?) "holy and without blemish" according to Ephesians 5:27. How pathetic and desperate to refer to the virgins as "bridesmaids". Using labels or other titles to desperately change the FACT WHO THESE WOMEN WERE TO THE GROOM! These women were VIRGINS and there is a reason there is an undeniable relationship described between these VIRGINS AND THE GROOM.
Since the women liberation movement and other social change movements - virginity is not as valued in our society as it was in Jesus' culture and day. So this IS another contributing factor as to why modern Americans can especially find it easy to assume the virgins were merely "bridesmaids". But no, they were not simply bridesmaids. They were highly valued brides according to this parable! There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for it to matter to a man whether bridesmaids are virgins or not. But it does matter to a man if the bride(s) are virgins. At least, it use to matter.
"We should always be ready with our lamps trimmed and full of oil so we won’t be caught in the darkness when the bridegroom (Jesus) comes!" but even here we are assuming we should be the wise virgins! Not the bride! My friends, the bride is suppose to be the Church which marries the groom Jesus. But yes, in this parable, the wise virgins are the ones with the most important relationship with the groom - they are to be the brides. Oh, and throughout this story the virgins are only concerned about the groom and never any concern about a bride. These virgins all knew they were to be the brides on the wedding day.
I believe we can all see how extremely important the relationship of the virgins are to the groom in this parable. But we only want to accept that fact . . . just up to a certain point. Most people refuse to accept what appears obvious to me because of their bias against polygamous marriage. Even while at the same time they know polygamous marriage was alive and well in that part of the world and throughout the writings of Moses which they were all very well versed in. Anyway, that bias leads to a confused understanding of that parable. Because the whole parable makes more sense logically, historically and culturally when it is understood as taking place in the context of a groom simply marrying five virgins. Well, Jesus could have explained about being wise and prepared with probably thousands of other parables instead. With an open mind and heart, maybe one parable can teach more than one lesson. Yes?
Also consider this. Do you think it is thoughtful and considerate to the five wise virgins the groom lets into the marriage that he now supposedly is expected to reject four of them for marriage? Suppose to make his decision right there at the marriage site and reject the other four? Really? I don't think so. In this parable Jesus is telling us the groom allows the five virgins in to the marriage because they are wise and were faithful to the groom. The groom marries these five wise virgins only since the other five virgins did not remain faithful to wait and have wisdom to be prepared for him when he arrived to marry them.
The marriage in this parable is a polygamous marriage. I don't see a more accurate, honest and fully coherent way of understanding this parable otherwise.
But religious scholars and theologians don't like this narrative. They didn't like it in the Old Testament as well. They don't like that God in the Old Testament and Jesus in the New Testament had NO ISSUE with men having more than one wife. That's why so many anti-polygamists hate this parable Jesus spoke. Jesus used a polygamous marriage in a parable and that goes against the world elite narrative. Jesus using a polygamous marriage in a parable without condemning polygamous marriage. Why didn't Jesus tell this parable but simply with one bride which represents the church and the bridegroom which represents Jesus? But Jesus had no problem with polygamy and thus the reason Jesus had no issue with a groomsman representing Jesus and five virgins representing the church. They hate this. Because we also see in the New Testament, Jesus Himself telling a parable concerning a polygamous marriage and Jesus made no issue against polygamy.
Then, finally, there are those who say that the parable is probably not based on a true story. Well, it doesn't have to be based on a true story. The point is Jesus has no problem using a POLYGAMOUS MARRIAGE to illustrate a spiritual truth. Whether the polygamous marriage He used to illustrate or teach the spiritual truth actually happened or not still reveals to us that Jesus made no issue against polygamy. In fact, Jesus used the story of a man marrying multiple women during the same wedding ceremony to teach a spiritual truth. So Jesus definitely had no problem or issues with polygamy. In the parable, the groom represented Jesus Himself!
We even call Jesus "Son of David" (David a polygamist and man after God’s heart) and then question where God stands on polygamy.
