# Polygamy. An interesting topic for another thread.



## sevenzedek

How are we to handle the tension in scripture between Paul's ideal for marriage being between one man and one woman, and other polygamists in the O.T. such as David and and Jacob. We know polygamy disqualifies a man from church offices.

The reason I see a tension is because it appears that God has overlooked David's and Jacob's practice of having more than one wife. While I would not endorse polygamy, there is a tension that exists in the examples given. How do we resolve this tension?


----------



## hammondjones

Polygamy is intrinsically linked to polytheism, so it can never be condoned. I'm not sure there is too much of a tension here, unless we confuse Descriptive and Prescriptive.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Seems to me, if you would have an actual tension, there would have to be a clear _Scriptural-divine endorsement_ of polygamy in the case of some man or other.

And if you can find something that even sounds to your ears like an endorsement, such an endorsement should be fully spelled out, along with any individualistic or circumstantial qualifiers that accompany it.

And then, it would be beneficial to examine the entire Bible's portrayal of the institution of marriage, whether one begins with Christ; or taking Christ's words as a cue, beginning with Genesis, and going through the whole witness of Scripture, concluding with Paul. The question is still valid and germane: _What is the Scriptural verdict on polygamy?_

I think the answer is abundantly clear: *The Bible repeatedly highlights the baleful circumstances of multiple marriage.* This is true from the very first example given, the case of Lamech, Gen.4:19-24; first his multiple wives are mentioned, and then his monstrous behavior. The principle of the description seems to be: one example of his self-assertion is followed by an even worse example.

The fact that some exemplars of faith are presented living in other situations, and they too have multiple wives, cannot of itself be viewed as endorsement of the practice. We might as well say that under a given social condition, reported homicide on the flimsiest of pretexts (like Lamech's) is tantamount to an endorsement.

In Roman society, the _paterfamilias_ wielded such authority under his own roof, he could kill one of his own at will. Because of our attitudes toward justice and personal dignity as they have come down to us, we recoil (properly so) from this view. But from the standpoint of natural-justice, it is actually only an overreach, insofar as the "headman" has complete authority over his own property. Under God, such reach is _regulated,_ it is not "at will."

This same ancient general view is apparent in Ex.21:20-21, with regard to abuse of a slave. Likewise, divorce is regulated, as it is an instance of the breakdown of a fundamental order, a breakdown that is not endorsed though it is addressed. Divorce, properly adjudicated, is actually a form of mercy that stands instead of death-penalty imposition.

When God permitted the enhancement of the theocratic monarch's worldly status, by permitting (as it were) a royal harem--the king was, after all, as the people wished, "like the nations that surrounded them"--despite the curse of 1Sam.8:11-14, and the warning of Dt.17:17--that permission did not extend to sanctioning said behavior.


----------



## sevenzedek

hammondjones said:


> Polygamy is intrinsically linked to polytheism, so it can never be condoned. I'm not sure there is too much of a tension here, unless we confuse Descriptive and Prescriptive.



So you see David's and Jacob's polygamy as descriptive?

The tension I see is in how God corrected David for committing adultery with Bathsheba, but for his apparent adultery in acquiring other wives. After David's ordeal with Uriah and Bathsheba, he was considered restored. He was seen as repent for his sin not only of murder, but of adultery as well. Yet, he never repented of his polygamy. If a person _practiced_ polygamy today, he would come under church discipline, while David goes down in history as a man who _practiced_ righteousness; even though _practiced_ polygamy. David said that God would not hear his prayer if he regarded iniquity in his heart, yet we regard David's prayer in Psalm 51 as a prayer of someone who has truly repented; a prayer that God heard. The tension is here: if polygamy is wrong, as Paul bears testimony with Apostolic authority, then why does God hear David's prayer.

Don't get me wrong. I see the tension and that is all. I would not dare lead a movement for Christians to begin marrying more wives. I just want the tension solved.


----------



## sevenzedek

Contra_Mundum said:


> Seems to me, if you would have an actual tension, there would have to be a clear _Scriptural-divine endorsement_ of polygamy in the case of some man or other.
> 
> And if you can find something that even sounds to your ears like an endorsement, such an endorsement should be fully spelled out, along with any individualistic or circumstantial qualifiers that accompany it.
> 
> And then, it would be beneficial to examine the entire Bible's portrayal of the institution of marriage, whether one begins with Christ; or taking Christ's words as a cue, beginning with Genesis, and going through the whole witness of Scripture, concluding with Paul. The question is still valid and germane: _What is the Scriptural verdict on polygamy?_
> 
> I think the answer is abundantly clear: *The Bible repeatedly highlights the baleful circumstances of multiple marriage.* This is true from the very first example given, the case of Lamech, Gen.4:19-24; first his multiple wives are mentioned, and then his monstrous behavior. The principle of the description seems to be: one example of his self-assertion is followed by an even worse example.
> 
> The fact that some exemplars of faith are presented living in other situations, and they too have multiple wives, cannot of itself be viewed as endorsement of the practice. We might as well say that under a given social condition, reported homicide on the flimsiest of pretexts (like Lamech's) is tantamount to an endorsement.
> 
> In Roman society, the _paterfamilias_ wielded such authority under his own roof, he could kill one of his own at will. Because of our attitudes toward justice and personal dignity as they have come down to us, we recoil (properly so) from this view. But from the standpoint of natural-justice, it is actually only an overreach, insofar as the "headman" has complete authority over his own property. Under God, such reach is _regulated,_ it is not "at will."
> 
> This same ancient general view is apparent in Ex.21:20-21, with regard to abuse of a slave. Likewise, divorce is regulated, as it is an instance of the breakdown of a fundamental order, a breakdown that is not endorsed though it is addressed. Divorce, properly adjudicated, is actually a form of mercy that stands instead of death-penalty imposition.
> 
> When God permitted the enhancement of the theocratic monarch's worldly status, by permitting (as it were) a royal harem--the king was, after all, as the people wished, "like the nations that surrounded them"--despite the curse of 1Sam.8:11-14, and the warning of Dt.17:17--that permission did not extend to sanctioning said behavior.



I was wondering when you were going to get here with your axe. Your thoughts are helpful.

Perhaps the tension that I see lies more in how God answers and hears the prayers of His people.


----------



## Peairtach

> I was wondering when you were going to get here with your axe. Your thoughts are helpful.
> 
> Perhaps the tension that I see lies more in how God answers and hears the prayers of His people.



There is also the fact that they were the childhood Church - "a church under age" as the WCF says.

We are supposed to be the mature Church.


