• 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.

A Pastor's interesting blog post on Polygamy

OP was on http://biblicalfamilies.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=3172#p32384.

My purpose in the OP was to point out something I really liked in his criticism of Mark Driscoll's criticism of polygamy:
But why must we ignore the Scripture to somehow pretty-up God to a post-modern world that finds polygamy abominable? It's almost as though we think of God as barbaric (considering His past stance on polygamy) and thus must make excuses and deny the obvious when pulling Him out of history. I believe that the three reasons pointed out in the Daily Soap Box are still valid in understanding God's previous condoning of polygamy.

When God gave laws to not end polygamy, but govern it, then it is dirt-poor exegesis to believe God did not condone it. I would also add that it is quite unfair for Pastor Mark to compare polygamy and child molestation (or more accurate - statutory rape) in his opening dialogue. One does not guarantee the other. Without excusing Yearning for Zion's infractions against the law, let's not forget that the Texas Department of Family Services has had to drop the vast majority of charges stemming from their intrusion into this religious body, nor forget the vast deceit and unethical behavior on the part of the authorities toward this polygamist sect.
Though I certainly take issue with this author's four points you quoted, I also find it interesting that he was criticizing the 'dirt-poor' exegesis that led Mark Driscoll (also linked in the OP) to a conclusion he thought erroneous. Seems hypocrisy is recursive, since his dirt-poor exegesis leads him to the erroneous conclusion that God has outlawed polygamy more recently; go figure! ;-)
 
A philanthropist in the Old Testament would have been a polygamist. A selfish man would have been monogamist.

And an intentional bachelor woulda been looked down upon for refusing to do his duty to the community.
 
i am uncertain of the shunning, but if a fellow chose not to marry he was viewed as a person who was not willing to follow what they recognized as YHWH's first commandment; be fruitfull and multiply. not an option if he wanted to be respected.
the only reason that a man was single was because he had some weakness or failure which made the families in the community turn down his offers to marry their daughters.

as far as the bride, Yeshua's prayer was/is that we be one. so far we have defeated that prayer pretty soundly. does that make us not his bride? no, we are his bride as individuals but not corporately as he desires. if we were actually one the argument might hold a little more water.
 
You're right, Steve. "Shunned" may have been too strong a word. But folks would look down on him, consider him to be a selfish man who lived only for himself. And folks naturally tend to avoid those they look down upon. *shrug*

So not a foormal "shunning" in the Amish sense, but informally carrying some elements thereof.
 
Back
Top