Sunday, January 29, 2012
Polygamy Is Condemned By Scripture And Patristic Christianity
I just listened to Greg Koukl's January 15 radio program. He took a call on why the Bible doesn't say more against polygamy. Koukl made some good points, but didn't say much on the subject. There's a lot more anti-polygamy material in scripture than he suggested, and neither he nor the caller discussed the patristic evidence, which is highly significant in this context. My position is that polygamy is condemned not only by the New Testament and patristic Christianity, but also by the Old Testament. For those who are interested, I wrote a post several years ago addressing all three (both testaments of scripture and the patristic literature). Read the comments section of the thread as well, since a lot of relevant material comes up there, and I interacted with some defenders of polygamy. And here's a post Matthew Schultz wrote more recently.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I quickly browsed the links and will finish them soon. But it seems to me that showing both Testaments 1. discouraging polygamy as well as 2. teaching the ideal marriage as monogamous doesn't prove that polygamy was or is now (under the New Covenant) sin. Clearly, the NT endorses monogamous marriages as the ideal, but I just don't see it condemning polygamy as definite sin. I'd agree that the NT's endorsement of monogamy is so strong that I think Christians ministers should never marry a husband to an additional wife (or wives). But what of instances of pagan converts to Christianity who have multiple wives? Should he now disown and no longer provide for and support his additional wives and the children born to them? It would seem the merciful thing to allow the new convert to keep his additional wives and to support them and their children, but be forbidden to marry more wives so long as any of the current wives remain alive (i.e. he may marry again if all his wives happen to die before he does).
ReplyDeleteOne may rebut by asking about polyandrous "marriages" (one woman with two or more husbands) or polyamorous "marriages" where there are two or more husbands AND two or more wives?
I'd say the difference is that the OT doesn't seem to allow for such "marriages". However, the OT does seem to allow for (as a concession, though never encouraged) a husband having more than one wife. And it seems that in some instances God accepted the additional wives as genuine wives of the one man. David is said to be "a man after God's own heart" even though he had multiple wives and concubines. Abigail, one of David's wives seems to be regarded by Scripture as a godly woman (1 Sam. 25). While God condemns David's murder of Uriah, the Bible suggests that once they were married, their marriage was accepted by God. So much so that while their 1st child died due to God's judgment, their second child Solomon is named/nicknamed by Nathan the prophet as "Jedidiah", meaning "friend of Yah/God" or "beloved of Yah/God". We know that God approved of Solomon early in his life because of his faith and dependence on God (1 Kings 3). When Solomon is criticized in Scripture for having multiple wives it's usually in the context of how they lead him astray from pure worship of the true God (i.e. the God of Israel).
Finally, some have interpreted NT passages like 1 Tim. 3:2,12; Titus 1:6 as suggesting there were polygamous marriages in the apostolic church but that no man with more than one wife was allowed to have an office in the Church.
One of the previous comments mentioned Deut. 21:15. In that passage, God seems to acknowledge the reality and legitimacy of polygamous marriages in the Law itself.
Or what about Jacob? Was Rachel not a genuine wife of his?
Someone may rebut by saying that I haven't deal with the legitimacy of concubines. But they were never regarded as genuine wives in the OT (with full rights, status, and privileges).
3David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” And Nathan said to David, “The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die. 14Nevertheless, because by this deed you have utterly scorned the Lord, the child who is born to you shall die.” 15Then Nathan went to his house. - 2 Sam. 12:13-15
ReplyDeleteLater
24Then David comforted his wife, Bathsheba, and went in to her and lay with her, and she bore a [second] son, and he called his name Solomon. And the Lord loved him 25and sent a message by Nathan the prophet. So he called his name Jedidiah, because of the Lord. - 2 Sam. 12:24-25
It seems the LORD accepted the marriage as legitimate even though David was already married.
I guess you won't be voting for Rick Santorum then...
ReplyDeleteI like Greg Koukl, but he's similar to Wm Lane Craig in that he handles philosophy well, but suffers some in his hermeneutic. Craig just has a greater disparity between the two.
ReplyDeleteAnnoyed Pinoy,
ReplyDeleteI don't know why you suggest that polygamy would have to be shown to be "definite sin", whereas you support your position with references to what "it would seem the merciful thing to allow" is, what "seems" to be said about Abigail, etc. All I need is a probability.
We would have to make case-by-case judgments about what to do in circumstances in which polygamy has occurred, based on the principles involved in each instance. The same can be said of other matters, where scripture doesn't tell us in detail about how to handle each conceivable situation.
I don't see how God's working through polygamous relationships, as He did with David's wives, would suggest that polygamy isn't sinful. God also worked through Abraham's relationship with Hagar, the sins of Joseph's brothers, etc.
Referring to passages about the general righteousness of David, Solomon, or some other figure involved in polygamy is insufficient. They were righteous in a relative sense, as we often define righteousness in relative terms today. We refer to individuals as righteous relative to other people, because of the general tendency of their lives, etc., without any intention of denying that they've been involved in some sin. Similar to what we see with somebody like David or Solomon, some of Abraham's sins are narrated without being described as sin and without any record of God's condemnation of his behavior. Scripture often narrates lies, murder, and other sins without commenting on them and without recording any condemnation of that sin in particular.
The commandment against multiplying wives in Deuteronomy 17 would be applicable to David and Solomon as kings. Saying that they aren't directly criticized in scripture for multiplying wives doesn't eliminate the indirect implication of Deuteronomy 17 and the other evidence I discuss in the thread linked above. Your appeal to silence proves too much. If Solomon wasn't guilty of violating Deuteronomy 17, I don't know who would be.
You cite Deuteronomy 21, but you don't respond to what I said about it in the thread linked above.