----------



## moral necessity

Interesting, as I just came across this topic in my reading of Calvin on Genesis.

Genesis Ch.4:
19. "And Lamech took unto him two wives. We have here the origin of polygamy in a perverse and degenerate race; and the first author of it, a cruel man, destitute of all humanity. Whether he had been impelled by an immoderate desire of augmenting his own family, as proud and ambitious men are wont to be, or by mere lust, it is of little consequence to determine; because, in either way he violated the sacred law of marriage, which had been delivered by God. For God had determined, that "they" "two should be one flesh," and that is the perpetual order of nature. Lamech, with brutal contempt of God, corrupts nature's laws. The Lord, therefore, willed that the corruption of lawful marriage should proceed from the house of Cain, and from the person of Lamech, in order that polygamists might be ashamed of the example."

It's almost as if, just as Moses allowed divorce because of their hardness of heart, in a similar way, poligamy was perhaps overlooked, it being seen as the lesser of two evils in a society of sinnners. It is better to marry than to fornicate, for at least the woman is being provided for, (as she could scarecely find a husband after losing her virginity), and the man is having to own the responsibility, and expense, of another wife.

Blessings!


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I think would-be polygamists and other apologists for the practice should just admit the cruelty and indifference and raw self-interestedness that characterizes the situation of bringing into a singular union another sex-comforter, under the cover of legitimacy.

How do jealousies not arise? How does the "second" not assume the glory of the new and preferred, or inversely a sense of second-or-third class padded flesh? The whole set-up contains elements of degradation, no matter how the abuse may be ameliorated in a case-by-case examination.

Elkanah loved Hannah, but he still took another woman (Peninah) in order to satisfy his individual interest in having children, regardless of what the act might do--and did do--to the cheer of his beloved. It was a perfectly natural and predictable result, because the new marriage is an attempt to short-circuit (by law) the proper sense of violation and righteous jealousy that is appropriate to either male or female.


----------



## sevenzedek

Just to set the record straight, my goal in starting this thread was to resolve apparent tensions I saw in scripture; not to advocate for the approval if polygamy. I don't want Bruce's word to be construed by others to land on me. 

Bruce, I already believe you didn't mean your words toward me in particular.


----------



## a mere housewife

Christ is the second Adam. I wonder if some aspects of morality were allowed to be left in greater confusion/muddiness (despite as Rev. Buchanan points out, the sad consequences that always followed) until Christ comes precisely so that we would not see morality as a focal point apart from Him: so that the crystal clarity we have about something like marriage would be in light of Him? I'm sure this is said poorly, but I'm sure someone can understand and say it better or shoot it down .


----------



## Alan D. Strange

Wherever Christianity has gone, a proper view of marriage has followed (one man, one woman, for life). It has been generally expressed in society's laws.

Our society has degraded and we have witnessed the decriminalization of adultery, no-fault divorce, winking at and celebrating fornication and other sexual sins, etc. It is likely the case that polygamy has remained taboo chiefly because of feminism. But there is no basis for any standards with regard to these things at this point and it should be no surprise that sodomy is no longer taboo; indeed it is celebrated. In earlier socities, however, no one argued for same-sex marriage (there is some spurious scholarship that claims this but even secular scholars have debunked such). This is surely an odd leftover from a society that more highly valued marriage, influenced in this by the Christian church: wickedness seeking the sanction of the institution of marriage. 

In this respect, a society no longer influenced by Christianity, having rejected such, is worse than one to which the faith has never come. The only reason that polygamy and other sorts of pagan concomitants have not re-emerged is likely due to other sensibilities that accompany a "liberal" society; they may come forward at any time. There is something of a resurgence of these things, including those who argue for the lawfulness of polygamy and do so from a seriously misguided understanding of the Bible. These are very odd days in which we live.

Peace,
Alan


----------



## sevenzedek

a mere housewife said:


> Christ is the second Adam. I wonder if some aspects of morality were allowed to be left in greater confusion/muddiness (despite as Rev. Buchanan points out, the sad consequences that always followed) until Christ comes precisely so that we would not see morality as a focal point apart from Him: so that the crystal clarity we have about something like marriage would be in light of Him? I'm sure this is said poorly, but I'm sure someone can understand and say it better or shoot it down .



As this relates to another thread, this is precisely why I mentioned something about Christ contributing to Christianity. Christianity is not something outside of Christ to which he contributes. If I may be blunt, Christianity _is_ Christ.

... not to derail the thread.


----------



## sevenzedek

au5t1n said:


> I like what Matthew Henry says about this in his commentary on 1 Samuel 1:
> 
> "1. The original cause of this division was Elkanah’s marrying two wives, which was a transgression of the original institution of marriage, to which our Saviour reduces it. Mt. 19:5, 8, From the beginning it was not so. It made mischief in Abraham’s family, and Jacob’s, and here in Elkanah’s. How much better does the law of God provide for our comfort and ease in this world than we should, if we were left to ourselves! It is probable that Elkanah married Hannah first, and, because he had not children by her so soon as he hoped, he married Peninnah, who bore him children indeed, but was in other things a vexation to him. *Thus are men often beaten with rods of their own making.*"



Matthew Henry is wonderful. I have a mind to read straight his whole commentary one day.


----------



## KMK

Alan D. Strange said:


> The only reason that polygamy and other sorts of pagan concomitants have not re-emerged is likely due to other sensibilities that accompany a "liberal" society; they may come forward at any time.



From the ACLU website:



> Policy #91, National ACLU Policy on Polygamy, April, 1991: (Current Policy)
> The ACLU believes that criminal and civil laws prohibiting or penalizing the practice of plural marriage violate constitutional protections of freedom of expression and association, freedom of religion, and privacy for personal relationships among consenting adults.



In a way, I am kind of surprised that polygamy did not reach national recognition before SSM. It has more of a historical foundation to build upon in America. Either way, once you make marriage meaningless by allowing no-fault divorce, these things are inevitable.


----------



## Loopie

Another interesting discussion is the example of Jacob. In Genesis 29 we see that Jacob made a deal with Laban that he would work for him for 7 years, and then marry the younger daughter Rachel. But Laban tricked Jacob and gave Leah to him first instead. What is interesting is that Jacob did not just leave it at that, being satisfied with one wife, but instead agreed to work for Laban another 7 years in order to marry Rachel.

