Does the Old Testament condone polygamy through instances of it in the lives of men like Abraham, Solomon, and David?
The answer is: "No," it does not.
The Old Testament and the New Testament are pretty straight forward on the structure of a relationship; it needs to be a covenantal marriage between one man and one woman (Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:5; Eph. 5:31). The Old Testament is even more direct with Solomon, when God previously prohibits the kings of Israel from "multiplying wives" for themselves (Deut. 17:17). We can also follow along the story of Abraham to see that he indeed departed from the will of God's plan when he disregarded the promise of a future Isaac, and took up Hagar as his wife to birth Ishmael. Even further, the New Testament not only reiterates this, but it reinforces this truth through Jesus' own words (see past NT references), and through the requirements of a church pastor, who must be the husband of "one wife" (1 Tim. 3:2).
Concerning the acts of polygamy in the OT, this is actually a beautiful thing about the Bible: it doesn't embellish or exaggerate the accounts of holy men of God. Rather, it shows them as the sinners they are. Even Abraham sinned. The Old Testament only record these sins without ever condoning them. In actually, it blatantly opposes them, and shows the characters as they really are: humans in need of a Savior.
Posts
12 comments:
The question could be rephrased as such: "Does the Old Testament condone marriage through instances of it in the lives of men like Abraham, Solomon, and David?", because that is what polygyny was, and is...marriage.
We can infer many things from the examples of men of God as they are portrayed in Scripture, but to condemn them as sinners for something that is not biblically sinful is at best simply error and at worst false teaching. This is succumbing to the sin of Eden, and determining for ourselves (leaning on our own understanding) what is good and evil, rather than relying on God's Holy Word.
The examples you provide only work if you begin from relatively recent, secular presuppositions and then view scripture through that distorted, ungodly lens. Allow scripture to shape your theology, rather than the other way around.
Admin-
Thank you for your insight, but I couldn't disagree with you more.
Your rephrasing of the question distorts the original assertion by bringing up marriage; indeed, marriage is an entirely different topic unto itself. The issue being discussed is not marriage, but whether polygamy is sinnful, and I have supplied enough references entirely from Scripture to make this case to a large extent. I do not see where you came up with "relatively recent, secular presuppositions" that were viewed through a "distorted, ungodly lens" in my original post. Please show me where I have used anything in my orginal post that wasn't from Scripture.
It seems to me that I have relied on Gods Word to come to my conclusions, so now the burden of proof is upon you to furnish a contrary teaching using the Word of God, and to give evidence for your assertion that polygamy is "not biblically sinful" (not to mention your claim that I am a false teacher). Big claims require big evidence.
I think you will be hard-pressed in this, but I welcome you to do such if you feel so strongly.
I certainly would give you the benefit of the doubt, and suggest that you are simply in error. Rest assured, you are in the majority in this regard.
And to answer the original question, yes polygamy (marriage) is condoned by God's Law-Word.
It cannot be stated strongly enough that you must allow the Bible to define the terms, and not Websters dictionary, or popular opinion, or even US law. It is a game of semantics you play when you claim that a discussion of the sinfulness of polygyny is an entirely different matter from marriage when the terms are synynomous. You won't find polygamy mentioned, as such, anywhere in the Bible because it simply a form of marriage, and marriage you will find mentioned all over the place in Scripture, in the form of monogamy and polygymy. This cannot be stated any more plainly. Therefore, the rephrasing of the question is entirely appropriate, and was done to illustrate the error of your reply. I simply used a synonym to make the point.
The presuppositions I speak of are those that you are obviously operating from: that polygamy is sinful, when you have no solid evidence of this from Scripture. This is primarily a secular perspective and one that is historically recent, and thus is an ungodly perspective. This was not part of the Hebrew mindset whatsoever, which is attested to by those men of God mentioned in the question who had a plurality of wives.
Briefly, you take two examples of polygamy being restricted, the king (Solomon) multiplying FOREIGN wives unto himself, and the requirement of a bishop or deacon to be the the husband of one wife, and attempt to set them up as the standard, and failing to recognize them for what they are: exceptions.
