The article below is is a short but scholarly article on this question. It is also in the teaching articles forum below. You can go here
posting.php?mode=edit&f=57&p=20011 as well to read it or read it below. I hope this helps to answer your question. I taught on this at the Arizona retreat but at that time did not have it on powerpoint. Soon it will be converted over to a powerpoint presentation. Enjoy:
_______________________________________________________
Introduction
To understand the early church history, from the 100’s to the 400’s era, we have to examine what developed surrounding that period of history. When we examine the early church fathers we find a mixture of truth and error. This should not be a surprise to us as both Christ and the apostles showed us that both humans and collective churches with humans in it had some good and some bad ideas. Christ’s parable of the seed and sower shows us that only one out of four of the seeds sown actually produced lasting results (Matt. 13:18-23).
Additionally we see that in Christ’s last message to the churches that of the seven churches he spoke to only two were without any need of correction. The church of Smyrna, which we believe to have been led by the famous early church father Polycarp, and the church of Philadelphia were not highlighted with any sin that needed correction (Rev. 2:1-3:22). We can also see that Scripture actually calls some churches at this time, a “synagogue of Satan” (Rev. 2:9; 3:9). These types of churches are representative of all the types of churches throughout the ages. The Hebrew Christian scholar Dr. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum has well said: “
No matter what part of church history one may turn to, he will find all seven types of churches. All seven types will continue to exist until the rapture” (Footsteps of the Messiah, revised ed. P. 48).
Today almost all Christians agree that false churches do exist. But many have not realized that false churches have existed from even the early days of church history as the apostles were dying off of the scene. Even Apostle Paul predicted a time of great spiritual departure before he died. He told his disciple in the faith, Timothy, this: “
Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons” (1 Tim. 4:1). He also stated, “
in the last days there will comes times of difficulty” (2 Tim. 3:1).
Dr. Earle E. Cairns, a world renowned church historian, has wisely said of our way of reading and interpreting history that we see and “
approach history as biblical theists and seek to find the glory of God in the historic process. History becomes a process of good and evil, God and the devil, in which man is helpless apart from the grace of God. The work of Christ on the cross is the final guarantee of eventual victory of the divine plan for man and the earth, when Christ returns” (Dr. Earle Cairns, Christianity Through the Century, p. 20).
But if polygyny was a common practice among the OT saints and among Judaism what caused it to become uncommon? Did some NT teaching counter the OT teaching? Some may think so and some certainly teach this. It is true and commonly taught that some of the OT laws are not repeated and obligatory upon NT saints. But is polygyny, something condoned and promoted in the OT, outlawed in the NT era? And if not why did this doctrine seem to disappear early on in church history? These are common questions that this brief article will address.
Polygyny Did Exist in the Times of the NT Era Despite Common Teachings to the Contrary
Some today write and teach that there was no practice of polygyny in the time of the early churches. This is a very common assertion by many. It is so common that many take this ideology at face value and thus continue to spread this viewpoint.
However, if one uses first hand historical resources and does original research one will find this idea is without merit. Examination of the original first hand eyewitnesses in the early church period and immediate generation after shows us the practice had not died out.
First, Josephus was a historian of that era and was a contemporary of both Christ and the apostles. He is considered by many, along with Philo, to have been one of the most accurate Jewish historians of his day. He spoke several times about polygyny being practiced. Some will still claim that it was beginning to die out. But even if one claims that such is an admission that it still did exist.
Josephus himself made these statements about polygyny in his historical writings. In speaking of King Herod Josephus recorded this: "
Now Herod the king had at this time nine wives; one of them, Antipater's mother, and another the high priest's daughter, by whome he had a son of his own name" (The Antiquities of the Jews, 17:1:3:19). So by this historical statement we know the practice existed among the time of Christ and the apostles.
Second, when we move a little past the time of the Apostles we also find that one of the early church fathers spoke of this as still a common practice of his time. Though this father apparently had some type of issue with it he still acknowledged that it was indeed practiced in his time. Justin Martyr said in his teaching to Trypho, "
If, then, the teaching of the prophets and of Himself moves you, it is better for you to follow God than your imprudent and blind masters, who even till this time permit each man to have four or five wives" (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1. p. 266). Additionally Justin Martyr spoke to how widespread this doctrine was in his day. He stated that these people, these Jewish believers of their nation were taking many wives "
over all the earth" (Ibid, p. 270). Justin was born around 110 or 114 and lived to around 160 or 165. Therefore, we know that he was not a
direct disciple of any of the apostles, which may help to explain why he opposed something none of the apostles ever opposed. Since he never had any interaction with any of the apostles that increased his odds for embracing serious error. But his speech reveals the widespread practice of this doctrine in his day and dispels the myth that this practice did not exist in the early era of church history.
Nonetheless, with these two quotes we see that in Christ's time and in the immediate period after the apostles the polygynous lifestyle was still evident. This testimony also conincides with one modern day Jewish Rabbi who says that the practice among the Jewish people did not die out until around the 10th century. Alfred J. Kolatch, a graduate of Yeshiva University, and an ordained leader from the Jewish Theological Seminary, has served as a Rabbi of several congregations. He says:
"
The illustrious Rabbenu Gershom ben Yehudah (960-1028) of Mainz Germany, who because of his brilliance was known as the Me'orHa-Golah (Light of the Exile), sought to establish monogamy as a rule of Jewish law. His goal was to avoid conflict with the Church . . . . About one thousand years ago, he convened an assembly of rabbis from various European countries, and they insisted on a ban on polygamy. Anyone who violated the ban, which became known as the cherem d'Rabbenu Gershom, was excommunited" (Inside Judaism, p. 396).
Therefore, according to both first hand eyewitnesses we know that polygyny did not cease among the Hebrews or Christians, some of which were certainly Hebrew Christians. Later testimony agrees with this historical analysis as well.
But this does not explain why did it wane. What caused the lifestyle to slowly become uncommon when it was originally so common? The next section herein will explore what caused this. Primarily two reasons led to the digression of this lifestyle among the Jews and Gentiles in and out of the body of Christ.
Reason # 1: The Rise of Gnostic and Ascetical Philosophies that Slowly Infiltrated the Early Churches
From the time the churches were birthed, the first one in Jerusalem and then others in later historical succession, Satan began to attack the churches by attempting to spread false ideas in these bodies. The gnostic thought was one of the first acts of Satan and his demonic hosts to undermine doctrines of Christianity.
The OT prophets and the NT apostles taught that all of creation came forth by the providence of God and that all of it was good and not to be rejected. One can clearly see Apostle Paul's stance on this. In 1 Timothy 4:4 Paul clearly stated: "
For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving." This aligns very well the writings of Moses who told us that everything God created was seen as good (Gen. 1-2).
But the gnostic ideology countered this teaching. The gnostics said that the spirit and soul was good but the physical flesh was bad. Dr. G.L. Borchert, a Princeton Seminary scholar, says: “
The Gnostics obviously used sources such as Platonic dualism and Eastern religious thought, including ideas derived from Christianity.”
Dr. Earle. E. Cairns has also said, “
Gnosticism, the greatest of the philosophical threats, was at its peak of power about 150. Its roots reached back into the New Testament times. Paul seemed to have been fighting an incipient form of Gnosticism in his letter to the Colossians. Christian tradition related the origin of Gnosticism to Simon Magus, whom Peter had to rebuke so severely. Gnosticism sprang from the natural human desire to create a theodicy, an explanation to the origin of evil. The Gnostics, because they associated matter with evil, sought a way to create a philosophical system in which God as spirit could be freed from association with evil and in which man could be related on the spiritual side of his nature to Deity” (A History of Christianity, p. 96).