I like what Charles said earlier in the thread when he pointed out that polygamy was a better alternative to fornication. In that culture of the ancient near-east, a woman could certainly not be expected to find a husband if she were a fornicator. In a sense, polygamy was 'allowed' by God due to the hardness and wickedness of man's heart (by 'allowed' I do not mean that a man would be right to seek multiple wives, but rather that it was his duty to take her as a wife if he 'dishonored' her). With men being enticed by their sexual desires, it would at least be better if the man were to take the woman as another wife (and therefore be obligated to provide for her) rather than just leaving her to fend for herself in her disgrace.  Certainly polygamy was not the 'ideal' situation, but it was an acceptable alternative during that culture and at that time (but still not something that should necessarily have been 'sought after').

This is, I think, a similar argument that can be used for the various laws concerning servants and slaves in the Old Testament. Today many people abhor the fact that God has provided rules and laws regarding the practice of slavery. Yet what God was doing was providing stability and boundaries to a culture that was hard in heart. In fact, slavery during Old Testament times would have certainly been a good thing in light of the fact that if your nation was defeated in warfare, it was unlikely that you or your family would survive without some sort of outside help (even if it resulted in you being a servant for many years). 

Anyways, back to the concept of polygamy, I would simply view it as something that God allowed due to the hardness of man's heart. I think it is in a slightly different category than divorce in the sense that there are situations in all cultures and in all ages where divorce would be allowable (even today). I think polygamy and slavery were only allowable within a certain cultural context. Perhaps in some nations today, whose culture is still very similar to the ancient near-east, polygamy would be allowable. But it seems in general that the world's economic structure and concept of 'human rights' has changed in such a way that slavery and polygamy are no longer needed as a means to restrain man's wickedness (or as a means to provide for the survival of the displaced or dishonored). They are no longer 'allowable' alternatives, whereas divorce is still allowable in all cultures and all times if the proper criteria is met.

(I know that this is slightly off topic, but it seems that the 'cultural/time period' argument can be made for incestuous marriage as well. That is, it was not evil for Cain to be with his wife, though she would undoubtedly have been his sister. In the same way, Abraham married his half-sister, but since he was not under the Mosaic Law it does not seem like something that was necessarily evil or wrong. Yet now that God has revealed his Law, and mankind has sufficiently spread throughout the world and multiplied, incest is an abomination, and is not a valid or 'allowable' marriage.)


----------



## sevenzedek

Loopie said:


> Another interesting discussion is the example of Jacob. In Genesis 29 we see that Jacob made a deal with Laban that he would work for him for 7 years, and then marry the younger daughter Rachel. But Laban tricked Jacob and gave Leah to him first instead. What is interesting is that Jacob did not just leave it at that, being satisfied with one wife, but instead agreed to work for Laban another 7 years in order to marry Rachel.
> 
> I like what Charles said earlier in the thread when he pointed out that polygamy was a better alternative to fornication. In that culture of the ancient near-east, a woman could certainly not be expected to find a husband if she were a fornicator. In a sense, polygamy was 'allowed' by God due to the hardness and wickedness of man's heart (by 'allowed' I do not mean that a man would be right to seek multiple wives, but rather that it was his duty to take her as a wife if he 'dishonored' her). With men being enticed by their sexual desires, it would at least be better if the man were to take the woman as another wife (and therefore be obligated to provide for her) rather than just leaving her to fend for herself in her disgrace. Certainly polygamy was not the 'ideal' situation, but it was an acceptable alternative during that culture and at that time (but still not something that should necessarily have been 'sought after').
> 
> This is, I think, a similar argument that can be used for the various laws concerning servants and slaves in the Old Testament. Today many people abhor the fact that God has provided rules and laws regarding the practice of slavery. Yet what God was doing was providing stability and boundaries to a culture that was hard in heart. In fact, slavery during Old Testament times would have certainly been a good thing in light of the fact that if your nation was defeated in warfare, it was unlikely that you or your family would survive without some sort of outside help (even if it resulted in you being a servant for many years).
> 
> Anyways, back to the concept of polygamy, I would simply view it as something that God allowed due to the hardness of man's heart. I think it is in a slightly different category than divorce in the sense that there are situations in all cultures and in all ages where divorce would be allowable (even today). I think polygamy and slavery were only allowable within a certain cultural context. Perhaps in some nations today, whose culture is still very similar to the ancient near-east, polygamy would be allowable. But it seems in general that the world's economic structure and concept of 'human rights' has changed in such a way that slavery and polygamy are no longer needed as a means to restrain man's wickedness (or as a means to provide for the survival of the displaced or dishonored). They are no longer 'allowable' alternatives, whereas divorce is still allowable in all cultures and all times if the proper criteria is met.
> 
> (I know that this is slightly off topic, but it seems that the 'cultural/time period' argument can be made for incestuous marriage as well. That is, it was not evil for Cain to be with his wife, though she would undoubtedly have been his sister. In the same way, Abraham married his half-sister, but since he was not under the Mosaic Law it does not seem like something that was necessarily evil or wrong. Yet now that God has revealed his Law, and mankind has sufficiently spread throughout the world and multiplied, incest is an abomination, and is not a valid or 'allowable' marriage.)



It is true that our culture has changed and I like what you said about how God bears with man's weaknesses. I think that polygamy is a good example of how God has been merciful even to the heroes of our faith. However, God did not offer polygamy as an alternative to fornication in His word. I believe polygamy is a form fornication or sexual immorality. So the parallel you are drawing between slavery and polygamy...

Slavery was something that God offered and condoned as an alternative for the well being of poor people. It was a way to pay back money to others. Polygamy was never condoned with regulations in God's word.

The incestuous relationships that existed between people before God forbade it were allowed by Him probably because there was nothing inherently wrong with it at the time. We know that children born to incest today stand a very good chance of being born mentally or physically defective. I don't believe that was true of early man; otherwise they would have had a big problem, as you could imagine. After sin had some time to do it's evil work on creation, there came a time when incestuous marriages became a danger to offspring. At that time, God protected his godly seed with a command that made it wrong. If incest was always a problem, Adam's offspring would have had a big problem. Know what I mean?

Polygamy seems to be a problem that the early church faced in the same way we face problems today. When God calls us into fellowship with Himself, He doesn't fix us overnight. It is a process. Today, there are many faithful people of God who practice many sinful errors. Look at Baptists and Presbyterians—somebody is wrong and therefore sinning. Another example is women praying or being forbidden to pray during prayer meetings. But God allows our weaknesses to exist until we are glorified. Perhaps David thought it was right to have many wives. God allowed David's sinful polygamy in the same way that he allows our sinful weaknesses to remain until we are glorified. That God allows does not give us license to sin. It just shows His mercy. We are in a process here.

Polygamy, incest, and slavery; none of them are or were allowable all in the same way.


