• 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.

Meat Answering "It's Biblical but not for today"

PeteR

PeteR

Moderator
Staff member
Real Person
Male
With some frequency, we run into the rebuttal "I see it in (OT) Scripture, but I don't think it's for today" when discussing polygyny and Biblical marriage. I'm curious how others answer this with Scripture.

My approach is several verses from Psalm 119....

142: Your righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and Your Torah is truth. (If levirate marriage is righteousness... If Abraham, David, Jacob, et al were declared righteous.... )

160:. ..every one of Your righteous ordinances is everlasting. (Which of His ordinances is unrighteous? Ordinances of caring for first/second wife, ordinances of inheritance, etc..)

What are some other approaches?
 
I kinda take @Asforme&myhouse ’s approach and place the burden of proof on them for their statement... but I typically begin by telling them that I disagree. :)

“I don’t think that’s accurate, but go ahead and explain to me why you believe that’s the case?”

Then as they give each of the common reasons we all know so well, you can just take each argument apart brick by brick.
 
James 1:27. Pure religion has always been focused on how we judge and respond to His daughters. That hasn’t changed from the OT. In fact this passage specifically refers to the mentions in the OT.

Like Ps 146:7-9, Is 1:17,23, Ps 82:2-5, Micah 2:7-9, Zech 7:9,10, Jer. 5:28, Malachi 3:5, Job 22:9, Job 24, Job 29:13, Ps 68:5,6, Is 54:1-7, Ps 103, Jer 49:19
 
Asforme&myhouse said:
My response to that question is, why is it not for today and when did it change. They are claiming it changed, so they are the ones that have to make the case that it changed.
Click to expand...
Well, that’s an easy one for them: we got a new testament. So everything before that is declared invalid according to them and the New Testament does not speak about these things according to them. Why do I think we got a New Testament for then?
I didn’t see this approach to be quite effective but it might be the fault of my discussion skills.
 
Man@Home said:
Well, that’s an easy one for them: we got a new testament. So everything before that is declared invalid according to them and the New Testament does not speak about these things according to them. Why do I think we got a New Testament for then?
I didn’t see this approach to be quite effective but it might be the fault of my discussion skills.
Click to expand...
Haha. This is the most common argument i have heard followed by a "well God allowed it in the old testament like divorce but it was never his plan. I mean look at Adam and Eve. God didn't make Adam and Eve and Vanessa and Jenny now did he?"
 
Man@Home said:
Well, that’s an easy one for them: we got a new testament. So everything before that is declared invalid according to them and the New Testament does not speak about these things according to them. Why do I think we got a New Testament for then?
I didn’t see this approach to be quite effective but it might be the fault of my discussion skills.
Click to expand...
It’s simple really. By the law comes the knowledge of sin. The law tells us what sin is, according to Paul. Neither you nor I nor the pastor down the street decide what sin is and what is not sin. The authority to decide what is offensive to God, is God’s alone. Now show me where God changed His law in regards to having more than one wife.
 
Currently, when I get the "its not in the NT" argument I present historical evidence that it was practiced by NT Christians, and support it with with the references that do exist in the NT. After that my opponent will typically switch to the other form of "its not for today", meaning secular arguments about how it not egalitarian, is bad for women, etc, which can each be dealt with separately.
 
rustywest4 said:
I kinda take @Asforme&myhouse ’s approach and place the burden of proof on them for their statement... but I typically begin by telling them that I disagree. :)

“I don’t think that’s accurate, but go ahead and explain to me why you believe that’s the case?”

Then as they give each of the common reasons we all know so well, you can just take each argument apart brick by brick.
Click to expand...

Baller!

I don't usually get any reasoned arguments against poly IRL. The most resistance I got from another christian (in person)was my bible study leader told me he was just barely restraining himself from punching me in the face, which wasn't an argument. (btdubs he's a good brother, we got through it just fine)

If I ever did actually have someone say it isn't for today I'd bring up Isaiah 4:1 and be like "Naw ninja, the bible says polygamy is the future! Get excited!
 
Man@Home said:
Well, that’s an easy one for them: we got a new testament. So everything before that is declared invalid according to them and the New Testament does not speak about these things according to them. Why do I think we got a New Testament for then?
I didn’t see this approach to be quite effective but it might be the fault of my discussion skills.
Click to expand...
The answer to that is simply "where in the New Testament is this changed?"

When it comes to other matters, there are texts to refer to. For instance, when arguing that the food laws have been changed, people point to Peter's vision or certain statements from Paul. Such texts, even if they are using them incorrectly, are an argument from real verses in scripture, not just "the NT changes everything".

So simply ask them which verses in the NT tell us that the laws on marriage have been changed. Ask them for a statement by Jesus, or Paul, or another apostle, that says polygamy is now forbidden. If they say they're not sure but they know it's there, just say "find it later and tell me next week".
 
