GC, for you to build your case that polygamy does not constitute adultery, you have to believe that God is a respecter of persons and that He has double standards in relation to men and women. You are free to believe that. I don't buy it. There is not a law for men and a law for women. The same law will judge both.

Polygamy no longer existed in Israel at Jesus' time. Besides, Jesus didn't even stone someone who was an adulterer according to your standards.

Rosangela,

I recommend you hide your eyes while reading certain parts of the Bible that you perhaps haven't yet read. It will help you be able to preserve your view. (For example, don't read Leviticus chapter 27.)

It's a bit like hiding one's eyes while seeing the butterfly drinking the "succulent" juices found in the middle of the fresh cow pie. It is so much nicer to have the warm-fuzzy feelings of believing that butterflies only drink sweet nectar from pretty flowers.

As for me, I do not believe that God has double standards. I just believe that God does not see things always as we do. He puts great importance on some distinctions that we may not understand. Some of those distinctions involve gender differences of roles, authority, dress, and respect. Sexual behavior is also outlined. There is no such thing mentioned in all of the Bible as rape of a man. Should I be crying "foul!" for this? Should I be saying that this is not fair, or that it is a "double standard?" No. Difference does not equate to double standard. If it did, I guess God did wrong to make men and women different.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

So raping a woman is a sin but raping a man isn't? Is this your view about what God thinks?

I didn't say that. But does it not seem like a double standard, to your view, for men to not have mention of equal rights and protections as are given for women?

I know men who have been raped. They end up hiding it. It can be more humiliating for them than it may be for women, because society hardly speaks of such, nor addresses it.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

As I Theologically understand it, there is a most tangible reason why the OT was so “patriarchal”, favoring the man over the woman in many things, way beyond physical reasons. And that is the factual reasons that it was the woman who led man into sin. 1 Tim 2:14 reflects this notion by saying that Eve allowed herself to be deceived/seduced(with the Serpent’s empty words - Eph 5:6) into disobeying God. (Gen 3:13) Adam on the other hand was later acting mainly because he tangibly saw nothing wrong in what Eve had done. So his sin had more tangible “reason” to than Eve’s who had allowed herself to be purely “ideally” sway. Adam also acted in love and loyalty to Eve. (PP 55, 56). So God’s distinctive curses on the Woman (Gen 3:16) and the Man (vss. 17-19) were reflective of this theological/historical fact. That is e.g, why, women could not function as priests. That fall-derived distinction remained until Jesus made all things even at the Cross. (Gal 3:28)

So OT Laws indeed reflected that OT/Old Covenant reality, even OT-atoning necessity. God always has a tangible and just reason for what He does or allows.

And to emphasize what was already expressed, if God considered polygamy/bigamy to be adultery then, just like in Lev 20:10, He would have straightly said in Deut 21:15ff:

‘“If a man has two wives” (i.e., marries a second wife while married to a first, even if she is not “another man’s wife”), that is “adultery”, and they both, “the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.”’

God must be understood by human beings. Therefore, He sometimes expresses Himself, or gives His laws, in such a way as to be best understood by people, in a certain generation, who possess a given mental frame.

I like the thought Paul Buchheight expresses here:



God knows that. That's why, for instance, He condescended to enter into a covenant with Abraham employing such forms as were customary among men, at that time, for the ratification of a solemn engagement, and the divine presence passed among severed animals. God wouldn't employ the same forms today.

That's why, also, He tolerated some sinful customs which men didn't see at that time as sins, like polygamy and slavery.

This doesn't mean at all that these things weren't sins. God's moral standards do not change. So the argument of silence is not a valid one. The Bible says nothing about the raping of men and children being a sin, but of course we can infer this from the 7th commandment and from the fact that God specified the raping of a woman as a sin. The same is true about polygamy. If God specified polyandry as a sin, the same is true about polygamy. God's moral standards are the same for men and women. God's standards for both sexes have always been the same - despite the fact that this hasn't always been true in the mental frame of society. This is Ellen White's position, and mine, too.

Rosangela,

For some of my "mental frame" on this topic, please see this post.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

GC, I was referring to the mental frame of the OT polygamists. My point was that polygamy was adultery at that time, as it is today. However, God tolerated it because, according to the mental frame of society at that time, it wasn't adultery, and so it wasn't a sin. I understand you disagree with this view.

Rosangela,

If you have some scripture behind your allegation that polygamy in the Bible constituted "adultery," I would like to see it. So far, you have not provided any support for this.

Polygamy may well have been a sin. I would not dispute that. But sins have various names based on their categories. Some sins are more grievous than others. Adultery and polygamy are in two separate categories, according to the Bible.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.