We have studied, researched and written on this particular topic for years, so I am not so inclined to repeat it all here, and will simply point you to a blog post my wife wrote on this a while back. Enjoy.
http://www.christian-polygamy.com/if-polygamy-%20was-sin/
One last thing that I feel compelled to say before I move on to other things this evening:
Who are we, so arrogant and proud, that we feel justified in judging these men of God as sinners for polygyny?
"Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee." Jude 1:9
The Lord rebuked none of these men for polygyny, so who are we (other than those who define our own terms and lean unto our own understanding) to do so?
Admin-
As I stated earlier, I made no references to polygamy from any outside source but the Bible. You are assuming my conclusions are being drawn from a dictionary.
It seems that the roadblock in this conversation is due in part to your definition of marriage. That's largely in part why I am able to address polygamy apart from marriage, and you are not. Genesis is rather clear on what marriage is from the beginning (which I'm sure you're familiar with), when it describes a man clinging to a wife (Gen. 2:18). One would be guilty of eisegesis if they then inserted the plural wives into the text. God was very clear from the opening book. Jesus reiterates the same truth by quoting it.
Now, after reading your blog, I can tell that you are very fervent in your belief. It also appears by your usage of Scriptures on your blog that you have stumbled into the practice of eisegesis, a faulty method of interpretation that seeks to insert meaning into the text rather than pull the meaning out. Your uses of Isaiah 4:1 and Hebrews 13:4 do absolutely nothing to bolster the case for polygamy being Biblically sound. Furthermore, your explanation of Ezekiel 23 incorrectly necessitates that the two daughters are God's wives, when actually the two daughters are a part of the larger entity: the nation of Israel.
While you may feel compelled to eisegete the straightforward reading of Genesis 2:18 in your response, will you also be able to so easily ignore the clear implications of God's "marriage" being illustrated throughout the Bible to Israel(a singular entity), or Jesus to the Church(a singular entity)? Remember, that is what an earthly marriage is pointing to in the first place.
Consider the Old Testament's strong stance on this:
For thy Maker is thine husband; the LORD of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called -Is. 54:5
And I will betroth thee unto me for ever; yea, I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in lovingkindness, and in mercies. I will even betroth thee unto me in faithfulness: and thou shalt know the LORD. -Hos. 19:20
They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man's, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted? but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith the LORD. -Jer. 3:1
You see, the perception of a holy marriage is susceptible to distortion when it is viewed as an independent venture for its own purpose, and not a picture of God's greater purpose. The burden of proof is upon you to show contrary to the clear implications of Scripture that polygamy is indeed God-ordained, and your strongest point so far has been in referring to the occasions recorded in the Bible where it did happen by men. This is not furnishing Scripture, this is a simple case of "They did it, so why can't we?"
We are obviously free to blog about our opinions, whatever they may be, but mine has been exceedingly unconvinced by your case thus far.
To answer your following post, I do not believe I am judging others. I believe that Scripture judges us, and to patiently voice what Scripture says is not ill, especially when directed towards a believer (1 Cor 5). It it in fact, mandatory to call out sin in the congregation. And even those men of God were sinners by God's standards (Is. 64:6). That's why we need Jesus Christ, God in the flesh to save us from our sins.
I hope the blog world doesn't exaggerate our dialog into harsh feelings, because I have nothing against you, and appreciate that you took the time to post on my blog. But your case for polygamy doesn't hold much water, and it definitely doesn't hold much Scripture.
Let's start with the last part of your previous post:
You said:
"To answer your following post, I do not believe I am judging others. I believe that Scripture judges us, and to patiently voice what Scripture says is not ill, especially when directed towards a believer (1 Cor 5)."
It was a rhetorical question, but since you answered it let me say the following. I would agree that God's Law-Word should be the standard that judges, and that we are not to rely on anything based upon our own understanding, but so often this turns out to not be the case. I can say, for example, with all confidence and without fear of becoming the judge (determining for myself what is good and evil), that homosexuality is an abomination, because God's Law-Word declares it to be, plainly. There is no mystery there. I didn’t determine it, I didn’t make the judgment, I simply accept it as valid, because it is God’s Law-Word.
Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
In a similar fashion, I can say the same about witchcraft, usury, idolatry (spiritual adultery- think Ezekiel 23) and so on. I have plain biblical proof of such judgments, plain evidence of these violations of God's Law-Word.
The burden of proof is upon you to prove that polygamy is a sin. Polygamy is something that is so plain and obvious in Scripture that questions like "Does the Old Testament condone polygamy through instances of it in the lives of men like Abraham, Solomon, and David?" are rather common. Why? Because the evidence of Scripture is contrary to current Church doctrine, contrary to what people such as yourself teach (be extra careful as a teacher) and people want to know why that is the case.
I ask you now, what Scripture do you use to judge certain men of the Bible to be sinners for having a plurality of wives? You gave several verses as evidence of monogamy being the ideal, but as I am about to show you, none of them are really relevant to the question. As Paul said (and I’ll repeat this I’m sure) “…Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.” Rom 7:7 What law did these men of break?
Back to the beginning: Yea, it goes without saying that we are at a roadblock in defining our terms.
While you have not referenced or provided a biblical definition of polygyny, your operating definition is rather clear. To you, it is sinful. I must assume that your conclusions are being drawn from a combination of apostate Church doctrine, Western culture and US law, all of which currently forbid the form of marriage known as polygyny. Then, through this distorted perception, you attempt to interpret Scripture in accordance with your presuppositions. Why would I assume this? Because of your inability or unwillingness to accept the plain and obvious fact that righteous men had a plurality of wives and that it was not sinful according to the biblical record. The sins these men committed are known to us, and polygyny isn't one of them. Again, you judge them as sinners where God's Law-Word has not, and again I ask: What sin is it exactly that you judge Abraham, Solomon, and David to be guilty of committing? Again, what Law did they break ?
Anyway, let's go back and examine your answer to the question "Does the Old Testament condone polygamy through instances of it in the lives of men like Abraham, Solomon, and David?"
You say:
"The answer is: "No," it does not.
The Old Testament and the New Testament are pretty straight forward on the structure of a relationship; it needs to be a covenantal marriage between one man and one woman (Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:5; Eph. 5:31). The Old Testament is even more direct with Solomon, when God previously prohibits the kings of Israel from "multiplying wives" for themselves (Deut. 17:17). We can also follow along the story of Abraham to see that he indeed departed from the will of God's plan when he disregarded the promise of a future Isaac, and took up Hagar as his wife to birth Ishmael. Even further, the New Testament not only reiterates this, but it reinforces this truth through Jesus' own words (see past NT references), and through the requirements of a church pastor, who must be the husband of "one wife" (1 Tim. 3:2)."
This is an incorrect answer and can only be arrived at by ignoring some things and incorrectly extrapolating from others, and also by doing a fair bit of spiritualizing it seems. When we favor the spiritual aspects of Scripture and ignore the practical we express a neoplatonist paradigm that says the spiritual is of a higher plane than the physical. Let us not forget that the Bible is ultimately practical.
You said:
"The Old Testament and the New Testament are pretty straight forward on the structure of a relationship; it needs to be a covenantal marriage between one man and one woman (Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:5; Eph. 5:31)."
1. Gen 2:24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
I dislike throwing around terms like eisegesis for a couple of reasons- it seems like it's a new term you just learned and are itching to apply at every opportunity- but honestly, if anyone is inserting meaning into Genesis 2:24 it would certainly not be me, because I never claimed that Genesis 2:24 teaches plural marriage. Regardless, to assume that the intention of Genesis 2:24 is to teach the structure of a relationship (monogamy) is to employ a false hermeneutic, especially obvious in light of the very next verse, which would then teach us that this monogamous couple should be nude. Good luck with that.
Quite obviously, none of the polygamous patriarchs of the Old Testament failed to cleave to their wives, ie divorced them, and neither did they fail to consummate the marriages, ie. become one flesh with their wives.
