Friday, January 10, 2014

The Reconciliation of the Affirmation of Virginity

About the 144,000, some have been teaching that they will not be physical virgins, but only virgins in a 'spiritual' sense. I argue that it is necessary that they are virgins and in this letter I want to formulate some of my ideas on why that must be.

I Corinthians 7:1,8 "Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman... I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I."

Matthew 22:29,30 "Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven."

This is what I refer to in speaking of the biblical affirmation of virginity. There is a disparity however in that, while the Bible affirms virginity, there is never a reconciliation of making it evident in men's lives. Contrary to the state of virginity, we have polygamous plural marriage, traditional marriage, or fornication. At different times, the former two are reconciled in practice whereas fornication is banned from the very first giving of the Law. Plural marriage is affirmed by exclusion in the fifth book of the Law.

Deuteronomy 17:17 "Neither shall he [the king] multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold."

The Law didn't prohibit the taking of multiple wives but in the case of the king, it was prohibited. In the patriarchal period, we see this affirmation with several men each of which had mistresses. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, several of the twelves fathers. Polygamy was confirmed in that dispensation.

As to the biblical affirmation of traditional marriage, that was confirmed in the New Testament with a special mreserved office. As we have seen previously, the men God used most instrumentally to bring about His purposes often had multiple wives. But in the New Testament, Paul referred to one additional class of men that, like the king, should not practice polygamy.

I Timothy 3:1,2 "This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife..."

This is beginning to demonstrate that there are specific regulations with regard to office and that they are also affirmations. I Timothy 3 affirms traditional marriage for the bishop, Deuteronomy 17 for the king, the Old Testament affirms polygamy with regard to the patriarchs, and we have finally virginity, which the Bible praises, but some are quick to disconfirm. Why do they disconfirm this?

The Church Affirmed the Sexual Revolution


When the sexual revolution occurred, it affirmed not only the acceptability of premarital sex, but every sort of perversion as sacred. Christians thought about this, and they decided they agreed with the revolution! The only thing they departed from with the hedonists is the thought of premarital sex. Look at the state of sexual in the churches today:

_________________

a. The great deal of Christians who are not virgins when they are married.

b. The great deal who have children out of wedlock, some stats showing that among Christians this rate is higher than in other communities.

c. The great deal of churches who openly support abortion.

d. The great deal of Christian women who have had abortions.

e. The extreme rate of divorce in the Christian churches, followed by remarriages.

f. And now, some churches even want openly gay leaders, with a few already accepting this practice.

__________________

The churches accepted the revolution because of one errant verse in Hebrews.

Hebrews 13:4 "Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge."

It's not that there's anything particularly wrong with the sentiment of the verse here except that it is worded in a very unideal way. I'd even suggest that the wording as it stands in the translations I've seen are mistaken.

Clearly, the way the verse should read is The marriage bed [should be kept] honourable in all... The reason this is clear is because the second clause of the verse is saying that 'whoremongering' and committing 'adultery' profane the marriage covenant. So it's misleading to say the marriage covenant is undefiled because that would mean nothing can defile it. So to read, "Nothing defiles the covenant but whoremongering and adultery defile the covenant," is inconsistent. The only meaning the Hebraic author might have meant is To keep marriage sanctified BY avoiding those immoral sexual behaviors that God has commanded you to abstain from, that if committed will defile the marriage covenant.

So Hebrews has been manipulated to affirm the sexual revolution within marriage. It is used to defend oral sex mostly. It shows that one man-one woman is okay but that everything between one man and one woman, is okay, if it is read the way Christians want you to read it. "What about camels?" "Shut up, Manoucher, I was not asking for your input!"

It is also stated that like in the days of Noe, when men were entering in marriage and giving in marriage, so will those days be which precede the coming of the Son of Man.

Aren't the orientations of many brought into question if they choose to remain single? Aren't there preferable tax and societal benefits if someone is married? Don't men have a different opinion of their married friends than they do of their single friends? Aren't the churches many times involved in bringing young adults together to foster opportunities to meet members of the opposite sex for the purposes of dating and ultimately marriage? Aren't there websites like Christian Mingle and the popularization of the idea that God has a perfect soul mate for every person?

Isn't the society at a state of higher sexualization than at any point since perhaps the ancient Greek civilization? Isn't there a greater readiness to bring sexually-themed and salacious programming to primetime and even earlier in the evening on broadcast networks?

Isn't this all just screaming to God for a confirmation of virginity?

And at this point in time, though virginity was so often in history prized as virtuous, it's now viewed with suspicion, and as if it is the abomination itself.

And we come to the 144,000. These young men the Bible calls 'virgins', having not been united 'with women'.

These are the men that are really coming to us from a future time. It is as if they have arrived from off a time machine. They are going to be the most influential souls in preparing the way for the Millennial era and some think will even be the judges of that era. If they are paving the way for the Lord's return, why do so many expect them to be married, when Jesus said in that time, there would be no marrying or giving in marriage?

The answer is very simple. The extreme sexualizing of society has so sunk in that people, even Christians, and some would say especially Christians, cannot even comprehend the state of celibacy. They can't comprehend how someone would willingly forego marriage in order to pursue devotion to God; they are spiritually crippled. This is a tragedy.

These men show a level of devotion the world is missing. They will show the way to Millennial life and the laws that God expects us to perform. They will be prophets in every sense that the Old Testament prophets were and after the order of Jeremiah.

Jeremiah 16:1,2 "The word of the Lord came also unto me, saying, Thou shalt not take thee a wife, neither shalt thou have sons or daughters in this place."

Biblebrains.com* says, "Why did God give him this command? Jerusalem and Judah were about to see divine judgment for their sins. They would face diseases, famine, and war. God gave Jeremiah this command to free him to do God’s will in the midst of troubling times."

It is now the time when judgment is coming down on the people and nations of this world. The 144,000 are not pursuing marriage because they understand how short the time really is and that for their children, if they had children, would only await poverty and hunger and likely death at a very young age. It would be a life of incomprehensible suffering that no child should have to experience. Even if it was lawful for these men to marry, they would still remain single.

Why they must be virgins? Because never has virginity been reconciled with its affirmation. It has been shunned and hated by society and for this reason, it is necessary that God vindicate it as a virtue, and secondly that they are the forerunners to the Millennial era when there will be no marrying or giving in marriage, it is necessary they be single themselves.

* quote at http://www.biblebrains.com/2011/05/28/which-prophet-did-god-tell-not-to-marry/

2 comments:

  1. Before I finished reading this message, I had to correct you. There is no scripture that states that Isaac had another woman other than his wife, Rebekah.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Bishop and deacon are man-made words. Although the words of Paul are inferior and unequal to the Words of GOD, following the dictates of Untrue Paul, a parishioner could be polygamous if he were neither deacon or bishop.

    ReplyDelete