To demonstrate this TRUTH, let us observe as the Scripture "divides" the TRUTH of some of such manmade creeds, writings, and doctrines.
Anywhere at all in Scripture, is it truly possible to find the change of the Sabbath from the Scripture-declared SEVENTH day to the man-declared FIRST day? The answer is an unwavering, "No." Some will declare that, because Jesus was resurrected on the First day of the week, the change is justified so as to honor Him. The question arises, therefore, if that is legitimate, then why didn't Jesus make the change Himself? Some will attempt to rationalize that because Paul one time was preaching on the First day (in Acts 20:5-12) of the week (NOTE: They were only at that location for SEVEN days, that is, a "week"!), this means that the "sabbath" was "changed" to the First day. If this was true, then why were the apostles repeatedly teaching in the synagogues "on the sabbath day"? See Acts 13:14,27,42,44, 15:21, 17:2, and 18:4. (Just because one teaches on other days of the week, does that mean that the Sabbath is voided? I think not.) Indeed, if observing the SEVENTH day Sabbath was not a commandment of God in the New Testament, then why did the women who prepared the ointments of Jesus' flesh-deceased body after the Crucifixion, ...why are they reported to have "rested the sabbath day according to the commandment"? (Luke 23:56.) Indeed, nowhere whatsoever in Scripture is the Sabbath of God changed from the SEVENTH to the First day. Accordingly, any prophet to have said otherwise has "broken Scripture", called it and God "liars", and thus spoken PRESUMPTUOUSLY. Thus, were they not false prophets?
Anywhere at all in Scripture, is it truly possible to find the change of the Scripture-declared patriarchal marriages to the man-declared oppression upon woman that a TRUE GODLY man love, bless, and edify no more than one wife? Without getting into a discussion about "bishops" and "deacons", of course, the answer is an unwavering, "No." Some will declare the verse of the seventh of the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20:14: "Thou shalt not commit adultery." However, they will base their understanding of that commandment on an incorrect re-definition that the children of the world have put forth. Rather, the word for "adultery" in the original, old language is "na`aph" (naw-af'). The verbatim definition of that word is as follows: a primitive root; to commit adultery; figuratively to apostatize --<--<which refers to idolatry!-->-->:-- adulterer (-ess), commit (-ing) adultery, woman that breaketh wedlock. The best understanding of the word, in all applications of it throughout Scripture, is as follows: The act of a (by-God) married woman breaking her wedlock contract/covenant. (The principles in determining adultery are in parallel with those of determining idolatry.) Thus, it is NOT adultery for a TRUE GODLY man to profoundly love, bless, and edify more than one woman. The only way a man commits true adultery is in being responsible for, or participating in, the act of a (by-God) married woman breaking her wedlock contract/covenant. After all, only 22 verses after the seventh of the Ten Commandments, in Exodus 21:10, is the following "judgment" given by the LORD Himself, regarding any TRUE GODLY man and any previous and present wife(s): "If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage shall he not diminish." Indeed, the LORD was looking out for woman that she be not evilly cast aside, as one cruelly replaced. If a TRUE GODLY man could not be so capable of such TRUE GODLY love, blessing, and edification of his present wife(s), this "judgment" of the LORD mandates that that man is not to ADD unto himself at the expense or discarding of any present wife(s). A TRUE GODLY man is to take the absolute personal responsibility of being capable of profoundly loving, blessing, and edifying rather than harming or depriving women, God's beloved gardens for the seed of Man. THAT is the judgment of the LORD.
