• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

The dangers of "Precedence"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Anonymous
  • Start date Start date
A

Anonymous

Guest
I was having a talk with my pastor about the subject of polygyny. He is aware that I have two wives. We have been talking at length about the subject in an effort to bring me to my senses. He has tried all the arguments in the book against it. It got so predictable I could almost quote what he was going to say next. After trying long and hard to make me see I was living in sin, his last argument was that there is no example in the New Testament, the early church or today in Godly American churches of Polygyny. So that ought to be a signal of God's will on this matter. That reminded me of the legal term "precedence" and how dangerous case law and precedence is used in legal circles today. You see, every time we go back to case law and use precedence, it causes us to drift. We should never use prior cases to determine law interpretation, but we should go back to the original law for interpretation. I was talking to a good friend (Mark C) today on the phone, and he was telling me someone told him that You should use the New Testament to interpret the Old Testament. That is like what we do today when we use a ruling on the law to interpret the law. How about we use the law to determine what we are to do. I am reminded of Newton’s second law of thermodynamics. “Everything tends to degenerate unless acted upon by a force." In this case the force is what should hold us back from drifting further away from the law.

Robert
 
Hi Robert
I really agree with alot of what you said; However, I don't believe "The Law" should hold such importance in the life of a Christian. "The Law" has it's place but it needs to be tempered with New Testament Grace.
"The Law" can't save anyone. We need to get up close & personal with Jesus Himself, IMHO.
Blessings,
Fairlight
 
Fairlight said:
I don't believe "The Law" should hold such importance in the life of a Christian.
Click to expand...

Would really love to go there, but....................................................I'm not.
 
Awesome post, rms. I can't help but keep bringing up that the Apostle Paul who is responsible for most of the New Testament writings mentions that the LAW is the "knowledge" of sin (Romans 3:20 esp. the NKJV). Paul reiterates that point in Romans 7:7. Going by the source that Paul refers to as being "knowledge" of sin, i.e the LAW, I see that polygamy was an acceptable practice.

We can debate all day about what all in the OT is still relevant or still applies to the NT, but one thing that's clear is that the LAW in the OT is still very relevant for knowing what sin is, as the Apostle Paul repeatedly mentions. I mean even if you just go by what the NT says, then not even the NT speaks about polygamy being wrong or a sin. Jesus did not teach everything that He had to teach during His physical lifetime on Earth, and even in the things He did teach, some of those presumably weren't written down (John 21:25) which is why He had to reveal some of His message to the Apostles through divine revelation (esp. what was written in Revelation; Galatians 1:12, etc.). cont'd

Paul nor Jesus covered what all of the sins or immoral acts are (e.g. bestiality, incest) except at best in general with words like "sexual immorality", but then again you could refer back to the Law as the Jews of that time would've and as Paul suggests, to know about what God calls sin. The only exception I see to this is if God revealed more laws or expounded/elaborated on His already established laws in the OT to show through implications or inference or just a simple explanation/teaching that there's more to the OT Laws than what the Jews in antiquity understood. And of course no such teaching supported by Scripture has shown that polygamy is a sin, but instead we have overwhelming Scriptural references to show that it is acceptable to God.
 
Ah don' reckon God needed to repeat Hisself in the NT if He dun sayd what needs sayin' in the Ole, did 'E?

If'n nobody misunderstood, on THAT topic at least, He didn' need to drone on and on.

So what be da pastor's fuss? That God was articulate the first time around?

And why does he think the church of Rome tried to squelch PM hundreds of years later if it wasn't still being practiced by Christians? Or, for that matter, King James, of KJV fame, over a millenium later?

Methinks that his "precedents" are another term for "the traditions of men".

At the same time, let me agree with Fairlight that the closer we get to Jesus, in terms of daily relationship, the less likely we are to notice the law chastising us into line -- it will just seem natural to live God's way.
 
i discuss and debate polygyny frequently in chat rooms and forums. It is amazing to see the lack of logic in the arguments Christians raise against multiple wives and mothers in one family with one husband.

The one that i get a chuckle from is the "grace vs law" angle,..... to which i typically respond;

"Now let me get this straight,.... under the law, God has mercy and grace for poeple involved in polygynous marriage,... now, under grace,... polygyny is against the law?"

Many Christians insist my involvment in polygyny nullifies the sacrifice of Christ to forgive my sins. Is polygyny the unforgivable sin?

I have a good chat friend i have known for about 10 yrs, he follows me from room to room at paltalk. One day after getting chastised, condemned, blocked, bounced, and banned from a Christian chatroom, he commented, "I have never seen a topic incite the wrath and prejudice of our fellow Christians as the polygyny topic does."

Paul
 
There are no mention of "Beards" in the New Testament either. We do know they were of widespread use in Old Testament times.

There is one passage, an illustration, 2nd Corinthains 11:2:
For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ."
Click to expand...
This is extremely subtle, but nonetheless real.

First, Paul is speaking to the Corinthian Church individually. He is not speaking to them as part of some "church universal" configuration. There are three senses of the word "church." The body of all believers everywhere over all time. The local church group, and on occasion, the building. In this case Paul speaks to the local body, this is proved by the fact that Paul sets himself apart from the church, by "espousing" them to their "one husband."

If marriage is the illustration of "Christ and the Church," then Paul is saying that in a way, each local body is a bride to Christ. He also seems to say later, that the whole church universal is "bride to Christ." These illustrations are not to be combined, they stand alone. The most important thing to remember though, is that the illustration of 2nd Corinthians 11 is necessarily polygynous.
 
