Polygamy. An interesting topic for another thread.

[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]

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?

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.