A Continuing Series at Vermont Polygamy

Over the past year, and more intensely over the past four months, I have been in locked horns mode with the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.

The perspective of this discussion is one of a Reformed Person (myself) who claims the tradition of the Reformation (that's Martin Luther, John Calvin and John Knox) who disputes the conclusion of the Westminster Confession of Faith on Marriage. The Orthodox Presbyterian Church is big on formal membership and I am lobbying to join the local church. It was important that I complete this process, to be in submission to the church, prior to launching off on my own to promote polygynous marriage being legal, in Vermont. Read on.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

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

Vermont Political Action on Polygyny? $60.00. Winning the battle? Priceless.

The goal is to hit the ground running. The "Pay Pal" button is on the right. To that end I visited with the Vermont Secretary of State's office on 26 Terrace Street in Montpelier.

The likelihood of drafting a bill, introducing it into Vermont's legislature and gaining passage prior to the end of the current legislative session is very low. It's probably better than me winning the lottery, provided I buy a lotto ticket, but not much better.

The best way to gain legal status right now for polygyny in Vermont is to strike, through court action, the word "two" from the current marriage law of Vermont, as altered through SB-115. For that I need a test case, and I need donations. Pure and simple.

As a lobbyist in the state of Vermont, I can solicit money to any amount, and must report such donations at the time when I reach a spending level of $500.00 related to my lobbying activity. It costs a minimum of $60.00 to register for that activity, so I will be registering when I get $60.00 in donations which I am actively soliciting beginning NOW.

When I reach $500.00 in spending I am required to file forms with the State of Vermont detailing financial activity. That activity I will keep track of publicly, either here, or on some other public site.

This is your chance to be serious about legal polygamy which would detach polygamy from the myths of "child abuse," pedophilia and rape. I know you're out there, I know you fear persecution. I know you have in some cases, already been persecuted. If this had happened two years ago, and had this action been taken, such as I am taking right now, YFZ could have been averted.

Beyond money, I need legal help, preferably from inside Vermont.

Beyond legal help, I need a test case, preferably again, a "trio" or better from inside Vermont that wishes to attempt to register their marriage legally through the state of Vermont. This would involve going as soon as possible to Vermont and asking for a marriage license which would be denied based on the fact that it is to a man already married.

I will not promote a polyandry as a test case.

I will not promote a group marriage as a test case.

I will not promote a bisexual union of more than one woman with a man as a test case.

This effort will be to promote the union of one man with more than one woman legally in a relationship that is stated to be heterosexual.

The time is now. If you don't join with me and support this effort, you aren't serious about protecting polygyny or your families. It's entirely possible that if action is taken quickly, the first polygynous union could occur before the end of this year.

While the effort is ongoing to gain court approval, there will be an effort beginning in 2010 in Vermont's annual legislative session to strike the word "two" from our marriage law. That stands less of a chance of approval, but will gain attention for the cause.

I'm willing to go on point. Support me or don't complain about persecution. This is certainly one of the main reasons I have been moved to Vermont by the LORD our God. I cannot divine his complete purpose, but for me to enter the fray at this point I have little doubt of God's purpose. The outcome I pray, and I hope you will pray as well, will be in keeping with his best intents for us as believers.

I'm entirely willing to believe if you don't support me personally in this cause, you still support legalization of polygyny, but you would have to support someone. If that person is not me, I really think I should do less banging of my head against the wall on this issue. You, the reader, who alleges to support polygyny, I cannot regard as serious.

So support ME, in this cause NOW, or support SOMEONE and if you find that someone, let ME know who they are so that I can in turn support them. Support no one and I have to regard you collectively as dilettantes and ultimately cowards, at this moment of historic opportunity.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

A Blast from the Past, Dr. Don Dean and I, on Polygyny

Many people will say the advocacy of Polygyny is frivolous as few peace seeking Christians would flaunt the laws of the land by taking other wives. I have several things to say in that area.

One, in those nations promoting monogamy through law, there is still divorce, and the pattern of polygynous marriage leads to a better understanding of that unfortunate human necessity born of our sinful natures. The other is, you can get on a computer in Afghanistan or Iran or any other nation in the world, and you can access this forum and others like it. It shows serious myopia to think that we in the west own this discussion.

Polygyny is:

"The condition or practice of having more than one wife at one time."

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright© 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

It is my declaration that the practice of Polygyny is just as valid today as it was when it was practiced in the Old Testament. There are a couple of tired arguments against it that I would like to discourage up front. In that I am addressing these arguments up front, the simple repetition of them would be to engage in one of the most ancient fallacies known as "argumentum ad nauseam." Since I have made the argument already, repeating it is now a fallacy since the argument is answered and that answer must now be replied to.

"It's only allowed (with regret) by God, we shouldn't do it" This is a simple "non sequitur" This argument is based on the absolutely inexplicable connection most people have in their minds between this subject and Christ's statements on divorce. Somehow because Christ says divorce is reluctantly permitted, it is also true that Polygyny is reluctantly permitted. This is an extremely pervasive belief but no proof is ever offered for the connection. There is a secondary connection between this topic and divorce but it has nothing to do with whether or not God merely permits Polygyny in a grudging fashion. Please don't bring it up unless you find the verse that states it. This verse has proved completely hidden to me though I read scripture daily and have for years, cover to cover, front to back, over and over again, version after version. It's probably not there.

"One Flesh" Supposedly this is a devastating argument against polygyny. It assumes a definition of the phrase "one flesh" and thus "begs the question" or is a "circular argument." The reasoning is based on the unfounded notion that One Flesh is made of two components only, and that the function closes after that. No evidence in scripture exists to support that notion, but it's advanced anyway. God is three in one, Christ unifies with the church, which is his bride, and is many many people. The notion that the two become one and nothing else can ever happen after that is a subjective notion, not a scriptural one.

"Cleaving" This is a use of the word in a "Colored" way (Emotive Language). Cleave conjures up certain images and preferred definitions but cleave has definitions that are near polar opposites. , one meaning to cut or divide, the other to cling to. You'd need a philologist to know why. There are many gradations of meaning between those two poles. Context dictates the meaning you select and the context doesn't support the notion of a bilateral exclusiveness. If you're going to go there, you're going to have to prove to me that cleave means only what you want it to mean. This argument could also be termed "Idiosyncratic Language."

"It's Adam & Eve, not Adam & Eve & Amber & Crystal" which is a variation of the "Adam & Eve, not Adam & Steve" argument against homosexual "marriage." This is a "Faulty" or "Hasty Generalization." Neither argument holds water. This is not to say I condone Adam & Steve, I don't. There are other reasons why Adam and Steve should stay away from one another, but they aren't spoken to in the creation story. Using the Adam and Eve monogamy example assumes the story in all it's details, before the fall, to be an archetype for all marriage that we must follow without deviation. It is not possible to argue monogamy from their example unless you embrace all parts of the example. Unless you got married buck naked, I urge you not to go there. There are other ways this supposed archetype get strained as well. You're probably not named Adam, or Eve, you aren't made from a rib or you're not missing one. The list goes on. Adam and Eve's marriage is an archetype ONLY in ways stated elsewhere in scripture to be an archetype or ideal.

"It's bad to divide love" To which I reply it is thus wrong to even have your first child, much less two or more. There's no arguing this, really, but I know some of you will try. This is essentially a use of a "False Dilemma."

"It leads to Strife" An example of "non causa pro causa." This is the human condition. It's also a deceptive argument when appealing to scripture, very few of the patriarchs in scripture can be demonstrated to have been monogamous. Thus all family strife can be conveniently placed at the feet of their polygyny. Never mind that Isaac and Rebecca were monogamous, wow, what problems they had in their family.

"Solomon’s problems are traced to Polygyny" This is a "red herring." His problems are actually traced to his foreign marriage alliances, in which he took wives that had not renounced their various religions. This was the warning and purpose of the Law against it, and it was what happened to Solomon.