2. Mat 19:5 and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh'?
Here, Jesus is being questioned (tested) by the Pharisees concerning divorce- those Pharisees were always devising ways to try to prove Christ to be inconsistent. Consistency is crucial. Divorce is the context, and has no bearing whatsoever on polygyny as a biblically valid form of marriage. To say that Jesus is reinforcing monogamy in this context would indeed be eisegesis…it simply isn't there. Absolutely, from the beginning a man is required to cleave unto his wife, as Genesis 2:24 states, but your presuppositions disallow the possibility that a man could do so with more than one wife. Mine do not, and Scripture backs me up on this with a number of real life, practical examples, as well as God's Law.
Incidentally, this would have been an ideal time for Jesus to say something like "and since you mention it, you need to stop sinning by taking more than one wife, because from the beginning this is not how I intended it to be. Didn't you people ever read Genesis 2:24?!….Well, knock it off because it's a sin, even though I never told you that before, and even though I put into my Law-Word rules that regulated it (for the economic protection of women), and made it a requirement at times" Ridiculous. I think one of the great things about God's Law-Word is that it doesn't leave us in the dark about what sin is, unlike those other 'gods' of antiquity…you just never quite knew what they wanted.
3. Eph 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
Please also note the next verse: "Eph 5:32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church." For the sake of time I'll just quote Barnes commentary on this one. "There is no evidence that the marriage connection was originally designed to symbolize or typify this union, but it may be used to illustrate that connection, and to show the strength of the attachment between the Redeemer and his people. The comparison should be confined, however, strictly to the use made of it in the New Testament."
4. To say that Abraham departed from the will of God is to assume that anyone can depart from the will of God, which I do not hold to be possible. Everything happens for a reason, and that reason is because it is the will of God. The characteristics of God that we know from Scripture are that he is omniscient and omnipotent. You cannot hold these things to be true and still consider the possibility that people can act outside the will of God. Not a single blade of grass withers without His consent, not a minute speck of dust swirls in the air outside of His patterns and predestined course, and not a single action of man can run contrary to His plan. The truth is that, according to scripture, God had a plan for Ishmael also.
Gen 21:18 Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in thine hand; for I will make him a great nation.
Everyone is part of the grand design, including the wicked. It's a hard pill for some people to swallow I know, especially those in the business of "saving" lost souls, but not everyone was created to be "saved.” If you don't believe me, ask Pharaoh.
Pro 16:4 The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.
5. You mention Solomon and Deuteronomy 17:17:
Deu 17:17 And he shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold.
And please consider (1Ki 11:1-6 ESV).
"Now King Solomon loved many foreign women, along with the daughter of Pharaoh: Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Sidonian, and Hittite women, from the nations concerning which the LORD had said to the people of Israel, "You shall not enter into marriage with them, neither shall they with you, for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods." Solomon clung to these in love. He had 700 wives, princesses, and 300 concubines. And his wives turned away his heart. For when Solomon was old his wives turned away his heart after other gods, and his heart was not wholly true to the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father. For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites. So Solomon did what was evil in the sight of the LORD and did not wholly follow the LORD, as David his father had done. "
Finally, you reference 1 Tim. 3:2 (and I would include Tit 1:6 while you're at it) as evidence of (if I followed you correctly) the New Testaments reinforcement of monogamy as the "structure of a relationship." This is a very common mistake, which I already addressed, but will repeat here.
You take the requirement of a bishop to be the husband of one wife and attempt to establish that as yet another example of the ideal of monogamy… and fail to recognize them for what they are: exceptions. Why would an exception need to be voiced if it was in fact the norm?
If you wish to discuss those things mention on Christian-polygamy.com, then please go there and do so. I won't address those things here because it would take away from the original question in this conversation.
Briefly however, to give you an example of Ezekiel 23, I offer the following:
Aholah = Israel (10 tribes) Aholibah= Judah (2 tribes)
They were two sisters, representing Israel as a whole (so they were not part of a “greater entity” but they WERE the “greater entity”), and they committed spiritual adultery. I guess even you have to agree that there can be no adultery without there being marriage first, and the LORD says “they were mine and they bore many children”. He talks about Israel using the imagery of marriage, with Himself as the husband of two adulterous wives.
