Moral Laws, polygyny? Confused

[skysearcher]

I was always taught, as I’m sure you were too, that the only moral requirements God has for Christians are those found in the NT. However, there are a few obvious sins which the NT never mentions - for example, using God’s name in vain, and bestiality. Clearly, no sane Christian will argue that these are permissible.

So I’ve pointed this out to fellow Christians before, searching for clarification, and they will admit that, alright, clearly the sexual taboos still apply. They’re Moral laws, as opposed to Civil or Ceremonial laws.

Which leaves me wondering, so why don’t we avoid sex with a wife during her period? That’s Lev 18:19, sandwiched right in between the bans on incest and adultery, child sacrifice, sodomy, and bestiality. I’ve been told this just an outdated hygiene custom, which modern medical science allows us to safely disregard. And this answer made sense to me, until I stumbled across the following verses:
Isa 30:22…Menstrual rags compared to idols.
Ezek 22:10…Sex with menstruating woman condemned right alongside slander, murder, incest, adultery, bribery, greed, etc.
Ezek 36:17…God compares idolatry to menstrual impurity again.

Also, I’m struggling to find a Biblical justification for the complete ban on polygyny (polygamy where one man has multiple wives). Here are the only restrictions I’ve found:

In the NT, we have 1 Tim 3:2 and Titus 1:6, but these are only addressed to men applying for a church overseer (episkopon) job. So I checked the OT…
Lev 18:17…Can’t marry a woman plus her daughter/granddaughter.
Lev 18:18…Can’t marry your wife’s sister while your wife is still living.
Deut 17:16-17…A king must not “multiply wives to himself” meaning excessively, or to collect them just for the sake of collecting them, as one would do with horses or gold.

Now, some might accuse me of twisting the meaning of that last one, but if you look at the account of Solomon’s disobedience (1 Kgs 10:14-11:13), you will see that it directly parallels this passage. The guy is described as having veritable warehouses full of women, mountains of gold, and bazillions of horses. Even then, he is rebuked more for marrying foreign women from the nations forbidden to Israelites, and letting them henpeck him into idolatry.

(Part 2 below - character limit)…

 

[skysearcher]

(Continued…)

Finally, the strongest defenses in support of polygyny that I have found:

Ex 21:10…If you marry a second wife, you cannot stop providing for the first. Not “you can’t have more than one wife,” but “you can’t dump your first wife if you take another.”

Deut 21:15-17…
No matter if a man has a favorite wife, whichever wife gives him his firstborn son, that son is to inherit a double portion in the man’s will. The problem here is, you don’t put conditions on things if they’re totally forbidden. It would be the equivalent of God saying, “Okay guys, don’t murder. Murder gets the death penalty. But I mean, if you’re gonna do it, make sure your victim feels a minimum of pain, and uh, just don’t make a mess of the body, cause I mean, c’mon, that would be gross.”

Deut 25:5-10…
If your brother died leaving a sonless widow, then you HAD TO marry that widowed sister-in-law, and raise up a son for your brother, through her, to inherit your brother’s inheritance. Any man who refused was to be publically shamed and stripped of his name. So what if there were only 2 brothers in a family, and the first died without a son, but the second was already married? Wouldn’t he have to become a polygynist? No caveat is given. God even kills Onan son of Judah for refusing to do this for his brother Er (Gen 38) - and this is before the Law was given.

2 Sam 12:8…
When God, through Nathan, is rebuking David for his adultery with Uriah’s wife, He tells him that He gave him Saul’s widows “into your bosom/into your arms” a euphemism for them becoming David’s wives. And He tells David that if He thought he had needed more wives, He would’ve given him some. I mean, what do I do with this verse? Anyone who says polygyny equals adultery is basically saying God forced David to commit adultery. “Hey Dave, I gave you a full adultery starter-pack into your arms, bro. If you wanted some more adultery, all you had to do was ask!” Makes no sense at all.

---

Anyway, my point is that Christians say they believe in the Moral laws, but for all I can see, we don’t even follow all of those. So I’m left truly wondering - where exactly is the dividing line between what still applies to us and what doesn’t?

 

[De_Maria]

…Anyway, my point is that Christians say they believe in the Moral laws, but for all I can see, we don’t even follow all of those. So I’m left truly wondering - where exactly is the dividing line between what still applies to us and what doesn’t?

That’s precisely why we’re not a people of the Book. Jesus Christ gave us a living authority which has continuously preached the Wisdom of God from Apostolic times to this very day and will continue to Teach His Wisdom to the end of time.

