[BornAgainBibleBeliever514]

I highly doubt that "plowed with my heifer" refers to any sort of sex act whatsoever. Samson was calling the obvious, that they had used his wife against him.
Since there is no mention whatsoever of the Philistines having sex with the wife (nor yet Samson), but rather threatened her with burning, there is no way to extrapolate a sexual metaphor.
Now I know that in modern-day slang the term "to plow" can be used in an ugly, sexual way, however there just isn't any reason to read that into Judges 14.

Ironically, an heifer is a young cow that hasn't yet given birth, which can depict a newlywed wife. (Not what I'd call my wife, but...) Also, Numbers 19:2 and Deuteronomy 21:3 refer to an heifer as normally being destined to the yoke (unless offered for sacrifice). Now was Samson also implying that he is yoked to her? I'm not sure. She was outside of Israel, yet it was the Lord's will. I doubt that is good grounds to sanction lopsided relationships/marriages.

The Judges 14 passage has nothing to do with sex acts, although it does lend a bit of credibility to "being yoked" referring to marriage, although the initial scriptures given for a difference between being yoked and being joined are still evident as well.

I've heard 2Cr 6:14 used so often to come against lopsided relationships, I'm interested to see how this plays out.

[greenbear]

Originally Posted by BornAgainBibleBeliever514

I highly doubt that "plowed with my heifer" refers to any sort of sex act whatsoever. Samson was calling the obvious, that they had used his wife against him.
Since there is no mention whatsoever of the Philistines having sex with the wife (nor yet Samson), but rather threatened her with burning, there is no way to extrapolate a sexual metaphor.
Now I know that in modern-day slang the term "to plow" can be used in an ugly, sexual way, however there just isn't any reason to read that into Judges 14.

Ironically, an heifer is a young cow that hasn't yet given birth, which can depict a newlywed wife. (Not what I'd call my wife, but...) Also, Numbers 19:2 and Deuteronomy 21:3 refer to an heifer as normally being destined to the yoke (unless offered for sacrifice). Now was Samson also implying that he is yoked to her? I'm not sure. She was outside of Israel, yet it was the Lord's will. I doubt that is good grounds to sanction lopsided relationships/marriages.

The Judges 14 passage has nothing to do with sex acts, although it does lend a bit of credibility to "being yoked" referring to marriage, although the initial scriptures given for a difference between being yoked and being joined are still evident as well.

I've heard 2Cr 6:14 used so often to come against lopsided relationships, I'm interested to see how this plays out.

Born Again,

Thanks for your input. However, I couldn't disagree more.

I don't think it's necessary for it to even be seen as a metaphor for sleeping with a woman (which of course I think it's clear it is) to see the error of using that verse to support this idea of being "yoked" as having anything whatsoever to do with the marriage relationship.

The idea of being yoked is not even in the passage.

Is any reference to cattle and marriage or a wife within the same passage now to be used as evidence of "yoked" relating to the marriage relationship?

Did you read George's exposition on the topic that absolutely destroyed the argument that "yoked" scriptures have anything to do with marriage?

I have to say that I am quite surprised by the ideas that a few people on this board have about how to correctly interpret the scriptures. Live and learn, I guess.

Oh, well. At least we have the correct Bible, right?

[greenbear]

Not the first time and I'm sure not the last, but the most obvious and relevant point escaped me for a little while.

If you want to use Jg 14:18 as a scriptural evidence that "yoked" applies to marriage not only do you have to fabricate the concept of a "yoke" being implied in the verse but you also have to explain how it supports your argument even then.

Samson is accusing these Philistine men of "plowing with his heifer"; these men being as the farmers doing the plowing, not as the other ox being yoked to her. How does that have anything to do with marriage being "yoked" together?

[George]

Originally Posted by greenbear

Born Again,

Thanks for your input. However, I couldn't disagree more.

I don't think it's necessary for it to even be seen as a metaphor for sleeping with a woman (which of course I think it's clear it is) to see the error of using that verse to support this idea of being "yoked" as having anything whatsoever to do with the marriage relationship.

The idea of being yoked is not even in the passage.

Is any reference to cattle and marriage or a wife within the same passage now to be used as evidence of "yoked" relating to the marriage relationship?

Did you read George's exposition on the topic that absolutely destroyed the idea that "yoked" scriptures have anything to do with marriage?

I have to say that I am quite surprised by the ideas that a few people on this board have about how to correctly interpret the scriptures. Live and learn, I guess.

Oh, well. At least we have the correct Bible, right?

Aloha sister greenbear,

To all of your comments. It also amazes me that some Christians either cannot, or will not, settle Scriptural matters in their hearts, but will instead leave themselves "open" to "SPECULATION" and "SUPPOSITION".

There isn't any way that Judges 14:18 cited by "custer" (in her desperation to disprove" the simple teaching about the difference between being "yoked together" and being "joined together") has anything to do with the sex act; or being "yoked together"; or being joined together"!

The use of the word "plowed" in the verse has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with being "YOKED"! It's pure "SPECULATION" on "custer's" part and a GROSS MISUSE of Scripture to boot! {No surprise there. }

What is sad to see is BornAgainBibleBeliever514's willingness to give any "credence" to these "FLIGHTS OF FANCY" by "custer".

BornAgainBibleBeliever514's quote:

"Now was Samson also implying that he is yoked to her? I'm not sure. She was outside of Israel, yet it was the Lord's will. I doubt that is good grounds to sanction lopsided relationships/marriages.

WHY would any Christian, with an ounce of "DISCERNMENT" - NOT "be sure"? When a Christian starts dealing with what someone in the Bible is "IMPLYING" - they are dealing with "SPECULATION" and "SUPPOSITION"; and if they aren't real careful they will fall into ERROR!

The Judges 14 passage has nothing to do with sex acts, although it does lend a bit of credibility to "being yoked" referring to marriage, although the initial scriptures given for a difference between being yoked and being joined are still evident as well.

This is known as "DOUBLESPEAK" or "speaking out of both sides of your mouth at the same time"! The passage does NOT lend itself to even a little "bit of credibility to "being yoked" referring to marriage". How could it - IF the words "YOKED" and "MARRIAGE" are NOT in the passage? From the "words" in the verse - HOW in the world would anyone, with a sound mind, get the ridiculous idea that there was any "credibility" at all to "custer's" conjectures?

I am baffled as to WHY "Christians" are willing to accept or entertain the idea that personal "speculation" about Bible issues (or doctrine) is an acceptable (or legitimate) form of Bible study.

I've heard 2Cr 6:14 used so often to come against lopsided relationships, I'm interested to see how this plays out ."

I do not understand WHY BornAgainBibleBeliever514 is "interested to see how this plays out"? I wonder - has he read the Thread and all the Posts? And if he has read all of the Posts - WHAT is LEFT to play out?

If by reading all of the Scriptures that I posted in the original Thread, a person cannot make up their own mind as to whether a Biblical marriage is "yoked" or "joined", I don't know how much MORE would have to "play out" before a person could know for sure which it is - since there are NO MORE Scriptures to be cited concerning the issue.

[greenbear]

Aloha, brother George.

Thanks for your encouragement. Along with you, I'm not sure what's left to play out, either. I guess you either get it or you don't. I just don't get how people don't understand the "plowing with my heifer" meaning, though. What do people think Samson is talking about, then?

I only jumped back in this thread because I was so amused that custer brought out Jg 14:18 as an argument for her "yoked" case and by now we all know what I think it means!!! Lol.

Now I can beat a dead horse along with the best of them but I am convinced there remains absolutely no sign of life in this horse so in my mind it is dead and buried.

I think I'll follow the advise of some people wiser than myself and instead of engaging in profitless debating I will spend more time in the Bible. What a concept. Duh.

[custer]

Originally Posted by custer

INCOMPREHENSIBLE!!!

I know that I'm naive, but PLEASE, am I the ONLY one who has NEVER seen any "sex act" in Judges chapter 14???

And, if "plowed with my heifer" WERE a reference to a "sex act," the "metaphor" would DEFINITELY (duh!) be related to the marriage relationship!

INCOMPREHENSIBLE!!!

In light of the most recent incomprehensible posts (by George and greenbear, just to be clear,) I thought it was necessary to quote myself above.

I want to make it perfectly clear that I had never even heard of ANYONE believing a "sex act" was alluded to in Judges 14...and, frankly, I think it takes a dirty mind to have read that into the passage! These 30 men in the passage did not sweet-talk and sleep with this woman - they threatened to KILL her, for crying out loud! Plus, as my 16-year-old son pointed out after hearing all this garbage, we're talking about ONE woman, THIRTY men, and SEVEN days...what in the world?????? FILTH!!!
Also, in verse one of chapter 15, Samson decides he wants to "go in to" his wife...does anybody actually think he would WANT her if he thought she had been with those other men??? (Yes, he had a harlot in 16:1, but that's different than choosing a wife! Right, men?)
Greenbear's "Samson's metaphor for the sex act" was a clever tool of the devil to plant that nasty thought in the mind of everyone reading this thread EVERY TIME we read Judges 14 from now on!

And, BornAgain, there is much left to play out yet...you won't get any answers out of George, though - he refuses to tell anyone how or why he posted a "study" with the glaring errors I mentioned in my post #22! (That's where I have SEVENTEEN verses that prove he is in error, plus I showed where his practical example (headship) was completely WRONG!) So far, George simply WON'T/CAN'T address the obvious problems with his "exposition" (as greenbear calls it I call it part exercise in "copy and paste" and part fluff. The only things edifying were the opening remarks and scripture!

Pam
www.custerfamilyfarm.com

[greenbear]

Originally Posted by custer

In light of the most recent incomprehensible posts (by George and greenbear, just to be clear,) I thought it was necessary to quote myself above.

I want to make it perfectly clear that I had never even heard of ANYONE believing a "sex act" was alluded to in Judges 14...and, frankly, I think it takes a dirty mind to have read that into the passage! These 30 men in the passage did not sweet-talk and sleep with this woman - they threatened to KILL her, for crying out loud! Plus, as my 16-year-old son pointed out after hearing all this garbage, we're talking about ONE woman, THIRTY men, and SEVEN days...what in the world?????? FILTH!!!
Also, in verse one of chapter 15, Samson decides he wants to "go in to" his wife...does anybody actually think he would WANT her if he thought she had been with those other men??? (Yes, he had a harlot in 16:1, but that's different than choosing a wife! Right, men?)
Greenbear's "Samson's metaphor for the sex act" was a clever tool of the devil to plant that nasty thought in the mind of everyone reading this thread EVERY TIME we read Judges 14 from now on!

And, BornAgain, there is much left to play out yet...you won't get any answers out of George, though - he refuses to tell anyone how or why he posted a "study" with the glaring errors I mentioned in my post #22! (That's where I have SEVENTEEN verses that prove he is in error, plus I showed where his practical example (headship) was completely WRONG!) So far, George simply WON'T/CAN'T address the obvious problems with his "exposition" (as greenbear calls it I call it part exercise in "copy and paste" and part fluff. The only things edifying were the opening remarks and scripture!

Pam
www.custerfamilyfarm.com

The Lord judge between me and thee, custer.

[custer]

Originally Posted by greenbear

The Lord judge between me and thee, custer.

and

[greenbear]

Originally Posted by custer

In light of the most recent incomprehensible posts (by George and greenbear, just to be clear,) I thought it was necessary to quote myself above.

I want to make it perfectly clear that I had never even heard of ANYONE believing a "sex act" was alluded to in Judges 14...and, frankly, I think it takes a dirty mind to have read that into the passage! These 30 men in the passage did not sweet-talk and sleep with this woman - they threatened to KILL her, for crying out loud! Plus, as my 16-year-old son pointed out after hearing all this garbage, we're talking about ONE woman, THIRTY men, and SEVEN days...what in the world?????? FILTH!!!
Also, in verse one of chapter 15, Samson decides he wants to "go in to" his wife...does anybody actually think he would WANT her if he thought she had been with those other men??? (Yes, he had a harlot in 16:1, but that's different than choosing a wife! Right, men?)
Greenbear's "Samson's metaphor for the sex act" was a clever tool of the devil to plant that nasty thought in the mind of everyone reading this thread EVERY TIME we read Judges 14 from now on!

And, BornAgain, there is much left to play out yet...you won't get any answers out of George, though - he refuses to tell anyone how or why he posted a "study" with the glaring errors I mentioned in my post #22! (That's where I have SEVENTEEN verses that prove he is in error, plus I showed where his practical example (headship) was completely WRONG!) So far, George simply WON'T/CAN'T address the obvious problems with his "exposition" (as greenbear calls it I call it part exercise in "copy and paste" and part fluff. The only things edifying were the opening remarks and scripture!

Pam
www.custerfamilyfarm.com

I don't base my interpretation of scripture on any commentary. The only reason I'm listing these three is to show I am not some lone sick freak way out in left field here. I fear I'm about to be figuratively burned at the stake as a pervert or have to pin some scarlet letter to my blouse. Sheesh.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
Judges 14:18

If ye had not ploughed with my heifer - If my wife had not been unfaithful to my bed, she would not have been unfaithful to my secret; and, you being her paramours, your interest was more precious to her than that of her husband. She has betrayed me through her attachment to you. Calmet has properly remarked, in quoting the Septuagint, that to plough with one's heifer, or to plough in another man's ground, are delicate turns of expression used both by the Greeks and Latins, as well as the Hebrews, to point out a wife's infidelities...

