Well, I have to say, that was one of the most interesting conversations I have had, with regard to this topic of polygamy. This man, we'll call him Mr H, started off the conversation asking me to define sin. He prefaced it by saying he thought long and hard about what angle to pursue, and I responded by saying that this is a very deep topic and we may not be able to cover everything in one setting. He asked me about my schedule, and I told him that I had some flexibility, so our lunch went over an hour, but I informed him that my wife will want me to leave work at a certain time, so I had to factor that in. Things are slow here at the office, because of the holidays.
Well, I told him that the definition given in the Word of God, for sin, is the only definition that matters, because we will all stand before Him on the Day of Judgment. He didn't know where I was going with that, so I recited Rom 7:7. He had his laptop there with him so he could look it up. Well, that was not a definition he was looking for, so he labored to try to turn the conversation into a definition that he thought that he could work with. You can imagine how that turned out! First, Mr. H went to the greatest commandments, because of course Jesus said that on that one and the second greatest commandment, hang all the Law and the Prophets. I was not sure where he was going with that, so I interjected and told him that I have had conversations with people online, essentially saying that while there is nothing wrong with polygamy per se, because we are under the Law of Love, we do not force poly onto our wives.
Of course that didn't deter him. He kept trying to find a way to argue that something could be sin, if it violates the Spirit of the Law. He also brought up the Rich Young Ruler (RYR). He kept trying to pry into why such and such was wrong, such as why Jesus told the RYR that he had to sell all his possessions and give to the poor, and such. He thought, for some reason, that Jesus had told the RYR the greatest and second greatest commands, which I corrected him on. His definition of sin, is "missing the mark", and he tried to work in, that the goal of the law, was to make us have the character of God, since those commands were what the RYR said that he had observed. I was painstaking to watch him try to make his point, but I just sat there, trying to enjoy my meal.
We went back and forth over this RYR story. I guess he wanted the story to be about the RYR's imperfection, and I pointed out that the RYR could not even keep the first commandment. He tried to say that the RYR was trying to claim that he had the character of God! I responded by telling him that the RYR's only concern, was inheriting eternal life, and having the character of God, was of no concern to him whatsoever! I mean, of course keeping the whole Law is in concert with having the character of God, but the RYR had no intention of making such a claim.
He employed a couple of faulty analogies, involving his children, and my little boy, and I called him out on that. The first was "Go clean your room". The second analogy he tried to employ, was "Don't go play out on MoPac", which is a well known Freeway/Blvd here in Austin. I didn't say anything about the first analogy, because he really wasn't going anywhere with that one, but I told him that I had informed my little boy why he should not play out in the street. I found it funny that he would use "MoPac", because I have never told my son not to play on MoPac. Basically I reiterated what I had said in our email exchanges, that I don't speculate as to why God says what we should or should not do. When God's Word reveals that to us, we can trust His Word, but when it does not, and we start to speculate, we add to His Word. I said that my son will ask "Why, why, why" all day, if I let him. I could answer one "why", and he will have a "why" to that "why", and so sometimes, I just have to say, "Because I said so!"
I pretty much allowed him to steer the conversation, confident that no matter where he steered it, he was going to have a hard time making the Scripture say what it does not say. His point of attack seemed to be, that even though Scripture does not tell us not to do such, we can still define some things as sin, which pretty much goes against Rom 7:7. So with him deciding how to steer the conversation, he steered it right into the Garden of Eden! That was awesome! I pointed out that the first thing Satan did, was ask Eve if God had said not to eat from any tree in the Garden, which God clearly had not said. Eve's response was likewise outside the parameters God had set up. He debated me on that. I told Mr H, that when God asked about their sin, He clearly asked, "Did you EAT of the tree", and did not ask whether they had touched it. So while we agreed that it is a good idea to not touch the fruit, we disagreed on whether it was SIN to do so. I pointed out Prov 30:5-6, where it says that we are not to add to His Word, lest He reprove you, and you be found a liar.
That clearly was not the direction that he wanted the conversation to go, so he brought up Genesis 1, where God said that it was good. Then he tried to tie it together with God making man in his own image. He asked about why there is no marriage in heaven. I said that God will be our provider. He had another explanation, and it was what he tried to elude to in the email exchange that we had. Well, we had gone over the amount of time, and I had to cut things short, because we could have gone all afternoon, but I already explained in our email exchange that God tells us the purpose of marriage, in Malachi, that it was to raise godly offspring. He seems to think that the reason for marriage, is to portray God's marriage to Israel, and Christ's marriage to the church, which you won't find that anywhere in Scripture, but that is the reason, Mr. H supposes that there will not be any marriage in heaven.
I did throw him off by telling Him that God portrayed Himself as the husband of two women. He didn't believe me, until I told him about Ahola and Aholiba. His response was that they were not supposed to be two, and in the end, they are only one. I mentioned also that the Gentiles are a people that were not His people, but now are, and his response was that they were grafted into the vine. I came back with the fact that in polygamy, it is ONE family with many wives.
He brought up the Sermon on the Mount, and I had fun explaining to him the wording of Matt 5:28. He brought up covetousness, and that we are not to covet anything that is our neighbor's. He said that it would be wrong for him to covet my drink. That got me nervous, so I grabbed my drink, and drank it.
He tried to say that it was wrong to covet your neighbor's daughter! I said that if that were wrong, you committed adultery when you looked at your wife, and I did too, not only when I looked at my wife, but EVERY woman I ever desired, forget about the women I desired AFTER I got married. If that is what Jesus was saying, then every time I ever desired to have a woman, that was adultery! He tried to use the word "lust", and that was the one time I most wanted to recall where that word was used, where the translators chose the word "desire" when Jesus said it was something He desired, but I was working completely from memory. I could have looked it up, but I chose not to.
Mr H. tried to make the claim, that since I cannot marry a woman, due to the laws against polygamy, it is adultery to desire a woman that I cannot legally ever have! I told him that the only One who has the authority to declare who is married, is God Himself. His point was that we should obey the laws of man, except where it conflicts with the Laws of God. I had to abruptly end the session, but told him that we should meet again. I did not point out instances where the laws of man conflict with the laws of God, such as in divorce and remarriage or Levirate marriage, because neither of those apply to me, but if and when we do meet again, I will go over that verse about submission to the authorities, because that was in fact the position that St. Augustine held, that as long as polygamy is legal, it is acceptable. The real question is whether it should be legal, but again, I am not concerned so much with having a legally recognized marriage. I can have a wife, who may not be considered a wife in the eyes of the civil authorities. It would take a long time to get into how the US Government suppressed the Mormon Church into rejecting polygamy, and the violations of the Constitution that they engaged in, in order to do so.
There are a few other details I am leaving out, but I don't have time to include everything in our conversation, but if Mr. H feels so inclined, I think everyone would love to hear his perspective on how that conversation went. I will invite him to participate in this dialogue, and see if he accepts.