If this were not TRUE, then Moses himself, the one through whom we have the very Ten Commandments given to us by God, ...Moses himself would otherwise be guilty of the incorrectly re-defined word of "adultery". Yes, Moses, having the spirit of the LORD upon him (Numbers 11:17), ...Moses, the meekest man upon all the face of the earth at his time ((Numbers 12:3), ...Moses had two wives. See Exodus 18:1-3 and Numbers 12:1. Would those who believe this incorrect manmade doctrine accuse Moses of "adultery"? How about Abraham and his three known wives? (Genesis 16:1,4 and 25:1.) Jacob (Israel) and his four wives? (Genesis 29:31---30:24.) (Would they say that all but six ---including the Levites--- of the twelve tribes of Israel were born in a so-called "sin" of "adultery"? God forbid.) What about the prophet Samuel's father's two wives in 1_Samuel chapters 1 - 3? What about "mashiyach" (maw-shee-'akh) ANOINTED/messiah/christ David, having even more than his eight known wives? (1_Samuel 18:27, 25:42-43, 2_Samuel 3:3c-5, 11:3,27, 5:13.) (As I have written you in the past, Solomon MULTIPLIED/STORED-UP his 1,000 women in 1_Kings 11:3, which was NOT ordained. He was only supposed to ADD, not MULTIPLY/STORE-UP.) What about Jesus? If blessing more than one woman was an immoral violation of a Commandment, would He have then said that five of ten virgins would be married unto Him in Matthew 25:1-13? Would God have said that He had two married unto Him in Jeremiah chapter 3? Indeed, would these would-be Christians call any of these examples of the TRUTH as "adulterers"? God forbid. Would they accuse them of having committed such a so-called "sin" or "abomination"? God forbid. Are these believers of incorrect manmade doctrines really prepared to stand before the Throne of Judgment and actually call God and CHRIST Jesus "adulterers"? I think not. Indeed, nowhere whatsoever in Scripture is the true meaning of "adultery" changed to deny and oppress woman from being "allowed" to be so profoundly loved, blessed, and edified by a TRUE GODLY man only because he, who by and only by God is so profoundly capable, is already so loving, so blessing, and so edifying another woman (or women) already. Accordingly, any prophet to have said otherwise has "broken Scripture", called it and God "liars", and thus spoken PRESUMPTUOUSLY. Thus, were they not false prophets?
By changing from Scripture to these manmade doctrines, what has been achieved in the world? By persuading man to not recognize the SEVENTH day as the TRUE Scriptural Sabbath, the Great Deceiver convinced man that he could be the decider of the terms on which he obeys God's Commands. Thus, man became more greatly deprived of the (capital-L) LORD's blessing. By persuading man to not recognize the true definition of "na`aph" (naw-af'), adultery, the Great Deceiver convinced woman that she could be the decider of the terms on which she obeys her (small-L) lord, husband. Thus, woman became more greatly deprived of her (small-L) lord's blessing. (Note, however, that Godly "obedience" is by willful love: as God is not an abusive tyrant upon man, neither would a TRUE GODLY man be upon woman. Godly "obedience" is based on willful love, not force. Anyway,...) Persuading man to forget that the TRUE Sabbath is the SEVENTH day was the Great Deceiver's way of interfering with man's obedience to God on God's terms. By persuading man that he can supposedly "have" only one wife (as opposed to assuming the absolute personal responsibility of being profoundly capable of TRUE GODLY loving, blessing, and edifying more than one), the Great Deceiver persuaded man to not recognize his assigned responsibility of rising to his (small-L) lordship as a TRUE GODLY man. Thus, while deceiving woman that she was being raised up to so-called "equality", the Great Deceiver actually deprived her of the higher standard of having a TRUE GODLY man as her (small-L) lord. Consequently, man, having no such high standard, example, or reason to rise up to that higher standard of (small-L) lordship, became diminished. For most, the example of such lordship has become an example never seen, never mind considered obtainable. Just because those in the world have not seen our Lord does not mean He does not exist. Similarly, just because those in the world have not seen such an example of such assigned (small-L) lordship does not mean that such do not exist. Yet, by denying the LORD and by denying man his lordship, the example of such TRUE GODLY men has virtually disappeared from view in the world. Indeed, the ever increasing numbers of "divorce", of sad and hurting individuals "choosing" to behave in Scripture-defined "abomination" of homosexuality, of abortion and other infanticides, of single handout-recipient mothers, of the turning women into objects for harlotry, of so-called (anti-man) "feminism", and of the multitude of other social ills of the world are all the manifest tokens and visible evidence of what has resulted by the absence of such TRUE GODLY men of the LORD upon the face of the earth. All of these evidences are the bad fruit on the trees of the false prophets whose doctrines denied man's obedience to the LORD and destroyed man from rising up to his assigned (small-L) lordship (thus destroying woman by deprivation). All of these evidences are the consequences that these manmade doctrines have wrought upon the world.
The fact is obvious: Scripture provides no basis whatsoever for these changes by manmade doctrines which have so abused mankind.
© June 4, 1995, The Standard Bearer
P.O. Box 765, O.O.B., ME 04064