There is one more thing I have to add. My pastor not only used Precedents set by examples since the Torah, he also used Presumption. He presumed since there is no mention of polygyny anywhere in the New Testament til now, that God's Will is for us to be monogamous. I dont want to get off topic, but think about precedence and presumption in present day America as it relates to our Govt.

Robert
 
Good stuff, Robert. (I will try to put a pointer to my "Come Out of Her" audio teaching on "Precedents and Presumption" below...)

The idea of "stare decisis" (the Latin term for the legal concept, which essentially means "already decided" - so there's no need to re-plow old ground) is an ancient principle of the "common law" (see "Blackstone's Commentaries", from before the founding of the Republics). But the technique of using that principle to allow "drift" -- away from what YHVH Wrote, and instead to man's tradition -- is a concept that the Adversary has used from the Beginning (Gen. 3:3).


Methinks that his "precedents" are another term for "the traditions of men".
Click to expand...

PREcisely, Cecil.

It is this kind of "drift", of "adding to" His Word things that He not only NEVER Wrote, but forbade men from messin' with, that ends up in "forbidding to marry", and calling good, evil, and evil, good.

For over two centuries now, the 'court' has decreed in the USA that it can "make law" - in spite of the fact, as Jefferson observed, there is "no power given" in the Constitution for such a claim. (In fact, Art. I, Section 1 says "all legislative Powers herein granted" belong solely to Congress.) But such hubris is nothing new - it was the same reason that our Savior repeatedly (like, say, ALL through Matthew 23, among many other places) called the Pharisees "Hypocrites".

I still contend that it's ultimately all about idolatry -- putting another 'god' in His place (even if it's just man "Himself"). His Law (or "teaching and understanding") just ain't good enough - so fallen men take it upon themselves to improve it for Him.

...Is polygyny the unforgivable sin?

...[a friend commented] "I have never seen a topic incite the wrath and prejudice of our fellow Christians as the polygyny topic does."
Click to expand...

I contend that the reason is idolatry, pure and simple. And there is perhaps NO idol that is more fiercely worshiped in post-Biblical Amerika than Monogamania: "There can be ONLY One!" And the goddess that makes that claim is NOT Him!

Blessings,
Mark

PS> The (still unfolding) set of "Come Out of Her" audio teachings is up on the web in several places. (The ones that are linked here are from a regular Shabbat series; I just started a new weekly radio show on the same topic on an Oregon Christian/Messianic network as well, at http://www.thejctown.com. I'll probably do a show on Precedents and Presumption there in the next couple of weeks.)

The "Precedent and Presumption" teaching is about the third in the set:

http://www.waytozion.org/conspireality/misc.htm (top menu)

http://www.waytozion.org/conspireality/Misc/mark3.mp3
 
Sin/crime = transgression of the Law. As it pertains to crime today sin/crime= transgression of what precedence determines to be the law. Therefore causing drift. I am reminded of the Second Ammendment ruling in the "Miller case". In that case it was determined that the shotgun he had was not of military purpose. That is what they determined to be protected by the Second Ammentment. If he would have had an assault rifle in that ruling he would have been in the clear. Think about the gun laws of today. What kind of guns are the Govt trying to ban. I will answer it for you, Assault rifles of miiltary purpose.

Robert
 
Great Post!

As I do so enjoy drinking in the learned wisdom here. I don't at this time have much to contribute to this subject, but I enjoy reading and gleaning new Godly insight & direction. Btw Robert, I've really enjoyed your family blog. Just wondering if and when there may be any new updates, stories and pictures? I do understand that we all have our own lives to tend too outside of our blogs or postings here at Biblical Families though. Thanks again for posting on this educational and thought provoking post! :)

FOR HIS GLORY ALONE,
F.S.
 
FS, I am still working on my updates for the blog. I keep getting further behind everyday. Everyday something new needs to be added. I hope to have blog updated soon.

Robert
 
rms said:
I was having a talk with my pastor about the subject of polygyny. He is aware that I have two wives. We have been talking at length about the subject in an effort to bring me to my senses.
Click to expand...

To what effect? Is he actually trying to break up your family? Polygamy is debatable, but we know for a fact that God hates divorce. I would think that leaving someone whom one has already made a commitment to would be clearly wrong, even if there was an issue with polygamy.
 
cnystrom said:
[Since] we know for a fact that God hates divorce. I would think that leaving someone whom one has already made a commitment to would be clearly wrong, even if there was an issue with polygamy.
Click to expand...

Idolatry trumps Scripture for such people. And I have argued, and continue to see strong evidence, that there is NO idol in Amerika more violently defended than the "Romantic ideal" of Monogamania: "there can be ONLY ONE."

It shows, again, why Yahushua got so disgusted with those "hypocrites", who, by their tradition, make the commandments of YHVH of no effect.

(Ever wonder why even male homosexuality, in the form of gay marriage, is accepted before Biblical patriarchy among some of those same folks - so long as it's "one at a time"?)
 
I just wrote a book for a reply on this topic and when i went to submit it , I found out that my internet booted me. Just wanted to say I tried to weigh in. Guess my thoughts were to heavy for my signal lol. Their is no way I can write all that again.
 
A suggestion for just that situation and a few others...

I noticed that when I get too wordy, the posts act squirrelly so I started writing in word then copy/pasting into a post. That way if I have a problem, I have it on the word doc. sometimes I save them, sometimes I don't. Depends on how much I like what I read.

SweetLissa
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top