----------



## irresistible_grace

Does Scripture call polygyny a sin?

I see in Romans 7:3 where polyandry is forbidden but not polygyny.

Everywhere in the New Testament where I see a man being called out for marrying more than one woman is "IF" he divorced another woman or if the woman he was marrying had been divorced herself.

I see that the first polygamist in Scripture was a murderer but it is murder that is forbidden not the multiple marriages.

Solomon had hundreds of wives but it was not the marriages that were condemned rather it was that his *pagan *wives led him to worship their false gods (it is more of a case for being equally yoked than it is a case against polygamy).

In Scripture we have somewhere around 40 examples of polygamist, including Abraham, Jacob, David & Solomon

I agree with Augustine on this issue.


Saint Augustine said:


> [Polygyny] was lawful among the ancient fathers: whether it be lawful now also, I would not hastily pronounce. For there is not now necessity of begetting children, as there then was, when, even when wives bear children, it was allowed, in order to a more numerous posterity, to marry other wives in addition, which now is certainly not lawful.


There is no need for the practice in our day and it is against the law where I live so I have no problem obeying the civil magistrate on this issue. 

I believe it was Luther who didn't find anything "unbiblical" about polygamy but still advising against the open practice thereof told Philip of ___somewhere____ to hide his second wife.

I personally think we can all agree that polygamy now is certainly not lawful. I think we can all agree that it is not wise to practice it & would advise against it. However, I am not sure we can call something a sin that God Himself does not call a sin.


----------



## DMcFadden

I agree with all of the comments about the Genesis pattern precluding polygamy. 

Some, who wonder about God's tolerance of it under the Old Testament, may struggle with Nathan's rebuke of David.



> 8 And I gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your arms and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah. And if this were too little, I would add to you as much more. 2 Samuel 12:8 (ESV)



Is it possible that some are getting hung up on the idea of God giving David "more," thinking that he is including wives?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

sevenzedek said:


> Polygamy was never condoned with regulations in God's word.


I'm not sure what this means, or what is _intended_ to be conveyed. There were regulations in Mosaic law, but the presence of regulations does not confer an unqualified sanction--or else we encounter new difficulties in the realm of divorce.

The fact that Christ could say what he said concerning divorce (closing loopholes that had been "found" in Moses') is the paradigm case. Divorce is not somehow transformed into a social "good" because a word has been spoken concerning it in the law. It is a way of "managing" the effects of sin in a fallen world. Likewise in the case of polygamy.

Some regulatory aspects laid on polygamy or related circumstances:
Ex.21:10 (a "failed" betrothal, which might result in a second marriage)
Lev.18:18 (the most explicit regulation)
Dt.21:15-17 (the right of a true firstborn, in which a "hated" wife bore the privileged son)
Dt.25:5-9 (levirate institution)​
In general, the law treats multiple marriages as a "given," without blessing the rationales--whatever they are. Marriages so contracted are marriages, and are not treated as nullilities.


----------



## Cymro

Eric referred to Abraham marrying his half sister. Regarding this and the matter of polygamy we
ought to examine the consequences from such actions, whether they be for good or ill. Just to 
treat with Abraham as an example. The marrying of his half sister was permissible on two counts.
Firstly, the Mosaic law on who could be married was not yet declared, and that union begat Isaac
the child of promise. From whom sprung Jacob, after whom Israel was named, and those three became
our covenant Fathers. So also David and Bathsheba begat Solomon, the Prince of Peace who is a type of Christ.
Secondly and wondrously, the prophetic duality of Christ's relationship with the Church is shown forth
in figure and type. Four times in the Song of Solomon the Church is lovingly spoken of by Christ as "my
sister, my spouse," which twofold relationship pertained twixt Abraham and Sarah. So the Gospel Church's
dual connection with her heavenly Solomon is mirrored forth there in the OT. Christ the Elder brother,and
yet also the glorious Bridegroom and spouse. What God hath joined together let no man put asunder!
With the Psalmist we can sing,----
"My mouth shall speak a parable,
and sayings dark of old;
The same which we have heard and known,
and us our fathers told."


----------



## Peairtach

*Dennis*


> I agree with all of the comments about the Genesis pattern precluding polygamy.
> 
> Some, who wonder about God's tolerance of it under the Old Testament, may struggle with Nathan's rebuke of David.
> 
> 8 And I gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your arms and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah. And if this were too little, I would add to you as much more. 2 Samuel 12:8 (ESV)
> Is it possible that some are getting hung up on the idea of God giving David "more," thinking that he is including wives?



Interesting passage. How do you deal with the fact that it says that God gave David his "master's (Saul's?) wive*s*" ?

I agree that polygamy was morally praved from the beginning and not the ideal morally.

Those of the childhood church seem to have had difficulty in accepting God's standards, and how do we live up to them?

E.g. the disciples were astonished at our Lord laying down the Christian standards for when you are allowed to divorce your wife, and thought that marriage might not be worth it:



> The disciples said to him, "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry." (Matt 19:10, ESV)



*Matthew Henry on this passage:*


> V. Here is a suggestion of the disciples against this law of Christ (v. 10); If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is better not to marry. It seems, the disciples themselves were loth to give up the liberty of divorce, thinking it a good expedient for preserving comfort in the married state; and therefore, like sullen children, if they have not what they would have, they will throw away what they have. If they may not be allowed to put away their wives when they please, they will have no wives at all; though, from the beginning, when no divorce was allowed, God said, It is not good for man to be alone, and blessed them, pronounced them blessed who were thus strictly joined together; yet, unless they may have a liberty of divorce, they think it is good for a man not to marry. Note, 1. Corrupt nature is impatient of restraint, and would fain break Christ’s bonds in sunder, and have a liberty for its own lusts. 2. It is a foolish, peevish thing for men to abandon the comforts of this life, because of the crosses that are commonly woven in with them, as if we must needs go out of the world, because we have not every thing to our mind in the world; or must enter into no useful calling or condition, because it is made our duty to abide in it. No, whatever our condition is, we must bring our minds to it, be thankful for its comforts, submissive to its crosses, and, as God has done, set the one over against the other, and make the best of that which is, Eccl. 7:14. If the yoke of marriage may not be thrown off at pleasure, it does not follow that therefore we must not come under it; but therefore, when we do come under it, we must resolve to comport with it, by love, and meekness, and patience, which will make divorce the most unnecessary undesirable thing that can be.



If laws against incest are about preserving the image of God - divine plurality and unity - in the family, then incest was morally praved once family units were established, after the second or third generation of the human race. 

