Hank Hanegraaff and another textbook answer to Polygyny

The Self Styled "Bible Answer Man" and another set of pat answers, that don't measure up. Hank asks "Does 2 Samuel 12 approve of Polygamy?"

"A recent caller to the Bible Answer Man broadcast asked for further clarification as to whether 2 Samuel 12:8 might well suggest that God approves of the practice of polygamy. I promised to provide additional perspective to this very significant question, and I say 'significant' in that one may legitimately question a God who approves the practice of polygamy."

Once again the debate is subtly characterized by misuse of the language. Polygamy, monogamy, polyandry, polyamory and polygyny are all part of a spectrum of non Biblical words, they are defined culturally, not in a Christian context. As such we should use them properly, not as they are misused repeatedly. Scripture never advocates polygamy, if it does advocate any form of marriage other than monogamy, it's polygyny. In truth the division is a secular one. It should be significant to note that the Bible recognizes only marriage and other husband-wife relationships known as concubinage. Scripture clearly limits a woman to one husband at a time, and takes a decidedly dim view of serial marriage of women when their former partner is still alive (Romans 7).

"In 2 Samuel 12, the Lord, speaking through Nathan the prophet, says to King David, 'I gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your arms, and I gave you the house of Israel and Judah; and if that had been too little, I would have added you many more things like these.'

At face value, this seems to suggest that God gave David multiple wives, and then stood ready to add to his harem with divine sanction. Of course, that’s precisely the problem with pressing Scripture into a wooden literal labyrinth, because—in truth—if Nathan’s words are anything at all, they are ironic."

If I understand Hank correctly, this is astounding presumption. He says that Nathan really doesn't mean this, he is saying like Job, "Surely you are the people, and with you wisdom dies?" Nathan is saying God gave David his wives but doesn't really mean it? Let us examine what "giving into your arms" means, which in other translations is "into your bosom." "Into your arms" is entirely translated from one Hebrew word, "חיק (cheyq)," which occurs 39 times. Theologians are fond of "first use" and "first use" for this term is Sarah telling Abraham I " 'חיק (cheyq)' Hagar to you." It generally means close intimate embrace and it is used TWICE by Nathan (imagine that, a full one in nineteen of the entire usage of the word) in the same passage. Bathsheba was in the poor man/lamb illustration, the lamb, that Uriah "חיק (cheyq)'d," so to speak. That brings us to the other use in interpretation that theologians are fond of. How is it used by the same speaker/author? Nathan only uses the word twice and the are the only uses of that term in the books of Samuel, all in 2nd Samuel chapter 12.

"David had just murdered a man in order to have another woman appended to his harem. Despite the generosity of the very God who had made him sovereign ruler of the land, the king had stolen the wife of a servant and that to satisfy his carnal lust."

I agree here with Hank that this is the point, though he uses the term "harem" because of it's pejorative quality. David, who has plenty of wives, has stolen a poor man's only wife. Adultery is wrong, murder is wrong, but I disagree with Hank and say that Nathan (and therefore God) really means it, exactly as it was said. God says; "All you had to do was ASK David, I'd have given you more wives, I already had, so why are you stealing that which is not yours?"

"As with David, Solomon, David’s son, had extravagances in multiplying not only horses, but multiplying wives, and that was a significant factor in the unraveling of a kingdom."

Strangely though Hank, scripture does chide Solomon specifically for his sin, and it is NEVER said to be his many wives. That's odd, because I would think 1000 total wives and concubines had to be "a lot." Perhaps that is because we have a suggestion of how many wives is too much, and how many wives Solomon had, for a time: Song of Songs 6:8:

"There are threescore queens (60), and fourscore concubines (80), and virgins without number."