If you want me to elaborate on this, or on the prophecy of Isaiah 4:1 for that matter, please comment on our blog post and I will answer you there instead of muddying the waters here any further. It seems to be difficult enough to arrive at fundamental definitions.
Now let me add one last thing with reference to your original answer to the question posed to you. The question was “Does the Old Testament condone polygamy through instances of it in the lives of men like Abraham, Solomon and David”, and your answer is: “The Old Testament only record these sins without ever condoning them.” As I said before, you are yet to point out the verses in Scripture that actually condemn polygyny as sin, therefore, for the time being, this is your judgment alone and not God’s. Second, Scripture nowhere records sin without explicitly condemning it as sin. How would we know it’s sin? As Paul said: “… I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.” Rom 7:7
Again, like I mentioned before, the LORD is gracious enough to tell us exactly what He expects from us and not leave us in the dark about how to worship Him, or how to show Him that we love Him, or how to act in order to please Him and fulfill His plan for us. So if the Old Testament only records polygamy without condemning it, there is no reason for us to condemn it either. I find it to be rather funny that you would claim that having an example of godly behavior in the bible doesn’t mean that we should emulate it… Should it not be rather: “They did it, so why don’t we?”
If it is too difficult for you after all this to simply agree that you were wrong, I can understand that. I am not writing any of this to convince you or change your opinion anyway, but for anyone who might in the future stumble across this blog and read what is said about polygyny. If anyone is genuinely interested in dividing the truth, he at least finds both sides of the argument and can decide for himself what he finds to be biblical and therefore convincing.
The opinions of the blogosphere are irrelevant to me, and I enjoy the dialog and the opportunity to ponder such things, and to dig deeper into Scripture…emotion is not a factor.
And sorry for posting from another account, I wasn't paying attention. ;-)
Heh heh. Ok, so I lay out the case for why your Biblical case for polygamy is unsupported by Scripture, and then tell you that the burden of proof is on you to prove that marriage and polygamy are synonymous, and instead you reply with a classic "nuh-uh, the burden of proof is on YOU!!" type of an answer.
But you do try a little bit, so I will give you kudos. But kudos will not make you correct. Let's examine a few things you mentioned (your points in bold):
Polygamy is something that is so plain and obvious in Scripture that questions like "Does the Old Testament condone polygamy through instances of it in the lives of men like Abraham, Solomon, and David?" are rather common. Why? Because the evidence of Scripture is contrary to current Church doctrine, contrary to what people such as yourself teach (be extra careful as a teacher) and people want to know why that is the case.
Your reasoning is faulty. By your line of reason, you could also make the argument that the Bible never plainly and obviously condemns slavery which a lot of godly people practiced, and so therefore it must be godly. Of course, I would argue that you there is enough indirect evidence to show that slavery is wrong (I won't do it here, to avoid a tangent, but I can if you really want it).
I'm not quite sure where you were going with the reference to Romans 7:7 and Paul not knowing sin except through the Law. Uh...I agree? But I will answer this question:
I ask you now, what Scripture do you use to judge certain men of the Bible to be sinners for having a plurality of wives?
I suspect that you are trying to fish from me a blatant, obvious quote from God that says: "THOU SHALT NOT HAVE A PLURALITY OF WIVES OR BE POLYGAMISTS!" But I mentioned in a previous response that the Scriptures given by Jesus referring to Genesis are as blatant as you can get, and they are not alone in that testimony. If we don't see eye to eye on that passage, then we probably aren't going to see eye to eye on other passages, and we aren't going to see eye to eye at all:) That's ok with me, I'm just answering your blog comments honestly. But since the "Two becoming one flesh" passage has come up a couple times, let's deal with that right now since this is the clearest/best example....
In Matthew 19:5, Jesus quotes Genesis: For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.
