God winks at some people's sins????

[Blademan]

I'm somewhat confused about a teaching that I heard the other day about the Patriarchs:

The speaker stated that:

1) God allowed certain sins in OT times
2) the majority of the Patriarchs had plural wives
3) having plural wives is the sin of adultery/fornication
4) the Lord overlooked the sin of adultery/fornication because the Patriarchs lived in the time the Lord overlooked (winked at) such sins.

This makes no sense. The Bible teaches that God is not a respector of persons. I never saw where it made any exceptions for anyone, including the Patriarchs. Therefore, it stands to reason that:

1) dying in the sin of adultery or fornication, according to Jesus, blocks one from Heaven
2) the Patriarchs had plurtal wives, which was allegedly a the sin of adultery/fornication
3) therefore, we may expect to see the Patriarchs being consumed in the fires of Hell.

Both sets of premises and conclusions are problematic...at least, to my way of thinking.

Does anyone have any idea how these things can be reconciled in the lives of the Patriarchs in relation to today?

B

 

[Chad]

Your right when you say all in all. The speak claiming that GOD "winked at" such sins is by far him stepping into dangerous grounds of judgment to teach false garbage like that, about GOD. GOD *never* winks at sin.

You know what GOD says about sin? Jesus' blood on the Cross after being flogged beyond recognition and spat on, laughed at, etc. That is GOD's hatred towards sin itself.

The "patriachs" or this speaker you mention will pay the price for his false teachings if he does not repent. I suggest you confront him on this, in love of course.

 

[SpiritLedEd]

Re: God winks at sins??

There's nothing that I know of in the Mosaic Law that prevented polygamy and Mosaic Law was the law of the land in Israel in OT times.

I think that God allowed polygamy in those days for the propagation of the human race. In those days, life spans were short and disease was rampant. That's also why they married off all the young girls (13 yrs old or so), to get the most children born so that more of them would survive to adulthood.

So, the Patriarchs were not sinning in keeping more than one wife.

SLE

 

[Word of Life]

I think winked means forgive. But this does not mean one continues in a particular sin or continues with that act of wickedness. We need to cry to God for help.

The Old Testament being very much different from today, as only certain people had the Spirit of God and they could loose it, if they sinned, but when they got their hearts right again with God, God forgave them. And most people had to travel quiet some distances to see a man of God in those days, but today, it is totally different, as the holy spirit is for everyone, and we all get that same anointing.

Moses killed, and God forgave him. David committed adultery and God forgave him. So I just think, what winked means, God will forgive us, but we must not continue on with those sinful ways. He will discipline us and tell us it is wrong and one must walk away from it, when that temptation arises.

Psa 78:35 And they remembered that God was their rock, and the high God their redeemer.
Psa 78:36 Nevertheless they did flatter him with their mouth, and they lied unto him with their tongues.
Psa 78:37 For their heart was not right with him, neither were they stedfast in his covenant.
Psa 78:38 But he, being full of compassion, forgave their iniquity, and destroyed them not: yea, many a time turned he his anger away, and did not stir up all his wrath.
Psa 78:39 For he remembered that they were but flesh; a wind that passeth away, and cometh not again.

By reading Paul's writings, he struggled with sin, even with the holy spirit, he struggled. So we are going to struggle too, but this gives us no excuse to sin or continue on with it.

Rom 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
Rom 7:13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
Rom 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
Rom 7:15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
Rom 7:16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
Rom 7:17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
Rom 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
Rom 7:19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
Rom 7:20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
Rom 7:21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
Rom 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
Rom 7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

Sometimes, I think we can be too hard on ourselves. When one, asks Jesus to be our Lord and Saviour, we are not going to change overnight, it's going to take time, maybe even years, so we will have these similar kind of struggles, just like Paul did.

 

[Janette]

What *did* God have to say?

God does not wink at sin.
He may forgive it.
He may work around it to further His plans.
But we do not worship a God that turns a blind eye.

God has told us He is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow (meaning forever).

So if He ever declared something to be sin, then it was sin yesterday, today, and tomorrow (still meaning forever). God also said,

"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife," not "wives," Exodus 20:17

towards the wife of his bosom," not "wives," Deuteronomy 28:54

"Thy wife shall be as a fruitful vine,” not "wives" Psalm 128:3

"Rejoice with the wife of thy youth,” not "wives," Proverbs 5:18

"Even the husband with the wife,” not "wives," Jerermiah 6:11

and so on, throughout the Bible. These are strong bits of evidence against a Divine countenance of polygamy.

So why didn't God just say "thou shall take only one wife at a time" ?