Four Infuential Men Who Spread Gnostic Ideas into the Early Churches
Dr. Cairns noted the man named Simon Magus. We can see this story in Acts chapter 8. In reading another early church father we can see many ideas that spread from not only Simon Magus but from his disciples. Irenaeus (120 -202) helps us to see in his Work “Against Heresies" the following about four key men who led the way in gnostic ideas. 1. Simon Magus (see Acts 8:9-25), a leader of Gnostic thought; 2. Simon’s successor and disciple Menander continued this mystical and magical approach to life. Menander taught that “
the world was made by angels . . . .he gives, too, as he affirms, by means of that magic which he teaches, knowledge to this effect, that one may overcome those very angels that made the world.” 3. Saturninus also arose among these teachers and he taught that the world was made by angels. Inside of natural man is a “
spark of life.” He specifically taught that “
marriage and generation are from Satan.” 4. Basilides taught that “
salvation belongs to the soul alone, for the body is by nature subject to corruption.”
With these men the ideas that the body was corrupt and the soul was good seeped into the ideas of many people. We can even see directly from the word of God that Luke tells us that Simon of Magus "
amazed the people of Samaria" and that "
they all paid attention to him, from the least to the greatest" (Acts 8:9,10). He and his followers began the long downward journey of spreading a teaching into the churches that the body, and thus sexual pleasures and even marriage itself, was bad and to be holy one ought to suppress natural desires, which would mean marriage itself came under fire early in the life of the churches. Naturally if marriage was bad celibacy was to be praised and, of course, polygyny must really be bad.
We can see Paul clearly opposing this in his words to the Colossians. In chapter 2:18-23 Paul specifically taught against the idea of worship of angels and the idea that the body [A Gnostic thought] was bad and thus one should deny oneself of any bodily pleasures [asceticism]. Yet despite Paul's teaching against this the gnostic and ascetical ideology the philosophical ideas of Simon Magus, Menander, Saturninus, and Basilides spread deeper into the minds of people in this era. These men embraced a type of Greek philosophy that taught each person's soul was good yet the physical body was bad.
This Greek thought crept into the Christian circles not only through some false teachers but even through some of its own Christian teachers who embraced a semi-Christian and semi-Greek synthesis of thought. Justin Martyr, who was in many ways a decent Christian teacher, was a devout student of Greek philosophy before coming to faith in Christ. And even he, despite his efforts to formulate a pure Christian theology, fell prey to his own prior training as in places he too embraced and interpreted Scripture through the lens of his Greek ideas that ran contrary to teachings of biblical Christianity.
Reason # 2: Mystical, Non-Literal, Allegorical Style of Biblical Interpretation Began to Flourish in Bible Interpretation
The second, yet very important turn in the life of the early churches, shift in the early churches developed in the methodology in how to interpret the Bible. In theological circles this is called the doctrine of hermeneutics. This refers to the proper rules of interpreting language. Throughout the time of the OT and into much of the NT era the belief was that the Bible ought to be interpreted in a plain, historical, grammatical manner. Some call this literal interpretation. It simply means that each word and phrase in the Bible is to be defined and interpreted in a way that the reader discovers the original meaning of those words to the original audience. It also means that the words are placed in their proper grammatical order. Nouns, verbs, pronouns, and adjectives, etc. which have different terms in the Hebrew and Greek, should be interpreted in their proper grammatical order.
The literal or the plain method of Bible interpretation existed in early Jewish life as they held the text of the OT to be very sacred. An example of literal hermeneutics one can examine the principle of exegesis taught by Hillel, Ishmael, and Eliezar and see that they did "
develop some sound principles of exegesis which reflected a token approach to the literal understanding of the Scriptures" (Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation, 3rd edition, p. 46).
Yet around the time of Christ there was a Jew by the name of Philo. Like Josephus this man was very popular and well known in his day. He lived from around 20 B.C. to 54 A.D. Thus, he lived throughout not only the time of Christ's life but for many years into the life of the early churches. Philo was influenced heavily by Greek philosophy. Yet he was a pious Jew. He had a noble goal but his means to the end was not something to be praised. He "
sought to defend the Old Testament to the Greeks and, even more so, to fellow Jews. He was led to allegorize [interpreting the bible in a non-literal]
the Old Testament, rather than always following a literal method of interpretation, because of his desire to avoid contradictions and blasphemies" (Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation, p. 32).
Bernard Ramm has also noted that Philo "
had a great fondness for Greek philosophy, especially Plato and Pythagoras. By a most elaborate system of allegorizing he was able to reconcile for himself his loyalty to his Hebrew faith and his love for Greek philosophy" (Ramm, p. 27). This love for Greek philosophy and his desire to try and explain away some of earthly teachings of the OT led to error. His rule on "double-application" meant for him that the "
natural objects" spoken of in Scripture were really meant to "
signify spiritual things" (Ramm, p. 28). If the bible spoke of heaven it really meant something else like the mind, or if the Bible spoke of earth it really meant something else like sensation (Ramm, p. 28). Granted, Philo did not totally reject the literal meaning of Scripture, but for him "
it represented immature level of understanding. The literal sense was the body of Scripture, and the allegorical sense its soul" (Ramm, p. 27).
Dr. Roy Zuck adds to this that Philo "
stated that allegorizing is necessary to avoid seemingly unworthy statements of God, or seemingly contradictory statements in the Old Testament. He also said that allegorizing is necessary if the passage indicates that it is allegorical. Philo taught that Sarah and Hagar represent virtue and education, Jacob and Esau represent prudence and folly, Jacob's resting on the stone speaks of the self-discipline of the soul, and the seventy seven planets" (Roy Zuck, p. 32).
Philo's Methodology Spread to the Christians in Alexandria and Undermined the Plain Meaning of the Bible
Alexandria, the capital of Egypt from 330 B.C was an "
outstanding Greek cultural and academic center" (Gary Huckabay, Alexandria in the Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary, p. 46). This city had one of the finest libraries in the ancient world "
with over 500,000 volumes" that "
attracted many scholars" (Ibid, p. 46). It was here where the Jewish rabbis "gathered in Alexandria to produce the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation of the OT," and this city "
became second in importance to Rome" (Ibid, p. 47).
This major city was very close geographically to the nation Israel and the city of Jerusalem where the first church was birth. "
Alexandria had a large Jewish population" (Arthur Rupprecht, Alexandria in the Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible, p. 52). The interaction among the first church of Jerusalem and the saints of that area with Alexandrians was very common. Dr. Rupprecht has noted that "
Stephen, who became the first Christian martyr, debated with Jews from Alexandria in Jerusalem concerning Jesus as the Messiah (Acts 6:9). Apollos, described as an eloquent man, well versed in the scriptures, was a native of Alexandria (Acts 18:24). The apostle Paul made his sea journey to Rome aboard two Alexandrian ships (Acts 27:6; 28:11)" (Ibid, p. 53).
With this close proximity to the first church of Jerusalem the Greek allegorical ideology had an opportunity to reach the first set of Christian disciples. The principles of biblical interpretation that Philo introduced spread through the regions where the gospel was taking root.
The fruit, therefore, of this methodology began to undermine the plain and literal teaching of Scripture. Fanciful, mystical, and hidden meanings were sought by Bible interpreters instead of the plain and obvious meaning of the passages of Scripture. This school of thought began to flourish and eventually it was this school of thought that began to dominate the way teachers interpreted the bible.
For example, recall above that Justin Martyr spoke of Jacob and his multiple wives. Under this allegorical school a Bible teacher ought to look past that plain meaning and find the hidden or more spiritual meaning behind the text. We can see that Justin Martyr was doing this as early as the 100's in the way he interpreted the OT.
When Justin was debating with Trypho he spoke of Jacob and the multiple wives Jacob had. Yet because he was influenced already by his Greek philosophies, which likely made him lean towards an ideology that fleshly things or sensual things were not as good as the spiritual things (a dualism philosophy common in Greek philosophy) he apparently struggled with how Jacob could have multiple wives, sisters at that, and still be right before God. Maybe he could not harmonize this with the later laws of Moses where the Bible mentioned an issue with wives who were sisters and rivals (Lev. 18:18). Therefore, it seems that he ignored the physical and literal meaning and moved the teaching towards a typological base where he emphasized that this portion of the Bible really meant something else. Justin Martyr taught that the wives really stood for something else other than real, actual, literal wives. He stated that Leah "
is your people and synagogue [refering to Trypho's Jewish people and way of life];
but Rachel is our Church" (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, p. 267). His focus had shifted from the literal sense of Scripture to a hidden typological view where he stressed a different point than the real historical reality.
