Adam-Christ Typology (4)
In the last two issues of the News, we saw that “sentimentalists,” postmillennialists and some premillennialists reckon that on the last day the number of the saved will be greater than the number of the lost. However, neither Romans 5:15 nor anything else in that chapter lends any support to that view, whether that theory appeals to a false sentimentality with an erroneous view of children or false eschatologies with erroneous views of the millennium.
Romans 5:15 does not use a comparative regarding the number of people under the two covenant or federal heads, Adam and Christ. It does not state that the number of human beings in Christ will be “much more” than those who perish.
What does Romans 5:15 say? “But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.” It speaks of “many” being dead in Adam (15, 19) and of “many” being saved in Christ (15, 19). But neither the fifth chapter of Romans nor the fifteenth verse of this chapter compares the numbers “in” each covenant head or states that those united to Christ will be more numerous than those who perish everlastingly.
If you want a biblical comparison between the numbers of the saved and the lost, then read Matthew 7:13-14: “Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.” In contrasting the “many” who go to “destruction” (via the correspondingly “broad” way and the “wide” gate) to the “few” who go to “life” (via the correspondingly “narrow” way and the “strait” gate), our Lord Jesus Christ directly opposes the position of the “sentimentalists,” postmillennialists and some premillennialists.
The answer to the prophet Isaiah’s rhetorical question, “Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?” (53:1), is, of course, “relatively few.” This was also the case with Christ’s preaching during His earthly ministry (John 12:38), as well as with the apostle Paul’s proclamation of the gospel (Rom. 10:16). In Old Testament and New Testament days, in our day and in the future, only a minority of those who hear the preaching of God’s Word believe and are saved.
Joel 2:32, part of which was quoted in Peter’s sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:21), promises, “And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the Lord hath said, and in the remnant whom the Lord shall call.” Of those who hear the external call of the preaching of the gospel, only a “remnant” is inwardly and effectually called by God Himself, so that these people “call on the name of the Lord” and are “delivered” through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is no wonder that John Calvin writes so often and so forcefully of the church as God’s “remnant”! Rev. Stewart
Does Polygamy Have God’s Approval?
The question that we have chosen to answer in this issue of the News is this:
“It is said that polygamy is sin but—
- Didn’t God Himself identify as the husband of more than one wife (cf. Jer. 31:32; Eze. 23:1-4)?
- Didn’t God Himself give King David multiple wives (cf. II Sam. 12:8)?
- Didn’t God Himself regulate a man having more than one wife (cf. Ex. 21:10; Deut. 21:15-17)?
- Didn’t God Himself praise King Joash who had multiple wives (cf. II Chron. 24:2-3)?
- Didn’t God Himself praise King David who had multiple wives (cf. I Kings 15:5)?
Since those Old Testament days, God has not forbidden a man to have more than one wife. There seems to be an increase in the advocacy of polygamy among some who call themselves Christians. My questions (above) contain a number of their arguments.”
If it is true that the promotion of polygamy is on the increase among some professing Christians, it is a blot on the name of Christ, who has only one wife, and a further evidence of what Hosea says: “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge” (4:6). Modern Christendom is for the most part shallow and possesses little regard for the Word of God. Its approval of polygamy only serves to demonstrate that sad fact once again.
We have already written an article on polygamy in a previous issue of the News and do not want to repeat what we said there. That article can be found on-line (“Polygamy”). The questioner, however, brings up some new arguments and issues, and with those we will deal in this article one by one.
1) “Didn’t God Himself identify as the husband of more than one wife (cf. Jer. 31:32; Eze. 23:1-4)?” Very simply, the answer is “No” but let me explain. The fact of the matter is that God never recognized or approved the division between Israel and Judah, the Old Testament church (Acts 7:38), no more than He does the divisions and schisms in the New Testament church. There is but one church, one bride of Christ, both in the Old and New Testaments.
The use of Jeremiah 31:32 in defence of polygamy is unwarranted, therefore, and stretches the passage to its breaking point. There were two houses, the house of Israel and the house of Judah, but in God’s eyes they were one nation. The covenant of which God speaks, pictured as a marriage, was made not with two wives but with one—made when God “took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt.”
Ezekiel 23:1-4, rather than contradicting the right understanding of Jeremiah 31:32, actually supports it. The two women, Aholah and Aholibah, Israel and Judah, are described as the daughters of one mother! That mother must be the nation of Israel, the church of the Old Testament, and the two women are not two wives of God but the two daughters of His one wife. God is one and His covenant is one.