You don't address most of the evidence I've cited against polygamy. Even the New Testament evidence sometimes has backward implications. When Jesus sides with the anti-polygamists of His day, for example, He's addressing the issue at a time when the New Testament hadn't been written yet and the arguments between the two sides were based on Old Testament revelation. Jesus takes up the arguments of the anti-polygamists that were already circulating rather than suggesting that some sort of new revelation was needed in order to settle the issue.
And the early patristic sources don't seem to think the matter is as ambiguous as you're suggesting.
Matthew Schultz' link makes a good point: even if the Bible doesn't say something to explicitly condemn polygamy, the implicit judgment of the Bible as literature is that it is never a good thing.
ReplyDeleteAnnoyed Pinoy raised the question of David's marriages, pointing out that since God accepted his marriages to at least Abigail and Bathsheba as legitimate. Perhaps so; I'll concede the point for the sake of argument.
However, when you look at the big picture of the life of David, I think you get a very different picture of the effects of polygamy.
Amnon, David's son with Ahinoam, raped and disgraced his half-sister Tamar, daugher of Maachah. For this, Tamar's full brother Absalom hated Amnon and conspired to have him murdered, for which Absalom spent three years as a fugitive before returning to Jerusalem, where although he was apparently reconciled to David, he was also compelled to live apart from him.
A few years later, Absalom is raising a rebellion, and David is forced to flee Jerusalem. Absalom enters Jerusalem in the meantime, sets himself up as king, and has his father's concubines. In the end, it's only the death of Absalom that enables David to take the throne.
I think the cause-and-effect relationship here is clear enough: the strife between David's half-siblings led to alienation between Absalom and David, resulting in rebellion and civil war. Polygamy leads to bad blood and in this particular case, nearly tore the kingdom apart. Not such a pretty picture of David's home life, when you think about it.
SCOTT MCCLARE,
ReplyDeleteI agree that polygamy usually has negative consequences. But that doesn't, by itself, make it sin. A voluntarily celibate minister is permissible (e.g. Paul, Jesus, and Jesus' statements in Matt. 19:12) even though it has its dangers and problems (as seen in Catholicism). So, just because polygamy has inherent problems, doesn't mean it's necessarily a sin.
-----
Jason, I finished reading your entire blog on polygamy. I have to admit that you gave better arguments than those who disagreed with you. I also want to say that would prefer the NT clearly taught polygamy as sinful. However, I don't find it (so far).
With respect to the evidence you provided by the early post-apostolic church, you're interpretation is plausible, maybe even likely, but it's not the only possible interpretation.
Jason you said...
But it isn't. Instead, polygamy is widely condemned. If you want to argue that those who condemned it were departing from apostolic teaching, then you can argue for that position, but it doesn't make sense to deny that the widespread condemnation of polygamy among the early patristic sources adds weight to the conclusion that the apostles didn't support the practice of polygamy.
And
Why can't we conclude that the widespread rejection of polygamy is better explained by an apostolic rejection of polygamy than an apostolic acceptance of the practice?
This seems to commit the either/or fallacy. Another possibility is that the fathers went beyond Apostolic teaching. For example, the fathers sometimes added to and went beyond what the Apostles actually thought. For example, some of the fathers blasted the Jews and (especially) professing Christians for observing the Sabbath, even though the NT doesn't actually teach that Christians should NOT be observing the Sabbath. It merely teaches that Christians are not required to observe it (they are free to observe it or not since it is no longer required per Col. 2:16 et al.). How do we know that the fathers didn't do the same thing with respect to polygamy. Maybe the Apostles discouraged it and promoted monogamy as the ideal but tolerated polygamy, but then the fathers went beyond that and taught that polygamy is positively sinful?
Maybe you can quote more thoroughly (or cite the references to) the passages in the early fathers where they rejected polygamy? I agree with you that while they can't bind our conscience, their testimony do have some weight.
You said...
What this patristic and other extra-Biblical evidence suggests is that the monogamist tendencies of the New Testament, which some people attribute to societal context rather than the unacceptability of polygamy, are more naturally read as mandating monogamy. The New Testament authors describe marriage as monogamous because it's monogamous by its nature, not because it's monogamous only in the societal context they're addressing.
That might be the case, but still, don't you think that's a pretty subjective interpretation? You begin by admitting it the evidences merely "suggests" something, then move to your own suggestion that a "more naturally read" interpretation of the evidence would lead to "mandating monogamy." To me, it seems you move to quickly to a "mandate" in your argument. Similarly you said...
I don't know why you suggest that polygamy would have to be shown to be "definite sin", whereas you support your position with references to what "it would seem the merciful thing to allow" is, what "seems" to be said about Abigail, etc. All I need is a probability.
ReplyDeleteJason, I normally love(!) your apologetics, but on this issue you're sounding like a Roman Catholic trying to defend contraception as a Biblical and historical "sin" in the Church. The definition of sin usually isn't a matter of probability. Contraception isn't mentioned in the Bible, but polygamy is, and God seemingly accepted it in the OT (at least by concession). You mentioned Deut. 17.
"And he [the king] shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold." - Deut. 17:17 (ESV)
“He shall not multiply wives for himself, or else his heart will turn away; nor shall he greatly increase silver and gold for himself. - Deut. 17:17 (NASB)
As I read the verse, I notice that the *reason* why God forbids multiplying wives is BECAUSE it might cause the king's heart to turn away from God. The very reason why Solomon later would be criticized by Scripture for having many wives (1 Kings 11:4). I also notice that the verse says that the king shouldn't acquire for himself excessive silver and gold. Is that because silver and gold is inherently sinful? Obviously not since God gave Solomon riches as a reward (1 Kings 3:10-13). Does it mean that the king could only have one piece of gold and one piece of silver? Clearly, the passage is about excess, not plurality of gold and silver pieces. In which case, the same could be said about wives. It seems to me that the reason excessive amounts of silver and gold was wrong and forbidden was because an excessive amount of gold/silver can cause a person (in this case the ruler of Israel) to love money more than God. Which is the very same reason for the prohibition of multiplying wives. It wasn't the number of wives or the amount of gold that was at issue, so much as how too many could turn the king's heart away from devotion to Jehovah/Yahweh.
I don't see how God's working through polygamous relationships, as He did with David's wives, would suggest that polygamy isn't sinful. God also worked through Abraham's relationship with Hagar, the sins of Joseph's brothers, etc.
But the way you phrase that statement seems to beg the question. Where in the OT does it actually teach polygamy *was* inherently sinful? I don't think I'm the one who's arguing from silence; at least with respect to the OT. I admit that the NT strongly encourages monogamy as the ideal to be pursued. I believe under the New Covenant, Christian marriages should only be monogamous. But that doesn't imply that polygamy is necessarily sinful. Things change from covenant to covenant. Some people aren't under the New Covenant when they marry (e.g. non-Christian pagans), but because of conversion, end up entering the New Covenant with multiple wives.
You said...
ReplyDeleteIf Solomon wasn't guilty of violating Deuteronomy 17, I don't know who would be.
I do believe Solomon was guilty of violating Deut. 17:17. He had something like 700 wives and 300 concubines. We also know that his devotion to Jehovah did wane in his latter years (1 Kings 11:4). But I'd consider 700 wives excessive too. For all we know, if he only had 2-5 wives, God would not have been displeased (so long as his heart wasn't turned away from God).
What of Levirate marriages? The brother of the deceased sometimes had a previous wife. Wouldn't a levirate marriage sometimes lead to a man having more than one wife? I don't know enough about levirate marriages to definitely say "yes" or "no", but it would seem to me that the answer would be "yes".
You said...
If Jesus and the apostles advocated or allowed polygamy, it's likely that we would see that fact not only reflected in the historical record, but also reflected explicitly and often.
Huh? That seems convoluted. If Jesus and the apostles allowed it (without encouraging it), it would be likely that they wouldn't mentioned it often, if at all, (or address it specifically) since it wouldn't be that important an issue since both pagan and Jewish societies sometimes permitted it. Besides, Jesus and the apostles also believed in a Scriptural Canon, yet there's JUST enough information in the NT to determine which Canon they most likely held to. Yet, given your position on polygamy and Jesus' stance on it, one would expect there to be a super-abundance of evidence against polygamy because it should be (your words) "reflected explicitly and often" since Jesus often condemned the accepted status quo. Yet, Jesus doesn't condemn it. Though, you do take Jesus' use of a Jewish anti-polygamist text to imply it. Even though Jesus wasn't specifically discussing/addressing the issue of polygamy in that passage.
Over two decades ago, I was a sabbatarian. Two facts that lead me to conclude that the requirement of sabbatarianism is false was the fact that in the OT, no Gentile (ruler or otherwise) is ever condemned for no observing the Sabbath even though the sins of the Gentiles are often mentioned in the OT (esp. the Minor prophets). Correspondingly, of the MANY passages in the NT where lists of sins are given, never is the breaking of the Sabbath listed among them. In most of those lists, they often include sexual sins. Yet, I have to ask myself and others, where, in the either Testaments is polygamy every condemned as sinful? I'm not aware of any such passage.
ReplyDeleteWhy isn't polygamy included as sinful in passages like Rom. 1:18-32; 1 Cor. 9:9-19; Gal. 5:19-21; 1 Tim. 1:8-10; 4:1-3; Matt. 15:9; 2 Cor. 12:21; Col. 3:5; Heb. 13:4; Rev. 21:8; 22:15 etc.
In the OT adultery was punishable by death. If polygamy was sinful (and essentially adulterous), why aren't OT polygamists executed for the sin? Or at least rebuked for it in all of the OT (not even once)?
I have to say again that promoting monogamy doesn't not equal a rejection of polygamy. That's a logical non-sequitur. All of your NT evidence only shows the promotion of monogamy, but never does it indict polygamy (though, I wish it did so that we wouldn't have to argue for what's truly Biblical).
You cite Deuteronomy 21[:15], but you don't respond to what I said about it in the thread linked above.
Now that I've finished reading the entire blog, I'll concede that Kaiser might be right in that interpretation. Though, there are other Biblical commentators (admittedly older) who do interpret it as two wives who were currently alive.
Clarke: From this verse we see that polygamy did exist under the Mosaic laws, and that it was put under certain regulations; but it was not enjoined, Moses merely suffered it, because of the hardness of their hearts, as our Lord justly remarks Matthew 19:8.
Gill: If a man have two wives,.... Which is supposed, but not approved of, though permitted because of the hardness of men's hearts; for it was not so from the beginning, when only one man and one woman were created, and joined together in marriage; but as it was connived at, and become customary, a law is made to prevent confusion, and preserve order in families:
Geneva Study Bible: This declares that the plurality of wives came from a corrupt affection.
Wesley Notes: Two wives - This practice, though tolerated, is not hereby made lawful; but only provision is made for the children in this case. Hated - Comparatively, that is, less loved.
typo correction:
ReplyDelete1 Cor. 9:9-19 = 1 Cor. 6:9-19
typo correction:
ReplyDeleteI have to say again that promoting monogamy doesn't not equal a rejection of polygamy. That's a logical non-sequitur.
Should be
I have to say again that promoting monogamy does not equate to a rejection of polygamy. That's a logical non-sequitur.
You get my meaning even if I still can't say it right in this "correction".
typo correction: Huh? That seems convoluted. If Jesus and the apostles allowed it (without encouraging it), it would be likely that they wouldn't mentioned it often, if at all, (or address it specifically) since it wouldn't be that important an issue since both pagan and Jewish societies sometimes permitted it.
ReplyDeleteI used the word "convoluted" incorrectly there. What I meant was that the the reverse would seem to be true.
typo correction:
ReplyDeleteI also want to say that would prefer the NT clearly taught polygamy as sinful. However, I don't find it (so far).
should be:
I also want to say that *I* would prefer the NT clearly taught polygamy as sinful. However, I don't find it (so far).
