Bigamy

[Semper Fidelis]

P.s. no one is dealing with the actual Biblical texts. For instance, in Ezekial 23 Jehovah uses the imagery of polygyny for Himself. TimV mentioned God gifting David with wives, and also Solomon mentions his wives along with all of his other blessings.

First, Eze 23 can hardly be used to note that God thought polygamy was a good idea. The imagery being spoken of is of Judah and Samaria and the point isn't to denote God's polygamous leanings but the idolatry of both nations.

Secondly, the fact that God "gives" wives to David and Solomon needs to be understood as distinguishing between His contol of all things (decree) on the one hand and moral precept on the other. Even as God gave wives to both men (and the patriarchs), one can simply see the historical results of each case and realize that the fruit is never good.

Also, there is a sense in which, when he's condemning David for the taking of Bathsheba that he's telling David that He's never withheld from David anything he asked for and the taking of Bathsheba by such despicable means was a wicked covetousness that wasn't satisfied with the many providential blessings he enjoyed.

As for Solomon, his wives are said to be the reason he's led into idolatry. Were they a blessing from God or a curse? Depending on perspective, it is both.

That all said, one doesn't have to try very hard to "deal" with the fact that polygamy occurred but was not necessarily the intent of marriage when Christ Himself says that Moses permitted it due to the hardness of men's hearts. The patriarchs certainly participated in the substance of the Christian faith as we do but the light they had was significantly less. I think it's instructive to note how polygamy is another way in which God is extremely accomadating to the frailty of flesh. Those of the "moral improvement society" sort might assume that if God never intended for polygamy that he would have just cleaned it up right away and institued a pristine, spiritual religion from the beginning. There's something worth meditating on that God could regulate something that was, as Christ said, a departure from the intent of marriage that, ultimately, pictures Christ and His Church.

 

[toddpedlar]

no one is dealing with the actual Biblical texts. For instance, in Ezekial 23 Jehovah uses the imagery of polygyny for Himself. TimV mentioned God gifting David with wives, and also Solomon mentions his wives along with all of his other blessings.

Rich has already dealt with this but God's giving David wives does not countenance the practice - God is sovereign.

Solomon is a terrible example, actually, as we know his wives also led him to blasphemy. The fact that he calls his wives a blessing does not mean that polygamy is allowed.

Jehovah using polygyny as an illustration for Himself does not mean that God allows it.

In every case what you have argued is an argument that the existence of statements concerning polygyny implies that the practice is countenanced. This is just shoddy exegesis. This is like taking random narrative examples in the Scriptures as affirmations of God's approval of the practice, where Scripture elsewhere condemns the practice (but that condemnation is ignored). You can't take mere statements of fact (that many in Israel had multiple wives) as approval.

 

[Pergamum]

Yes, God seemed to have other priorities other than dealing with polygyny, even using a polygynous relationship in Ezekial 23 as a fit literary device to show a spiritual truth.

Yes, multiples wives were spoken as a blessing by God but usually became a curse.

God even COMMANDED polygyny for a time enshrining it as law because preserving the seedline was more important.

God says he hates divorce,but never once condemns polgyny....instead he seems to put this on the back burner and deals with it by returning to the ideal in the NT and requiring church officers to be monogamous.

I agree with you Rich and Todd.

I am saying all of this not to defend polygyny, but because this is an example that suits my purpose in showing that Christians do not merely rely upon the Bible alone, but their cultural upbringing really affects how they look at sin.

Local sins get overlooked and foreign and unfamiliar sins seem even more sinful.

While the West is at a 55% divorce rate, which God hates, if a Western Christian were to come across a polygnynous couple they will shudder and think them to be even more unholy than what we produce on our own soil.




Now....a question....

If we ever suceed in reaching a large number of mormons and these are incorporated into the church and we find out bigamy is practiced, what do we do? Especially since polgyny is illegal in the US, while divorce is not?





p.s. I keep typing polygyny and not bigamy/polygamy because polygyny means multiple wives and excludes polyandry, which is rare and has no example in Scripture.

 

[LadyFlynt]

Pergy, this is one reason why I believe marriage should be held accountable in the private or religious sphere...not determined by the government. You also do not just have the man and his wives to figure out "what to do with", but also their children. Do we suddenly bastardize them, or do we encourage the man to uphold the responsibility he took upon himself?

 

[toddpedlar]

God even COMMANDED polygyny for a time enshrining it as law because preserving the seedline was more important.

Pardon my ignorance. Where is this command?

 

[PresbyDane]

The two become one flesh. That would just get complicated beyond one woman and one man.