Earlier, I think you referenced how it did not say they will become "one," but rather, they will become "one flesh." Somehow this strengthened your case, but I'm not sure how. It doesn't matter, because the command that leads me to believe that polygamy is out of God's plan is not the word "one flesh," but the word "wife." As I am reading my Greek New Testament, here is what it says transliterated exactly (with the English word beside it):
"...kai (and) proskallao (be joined/shall cleave) autos (to his) gunaiki (wife)."
So here we have a single man (anthropos) clinging to a SINGLE woman (gune). Now, I'm not sure how much Greek you know. It's a difficult language, and I don't confess to know it intimately, but I have studied enough Koine Greek to know that Jesus Himself refered to a SINGLE woman as a wife. If Jesus had no problems, He could have simply threw in the plural form of "wife," which would be "gunaixin." But He did not. He says "gunaiki," using the very exacting nature of the Greek language to refer to a single wife who is the indirect object of the phrase. There is no confusion about the words Jesus used.
Now... contrary to what you believe, I take that as a DIRECT COMMAND from Jesus that the design of God from the very beginning (indeed, this was taken from Genesis) has been for a single male to wed a single female, without a plurality of either. You say to search the Scriptures and not lean on my own understanding? I have done that to the farthest degree on this issue. That is why seeing instances of godly men practice polygamy will not slightly phase me, because to do so in spite of the clear reading of Scripture and then to reason my own will contrary to that Scripture would be leaning on my own understanding. Furthermore, Jesus already explained that those people were ALLOWED certain things for a season, not because God approved, but because of their hardness of heart. Afterall, this is the context of the entire chapter: people trying to justify divorce because they were able to get away with it through Moses.
While you have not referenced or provided a biblical definition of polygyny, your operating definition is rather clear. To you, it is sinful.
I just did, going a step further by giving the Biblical parameters without the restraints of a translated language. If you still don't see Biblical reasons, it's because your not reading them. And yes, to answer your question, it is sinful to me, as well. Sin is sin.
I must assume that your conclusions are being drawn from a combination of apostate Church doctrine, Western culture and US law, all of which currently forbid the form of marriage known as polygyny
Don't assume anything. I don't have a TV, I don't get the news paper, and I have no idea what the law of the state says about polygamy. Everything I now know about secular media and polygamy has come from you. Thanks.
Why would I assume this? Because of your inability or unwillingness to accept the plain and obvious fact that righteous men had a plurality of wives and that it was not sinful according to the biblical record
I have explained well the case against polygamy, and believe that it is absurd to think of the Biblical record as "unclear." Like I said already, marriage is spoken of as a covenant between a single man and a singe woman. This is CLEARLY, I say again, CLEARLY taught in the specific words that Jesus used, in the specific words that Moses used, and in the clear illustration of Jesus' own relationship to a SINGLE Church, which is called His "Bride," not "brides." I do not know how you are missing these things. It seems to me that you are very comfortable with the thought of having more than one wife, and refuse to see what is ALREADY laid down in Scripture, wishing only that it were to just state: "Hey Admin, I don't like polygamy, ok?" The fact that you keep referring to godly men who were polygamists as your one justification in Scripture is made short work of by Paul who states that "There is none righteous, no, not one" (Rom. 3:10).
I dislike throwing around terms like eisegesis for a couple of reasons- it seems like it's a new term you just learned and are itching to apply at every opportunity
I do like the term eisegesis (and I have no idea how when I learned the meaning of the word disqualifies it's use), because it's easier to say than "When you read this meaning into the text that was never there nor implied by context..." But since you dislike the term, I will try to rephrase it. But can we please leave these kinds of comments out? They do nothing for the sake of the discussion.
To assume that the intention of Genesis 2:24 is to teach the structure of a relationship (monogamy) is to employ a false hermeneutic, especially obvious in light of the very next verse, which would then teach us that this monogamous couple should be nude. Good luck with that.
My hermeneutic was borrowed from Jesus who used the same passage to further expound on a relationship. And couples have appropriate times to be nude, which garners no shame.
Speaking of Matthew 19, I'm glad I finally made it to that section in your excerpt. You said that,
To say that Jesus is reinforcing monogamy in this context would indeed be eisegesis…it simply isn't there.
