MM, have you been reading the thread?

Yes. Why do you ask?


PS – I’m having trouble applying your thoughts on "permit versus sanctioned" as they relate to the Law of Moses in regard to polygamy. The man who refused to “perform the duty” toward his deceased brother's wife was shamefully branded – “The house of him that hath his shoe loosed.” See Deut 25:5-10. She also "spit in his face".

You wrote, “There was never a time when God approved of polygamy. It is a violation of the law of God, a sin. It is an evil Jesus came to correct.” And yet you believe God permitted it in the Law of Moses. In my mind, you are implying, if not outright saying, God permitted sinning in the Law of Moses. This doesn’t make sense to me, Tom.

Because you asked me, "Do you agree polygamy was permitted in the Law of Moses?" If you've been reading what I said, you have no reason to ask this question.



As I've explained a number of times, God made accommodations to the Israelites because of the hardness of their hearts. Jesus refers to this in regards to divorce. To permit something means to allow for it to happen. To sanction something means to approve of it. God never approved of polygamy, in a single instance. This is what EGW means when she says, "God has not sanctioned polygamy in a single instance."

Sanction means "formal and explicit approval."



Actually Ellen White said that there was a never a time when God approved of polygamy. I just repeated what she said.

Jesus spoke of divorce being permitted because of the hardness of man's heart. Divorce is a sin, unless the person's partner had committed adultery. Do you disagree?

TE: As I've explained a number of times, God made accommodations to the Israelites because of the hardness of their hearts.

MM: Are you saying God permitted them to sin because they were hardened by sinning? That's a weird way to help them cease sinning, isn't it?

---

TE: Actually Ellen White said that there was a never a time when God approved of polygamy. I just repeated what she said.

MM: Did she also say, as you do, that God permitted them to sin by giving them a law which permitted polygamy under specific circumstances?

---

TE: Divorce is a sin, unless the person's partner had committed adultery. Do you disagree?

MM: Yes, I agree. So divorce is not a sin under certain circumstances, right? And under those circumstances it is not permitted because of the hardness of the offended spouse's heart, right?

---

MM: The man who refused to “perform the duty” toward his deceased brother's wife was shamefully branded – “The house of him that hath his shoe loosed.” See Deut 25:5-10. She also "spit in his face".

The Law of Moses concerning those circumstances where polygamy is "permitted" (if you please) is not worded in such a way that leads me to conclude as you have. How do you explain Deut 25:5-10?

Jesus said that Moses permitted them divorce because of the hardness of their hearts.



---



I didn't say this. You're question is extremely poorly phrased. I think you'd be better off quoting something I said, and ask me about that. Basically I just quoted her and said what she said. I don't recall doing anything other than that. If you think I did, please quote what I said. Please don't rephrase it as something you know I didn't say.
---



Good.



For at least one of the two individuals involved, divorce is the result of sin.



This is a poorly phrased question. You are speaking of a circumstance where divorce is permitted, and asking a question which has as a part of its premise "it is not permitted ..." What sense does that make?

Here's an analogy. In the state of California, on sunny days it is permitted to ride a motorcycle without wearing a helmet because of people's laziness. Question: Under these circumstances, it is not permitted because of people's laziness, right?

Hopefully you see the problem with asking a question like this.
---



Roy Gane wrote:



Please note especially the underlined portion. I think Gane is on the right track here. It looks to agree with the statements we've seen that polygamy is contrary to God's will, a sin, and never sanctioned by Him in a single instance.

Tom, by "permitting" polygamy in the Law of Moses did God permit sinning? Or, are there certain, specific circumstances under which polygamy is not a sin?

MM, I've repeatedly cited the SOP quotes which state that

a.God did not sanction (this means "approve") polygamy in a single instance (this means ever; i.e. God never, even once, approved of polyamy).

b.Polygamy is contrary to God's will.

c.Polyagmy became so common that it ceased to be regarding as a sin, but that didn't make it any less a violation of the law of God.

How can you read these things and not know the answer to your question? In particular, how is the statement that God did not sanction polygamy in a single instance not understood.

What is it you think constitutes a sin? How is it even possible that something which is contrary to God's will, contrary to His law, could sometimes be a sin and sometimes not?

Does this apply to other commandments as well? For example, the first commandment. Are there times when having some other god before God is not a sin?

Tom, your above (quoted) statement would be too clear to dodge if it were to be submitted in a court of law. It is quite clear that you are saying, without phrasing it thus, that:

ALL POLYGAMY IS SIN.