8 wives: 18+ children: King David is described in the Hebrew Bible as king of the United Monarchy of Israel and Judah. Many important figures had more than one wife, such as in the instances of Esau (Gen 26:34; 28:6-9), Jacob (Gen 29:15-28), Elkanah (1 Samuel 1:1-8), David (1 Samuel 25:39-44; 2 Samuel 3:2-5; 5:13-16), and Solomon (1 Kings 11:1-3).
I would love to ask you a couple questions regarding Polygyny in the Bible.
@@andrewvangils3112 Ask away! There are many of us who can answer your questions.
@@danieldeluca4936 I would prefer to answer the questions asked of me on my own CZcams page.
@@McMinnCountyTennessee I will check it out.
The bride is where you would expect a bride to be-inside getting herself ready for the wedding. Where else would she be? Outside trimming lamps and going shopping for oil on her wedding night? That makes no sense.
I feel like the key explanation was lacking here. The virgins were bridesmaids, not brides. It wasn't common for Jews at the time of Christ to have more than one wife, but it was common - as it is now - to have multiple bridesmaids.
I felt like he said this in one way.
biblehub.com/matthew/25-1.htm
The old Aramaic Bible says they are going to meet the Groom AND the bride. The new corrupted translations say bridegroom!!!
We are the guests not the bride.
He answered that very clearly. Did we both watch the same video?
Um, he straight up said that they were bridesmaids, did you not watch the entire video?
I heard bridesmaids, too. (Episode #860 deals with polygamy, he says.) I like how he goes on with the meaning of the parable.
Note: in the early (Jacobean era) English translations, "thou/thee/thy" signifies a Hebrew singular you.
"ye/you/your" signify a Hebrew plural you. (same holds for the Greek.)
The first part of psalm 45 is about the bridegroom. Here is the second part:
PSA 45 Hearken, O daughter (singular), and consider, and incline thine ear; forget also thine own people, and thy father's house; So shall the king greatly desire thy beauty: for he is thy Lord; and worship thou him. And the daughter of Tyre shall be there with a gift; even the rich among the people shall intreat thy favour. The king's daughter (singular) is all glorious within: her clothing is of wrought gold. She shall be brought unto the king in raiment of needlework: the virgins her companions (best friends) that follow her shall be brought unto thee. With gladness and rejoicing shall they be brought: they shall enter into the king's palace. Instead of thy (singular; no longer referring to the companions but to the King, or to the singular bride or to the union as "one flesh") thy fathers shall be thy children, whom thou mayest make princes in all the earth. I will make thy name to be remembered in all generations: therefore shall the people praise thee for ever and ever.
_
Hope this helps someone.
I can't believe Dr. Piper doesn’t take seriously -to rightly divide the Word of Truth- in 2Tim. 2:15.😢
Reading the books of the New Testament, we probably asked ourselves more than once: *"Why 2000 years we do not see those miracles that accompanied the Сhurch of Christ in the I century, as described in the New Testament?"* Why do the so-called preachers of Christ have to prove that Jesus really existed and atheists boldly deny the historicity or divine origin of Christ? Maybe because the Сhurch of Christ has not existed for 2000 years?
The Сhurch does not exist in the form in which it is presented in the books of the New Testament, but there are Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant and other christian sects claiming to be the place of the Church, but they not have the only thing that distinguishes the divine from the human and is characteristic of just the Сhurch of Christ -the reinforcement of the word with signs, that is, miracles (Mark 16:15-20). Therefore, some researchers doubt the historicity of Christ, and some of them are not opposed to declaring him a an ordinary philosopher, teacher. But even if Jesus were an ordinary philosopher, his disciples would be ordinary followers of Jesus. And they would not dare to write about the miracles that not only Jesus, but also his disciples, could perform. If there were the Church in our time as described by the authors of the New Testament books, where miracles are performed, the sick are healed, where prophesied, and the dead are raised, no one would doubt the historicity of Christ. Then there would be the same controversy throughout the world as in the first century - Jesus the Son of God or the false prophet who seduces the world by miracles. As a result, we can say that the emergence and development of christian sects and atheism was the result of the fact that over the 2000 years the Сhurch of Christ did not exist.