Scott McClare,
ReplyDeleteDrinking alcoholic beverages also often has negative consequences. It's probably best not to drink at all. But that doesn't make drinking alcoholic beverages a sin. What would be a sin is requiring people not to drink even though the Scriptures permit it, and even lauds it as one of God's gifts to humanity (Ps. 104:15; Deut. 14:26). Btw, I don't think the OT or NT encourages polygamy.
Btw, I don't think the OT or NT encourages polygamy.
ReplyDeleteI'm no Bible scholar, but that sounds about right. In a very similar way, neither the OT nor the NT encourages slavery- but slavery is also not a sin. Does that mean we need extra-Biblical reasons to oppose slavery?
With the recent talk in the blogosphere about a 'hermeneutic of nature' I wonder if the fact that God has made the male/female birth rate ~50/50 may be interpreted as a heavenly hint?
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, can we not have a category of ethics for *less than ideal* but *not necessarily sinful*? This could apply to many other things too such as slavery. Without this category what does one do with Elisha's command 'Go in peace' to Namaan? (see passage for details)
I recently read Elizabeth Elliot comment fairly positively on a particular polygamous marriage she saw amongst the tribe she worked with.
Annoyed Pinoy wrote:
ReplyDelete"I also want to say that would prefer the NT clearly taught polygamy as sinful. However, I don't find it (so far). With respect to the evidence you provided by the early post-apostolic church, you're interpretation is plausible, maybe even likely, but it's not the only possible interpretation."
Our primary concern should be probability, not clarity or certainty.
You wrote:
"This seems to commit the either/or fallacy. Another possibility is that the fathers went beyond Apostolic teaching."
If opposition to polygamy goes beyond apostolic teaching, then the apostles accepted the practice at least in the sense of allowing it. Your third option only arises if we restrict the concept of acceptance more than I intended and more than the term suggests. I was already taking your third option into account.
You wrote:
"For example, some of the fathers blasted the Jews and (especially) professing Christians for observing the Sabbath, even though the NT doesn't actually teach that Christians should NOT be observing the Sabbath. It merely teaches that Christians are not required to observe it (they are free to observe it or not since it is no longer required per Col. 2:16 et al.)."
A few problems with your parallel come to mind. First, "some" isn't as significant as the widespread opposition to polygamy that I cited. Second, the significance of your Sabbath example depends on factors like the earliness of the sources and the nature of the Sabbath observance in question. You haven't provided that information. In contrast, I've already provided a lot of detail about the early opposition to polygamy. Third, we allow Christian Sabbath observance because of passages like Romans 14 that suggest we should do so. Where's the equivalent of such passages related to polygamy? Fourth, citing examples of patristic error doesn't make patristic testimony neutral or probably false. The patristic Christians were right on the large majority of issues. Citing examples of their unreliability lessens their credibility, but not to the point of making their testimony neutral or worse. I see no way of denying that such early and widespread opposition to polygamy adds weight to the case against the practice. If your Sabbath example held up to scrutiny, it would lessen the weight of the patristic evidence concerning polygamy, but it wouldn't eliminate it.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
"That might be the case, but still, don't you think that's a pretty subjective interpretation? You begin by admitting it the evidences merely 'suggests' something, then move to your own suggestion that a 'more naturally read' interpretation of the evidence would lead to 'mandating monogamy.' To me, it seems you move to quickly to a 'mandate' in your argument."
As I mentioned in my first response to you, you've also used terms like "seem". You keep asking for the anti-polygamy side of the argument to be "definite", "clear", etc., whereas you apply a lesser standard to the other side.
And you seem to be confusing categories. If it's probable that something was mandated by the apostles, but it's only a small probability, we wouldn't refrain from concluding that the something in question was mandated just because the probability is low. The importance of what's being judged probable is a different issue than whether that object of our judgment is probable. We'd prefer to have a high probability or certainty when a matter as important as polygamy is at stake. But a preference isn't a necessity. If all we have is a low probability to go by, then we go with the low probability.
You wrote:
"Jason, I normally love(!) your apologetics, but on this issue you're sounding like a Roman Catholic trying to defend contraception as a Biblical and historical 'sin' in the Church."
That's an argument by analogy without much of an argument. You'll have to explain why we should think that my Biblical arguments against polygamy are comparable to Catholic Biblical arguments against contraception. You'll also have to explain how we have reason to doubt post-Biblical opposition to polygamy comparable to the reason we have to doubt post-Biblical opposition to contraception. See Matthew Schultz's article on contraception.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
"The definition of sin usually isn't a matter of probability."
What's your alternative? That we can do something that's probably sinful?
You wrote:
"As I read the verse, I notice that the *reason* why God forbids multiplying wives is BECAUSE it might cause the king's heart to turn away from God."
When we're given a reason for something, in scripture or elsewhere, we're often given that reason for the sake of emphasis or contextual relevance, for example, without any intention of suggesting that no other reasons exist. When Exodus 20:12 tells us to honor our parents in order to prolong our lives, it doesn't follow that there's no other reason for honoring parents.
Polygamy would be a danger to people other than kings for reasons similar to why it's dangerous to kings.
But you seem to be overlooking the point I was making about Deuteronomy 17 earlier in this thread. The fact that kings in scripture aren't specifically criticized for violating Deuteronomy 17:17 weakens the argument that they and others should be criticized specifically for violating a broader prohibition of polygamy if a broader prohibition existed.
You wrote:
"Where in the OT does it actually teach polygamy *was* inherently sinful? I don't think I'm the one who's arguing from silence; at least with respect to the OT. I admit that the NT strongly encourages monogamy as the ideal to be pursued. I believe under the New Covenant, Christian marriages should only be monogamous. But that doesn't imply that polygamy is necessarily sinful. Things change from covenant to covenant. Some people aren't under the New Covenant when they marry (e.g. non-Christian pagans), but because of conversion, end up entering the New Covenant with multiple wives."