You're half right, and half wrong (This seems to be a trend). Jesus was not specifically addressing monogamy because that wasn't the point, but He can be heard indirectly referring to it. If I specifically tell you that I believe Jesus is God (John 1:1), and that there is only one God (Deut. 6:4), then I am also implying that I believe in the doctrine of the Trinity.
Incidentally, this would have been an ideal time for Jesus to say something like "and since you mention it, you need to stop sinning by taking more than one wife, because from the beginning this is not how I intended it to be. Didn't you people ever read Genesis 2:24?!….Well, knock it off because it's a sin, even though I never told you that before, and even though I put into my Law-Word rules that regulated it (for the economic protection of women), and made it a requirement at times"
It would also have been an ideal time for Jesus to use the plural form of "wife" which is "gunai-xin" to allow all of those irritating monogamists see the clear teaching of Scripture. And considering "gune" is much smaller and easier to say than that previous paragraph you shared, it seems like "gunai-xin" would have been the way to go if Jesus was hip to polygamy.
Please also note the next verse: "Eph 5:32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church." For the sake of time I'll just quote Barnes commentary on this one. "There is no evidence that the marriage connection was originally designed to symbolize or typify this union, but it may be used to illustrate that connection, and to show the strength of the attachment between the Redeemer and his people. The comparison should be confined, however, strictly to the use made of it in the New Testament."
Hmm...now would THIS be a usage of extra-biblical sources and leaning on ones own understanding? My Bible doesn't have Barnes Notes...
To say that Abraham departed from the will of God is to assume that anyone can depart from the will of God, which I do not hold to be possible. Everything happens for a reason, and that reason is because it is the will of God. The characteristics of God that we know from Scripture are that he is omniscient and omnipotent. You cannot hold these things to be true and still consider the possibility that people can act outside the will of God. Not a single blade of grass withers without His consent, not a minute speck of dust swirls in the air outside of His patterns and predestined course, and not a single action of man can run contrary to His plan. The truth is that, according to scripture, God had a plan for Ishmael also.
I agree with almost everything you said here relating to God's will, all the way down to your point about Ishmael. But I do not agree that it follows that Abraham (or anybody) was unable to sin. I'm not sure if that is what you were implying, but I wanted to clarify. And if Abraham is able to sin, it is difficult for me to believe the case that is made for polygamy based on a godly man practicing it. Only Jesus actions are perfect and free from error.
(Concerning your integration of 1 Kings 11:1-6 with Deut. 17:17)
I'm not sure, but it seems that you are arguing in light of 1 Kings, that the reason the multiplying of wives was wrong for Solomon, was because the end result was that his heart was turned away from God, therefore it is wrong for a king to chase after FOREIGN wives. Is this correct?
It is true that God was most concerned with Solomon's heart, but it doesn't not erase the clear command for the kings not to multiply wives. However you want to understand 1 Kings and Solomon, Deuteronomy came first, and the original command therein.
Finally, you address my reference to a NT bishop:
You take the requirement of a bishop to be the husband of one wife and attempt to establish that as yet another example of the ideal of monogamy… and fail to recognize them for what they are: exceptions. Why would an exception need to be voiced if it was in fact the norm?
I can see that my clearest explanations of other Scriptures are translated differently by you, so I see no need to attempt to clarify this one. But I want to answer your question at the end of your paragraph: ...fail to recognize them for what they are: exceptions. Why would an exception need to be voiced if it was in fact the norm? Sin is the norm of humanity. Why would God take so much space in the Bible to address it unless it was an exception? I know, I know, because Scripture clearly teaches that God hates sin....
Do you see where we hit the fork in the road? What you see is not what I see. Therefore, I am not going to continue bringing up old points and sub-points with you. I have already made a reasonable case for what the Bible teaches about polygamy, and I'm overly confident that my regular blog visitor will be able to discern the truth based on the interpretation of Scriptures I have given. This blog is, afterall, not for the purposes of converting you, but rather to equip a core group of Christians with answers to various theological questions. That being said, I do appreciate your invitation to come debate you on our blog, but my intended audience is already listening, and I have no desire to consider polygamy in my own lifestyle, or to try to change your mind. I am, after all, just answering your question.