"Deuteronomy 17:17" No, read verse 16. Having read verse 16 it is obvious that you must "Equivocate" to reach the conclusion that a King must be monogamous. Take a deep breath. You're arguing that a King could only possess one horse. The admonition is against many wives, not more than one. The only open ended question in this verse is this: How much is many? Also unless you're a King, it doesn't apply. To make it apply to most people you must engage in "dicto simpliciter." You're ignoring the context of the rule and applying it to a specific situation, namely one that it isn't said to apply to.

"Elders are to be husbands of one wife" Again, "dicto simpliciter." This is a condition of office, not a rant against polygyny. Again, take a deep breath. The argument using this verse employs the notion that it is an ideal to be strived for. Credible, until you realize you've just said women are sub creatures. Besides it's virtual proof that there were polygynous couples in the early church. Otherwise why say anything about it?

"Why can't women have more than one husband?" Because Sarah called Abraham Lord, no one can serve two masters, and man is to woman as God is to man. If you don't recognize where I source these things, you don't belong in this thread. "Faulty generalization," 'red herring & "dicto simpliciter."

"It's Adultery!" This depends on "word magic", "begging the question" and "subjectivism" No, it's not, if you can marry 20 women you can have sex with all of them and it's not adultery, the marriage bed is undefiled. First you must prove that it's wrong to marry more than one woman at a time, then you might have a case. Don't mention this until you can prove polygyny is wrong.

"Lamech was the first Polygynist" The logical fallacy engaged in here is "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" which asserts that because two things occur together, they are related. Lamech is the first Polygynist mentioned in scripture. Nothing is ever said about his Polygyny other than he engaged in it. The argument is that Lamech was a bad dude (which might be implied but not stated in scripture), and he's the "First Polygynist", therefore Polygyny is bad.

"It's against the Law" This speaks to an issue related fallacy known as "Impossible Condition." Those raising this argument don't want to debate the subject until the law changes, thereby postponing the argument they are answering, instead of dealing with its merits. On top of that, it's actually debatable that Polygyny is against the law. It is also important to deal with it because it may not be against the law soon.

"It's against the Vows of Marriage" Again, a "faulty generalization" because not everyone takes these vows. If you did then you have a promise you need to keep, it doesn't make Polygyny wrong, it makes it wrong for whoever took that vow. Besides, those vows are not from scripture anyway.

Up until this point, I've made the milder of the arguments with regard to the practice of polygyny. It is in fact signifigant when you have ALL the written revelation that God intended us to have, that God has not condemned the practice and he has chosen to do so in the face of numerous examples. We're not examining an infinite universe and claiming we haven't SEEN the proof yet, we're examining a finite universe for which I can look at all the proofs that exist. We know the rules of the game, we have the entire book of rules. There ARE NO OTHER RULES. Then there is this, 1st Corinthians 4:6,(NASB)

"Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other."

That we do not exceed what is written? Part of Romans 14 is dedicated to not imposing restrictions, though mostly to with regard to food. Several places in scripture warn against changing the scripture through subtraction, AND addition, so to say that it is not forbidden, refering to scripture, is a COMPELLING argument. Deuteronomy 4:2,(NASB)

"You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you."

Just to be sure, in case we missed it, Deuteronomy 12:32,(NASB)

"Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it."

But the we're not done yet. Let's stop off in the middle of the scriptures, Proverbs 30:5 & 6,(NASB)

"Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar."

Ouch, that's strong stuff. As a parting shot, in this continuing theme, though it is about the book of Revelation, we can see that God is sensitive about his word getting changed, because he continues with Revelation 22:18 & 19,(NASB)

"I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book."

Yikes.

The logic is this. God meant to say everything he was going to say in terms of law. He emphasizes this by forbidding additions and subtractions. Thus if he has not banned something, he forbids you, as Christians, from doing so. In discussing the popular arguments against Polygyny I have always been doing it as a courtesy to the people who think they have valid objections. The first part of this post deals with the various arguments people raise against polygyny and their initial refutations. There is of course the possiblity that these arguments can be advanced and an intial refutation does not mean that they could not be advanced. This has in fact been done on occasion and I have modified my argument to deal with those insights.