I

 

[Pergamum]

It was to restore lost inheritance wasn't it (I think Dt 25 if I remember right), the Levirate marriage. Onan was an example of this.

 

[TimV]

In every case what you have argued is an argument that the existence of statements concerning polygyny implies that the practice is countenanced. This is just shoddy exegesis.

Todd, you can repeat yourself forever, but it doesn't make what you say true. God gave David wives. There's no "countenanced" in an implied sense.

Perg, the example in Deut. 25 was when a man died, so it probably wouldn't be fair to say He ordered it.

It's a situation where God allowed something that wasn't optimum. There are about 300 laws in Scripture and most don't have any civil or ecclesiastical penalty attached. In other words there are laws where neither the State nor the Church have any right to punish.

How much more with polygyny, where there is no law? The Church and State can always punish bigamy since it involves lying and contract breaking. But to teach that the Church has the obligation to break up a marriage the God Himself at the very least countenanced is out right Phariseeism.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I didn't notice anyone in this thread advocating the divorce of wives in cultures where polygamy exists and the man converts to Christianity. I believe they are barred from Church Office but putting away a wife in such cultures would impoverish women and children and the man has a responsibility to both.

I think Calvin is useful here in Book II, Chapter 11 as he talks about the physicality and externality of the Covenant. This sheds some understanding on why polygamy would have been countenanced:

CHAPTER 11.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO TESTAMENTS.

This chapter consists principally of three parts. I. Five points of
difference between the Old and the New Testament, sec. 1-11. II. The
last of these points being, that the Old Testament belonged to the Jews
only, whereas the New Testament belongs to all; the calling of the
Gentiles is shortly considered, sec. 12. III. A reply to two objections
usually taken to what is here taught concerning the difference between
the Old and the New Testaments, sec. 13, 14.


1. What, then? you will say, Is there no difference between the Old and
the New Testaments? What is to become of the many passages of Scripture
in which they are contrasted as things differing most widely from each
other? I readily admit the differences which are pointed out in
Scripture, but still hold that they derogate in no respect from their
established unity, as will be seen after we have considered them in
their order. These differences (so far as I have been able to observe
them and can remember) seem to be chiefly four, or, if you choose to
add a fifth, I have no objections. I hold and think I will be able to
show, that they all belong to the mode of administration rather than to
the substance. In this way, there is nothing in them to prevent the
promises of the Old and New Testament from remaining the same, Christ
being the foundation of both. The first difference then is, that
though, in old time, the Lord was pleased to direct the thoughts of his
people, and raise their minds to the heavenly inheritance, yet, that
their hope of it might be the better maintained, he held it forth, and,
in a manner, gave a foretaste of it under earthly blessings, whereas
the gift of future life, now more clearly and lucidly revealed by the
Gospel, leads our minds directly to meditate upon it, the inferior mode
of exercise formerly employed in regard to the Jews being now laid
aside. Those who attend not to the divine purpose in this respect,
suppose that God's ancient people ascended no higher than the blessings
which were promised to the body. They hear the land of Canaan so often
named as the special, and as it were the only, reward of the Divine Law
to its worshipers; they hear that the severest punishment which the
Lord denounces against the transgressors of the Law is expulsion from
the possession of that land and dispersion into other countries; they
see that this forms almost the sum of the blessings and curses declared
by Moses; and from these things they confidently conclude that the Jews
were separated from other nations not on their own account, but for
another reason--viz. that the Christian Church might have an emblem in
whose outward shape might be seen an evidence of spiritual things. But
since the Scripture sometimes demonstrates that the earthly blessings
thus bestowed were intended by God himself to guide them to a heavenly
hope, it shows great unskilfulness, not to say dullness, not to attend
to this mode of dispensation. The ground of controversy is this: our
opponents hold that the land of Canaan was considered by the Israelites
as supreme and final happiness, and now, since Christ was manifested,
typifies to us the heavenly inheritance; whereas we maintain that, in
the earthly possession which the Israelites enjoyed, they beheld, as in
a mirror, the future inheritance which they believed to be reserved for
them in heaven.