Find *"The Mystery about the Church of Christ"* video on CZcams. The video reveals the prophecy of the disappearance and reappearance of the Church of Christ before the End of the World. Watching this video will give hope to all who sincerely seek God and will interest those who are not too lazy to think freely. Click on my name to watch the video (The video is in Russian, but English subtitles are included).
In Early English bible versions there is a BRIDE/WIFE in the parable who is with the bride groom. Note below:
1750 Douay-Rheims Bible
Then shall the kingdom of heaven be like to ten virgins, who taking their lamps went out to meet the bridegroom and *** the bride.***
That only shows the bias that the translators of that version had. It is not found in the original Greek Τότε ὁμοιωθήσεται ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν δέκα παρθένοις, αἵτινες λαβοῦσαι τὰς λαμπάδας ἑαυτῶν ἐξῆλθον εἰς ὑπάντησιν τοῦ νυμφίου. Where νυμφίου means "bridegroom".
Who cares? Why not take it from the actual Greek Septuagint?
Oh the ways we have to twist ourselves to fit into our narrow cultural western Christian worldview. 1) Why in the world would being a virgin be a requirement to accompany the bridegroom to the wedding feast? 2) This is assuming bridesmaids were actually a "thing" in 1st century Jewish weddings, which doesn't appear to be the case. 3) Why would 10 virgin brides"maids" accompany the bridegroom to the wedding if they were bridesmaids? Wouldn't they be helping the BRIDE? ... none of this makes ANY sense, but 10 virgin BRIDES waiting on their GROOM and 5 not being ready / prudent and getting left behind makes 100% sense. The amount of distortion and misreading of this text required to come to this conclusion is shocking, but not surprising because if we just read it as is, and allowed it to mean what it does, with ALL the polygyny in the OT, we'd as western christians have to just accept that God has no issue with multiple wives, not in the OT, not in the NT. That my friends, is just too shocking to our systems.
Because Roman law forbids polygamy so John Piper has to twist Gods word to fit Roman law at all cost.
@Just be , just be broo Didn't you just make the case that it's already a problem with "monogamy only" ...?
I'm not too concerned with the secular pagan realm, if a Christian man is having trouble finding a wife, I'm concerned about that, and I'd have to know why given the numbers it should not be hard for a Christian man to find a wife. A Christian woman finding a good man is another story though based solely on the numbers.
But I do suppose a lot of the secular reasons women are passing over men bleeds over into the church as well, so there are probably plenty of instances where women are passing over good Christian men, if I had to guess.
All that said, I'm concerned with us teaching and preaching the truth, the word, faithfully, and I trust that God's plan for marriage (which includes both monogamy and polygyny) allows the cards to fall where God wants them to, if we faithfully follow Him and His ways, not our own.
@Just be , just be broo I understand what you're saying, but I'm trying to illustrate to you that what you're claiming is going to happen is already happening and you're admitting that while also claiming polygyny will cause it.
"I find men who push polygyny are either simps or just narcissists who want all the women for themselves. "
Well, you would have to be more specific, there are going to be secular pagan men who promote hooking up with many women and they "deserve to" because they are high value, but that is not the context in which I am concerned. Biblical polygyny is not red pilled Kevin Samuels high value men.
@Just be , just be broo "Moses allowed it for the hearts of man, just like divorce.
The Almighty has never been for it, as it goes against his original design why didnt he make more wives for adam? "
We simply cannot say that, Jesus did not ever tell us Moses allowed polygyny because of the hearts of man just like divorce, you're adding to the text, we are warned not to do that.
Hebrew polygyny existed WELL before Moses. God had plenty of opportunity to tell them to stop all the way up to Moses, and during His working with Moses to write the Torah. He did not tell them to stop, and so we should not assume anything about it and we should obey His commandments and statutes.