This type of fanciful interpretation grew and even developed into a special school were typology and allegory became the primary means of how the Bible should be interpreted. Another early church father, Clement of Alexandria (155-216), was also influenced by Philo's mystical approach to biblical interpretation. "
Clement taught that all Scripture speaks in a mysterious language of symbols" and that each scripture passage may have up to "
five meanings: (a) historical, (b) doctrinal, with moral and theological teachings, (c) prophetic, which includes types and prophecies, (d) philosophical (allegories in historical persons such as Sarah representing true wisdom and Hagar representing pagan philosophy), and (e) mystical (moral and spiritual truths)" (Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation, p. 35-36).
Origen Mixes Greek Philosophy and Mystical Hermeneutics and Radically Alters the Course of Church History and the Doctrine of Marriage
The next major leader, who did more than any other person to solidify this mystical approach to biblical interpretation, was a man by the name of Origen. He was born in Egypt around 185. He died around 254. He was a disciple of Clement of Alexandria in the Alexandrian Catechetical School. Later he became the head of this school in Alexandria and for 28 years he led this school and trained many students. From this school and his teachings, as well as his own model of life, he laid the foundation that undermined the doctrine of marriage.
Origen pursued an ascetic and extremely pious life. He fused Greek thought with biblical exposition, and thus popularized the Gnostic seeds that were developing in the early churches. At one point, early in his life, he believed that Matthew 19:12 called for him to castrate himself so that he could effectively instruct his female students without the threat of it being a scandal. He realized the natural desires of a man and due to his ideology and lens in which he read the Bible he decided to do anything he could not to give into his natural desires. He therefore castrated himself due to his ideology that natural sensual desires were evil. This was a fruit of his gnostic ideas about sexual desires.
Yet, we cannot conclude that he was without virtues. Despite this serious flaw in his theology on sex and sexuality, he was a remarkable and powerful man with an enormous amount of energy. He argued for the inspiration of the Bible, God as creator of all things (though he failed to see the implication that all matter must therefore be good, even such as with his physical desires and personal genitalia), that God the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit existed as distinct members yet still unified, and he even established a second school where thousands came to hear him teach.
He was so well respected a wealthy convert supposedly hired secretaries to copy down his lectures and then published them. Dr. Robert Schnucker of Northeast Missouri Sate University stated, “
From his own example and from some of his writings one can find some of the early principles that spawned the monastic movement” (The New International Dictionary o Theology, 733). He supposedly had anywhere from 800 writings to 6,000 writings circulating. S H.W. Perkin has thus noted, “
Thus for a considerable period of time the early church praised celibacy to the detriment of marriage, despite Christ’s own support of the institution of marriage” (Evangelical Dictionary of Marriage, p.693).
Though the seeds were spreading in the 100’s, it was Origen whose life and example that spread the Gnostic ideas of marriage to a new height that even to this day has yet to be reversed in the reformation work. Many today still follow his example consciously or unconsciously. Many believe in the supernatural creation of God, the inspiration of the Bible, the Triunity of God, and other sacred doctrines that Christians would affirm. Yet, like Origen, they have embraced a partially mystical hermeneutic along with a Gnostic twist that leads them to similar conclusions about sex, marriage, and the normal sexual desires of humanity. And thus they read their Bible and see the passages speaking of men with multiple wives and automatically associate that to either paganism or at the very minimum a less than ideal state of living as that to them is a bad dose of sensuality that should not be a part of any mature Christian's life.
This teaching by Origen gained ground and basically dominated the churches for his time forward. Many others would follow his lead and embrace similar ideas. The leaders below even extended their ideas on sex and marriage further into the churches of that era.
