Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: fluffy

So Jacob was an adulterer in fathering children with his wives Leah and Rachel? On what Scriptural basis do you make that claim?

"Yes. Since Paul forbids marrying again while your original spouse is still alive (and calls anyone doing so an adulterer), it is clear that having more than one spouse is adultery. Also, it is clear in reading the NT (1cor 7, Matt 19) that the union of one man and one woman is God's design for marriage, and anything else is adultery."

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
I see, so you apply NT Scripture "ex-post-facto" to the lives of Old Testament characters? And, as I recall, Paul's sanction against remarriage was given in the context of one who had been divorced. It's application to the question at hand is problematic.

On the other hand, the 1Cor7 passage does look like a good candidate for building a defense for universal Christian monogamy, and perhaps the Matt 19 passage which references the Genesis account. No doubt this is an issue which has faced missionaries serving in locations where the local culture is at ease with plural marriages. Likely the missionary literature is a good place to dig out some extended exegesis on these points.

Do you have and good references in mind?

Thanks.


22 posted on 12/11/2005 1:56:36 PM PST by Blue_Ridge_Mtn_Geek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]


To: Blue_Ridge_Mtn_Geek
I'm not at all judging Old Testament patriarchs by our revelation. Jacob lived before the Pentateuch was written, so he was under Abraham's covenant and didn't have the Law to look to. "Without the law I would not have known what sin was", to paraphrase Paul. But I think sin is sin whether you know about it or not... God just overlooked it due to Jacob's faith (credited as righteousness).

And, as I recall, Paul's sanction against remarriage was given in the context of one who had been divorced.

Certainly, but going back to Matt 19 it's clear that God doesn't consider divorce to be an actual sundering of the marriage. He considers the couple still married, so it would seem to me that the basis of the prohibition on re-marriage is because the first marriage is still in force. If it weren't, further sexual relations wouldn't be referred to as adultery. In any case, it would seem to rule out multiple marriages be default.

Unfortunately as a confirmed bachelor I haven't studied this as much as I could, so I don't have any real meaty references on hand.

23 posted on 12/11/2005 2:21:12 PM PST by fluffy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson