Does Old Testament Polygamy Justify Same-Sex Marriage?

I was recently confronted with a challenge about marriage at one of my events. The claim was that God permits same-sex marriage today because marriage is not clearly defined in Scripture. Adam and Eve were a monogamous heterosexual couple, but later in Scripture God allowed men to marry multiple women. This signals a trajectory in the Bible towards more openness of sexual expression and in the definition of marriage. Therefore, same-sex marriage should be allowed by Christians today.

I don’t think the Bible permits same-sex marriage for a whole host of reasons, but I’ll only explain the ones I offered in response to this challenge. First, although God tolerated polygamy during Old Testament times, He never condoned it. In fact, when marriage begins in the Genesis creation account, it’s instituted as a monogamous and heterosexual relationship (Gen. 1:27–28; 2:24). That the patriarchs and other Old Testament figures practiced polygamy is not evidence that God intended them to do so. That’s just what they did. The same could be said of divorce. God never intended married couples to divorce, but He tolerated it. Even Jesus said that divorce was permitted because of the hardness of the hearts of men. Yet, He also clearly reminds the Pharisees that divorce was never intended by God from the beginning (Matt. 9:8). Therefore, when it comes to polygamy (and divorce), Scripture is descriptive but not prescriptive.

Second, even if God made provision for polygamy in the Old Testament, the 613 commands of the Mosaic Law are no longer binding on the New Testament believer. They are part of the Old Covenant (or contract) that has been replaced. Jesus said He “came to fulfill” the Mosaic Law and its requirements because we never could (Matt. 5:17). He didn’t merely abolish that covenant, however. He established a new covenant in His blood. In fact, the entire book of Galatians is an argument against making the Mosaic Law binding on believers living under the New Covenant of Christ.

Third, even if God had ordained polygamous marriage throughout all of Scripture (which I don’t believe He did), it doesn’t follow that He affirms same-sex marriage. Polygamy is fundamentally different from same-sex marriage. When a man marries a woman, he meets the male-female requirement of biblical marriage (Gen. 1:27–28 and 2:24). If he marries another woman, that is also a heterosexual marriage. Every instance of an additional marriage is still an opposite-sex marriage. It’s not same-sex marriage because the women he’s married to are not married to each other. It’s also not group marriage because he and all the women are not married together as a group. Marriage remains an opposite-sex relationship between two people as God defined in His Word.

Fourth, contrary to the claim that the Bible’s trajectory is towards greater openness in sexual expression (and consequently more openness in marriage), it seems the opposite is true. The trajectory in Scripture, especially with Jesus, is towards greater restriction. God may have tolerated polygamy in the Old Testament, but we don’t see it permitted during New Testament times. The pastoral epistles, for example, mandate that a church leader be a man of one wife (e.g. Tit. 1:6; 1 Tim. 3:2, 12). Jesus also cites several Mosaic laws and, far from loosening their prohibitions, makes them more restrictive. For example, He says, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matt. 5:27–28). Jesus takes a Mosaic prohibition and makes it more restrictive.

Fifth, the New Testament specifically rules out same-sex marriage by prohibiting homosexual sex. Although this is explicitly taught in Romans 1:26–27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and 1 Timothy 1:10, Paul’s epistle to the Romans contains the clearest condemnation. Within the context of a creation narrative (beginning at Rom. 1:18), Paul argues that God made men and women to function in a heterosexual way. Women, he says, exchanged the natural sexual function of a man for unnatural sex with women. Men, in the same way, abandoned the natural sexual function a woman provides and had unnatural sex with other men (Rom. 1:26–27). By prohibiting same-sex sexual contact, Scripture rules out same-sex marriage.

Finally, we should give Jesus the last word on this question. Our King specifically ruled out same-sex marriage by upholding the male-female prerequisite of marriage taught in the Genesis account of creation. When asked about divorce, Jesus replies,

"Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate. (Matthew 19:4–6)"

Notice Jesus quotes the two Genesis texts that affirm the binary nature of the sexes and the male-female prerequisite of marriage (Gen. 1:27–28; 2:24). That’s because He believes those texts are still authoritative and that marriage is still what’s described in them. Then Jesus adds his own commentary on the passage (“What therefore God has joined together…”), indicating He believes God instituted monogamous and heterosexual marriage.

RE: Shouldn’t Christians be paying attention to the New Testament for religious guidance? - Tom

The Mosaic covenant is like a state law. It was given to those people in that state for that period of time. We are in a different state now.

Christians have a different covenant that applies — the new covenant with different obligations.