In this sense Samson's words were understood by the Septuagint, by the Syriac, and by Rabbi Levi. See Bochart, Hierozoic. p. 1, lib. ii., cap. 41, col. 406. The metaphor was a common one, and we need seek for no other interpretation of the words of Samson.

John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
Judges 14:18

and he said unto them, if ye had not ploughed with my heifer; meaning his wife, whom he compares to an heifer, young, wanton, and unaccustomed to the yoke3; and by "ploughing" with her, he alludes to such creatures being employed therein, making use of her to get the secret out of him, and then plying her closely to obtain it from her; and this diligent application and search of theirs, by this means to inform themselves, was like ploughing up ground; they got a discovery of that which before lay hid, and without which they could never have had the knowledge of, as he adds:

ye had not found out my riddle; the explanation of it. Ben Gersome and Abarbinel interpret ploughing of committing adultery with her; in which sense the phrase is used by Greek and Latin writers4; but the first sense is best, for it is not said, "ploughed my heifer", but with her.


Matthew Poole's Commentary on the Holy Bible
Judges 14:18
Ver. 18. If you had not employed my wife to find it out, as men plough up the ground with a heifer, thereby discovering its hidden parts: he calls her
heifer, either because he now suspected her wantonness and too much familiarity with that friend which she afterwards married; or because she was joined with him in the same yoke; or rather, because they used such in ploughing.

I really don't understand the reason for these hysterics. My viewpoint on the meaning of this verse is not exactly unheard of.

The idea that Samson is saying all 30 men had sex with his wife is preposterous. One would be enough, don't you think? I believe Samson suspects his friend who he ended up giving her to. And just because Samson suspects adultery doesn't mean she actually committed adultery. It could be that no one had sex with his wife. Even if one of the men had sex with her, how could we be sure it wasn't rape?

When the thirty men had expounded his first riddle, Sampson responded with yet another riddle; If ye had not plowed with my heifer, ye had not found out my riddle.

A true riddle consists of a figurative and a literal description of an object in the form of a basic metaphor or allegory. It has two or more meanings. Riddles can be solved by verbal skill or through adaptive or versatile imagination.

allegory, a story or visual image with a second distinct meaning partially hidden behind its literal or visible meaning. The principal technique of allegory is personification, whereby abstract qualities are given human shape—as in public statues of Liberty or Justice. An allegory may be conceived as a metaphor that is extended into a structured system.http://www.answers.com/topic/allegory

Allegory communicates its message by means of symbolic figures, actions or symbolic representation. Allegory is generally treated as a figure of rhetoric, but an allegory does not have to be expressed in language: it may be addressed to the eye, and is often found in realistic painting, sculpture or some other form of mimetic, or representative art.

The etymological meaning of the word is broader than the common use of the word. Though it is similar to other rhetorical comparisons, an allegory is sustained longer and more fully in its details than a metaphor, and appeals to imagination, while an analogy appeals to reason or logic. The fable or parable is a short allegory with one definite moral. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory

If ye had not plowed with my heifer, ye had not found out my riddle.

Remember, a riddle has at least two meanings. In this riddle I believe there are actually three levels of meaning.

1)Literally plowing the ground with an ox to reveal the hidden parts of the ground.
2)Figuratively employing methods of uncovering Samson's secret from his wife. The idea of revealing secret things or hidden parts does have the feel of sexual immorality.
3)Although given in language rather than an image, this analogy is also addressed to the eye and can be pictured by the imagination. The physical form of a plowman behind the plow and...well, hopefully we all get the idea.

I can't foresee any circumstance that would compel me to respond to this thread again, short of being labeled as a harlot. No... not even then. I believe custer will have to play out the rest of this (whatever "this" is) by herself or maybe she'll find someone to take George's and my spots.

[custer]

Originally Posted by greenbear

The idea of being yoked is not even in the passage.

greenbear,

This has been discussed SCRIPTURALLY already - see my post #23. You seem to read and comprehend my posts very selectively! The fact that the heifer is being plowed with, means that she IS YOKED! So, how can "the idea of being yoked" NOT be in the passage??? Still, both you and George clung to this side-note of mine while TOTALLY IGNORING my post #22...you know, the one with SEVENTEEN scriptures that ARE AGAINST George's conclusions!

WHY??? GEORGE???

Also, regarding your last post, you would have profited more by taking your own advice (from your post #35) and "spend more time in the Bible" (as would we all.)

Pam
www.custerfamilyfarm.com