Jesus had the opportunity to speak clearly on the matter, and He had nothing to say regarding the practice. Jesus is God, Jesus was there in the beginning, and He was there giving Moses the Torah. If Jesus was ok with Jacob having 4 wives, and Jesus didn't say anything about it while He was here in physical form, we should not put those words in His mouth.
Adam and Eve were created and put in a perfect Garden, with no sin or death, one perfectly made woman from him and delivered to him by God would have probably sufficed. But they led us to sin and death, and now we live in a fallen world where life isn't perfect and we don't live in the ideal.
There are MANY instances in which there simply are not enough good men to cover all the women who need cover. The Christian church today is a prime example of that. Regardless of all the hypergamy, and 80/20 stuff, that matters but it's not a reason to hide and continue to suppress the truth.
There are many evils that need to be sorted out among God's people, women passing over (good) men for sinful reasons is one of them, but hiding the truth on polygyny isn't going to solve that.
There are also many good women who simply cannot find a good worthy man, widows with young children who need good fathers, good single humble Christian women who genuinely can't find a good Godly man to commit to her, and not the ones who are just overlooking good men. These women should be able to choose from a pool of qualified men who have the capacity, not just "single" men who don't want to commit or cannot provide or force them to look to unbelievers.
The balance of things will sort itself out, we have tried monogamy-only for 1500 years and it's not working, we need to return to teaching that there is no monogamy or polygyny, it's just marriage. How many wives a man covers is entirely context dependent and based on who God wants him to cover, he needs to seek God's guidance on that, and so do the women.
@Just be , just be broo "he just tolerated it like slavery, child marriage, tax collection, divorce, remarriage, interracial marriage etc."
This is just a really bad take, respectfully. What you're attempting to do is lump in polygyny with other emotionally charged issues and claim that God merely tolerated it.
No, 100% no. God does not tolerate sin. When and where people sin, He told us not to, He doesn't tolerate any sin.
Polygyny is not a sin. There's nothing for him to tolerate. God Himself describes Himself as having 2 brides (Israel and Judah) ... He would not describe Himself in a sinful manner.
When you approach scriptures with the false presupposition that polygyny IS sin, you ultimately write that into the scriptures as you read them, this is the problem most Christian's have (myself included at one point). We need to really test our presuppositions and make sure we are starting from the right point before making judgements about issues like this, because it affects so many other parts of our understanding of scripture and lessons.
First let me say, I have enjoyed John Piper for years. But, without any malice meant at all, he misses it here altogether. Anyone listening should study this issue for themselves. I'll leave it at that.
Perhaps you could give aid to those who would seek: Where does he miss it, and what makes you say that?
Can you explain what he misses? I thought he was spot on: Be vigilant, be ready --know God deeply & intimately because none of us have all the time in the world to get it right
Anyone that questions the Bible is sitting as a judge of the Word because they don't know the Word ...nor are they doers of the Word. If you know Jesus and believe the Bible you have in your hands is the pure Word of God then pray and God will reveal the truth to you. And we as Christian people need to be in agreement what is the pure Word of God. After 3 years of study I can tell you it's not the many other versions people think are easy to read. It's the King James version. And, no, Jesus did not advocate for polygamy. Duh...
@@SummerofKittyLove You cannot discern between Exegesis and Eisegesis. PIper lied when he said that Jesus was talking about marriage in Matt 19:4. He was talking about divorce.
@@monalisa72775 You don't know the Word of God. Jesus wasn't promoting polygamy, but He sure wasn't condemning it in Matt 19:4! Piper ripped that verse out of context. Oh, and if you really want to know what the Word says, read it in it's original Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic.