Particularly, point C stands out--for you have explicitly stated that polygamy is "a violation of the law of God." Few of us would ever misunderstand you to think that you are NOT equating polygamy with sin.

Now, here's the contradiction...you seem to misunderstand the question, and try to dodge the "bullet points" by throwing back at MM that, quote: "I didn't say this. You're question is extremely poorly phrased. I think you'd be better off quoting something I said, and ask me about that."

To be fair, perhaps you hadn't said exactly what MM had summarized, but the data was there for those who put a simple two and two together.

Now, let's assume for a moment, Tom, that you are correct in the following:

1) All polygamy is sin.
2) God never sanctioned polygamy (from EGW quote).
3) Divorce was "permitted" because of "the hardness of your hearts" (quoting Jesus).

I would like to ask you, as MM did, what is your interpretation of those "Levitical" laws regarding treatment of additional wives?

From your previous statements in this discussion to date, Tom, I, being an imperfect interpreter, would be forced to the conclusion that the only way you could logically hold to your expressed view, without contradicting yourself, would be for you to somehow undermine the "Mosaic" laws as not having been given by God Himself. For example, Exodus 21, where God is speaking from Mt. Sinai...must have been a work of fiction by Moses. Did Moses sin in writing these "fictional" laws?

God cannot be understood by our own finite wisdom and logic. Ellen White may very well be 100% accurate in her statements regarding God "sanctioning" polygamy. But, I tend to believe that God never exactly "sanctioned" meat-eating either. God was angry when He yielded to the request of the children of Israel for flesh in giving them quail to eat. Does it mean that, since God gave them the quail, we should all be eating quail? Does it mean that God sanctions the eating of quail? Of course not! The same is true here.

Polygamy may not be sanctioned, but it MAY be permitted and/or commanded. God commanded Saul to kill the Amalekites. Was Samuel lying when he told Saul "And the LORD sent thee on a journey, and said, Go and utterly destroy the sinners the Amalekites, and fight against them until they be consumed." (1 Samuel 15:18, KJV) Of course not. Then does God command all of us to do the same? Again, of course not. Did God "sanction" genocide? Of course not! But did He command it?

This distinction between "command" and "sanction" should be clear. To command is not always to sanction and to sanction is not always to command. The two are NOT synonymous.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa

Angry how? Like we get angry? Ticked off? Became impatient?



I think divorce and polygamy would make a better comparison. It looks to me like your point is that while God did not sanction the eating of meat, he permitted it, as He did with polygamy. If this is your point, I agree with that.



I agree it could be permitted, but not commanded as the term is ordinarily understood. If you command someone to do something, then you become morally responsible for that command being executed. If polygamy is a violation of God's law and contrary to His will, then God would be moral responsible for the violation of His own law. I don't see the sense in that.



I would say no, not in the sense that we commonly understand the word "command." Again, if He did, He would be morally responsible for genocide. He would be sanctioning it.

It's the same as if you command your child to eat pork. You are morally responsible for the action your child undertakes. I don't see how in such an instance you could argue that you were not sanctioning your child's eating pork.



I agree they are not synonyms. Commanding someone to do something is stronger than merely sanctioning some action. You can sanction something without commanding it. To sanction is to formally approve of something. I don't see how you can command someone to do something, as we understand "command," without sanctioning it. For example, in the hypothetical case where you command you child to eat pork, how are you not sanctioning the eating of pork?

Regarding your questions about the law of Moses, I don't believe the law of Moses by any means represents God's ideal will. It was an accommodation made for a backward and stiffnecked people. God's ideal will was perfectly revealed by Jesus Christ.

For example, from Jesus Christ we learn that divorce was given as an accommodation due to the hardness of men's hearts. Surely no one would argue that the law of Moses demonstrates God's idea will in terms of how women should be treated. From Jesus Christ we learn that it is not "eye for eye" and "tooth for tooth" that is God's ideal will, but "turn your other cheek," "walk the second mile," and "love your enemy."

If I command someone under my control to do something immoral then I am responsible, but what if I command a free moral agent to do something immoral? Is it still my fault if they do it? Does it say anything about me if they do it or is it an indictment on the one who does it?

God seemingly told Israel to do a lot of thing, but in reality what they choose to do was indicative of the sin in their hearts. God told them to commit genocide, but they are the ones who willingly chose to do it, they are the ones responsible for doing it, and they are the ones with murder in their hearts.

We have the example of God telling Moses that He would kill Israel and make a nation from his seed. Moses refused and was called a man after God’s own heart. Had Moses agreed to God’s suggestion would he have reflected what was in God’s heart or his own?

scott