I've already addressed issues of continuity in the original polygamy thread and earlier in this one. For reasons I've explained, the continuity I've argued for makes more sense than the discontinuity you're suggesting.
Even if our reading of the Old Testament alone led us to conclude that the Old Testament allows polygamy, we'd also take other factors into account. We'd look at the views expressed in relevant ancient extra-Biblical literature and what Jesus and other early Christian figures said about Old Testament teaching on the subject. If Jesus, the apostles, or other relevant figures seem to treat the Old Testament as anti-polygamous or suggest that people should have known that polygamy is wrong before the new covenant era arose, then we take such factors into account when evaluating polygamy in the Old Testament era. The Old Testament isn't our only source of information on the era of the Old Testament.
Besides, I've argued that the Old Testament does call for monogamy in some passages. See, for example, the last few paragraphs of my opening post in the original polygamy thread.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
"If Jesus and the apostles allowed it (without encouraging it), it would be likely that they wouldn't mentioned it often, if at all, (or address it specifically) since it wouldn't be that important an issue since both pagan and Jewish societies sometimes permitted it."
I referred to "the historical record", not just the writings of the apostles. But even in their writings, polygamy would be relevant to their discussions of marriage, their discussions of how Christ's relationship to the church resembles the marriage relationship, their descriptions of relationships within the church, etc. Polygamy isn't just absent, but is repeatedly excluded by both subtle and explicit references to monogamy. See the original polygamy thread, where I discuss the monogamous nature of what the New Testament tells us about who's involved in marriage, marital sex, etc. When the New Testament is so monogamous in its standards, and in so many contexts, then is followed by widespread condemnations of polygamy by the earliest patristic sources, it doesn't make sense to act as if the early Christian evidence is anything other than highly anti-polygamous. The Old Testament record is more disputable. But once we get to the New Testament and beyond, the debate is much more lopsided.
You wrote:
"Though, you do take Jesus' use of a Jewish anti-polygamist text to imply it. Even though Jesus wasn't specifically discussing/addressing the issue of polygamy in that passage."
He can address more than one issue at a time. Polygamy is relevant to the nature of marriage in the context Jesus was addressing, so He can make reference to it even if His larger point is focused elsewhere.
And I cited far more than Jesus' comments in Matthew 19. There's a lot of relevant material in the New Testament, as well as in the early patristic literature. You haven't cited anything from either category in support of early Christian acceptance of polygamy. There are many contexts in which that acceptance could, and sometimes should, have manifested itself.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
"Yet, I have to ask myself and others, where, in the either Testaments is polygamy every condemned as sinful? I'm not aware of any such passage."
You keep ignoring some of the passages I cited in the original polygamy thread. I've explained why we should think that some passages in both Testaments exclude polygamy. You've ignored some of those passages and objected that I'm only arguing for a small probability with regard to others. I've explained why arguing for a small probability is sufficient, though. And some of the passages go beyond a small probability.
You wrote:
"Why isn't polygamy included as sinful in passages like Rom. 1:18-32; 1 Cor. 9:9-19; Gal. 5:19-21; 1 Tim. 1:8-10; 4:1-3; Matt. 15:9; 2 Cor. 12:21; Col. 3:5; Heb. 13:4; Rev. 21:8; 22:15 etc."
You're excluding passages that do mention it, like the ones I discussed in the original thread, and you're assuming that it isn't included under broader categories in other passages, like the ones you've mentioned. How often is, say, prostitution, bestiality, or usury mentioned by name in the passages you've brought up? If something isn't mentioned in those passages at all or is only mentioned once or a minority of the time, what's supposed to follow from that fact? I don't see the sense in ignoring the anti-polygamous implications of what Paul teaches about marriage and requires of church leaders, for example, while highlighting passages where Paul doesn't mention polygamy. His seemingly anti-polygamous comments are more significant than the absence of polygamy in the passages you've cited.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
"If polygamy was sinful (and essentially adulterous), why aren't OT polygamists executed for the sin? Or at least rebuked for it in all of the OT (not even once)?"
Who would have executed somebody like Lamech for it? Maybe somebody would be concerned enough to do it, but it's easy to see a situation in which nobody would want to or be able to carry out an execution for polygamy. Somebody like David wouldn't be executed for much the same reason why he wasn't executed for other sins. Rulers are often allowed more leeway than other people in a society, for a variety of reasons. We agree that Solomon violated Deuteronomy 17:17, and he was neither executed for it nor rebuked for that violation in particular.
How we respond to sin varies according to the context. Sometimes we don't attempt to punish something because it's so common. Sometimes a society punishes something, but doesn't say much about it, because of how uncommon it is. God could have purposes for making less of an issue of polygamy during one phase of history than another. Is it your position that the treatment of sin should be identical throughout history and in every context? Would you say that about abortion, racism, slavery, etc.?
You wrote:
"All of your NT evidence only shows the promotion of monogamy, but never does it indict polygamy (though, I wish it did so that we wouldn't have to argue for what's truly Biblical)."
You need to interact with what I said about the anti-polygamous nature of the passages. You can't live by monogamous standards in marriage while being a polygamist. The two don't go together. Definitions of marriage and commandments about the marriage relationship aren't just "promotions". If marriage is defined in monogamous terms, and spouses are commanded to act in a monogamous manner, then monogamy isn't just being promoted. It's being required, and polygamy is being excluded.
To elucidate the implications for polygamy of why God made a 50/50 male/female birthrate, this news article has just appeared in the UK:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.christian.org.uk/news/monogamous-societies-are-safer-reveals-study/
It says:
Researchers at the University of British Columbia found that polygamous cultures have higher levels of robbery, rape, kidnapping, fraud and murder.
