To be truthful, I have never been quite convinced that polygamy is against the teachings of the Scriptures. Ringing time and time again were the words of my Old Testament Professor at CURF, Nathan Jastram (probably the best OT Guy I know), who said that the only thing stopping him from such a practice were the laws of the US and his vocation as Pastor (since the bible urges submission to authority and does say Pastors should be of but one wife).
The scriptures talk of several people of God with multiple wife without a word of rebuke. Some of these people are spoken of in glowing terms no doubt. I will admit that most of the cases ended up not being beneficial to the man engaged in such situations, but the lack of a direct rebuke has always left me wondering.
Today I had an epiphany smack dab in the middle of Pentecost (CAUTION: church year joke). Christ intends for each marriage to be a picture of his relationship to his people (see Ephesians 5). And yet from OT to the NT, when God the Father or God the Son talks about his bride, it is always a singular bride that is referred to. His bride is the collective singular, the church.  And why does this matter? Well Christ surely could have run the metaphor much more individually. Surely it is true that he in a sense weds himself to each of us through Baptism and the hearing of the word.  Our salvation is in a sense profoundly individual. And yet when God use the marriage metaphor to describe his love, he never uses the the plural. He never does say that he weds each of us, but always notes his marriage to the one bride, the church. For those of us who stubbornly (note sarcasm) hold to verbal inspiration of the scripture, is it not possible that the consistent use of the singular in the use of the marriage metaphor to speak of God’s relationship to his people is given for a reason, namely to note that marriage is intended to be between only one man and one woman.
For those of you who assume the bible speaks clearly against polygamy ( I would love to hear your exegesis), this is a long road to a conclusion you assume, but for those of us who always have wondered about this topic, perhaps it provides some clarity. That is my hope.
Actually, Phil, in the Catholic Epistles to Timothy, when Paul says that a priest must be a man of one wife, he is not saying one wife now, but one wife ever. If a priest were divorced, he would be laicized. If a priest’s wife died, then he was forbidden to marry again unless there were mitigating circumstances such as having young children who needed a mother’s care. Only with a bishop’s permission could that happen.
What Paul speaks of is still practiced in the EO Church. I have never understood how or why divorced pastors in the Lutheran Church still receive calls and congregations to their charge.
To address your main point, Phil, this is where the invented doctrine of sola scriptura falls flat. Prior to the time of Johnanes Gerhard, Lutheranism maintained a Catholic Principle, which was jettisoned here in the states when Lutheranism first arrived. The entire history of the Church has never, ever, ever condoned polygamy whether in its ranks of clergy or for the laity. There were early Christian sects that practiced polygamy and all were condemned by the Church and her Fathers.
I’m sorry Phil, but you are using the Bible only as a proof text. ANd it is far greater than that because you are never going to be able to “use” the Bible to defend or condemn many practices which occur in this secular society. The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
Actually Chris, that is debated in the Catholic epistles by the scholars (I know you suppose to always have the final answer to inform all others of), but anyways, I never meant or as far as I can tell said any different. The question was between monogamy and polygamy, not faithfulness and adultery, which is what remarriage is when the marriage is not end for biblical reasons…
On your second point (which was related to my post), EO tends to think they have records of all history and so can make statements lie “never, ever, ever, while in truth we have painfully few documents to establish such conclusive statements. That is where “tradition” as a norm falls flat, because the “tradition” spoken of is at least to some extent a creation of the present looking to the past.
And regardless, what about all the OT examples. Last I checked they were part of the church also, since Abraham is the father of all those who believe. Or does EO hold to dispensational baptist theology?
Phil,
Of course, the scholars of today know so much more and know better than our Holy Fathers among the saints! What I proffered was no opinion, but the consensus patrum of the Church. Why are they cast immediately aside? Because we know better and that way we can invent new doctrines or abrogate the faith which was handed down to us for nearly 2000 years for that which is more convenient or makes us spiritually apathetic. Ah, the legacy of the Reformation!
You honestly believe that documentation is the only way to establish the faith. Can God only be contained in words? Considering the Lutheran tendency, starting with Luther, to add the German word allein after every verse of Scripture, whether it was there in the Original Greek or not, the Catholic Prinicple has been jettisoned for that which can only be proved or disproven by Scripture. What a watered down faith! Tradition has maintained the faith, but it is a living thing which means it exists in the here and now, but it is not a creation of the here and now.
Forgive my acerbity.
Chris,
I agree with the interpretation of the fathers in this case. But not in all. They too have erred. I am learning to appreciate their importance to a good biblical hermenuetic and pondering their similar importance to true ecumenicism (see future post). I wish we had more contact with the Fathers in sem to be honest. I don’t think anyone cast them aside, but similarly I would entreat you to not suppose all modern scholars to be apostate pagans.
I know I will never have your breadth of knowledge due to many reasons (intelligence, diligence, station in life to name a few). And yet, I do not feel that that means that I must always yield to the conclusions you reach, although I do consider them with due respect to you as a fine scholar not to mention a friend.
The main problem I have with the “catholic” principle is that we have no real way in our day to establish a consensus of the Church. I long for the day of a catholic, universal church, council, but I fear our Lord’s return is more imminent that the next true gathering that seeks Christian consensus on any topic.
And while I still look to scripture alone as the rule and norm for faith and life, I do not suppose the interpretation of that scripture can be done without the guide of tradition and activity of the Spirit present in the Christian church of today.
You are forgiven. I usually don’t have to consult merriam-webster when offering forgiveness, but I like to know what I am forgiving.