2) “Didn’t God Himself give King David multiple wives (cf. II Sam. 12:8)?” God, in His providence and sovereignty, “gave” David his numerous wives. God directs and controls all things. But God did not “give” David His wives as if it showed that He approves of such a thing. The rule for a king (and thus for all who were under the king) was “Neither shall he multiply wives to himself” (Deut. 17:17). This applies to the other examples of Old Testament kings as well, including Joash. Providence is not approbation. If it were, all the wickedness that comes to pass under His sovereign direction and control would have His approval.
It should be noted here that God’s giving something does not necessarily mean that He gives it with His blessing. He granted Israel the meat that they lusted after in the wilderness but He gave it in His anger, for “he gave them their request; but sent leanness into their soul” (Ps. 106:15). That He, in His providence, gave some men multiple wives often proved to be anything but a blessing, as in the case of Abraham, Jacob, David and Solomon. God’s will of decree, brought to pass in His providence, is not the same as His will of command.
3) “Didn’t God Himself regulate a man having more than one wife (cf. Ex. 21:10; Deut. 21:15-17)?” He did indeed but God’s regulating man’s sinful behaviour does not mean He approves of it. There are several examples of this in Scripture. God most certainly did not approve of Israel’s request for a king like the other nations (I Sam. 8:5-9). After all, they rejected God as their king with their evil request! Yet God Himself chose King Saul—the Lord’s anointed (10:1)!—and even set regulations for such a king, long before the son of Kish came on the scene (Deut. 17:14-20).
Another example is that of divorce. In Deuteronomy 24:1-4, God gave regulations for divorce but that does not mean He approves of it. As Jesus points out in Matthew 19:7-9, those Mosaic regulations were given only because some Israelites, in “the hardness of their hearts,” insisted on putting away their wives (8). Christ adds that “from the beginning it was not so” (8). His position is, “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (6), and that rule stands. Jehovah’s own attitude toward divorce is recorded in the strongest possible language in Malachi 2:16: “For the Lord, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away.” Thus the regulations are not a testimony to divine permissiveness but to the wickedness of men’s hearts. Regulation is not approbation.
4) “Didn’t God Himself praise King Joash who had multiple wives (cf. II Chron. 24:2-3)?” and 5) “Didn’t God Himself praise King David who had multiple wives (cf. I Kings 15:5)?” It is stretching a point beyond all warrant to say that God’s approval of a man is approval of everything he says and does. Joash, in fact, turned out to be godless and wicked (II Chron. 24:17-22), and II Chronicles 24:2-3 cannot be taken as God’s approval of his marrying more than one wife, nor as a blanket approval of all he did. Nothing he did was approved of God and his serving God during the days of Jehoiada was only a pretence. Not everything described (as in the case of Joash) is prescribed.
David is called a man after God’s heart (I Sam. 13:14; Acts 13:22), but that does not mean God approved of everything David did either. His adultery with Bathsheba and his murder of Uriah were most certainly not approved, and they even made him worthy of death (II Sam. 12:13). His sin of numbering the people brought evil on the whole nation and sacrifices had to be offered to atone for his sin (24:1-25). A person’s salvation is not approbation of everything he does.
The questioner ends his remarks with this statement: “Since those Old Testament days, God has never said a man may no longer have more than one wife.” This is a fundamentally flawed argument. If everything God did not explicitly condemn was, therefore, allowed, then such things as pornography, euthanasia, gender transitioning and paedophilia would all be permissible. Silence is not approbation.
This is an important principle in every area of life and especially in worship. What is called the regulative principle of worship is the rule that only what God explicitly commands is allowed in worship. This is a useful principle for the rest of our lives. Liberty is not licence. The fact that the Word does not specifically address a matter is not proof that we may do as we please. How much better off and more careful we would be if we were more concerned with what God commanded than with what He did not say.
The great argument against polygamy, however, is that Christian marriage is a picture of the glorious relationship between Christ and His church, and He has only one bride (Rev. 19:7-8). There will not be many marriage suppers of the Lamb for several wives, but one only and that only for those who have, by God’s grace, believed in Him and followed Him. Indeed, Christian marriage is the shadow, and the relationship between Christ and His bride (not brides) the everlasting reality. How shameful is that Christianity that claims His name, but by its views and behaviour makes a mockery of Him and His bride.
The kind of Christianity that argues for polygamy is the kind of shallow Christianity that is so characteristic of our day. Much more concerned with pleasing self than pleasing God, always looking for ways to be as much like the world as possible, and not willing to be different and distinctive, it is not the religion of the Bible. Permissive, tolerant of everything but the truth and holiness, it bears little resemblance to the Christianity of the apostles and the early church, and will come eventually under the terrible judgment of the thrice holy God. Rev. Ron Hanko