The last part of this post deals with the roadblock of God's own word when it comes to adding conditions. We can argue about the first part, and of course it is my position that I have trumped everyone's arguments there. This could be proved false someday by a good analysis of the scriptures, but then we would still have to deal with the total absence of condemnation by God in the face of numerous examples of the practice by God's people.

In summation I can say that the second part of the argument, dealing with no condemnation is an Iron Clad proof. It cannot be said that this would be like God never saying "Don't Smoke Marijuana" since no example of pot usage exists in scripture and pot is for intoxication which is forbidden. Many examples of polygyny in every walk of Hebrew life exist. Priests practiced it, common people practiced it and Kings practiced it. Zero condemnation.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Discussion goes well

As I mentioned before, I met with an elder of my church.

The probable outcome of the discussion would be that they won't change, and I won't change, but that I would be accepted. That'll do.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Face to Face on Polygyny

Tomorrow I begin a sit down discussion with an elder in my denomination, on Polygyny.

I have no idea how long it will last. Normally such discussions do not last very long. Pastors in general resort to authority (their own) very quickly when a discussion of doctrines or theology does not go their way.

At issue is my place in the denomination. Whether I will remain in it, or be cast out of it. Either way works for me but I would greatly prefer to stay in the denomination. I will not compromise though.

Either I am convinced, or I will stand fast. Either I am accepted, just as I am in the denomination, or they must shut the door to me. Acceptance may be accomplished by agreeing to disagree, or by agreeing.

7am EST tomorrow. Your prayers are greatly appreciated and valued.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

How Francis A. Schaeffer relates to Polygamy

I still find among my truly Bible Believing friends, that there is a lack of knowledge as to how we got here. That is, how did we get to a place where people claim to be Evangelicals, to believe the Bible, to accept Jesus Christ as savior and when you appeal to scripture they glance away, make a dismissive hand gesture and come up with the equivalent of "that was then, this is now" or "that doesn't matter." It goes deep. Our bad doctrines have created centuries of psychic struggle in Christianity and the result is a collective denial of the truth of the Old Testament. Embarrassed "intellectual" believers want to brush aside the theological content of those passages. Inconvenienced contemporary cultural Christians want to continue life as they know it, without asking as Schaeffer did, "How should we then live?"

"There is only one way to describe those who no longer hold to a full view of Scripture. Although many of these would like to retain the evangelical name for themselves, the only accurate way to describe this view is that it is a form of neo-orthodox existential theology. The heart of neo-orthodox existential theology is that the Bible gives us a quarry out of which to have religious experience, but that the Bible contains mistakes where it touches that which is verifiable — namely history and science. But unhappily we must say that in some circles this concept now has come into some of that which is called evangelicalism. In short, in these circles the neo-orthodox existential theology is being taught under the name of evangelicalism.

The issue is whether the Bible gives propositional truth (that is, truth which may be stated in propositions) where it touches history and the cosmos, and this all the way back to pre-Abrahamic history, all the way back to the first eleven chapters of Genesis; or whether instead of that, it is only meaningful where it touches that which is considered religious. T. H. Huxley, the biologist friend of Darwin, the grandfather of Aldous and Julian Huxley, wrote in 1890 that he visualized the day not far hence in which faith would be separated from all fact, and especially all pre-Abrahamic history, and that faith would then go on triumphant forever. This is an amazing statement for 1890, before the birth of existential philosophy or existential theology. Huxley indeed foresaw something clearly. I am sure that he and his friends considered this some kind of a joke, because they would have understood well that if faith is separated from fact and specifically pre-Abrahamic space-time history, it is only another form of what we today call a trip.

But unhappily, it is not only the avowedly neo-orthodox existential theologians who now hold that which T. H. Huxley foresaw, but some who call themselves evangelicals as well. This may come from the theological side in saying that not all the Bible is revelational. Or it may come from the scientific side in saying that the Bible teaches little or nothing when it speaks of the cosmos. Or it may come from the cultural side in saying that the moral teachings of the Bible were merely expressions of the culturally determined and relative situation in which the Bible was written and therefore not authoritative today."