 

[joeybaggz]

Your dilemma might be understood in your use of one word in your concluding paragraph; Christian. You are citing the Old Testament. The laws and words you cite are from laws handed down over (probably) 3000 years ago.

We believe that Christ through His Church, gave Peter and his successors the power to loose and bind. Modern Tradition recognizes these situations are pertaining to a culture that has, for the most part, receded into history. The Church teaches marriage is between one man and one woman. The older sanctions against certain sexual practices were a part of Mosaic law that the Church has, for lack of a better word, updated.

As to the pertinence of Mosaic Law for the Jewish people, I’m not qualified to address that. There are some very astute Jewish members of CAF. Hopefully some of them can offer insight.

 

[skysearcher]

I’m not ethnically Jewish, so I’m really just trying to figure out what God requires of me personally.

@joeybaggz, I cited both testaments, not just the Old. You and @De_Maria both point to the apostolic succession of authorities, and I acknowledge that such a chain of authoritative teachers is important. But when their teachings clearly conflict with Christ’s, how do I reconcile them? Especially given these passages:

Deut 4:2 and 12:32 both say that nobody is allowed to add to or take away from the Law.

Then we have Jesus saying in Matt 5:17-19,

"17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. 18 For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

19 So then, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Whatever authority your referenced passages about binding and loosing (Matt 16:19 and 18:18) gave to Peter or anyone else, we see by the above passage that they cannot mean authority to alter the Word of God.

 

[De_Maria]

I’m not ethnically Jewish, so I’m really just trying to figure out what God requires of me personally.

If you’re Catholic, God requires that you obey the Catholic Church.

@joeybaggz, I cited both testaments, not just the Old. You and @De_Maria both point to the apostolic succession of authorities, and I acknowledge that such a chain of authoritative teachers is important.

Good.

But when their teachings clearly conflict with Christ’s, how do I reconcile them?

Catholic Teaching is Christ’s Teaching. They can’t conflict because it is Christ who speaks through the Catholic Church.

When it seems to you that they conflict, it is your understanding which is the trouble.

Especially given these passages:

Deut 4:2 and 12:32 both say that nobody is allowed to add to or take away from the Law.

Then we have Jesus saying in Matt 5:17-19,
"17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. 18 For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

19 So then, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Whatever authority your referenced passages about binding and loosing (Matt 16:19 and 18:18) gave to Peter or anyone else, we see by the above passage that they cannot mean authority to alter the Word of God.

The Old Testament has not been altered. It has been fulfilled.

Your error is that you are trusting in your own intellect rather than relying upon the Lord:

Proverbs 3:Trust in the Lord with all your heart, on your own intelligence do not rely; In all your ways be mindful of him, and he will make straight your paths.

Jesus Christ speaks through the Church:

2 Corinthians 5:20 So we are ambassadors for Christ, as if God were appealing through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

God gave Jesus all power on heaven and earth.

Matthew 28:18 Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

Jesus, in turn, has given it to the Church:

John 20:21 [Jesus] said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.”

In His Wisdom, God gave you an infallible Teacher so that you could spend your time doing the good deeds that He requires of a faithful person:

Romans 2:6 who will repay everyone according to his works:[a] 7 eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works,

You can believe this or you can continue doubting and worrying and trying to figure things out yourself.

I hope that helps.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Catholic Teaching is Christ’s Teaching. They can’t conflict because it is Christ who speaks through the Catholic Church.

When it seems to you that they conflict, it is your understanding which is the trouble.

this. Amen to this.

 

[ATraveller]

Polygyny didn’t appear until after the Fall.
The original design of marriage was one man and one woman. Adam never had any other wives even after the Fall nor did a number of his more immediate descendants. It was down a few generations before it even appeared. There may be symbolic significance in the first polygamist Lamech being descended from Cain (not to be confused with another Lamech, who descended from Seth) or maybe not.

Like divorce, it wasn’t supposed to be the case but only permitted through the hardness of our hearts. Keep in mind there were procedures for divorce in the Old Testament.

Christianity is about redeeming what’s been corrupted. The whole of Creation. In my opinion, supporting polygamy, no-fault divorce and anything other than the original design of marriage goes against the spirit of redemption.
Early Christian thinkers Iranaeus and Justin Martyr condemned polygamy. You can argue they probably ‘captured’ the spirit of Christianity on this matter better than us.