The parable of virgins
I would like a primary source that talks about the Jewish wedding structure being this way. If not, this is circular reasoning. The reason being you assume polygamy to be wrong so therefore this could not mean polygamy. But if polygamy was not wrong then this is polygamy. What you say the clear teaching of scripture is, contradicts what the scripture is saying when it is clearly stated. You say the clear teaching of scripture shows Jesus saying there’s only one husband and one wife that’s the model. He did not say that. Jesus was talking about divorce not marriage. You infer it applies to monogamy. But the other parable with the virgins is directly saying they are waiting on the groom. On that one you infer that the meaning is not what it actually says. I do believe the clear teaching of scripture is clear most of the time. But sometime culture matters. For instance women having long hair and men having short hair is about procreation. You don’t get that directly from scripture but you get that from what was understood at the time based on procreation beliefs written by the father of medicine Hippocrates. Hippocrates wrote that hair hollow and acted like a straw to aid and a woman’s ability to conceive by drawing the man’s sperm up into her uterus. he also taught that men and women both had sperm located in their head. So if a man had long hair, the sperm would not be able to go down and out properly. Tele prostitutes would shape their head. One of the reasons was to avoid pregnancy since they had no hair to draw the sperm up into their uterus.
But think about what the parable is saying and apply that to Christians. Is Jesus telling the five faithful virgins they will never marry Jesus because they’re not who he is marrying, they’re just simply bridesmaids. So after His wedding with the mystery bride, who is not mentioned, the faithful virgins are suppose to go away from Him to find a different groom because that groom is not theirs. This makes no sense.
Have you not read that God is a polygamist? Read Ezekiel 23 for yourself.
You may want to reread that. Ezekiel 23 has to do with 2 sisters who took part in adultery and fornication. It never talks about them being married. God also wanted all women to be taught not to do what they did.
@@vision-dz6cm what you are saying is absolutely wrong. They both committed adultery against Adonai, so they were both married to Him. Adonai is a polygamist. The scripture literally says their names were Oholah and Oholibah. It says "they were mine" and at the end of the chapter after describing their adultery Adonai says "Then I alienated Myself from her,
As I had alienated Myself from her sister." Clearly Adonai is saying he married two woman at once and they committed adultery against him so he removed himself from them.
Jeremiah also bears witness to Adonai having more than one wife.
You are lying about Adonai and about his words with your generalized statements that go directly against Adonai and his words.
@@vanorsdelry I just reread Ezekiel 23 and realized my mistake. First of all if you look up Adonai it tells you the name means lord. So it's reasonable to assume Adonai is supposed to represent God. Here is Ezekiel 23 verse 4 straight out of the King James Version; "And the names of them were Aholah the elder, and Aholibah her sister: and they were mine, and they bare sons and daughters. Thus were their names; Samaria IS Aholah, and Jerusalem Aholibah."
Look closely at the last line. During that time, Jerusalem had turned its back on God and began to follow the customs of its neighbors, the Samaritans. If you don't believe me open your Bible and read it from there. It will say the same unless it is a newer version which means the same just worded differently.
@@vision-dz6cm it doesn't change at all that God clearly describes himself as a polygamist with two women committing adultery against him. God is a polygamist.
@@vanorsdelry It was not two women. It was two places. Two nations. When he said they were his, it meant they served him. If you think being married to someone makes the person "yours" see a therapist. God was never "married" to Jerusalem and Samaria. God often uses parables to make things easier to understand but not to be taken completely literally.
Most pastors LIE about this, plural marriage and families are just fine, God gave Jacob 4 wives for example. Plural marriage is the image of Jesus and his bride.
To those questioning God's approval of polygamy, let's see what the Bible says. Abraham was a polygamist. Jacob, who later was renamed Israel (from whom the 12 tribes of Israel came) was a polygamist. These were hardly men who discounted God's will.
The most telling evidence comes in 2 Sam. 12:7-12. Here we have the prophet Nathan quoting God in condemning David for his adultery with Bathsheba. In verse 8, God says that He (God) gave David his master's wives and then goes on to say that if he (David) wanted even more, God would have given him more. But because of his sin, verse 11 says that God is going to take away David's wives and give them to another individual man who will have his way with them.