He did. He said "thou shalt not commit adultery."

Does that mean everyone listened to Him or that the enforcement of local Law had anything to do with what He said should be? Sadly no.

Adam had one wife (that we know of for sure).

Lot had one wife (nevermind the acts of his daughters).

Noah had one wife.

Abraham had one wife at a time....it was Sarah's decision to add Hagar and that was a mess, and Abraham's second wife wasn't taken till after Sarah's death.

Isaac had one wife.

Jacob wanted one wife. But the schemes of his father-in-law muddied things, and the resulting competition of the women didn't help matters any.

Esau is listed as having multiple wives (all pagan) and breaking his mother's heart in the process.

Joseph had one wife.

Moses had one wife.

Really things stayed pretty solidly on track for a "one man and one woman" marriage system until the times of the Kings of Israel and Judah...and many of those men were also fond of creative things like setting up demonic idols and disobaying God in various other ways.


As the Biblical Scholar Katherine Bushnell writes:

"We do not pretend that what is said in the Mosaic Law concerning polygamy is ideal; but it was the best that could be said to a degraded people. The same can be said of polygamy that Jesus Christ said of divorce, in Matthew 19:8, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put away your wives," not because it was right to do so, but because there was wrong in the men."

"The law could make nothing perfect," says Hebrews 7:19. This is taught all through the N. T. Had Moses made his laws absolutely ideal, there would have been an open rebellion against him, and his entire following would have returned to Egypt and degradation. Practically, he could never have enforced ideal laws among a people just emerging from slavery. Spiritual and moral teaching must always accompany the enactment of laws, or a people cannot be elevated."

 

[trulyblezzed]

Janette, awesome info of the wife system of the Bible. Kudos for you on giving me some insight

 

[stephen]

Pauls sermon, preached to those ancient Greeks, who had gathered to listen around Mars Hill, and who spent their time in nothig else, but "either to tell or to hear some new thing" were being patronised by Paul when he said "and the times of this ignorance God winked at"

Having observed "their devotions" and taking notice that they even had an "inscription TO THE UNKNOWN GOD" their not wanting to omit any deity from their worship.

Paul said "but now God commandeth all man everywhere to repent, Because God hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained: (Jesus) wherefore he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead".

Repentance is a forgotton subject today. "But God commandeth all men everywhere to repent" That is the important thing......

Have you repented? What do you know about Repentance? That is the important matter here. Not the winking.....as I see it

Scripture ref. Acts of the Apostles ch 17 v 16 to end.

 

[Blademan]

The speak claiming that GOD "winked at" such sins is by far him stepping into dangerous grounds of judgment to teach false garbage like that, about GOD. GOD *never* winks at sin.

The "patriachs" or this speaker you mention will pay the price for his false teachings if he does not repent. I suggest you confront him on this, in love of course.

That false teacher was/is Dr. David Jeremiah.

As to my confronting him, well, he's one of those guys who's above being confronted by any man who doesn't have:

1) a nationwide radio and/or TV broadcast and
2) has the same ministerial income that he has, and
3) the same or higher level of fame and popularity that he has.

B

 

[Blademan]

There's nothing that I know of in the Mosaic Law that prevented polygamy and Mosaic Law was the law of the land in Israel in OT times.

Actually, the Law made governing provision for men to have plural wives. Here's one such place:

Deut 21:15-17
15 If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated:
16 Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn:
17 But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.

I think that God allowed polygamy in those days for the propagation of the human race.

How can we know that this was the reason? Have we been told by the Lord to stop propagating humanity today? Granted, we live longer today, but we're also headed for hard times when there will be more and more death as wars continue to grow in numbers and frequency. Only at the advent of the anti-Christ will there be a lull in all the warmongering.

Among believers today, in any church organization, women far outnumber men...a fact that almost any preacher will confirm. What of them?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that we dare defy our cultural dogmas, that seem to dictate morality in our church organizations, in order to provide all those women and their children with a husband, father, fully functional home and family. If there aren't enough believing men to go around, well, that's just too bad for those women. That's their tough luck.

In those days, life spans were short and disease was rampant. That's also why they married off all the young girls (13 yrs old or so), to get the most children born so that more of them would survive to adulthood.

Are you saying that children born of younger girls around 13 survived disease, famine and war better than those born of a woman who was in her, let's say, 20's? How did you arrive at this conclusion?

So, the Patriarchs were not sinning in keeping more than one wife.

So, are you saying that cultural and populational expediency dictate what is sin and what is not. I thought God's moral absolutes were absolute, irregardless of any expediencies.

