Tag Archives: polygamy

•

Within a few days, SCOTUS will be delivering decisions on same sex "marriage."

That means that, as Tim Challies said:

once marriage has been redefined away from the union of one man to one woman, it seems almost impossible not to see it also expand to include polygamous relationships

1. Given that Scripture never "moves the definition of marriage" away from polygamy

    Bathsheba was David's WIFE

 

    Rachel was Jacob's WIFE

 

    Gideon had many WIVES

 

    Jehovah had Israel and Judah

2. Given that (as I pointed out a couple of days ago) we must not call "sin" that which God does not call "sin"

3. Given that "where there is no law, there is no sin."

...Christians should NOT be lumping polygamy in with same sex "marriage."

One is called "marriage" and the other is called "abomination."

This is purely from a Biblical view, not touching (yet) politics in today's world.

Does this mean that I think Christian evangelicals should embrace and practice polygamy? No, but I think that if a converted Mormon or Muslim shows up in our churches with plural wives, we should accept their marriages.

• 1 Comment

•

This debate is "heating up" because of the battle over same-sex "marriage" - and some folks are saying the one of the problems with legalizing same-sex "marriage" is that it could lead to polygamy. (Reminds me of a joke my husband used to tell: Why does Bob Jones University forbid dancing? It could lead to sex standing up)

I have read in both blogs and their comments section that "homosexuality and polygamy are equal (sins).

~~~

(side note: 1 Cor. 6:9-10: Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality(**), nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God

**or Old Testament patriarchs

~~~

First: I am not "pro-polygamy" in the sense that I believe it's the right think for everybody.

I am not (NOT) pro-polygamy in the sense that it's what I want for myself.

I simply cannot call "sin" what Scripture does not call "sin." I'm happily (and truly) Reformed and the first Sola is "Sola Scriptura." Scripture is our only infallible rule of faith and conduct. We must not call evil...good. But we must also not call "sin" that which God does not call "sin."

Our Holy Father does not regulate "sin" - He forbids it.

Like all things, polygamy can (and is) abused, but if we call all things "sin" that some people abuse...we would not even be able to eat!

Our Holy Father does not describe Himself, even in metaphors, that portray Him as doing anything that is "sin.". Isaiah 3:6-10 gives us Jehovah and his wives, faithless Israel and treacherous Judah. I believe that polygamy, in and of itself, cannot be "sin" or Jehovah would have chosen a different metaphor.

Our Holy Father does not give us sinful things. in 2 Samuel 12 we read that Jehovah had delivered Saul's wives into David's arms. One can hardly say that polygamy made David commit adultery and kill Uriah! Greed and Lust did that.

God could have put an asterisk after the Leverite marriage law...but He didn't. The God who told His people not to wear cloth made out of blended linen and wool, could have told His people to take only one wife...but He didn't.

God didn't forbid business, He regulated it.
He didn't forbid marriage, He regulated it.
He didn't forbid polygamy, He regulated it.

If you want to make an argument that it leads to bad things (so does parenthood, if you ask Abel,) that's fine. But that's not the argument I see being made.

If you want to make an argument that in the New Testament, leaders are forbidden to have more than one wife, that's fine. But that's not the argument I see being made.

Don't call "sin" that which God does not call "sin."

•

I am (constantly it seems) reorganizing categories, or posts into categories.

Anyway, I ran into a couple of posts on polygamy (and there might be more, but I'm starting early and working this way).

At first, it was in the "religion - not Christianity" category, but I'm not all that sure that it's strictly a religious issue, since there are cultures that practice polygamy that have nothing to do with religious reasons.

So I put it in the "politics" category - I have a feeling that we'll be seeing more of the issue and it's not going to be a religious issue (although religious groups will be driving the question). No, it will be a political hot-potato.