This Forum is now inactive and has been replaced by a new Christogenea Forum. You may browse here but there are no updated threads or new posts since January 1st 2017. Forum members please see THIS NOTICE for information concerning your account at the new forum.

Job 31:1

Old Testament religious discussion apart from Biblical history

Job 31:1

Postby CIman » Tue Aug 30, 2016 5:51 pm

Is this verse saying that a man can't desire to have a virgin wife?

I've read som Judeo commentaries on this verse and, of course, in typical Judeo fashion they believe that this verse is talking about a "thought crime" (men can't even as much as look at virgin with the intent to have her as a wife).. I have even read that some feminists within the Judeo churches are using this verse to shame men who want to have a virgin wife with language like, "see there! You are not supposed to be a man-pig who shames women and their sexuality".

If Job is saying that he can't even look at a virgin wouldn't that contradict the Mosaic Law? Levitical priests were not even allowed to marry women who were not virgins,

"A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or an harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife." (Lev 21:14)

Here's the verse from Job 31:1 "I made a covenant with mine eyes; why then should I think upon a maid?"

This verse in Sirach 9:5 is pretty similar too "Don't look too intently at a virgin, or you may find yourself forced to pay a bride price."

So what is the meaning of these verses?
CIman
 
Posts: 61
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 1:13 pm

Re: Job 31:1

Postby EzraLB » Tue Aug 30, 2016 7:50 pm

From Matthew Henry's Commentary:

1. What the resolutions were which, in this matter, he kept to (Job 31:1): I made a covenant with my eyes, that is, "I watched against the occasions of the sin why then should I think upon a maid?" that is, "by that means, through the grace of God, I kept myself from the very first step towards it." So far was he from wanton dalliances, or any act of lasciviousness, that, (1.) He would not so much as admit a wanton look. He made a covenant with his eyes, made this bargain with them, that he would allow them the pleasure of beholding the light of the sun and the glory of God shining in the visible creation, provided they would never fasten upon any object that might occasion any impure imaginations, much less any impure desires, in his mind and under this penalty, that, if they did, they must smart for it in penitential tears. Note, Those that would keep their hearts pure must guard their eyes, which are both the outlets and inlets of uncleanness. Hence we read of wanton eyes (Isaiah 3:16) and eyes full of adultery, 2 Peter 2:14. The first sin began in the eye, Genesis 3:6. What we must not meddle with we must not lust after and what we must not lust after we must not look at not the forbidden wealth (Proverbs 23:5), not the forbidden wine (Proverbs 23:31), not the forbidden woman, Matthew 5:28. (2.) He would not so much as allow a wanton thought: "Why then should I think upon a maid with any unchaste fancy or desire towards her?" Shame and sense of honour might restrain him from soliciting the chastity of a beautiful virgin, but only grace and the fear of God would restrain him from so much as thinking of it. Those are not chaste that are not so in spirit as well as body, 1 Corinthians 7:34. See how Christ's exposition of the seventh commandment agrees with the ancient sense of it, and how much better Job understood it than the Pharisees, though they sat in Moses's chair.
"No Rothschild is English. No Baruch, Morgenthau, Cohen, Lehman, Warburg, Kuhn, Kahn, Schiff, Sieff or Solomon was ever born Anglo-Saxon. And it is for this filth that you fight. It is for this filth that you murdered your Empire. It is this filth that elects, selects, your politicians." -- Ezra Pound
User avatar
EzraLB
 
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2015 9:32 am

Re: Job 31:1

Postby CIman » Wed Aug 31, 2016 10:26 am

EzraLB wrote:From Matthew Henry's Commentary:

1. What the resolutions were which, in this matter, he kept to (Job 31:1): I made a covenant with my eyes, that is, "I watched against the occasions of the sin why then should I think upon a maid?" that is, "by that means, through the grace of God, I kept myself from the very first step towards it." So far was he from wanton dalliances, or any act of lasciviousness, that, (1.) He would not so much as admit a wanton look. He made a covenant with his eyes, made this bargain with them, that he would allow them the pleasure of beholding the light of the sun and the glory of God shining in the visible creation, provided they would never fasten upon any object that might occasion any impure imaginations, much less any impure desires, in his mind and under this penalty, that, if they did, they must smart for it in penitential tears. Note, Those that would keep their hearts pure must guard their eyes, which are both the outlets and inlets of uncleanness. Hence we read of wanton eyes (Isaiah 3:16) and eyes full of adultery, 2 Peter 2:14. The first sin began in the eye, Genesis 3:6. What we must not meddle with we must not lust after and what we must not lust after we must not look at not the forbidden wealth (Proverbs 23:5), not the forbidden wine (Proverbs 23:31), not the forbidden woman, Matthew 5:28. (2.) He would not so much as allow a wanton thought: "Why then should I think upon a maid with any unchaste fancy or desire towards her?" Shame and sense of honour might restrain him from soliciting the chastity of a beautiful virgin, but only grace and the fear of God would restrain him from so much as thinking of it. Those are not chaste that are not so in spirit as well as body, 1 Corinthians 7:34. See how Christ's exposition of the seventh commandment agrees with the ancient sense of it, and how much better Job understood it than the Pharisees, though they sat in Moses's chair.


Yeah, I've read pretty much all the available Judeo commentaries on this verse and they are more or less the same (picking verses out of context, misleading, etc). The question that remains to be answered is why Job and Sirach advises men not to desire a virgin wife when the ideal in the Mosaic Law is that a woman is a virgin before marriage? And, as stated before, Levitical priests were not allowed to marry women who were not virgins.