First cousins could get married but the integrity of the immediate family, reflecting as it does the Imago Dei, was not to be marred. Genetic reasons and conflict avoidance reasons are secondary to these primary moral concerns.



> So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (Gen 1:27, ESV)


----------



## irresistible_grace

au5t1n said:


> irresistible_grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> Solomon had hundreds of wives but it was not the marriages that were condemned rather it was that his pagan wives led him to worship their false gods (it is more of a case for being equally yoked than it is a case against polygamy).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In [KJV]Deuteronomy 17:17[/KJV] the future kings of Israel are expressly forbidden to multiply wives, whether they are pagan or not. It would be a good idea to study this subject more because we do confess that polygamy is unlawful in our Standards, and I believe rightly so. Consider, for example, that it bars a man from church office. Consider also that it was not the original design for marriage, and Christ appeals to the same design in rejecting unlawful divorce. Finally, consider that all the examples of polygamy in Scripture show chaotic consequences. There was tension in Abraham's house because of his multiple wives; in Jacob's house; in Elkanah's house; in David's house; in Solomon's house. There are no examples where it is shown in a positive light at all.
Click to expand...


Those with power are not to abuse their power for the sake of personal gain. 
Isn't that what this passage is about?
It does not say they cannot have "more than one wife" [polygamy by definition].
Rather, it speaks of excess, of "multiplying" wives unto himself. 
If I read it correctly, this same passage would expressly forbid Solomon's "excessive" wealth too since multiplying wives is listed along side horses, silver & gold. However, when I was reading it I found the language pointing me to the 10th commandment which lists coveting wives along side houses, servants, ox, donkeys or anything that is your neighbor's. And, coveting is a sin! Using your power too obtain for your own gain that which you covet is a sin.

In Nehemiah 13, Scripture specifically says that Solomon sinned because "of such women," not _much_ women! 

Scripture says that "foreign women made even him to sin." That is why I said it was more of a case "for being equally yoked!" Pagan/foreign wives caused him to follow after other gods.

I do not believe polygamy is lawful in our day & age. And, I agree with our Standards for the very reasons you mentioned. I never argued to the contrary. Please reread my comment if that is not clear. My argument is not "for polygamy." My argument is that we not call something a sin which God Himself does not call sin.


----------



## Afterthought

For anyone interested, Dabney had a bit to say on Polygamy: Chapter 32: The Second Table of the Law-Commandments 5-10



irresistible_grace said:


> My argument is that we not call something a sin which God Himself does not call sin.


How can something be unlawful that is not sinful? That it is unlawful suggests that it either transgresses or fails to conform to some law. What law? If God's law, then it is a sin. If you decide to not call it such, then it seems you could only call something sin that God explicitly calls sin. In which case, things deduced by good and necessary consequence cannot be called sinful to violate.

If Jesus' reasoning be admitted concerning Creation, then there is a positive example for calling it a sin too. Also, I'd recommend looking into that event concerning Luther and the bigamy of Philip [of Hesse]; there is quite a bit of doubt that Luther (and those who were with him) were right in what they did (Luther and the others had actually spoken against polygamy earlier on), and there was a lot of trouble that occurred as a result.


----------



## a mere housewife

Jess I would agree that there seems to be a lack of clarity about the sinfulness of the practice in the minds of the OT saints. Somehow David's multiple wives are an acknowledged God given gift, but it was an act of covetousness to take Uriah's wife. This sort of confusion is why I wondered earlier if the one man/one wife from creation doesn't come into much sharper focus in the second Adam and His Eve so that we don't miss the 'point' of the original design, so that we don't focus on it apart from the new creation it speaks to. Perhaps God allowed it for them to be less of a sin *against light* because in that way, the light on this issue emanates even more beautifully from Christ?

It is notable that Solomon speaks of his multiple wives in a passage about the vanity of self indulgence. This is not where he found anything worth living for; this is not where he speaks about what is worth living and dying for as in the Song of Songs, which is about Christ and the church.

(edit: it is also interesting to me that against the backdrop of having a number of wives themselves, the Proverbs of David and Solomon record instructions about faithfulness to and happiness with one wife. On some level they do seem to have known that monogamy was the ideal.)


----------



## irresistible_grace

a mere housewife said:


> Jess I would agree that there seems to be a lack of clarity about the sinfulness of the practice in the minds of the OT saints. Somehow David's multiple wives are an acknowledged God given gift, but it was an act of covetousness to take Uriah's wife. This sort of confusion is why I wondered earlier if the one man/one wife from creation doesn't come into much sharper focus in the second Adam and His Eve so that we don't miss the 'point' of the original design, so that we don't focus on it apart from the new creation it speaks to. Perhaps God allowed it for them to be less of a sin *against light* because in that way, the light on this issue emanates even more beautifully from Christ?
> 
> It is notable that Solomon speaks of his multiple wives in a passage about the vanity of self indulgence. This is not where he found anything worth living for; this is not where he speaks about what is worth living and dying for as in the Song of Songs, which is about Christ and the church.
> 
> (edit: it is also interesting to me that against the backdrop of having a number of wives themselves, the Proverbs of David and Solomon record instructions about faithfulness to and happiness with one wife. On some level they do seem to have known that monogamy was the ideal.)



Heidi,
I absolutely love reading your comments and I found this one incredibly helpful.
I too [just as David & Solomon seemed to] know "monogamy was ideal" & remains the ideal.
In Christ,
Jess


----------



## Leslie

hammondjones said:


> Polygamy is intrinsically linked to polytheism, so it can never be condoned. I'm not sure there is too much of a tension here, unless we confuse Descriptive and Prescriptive.



Hey, how can it be linked thus when God commanded polygamy (in certain cases) in the Old Testament?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Leslie said:


> Hey, how can it be linked thus when God commanded polygamy (in certain cases) in the Old Testament?



Where?


----------



## irresistible_grace

Afterthought said:


> For anyone interested, Dabney had a bit to say on Polygamy: Chapter 32: The Second Table of the Law-Commandments 5-10
> 
> 
> 
> irresistible_grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> My argument is that we not call something a sin which God Himself does not call sin.
> 
> 
> 
> How can something be unlawful that is not sinful? That it is unlawful suggests that it either transgresses or fails to conform to some law. What law? If God's law, then it is a sin. If you decide to not call it such, then it seems you could only call something sin that God explicitly calls sin. In which case, things deduced by good and necessary consequence cannot be called sinful to violate.
> 
> If Jesus' reasoning be admitted concerning Creation, then there is a positive example for calling it a sin too. Also, I'd recommend looking into that event concerning Luther and the bigamy of Philip [of Hesse]; there is quite a bit of doubt that Luther (and those who were with him) were right in what they did (Luther and the others had actually spoken against polygamy earlier on), and there was a lot of trouble that occurred as a result.
Click to expand...