Professor Joseph Henrich, one of the report’s authors, warned that the crimes were primarily driven by pools of unmarried men, a result of some men taking multiple wives.
and:
He added: “The scarcity of marriageable women in polygamous cultures increases competition among men for the remaining unmarried woman.
“The greater competition increases the likelihood men in polygamous communities will resort to criminal behaviour to gain resources and women.”
If every extra wife you take means another man will never marry, then the question of whether it is a definite sin comes into sharper focus.
Halo, the problem is that at times, and in certain situations there are more women than men. For example, due to the death of men during prolonged war. Or because of early widowhood. Since women tend to outlive men, and especially in societies where older men tended to marry younger women like in Biblical times. Even Joseph may have died prior to Mary beause of his advanced years. So, polygamy may have made some economic sense in order to provide for such widows and other (surplus of) women. Also, I've heard (anecdotally and without any statistical evidence) ,that in American, there have been more women than men available for marriage (at least in the past few years).
ReplyDelete----
Zilch, there are different kinds of slavery. Biblical (OT) slavery was obviously not sin and was an economic necessity during those times (as Steve has noted). American slavery often violated Biblical slavery. The Apostolic Church (e.g. Paul) tolerated Roman slavery and didn't encourage people to go out of their way to seek emancipation since they are in their station in life by God's providence. However, if it was possible Paul permitted people obtain it.
20Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called. 21Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. (But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.) 22For he who was called in the Lord as a slave is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who was free when called is a slave of Christ. 23You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men. 24So, brothers, in whatever condition each was called, there let him remain with God.- 1 Cor. 7:20-24 (ESV)
The early church didn't want to upset the social order by inciting all slaves to demand their freedom. That might start a civil war and would taint the Christian message and reputation (think of "The Peasant War" during Luther's time and which probably was related to his teaching on Christian liberty [taken to an extreme]).
However, clearly there are implications of the Gospel for the reduction and even abolishment of slavery (just as Christ's monogamous relationship with the Church had implications for the reduction or even abandonment of polygamy).
Notice also verse 23 cited above
You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men.
Or Jesus' mission statement in Luke 4
18 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, 19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”
1For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.- Gal. 5:1 (ESV)
Like the above, this passage refers to spiritual slavery, but it has implications for physical slavery. I could say more, but what I said enough for you to get my drift.
Jason, I'll respond to your posts soon (deo volente). Though, I don't know if my further comments are worth your time. So, you don't have to respond to them if you don't want to. Blessings to you! :-)
ReplyDeleteAnnoyed Pinnoy,
ReplyDeletefair point that there are some situations where there are more women than men. The Elizabeth Elliot example I mentioned earlier was one of those.
Regarding slavery and 1Cor7, what do you think of the translational dispute there:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/slavery.html
Zilch, here's a link that Steve just posted on slavery.
ReplyDelete[The Christian] Abolition of Slavery: The Early Years
http://christthetao.blogspot.com/2011/10/abolition-of-slavery-early-years.html
two interesting verses quoted by the article are interesting.
50s AD: Paul writes, “In Christ, there is neither Greek nor Jew, slave nor free.” The full implications have been debated ever since; certainly it precludes treating slaves as less than human.
60s: Paul writes a letter to his fellow Christian, Philemon, asking that he take back Onesimus “no longer as a slave, but as a brother.” His meaning has been debated ever since.
Halo, I wasn't aware of the translational controversy of that verse. I read the entire article, thanks for the link :-)
ReplyDeleteJason, I've considered responding to your comments thoroughly, but I realize I don't have the time nor am I as dogmatic on my position as you are. It's your dogmatism that I'm not sure is Biblically warranted. I'll leave that to you and other exegetes who can interpret Scripture better than myself. For myself I don't want to bind Christian consciences beyond what the Scriptures require because I try to be consistent with Sola Scriptura. For example, I wouldn't recommend a Christian to smoke pot or or tobacco (I've smoked the latter, but not the former). But I wouldn't specifically state that it's clearly a sin to do so (regardless of amount or frequency of use).
ReplyDeleteYou said...
I was already taking your third option into account.
Ah...okay. Sorry.
As I mentioned in my first response to you, you've also used terms like "seem".
That's because I don't dogmatically claim my position is true.
Third, we allow Christian Sabbath observance because of passages like Romans 14 that suggest we should do so. Where's the equivalent of such passages related to polygamy?
Since my presumption is that the OT permitted polygamy, I would expect the opposite. That the OT or NT would specifically forbid or define polygamy as sin. Both Testaments speaks repeatedly of various sexual sins like adultery, fornication, homosexuality, bestiality, incest, prostitution etc. Yet, in all those times polygamy is never mentioned. I find that silence deafening. I understand you believe you've provided enough evidence from both Testaments to conclude that polygamy is a sin. But I personally don't think the evidence is that strong, though, I wish it were. That's why I think I'm being a bit more objective with respect to the evidence and arguments.
If it's probable that something was mandated by the apostles, but it's only a small probability, we wouldn't refrain from concluding that the something in question was mandated just because the probability is low.
True. The question is whether it's probable that the Apostles mandated polygamy as sin. Given your standards, it seems (to my limited knowledge of patristics) that there's just as much (if not more) evidence that the Apostles started the tradition of worshipping on Sundays. Yet, my understanding is that many of the fathers claim it was not only a tradition started by the Apostles, but also mandated by them. But such a mandate would contradicts Scripture (e.g. Rom. 14, Gal. 4, Col. 2). So, here's an example of a tradition that's probably genuinely Apostolic, but which appears to have been added to by later Christians so that it's gone beyond what the Apostles actually taught.
The importance of what's being judged probable is a different issue than whether that object of our judgment is probable. We'd prefer to have a high probability or certainty when a matter as important as polygamy is at stake.
And sexual sins are so serious that it jeopardizes entrance into the Kingdom of God (cf. 1Cor. 6:9ff). Yet the OT and NT seem to be silent in instructing us that polygamy was a serious sin.
