I happen to see things somewhat the way MountainMan does on the issue of polygamy. Whether we like it or not, there are certain "sins" in the Bible which are simply permitted and/or not expressly condemned as being sin. They are, in fact, at times commanded or governed by rules of moderation. Polygamy is one of these "gray areas." Other "sins" in a similar category include:

1) Eating meat/flesh foods
2) Killing people as an act of war, justice, or self-defense
3) Wearing jewelry
4) Drinking alcoholic beverages
5) Being "rich and increased with goods"

Most of these things were commanded at times in the Bible, in certain circumstances. For example, "Thou shalt not kill" is followed by verses saying things like "But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death."

Since the Bible was not clear, cut and dried on these issues, they will provoke debates for as long as people do not reach higher plains in their spiritual walk and rise above them, and for as long as others try to promote their non-biblical views that such things were cut and dried, and clearly forbidden in scripture.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

This isn't the issue of disagreement in this topic. The point MM made that I am disagreeing is that polygamy is a sin (meaning a violation of the 10 commandments) but not a violation of the 7th commandment.

That polygamy is a sin, we (MM and I) are in agreement.

Please note the topic question is, "Does polygamy violate the seventh commandment?"

The law of Moses commanded people to kill sinners. Does this violate the 10Cs? It also regulates slavery. Is this against God's will? And, it made polygamy necessary under certain circumstances. Does this break the law?


The triune Godhead is One, right? Does this fit your model of two equal one? Tom, don't forget that I agree with you that God established the ideal order of marriage when He gave Adam one wife. But keep in mind the 7th commandment prohibits premarital sex as well as condemns adultery, which is having sex with someone you are not married to. Having multiple spouses is not adultery because they are married.

In the same way incest was necessary in the beginning, so too there were times when polygamy was necessary. But there were times when kings married multiple wives for reasons that were not necessary. In such cases they were making gods and idols of them, 1st and 2nd commandments, thus misrepresenting God, the 3rd commandment.

1.God gave counsel in regards to things which were not in accordance to His will, such as divorce, polygamy, and other things. That He gave the counsel should not be construed as His sanctioning the thing He gives counsel regarding.

The idea that God would command someone to do something contrary to His will is nonsensical. By definition, if God commands that something be done, that's His will.

2.Your whole argument falls apart because you assume that the extra marriages are legitimate, but they are no more legitimate than a marriage which follows an illegitimate divorce. Jesus said that one who divorces his/her spouse without valid grounds is committing adultery if He remarries. The same logic applies to polygamy as applies to divorce.

3.I have not seen you comment on EGW's point that God did not sanction polygamy even once. Please comment on that.

Valid point. He told the children of Israel what meats they were allowed to eat. This does not mean He advocated a flesh diet. On the other hand, since Jesus ate fish, does this mean that it is not a sin to eat meat? Look at some of Ellen White's statements on meat, if you will, like this one:




By what definition? God commands things which are not His will at times. Dealing with sin means there are times when something has to be done that was not part of the original plan. Example: Commanding the quails be sent to the complaining Israelites who lusted for flesh. You will not convince me that it was His will to give them the quail--to the contrary, there is evidence that it was not, seeing as He destroyed many thousands for their perverted appetites when they ate the quail.


In my mind, the pain in the relationship always comes with the separation. It is the breaking of someone's heart that I believe is the primary sin in what we term "adultery." It's sort of like that famous poem says regarding the fence or the ambulance: it's not the falling that hurts them at all, but the shock at the bottom when they're stopping! So, to my view, it would be far better for a man to have two wives, than to have just one "at a time," which is exchanged for a different one. Both are forms of polygamy, except that one involves an illegitimate divorce--cruelly breaking the first one's heart in a mean show of rejection and favoritism.


I would ask this, did God sanction the eating of meat even once?

To sanction, and to permit, are two different things.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

By what definition is a good question. The definition I had in mind was to order someone to do something. By so doing you are expressing your will. Someone doing something under your authority is as if you did it yourself.



From the SOP:



The Lord longs to give us that which is good for us, and does His best to protect us from the effects of sin. But we have free will, so He will not force us to do His will.

The people wanted flesh, so the Lord allowed them to have it, although what He had provided them for food was better for them. The same thing happens today. But when the people became ill and died, this was of their own doing.

It hardly seems fair to blame God for this. I speaking of your statement, "seeing as He destroyed many thousands for their perverted appetites when they ate the quail." God did not destroy the people because they did something contrary to His will, but the people destroyed themselves by their own actions in overindulging in the quails.

This is a common pattern. God longs to protect us from the effects of sin.



I agree with this.



This is the point I've been making.

With the exception of the killing in point two, which would be covered by Jesus mount sermon, can you make a biblical case for the other points being sin at all? Or is this a case of listing things which are not on sin lists in the bible but whom Ellen redefined as sin?

1) Eating meat/flesh foods
2) Killing people as an act of war, justice, or self-defense
3) Wearing jewelry
4) Drinking alcoholic beverages
5) Being "rich and increased with goods"

Skipping 2, as requested.

I don't think anyone suggests 5 is a sin. I don't know why that's on the list. Assuming this means simply having a lot of money. So I'll skip 5 as well.

Regarding the others, the explanation of these items which makes the most sense to me is that in the Day of Atonement, Israel was not to do these things. They were to keep their minds clear, so that they could follow by faith what the High Priest was doing.

So we, living in the antitypical Day of Atonement, are advised to keep our minds clear, so we can follow by faith what our heavenly high priest is doing.

Tom, do you think it was God's will to kill sinners the other 364 days of the year? For example, God told Moses to stone to death the man caught gathering sticks on the Sabbath. Was it God's will? Or, did Moses misunderstand God's answer?

Do the laws of Moses misrepresent God's will?