I made reference to the fact that polygamy/polygyny is unlawful where I live and that I have no problem obeying the civil magistrate on this issue [Romans 13]. I have stated that I agree with Augustine on this issue ("Polygyny was lawful among the ancient fathers ... now certainly not lawful"). I have also stated that I agree with our Standards that speak against the practice in our day & age. And, I have tried to make it clear that I am not "for polygamy." That said, I simply see a difference between stating that something has been illegal in most places for the last couple millennia for theological & political reasons (something unlawful) and something that violates God's Law (sin). In the context of my post the "law" to which I referred was civil law (not the Law of God). I have taught all of my children that "sin" is any lack of conformity to or transgression of the Law of God." I guess my question to you is as follows: Is a violation of "civil" law automatically considered sin (if it is not a transgression of the Law of God)? Is God's Law not explicit? Is it not found in the 10 commandments (Torah Law/Ethics)? We read God's Law daily in our home during family worship (Exodus 20).

Is polygyny a sin? 
I joined the PB to learn & grow. 
I do not pretend to know what I'm talking about ... 
And, most of the time feel like I'm out in left field anyway!

Polygamy/polygyny was widely accepted throughout the world until the time of the Roman Empire (which would include the time when the New Testament was written). In the same way that polygamy was "a given" in the Old Testament, monogamy was "a given" in the New Testament. Jewish polygamy clashed with Roman monogamy in much the same way as the forms of Old Testament Jewish Temple Worship clashes with forms of New Testament Christian Worship! 

The sinfulness (or lack thereof) of polygyny did not chage but the culture/context changed as well as the necessity (or lack thereof) for polygyny. And, as far as the OP is concerned, for me, this is where the tension is resolved. I don't have to call something a sin that God doesn't call a sin & I can let the secret things of God remain hidden! Christ came during the time of the Roman Empire (when monogamy was in and polygamy was out) & Christ argued "for monogamy" from "Creation" in spite of the fact that God allowed ancient fathers to practice polygamy for centuries and in spite of the fact that God used polygamy as a means to provide Christ our Savior for His chosen people. 

I'm grateful to be numbered among those wrecked sinners for whom God provided such a great Savior.


----------



## a mere housewife

Jess, you are such a kind sister. It always gives me a special delight to read your posts and get some sense of you in them, too. (((hug)))

I struggle to quite place the concepts as well. Yet I do not think there is any inconsistency with the positions taken in this thread, that polygamy was 'allowed' for hardness of heart. It was a slurring of the lines of separation from other nations as well.

Marriage is not simply a biological feature. It is symbolic, and even in the Old Testament we see it functioning as a symbol for Christ's mystical relationship with His redeemed. Yet Christ never married. It makes sense to *me* (I am still tentative about the suggestion) that some aspects of the ethics relating to this symbol do not become as clear until He comes. It would be easier to miss the beauty of how all of this from the beginning relates to an unmarried Jew cut off in the midst of his years, if the light had always been invariable.

But this doesn't mean the ethic wasn't the same, or that people weren't falling short of it (sin). And I think what Mr. Dulin pointed out above about God's patience and grace in our lives is another beautiful thing we see in this regard. We *all* have areas where we are not understanding very well and falling far short of perfection. There are characteristic failings of cultures/historical periods as well as of individuals in this regard. But God is so gracious He dwells with us anyway. He even considers and pities our ignorance. He keeps His covenant with us though we are so faltering in our own covenant keeping. He does not refuse to be our friend even though we may seriously disrupt the image of His faithfulness in our interactions with others. He is now just as He always was, a God who enters into relationships with sinners -- through our faithful Saviour. 

It is quite encouraging to me to read over the genealogy in Matthew especially, to see that long list of sinners, to see that they are in this list in some cases precisely because of their or someone else's sins. Our joy in reading through this list is not that they can be cleared of the guilt of wrongdoing. God did not put them in this list because they were good people. They are in this list because they are the people of God; and all the names are like a scarlet thread in history tied onto that last name -- 'Jesus' who came to save His people from their _sins._ They are cleared of guilt because our covenant God is faithful; because He justifies the ungodly.


----------



## sevenzedek

I would like to turn our attention to the tension I mentioned earlier. In Psalm 66:18-20, David says,



> If I regard iniquity in my heart,
> The Lord will not hear.
> But certainly God has heard me;
> He has attended to the voice of my prayer.
> Blessed be God,
> Who has not turned away my prayer,
> Nor His mercy from me!



Commentators are pretty clear about how God does not hear the prayers of those who regard sin in their hearts. Others on the PB are pretty clear that polygamy is a sin. Since David regarded the sin of polygamy in his heart, how is it that God heard his prayers?

Are we to assume that David repented after acquiring more wives while the marriage covenants remained valid?

How is it that God heard David's prayers while he was in the midst of acquiring more wives?

How do others resolve this tension?


----------



## a mere housewife

I read some time ago of a convert to Christianity in a country where converts are persecuted, who had very little information about how to please God and very little support from other believers. She had somehow acquired an image of Christ which she kept and prayed and cried to daily. According to my own understanding of the second commandment, I must necessarily believe she was sinning. And yet, it was not a 'regard' of sin in her heart that led to this (as it would be if I used an image in my devotions), but ignorance. I cannot help but believe, having experienced His tender mercies, that our Lord had compassion on this one who was facing hostility from her family and friends and in desperate need of His support; and that the solace she spoke of experiencing in calling upon Him was real.

In the same way I think David was not 'regarding' sin in his polygamous marriages as he was 'regarding' sin in taking the wife of Uriah. It seems that he had less light on this point than on the other; and that he had less light on this point than we do. One of the effects of the fall is that our conscience as well as our understanding is corrupted. We will all, till the day we die, sin not only through being overcome in weakness, but simply in ignorance. Our imperfect understanding, and God's patience with it, doesn't change the nature of sin, or the damage it does to us and others (though the Lord in His mercy often mitigates our impact or turns it in some way to good). We don't lower the standard because we can't meet it. That lowers not only our view of God's holiness, and cheapens our view of our desperate plight -- but it greatly minimises our apprehension of His steadfast love and His mercy. Our hope is never in our own ability to draw a single breath without falling short of moral perfection -- without sin -- but in our perfect Saviour. I am sure the ministers in the thread can say this much better. Yet it is one of the most precious of truths to me, after living with myself for quite enough years to despair not only at all that I do that I know is wrong but at all that I don't even know. I don't think I can express my own understanding of this (something I have wondered about as we see saints then and now failing in various ways -- and turn to look at our own lives) any better so will leave it to the more systematic minds.