In other words, if it's sin now, then it was sin then, and vice versa. Where did the Lord ever make a change to that with the coming of Christ?

 

[Blademan]

I think winked means forgive.

No...I don't think so. The way people use that word today indicates a meaning more along the lines of overlooked, or that He ignored certain sins for the sake of...etc. God's word clearly states that fornicators and adulterers will not enter into Heaven. Abraham died never having repented of his having plural wives. So did David, Boaz, Gideon, et al. None of the Patriarchs are said to have ever repented of having had plural wives before their deaths.

But this does not mean one continues in a particular sin or continues with that act of wickedness. We need to cry to God for help.

...and the topic we've chosen today is polygyny. So, are you saying that it was wicked for those men to have had plural wives? If so, then how did you arrive at such a conclusion, given the fact that God's Law made governing provision for those men to have more than one, as is quoted in another post prior to this one?

The Old Testament being very much different from today, as only certain people had the Spirit of God and they could loose it, if they sinned, but when they got their hearts right again with God, God forgave them.

But aren't we talking about the God who doesn't change? To say that the OT is different from today is to say that God is different. That simply doesn't add up, given God's own words about Himself.

And most people had to travel quiet some distances to see a man of God in those days, but today, it is totally different, as the holy spirit is for everyone, and we all get that same anointing.

Abraham didn't seem to have a problem with his having plural wives, and thus needing to find some man of God as a result. Please explain.

 

[Blademan]

God does not wink at sin.
He may forgive it.
He may work around it to further His plans.
But we do not worship a God that turns a blind eye.

Amen.

God has told us He is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow (meaning forever).

Excellent point.

So if He ever declared something to be sin, then it was sin yesterday, today, and tomorrow (still meaning forever).

Very true indeed.

God also said,

"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife," not "wives," Exodus 20:17

towards the wife of his bosom," not "wives," Deuteronomy 28:54

"Thy wife shall be as a fruitful vine,” not "wives" Psalm 128:3

"Rejoice with the wife of thy youth,” not "wives," Proverbs 5:18

"Even the husband with the wife,” not "wives," Jerermiah 6:11

Interestingly, it's easy to focus on the specific singular of our Engliush language, but that can't be said of the Hebrew from which those verses were translated. The same Hebrew word translated "wife" in those verses is also translated "wives" in other verses. The grammatical construct is also the same in all the verses, so pointing at singularity in our English translations really is very unremarkable at proving any point along this line.

For example, where Proverbs says to men that they, "Raise up thy son in the admonition of the Lord...," are we to assume, based on your rules of interpretation, that all men are thus limited to having only one son, and one grandson?

So why didn't God just say "thou shall take only one wife at a time" ?

He did. He said "thou shalt not commit adultery."

Now you're contradicting yourself. Abraham had plural wives, and God does not change (just as you said), so therefore Abraham died in the sin of adultery for unrepentently having had plural wives? How do you account for this inconsistency in your analysis?

Adam had one wife (that we know of for sure).

Yes, and this proves monogenism. Adam also ran around naked...

Lot had one wife (nevermind the acts of his daughters).

And his uncle Abraham had several. So, what does this prove?

Noah had one wife.

And God gave David more than one wife. Again, what does this prove?

Abraham had one wife at a time....it was Sarah's decision to add Hagar and that was a mess, and Abraham's second wife wasn't taken till after Sarah's death.

Oh, but you're mistaken. Abraham had several wives. He had concubines. Concubines were WIVES, the only difference being that the offspring of the concubines didn't receive any of the inheritance.

Isaac had one wife.

And Gideon had many wives.

Jacob wanted one wife. But the schemes of his father-in-law muddied things, and the resulting competition of the women didn't help matters any.

What Jacob wanted and what he actually did was two different things. Jacob ended up doing what he wanted, which was to marry two women who were sisters. This eventually became expressly against the Law of God.

Moses had one wife.

I seem to recall that Moses had two wives...

Really things stayed pretty solidly on track for a "one man and one woman" marriage system until the times of the Kings of Israel and Judah...and many of those men were also fond of creative things like setting up demonic idols and disobaying God in various other ways.

So, what does this make God for His having given David plural wives AFTER he already had at least five?

As the Biblical Scholar Katherine Bushnell writes:

"We do not pretend that what is said in the Mosaic Law concerning polygamy is ideal; but it was the best that could be said to a degraded people. The same can be said of polygamy that Jesus Christ said of divorce, in Matthew 19:8, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put away your wives," not because it was right to do so, but because there was wrong in the men."