Damascus in 366 AD
He taught that if a priest married he should not have sex with their wives. The idea of celibacy, or a non-sexual lifestyle had grown to become the quest if one desired to truly be spiritual.
Siricius in 385 AD
He was a married man who served as a bishop. Yet he taught that it was or should be a crime for priests to continue having sex with their wives after they were ordained as spiritual leaders in their respective churches.
With the rise of Constantine in the 300's he declared Christianity to be the state religion. At this time in church history the power of the sword and the power of the church was beginning to merge and come together under one rule. By 400 to 500 AD the Roman Catholic Church developed and the ascetical leanings and mystical methods of biblical interpretation were supercharged because now all of the bishops and leaders of the various churches were to come underneath the control of one leader, the Pope. Furthermore, with the new power of the government leaders under the rule of the Papal office the church was then able to use the sword to advance their cause.
This symetry and synthesis of mystical, allegorical, non-literal interepretation basically began to undermine every key doctrine that had been set forth and taught in the days of Christ and the apostles. The churches, and then one church organization under the Pope in the 500's, began to interpret the Bible in a non-literal way. Doctrines such as God's love for physical ethnic Israel, her promises that would literally be fulfilled in a real, literal, earthly millennial kingdom were also rejected and the idea that the church replaced Israel and/or became the New Israel took center stage as the main teachings of the Roman Catholic Church because that, just like marriage, was a physical doctrine that needed to be purged of its fleshly connotations. The Popes, Cardinals, and Bishops all began to teach and live as if they were the sole true church and that they alone, not Israel and the Church, were the focus of God's love. They began to see themselves as already living in the eschaton and thus they concluded they should be able to use the sword to further their spiritual agenda.
Yet their fanciful and mysitical interpretations had obstacles, namely commoners who could read and see what the Bible said that conflicted with their allegorical and non-literal interpretations. Since common people were likely to read the Bible in a plain and literal way this required the Roman Catholic Church to gravitate towards a position where they taught that a common man could gain enough skill to properly read and interpret the Bible for himself. Thus, according to their theory, only the official interpretations of the clergy could be trusted and this was because they were the only ones able to find the hidden meanings in the Scriptures.
This system led the saints into an era that historians commonly call the dark ages. Almost every doctrine crucial to the Orthodox Christian faith was undermined and lost. The doctrine of the goodness of God's creation was lost. Celibacy was the ideal, monogamy was to be tolerated (and in some case even not at all such as with priests), and polygyny was rejected and despised. The doctrine of the Bible being the ultimate and final authority was lost. The doctrine on how to interpret the Bible was lost. Now only the church leaders could understand the Bible and the saints had to accept what they were taught about the Bible. The doctrine of man's helplessness and depravity was lost. Instead man was supposedly with some inner light and spiritual ability. Salvation was something man earned and could only be conferred to the saint through the aid of priests. Christ's full and sufficient atonement was lost. Salvation and justification was not immediate but something one gradually worked for over time. The doctrine of Israel's future restoration, deliverance from dispersion, salvation, and future reign in a literal, earthly, 1,000 year millennial kingdom was denied and rejected. Instead the Roman Catholic Church taught that they were the focus of God's love now and that they were the expression of God's kingdom on earth here and now.
It was not until the spark of the Reformation, which began around the 1400's and flourished in strength in the 1500's through Dr. Martin Luther, Dr. John Calvin, and others of like mind and spirit, that some of these doctrines began to be recovered. With the rise of Bible translations in the language of the common people and the efforts of the Reformers light began to dispel the darkness that had set in on the majority of churches that Rome led. The Reformers led the way in opening the Bible back up to the masses, restoring the gospel of pure grace, and attempted to return to a literal method of biblical interpretation.
