GC, sin is the transgression of the law. Which commandment does polygamy violate?

It doesn't directly violate any of the commandments. Not all sins are defined by the Big Ten. For example, which commandment is violated by the use of alcohol or drugs?

However, I would have to believe that it might indirectly violate the first commandment, for some people, and the third commandment for some who are educated Christians and ought to know better. Then, if we add James' principle to the matter, we find that ALL of the commandments were broken.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

All sins are violations of the 10C - this is the biblical definition of "sin." The use of alcohol and drugs violates the 5th commandment because they are a form of slow suicide.
Polygamy, as all forms of sexual irregularity, violates the 7th commandment, in the same way that anger (Matt. 5:21, 22) and hatred (1 John 3:15) are violations of the 5th commandment. The commandments are not limited, but exceedingly broad (Ps 119:96). The commandments are expressed in terms of the worst possible violation of a principle. The worst possible violation of the principle of purity is adultery, but all the other violations of this principle are included in the commandment - fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals, prostitution, etc. God's ideal for human sexuality is one man and one woman, in love, within marriage. Anything which departs from this is sin.
Anyway, to me it's clear that polygamy, specifically, is adultery because polyandry is adultery. Having more than one spouse is adultery - both for men and for women, since God does not have double standards.

Rosangela,

Your understanding of a double standard is that things are not the "same" for both genders?

How come God never commanded that a widower should not go to marry another woman outside the family, but should marry one of the sisters of his deceased wife? Double standard?

I think you will find that there is a stark difference between men and women, both physiologically and in the laws which governed their marital situations. God designed them differently. Double standard?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

The Ten Commandments do not define all literal sins, because the Ten Commandments do not comprise all of God's law. Jesus Himself saw fit to give other laws besides, and through Moses a multitude of laws were given in addition to the Big Ten.

Sin is transgression of the Law--any portion of God's law. God's law extends beyond the Ten Commandments. If this were not true, there would be no other laws.

If the Ten Commandments were able to define every single sin, there would be no need of any further laws. The fact that there are further laws is clear evidence that we needed more clarifications.

As adultery does not include all sexual impropriety, but only that which involves stealing someone's spouse or betrothed, the seventh commandment does not, cannot, address every sexual sin. It is not, nor ever was, adultery for two single, never-been-married individuals to engage in premarital relations. After all, you can't "cheat" on your spouse when you have no spouse.

The only way to define such a sin as "adultery" would be in the spiritual sense--which would fit every sin. We commit "spiritual adultery" when we turn from God to worship our own interests.

In the "spiritual sense," every sin may be defined in the Ten Commandments. But in the literal sense, this is simply not the case...as the proliferation of additional God-given rules clearly indicates.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

This has nothing to do with moral principles. I'm speaking of moral principles.


All other moral commandments are an unfolding of the 10, which are an unfolding of the 2. Ceremonial commandments, of course, are not moral.


GC, you are putting yourself in a big trouble if you are going to explain to a pedophile, for instance, that what he is doing is a sin, as there is no specific divine law which speaks about pedophily. The 10C emcompass every conceivable sin in every circumstance of life. Of course pedophily is not adultery, but it is classified as a transgression of the 7th commandment. Having more than one spouse, however, is classified as adultery for women. Saying that the same is not true for men is obviously a double standard. Because the 10th commandment says "thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife," does this mean that women cannot be considered guilty of mental adultery?

Rosangela, if marital/sexual matters do not involve moral principles, I don't know what does. When someone has a "moral" fall or an issue with "immorality," the first thing that comes to mind is a sexual matter.

I'm not the one bringing up distinctions here between "moral" and "ceremonial," but since you've brought it up, what happens if someone did not observe the ceremonial laws? Was that a "ceremonial sin" instead of a "moral" one? Or are you trying to say that it was not a sin to ignore the ceremonial laws?

It is clear that the ceremonial laws were not part of the "moral law." But then, if what you say is true, we seem to have a contradiction here. Either the ceremonial laws were all optional, or else not all sins were defined by the Big Ten.


R: "Of course pedophily is not adultery, but it is classified as a transgression of the 7th commandment."

This doesn't make sense. This just means that you or someone is adding to the words of God. If pedophily is not adultery, as you are attesting yourself here, how then can the words "Thou shalt not commit adultery" address it? They obviously don't. Let's allow the Bible to speak as God saw fit to write it. These are among the few words which God wrote with His own finger. It is not right to misapply them. If you have a Biblical reason to broaden their sense and meaning, that is one thing. But to simply assume that for the lack of any of the other commandments addressing the point in question this one just "has to be it," in order to satisfy our own wish or bias.... I would expect better of a sincere Bible student, to be honest.

R: "Because the 10th commandment says "thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife," does this mean that women cannot be considered guilty of mental adultery?"

Not necessarily. But it does seem to indicate which of the genders is more likely to offend on this point, does it not? Furthermore, it also suggests a difference in the "ownership" system that I have spoken of before somewhere. Men were not possessions of their wives, but wives were possessions of their husbands. In the Biblical system, wives were to respect and obey their husbands. Husbands were to love their wives, but they were to lead them, not obey them. Wives, as also the children, were dependents upon the head of household, the husband.

Parents owned their young children in like manner. This is not a double standard. Children were to respect their parents. Children were not to own their parents, rather the opposite is true.

Here's an interesting statement that I found while looking for something else today. It follows this same line of thought.


Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

GC, the purpose of this statute was not to prevent someone from incurring a sin. It was just to preserve a family line. So it does not involve a moral principle.


GC, the 10C define all sins, and they are intrinsically moral.
God may give a command which is not intrinsically moral (like, for instance, not eating of a fruit, or circumcision, or the utter destruction of all that belongs to Amalek), but the obedience to what God specified is a moral issue (encompassed by the first commandment), and so willful disobedience to God is the sin involved here.
If, OTOH, the command given by God is intrinsically moral, it's just an unfolding of the 10.


They address it as they indicate that the only correct form of sexual interaction is that of one man and one woman within the bond of marriage. Anything which deviates from this is sin.


The point is, if you consider only what is written in terms of the gender specified, women can never be guilty of mental adultery, and in fact there is no standard which can judge both men and women with equity.


For God to be understood, He must express Himself taking into account the mental frame of the society He is speaking to.

Rosangela,

You are reading into the Bible that which is not there. That is unsafe, and untenable.

Your statement that "For God to be understood, He must express Himself taking into account the mental frame of the society He is speaking to." may have some merit, but they way you appear to have attached to it is as if to say that you understand "better" according to your more modern "frame" what God "actually meant" when He said something different way back then. This sort of philosophy is dangerous.

If you are unwilling to read the Bible carefully for what it says, without adding in your own personal biases, there is little point to continuing this discussion. Bible against strong opinion will never a convert make.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Well, it's clear that we don't see eye to eye.

Just some additional evidence that God recognized just a man's first wife as a legitimate wife. This is how God addressed Sarah and how He addressed Hagar, when speaking to Abraham:

Genesis 17:15 Then God said to Abraham, "As for Sarai your wife..."
Genesis 17:19 Then God said: "No, Sarah your wife shall bear you a son..."
Genesis 18:9 Then they said to him, "Where is Sarah your wife?"
Genesis 18:10 And He said, "I will certainly return to you according to the time of life, and behold, Sarah your wife shall have a son."

Genesis 21:12, 13 But God said to Abraham, "Do not let it be displeasing in your sight because of the lad or because of your bondwoman. Whatever Sarah has said to you, listen to her voice; for in Isaac your seed shall be called. Yet I will also make a nation of the son of the bondwoman, because he is your seed."