I have decided to speak on the subject of "Polygamy" at next years Bunyan conference. Following is a list of all the statements culled from all of the e-mails on the thread discussing Polygamy on our chat room. If I have missed any, or anyone wants to add any more objections, I would appreciate it. The quotations are not in any order. 



I want to try to deal with every objection to my position.  JGR



(1)   Since God's character never changes, those moral demands never change.

 

(2)   I see no reason not to consider polygamy a sin from the very beginning.  There has been no evidence offered to contradict my view.

 

(3)  Polygamy is understood as a sin because the text says so in Genesis 2:24 and there
is no warrant for imposing discontinuity where there is none.

(4)  Polygamy is also understood as a sin because the suggestion that it wasn't impugns
God's immutable character.

 

(5)  Polygamy and unjust divorce were not sins in the sense of violation of the law of Moses.  But they were sins in the more important sense of being violations of the eternal moral law.  If CT tries to equate the OC with the eternal moral law, obviously it is in trouble. 

 

(6)  With the light we have in the New Testament Scriptures we have no excuse to err concerning either unjust divorce or polygamy.  BTW, do we have a specific command in the NT not to have more than one wife?  Or is our prohibition not rather based on Christ's reminder of the way it was 'from the beginning'?  If so, then if polygamy was no sin in OT times, neither is it now.

 

(7)  Does not Christ's reference to Mosaic divorce being occasioned due to the hardness of man's heart strongly imply that it was a sin, though not a violation of the OC?

 

(8)  . . . . the summary, "permitted" = "non-sinful" is an argument 1. from the narrative and 2. from silence.'  is accurate.  All you say about no condemnation of the practice of polygamy and divorce is true, but does not mean that they were not sins.  It seems to me to be the case - amazing forbearance - that the Holy One ignored these frailties until the fullness of the times.

 

(9)  It seems to me that Rom.5:12-14 pertains to the debate about divorce and polygamy and, more generally, what was counted as sin before or after the giving of law.

 

(10)  If polygamy is immoral now, it has always been immoral.



(11)  I was taught from a child that "sin" is a violation of God's holiness.  I was also taught that that holiness is immutable.  If  polygamy is immoral now, it has always been immoral...The overwhelming testimony of scripture is that God's holiness is immutably static, not dynamic, and as such, there is no such thing as a "sin" in the NC that wasn't a "sin" in the OC. One need not be a covenant theologian to understand that any violation of God's holiness is a sin and since God's holiness cannot change, neither does what constitutes "sin".

(12)  Next thing, you'll be saying that it wasn't a "sin" for Jews eat pork or plow their fields on Saturday, since such things are not sins now.

(13)  In fact, isn't it true that the very same thing may be a sin for you but not for me RIGHT NOW?  That "sin" is dynamically defined according to an actions reflection on God, or what it does to the conscience of an observer, or according to ones faith?



(14)  One need not be a covenant theologian to understand that any violation of God's holiness is a  sin and since God's holiness cannot change, neither does what constitutes "sin".



(15)  THE law governing the marriage institution was given before that code
existed... i.e. there's nothing in the Mosaic text that warrants any change or
discontinuity from what was given to Adam.



(16)  Christ used the "one man/one woman" command of Genesis 2:24 to point out to the Pharisees why divorce was always and forever wrong, even though Moses had allowed it because of their wicked hearts.
 
(17)  First, it was a sin to David.  It reveals that the "man after God's own heart" couldn't control his lust, ignoring the Genesis 2:24 mandate.


(18)  Secondly, it would be interesting to see the text where it says that there are two canons of conduct for Israel and the Church.  Thirdly, the prohibition against polygamy dates to the garden, not Sinai.  It seems to me that NCT has parked itself on Sinai, without taking into consideration the theology of the garden, a theology that plays itself out over the entirety of the canon. 

 

(19)  Christ said divorce was always a violation of Genesis 2:24, yet Moses permitted.  It's not too hard to accept both propositions at the same time.
 
(20)  Nowhere do we find polygamy explicitly prohibited under the Old Covenant.  That obviously depends on how one reads "wife" in Genesis 2:24... seems pretty explicit to me, as it did Christ and Paul.

(21)  Nor do we find it condemned when historically practiced prior to or under that covenant.

(22)  Question: where and why is polygamy condemned in the NT?



(23)  Question: What text do you have to prove that polygamy was not a sin under the Old Covenant?