What's your alternative? That we can do something that's probably sinful?
ReplyDeleteI don't advocate polygamy under the New Covenant (I prohibit it). However, I do advocate not calling something sinful if it isn't something that's clearly sinful. For example, I would tell a polygamous pagan that Scripture teaches that the ideal kind of marriage is monogamous. But I wouldn't dogmatically state that his polygamy was sinful and that his marriages to his additional wives are illegitimate (along with the children born from them). I don't want to be guilty of "loading people with burdens hard to bear" (Luke 11:46).
Besides, I want to avoid the pagan telling me I'm a hypocrite (or at least inconsistent) because the heros of my faith (e.g. Abraham, Jacob, David et al.) had multiple wives and were never rebuked by God for it.
Polygamy would be a danger to people other than kings for reasons similar to why it's dangerous to kings.
Sure (agreed). However, I have to ask why wasn't there already such a general law for other people? If there were such a general law that applied for all people, then there wouldn't be a need for a specific law addressing the King. Which suggests to me again that the prohibition for the King wasn't in having multiple wives, but in "multiplying" wives (i.e. having too many). A danger which would be true of the general population, but especially of Kings because of their power and wealth.
The fact that kings in scripture aren't specifically criticized for violating Deuteronomy 17:17 weakens the argument that they and others should be criticized specifically for violating a broader prohibition of polygamy if a broader prohibition existed.
That's a pretty big "*IF*". I don't think you've made an OT case for it being sin. The kinds of arguments you're making are like those made by Christian teetotalers. They will cite various OT passages that teach about the dangers of and consequences of drunkeness and then infer from that that drinking alcoholic beverages is sinful. But that's a total non-sequitur. An abuse or excess of something is not the same thing as a moderate use of or involvement in that same thing.
Polygamy isn't just absent, but is repeatedly excluded by both subtle and explicit references to monogamy.
When the New Testament is so monogamous in its standards, and in so many contexts, then is followed by widespread condemnations of polygamy by the earliest patristic sources, it doesn't make sense to act as if the early Christian evidence is anything other than highly anti-polygamous.
But "anti-polygamous" is not the same thing or equivalent to "polygamy is a sin". The Apostles could have been "anti-polygamous" in a different (lesser) way than the fathers. For example, one could be anti-smoking or anti-alcohol without dogmatically stating smoking or drinking alcohol is a sin.
ReplyDeleteHe can address more than one issue at a time. Polygamy is relevant to the nature of marriage in the context Jesus was addressing, so He can make reference to it even if His larger point is focused elsewhere.
Again, I think you're inferring more from those passages than is actually there. Compare Jesus' teaching on divorce. If taken at face value, outside the context of the OT and latter NT passages, one could conclude that divorce, under ALL circumstances (without exception) is wrong and sinful. Even God in the OT states that he "hates" divorce (Mal. 2:16). Yet, I personally think there are instances of divorce that are Biblically legitimate. In this case, we have Jesus make explicit statements which can be understood to have some exceptions (at least by some interpreters). Yet, you take Jesus statements on a totally different topic and derive inferences from as if they are nearly conclusive for your position. I can't do that.
There's a lot of relevant material in the New Testament, as well as in the early patristic literature. You haven't cited anything from either category in support of early Christian acceptance of polygamy. There are many contexts in which that acceptance could, and sometimes should, have manifested itself.
And I could say "there are many contexts in the NT where the explicit condemnation of polygamy as sin could, and sometimes should, have manifested itself" and it didn't.
From the strongest to the weakest:
1. there isn't an outright condemnation of polygamy as sin in the NT
2. there isn't an *explicit* (key word) rejection of polygamy in the NT (though, I'm willing to grant an implicit one)
3. there isn't even an *explicit* (key word) discouragement of polygamy in the NT (though, I'm willing to grant an implicit one)
How often is, say, prostitution, bestiality, or usury mentioned by name in the passages you've brought up? If something isn't mentioned in those passages at all or is only mentioned once or a minority of the time, what's supposed to follow from that fact?
But they are mentioned somewhere in Scripture. The NT doesn't refer to bestiality at all. But the OT does. However, *neither* Testaments explicitly refer to polygamy as sin even though it was (presumably) more common than bestiality (I'm guessing by a thousand fold).
continued
What that tells me is that it probably wasn't considered a sin even if it was known to not be ideal, and not becoming of righteous folk.
ReplyDeleteFor example, reformers like Nehemiah zealously enforced the Mosaic law as much as was possible (given the missing temple etc.). He specifically condemned his fellow Jews for marrying foreigner wives who worshipped other gods. But we don't find him condemning polygamous relationships. The prophets also often railed against the sin of both Israelites and the Gentile peoples, but they never (to my knowledge) condemn polygamy.
How we respond to sin varies according to the context. Sometimes we don't attempt to punish something because it's so common. Sometimes a society punishes something, but doesn't say much about it, because of how uncommon it is. God could have purposes for making less of an issue of polygamy during one phase of history than another.
All true. But it seems to me that if polygamy was a sin in the OT, it would have been (and SHOULD have been) a serious sin because it's a sexual sin with great societal consequences (e.g. the children born from it). Being a serious sin, I would expect it to be repeatedly and explicitly condemned as sin. Wouldn't you? Yet, I don't find that in the OT or NT. Instead, I find it seemingly tolerated in the OT and possibly accepted by God (even if only by concession).
I personally don't like slavery. But I'm convinced from Scripture that slavery (per se) isn't sinful (especially since there are different kinds of slavery [e.g. Biblical OT, Roman, Greek, American, African etc]). For me to say it is a sin would open me to the criticism of inconsistency. I think the same is true on the issue of polygamy.
Is it your position that the treatment of sin should be identical throughout history and in every context? Would you say that about abortion, racism, slavery, etc.?