----------



## Peairtach

sevenzedek said:


> I would like to turn our attention to the tension I mentioned earlier. In Psalm 66:18-20, David says,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I regard iniquity in my heart,
> The Lord will not hear.
> But certainly God has heard me;
> He has attended to the voice of my prayer.
> Blessed be God,
> Who has not turned away my prayer,
> Nor His mercy from me!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Commentators are pretty clear about how God does not hear the prayers of those who regard sin in their hearts. Others on the PB are pretty clear that polygamy is a sin. Since David regarded the sin of polygamy in his heart, how is it that God heard his prayers?
> 
> Are we to assume that David repented after acquiring more wives while the marriage covenants remained valid?
> 
> How is it that God heard David's prayers while he was in the midst of acquiring more wives?
> 
> How do others resolve this tension?
Click to expand...


What is not of faith is sin (Romans 14). This blind spot re polygamy was part of the relative immaturity and heart-hardness of the OT Church. David may not have regarded this as sin.

Moreover, this principle re prayer isn't absolute or how could any of us expect an answer; we all have some sin in our hearts and lives of which we are aware.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## CuriousNdenver

Thank you all for discussing this subject. 

It has perplexed me for some time, and I find it compounded by the same sex marriage issue that the world is focused on now.


----------



## Peairtach

A parent will wink at the misdemeanours of a toddler whereas the same behaviour from an older child will be pointed out and corrected.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Afterthought

irresistible_grace said:


> I guess my question to you is as follows: Is a violation of "civil" law automatically considered sin (if it is not a transgression of the Law of God)? Is God's Law not explicit? Is it not found in the 10 commandments (Torah Law/Ethics)? We read God's Law daily in our home during family worship (Exodus 20).


Well, Austin basically said what I would have said in response, so I'll be brief. You were completely clear that you were against polygamy in this day and age. The thing that confused me was your use of "unlawful." I thought you might be using the term "unlawful" in a different way, which is why I posted in the manner I did. I certainly agree that not all violations of civil law are a sin. However, it should be noted that the 10 commandments summarize the entire moral law, and there are things that are sin that are not explicitly stated to be sin in Scripture (e.g., consider Nadab and Abihu who sinned without having been told explicitly that such was a sin). However, I suppose it is possible you are using "God's Law" a little differently than I intended it (I initially had "moral law," but I edited my post to "God's Law" in an attempt to avoid confusion because it is also sinful to violate positive law [e.g., the command to be baptized] if it comes from God) and are using it to refer to the specific and explicit sins the 10 commandments speak about. If that is the case, then I can certainly agree that God's law is explicit. (Hearing of your practices in family worship is very encouraging!)

With respect to Christ arguing from Creation, I could be misunderstanding your point, but the passage has traditionally been seen as Christ showing the way things were always supposed to be, not merely an argument for something suited for a new time and place. The idea being that the pattern of Creation is normative such that a violation of it is sinful (e.g., we see similar arguments from Creation in the letters of Paul). The assumption here, of course, is that what the Scriptures said never changed, so that Christ wasn't arguing for something new or putting a new interpretation on a verse but clarifying what has always been the case and what conclusion the Jews should have come to on their own (and they may have; Dabney argues that polygamy wasn't normal in the OT). No doubt, to complete the argument or to persuade someone, other passages will need to be viewed, as Austin has mentioned. God seems to have permitted polygamy for His own purposes (perhaps for the hardness of men's hearts, as has been mentioned earlier in this thread) even as God has continued to permit divorce in certain circumstances for the hardness of men's hearts, and God works through and overrules the sinful actions of men for good, even to bring about the Christ.



irresistible_grace said:


> Is polygyny a sin?
> I joined the PB to learn & grow.
> I do not pretend to know what I'm talking about ...
> And, most of the time feel like I'm out in left field anyway!


Oh, no worries! For my own part, I'm just trying to help in what small ways I can, because to learn was one main reason I joined too. If you don't find my approach particularly helpful, just read Austin's and Heidi's posts, cause they're saying better what I'm trying to say.


----------



## Afterthought

au5t1n said:


> But Raymond! The moral law requires obedience to positive law, doesn't it? And since we are good divine voluntarists, we believe ultimately that the moral law is rooted in (not over) God's eternal will, so in a certain sense even the moral law can be regarded as positive, just in a different way. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
> 
> These are not serious questions -- I just enjoy this kind of thought experiment. Carry on.


Too funny!  Don't make things more confusing!  Though I actually was seriously considering starting a thread on the voluntarist distinction between moral and positive law (I have my own solution but would want to confirm it.).


----------



## sevenzedek

Though we will not ever be able to know all things on this side of heaven regarding polygamy and David's involvement in it, this issue is finally starting to make more sense. Thanks for everyone's responses.

1. No doubt, polygamy is a sin.

2. Polygamous covenants appear to be valid.

3. That God does not hear the prayers of those who regard iniquity is not an absolute.

4. David's involvement with polygamy could be due to having less light.

5. God's tolerance of polygamy is evidence of how He bears with His children in mercy.

6. Even though we are a sinful people, we are examples to each other.


----------



## a mere housewife

We have such chivalrous men on this board. From the way they do stand so totally and rigidly against those things which would take advantage of our weakness, to being so kind and thoughtful in interactions with us -- thank you, brothers. You are a blessing in the earth just in how you look out for/honor women.


----------



## sevenzedek

Contra_Mundum said:


> In general, the law treats multiple marriages as a "given," without blessing the rationales--whatever they are. Marriages so contracted are marriages, and are not treated as nullilities.



Given that the scriptures seem to treat multiple marriages as valid and "given", how does this square with WCF 24.1?



> WCF 24.1, Marriage is to be between one man and one woman: neither is it lawful for any man to have more than one wife, nor for any woman to have more than one husband, at the same time.



Using the tenor of WCF 24.1 and 4, how can a marriage that is not _lawful_ be _made lawful_? It seems that God's regulations concerning multiple wives indicate the validity of the marriages, but I don't know how works out that they then become lawful.

