Handling Discussions Regarding the Law

[Maegirl]

Hello everyone!

I apologize if there is a thread discussing this already, so feel free to redirect if necessary. In discussing polygamy with other Christians, I routinely run up against variants of the same arguments:

God changed His mind regarding what was sin in the Law
Jesus did away with the Law when He "fulfilled" it
Therefore nothing supported or allowed in the Law applies to modern Christians' beliefs
We are a new creation in Christ...which means if we try to use any part of the Law to justify what we are doing we are putting ourselves under it again
Or even, "only the 10 Commandments were the true Law put down by God, everything else was the law of Moses and God just tolerated it because of the Israelites' hardness of heart"

To be honest, some of these beliefs were also held by myself until I began studying polygamy, and the major turning point for me was seeing how such beliefs create inconsistencies with the character of God. Andrew's point in the newsletter, "Your failure to find the right words to convince the other person of the reasonableness of your position is part of the problem." really hit home for me. I was wondering if anyone else has found the "right words" to discuss the Law with Christians who feel it is no longer useful for edification. Thanks!

 

[NetWatchR]

Morning, @Maegirl

You may have already seen it, but just in case, and for others to find, there is the "Common Objections" index in the Resources tab that covers at least a few of these.

Here's my take on the ones you mentioned.

God changed His mind regarding what was sin in the Law

There are different kinds of laws. The one that matters the most are the Moral Laws as these are based on God's Character. When God says He is the same today, yesterday and tomorrow. This is what He means. The Big 10 and Christ's simplified List of 2 reflect His character, who He is. Polygyny does not violate either of these lists, including adultery because adultery is qualified by the status of the woman only, not the man. period. If, they argue that Polygyny was once allowed and then became sin, then they must show Chapter and Verse where it says: This is a sin, you shall not, No, bad touch.

Jesus did away with the Law when He "fulfilled" it

Reflection of previous. Jesus did away with the Ceremonial Laws. He fulfilled the requirements for a blood sacrifice. No one can ever say that He did away with ALL the Laws otherwise you chuck the Big 10 out the window too. This is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Therefore nothing supported or allowed in the Law applies to modern Christians' beliefs

This shows a basic, fundamental lack of understanding in what a law is for. Laws only do 2 things: Require something. Prohibit something. Laws do not allow for anything. No law "allows" me to drive down the freeway with my windows down. I can because there is no law that prohibits it. I can chose not to get married because there is no law that requires it. If nothing is supported or allowed through Christ then what's the point? We gain nothing and lose the very freedom that was promised. I posit that anyone who says this doesn't really understand what they are saying. In fact, we are told in the NT that, in Christ, everything is available to us, though may not be beneficial.

We are a new creation in Christ...which means if we try to use any part of the Law to justify what we are doing we are putting ourselves under it again

Again, this is a misunderstanding of which Laws were fulfilled. Does this mean that we can now commit murder? no. Besides, they still have to point out a Law that says Polygyny is a sin. They can't, it doesn't exist. And laws don't allow anyone to do anything.

only the 10 Commandments were the true Law put down by God, everything else was the law of Moses

The only evidence that any "law" was by Moses and NOT by God is regarding divorce, and even that's open to interpretation. Even when Paul played that fine line, he made it abundantly clear that it was not from God, but himself, and he made it clear it was just a suggestion. Besides, who brought down the 10? Moses. Maybe there were some that he came up with on his own, but does anyone seriously think that if any of Moses' laws violated any of God's, He wouldn't have something to say about it?

God just tolerated it because of the Israelites' hardness of heart

That was only mentioned in relation to divorce and had nothing to do with anything else. God has never "tolerated" sin. He had no scruples about telling anyone to their face that they royally flubbed up. That includes adultery.

I hope that helps give you some ideas on how to come up with your own retorts to these "arguments". And just remember (i have to remind myself), you're not going to convince anyone. Just tell them enough to get the ball rolling and they'll either go re-read everything or they'll write you off as a loon.

 

[Maegirl]

And just remember (i have to remind myself), you're not going to convince anyone. Just tell them enough to get the ball rolling and they'll either go re-read everything or they'll write you off as a loon.

Thank you NetWatchR, I have to remind myself of this frequently as well! I really appreciate your response; I had used almost the identical arguments and it is encouraging to see that other more experienced debaters like yourself would have used a similar approach. I think I'm pretty much written off, signed and dated as a loon at this point, but they keep coming back wanting to discuss it....so at least they are still somewhat interested. Thank you also for the link, I shall go perusing....

 

[IshChayil]

Hello everyone!

I apologize if there is a thread discussing this already, so feel free to redirect if necessary. In discussing polygamy with other Christians, I routinely run up against variants of the same arguments:

God changed His mind regarding what was sin in the Law
Jesus did away with the Law when He "fulfilled" it
Therefore nothing supported or allowed in the Law applies to modern Christians' beliefs
We are a new creation in Christ...which means if we try to use any part of the Law to justify what we are doing we are putting ourselves under it again
Or even, "only the 10 Commandments were the true Law put down by God, everything else was the law of Moses and God just tolerated it because of the Israelites' hardness of heart"

To be honest, some of these beliefs were also held by myself until I began studying polygamy, and the major turning point for me was seeing how such beliefs create inconsistencies with the character of God. Andrew's point in the newsletter, "Your failure to find the right words to convince the other person of the reasonableness of your position is part of the problem." really hit home for me. I was wondering if anyone else has found the "right words" to discuss the Law with Christians who feel it is no longer useful for edification. Thanks!

Hi @Maegirl
This verse is often misunderstood in my opinion.
Matthew 5:17 says:
Μὴ νομίσητε ὅτι ἦλθον καταλῦσαι τὸν νόμον ἢ τοὺς προφήτας· οὐκ ἦλθον καταλῦσαι ἀλλὰ πληρῶσαι.
You should not form a notion (have in common practice) that I came to throw down/abolish the LAW and the PROPHETS; I have NOT come to throw down but to fill up!
the Greek has a nice play on words ... don't "nomiso' that the 'nomos..."
The Greek word here translated often as "fulfill", "Plero-o" means to fill up like one filling a glass.
I think of this glass as G-d's continuing revelation. The LAW of Moses filled it up 1/3rd. The books of the Prophets filled it up a bit more. The Gospel message and New Testament revelations fill it up a bit more. The Holy Spirit continues to add drop by drop in each of our lives individually.

Now fellas I'm not trying to start a Law vs. grace brawl here, in fact I prefer to look at things as proverbs 31 eshet-chayil (woman of valor is described) in her relationship to the Law...
"torat chesed al l'shonaH!" = "the Law of grace is on her tongue".
Paul teaches us that the Law is "just and good and true" and very valuable for study and learning.

many of the Law commands, such as Sabbath we are told are "ot hiy l'olam" = "an eternal sign".. eternity, all generations, etc. language is used in a lot of places. Ironically not in the 10 commandments.

While it is true that most employers do not pay their workers daily; there is a biblical command to do so and I think most reasonable torah "unobservant" Christians (not meant as a put down) would agree that they find great wisdom and charity in the Law of G-d which was invented by G-d Himself. The opponents you mention who consider the Law was invented mostly by Moses and "suffered" by G-d due to the hardness of mens' hearts I think may be out of the biblical mainstream in Christianity.
I have never known anyone, except among the very liberal denominations (Methodist etc). to entertain the idea that the Law was made up by Moses and just tolerated by G-d.

BAck to Yeshua. He filled up. The Law tells us don't murder, He makes it even harder and says don't be overly angry.
The Law tells us don't commit adultery. He tells us don't look at another man's woman with desire. Adding to the glass... sometimes His interpretations reveal how merciful the Law of G-d really is and release people from bad interpretations (more filling up).