When David was dying they brought a virgin to comfort him and give him warmth (no pun intended, and he did not sleep with her) because he was cold,

"So his servants said to him, "Let them seek a young virgin for my lord the king, and let her attend the king and become his nurse; and let her lie in your bosom, that my lord the king may keep warm."
So they searched for a beautiful girl throughout all the territory of Israel, and found Abishag the Shunammite, and brought her to the king. he girl was very beautiful; and she became the king's nurse and served him, but the king did not cohabit with her." (Kings 1:2-4)

Am I missing something here? Correct me if i'm wrong.
CIman
 
Posts: 61
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 1:13 pm

Re: Job 31:1

Postby wmfinck » Wed Aug 31, 2016 10:56 am

CIman wrote:The question that remains to be answered is why Job and Sirach advises men not to desire a virgin wife when the ideal in the Mosaic Law is that a woman is a virgin before marriage? And, as stated before, Levitical priests were not allowed to marry women who were not virgins.


The problem is that you are reading a premise into the original verses which are not there. These verses do not advise men against taking a virgin for a wife.

Rather, these verses are advising older, married men not to go chasing after maidens, whereby they would be saddled with the burden of additional wives, or ruin maidens that they cannot support.

Another problem is that we tend to read these verses within our own cultural context, rather than the original cultural context.

Wow, how many men I knew in my past who were in their 40's and 50's that continuously lusted after women barely in their 20's, or not even that old.

Imagine that situation in a culture that condoned polygamy for men, where women were virtually property, and where once you bedded a woman you had to support her, or you could mistreat her by selling her off. (He who puts away a wife forces her to commit adultery, think about it.)

That is what these verses warn against.
Image
If a jew is moving his lips, he's lying. If you see a rabbi, there has already been a crime!
User avatar
wmfinck
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2775
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:09 am

Re: Job 31:1

Postby CIman » Wed Aug 31, 2016 11:25 am

wmfinck wrote:
CIman wrote:The question that remains to be answered is why Job and Sirach advises men not to desire a virgin wife when the ideal in the Mosaic Law is that a woman is a virgin before marriage? And, as stated before, Levitical priests were not allowed to marry women who were not virgins.


The problem is that you are reading a premise into the original verses which are not there. These verses do not advise men against taking a virgin for a wife.

Rather, these verses are advising older, married men not to go chasing after maidens, whereby they would be saddled with the burden of additional wives, or ruin maidens that they cannot support.

Another problem is that we tend to read these verses within our own cultural context, rather than the original cultural context.

Wow, how many men I knew in my past who were in their 40's and 50's that continuously lusted after women barely in their 20's, or not even that old.

Imagine that situation in a culture that condoned polygamy for men, where women were virtually property, and where once you bedded a woman you had to support her, or you could mistreat her by selling her off. (He who puts away a wife forces her to commit adultery, think about it.)

That is what these verses warn against.


Thank you for the clarification.. Now that interpretation makes a whole lot more sense.

Sometimes I bump in to verses like these when I scroll through "Christian feminist" websites or Judeo websites in general and they use them to prove "this and that" (based on the totally different culture we live in today). I guess one must always look at the context when interpreting "difficult" verses.
CIman
 
Posts: 61
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 1:13 pm

Re: Job 31:1

Postby Kentucky » Wed Aug 31, 2016 11:50 am

CIman wrote:Sometimes I bump in to verses like these when I scroll through "Christian feminist" websites or Judeo websites in general and they use them to prove "this and that" (based on the totally different culture we live in today). I guess one must always look at the context when interpreting "difficult" verses.

What are you wasting your time on feminist and judeo websites for? One must always look at the gift and key to unlocking various passages... Christian Identity.

Mark
User avatar
Kentucky
 
Posts: 1803
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 2:20 am

Re: Job 31:1

Postby CIman » Wed Aug 31, 2016 12:11 pm

Kentucky wrote:What are you wasting your time on feminist and judeo websites for? One must always look at the gift and key to unlocking various passages... Christian Identity.

Mark


Well it's usually to leave comments and engage in debates, but also because I want to compare their beliefs to CI and see how they are thinking (or how disillusioned they are). And sometimes I just find some Judeo books/extracts on the net through google searches that I start reading.

But you're right, I should probably reduce my "visits" a little bit. I always get so frustrated and angry when I read their articles/books and they preach feminism and race-mixing (even when I'm debating them and present true scriptural interpretations). It's frustrating to say the least.
CIman
 
Posts: 61
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 1:13 pm

Re: Job 31:1

Postby Kentucky » Wed Aug 31, 2016 12:16 pm

CIman wrote:
Kentucky wrote:What are you wasting your time on feminist and judeo websites for? One must always look at the gift and key to unlocking various passages... Christian Identity.

Mark


Well it's usually to leave comments and engage in debates, but also because I want to compare their beliefs to CI and see how they are thinking (or how disillusioned they are). And sometimes I just find some Judeo books/extracts on the net through google searches that I start reading.

But you're right, I should probably reduce my "visits" a little bit. I always get so frustrated and angry when I read their articles/books and they preach feminism and race-mixing (even when I'm debating them and present true scriptural interpretations). It's frustrating to say the least.

"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you" Mt. 7:6. Just remember, that when you're online "debating" with clowns, there's no assurance that they are White.

Mark
User avatar
Kentucky
 
Posts: 1803
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 2:20 am


Return to Old Testament Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests