WWUTT 450 Q&A Wonder Woman Polygamy Blindess?

What should a Christian think of Wonder Woman? Is an elder -led church the same as a congregational -led church?

What does the Bible have to say about polygamy? The answers to these questions and others when we

Understand the Text. You're listening to When we

Understand the Text, an online Bible ministry committed to teaching sound doctrine and exposing the faulty.

Find videos and more at our website www .utt .com. Now here's our host,

Pastor Gabe Hughes. Thank you, Becky, and I've been making some changes to the website. If you go to www .utt

.com, you will see not only the most recent video, that's typically what you see whenever you pull the website up, but underneath that is the full transcript to that video, and that's going to be a regular thing.

The front of the website is laid out a little more like a blog now. In the right -hand column,

I haven't done this yet, but I'm planning on putting links to all the videos in their respective categories.

You get that anyway when you click on the videos tab, but I want to put that right on the front of the website, make it a little more user -friendly.

All right, it is Friday, and we respond to questions from the listeners, which you can submit by email, whenweunderstandthetext at gmail .com.

This first question comes from Joel in Georgia. I've had a question from Joel on the broadcast before, always good to hear from him.

He has a question about the most recent movie, Wonder Woman. I haven't seen it, but he has, and he says, I want to know your opinion on Wonder Woman as a role model.

I just saw the movie, and it had no hyper -feminism at all from what I could tell. However, from listening to your opinions from your podcasts and videos,

I was curious what the Christian perspective of Wonder Woman is. Is she too strong and has too much power as a woman in contrast to the biblical view, whether that's the comic book version,

Linda Carter, or the movie version of Wonder Woman? Can a woman break barriers and still be a

Christian? I do think women have the ability to be in parity with males when it comes to certain careers, such as technology and the sciences, but understand that they cannot be preachers in the church.

It seems like an interesting conversation to have in this modern era. And then he signs it,

Joel, 100 % male and a DC fan. Well, Joel, I agree with you.

There are some careers out there a woman can do just as well as a man can do. But there are other careers men do better and probably only men should be doing.

And then there are other careers that women do better than men can do when it comes to the role of a pastor in a church.

There are some women out there who probably would be great preachers, but that is a role that God has designated specifically for men, elder pastor overseer.

Only a man can fill that role. That does not mean that women are any less significant or important in a church.

They just cannot have the position of overseer. But there are things that women can do in the church that men cannot do.

I've talked about that at length other places. I'm not going to I'm not going to talk about that anymore here, because the question more has to do with Wonder Woman.

Is Wonder Woman a good role model for females? And my response to that would be, no, she is not.

Not that girls can't dress up as Wonder Woman and run around and pretend like she's that superhero.

I suppose that's fine. That depends on you as a parent, whether or not you want to let your child do that. If a kid is dressing up like Iron Man or Batman or Superman, that doesn't mean those characters are the child's role model.

They're just pretending they're a character with some superpowers. I wouldn't necessarily make that a role model. One of the reasons why

Wonder Woman makes such a poor role model for kids or a poor example for girls at all is because in the comic books, she's very voluptuously drawn and she's drawn that way very deliberately to attract young males, because that's typically the audience, the demographic that comic book companies are trying to attract.

So she is she as a woman, her features, her feminine features are very exaggerated and it creates an unrealistic expectation for girls, plus communicating to them that it's

OK to dress that way. I'm pleased that the movie version of Wonder Woman is not as scantily clad and plus Gal Godot, the actress that plays

Wonder Woman, is not nearly as voluptuous. That's no knock on gal. She's a lovely woman, but she's she's not built like the comic book.

Wonder Woman is drawn. Here's another reason why Wonder Woman does not make a good role model, and this is not as well known.

You kind of have to dig into the facts to know this. But the guy who created Wonder Woman, psychologist William Moulton Marston, he modeled

Wonder Woman after a number of feminists, most prominently Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, America's number one abortion giant.

Sanger has been deemed the killer angel and could be responsible for, by some estimates, the deaths of over a billion children since her time when she advocated for abortion and eugenics.

She was a bigot and a racist. And this was Marston's inspiration for the creation of Wonder Woman.

I simply think that Wonder Woman is steeped in too much mythology and and sinfulness, depravity to really be considered a good role model or a representative to young girls or women at all.

I do not believe that Wonder Woman is breaking barriers. I really don't think any fictional character really breaks barriers.

You would you would hand over the credit to the person who created that character, not necessarily the character themselves.

I really think that the women that are being portrayed in these comic book films, whether you're talking about the

Marvel movies or the DC movies, I think they're portrayed very poorly. If I was a woman, I would not be excited about those characters at all.

They're really insignificant to the plot. I think that for all of Hollywood's trumpeting about feminism, they do a really bad job of presenting powerful women characters.

So, yeah, bad role models all the way around. But thank you for your question, Joel. This next one comes from Deb.

She says, hi, Pastor Gabe. I listened to the podcast where you talked about a church governed as a plurality of elders.

We are members of a church that transitioned to that about six years ago when we were new attenders.

But it appears the transition hasn't been that successful. There appears to be controversy regarding our constitution.

Is a church governed by a plurality of elders the same as a congregational type of governing?

I was wondering if it would be possible to see the constitution that your church uses so I can see how it compares to ours.

Well, if you go to our church website, FirstSouthernBaptistChurch .org and click on about, that's our church constitution.

That's what we follow in terms of leadership structure, parity, church discipline, all that kind of thing.

Now, the question you asked, is a church governed by a plurality of elders the same as a congregational type of governing?

Not exactly. All of this follows a biblical model as to how we believe church leadership should be organized.

So when it comes to overseeing all of the spiritual aspects of the church, that resides with the eldership.

So everything in terms of teaching goes through the eldership. That is not a decision that is made by the congregation.

The congregation will choose who the elders are. So a candidate for eldership is presented before the congregation and the members decide if that person is fit to be the elder.

And then once that person is installed in the eldership, the elders decide teaching aspects in the church.

And nothing is to be taught in the church that has not been approved of or at least reviewed by the eldership.

Then there are some other issues that reside with the congregation. Like, for example, money issues.

Since the congregation gives the money to the church, the elders might review something in the budget or something like that and then bring it before the congregation.

But ultimately, any final decisions on the money reside with the congregation. Also, disciplinary aspects.

The elders will oversee the discipline to the point that a person has to be brought before the congregation and it needs to be decided whether or not that person needs to be removed from the church.

This is according to the guidelines that are given in Matthew chapter 18. So there still are decisions being made by the congregation, but the overall ministry aspects of the church are being decided by the plurality elders.

Now, if there is not a plurality eldership, who are those decisions being made by? Usually it's just the pastor.

So you have one guy that's calling all the shots for the church. I don't think that's the way God ever intended for the church to be structured.

I think we do see examples of a primary overseer.

Like you have your plurality eldership, but then there would be a person you might consider to be the senior elder or the head elder, like in the

Jerusalem church, that was James in the Ephesian church. It was Timothy. So there are those occasions where there's a person that is considered to be kind of more the head over the teaching.

But in voting matters, that person would not have precedence over anybody else.

So in our eldership, we've got five elders in our church. If there was a matter that came to a vote, my vote is not any more than any of the other elders.

So if the vote came down to three to two, whichever side I'm on is not the winning side.

It's the one that had the majority vote. I don't think we've ever had anything like that. Usually as elders, we're pretty unanimous in the decisions that we make or we try to come to a good consensus among one another.

So anyway, Deb, if you want to see our constitution, that's where you can go. FirstSouthernBaptistChurch .org

and I'll be sure to respond to Deb and shoot that link to her by email as well. This next one comes from Michelle, who has a great website,

MichelleLeslieBooks .com. I encourage you to check it out. She says, Hey, Gabe, I got a

Q &A question. Actually, several for you on Old Testament polygamy. We know from Genesis 2, 18 through 25 that God's plan for marriage is one man, one woman.

It would seem that this concept is transcendent or timeless since God made this pronouncement in the garden prior to the giving of the law.

Genesis 2, 24 sounds like imperative language. Is it a command in that taking multiple wives is a sin?

If so, were men like Abraham, Jacob, David and Solomon sinning by having more than one wife?

If they were sinning, why don't we ever see God calling them to repentance for the act of polygamy? The act itself, not just its consequences.

The Deuteronomy 17, 17 and First Timothy 3, 2 and 12 and Titus 1, 6 allow for the idea that polygamy is not

OK for those in leadership positions, but it is OK for non leaders. If God did not consider polygamy to be a sin in the

Old Testament, but does consider it to be a sin in the New Testament. How does that fit with his immutability, like in Hebrews 13, 8, where it says that he is the same yesterday, today and forever?

Well, these are all good questions, Michelle, and we tend to lump polygamy in with sexual immorality, but the

Bible does not. When you go through the lists of sins that will keep someone from the kingdom of God, like First Corinthians 6, 9 through 10,

Galatians 5, 19 through 21, etc. Notice that polygamy is never listed. That's because sexual immorality is any sexual activity outside of the covenant of marriage, and polygamy is still sex within a marriage.

So it's not in the same category as sexual immorality, but it's still sin.

Because it's against the law of God. It's just not as grave a sin or considered to be the same kind of sin as a sexually immoral sin.

And we know that those sins are different than all other sins because of what the Apostle Paul says in First Corinthians chapter five.

Every other sin a person commits outside their body, but sexual sins a person commits with their body.

Polygamy is never directly confronted in the Old or the New Testament, except to say that marriage is to be between one husband and one wife until death.

Jesus talks about that in Matthew 19, five. It's mentioned in First Corinthians 7, 39, First Corinthians 3, 2, and the qualifications for an elder or an overseer in the church, etc.

In the requirements for an overseer of the church in that one in particular, the pastor or the elder is to be the husband of one wife.

He is an example of a mature Christian that all of the other saints are to look up to and aspire toward.

Therefore, we know that this is what Christ expects of his followers. For those who are married, it is to be one man and one woman for life.

That is the way that God designed marriage. So why is polygamy never directly confronted?

This is conjecture on my part, but I believe the reason is so no one would be led to believe that they need to divorce all their other wives except their first.

So their only real wife is the first woman that they married, and they need to divorce all the other wives that they've married.

In Bible times, both in Old Testament and New Testament, a woman who had sex, whether she had been married and divorced or had been raped and forced into sex against her will, she was considered no good.

Hence the laws that we have in Deuteronomy 22. Had a woman who was wife number three in a marriage been divorced because her husband had an attack of conscience, she would be forced into a situation that would leave her destitute, resulting in either slavery or prostitution.

And this is the case that we see in 2 Samuel 13 20 with one of David's daughters.

Now, despite the fact that we often single out characters like Abraham and Jacob, David and Solomon, polygamy was not a common practice and and polyamory was practically nonexistent.

That's where a woman has multiple husbands rather than a husband who has multiple wives.

If it was practiced at all, if polygamy was practiced at all, it was among the rich and it was either a sign of wealth or it was considered a benevolent act.

For example, David married Abigail when her bonehead of a husband died and Abigail would not have inherited

Nabal's household. As we think of in an American context, she would have gone to live with family or she would have become destitute.

David took her as his wife to show appreciation for her kindness. In the case of Solomon, his wives were his possession and his interests were divided between the

God of his father, David, and the gods of his pagan wives. Now, in Malachi's rebuke against Israel, he said, for the man who does not love his wife but divorces her, says the

Lord, covers his garment with violence, says the Lord of hosts. So guard yourselves in your spirit and do not be faithless.

That's Malachi 2 16. For those Israelites who had married pagan wives, they broke the law of God, but they weren't to divorce their wives.

Likewise, those who had taken multiple wives had broken the law of God, but they weren't to divorce their extra wives.

Rather, they needed to be faithful to their covenant vow and teach their children what

God intended to marriage so not to repeat the sins of their fathers. In countries today where polygamy is practiced, missionaries tell these husbands not to divorce their wives, lest their wives become destitute and their children become fatherless.

But they should teach their children that when they grow up and get married, they are to have only one spouse.

The Bible explicitly says how God designed a marriage to be, and that is sufficient.

What we have in Matthew chapter 19, a marriage is supposed to be between one man and one woman for life.

And I hope that helps to clear the air on a few things, Michelle. And I thank you for your question. One more here, and I'm starting to lose my voice.

I apologize for that. My voice is kind of cracking here. Both my wife and I have been struggling with some allergies lately because here in Kansas, the state tree is the cottonwood, and now cotton is starting to flow through the air.

So the sustainability of my voice is not as strong as usual. And I apologize for that.

But thank you for bearing with me. So this last question comes from Tristan, who says, Aloha, brother.