Her statement makes no sense. Not only did she call the Patriarchs a bunch of "degraded" men, but she even created a parallel between divorce and polygyny. Is Katherine a feminist?

"The law could make nothing perfect," says Hebrews 7:19. This is taught all through the N. T. Had Moses made his laws absolutely ideal, there would have been an open rebellion against him, and his entire following would have returned to Egypt and degradation. Practically, he could never have enforced ideal laws among a people just emerging from slavery. Spiritual and moral teaching must always accompany the enactment of laws, or a people cannot be elevated."

This makes for a fine sounding conclusion, but she established no premises upon which to errect such conclusions...at least in what you quoted. I also disagree with her idea that Moses dared not enforce ideal laws the people didn't like. Good grief! He cast the tablets at them for creating and worshipping an idol. He told them many things that they didn't like, and yet the majority stayed with him.

For her to say, "Well, if he had done such and such, the people would have gone back to Egypt." Pish-posh! They wanted to go back the day after the day they left. They wanted to go back when they saw pharoah's army coming after them. They wanted to go back many times, and for many different reasons. The fact is, they remained regardless of the Laws they didn't like.

 

[stephen]

Pauls sermon, preached to those ancient Greeks, who had gathered to listen around Mars Hill, and who spent their time in nothig else, but "either to tell or to hear some new thing" were being patronised by Paul when he said "and the times of this ignorance God winked at"

Having observed "their devotions" and taking notice that they even had an "inscription TO THE UNKNOWN GOD" their not wanting to omit any deity from their worship.

Paul said "but now God commandeth all man everywhere to repent, Because God hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained: (Jesus) wherefore he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead".

Repentance is a forgotton subject today. "But God commandeth all men everywhere to repent" That is the important thing......

Have you repented? What do you know about Repentance? That is the important matter here. Not the winking.....as I see it

Scripture ref. Acts of the Apostles ch 17 v 16 to end.

Dr David Jeremiah is an admirable servant of the Master. Please do not despise such men of God

This forum is all about 'talkjesus' It is about the Master.

Have you met Him yet?

The days of Gods 'winking' are past. God now commandeth all men to repent........Turn around and go a different way chum.......You are on the wrong track with such time-wasting talk.

Have you met the Master. and are you living for Him?

 

[Blademan]

Dr David Jeremiah is an admirable servant of the Master. Please do not despise such men of God

Well, you better have a talk with Chad too, because he also stated that those teachings were false.

A man being "admirable" is mostly a matter of personal opinion. Jesus stated that a little leaven leavens the whole loaf. If a man presumes to teach, he better make sure that he's 100% right by teaching only what God actually said. Anything apart from that is pure presumption.

The days of Gods 'winking' are past.

You are in error. I challenge you to show me any such instance in scripture. I agree with Chad in that God NEVER winked at any sin.

God now commandeth all men to repent........Turn around and go a different way chum.......You are on the wrong track with such time-wasting talk.

Well, chum, this is a two-way street. You may choose to disregard Paul's instruction to all us believers to "Prove ALL things....," but I prefer to follow that instruction to the letter. He didn't tell us to prove SOME things, or MOST things, but to prove ALL things. Whether it's a false teaching from David Jeremiah or Billy Graham, I will compare it all to the words of Christ Jesus, and then see if it all measures up.

Have you met the Master. and are you living for Him?

I wonder that about you.

The Jesus described in the Bible expects us to test ALL the spirits, whether they be true. I suffer attacks from the enemy EVERY DAY because I DARE to obey the word of God in testing ALL the spirits, and because I seek to obey God's word at all. Religionists don't like acid tests being applied to them and their words, so they naturally react by doing what harm they can to those who dare to question their words, actions, and affections. They block the tester from access, or delete his posts when he exhibits the courage to hold their feet to the fire when they are in error.

The Jesus of easy-believeism expects us to honor men as being worthy of our resepct and support simply because they themselves blindly venerate such men and their position as popular speakers.

Chum, I don't have stars in my eyes because some dude has a voice on BOTT Radio Network and/or has a television spot in non-prime time slots, along with all the other paid advertising slots.

When there's obvious falsehoods interspersed in a man's teachings, then he's not worthy of any admiration. David Jeremiah's no different.

I don't need to have met him to know that what he taught on a number of accasions were falsehoods.

 

[stephen]

You are in error. I challenge you to show me any such instance in scripture. I agree with Chad in that God NEVER winked at any sin.

"And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent: Acts 17 : 30

God tolerated idolatory which distracted the world, but here Paul makes it clear that He is giving a complete revelation demanding that it stop and that men repent

Except you repent you will all likewise perish (Jesus)