2. This will better appear from the similitude which Paul uses in
Galatians (Gal. 4:1). He compares the Jewish nation to an heir in
pupillarity, who, as yet unfit to govern himself, follows the direction
of a tutor or guide to whose charge he has been committed. Though this
simile refers especially to ceremonies, there is nothing to prevent us
from applying it most appropriately here also. The same inheritance was
destined to them as to us, but from nonage they were incapable of
entering to it, and managing it. They had the same Church, though it
was still in puerility. The Lord, therefore kept them under this
tutelage, giving them spiritual promises, not clear and simple, but
typified by earthly objects. Hence, when he chose Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob, and their posterity, to the hope of immortality, he promised
them the land of Canaan for an inheritance, not that it might be the
limit of their hopes, but that the view of it might train and confirm
them in the hope of that true inheritance, which, as yet, appeared not.
And, to guard against delusion, they received a better promise, which
attested that this earth was not the highest measure of the divine
kindness. Thus, Abraham is not allowed to keep down his thoughts to the
promised land: by a greater promise his views are carried upward to the
Lord. He is thus addressed, "Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy
exceeding great reward," (Gen. 15:1). Here we see that the Lord is the
final reward promised to Abraham that he might not seek a fleeting and
evanescent reward in the elements of this world, but look to one which
was incorruptible. A promise of the land is afterwards added for no
other reason than that it might be a symbol of the divine benevolence,
and a type of the heavenly inheritance, as the saints declare their
understanding to have been. Thus David rises from temporal blessings to
the last and highest of all, "My flesh and my heart faileth: but God is
the strength of my heart, and my portion for ever." "My heart and my
flesh crieth out for the living God," (Ps. 73:26; 84:2). Again, "The
Lord is the portion of mine inheritance and of my cup: thou maintainest
my lot," (Ps. 16:5). Again "I cried unto thee O Lord: I said Thou art
my refuge and my portion in the land of the living," (Ps. 142:5). Those
who can venture to speak thus, assuredly declare that their hope rises
beyond the world and worldly blessings. This future blessedness,
however, the prophets often describe under a type which the Lord had
taught them. In this way are to be understood the many passages in Job
(Job 18:17) and Isaiah, to the effect, That the righteous shall inherit
the earth, that the wicked shall be driven out of it, that Jerusalem
will abound in all kinds of riches, and Sion overflow with every
species at abundance. In strict propriety, all these things obviously
apply not to the land of our pilgrimage, nor to the earthly Jerusalem,
but to the true country, the heavenly city of believers, in which the
Lord has commanded blessing and life for evermore (Ps. 133:3).

3. Hence the reason why the saints under the Old Testament set a higher
value on this mortal life and its blessings than would now be meet.
For, though they well knew, that in their race they were not to halt at
it as the goal, yet, perceiving that the Lord, in accommodation to
their feebleness, had there imprinted the lineaments of his favour, it
gave them greater delight than it could have done if considered only in
itself. For, as the Lord, in testifying his good will towards believers
by means of present blessings, then exhibited spiritual felicity under
types and emblems, so, on the other hand, by temporal punishments he
gave proofs of his judgment against the reprobate. Hence, by earthly
objects, the favour of the Lord was displayed, as well as his
punishment inflicted. The unskilful, not considering this analogy and
correspondence (if I may so speak) between rewards and punishments,
wonder that there is so much variance in God, that those who, in old
time, were suddenly visited for their faults with severe and dreadful
punishments, he now punishes much more rarely and less severely, as if
he had laid aside his former anger, and, for this reason, they can
scarcely help imagining, like the Manichees, that the God of the Old
Testament was different from that of the New. But we shall easily
disencumber ourselves of such doubts if we attend to that mode of
divine administration to which I have adverted--that God was pleased to
indicate and typify both the gift of future and eternal felicity by
terrestrial blessings, as well as the dreadful nature of spiritual
death by bodily punishments, at that time when he delivered his
covenant to the Israelites as under a kind of veil.

4. Another distinction between the Old and New Testaments is in the
types, the former exhibiting only the image of truth, while the reality
was absent, the shadow instead of the substance, the latter exhibiting
both the full truth and the entire body. Mention is usually made of
this, whenever the New Testament is contrasted with the Old, [235] but
it is nowhere so fully treated as in the Epistle to the Hebrews (chap.
7-10). The Apostle is there arguing against those who thought that the
observances of the Mosaic Law could not be abolished without producing
the total ruin of religion. In order to refute this error, he adverts
to what the Psalmist had foretold concerning the priesthood of Christ
(Ps. 110:4). seeing that an eternal priesthood is assigned to him, it
is clear that the priesthood in which there was a daily succession of
priests is abolished. And he proves that the institution of this new
Priest must prevail, because confirmed by an oath. He afterwards adds,
that a change of the priest necessarily led to a change of the
covenant. And the necessity of this he confirms by the reason, that the
weakness of the law was such, that it could make nothing perfect. He
then goes on to show in what this weakness consists, namely, that it
had external carnal observances which could not render the worshipers
perfect in respect of conscience, because its sacrifices of beasts
could neither take away sins nor procure true holiness. He therefore
concludes that it was a shadow of good things to come, and not the very
image of the things, and accordingly had no other office than to be an
introduction to the better hope which is exhibited in the Gospel.