At the time of the writing of Song of Songs, Solomon has 60 wives of marriage and 80 concubines. So what does Nehemiah chide Solomon for? The number of his wives? He does not. No King of Israel or Judah is ever chided for the number of their wives, anywhere in scripture. Solomon is upbraided in the analysis of Scripture, for the UNBELIEF of his wives: Nehemiah 13:25 & 26:

"I contended with them, and cursed them, and smote certain of them, and plucked off their hair, and made them swear by God, saying, Ye shall not give your daughters unto their sons, nor take their daughters unto your sons, or for yourselves. Did not Solomon king of Israel sin by these things? yet among many nations was there no king like him, who was beloved of his God, and God made him king over all Israel: nevertheless even him did outlandish "נכרי (nokriy)(stranger, alien, foreign)" women cause to sin."

I can only conclude, that though the number of Solomon's wives almost has to be too many, it is not the number that was his sin, his sin was "outlandish" women. Thus one would conclude that at some point Solomon went from an acceptable number of wives, of local origin, to a large number of foreign marriage alliances with unbelieving women. The bulk of his eventual 300 wives, and 700 concubines coming from this forbidden source. This is backed up by 1st Kings 11:1-3:

"But king Solomon loved many "רב (rab)" strange "נכרי (nokriy)" women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites; Of the nations concerning which the LORD said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love. And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart."

It is only after the word "many" (the same root for the word "many" in Deuteronomy 17) that the strangeness of wives is mentioned. Essentially Solomon's sin was firstly, strange women, of whom he took quite a lot. After the primary sin (he should NEVER take foreign woman of unbelief) Solomon takes "many," a term of subjective value. Three may be enough for me, but another might handle ten well, this is the parable of the talents. A King could have several, but not too many wives, but no outlandish ones at all, just like any other Israelite. It doesn't matter that Solomon may have taken 840 wives of a forbidden sort, the primary sin was they were all forbidden. The OUTLANDISH ones, and a great "רב (rab)" number of them as well.

"Who can forget the explicit admonition of Moses in Deuteronomy 17:17: Do not multiply wives or your heart will be led astray!"

Hank, you're proposing, because of the preceding parallel treatment of horses, in verse 16, that a King could have only one horse. This is ludicrous.

"Moreover, monogamous marriage is clearly taught in Genesis (2:22-24), and then reiterated by Christ himself."

Now Hank downshifts into assertion. When an author is not specific, and buries the lead, like Hank just did, and says it's "clear," it almost certainly isn't. Nothing in the concept of "one flesh" says that monogamy is endorsed. All it says is that married people are "one flesh." Since God in his own law CLEARLY recognizes that you can have more than one wife and since you are in fact "one flesh" with your wife, Hank confuses the condition of "one flesh" with the estate of monogamy which he further confuses with marriage itself, and there is no place in scripture that grants equivalency to the idea "One Flesh"=Monogamy=Marriage. Monogamy isn't even a word in the Bible.

"Jesus went on to say that, 'Anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery' (Matt 19:9). Not only so, but marriage is an analogy for the relationship that God has with his people, with the Church His one and only bride."

Now the typical piling on starts. After "clearly" we hear the jumble of arguments shoved on us in rapid fire form. Package the bunk together, and pass it all through the gate "Trojan Horse" style. Hank, what happens if a man DOESN'T divorce his wife, and marries another? Also, you're making the error of analogy as fact by saying that Christ, apparently depicted as monogamous, is serving as an instructive example to us in marriage, in the apparent fact of his monogamy. This would have to be clearly stated as so, you're not free to simply say that "See, this really looks like and probably is a monogamy, so it means we should be monogamous.

"Furthermore, reading the Bible for all its worth involves recognition that the narratives of Scripture are often descriptive as opposed to prescriptive. The fact that Scripture reveals the patriarchs with all their warts and moles and wrinkles is to warn us of their failures, it’s not to teach us to emulate their practices. Far from blinking at David’s polygamous behavior, the Bible reveals that as a result of his sin, the sword never left his home."

Now the outright equivocation and lie. It is NOT David's "Polygamous Behavior" for which the sword never departs his home, David is ALREADY VERY POLGYNOUS in his marriage practice, it is specifically for his MURDER and THEFT through ADULTERY, of Bathsheba. He MURDERS URIAH, after STEALING his wife. 2nd Samuel 12:9 & 10:

"Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon. Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife."

