The original concern in this thread on the chat room was whether there is one unchanging canon of moral conduct or whether there is more than one. More specific, is the canon of conduct for Israel identical to the canon of conduct for the Church? It is a clear fact that Polygamy was practiced by some of the most godly men in the Old Testament. It is also a clear fact that Polygamy was neither condemned nor punished as sinful under the Old Covenant. It is also clear to everyone but the Mormons believe that Polygamy is a sin under the New Covenant. Does not the above facts prove there are two different canons of conduct for Israel and the Church? It would seem that Polygamy was not considered a sin for an Israelite but it is considered a sin for a Christian today. This cannot be true in Covenant Theology.
So far on this thread the major argument against my position is that Polygamy has always been a sin, including for an Israelite, but under the Old Covenant Polygamy was "permitted" and not overtly punished. The fact it was not punished as a sin does not in itself prove without question it was not in reality a sin. This is the position that John Murray argues in his book Principles of Conduct. namely that Polygamy was allowed because of the wickedness of men's heart even though it was a clear violation of "God's perceptive will." Murray, an extremely honest writer, sets forth the problems he must answer.
It is quite obvious that this statement of the case poses several questions. And the most basic of these is the question: Is there in the sense defined, a biblical ethic? Is there one coherent and consistent ethic set forth in the Bible? Is there not diversity in the Bible and diversity of a kind that embraces antithetical elements? Are there not in the Bible canons of conduct that are contrary to one another? To be specific: Is there not an antithesis between the canons of conduct sanctioned and approved of God in the Old Testament and those sanctioned and approved of God in the New in respect of certain central features of human behaviour? It is a patent fact that the behaviour of the most illustrious of Old Testament believers was characterized by practices which are clearly contradictory of the elementary demands of the New Testament ethic, Monogamy is surely a principle of the Christian ethic. Old Testament saints practiced polygamy. In like manner, under the Old Testament, divorce was practiced on grounds which could not be tolerated in terms of the explicit provisions of the New Testament revelation. And polygamy and divorce were practiced without overt disapprobation in terms of the canons of behaviour which were recognized as regulative in the Old Testament period.
Principles of Conduct, by John Murray, Eerdman Publishers, Grand Rapids, MI, p. 14
Murray will answer an emphatic "no" to the above questions and will seek to prove there in one unchanging canon of conduct in Scripture. Murray's primary argument is Christ's statement in Matthew 19 where Jesus emphasized that Moses did not command easy divorce, and by implication Polygamy, but allowed it because of the Israelite's hard hearts. Again, Murray does not wait for his critics to raise the tough questions. He raises them himself.
The insistent question immediately arises: How can this be? How can God allow his people, in some cases the most eminent of Old Testament saints, to practice what was a violation of his perceptive will? It is a difficult question. Yet the position taken is the only one that satisfies the authoritative deliverance of our Lord in reference to divorce. He tells us explicitly that for the hardness of their hearts Moses suffered the Israelites to put away their wives, but that from the beginning it was not so (Matthew l9:3-8; Mark l0:2-9). If Jesus could enunciate this position in reference to divorce, there is no good reason why the same principle should not be applied to polygamy. The position would then be that because of perversity they were permitted to take more wives than one. Polygamy was not penalized by civil or ecclesiastical censures, even though in terms of the creation ordinance it was a violation of the divine institution. Men were permitted to take more wives than one, but from the beginning it was not so. Sufferance there indeed was, but no legitimation or sanction of the practice. Ibid, pgs. 16, 17.
I find great difficulties with Murray's explanation. Let me list several. First of all there is a confusion with terminology. Murray talks about "the revealed of God" and "the perceptive will of God" condemning Polygamy and by these terms he means the Creation Ordinance. This means that the Law of God given to Moses in the Book of the Covenant, and other places, concerning easy divorce, isn't the "real Law of God." Actually, parts of the Law of God given to Moses was a concession or toleration. Polygamy was "recognized as regulative" and not treated as a sin but was nonetheless in reality still a sin because it clearly contradicted "the revealed, or perceptive, will of God" (the real Law) in Creation. Israel should have known that easy divorce and Polygamy were sins according to the real Law of God, the Creation commandment. Murray says, "And polygamy and divorce were practiced without overt disapprobation in terms of the canons of behaviour which were recognized as regulative in the Old Testament period" (p. 16). But he also insists that this same "behaviour which was recognized as regulative" in the Old Testament period was "not sanctioned and approved by God." That seems to be saying two different things. How can a law be accepted as from God and thereby binding while at the same time not actually being "sanctioned and approved by God." It sounds like Moses was a bit of a loose canon. No pun intended. Murray's question is indeed insistent. How could God by inspiration give a specific law to Moses to govern Polyamy when both God and Moses knew that practice was contrary to God's true "perceptive will" given in Eden? Exactly what "Law of God" will the Israelite be judged by?