If unlawful marriages cannot be made lawful by any law of man, what is there in God's word that makes unlawful polygamous marriages lawful? It seems that a marriage would need to be lawful in order to be valid.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Jon,
The Confession is written for a church that has been both established, and reformed after a millennium-and-a-half. We are presently propagating that church further into the world. I do not see how we could or should express ourselves any differently. We need basic categories. We need to distinguish between the ACT of marrying, and the STATE of marriage. A person can commit and consummate an unlawful act in the first place, which nonetheless results in a "lawful" state that is more damaging to undo than to leave it as it is. Scripture just leaves us there.

We're still going to find people in the mission-fields who are found in _status illiciti_ (is that the term?). What they have done (polygamy) is not, per se, lawful or proper in the eyes of heaven. But it would be a worse and more destructive situation (and it has, sadly been done) if as a "response to the gospel" the missionary counseled a polygamist convert to abandon all but one of his wives. How does that move exalt the grace of God, or even the law of God? Instead of ordinary means of caring, we're going to presume on extraordinary means? We'd be telling those poor women (not just the husband) their marriage--along with what little or much it did for them--is not to be borne in the sight of God. And that despite the fact God never tells his people so to act.

The Bible treats those marriages as actual unions, not to be undone. There are some "unions" that the Bible tells us _cannot be_ brought into existence in the first place. They cannot be dissolved, because they were never anything but a sham. But multiple marriages do not fall into that category. I don't have to "square" that with basic instruction on marriage; it is nothing but an observation from biblical history. Jacob was married to both Leah and Rachel; the Bible never once questions that fact. But certain "unions" cannot be rendered legitimate under any color.


----------



## sevenzedek

Bruce,

The distinction between an unlawful act and the resulting state is helpful. Because you mentioned it, I now see this distinction in marriages between Christians and those not "in the Lord". Even though it is wrong for them to consummate a marriage in the eyes of heaven, their resulting state is lawful, valid, and not to be undone.

Objections would need to be answered, however, as John the Baptist rebukes Herod for having his brother's wife in Mark 6:18. Herod's unlawful act evidently resulted in an unlawful state. This may appear to stray from the OP regarding polygamy, but a legitimate answer may galvanize your point by removing faulty arguments.

[This is sounding more and more like the other thread that sparked this one.]

Perhaps such answers would be helpful in showing incestuous marriages to be invalid, just as the WCF 24:4 states, "Nor can such incestuous marriages ever be made lawful by any law of man or consent of parties, so as those persons may live together as man and wife." Evidently, the unlawful act of an incestuous marriage results in an unlawful state as well. If children were to ever come of an incestuous marriage, the WCF would appear to demand an extraordinary means security for those involved. Perhaps this is better for all involved. As marriage is meant to provide sexual comfort to the married, the welfare of the children is a concern.

Of these three kinds of unlawful acts, polygamy seems to be the only one that results in a lawful state. I'm not necessarily objecting to to your statements. They seem spot on.

Regarding adulterous marriages, the sanctity of marriage is misrepresented and the chance for reconciliation is taken away.

Regarding incestuous marriages, the mental and physical welfare of future progeny is at stake. They are prone to come out harmed and disadvantaged. Incestuous marriages go not only against God's law, they work against nature. They also don't represent the solidarity of the family unit very well. A man is to leave his father's house. Horrible misrepresentations of God follow.

Polygamous marriages preserve the purpose and sanctity of marriage even though they go against God's original design. How else can such marriages be valid? They may not best reflect God's glory, but they do better than incest and adultery. A broken house is better than one that cannot stand at all. Apparently, this was the case with Jacob and his household. (You're right. God never disputed the fact that Jacob had two _wives_.) Broken. We all come from homes broken by sin in one way or another and not one of them match the ideal.

This causes me to see the God of the bible more than the rules of the bible. The rules don't so much describe a list as much as they describe a Person. We are not so much being made into a list of do's and dont's. We are being conformed to the image of our Savior. Until we get to heaven, everybody's lives will be marked by caricatures of the ideal. I guess it keeps us humble. Is that so you Baptists, Presbyterians, Pentecostals, Methodists, monogamists, AND polygamists?


----------



## sevenzedek

Does polygamy transgress the positive aspect of the law while conforming to the moral aspect of it? It would seem so, but someone else knows more about it than do I.

Polygamy would appear to conform to the moral aspect of who God is, in that His character is represented well. How many of God's children are married to Christ? Can a man be faithful to multiple wives?

On the other hand, polygamy would appear to transgress the positive aspect of the law. Granted, God never positively said that polygamy was forbidden. Besides, polygamy does not work very well with the fallen aspects of our nature—jealousy and selfishness. Polygamy aggravates selfishness in both man and woman.

The positive/moral distinction is new to me. How does this distinction fit with our discussion?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Christ is "married" to one exclusively, the Bride.

**************************************

To take another wife or husband while the first spouse is still alive is immorality. But the nature of this immorality is such that while the state it creates is imperfect, a reversal of the state by human will is a second immorality. It is worse. Two wrongs don't make a right. Actions have consequences. All of us actually live in a STATE that is sinful, sin-tainted, even while we refrain from many overt sins. People who repent of the sin of taking a second spouse may nevertheless have the grace to make their behavior in that state a means of adorning the gospel.

A moral law is expressive of the divine will, having goodness because it is love. It is functional because creation is also good, Gen.1; and thus moral law is woven into the very fabric of created reality. Moral law flows from divine righteousness, God appearing good to us because we have been acquainted with his revelation whether natural or special. God is good/moral/righteous, and therefore these qualities are mediated to us by various channels. We don't project goodness on God, nor does he learn or conform to nature in order to be good--as if there was a higher law than his own will. 

A *moral law* cannot (or does not appear to us to be able to) be otherwise. *Positive law* _could be otherwise_. Positive law is the "because I said so," kind of law. Of course it has some inescapable moral character, but God might have expressed himself differently, and not offended himself. My children are morally obligated to obey my authority (5th commandment), but I can tell them to all stand in line, or I can tell them to all stand in line from oldest to youngest, or from tallest to shortest; and those are each positive commandments.


----------



## Peairtach

*Jon*


> The positive/moral distinction is new to me. How does this distinction fit with our discussion?



The moral law is the Ten Comandments and all moral commands and principles under that rubric.

Examples of positive law would be the ceremonial commands of the OT, and the civil laws of OT Israel, which were a non-arbitrary but temporary response to the breaking of the moral law in Israel. They were not the moral law itself, but have a general moral equity.

Moral law was the way in which Man was always meant to think, speak and act in a relationship of love to his Creator.

Moral law is permanent and written on Man's heart, whereas positive law is temporary and revealed by God to a particular people at a certain place and time.


----------