If God hates polygamy, why did God give David those wives? And why did God offer to give David even more? More importantly, why would God take those wives from David and give them to another INDIVIDUAL man rather than giving them to several men so that the women would have monogamous marriages?
Regarding Paul stating that Christian leaders be restricted to having one wife, such restrictions indicate that polygamy was found in the early Christian church. If everyone was monogamous, why would Paul feel the need to include that restriction? It would be like prohibiting leaders from being idol worshipers or unbelievers. Since the church contained none such, such prohibitions would be silly. Specifically banning polygamy for leaders shows that polygamy WAS practiced in the early Christian church and that polygamist men might have been considered to be bishops if it weren't for this restriction. Such a ban wouldn't have been needed had there been no polygamy in the church.
Having extra wives and the extra kids that they'd produce would require polygamist men to spend more time with family and less of their time on other matters than monogamist men. They'd have less time to dedicate to being a church leader and tending to the needs of the flock. Because of this, men with just one wife would be better suited to serve the Christian community as a leader. Paul wasn't condemning polygamy but rather simply making sure that church leaders had time to adequately deal with the responsibilities of being church leaders. Banning such leaders from practicing polygamy also kept them from possibly offending potential Greek converts whose culture denounced polygamy. In 1 Cor. 10, Paul tells Christians to abstain from allowed behaviors if those behaviors could cause non-believers to be offended and reject the Christian message.
The bottom line is that polygamy is in no way condemned by God in the Bible.
In an ancient letter between two brothers who were Christian shows that polygamy occurred in the early Church - www.foxnews.com/science/christian-letter-bible-discovery-rare
@@chrisinidaho4569 What do you mean Jacob never discounted God's will? He literally fought God! The reason the Bible talks about God being the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob is because they are drastically different. Abraham was one of God's most loyal servants. Issac is a servant of God but he isn't mentioned as much as his father and sons. Jacob lied to his father and tricked his brother. Then instead of facing judgement, he ran away. I wouldn't consider these actions to be pleasing to God. Yes in the end he served God, but that doesn't mean he never discounted God's word.
@@vision-dz6cm Jacob/Israel wrestled against an angel (unknowingly). God was always with Jacob and was blessed by God. God never condemned Jacob for polygamy and blessed him with the 12 tribes of Israel. There is no way you can condemn Jacob's polygamy. Isaac is hardly mentioned and wasn't a polygamist. God seems to favor polygamists. Until his sin, David was God's favorite though he was a polygamist given his wives by God. 2 Sam. 12:7-12 has God giving an INDIVIDUAL man all of those wives to openly have sex with. There is NO WAY anyone can logically claim that God hates polygamy.
@@chrisinidaho4569 1st I'm not condemning Jacob's polygamy. 2nd The Bible says God is no respecter of persons. Meaning everyone has the same respect from God regardless of position, so David was not God's "favorite". 3rd When I pointed out the things Jacob did it was to show Jacob was not a pure man. 4th Jesus is occasionally referred to as the Angel of the Lord. Jesus is also referred to as God in human form. Therefore the Angel of the Lord is God. However when it says an angel or angels then it is not referring to God.
@@vision-dz6cm I don't see the title "Angel of the Lord" there in the story. Also, the angel was a physical being. Is God physical?
It was a requirement for young women of marriageable age but not yet married to be virgins. That’s why they were called virgins; they were presumed to be virgins if they had a good reputation; otherwise they’d be in deep trouble. So a group of women who were young, past puberty, of marriageable age, but not yet married were often called virgins. It has nothing to do with any special requirement to be a virgin in order to be a bridesmaid; bridesmaids were reputable young women and were therefore presumed to be virgins and often called such. So a group of bridesmaids or any other group of such women could be called virgins as a matter of course. It wouldn’t signify anything more in the parable than that.