Hopefully we will all experience as in psalm 23 the situation where "kosi revaya!" = "My cup overflows".
If we get much deeper in Law things we may need to move this over to the Messianic / Hebrew roots section.

I think the common misconception and this has been hashed out elsewhere in the forums, is that not being "under the Law" does not mean the Law was somehow defective. We are the ones who are defective, not G-d's commands (holy, just, true). I guess I bring it back to David because I know he is very revered in Christendom.
A man after G-d's own heart... polygamist ... and as Nathan the prophet said to David (paraphrasing)
"If you wanted more wives all you had to do was ask!"
So when the Almighty Himself is the one doling out the sisterwives... it's kind of hard to call that "toleration of hardness of hearts".
One thing to "tolerate" another thing to actively enable that lifestyle.
What about the women to be doled out by the L-rd? Surely He loved them as well... Surely He wouldn't ruin their lives

So without putting anyone under the Mosaic covenant; I'm saying that covenant was perfect... we broke it, He bought it.

 

[cnystrom]

These are all specific issues of the more general idea that polygamy was allowed in the OT, but not in the NT. This is a false idea. There is no place in the NT that prohibits it anymore than there is in the OT.

 

[Mojo]

Morning, @Maegirl

You may have already seen it, but just in case, and for others to find, there is the "Common Objections" index in the Resources tab that covers at least a few of these.

Here's my take on the ones you mentioned.
There are different kinds of laws. The one that matters the most are the Moral Laws as these are based on God's Character. When God says He is the same today, yesterday and tomorrow. This is what He means. The Big 10 and Christ's simplified List of 2 reflect His character, who He is. Polygyny does not violate either of these lists, including adultery because adultery is qualified by the status of the woman only, not the man. period. If, they argue that Polygyny was once allowed and then became sin, then they must show Chapter and Verse where it says: This is a sin, you shall not, No, bad touch.

Reflection of previous. Jesus did away with the Ceremonial Laws. He fulfilled the requirements for a blood sacrifice. No one can ever say that He did away with ALL the Laws otherwise you chuck the Big 10 out the window too. This is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
This shows a basic, fundamental lack of understanding in what a law is for. Laws only do 2 things: Require something. Prohibit something. Laws do not allow for anything. No law "allows" me to drive down the freeway with my windows down. I can because there is no law that prohibits it. I can chose not to get married because there is no law that requires it. If nothing is supported or allowed through Christ then what's the point? We gain nothing and lose the very freedom that was promised. I posit that anyone who says this doesn't really understand what they are saying. In fact, we are told in the NT that, in Christ, everything is available to us, though may not be beneficial.

Again, this is a misunderstanding of which Laws were fulfilled. Does this mean that we can now commit murder? no. Besides, they still have to point out a Law that says Polygyny is a sin. They can't, it doesn't exist. And laws don't allow anyone to do anything.

The only evidence that any "law" was by Moses and NOT by God is regarding divorce, and even that's open to interpretation. Even when Paul played that fine line, he made it abundantly clear that it was not from God, but himself, and he made it clear it was just a suggestion. Besides, who brought down the 10? Moses. Maybe there were some that he came up with on his own, but does anyone seriously think that if any of Moses' laws violated any of God's, He wouldn't have something to say about it?

That was only mentioned in relation to divorce and had nothing to do with anything else. God has never "tolerated" sin. He had no scruples about telling anyone to their face that they royally flubbed up. That includes adultery.

I hope that helps give you some ideas on how to come up with your own retorts to these "arguments". And just remember (i have to remind myself), you're not going to convince anyone. Just tell them enough to get the ball rolling and they'll either go re-read everything or they'll write you off as a loon.

What he said

 

[Nikud]

He makes it even harder and says don't be overly angry.
The Law tells us don't commit adultery. He tells us don't look at another man's woman with desire. Adding to the glass...

This is an argument I've been trying to make with several friends and family.