As mentioned above, Murray's primary answer, and the answer of those on this chat room is, "Jesus said that Moses allowed easy divorce and Polygamy only because of the hardness of Israel's heart" (Matthew 19). One of the major problems with this defense among others is this: Abraham and David were not hearted sinners. The Scripture expressly tell us that David was a man after God's own heart who meditated in the Law of God day and night. If, as Covenant Theology elsewhere insists that (1) David had the same revelation of God's Holy Law that we have, (2) had the same indwelling Holy Spirit that we have, (3) had the same law written on his heart, and (4) had a heart sincerely desirous of obeying the Law of God, then why did not that the Holy Spirit ever convict him of his "wicked heart" and sinful practice of Polygamy? You can't have it both ways. This argument may well explain the ungodly Israelite's Polygamy but it certainly does not explain David's. Does Scripture ever intimate that David spend most of his life in open disobedience to God's revealed "perceptive will" concerning the sin of Polygamy if indeed it was asin?
Murray argues for a universal realization of the "Law written in the heart" and uses Abimelech (Genesis 20) to prove that this heathen king knew that adultery was wrong. I wrote in the margin, "I agree 100%. But then why did not Godly Abraham with the Law written on his heart know that Polygamy was also wrong.?"
Some Biblical facts:
1. There over 30 instances of individuals practicing Polygamy in the Old Testament. There is not a single instance in Scripture in any way suggesting that Polygamy was a sin. This does not prove it was not a sin but the fact it is not treated as a sin needs a legitimate explanation.
2. David committed murder and adultery and was severally punished by God for his sin. The child of that adultery died as a part of David's punishment. David then married Bathsheba even though he already had several wives. Bathsheba got pregnant again and had a second son. God sent the same prophet who had brought the news of condemnation concerning the first child to inform David that God loved Solomon, the second child of Bathsheba (Samuel 12:24,25). If Polygamy is adultery then Solomon is just as much the child of an adulterous situation as the first child of Bathsheba. These two incidents seems to prove that the first instance was indeed adultery because it was outside of marriage while the second instance, with the same woman, was not adultery, despite the fact it was Polygamous, because it was within marriage.
3. Genesis 38 records the story of Judah and Tamar. The first son, Er, is wicked and God slays him. Judah instructs his second son, Onan, and sleep with Tamar so his brother will have a seed and heir. Such a practice would not a sin today. Onan spills his seed on the ground and God kills him. Judah does not keep his promise concerning his last son Shelah. Tamar disguises herself as a harlot, seduces Judah, and gets pregnant. When it all comes out that Judah is the father of her child Judah says of Tamar, "She has been more righteous than I." Can anyone imagining any of the things in this episode occurring today?
4. In Exodus 24 we have the Book of the Covenant read and then sprinkled with blood. That book contained Exodus 20 through 24:8. It contained at least two things which were a vital part of that covenant document which would not be legal today. This again demonstrates the clear fact that there are two different canons of moral conduct for Israel and the Church. Remember that the Ten Commandments, Exodus 20, were part of the Book of the Covenant sealed in blood in Exodus 24:8. Exodus 21 through 23 gives some specific application of the Law of God for Israel. Exodus 21:1-6 deals with a slave and his wife. If the slave had a wife when he became a slave then his wife went free with him after six years of servitude. If the master gave him a wife then when he left after six years, the wife and children belonged to the master. Is that the same law of God in effect today? It certainly deals with the morality of marriage in relationship to slavery. Does this law contradict the Creation Ordinace?
5. In Exodus 21:7-11 we have the Law of God and Polygamy. A man was allowed to sell his daughter into slavery. The owner could keep her as maid or he could either marry her or give her to his son as a wife. If he took a second wife he was still duty bound to sleep with the first one. If one thinks this through it is difficult to believe that Polygamy can be considered to be adultery. If that were true, this would be the story. (1) God gave a law forbidding adultery. (2) He knew that hard hearted Israel was going to break that law and commit adultery by taking more than one wife. (3) To keeps things under control and protect the sanctity of marriage, God said, "I know you are going to break my law and commit adultery by taking more than one wife, but when you do that make sure you sleep with both of the wives so you don't aggravate and complicate the matter farther. Such a view literally has God commanding a man to commit adultery if that man chooses to take more than one wife.
This is only a sample of the evidence demonstrating that Polygamy was not a sin under the Old Covenant. It amazes me to read the futile attempts to force the Scripture to say what your theology dictates. In this case it is far easier to just accept the facts that progressive relation includes morality as well as everything else. I honestly cannot see how anyone can understand the Law of God given to Moses and then claim that Law is not changed in any way today. To say that a Christian is under the identical same Law of God as an Israelite takes a lot of "wherefores" but still has a lot of unconnected dots. Polygamy and easy divorce were not sins under the Old Covenant. Our Lord radically changed the Law given to Moses concerning divorce and re-marriage and made Polygamy a sin. He had every right to do both.
JGR