Obviously, I disagree with your interpretations of Ezekiel 23 and Isaiah 4:1, but then we're past that already, right? :)
Your last comment:
If it is too difficult for you after all this to simply agree that you were wrong, I can understand that. I am not writing any of this to convince you or change your opinion anyway, but for anyone who might in the future stumble across this blog and read what is said about polygyny. If anyone is genuinely interested in dividing the truth, he at least finds both sides of the argument and can decide for himself what he finds to be biblical and therefore convincing.
I fully agree. In fact, you and I both know that most people who examine the interpretations and evidences given by yours and mine will side with polygamy being a sin.
I'm thankful that I can speak to you without you being upset or emotional, as you called it, and hope that we can now part ways without any hard feelings.
I have no idea who you are, but I'm glad I "met" you.
By the way, why do you spell "polygamy" with an "N"?
Young man:
You asked: "By the way, why do you spell "polygamy" with an "N"?"
Well, I spell it with an "N" because that is how you correctly spell the term we have been discussing.
The term is polygyny, is a noun, is defined thusly, "polygamy in which a man has more than one wife", and is a term whose origin is from the Greek word gune.
Regretfully, I only ever learned enough Greek to teach it to my children. Beyond that, I am woefully reliant on tools such as Logos and Bibleworks. A good freeware program, for those who might be interested, is called eSword. Google it.
With your last post I sense that the conversation has degraded to a point where I no longer feel comfortable participating. I can only imagine what level it will be reduced to with the next round- perhaps name calling or a challenge to "settle this like men"- so at this point I will refrain from commenting any more here.
However, I will indeed continue elaborating on this particular conversation on our website, and invite you to follow along if you wish. The url is http://www.joshuahshouse.com
Admin-
Haha! I'm not going to call you names or ask you to "settle things like men" (shave??).
I'm sorry that you feel uncomfortable on my blog.
But I do thank you for participating as long as you have, and accept your gesture to visit your website which I will observe quietly.
I'm going to be bored when I come home from work now :(
This comment is for http://chrislazo.blogspot.com/2008/10/do-you-ever-catch-yourself-in.html but I was blocked from making comments there.
I already told you that I found this page first, this blog, the one I am commenting on right now, so the first link I would have looked at was the one to your other blog Isaiah118. Thats what I read first and then I went to that guys site to see what else he had to say so him having copied and pasted did nothing to change your words. If you are thick headed and arrogant it has nothing to do with you having not visited his site thats just dumb to say. You prove you are thick headed and arrogant because you dont understand scripture but make stuff up thats not there and claim its a commandment. I didnt reverse at all. On this blog you told people that this admin person tried to convince you of something. 'I recently had a blogersation with an anonymous fellow who was trying to convince me of things I never thought would desire convincing.' I didnt know that things desire convincing but this is what you told people here and its just plain not true and you know it. I see where you told the guy that he wasnt convincing and he told you that he wasnt trying to convince you but was interesting in people like me who would come along and want the truth. THEN you made your little spiel and told him about your audience. come to think of it I cant find him saying anything about his blog and "his" people so I think you just made that up too.
And I guess when it comes down to it you are happy to be in the majority and include pagans and heathens as people who agree with you. If I were you I would be very concerned about that and I guess you have no clue about a remnant either. You might have an intended audience buddy but when its open to the whole freaking globe like this you dont really know who your audience is afterall. I AM YOUR AUDIENCE TOO and so is anyone else who comes across it. You should be concerned with giving the right answers to people and not just any answer you think is right. Youre just preaching to your choir.
Hehe!
Radikal, you still have yet to SHOW me how I'm wrong by SCRIPTURE. I don't care what you think. This is a blog about Scripture. And all you are able to do is blast me with ad hominem attacks about my writing style. So, now that stated your opposition to my argument three times, without actually showing me grounds for it in the Bible, are you done?
Seriously, can I move on with my life? I'm sick of talking about polygamy.
Post a Comment