Christians are not obliged by everything in the Mosaic Law. That was a set of civil obligations that were applicable to those people in that nation. It was made between God and Moses and Israel. God took them out of the land, He rescued them, and they were obligated to Him as their Sovereign. They had to keep the terms of the covenant. If they did, He would protect them, and if they didn’t, He would forsake them. (Deuteronomy 28) There are blessings and curses in the Mosaic Covenant meant for Israel.

The Mosaic contract is no longer in force. It has been replaced for everyone, including Jews, by the new contract.

The new contract is a new enterprise. Gentiles were never under the old contract. Now, Jews and Gentiles alike who put their faith in Jesus are under the new contract.

Does that mean we can go around murdering people, stealing or committing adultery because we’re not under the Mosaic Law? No.

The obligation not to murder is universal and should be in any law. Just as our law does, the Mosaic Law included UNIVERSAL moral principles. So we are obligated to follow those moral rules, not in virtue of them being in the Mosaic law, but because they are universal for all people. The Mosaic law included universal moral rules and rules that were limited to the nation who lived under that contract. We have to distinguish between these as we consider how we relate to the Mosaic covenant now.

Universal moral obligations from the Mosaic Law are REPEATED in the New Testament. The things that no longer apply to us are not repeated in the New Testament. It’s exactly like being in a separate state.

So, Today, we do not live under the Mosaic covenant. We don’t have all the laws that pertain to dietary and sacrificial things because Jesus did away with those laws. We don’t have the punishments proscribed in the law because that was for their judicial system in that nation. Just as the punishments for laws in other states don’t apply to us in California (even if we have the same law), we don’t apply those punishments since we aren’t under that system of laws.

The question we have to ask ourselves as New Testament Christians in the New Covenant is, which commands or moral principles are obligatory and would apply regardless of the covenants, because they are universal morals that transcend the Mosaic Law? We need to look at the passages in question and ask: Does this seem to express a moral obligation that transcends the Mosaic Law?

One way to know that is to see how it’s worded. Another way is to see if the same kinds of directives come up in the New Testament where the Mosaic Law is not operating. Virtually every one of the Ten Commandments, save the Sabbath, is also expressed in some way or another in the New Testament as morally obligatory. Other things, like homosexuality are forbidden in the Old Testament as well as the New Testament. We have the commands against homosexuality in Corinthians and Romans, so it becomes clear that this is a universal and it is not just simply a provision of the Old Testament Law, while the punishment is limited to that old system and not applicable in the New Testament.

There are some things stated in the Old Testament that go beyond the law and are above the temporal role of the Mosaic Law. They seem to be universals and are therefore in the New Testament.

We are not being arbitrary when we say homosexuality is forbidden. In Leviticus it is being expressed clearly as a universal, right next to bestiality and child sacrifice. These things are wrong in any culture. Indeed, at the end of the chapter, it says people in other cultures practiced these things and they were judged for them. That’s another hint that these are universals and not just a peculiar law limited to the Jews, though the particular application of law was limited to their system of law. The proscription against homosexual acts is REPEATED in the New Testament by St. Paul in his epistle to the Romans.

Christians are not under the Mosaic Law, but under the New Covenant. The Mosaic Law contained some universal moral principles that apply today because they transcend the old law, but aren’t applied in the same way judicially. The Mosaic Law was limited to a time and nation, but morality was not.

Why would Christians be following the Old Testament?
Shouldn’t Christians be paying attention to the New Testament for religious guidance? - Tom
____________________________________________________________

Why indeed!

The New Testament is the Word of God. The Old Testament is The Word of God.

Many people confuse the Old Testament with “The Law”, they are not the same. The “Law” is contained in the Old Testament but so is so much more. People also confuse the “Ten Commandments” with “The Law”. The Ten Commandments are not part of the “Law”. The Law specifically refers to the rules that Moses made for the Israelite’s to follow to remain righteous before God. They were added to by well meaning rabbi’s for centuries. The “Ten Commandments” were not written by Moses but by the finger of God.

When Moses first came down from the Mountain he had a law given by God but the people were not ready for it and the evil doers were swallowed up by the earth. Moses went back to the mountain and received other commandments that became what we call the Ten Commandments.

I would like to know what was in the original commandments that were destroyed when Moses saw the golden calf.

It is interesting, people cite tithing as a part of the law that was done away with. The same preachers who say the law has been done away with and condone breaking The Ten Commandments also encourage their congregants to tithe.

I get annoyed when people say we no longer have to keep the Sabbath holy because that requirement was done away with when Christ fulfilled “The Law”. The Ten Commandments are ALL still in force:

No other gods before Me
You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
Remember the Sabbath day.
Honor your father and your mother.
You shall not murder.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness.
You shall not covet.

Which of these would you say is not still in force?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.