NOT POLYGAMY Hank, for there was not even such a word in all of scripture, it is the theft of Uriah's wife, and his MURDER, for which the sword does not depart. You sin yourself by saying it was polygamy for you distort the word of God's Prophet, which is not merely descriptive, it is the WORD OF GOD. This is God's verdict, not the distorted twisted lie you offer up.

"Finally, let me say this, as God permitted divorce because of the hardness of men’s hearts, so too He put up with polygamy because of humankind’s insolent stubbornness."

I disagree with this entirely. But for now I shall grant that the interpretation that divorce was allowed because of mens ugly hard heartedness is correct in its spin, presented here. NOWHERE, is the following LIE substantiated. The lie that "Polygyny, like divorce, was allowed because men were hard hearted." This is simple invention. Arguably, Hank and others have found the category to place Polygyny in, if it is indeed reluctantly allowed by God, but their problem is, for Polygyny to BE "Like Divorce" in this way, it must somewhere be said that it is "Like Divorce" in this way. BUT IT NEVER IS.

"The apostle Paul in definitive fashion says just as there are no slaves but only free in the economy of God, so too there is no male or female but all are one in Christ. Indeed, one might well say that the words of Paul in Ephesians 5 have ennobled and empowered women in the West such that far from being chattel, their considered co-laborers in Christ with the very men who are instructed to give up their rights for them."

Hank, would you then have women Elders in the church? Preachers? Would you then sanction Gay Marriage, because after all, why cannot I have a husband as a man? We are all equal, would you deny a woman a wife, like I am able to take? Are children in charge of parents? Did Paul not mean what he wrote to Philemon? This cannot be the interpretation of Ephesians 5, for Paul has just gotten through with telling wives to submit to husbands, yet there are neither male nor female? You twist the scripture grossly out of context to contradict what just went before in the same chapter. We are all equal in Christ after JUDGMENT. Paul is reminding men of that, so that they do not despise the estate of one or the other in this life, because of our eventual status in the next.

(Revised mildly on June 20th, 2010. Expanded information on the Hebrew for "Many")

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Hank Hanegraaff doesn't handle a Polygyny question.

On Hank Hanegraaff’s program, “The Bible Answerman” on December 10th, 2007 a caller introduces the subject of “eisegesis” which turns out to be his way of segueing into a discussion of what he calls “poly-GUY-nee”, this being his mispronunciation of polygyny which is actually pronounced “puh-LIJ-uh-nee”.

The caller then poses the problem that discussing polygyny VS “monogamy only” for the Christian, seems to be uncomfortably like eisegesis when it comes to deriving the value of “monogamy only” for the laity. The first assertion is that for deacons and elders and Kings, it seems to him that monogamy is indeed imposed, but that he has a friend who believes in polygyny as a valid form of marriage who simply points out that he is none of those things. I have cleaned out a few “ums”, “uhs” and meaningless interjections.

Hank: “If you look at the passage, 1st Timothy Chapter 3, the passage is about overseers and deacons.

Caller: “I was thinking about that as well as the one in the Old Testament about Kings. And because Kings were forbidden to have more than one wife and then in the 1st Timothy passage you’re talking about, you also have the deacons and the overseers and the pastors.”

Hank: “Right, the principle is the same though isn’t it? In this particular context though, 1st Timothy Chapter 3 and Deuteronomy 17:17…if you look at 1st Timothy Chapter 3, Paul here is writing about deacons, who are to be men, like overseers” (and then he quotes, paraphrasing a bit, apparently from the NIV):

“8 Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. 9 They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. 10 They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.”

Caller: “Yes, so the passage when taken does forbid those four occupations from polygyny…”

Hank: (interrupting) “You’re talking about polygamy, right?”

Caller: “Well, we always know that polyandry is forbidden, I was just talking about polygyny where (there are) multiple wives, not multiple husbands. The thing that I’m saying is I took him to where it says, for example, “Let every man have his own wife” (1st Corinthians 7:2) and he says ‘If I had multiple wives, isn’t each of them my own, not somebody elses'?"