Another recent favorite of mine is the 1 Corinthians 12:12 passage tied to who is the Bride of Christ topic. Most will either land on a universal church bride, or a local New Testament church bride. Either way, a universal church bride is polygamous, and after the question of which local church is he returning for, specifically? Most start stuttering because there’s no way around the fact that the bride of Christ is polygynous. . . . . In the New Testament.
 
FollowingHim said:
The answer to that is simply "where in the New Testament is this changed?"

When it comes to other matters, there are texts to refer to. For instance, when arguing that the food laws have been changed, people point to Peter's vision or certain statements from Paul. Such texts, even if they are using them incorrectly, are an argument from real verses in scripture, not just "the NT changes everything".

So simply ask them which verses in the NT tell us that the laws on marriage have been changed. Ask them for a statement by Jesus, or Paul, or another apostle, that says polygamy is now forbidden. If they say they're not sure but they know it's there, just say "find it later and tell me next week".
Click to expand...
I had this conversation a few times. What I remember is that the people I spoke with referred to the statement of "Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother..." which was also used by Jesus. Another is the rules for elders (men of one wive, the "mia" topic). And of course that the culture had changed and poly was nowhere around at that time. And of course I can quote all verses, but now it is already fact that if I discuss a Biblical topic, it is already put in the light of poly...:D
Last week I had a conversation with my sister-in-law who mentioned Israel in a particular topic, and I replied "...and Juda" (referring to all 12 tribes), and she replied back "I know about that stuff with two wives, etc. but I don't want to go there because I don't know what to think of it and I don't have the answers". (was not my purpose at all) :p And she has actually studied at a Bible college.

Yesterday I visited a website of a dutch (Messianic) congregation and found an article about marriage and there the question was raised as well why poly was abandoned. Answer from one of the more well-know teachers was also referring to the same arguments that it was very, very clear that it was not biblical to do poly ("therefore a man...", the one-flesh arguments and the requirements for elders came along)...

So, I know, they don't have the arguments but for them the "the NT changed everything" is very real and (almost) non-discussable.
 
Man@Home said:
I had this conversation a few times. What I remember is that the people I spoke with referred to the statement of "Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother..." which was also used by Jesus. Another is the rules for elders (men of one wive, the "mia" topic). And of course that the culture had changed and poly was nowhere around at that time. And of course I can quote all verses, but now it is already fact that if I discuss a Biblical topic, it is already put in the light of poly...:D
Last week I had a conversation with my sister-in-law who mentioned Israel in a particular topic, and I replied "...and Juda" (referring to all 12 tribes), and she replied back "I know about that stuff with two wives, etc. but I don't want to go there because I don't know what to think of it and I don't have the answers". (was not my purpose at all) :p And she has actually studied at a Bible college.

Yesterday I visited a website of a dutch (Messianic) congregation and found an article about marriage and there the question was raised as well why poly was abandoned. Answer from one of the more well-know teachers was also referring to the same arguments that it was very, very clear that it was not biblical to do poly ("therefore a man...", the one-flesh arguments and the requirements for elders came along)...

So, I know, they don't have the arguments but for them the "the NT changed everything" is very real and (almost) non-discussable.
Click to expand...

Agreed

I think the only way to make them see it is to take them down the logic trail and topple their arguments one at a time. You have to make them admit each one is a fallacy. If you just argue generalities you will never get there.
 
Yes, that's the next step. Get them to raise the specifics that you mention, and then just keep asking about that specific. Probe it until it falls over and they switch to the next one, then repeat. All those specifics are extremely weak arguments (if anyone is unclear on how to answer one of them, do ask about that of course and someone can elaborate).
Obviously many people will not be willing to have that discussion, because they know they are unable to really back it up, or they'll figure that out partway through and bail.
 
FollowingHim said:
I've posted this elsewhere recently, but it's so hilariously relevant I can't help sharing it again.
Must-see movie.
Click to expand...
That’s exactly all they’ve got. When I had that conversation with my former pastor, we went through the entire Bible. As the conversation was ending, his final argument was “I just don’t think that’s what it means”. He might as well have said, it’s just the vibe of the whole thing.
 
Asforme&myhouse said:
It’s simple really. By the law comes the knowledge of sin. The law tells us what sin is, according to Paul. Neither you nor I nor the pastor down the street decide what sin is and what is not sin.
Click to expand...
I find this is one of my more common responses to the question, but it depends on the person I'm dealing with. If they say God never repeated the laws allowing for PM in the NT, I'll ask them if those moral laws which are given in the OT but not repeated in the NT are not applicable for us today (?) When they say yes, (which they have to or they shoot themselves in the foot), I ask them how can they oppose incest and bestiality since neither are commanded against in the NT. Depending upon the answer they give will set the direction for the conversation from that point but I reiterate that we can only know what is sin and what is not by God's law. We answer to Him for all we do so we ought to be sure of His defining of what is sin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top