Yet they were men limited by their age and life spans. So much had been lost it was almost impossible for them to restore everything in their short life spans. The mind of mankind and the growth of the saint's spirit could only progress through time, and at times that moved slowly even for the most brilliant and most dedicated disciples. It was not until the Puritans and Pilgrims, who left England under persecution, and came to the American soils that the work of the Reformation took on a new life. Here in America the Reformation eventually led to a reversal of the state church system where the church also controlled the power of the sword. This battle developed in the late 1600's and took center stage by the time of the development of the United States Constitution. The literal method of biblical interpreation led many to call for an end to the state church idea. The work of men like Roger Williams, Obadiah Holmes, and many others in the Baptist persuasion who were jailed, persecuted, whipped, and fined for preaching doctrine contrary to the established state-church doctrine eventually paved the road to the de-establishment of the state-church system that developed under Constantine in the 300's and popularized from the 500's on into chuch history. This progress, marked by its own share of suffering demonstrated by many great men and women of faith, led to the people of this blessed country embracing the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution. This monumental victory that still shines bright as a beacon of hope for this nation and all nations around the globe recognized the right of people to worship freely without the national government having control over the churches and the doctrines they taught. Another step forward in the reformation work had taken place in the progress of God's work.
In the 1800's and early 1900's there arose in the churches a strong interest in the subject of Bible prophecy. Many began to apply the literal method of biblical interpretation to the subject of Israel, God's promises to Israel, and to the prophetic portions of the Bible concerning end times. This led to masses of people in virtually every denomination embracing the idea of a role that still existed for ethnic Israel. Many leaders and churches began to see that the idea that God was through with Israel and that he now only loved the church was a fancy re-interpretation of Scripture by Rome to make God's love appear to solely be upon the one people known as the church. Slowly by the thousands people began to see that God could love and have a plan for both Israel and the Church and that his plan included not just one people but two peoples in covenant relations. Furthermore as people continued to apply a literal hermeneutic to all portions of the Bible they began to reject the idea that we were now living in the full kingdom of God, as espoused by the Roman Catholic Church, and began to see a future earthly kingdom of Christ to come where Christ rules on this earth at his return. This ideology grew so strong that in 1948 after the two great world wars the United States of America became the first country to recognize an official homeland for the Jews. The country embraced and supported the idea of a country called Israel.
Yet the dark ages and the wake of that time still exists today. By the end of the 20th century and into the beginnings of the 21st century the subject has now apparently turned towards the doctrine of marriage or love in covenant relations, depending upon one's own desired vernacular of choice. The mid to late 1900's was a time where the sexual revolution exploded. The churches today are now caught in a new era of the reformation saga. The method of interpreting the Bible literally and the rejection of Greek philosophy is now highlighting the need to re-examine the doctrine of love in sex, marriage, and sensuality. Many are beginning to see that the Gnostic influence still pervades even many Protestant and Evangelical teachings regarding sex and marriage. In such cases these organisms have yet to apply the reformation spirit of how to interpret the Bible to such doctrines as sex and marriage.
Also, many are beginning to see that the laws and ideas in regard to marriage have their root not from the Bible or from natural law but from the man made systems of theology from Rome. These archaic laws reflect an ideology of Roman Catholicism where they wanted to enforce their theological ideas through law codes that could be enforced by the sword. And since Rome wanted to
exalt celibacy, and
only tolerate monogamy for the common man, while
ruling out polygyny that viewpoint was retained and carried over here to the American soils by many godly men and women who built Colonial America (the Puritans and Pilgrims) but who were like Luther and Calvin, men and women limited by their time and lifespans. Thus, today God is apparently calling out his citizens again to carry forth the banner of love in a new field of thought that is really nothing more than a return to an ancient practice.
Maybe you who are reading this article are struggling with this concept. Or maybe this doctrine of polygyny is a new concept to you. Or maybe you already believe this doctrine. In either case you are living in a new day where the Spirit by providence is beginning to call on saints across the globe to reconsider their views on what God intended for his creation in regard to sex and covenant unions that are to be replications or images of his love for his bride which is composed of multiple members. Hopefully this article will be an aid to you in that process. The reformation journey continues today as people return to the Bible to let it speak for itself concerning love.
Dr. K.R. Allen; MA; Th.D
Resident Bible Scholar
Biblical Families Ministry