On the other hand, the idea of 10 brides marrying 1 bridegroom on a single night is the more laughable notion. Polygamous marriage at the time was not that common, and when it did happen it was usually sequential over time (not simultaneous) and involved far fewer than 10 wives. The notion of one man having a spectacular wedding night with 10 virgins may appeal to some, but it is not for that reason any less outlandish.
I agree with your first paragraph.
As far as it being outlandish for someone to marry multiple virgins on the same night, I disagree, I think that is just your personal opinion…
Polygamy at the time was SO common that the Romans had to write into their laws a legal protection for Jews to practice it without breaking the Roman Law which applies to all other cultures in the Roman empire.
You literally have no facts and keep asserting your mere opinions as truth.
@@rager4able Only rich old men could afford to have 10 wives, and that would be rare at any time or place in history. That many wives would be added sequentially, not all in one day. Show me one example to the contrary. Plus, marriage was supposed to be consummated on the wedding night. Just do the math. Nope. That might be somebody’s fantasy, but not real life.
@@JuanMendoza-qd5lm That’s because Jewish law at the time permitted it. But it’s legality was not an indication of its prevalence. In the patriarchal period and in the period of the Judges, polygamy was fairly common among Jews. But by the late Second Temple period around the time of Jesus, it had become much more rare, albeit still permitted, based on what I’ve read from Jewish and secular historians. As with other aspects of Jewish law that did not comport with Roman laws or mores, Jews used their influence to seek for and often obtain exemptions.
@@cbtam4333 Where's is your evidence to the contrary? You have none. And if you want to put the words of a secular historian on the same level as God then knock yourself out. I'm not. But I'll still wait for that evidence.
Such abstract speech , nothing concrete. John 7:16 . Malachi 6:3. Hebrews 13:8. Then shall The KINGDOM OF HEAVEN be likened unto 10 VIRGINS , which took there lamps, and went forth to meet the BRIDEGROOM. Wow another author of confusion and abstract thought.
Hello! I am confused, would you clarify what you mean?
@@petnotobg5245 When Jesus comes back to receive us, will we be forever with him, or will we be like bridesmaids, who simply return to their homes after the wedding? Think about it.
Unless you found some new chapters in Malachi, I think you meant Mal3:6.
Now apply that to the ten commandments.
Im not arguing for Either Way…but just to point out it’s applicable to not take the writings of these texts So LITERALLY. The Adam and Eve explanation CAN be SEEN As the Model or Design of Man and Woman, but Not Necessarily “a Rule” or Specific Principle, No?. A PRINCIPLE of the DESIGN/MAKE UP of Man and Woman, Yes?, but Not NECESSARILY, even, a “commandment” of How Relationships between Men and Women MUST be, Right?
Man. Awesome
Yes he did. He also did by saying In David has he found a man after his own heart .
Isn’t it weird they start out with the assertion that Jesus didn’t approve of polygyny when Jesus never says anything remotely close to that? It’s like they want to play God by making the rules and also deceive you to take their anti-biblical opinions as axiomatic.
The LESSON coming from this is irrelevant, PASTOR JOHN, to the reason WHY 10 virgins were used.
He could just said "people" for that lesson.
Also, "that assumption (polygamous) is not necessary" he says... haha.
Well at the same time, JOHN is assuming the necessity of that to NOT be needed.
Both are assumptions, however John is the only one who assumes it's better to ignore the part about the virgins.
John Piper was indoctrinated in a seminary and feminized by society so it is a little hard for him read the Bible accurately.
Please note that the Ten Were all Virgins !!! And they all Slept !!!
why ten?
Seriously? these kinds of questions should be prohibited.
Oh, "Did Jesus endorse leaving home and spending all your money on drinks and harlots so you can come to God?" so irrational.
How about this question: "Why did God portray Himself as a husband to two women?" Chew on that one a bit!
@@danieldeluca4936 which verse?
@@nikkiq5124 Ezekiel 23:4, but it becomes even clearer when you read the entire passage and not just one verse. Chew on that for a while and then see if you can rationailze that away, or if instead, you are forced to a different conclusion than the one that you wish to arrive at.