Here we may see in what respect the legal is compared with the
evangelical covenant, the ministry of Christ with that of Moses. If the
comparison referred to the substance of the promises, there would be a
great repugnance between the two covenants; but since the nature of the
case leads to a different view, we must follow it in order to discover
the truth. Let us, therefore bring forward the covenant which God once
ratified as eternal and unending. Its completion, whereby it is fixed
and ratified, is Christ. Till such completion takes place, the Lord, by
Moses, prescribes ceremonies which are, as it were formal symbols of
confirmation. The point brought under discussion was, Whether or not
the ceremonies ordained in the Law behaved to give way to Christ.
Although these were merely accidents of the covenant, or at least
additions and appendages, and, as they are commonly called,
accessories, yet because they were the means of administering it, the
name of covenant is applied to them, just as is done in the case of
other sacraments. [236] Hence, in general, the Old Testament is the
name given to the solemn method of confirming the covenant comprehended
under ceremonies and sacrifices. Since there is nothing substantial in
it, until we look beyond it, the Apostle contends that it behaved to be
annulled and become antiquated (Heb. 7:22), to make room for Christ,
the surety and mediator of a better covenant, by whom the eternal
sanctification of the elect was once purchased, and the transgressions
which remained under the Law wiped away. But if you prefer it, take it
thus: the covenant of the Lord was old, because veiled by the shadowy
and ineffectual observance of ceremonies; and it was therefore
temporary, being, as it were in suspense until it received a firm and
substantial confirmation. Then only did it become new and eternal when
it was consecrated and established in the blood of Christ. Hence the
Saviour, in giving the cup to his disciples in the last supper, calls
it the cup of the new testament in his blood; intimating, that the
covenant of God was truly realised, made new, and eternal, when it was
sealed with his blood.

5. It is now clear in what sense the Apostle said (Gal. 3:24; 4:1),
that by the tutelage of the Law the Jews were conducted to Christ,
before he was exhibited in the flesh. He confesses that they were sons
and heirs of God, though, on account of nonage, they were placed under
the guardianship of a tutor. It was fit, the Sun of Righteousness not
yet having risen, that there should neither be so much light of
revelation nor such clear understanding. The Lord dispensed the light
of his word, so that they could behold it at a distance, and obscurely.
Accordingly, this slender measure of intelligence is designated by Paul
by the term childhood, which the Lord was pleased to train by the
elements of this world, and external observances, until Christ should
appear. Through him the knowledge of believers was to be matured. This
distinction was noted by our Saviour himself when he said that the Law
and the Prophets were until John, that from that time the gospel of the
kingdom was preached (Mt. 11:13). What did the Law and the Prophets
deliver to the men of their time? They gave a foretaste of that wisdom
which was one day to be clearly manifested, and showed it afar off. But
where Christ can be pointed to with the finger, there the kingdom of
God is manifested. In him are contained all the treasures of wisdom and
understanding, and by these we penetrate almost to the very shrine of
heaven.

6. There is nothing contrary to this in the fact, that in the Christian
Church scarcely one is to be found who, in excellence of faith, can be
compared to Abraham, and that the Prophets were so distinguished by the
power of the Spirit, that even in the present day they give light to
the whole world. For the question here is, not what grace the Lord
conferred upon a few, but what was the ordinary method which he
followed in teaching the people, and which even was employed in the
case of those very prophets who were endued with special knowledge
above others. For their preaching was both obscure as relating to
distant objects, and was included in types. Moreover, however wonderful
the knowledge displayed in them, as they were under the necessity of
submitting to the tutelage common to all the people, they must also be
ranked among children. Lastly, none of them ever had such a degree of
discernment as not to savour somewhat of the obscurity of the age.
Whence the words of our Saviour, "Many kings and prophets have desired
to see the things which you see, and have not seen them, and to hear
the things which ye hear, and have not heard them. Blessed are your
eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear," (Mt. 13:17). And it
was right that the presence of Christ should have this distinguishing
feature, that by means of it the revelation of heavenly mysteries
should be made more transparent. To the same effect is the passage
which we formerly quoted from the First Epistle of Peter, that to them
it was revealed that their labour should be useful not so much to
themselves as to our age.

 

[TimV]

The two become one flesh. That would just get complicated beyond one woman and one man.

I guess I'll have to do my next botany post on Mandrake, since mine's putting on it's winter growth now