Hank: (laughing skeptically) “I think the point here though is a prohibition against promiscuity in context, as well as polygamy in the sense that man’s affection has to be for his wife alone, and that’s the point.”

Caller: “I tried that too but his argument was ‘Well, if I’m married to them, then it’s not adultery and it’s not fornication’.”

Hank: “But you have to interpret scripture in light of scripture and the whole of scripture teaches us that we should be the husband of one wife. We leave all others and cling to one another and the two become ‘one flesh’.”

Caller: “So where would you take somebody who wants that literally said?”

Hank: “I would take them throughout the scriptures to all the passages in which you have a strong prohibition against polygamy.”

Caller: “But when I do that he says ‘It doesn’t actually say that and therefore it’s eisegesis’.”

Hank: “I don’t think that’s the case, I think that polygamy is something that is very clearly talked about in a lot of different ways.”

Caller: “I can’t find the passage where it actually says so straightforwardly so it’s not talking about one of those four occupations. So I wasn’t able to give him a literal verse about somebody who is not a King, overseer, pastor or deacon. I couldn’t find any passage that is clearly applying to the laity.”

Hank: “I think what you need to do is point out that polygamy was practiced in the Old Testament but was never commended by God and in the New Testament you want to look first at the authority of Jesus Christ who makes it clear that a man leaves his father and mother and is united to wife, not wives, and the two, not three or more, become ‘one flesh’. Jesus even refers to Genesis chapter 2:24 in making his point. In fact, when Jesus says “anyone who divorces except for marital unfaithfulness and marries another woman, he commits adultery” (Matthew 19)

Caller: “If you have some passages I’d really…”

Hank: “Let me give you a couple off the top of my head, we’ve mentioned the Deuteronomy 17:17 where a man must not be polygamous by marrying multiple wives and in 1st Kings chapter, I think it’s 11, you have Solomon having 700 wives and 300 concubines and as a result of that he runs into all kinds of problems.

In 1st Corinthians Chapter 7, Paul picks up the same kind of theme that is used by Jesus by saying each man should have his own wife, not wives and each woman her own husband, again, not husbands. That’s 1st Corinthians Chapter 7. And then you have ‘a wife must not separate from her husband, again, not husbands, and if she does she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband’, again, singular and “a husband must not divorce his wife’ again, not wives, plural. If you got to 1st Timothy Chapter 3, the passage that we talked about earlier, again, I think that pretty compelling, even though you had some discussion on that, Titus 1:6 also points out that an elder must be the husband of one wife, again, much more could be said, thank you for your question…"

My comments are as follows: Hank either is a novice to this discussion or he's trying to intimidate the caller to back him off. Hank is wrong. The caller, while not being able to pronounce the word "polygyny" correctly, is nonetheless careful enough to use the right word and contrast it with the larger meaning of polygamy and the practice of polyandry which is part of that larger meaning. No one of the three words appear in scripture, so we must use their secular definitions. Only polygyny is practiced in scripture, that which we would call polyandry is always defined as sexual sin in scripture and scripture makes absolutely no apologies for being what we in our society would call "sexist". The argument, "what's sauce for the goose" does not fly in the Bible. Polygamy is simply too broad a category as it is inclusive of polyandry. Hank later employs the sort of equivocation he sets up by with the insistence on the word polygamy later by blurring passages intended only for men, or only for women to apply to both men and women, just as he uses polygamy instead of polygyny.

Next, the caller, Hank, and our third party polygyny advocate (apparently) see 4 categories of forbidding which Pastor, Elder, Deacon, and King. It is notable that this is what is known as "inclusionary" language. Inclusionary language is used whenever a writer of a contract wants to focus only on those included, not those which are not spoken of. The caller and Hank employ a kind of misdirection. By making the list extra long, they try to imply it's a good idea since there are so many people included and by spreading the tent as many places as they do, that this really seems like the scriptures meant everybody. In reality though, when writers in all cultures and languages and lawyers who write contracts list categories specifically, that is all they wish to include. Thus the friend of the caller is correct. He's laity, it doesn't apply to him.