@@danieldeluca4936 yes it is clear that when the Constantine created the Roman church several things were hidden-chiefly the validity of polygyny and the reality of fallen angels.
😅😅😅😅😅😅 okeyyyy. WOW.
I wouldn't say that.. it is about ten. but it also says neither touch the oil nor the wine. and there were five and there were five sparrows as well. and there is the parable of the rich man who had saved up and it is said that in the hour that his soul was required of him who didn't watch and whom beat the servants who had not and worried not about where their next meal would come. as it is said "he will come like a thief in the night"
This is interesting. I have to say I disagree that that was bridesmaids, I do believe that the scripture was actually making reference to brides. Polygamy was not uncommon in that day. But just because it's described in the Bible does not mean it's prescribed. Polygamy always resulted in broken families, broken relationships, and drama drama drama lol. It is the same today. Polygamy is never Successful by standards of love, peace, and unity in a family.
Polygamy did not always result in broken families, relationships, or drama. You know nothing about polygamy. I know someone who has three wives and he has been married to them for well over 20 years! While polygamy may not be prescribed for everyone, it is certainly not forbidden for everyone!
@@danieldeluca4936 does not mean happily married for 20 years. How many abusive relationships last 20 years? Just because you know one family you think is successful means I know nothing of polygamy. Logical fallacies discredit you.
@@blessedbeyondmeasure8754 They ARE happily married!
@@blessedbeyondmeasure8754 Have you ever heard of Ziona Chana?
Monogamy experiencing the high divorce rates past decades. Husbands and wives not wearing their wedding rings. Monogamous marriages where the husband and wife decide they need to try "swinging". Then monogamous marriages where wife sometimes approves of husband having a "side chick". Many monogamous marriages where they "wife swap" with other monogamous couples. Then there is the high rates of domestic disputes of husbands and wives in monogamous marriages. So is exactly how you define or compare "success" of monogamy marriage and polygynous marriage is interesting. You strike me as being a hypocrite. The reality is God has provided us with His divine polygyny marriage Laws which shows He absolutely approves polygyny marriage. God is wiser than you about relationships and marriage. You are better off to learn from Him Who knows more about human nature and marriage than you do.
The lady has right
She is quite correct in assuming they must be His brides since Jesus uses the word for being intimate with one's wife in that He said "I never KNEW you", and "knowing a woman" in the bible means to sleep with her.
Jesus’ use of “I never knew you” applies to anyone, male or female, who is unsaved. It has no sexual connotation when used this way.
This is the most stupid question in the world! The ten virgins were like our version of bridesmaids.
That is a baseless assumption, AKA conjecture.
Pro-polygamists need for this parable to be about a man deflowering 10 beautiful young women in one wedding-and it being okay with God because they are “married.” It would justify promiscuity-so long as it is brought into a marriage and thereby “legitimized.” So they will read things into the passage to that end, no matter how far-fetched. Logic, common sense and sound exegesis are clearly no match for the baser instincts.
Matthew 19:
“Why then did Moses permit us to divorce?”
“Because of the hardness of men’s hearts. Whoever illegitimately divorces his wife and marries another COMMITS ADULTERY.”
[The fact that sex with a second wife is within a legal marriage does not mean it is not adultery in God’s eyes. Pro-polygamists, are you listening?]
“If that’s the case, it’s better not to marry.”
[If that’s how strongly they felt about it, treating adultery against a wife as a capital offense may have resulted in either too few marriages or much more rampant promiscuity. But it still wouldn’t justify any form of adultery.]
“Not everyone can receive this, but only those to whom it has been given. Those who have ears to hear, let them hear.”
To those who defend polygamy, do you have ears to hear?
I asked for a STIGMATA of Christ's CRUCIFIXION!!!🙄🙏❤🔩
I just lost my job last Tuesday. Could you send me $100 so I can put gas in my car to go to these job interviews? I have one on Sunday, 4 on Monday and one on Tuesday.
$Thelittleprayercafe