Q. A friend has pointed out that whilst it is true that
Elohim (God) is polygynously married to two wives (Judah and Israel) that this
could only ever be used in a negative sense since the existence of two
separate entities is the result of sin (national disobedience). Since
these two tribes will one day be united as a single Israel (as per
Ezekiel), the monogamous state is the ideal one. Thus polygyny must
therefore be seen as being permissive within the conext of being an act
of mercy until such a time as the restoration of one Israel and one
Church/Messianic Community, which are monogamous symbols. Whilst this objection does not
address the fact that both Israel and the Church/Messianic Community by their very natures
are plural entities (by virtue of being Bodies made of several parts) it
does appear to weaken the argument that we often use to support polygyny
that Elohim's (God's) plural marriage to the northern and southern kingdoms is
somehow a vindication of the principle. Thus we might inadvertantly find
ourselves hosting a position which throws a negative light on polygyny,
one which sends a message that it is only temporary out of Elohim's (God's) mercy,
and that monogamy is the superior marriage covenant. What do you think? (SBSK)
It would seem to me that the person using the argument here against polygyny
is trying to make one presupposition to be the foundaiton for an anti-polygyny
I have to hand it to the person, though, this is quite an inventive and creative
way to try to put forth the anti-polygyny view.
But the argument is actually rather irrelevant, I would think. If one is to
take that argument to its further literalist extreme, then one would also have to
likewise conclude that we are all as single-cells which can start as one being, divide
into multiple beings, and then re-united as one. After all, Judah and Israel
had started out as one, then divided (the consequence of Solomon's sin in
1_Kings 11:3 which fulfilled Deuteronomy 17:14,17, but only that
the MULTIPLYING/HOARDING of wives ---to 1000!--- rather than
ADDING wives as his father David did). So, in the days of Solomon's son
Rehobaom, Israel was divided, and Jeremoan son of Nebat ruled in
the northern country, Israel/Samaria/etc. And now, as the argument says,
the divided will one day be brought back as one. So, in following this
in its literalist exteme, this would be like saying a man marries
one wife, she then acts like a single-cell and splits herself in multiple
women, all to one day be restored again as one woman exclusively.
This is ridiculous of couse, which is why this literalist extreme cannot be
applied in trying to refute polygyny.
I would also say that this argument fails on another major doctrinal point.
Namely, this argument advances the mistaken assertion that God (Elohim) would
ever 'tolerate' sin.
Simply not true.
Indeed, anti-polygynists often try to rationalize the polygyny in the Old
Testament with this very wrong false doctrine. (In a moment, I'll explain why
this is downright anti-Christian to even suggest, although I realize they do
so unwittingly of the ramifications of this mistaken assertion.) That is,
they try to suggest that God (Elohim) 'tolerated' polygyny in the Old Testament,
trying to say that polygny was a 'sin' but God (Elohim) 'tolerated' His holiest
of men, such as Abraham, Jacob, Moses, and David, for examples,
having more the one wife.
This suggests that God (Elohim) 'tolerated' sin.
The Law required a penalty for every sin, and there is not a single penalty
for a supposed sin of having more than one wife. In fact, just the opposite.
God (Elohim) went so far as to provide regulation of polygyny in the Law,
such as in Exodus 21:10 and Deteronomy 21:1-17, for examples.
So, now that we be in the 'times' of Grace, how could it be possible
to make the marriage doctrine which even had regulation
for polygyny to suddenly re-define it as a new 'sin'? The whole
concept about Grace and all is in the direction of greater freedom
but love. Yet, for polygyny to suddenly become a 'new' sin in the New
Testament, would go in the opposite direction, making the marriage
doctrine even that much more legalistically restrictive in these 'times'
of Grace than it had EVER been when under the Law.
(See the TRUTH Tract titled, The TRUTH on the 'Grace / Law Hypocrisy', for more on this here.)
But the reality is, GOD (ELOHIM) DOES NOT CHANGE.
What was sin is always sin. What is not is not.
And God (Elohim) always hated and does hate sin.
If God (Elohim) was really One to supposedly 'tolerate' sin, then here's
the blasphemy that that argument creates. Namely, it says
that the Lord Jesus Christ (Yah'shua the Messiah) hanging on the cross, shedding
His most perfect blood for our sake, that we filthy sinners might be
saved.... that it was all in vain! God (Elohim) forbid.
After all, if God (Elohim) 'tolerates' sin, as this argument suggests that God (Elohim)
supposedly 'tolerated' the supposed 'sin' of polygyny in His
holiest of men, then sending Christ to the cross was unnecessary!
God (Elohim) forbid! Why do we need a Savior if God (Elohim) would 'tolerate' our sin?
No. It is nearing blasphemy to suggest that God (Elohim) somehow 'tolerates'
If polygyny is a sin, then it always was a sin. Remembering that it is Satan
who is the author of sin, then every holiest of man in the Scriptures who
was polygynous was of the devil. God (Elohim) forbid.
The fact is, we must never accept this argument here, for it nears
blasphemy, making Christ almost unnecessary for our salvation.
God (Elohim) forbid.
And besides, when it comes to sin and righteousness,
the Lord (Yahweh) DOES NOT CHANGE.
"For I am the LORD (Yahweh), I change not".
"Jesus Christ (Yah'shua the Messiah) the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever."
So, in the end of it all, would say that the argument
has no challenge to the Scripturality of Christian Polygamy
Author: SBSK & TB