Additionally, the list is shorter. Kings are not on it. Kings are not to "multiply" or have "many" wives depending on the translation of the Hebrew word "rabah". The meaning of "rabah" is made clear by the preceding verse, Deuteronomy 17:16 in which a king is not to have "rabah" horses. It's quite simple, either a King is to have one wife, and this behavior is to be a moral right and example to all and he is also to have one horse with the same moral and behavioral compulsions for the laity. The idea that each Israelite could only have one horse, is, ridiculous.

Hank then employs the idea that it's "obvious" several times and cites the "whole of scripture" and uses phrases like "scripture interprets scripture" and the meaning of all of those phrases is pretty simple. "Don't be a dummy, agree with me, it's obvious, and if you can't see it, you're a dummy." Hank is very polite, but this is what he is saying.

Hank also cites 1st Corinthians 7:2 without pointing out the entirely different word for "own" in the Greek in each case which make the meanings of "own wife" and "own husband" potentially VERY different. The English is simply not specific in this case, and allows for that dramatic potential difference in meaning, the Greek in fact, makes the meanings contrasting, not identical. The only question is, how different?

Hank dodges the fact that as the caller clearly states, there is no specific prohibition against polygyny. Hank also falsely states that God does not "commend" polygyny, when in fact God must do so since he employs it as a regular feature of the inheritance solution and compulsion found in "levirate law" in Deuteronomy 25.

Hank also employs a definition of "one flesh" that is essentially a construing of "one flesh" as a synonym for "monogamy" which is also a synonym in his lexicon for "marriage". They are not all the same thing. Monogamy is in fact marriage, but if polygyny advocates are correct, so is polygyny. Thus monogamy would be a kind of marriage, but not the extent of what marriage is. Neither the practice of polygyny or monogamy would speak to all of what would be contained in the word marriage. Got himself says two marriages can exist at the same time to one man later in his law. If God says that, then if you are married to two, and you are "one flesh" with those to whom you are married, it's simple. You're "one flesh" with both wives. Nothing in the Biblical concept of "one flesh" says "One wife, One Husband ONLY."

This would lead us to our next error on Mr. Hanegraaff's part. The equivocation of polygyny and promiscuity. At best, if he is correct, this is redundant. If polygyny is not marriage but sexual sin, then all the injunctions against promiscuity apply. Otherwise, they do not, for as Hebrews teaches, the marriage bed is undefiled. If in fact marriage exists in the case of polygyny, then none of the injunctions against promiscuity and fornication apply.

Mr. Hanegraaff then does what most monogamy only proponents do. After having laid a groundwork of equivocation, they simply begin to lie. In fairness, a lot of the lies are unconscious and depend on the groundwork of eisegesis they have already laid. Hank says that Solomon's problems were due to his wives when scripture never does, and in fact lays that problem squarely at the feet of WHO his wives were. It was not the plurality of Solomon's wives that were the problem, it was that some of them (thus wives) were foreigners and unbelievers. Strange women. This is clearly stated as wrong in the law, that admonition being repeated throughout the Old Testament, and later in Nehemiah 13, it is scripture itself that pronounces Solomon's sin to be his foreign, unbelieving or "strange" wives. His believing wives, are not a problem. He also lies by misquoting the scriptures, saying that Deuteronomy 17:17 is a simple prohibition of polygyny in general. Whatever it prohibits, it prohibits only to Kings.

Hank also drags the dead cat of divorce into the proceeding. Monogamy only advocates do this frequently so as to equate the two because they both involve the subject of marriage. A man who is polygynous need never get a divorce, for any reason. He could, but more than the monogamy only advocate, he is averse to divorce. Divorce has no place in this discussion. It's simply a Trojan Horse to bring the categories of "God's displeasure" and his "reluctant or permissive will" into play. Whatever God says about divorce, is about divorce. Not about polygyny.

I could go into greater detail, but I already have elsewhere. I've touched on the failings of Hank's arguments. If anyone cares to comment or is unfamiliar with my work, I would be glad to expand on them.

More →

Sphere: Related Content