And I don't know if that means that Tristan is writing to me from Hawaii or not. But if he is, to the best of my knowledge, it's the first email

I've gotten from the Hawaiian state. Aloha, brother. I love your videos.

May the Lord bless you in this. Thank you, Tristan. I'm currently reading Mark 8 and was looking for answers on why

Jesus did a two stage miracle. The answers I found online that were that the disciples were spiritually blind on who

Jesus really is. I'm not fully sure if there is more to be studied, but would it be too much to ask if you could make a video on this?

If not, maybe offer some help. Well, sure thing, Tristan is actually one of my favorite miracles in the

Bible that Jesus did. And I'll take you to it here and we'll read it. So this is the healing of the blind man at Bethsaida.

Mark chapter eight, I'm starting in verse twenty two. And they came to Bethsaida and some people brought to him a blind man and begged him to touch him.

And Jesus took the blind man by the hand and led him out of the village. And when he had spit on his eyes and laid his hands on him, he asked him, do you see anything?

And he looked up and said, I see people, but they look like trees walking. Then Jesus laid his hands on his eyes again and he opened his eyes.

His sight was restored and he saw everything clearly. And he sent him to his home, saying, do not even enter the village.

Now, here's one of the reasons why I love this miracle. I remember reading an article back in the 90s.

I was still in high school at this particular time, but it was it was about advancements that have been made in restoring sight to the blind and actually giving sight to a person for the very first time.

One of the biggest hurdles that doctors had in giving sight to a person who had never seen before was teaching the mind the ability to see so you could give functioning eyes to a person or repair the eyes so that they actually worked.

But it did not mean that the brain was going to be able to process what it was that the eyes were picking up.

So there was a kind of a twofold process in giving sight to a blind man, giving him eyes that worked and also making his brain able to process what it was that the eyes were seeing.

And I remember at that particular time reading Mark 8 and seeing this particular story and putting the two things together.

These articles that I had read about restoring sight, along with this miracle that Jesus had performed with the blind man at Bethsaida.

So Jesus, the first time that he healed, the man healed his eyes, but his brain couldn't process what was going on.

So when he asks Jesus, what do you see? And the man said, well, I see people, but they look like trees walking around.

In other words, the man could see something, but he had no idea what it was that he could see. Jesus healed his eyes, but had not yet restored function to his brain to be able to process what his eyes were seeing.

So then Jesus lays his hands on him again, and then he opened his eyes and his sight was restored and he could understand everything clearly.

So here's what we're to understand from this and what you found online, where it says that that the disciples were spiritually blind on who

Jesus really is. That's a pretty accurate understanding of what's happening in this particular miracle.

So anybody can hear the words of Jesus. You can hear a sermon preached. You can hear the words of the

Bible come to life in the mouth of the preacher that is uttering them. But the heart is unable to process or understand what it is that is being said.

Anybody can hear the word of God proclaimed, but it takes the power of the Holy Spirit to heal the mind.

Or you might even consider this regenerating the heart, giving a new heart to a person to enable them to understand what it is that is being said.

And as it is said in 1 Corinthians 2, the natural person can't discern spiritual things for they are spiritually discerned.

It takes the spirit of God in us to understand the spiritual things of God. And so that's what is being exemplified in this particular miracle.

Anybody can hear the words of Christ and maybe understand them on some kind of level.

And that's that was when Jesus healed the blind man the first time he could see something, but he couldn't tell what it was that he could see.

Just like anybody can hear the word of Christ proclaimed, but not actually understand it on that spiritual level.

And then when he healed him the second time, then he could not only see things, but also process what it was that he was seeing.

And that's what the Holy Spirit does for us. We hear the word of God proclaimed, but we're not able to understand it in a way that draws us closer to God, unless we have the spirit of God inside of us.

And I hope that that helps you a little bit there, Tristan. And Aloha back at you. All right.

God bless you guys. I'm going to go give my voice a rest. Have a great weekend. And I'll talk to you again on Monday.

We're going to begin a study of 2 John. Gabriel Hughes is the pastor of First Southern Baptist Church in Junction City, Kansas.

For all of our podcasts, episodes, videos, books, and more, visit our website at www .utt

.com and let your friends know about our ministry. Join us again next week as we grow together in God's word when we understand the text.