No. But polygamy, if sinful, ought to be seriously sinful (IMHO). Being seriously sinful, it should have been addressed explicitly in one or both testaments as sinful. But it isn't.
Annoyed Pinoy,
ReplyDeleteI don't advocate polygamy under the New Covenant (I prohibit it).
Is your argument here based on anything beyond:
1) The paradigmatic pattern in Genesis 1 where God provided Adam with *one* woman.
2) The qualifications for an elder, which by extension all Christians should aspire to.
If you were Elizabeth Elliot, would you have condemned the polygamist in the tribe and asked him to put away his additional wives?
Annoyed Pinoy wrote:
ReplyDelete"That's because I don't dogmatically claim my position is true....And sexual sins are so serious that it jeopardizes entrance into the Kingdom of God (cf. 1Cor. 6:9ff). Yet the OT and NT seem to be silent in instructing us that polygamy was a serious sin....I don't advocate polygamy under the New Covenant (I prohibit it). However, I do advocate not calling something sinful if it isn't something that's clearly sinful. For example, I would tell a polygamous pagan that Scripture teaches that the ideal kind of marriage is monogamous. But I wouldn't dogmatically state that his polygamy was sinful and that his marriages to his additional wives are illegitimate (along with the children born from them). I don't want to be guilty of 'loading people with burdens hard to bear' (Luke 11:46)....there isn't an *explicit* (key word) rejection of polygamy in the NT (though, I'm willing to grant an implicit one)...What that tells me is that it probably wasn't considered a sin even if it was known to not be ideal, and not becoming of righteous folk....But polygamy, if sinful, ought to be seriously sinful (IMHO)."
You tell us that you "prohibit" polygamy, that you're willing to grant an "implicit rejection" of polygamy in the New Testament, that it's "not becoming of righteous folk", etc., yet you object to my conclusion that it's sinful. Explain the relevant difference.
Saying that we shouldn't view polygamy as clearly sinful, shouldn't dogmatically condemn it, etc. doesn't tell us whether we should view it as sinful without those qualifiers you keep adding. My position doesn't require such qualifiers.
A preference isn't a requirement. We prefer to have a high level of evidence that something is or isn't a sin, but we can still make judgments based on a lower level of evidence. All that's required is a low probability, even though we'd prefer to have a high probability. As I said before, what are you going to do if something seems probable by a small margin? Deny that it's probable? That doesn't make sense. A small probability is still a probability.
Your impression about how "seriously sinful" polygamy should be, if it's sinful, doesn't tell us much. God and the believers of the Biblical era could consider polygamy less serious than you think it ought to be as a sin, yet still consider it sinful. Not every sexual sin is treated the same in scripture. There are distinctions among sexual sins in the Mosaic law, in the letters of Paul, etc.
And what seems explicit or not explicit to you doesn't necessarily align with what people of the Biblical era would have considered explicit or not explicit. For example, Jesus' contemporaries would have been more familiar with the anti-polygamist arguments Jesus cites in Matthew 19 than we are today. His comments would have been more explicit to them than they are to us.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteDo the Biblical documents condemn abortion in the manner we do today? No, but there are many implicit condemnations of the practice in scripture.
The extent to which scripture opposes polygamy is one of the issues in dispute. You can't keep ignoring my exegetical arguments while repeating your conclusions.
If polygamy is as harmful as you describe in your comments quoted above, then the question of why it's not opposed more by scripture remains on the table, even if you don't classify polygamy as a sin. Avoiding the sin classification doesn't settle the matter.
And repeating your Sabbath argument in response to the patristic evidence doesn't address the problems with that argument that I mentioned earlier. Even if we assume that the early patristic Christians were wrong about the Sabbath, they were right on other issues, like abortion. As I explained earlier, citing examples of the unreliability of patristic sources doesn't give us reason to reject their general trustworthiness. Your argument is akin to a skeptic's appeal to issues Irenaeus was wrong about, such as Jesus' age, as a justification for dismissing what he said about other issues, like the authorship of the gospels and Polycarp's relationship with John. I don't deny that the patristic Christians could be wrong, so criticizing them for being wrong about the Sabbath is an insufficient response to my patristic argument.
You write:
"If there were such a general law that applied for all people, then there wouldn't be a need for a specific law addressing the King."
It's not a matter of need in the sense you're suggesting. When Saul, David, Solomon, and other rulers are told to be faithful to God, not go after idols, remember what scripture teaches, etc., it's not as though such matters hadn't been addressed elsewhere, so that there was a need to bring them up. Polygamy would be especially tempting for kings, as Solomon illustrates. There would be reason to mention it in Deuteronomy 17 even if it had been condemned before.
And you still haven't addressed what I said about the absence of any condemnation of the most polygamist kings in light of Deuteronomy 17. If you're going to ask why polygamists in general weren't condemned more explicitly for engaging in the practice, then the same can be asked of your position with regard to the most polygamist kings. Why don't we see them explicitly and repeatedly condemned for violating Deuteronomy 17?
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteYou write:
"I don't think you've made an OT case for it being sin. The kinds of arguments you're making are like those made by Christian teetotalers. They will cite various OT passages that teach about the dangers of and consequences of drunkeness and then infer from that that drinking alcoholic beverages is sinful. But that's a total non-sequitur. An abuse or excess of something is not the same thing as a moderate use of or involvement in that same thing."
To support your analogy, you'd have to address my exegetical arguments. I haven't argued that polygamy can lead to something scripture condemns, as drinking alcohol can lead to drunkenness. Rather, I've argued that scripture condemns polygamy itself. Asserting that polygamy is more like drinking than drunkenness is an argument by analogy minus the argument.
You write:
"Yet, you take Jesus statements on a totally different topic and derive inferences from as if they are nearly conclusive for your position."
Adultery is a violation of the monogamous nature of marriage. So is polygamy. The two aren't "totally different topics".
And a passage like Matthew 19 doesn't have to be "nearly conclusive" in order to support my position.