And thus I accuse all of Reformation Christianity, probably Shaeffer himself, of not realizing the extent to which this pervasive error has gone. Shaeffer would probably agree that in principle, he too did not "get" the extent and depth of the error. We would probably disagree on what portions of doctrine represented that error. I am certain that Shaeffer was from the "Monogamy Only" side of the theologic path.

Let us look though at his last statement in this quoted passage again though. "The Bible (is seen) as merely expressions of the culturally determined and relative situation in which the Bible was written and therefore not authoritative today." I cannot count the times that truly Bible believing Christians have thrown this at me. This calls into question my terming them "truly Bible Believing." Are they really? The answer is they are not. They are Bible Believer wannabees.

Christianity is hard. The progression of history is not towards cultural progress, but towards cultural destruction. We are curiously asked by God to work towards cultural progress, revealing his light to the world, being salt or leaven, but the world is slouching towards Babylon, not the New Jerusalem. It is only the apocalyptic intervention of God in the end that will restore things. I'll get to more of that in a future post in which I will examine the prophetic image of Nebuchadnezzar's dream.

"Cults" often spring up when Christians or offshoots of Christianity such as the FLDS try to start living as they should. They take the Bible literally or they "restore" it in some way and then they try to live the life. Mainstream Christian denominations, even the most conservative ones seemed doomed to slouch towards theological and cultural decline. They take Shaeffer's last enunciated position, that the Bible is "cultural" and "not relevant for today." Christianity becomes a self expression, a religious "experience" and not hard truth about our lives.

In accepting polygyny, it is not the first eleven chapters of Genesis, or "pre-Abrahamic" writings that I talk about, but ALL of the Old Testament. All of God's law. All of God's prophecy and even some of the discussions about marriage and law Jesus had. If you stop telling yourself the noxious lie that the "Bible was written by men" or that it was "cultural" and coming up with the excuse to discard large portions of it based on their inconvenience, you're going to start living quite differently, and you DON'T want to do that. They'll come for you, just as they did in Waco, just as they did at Yearning For Zion. I embrace neither group as living the life of Christianity though I sometimes think I should research David Koresh a bit more, but I do say that if you start LIVING a life that even REMOTELY looks like what scripture said you should lead, the world will come to get you. With tanks, with sharpshooters, with APC's and they will try to burn your house down and destroy it utterly. They want NO PART of God.

If you are a Christian, if you say you believe the Bible, then it really is time to see how much of it you really believe.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Issuing the Polygyny Challenge AGAIN. Anybody, Anytime, ANYWHERE.

With the small qualification that they be Bible Believing Fundamentalist Christians I will debate anyone anytime anywhere on the truth of Polygyny. LIVE. PUBLICLY.

Want some smack? I still think I am the foremost proponent of the practice in terms of debate experience and debate ability.

You think Monogamy is the stuff? The God Ordained Original Pattern for Marriage?

Bring it, I can whup you five ways from Sunday.

I say all this in the context of Psalm 119:97-104: MEM.

"O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day. Thou through thy commandments hast made me wiser than mine enemies: for they are ever with me. I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies are my meditation. I understand more than the ancients, because I keep thy precepts. I have refrained my feet from every evil way, that I might keep thy word. I have not departed from thy judgments: for thou hast taught me. How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth! Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way."

It's coming. The legal climate I have predicted would probably come to pass in five years stands a good chance of coming in that time frame. Legalized "marriage" of any sort. Gays, Lesbians, whatever. Society believes they can bestow the benefits of marriage on anyone so it's coming. Any group of adults or persons of legal age to marry will at some point in the very near future be able to "marry" in the eyes of the law.

So what marriage is, is of paramount importance now. No longer will you be able to count on the law preventing anything other than heterosexual couples being bestowed with the legitimacy of marriage. Before you have neglected your mandate and sat back on the comfortable notion that Polygyny was ILLEGAL (even though it has not been for a while).

Debate ME. I will take you on. I am wiser than my enemies because HIS commandments are ever with me, I UNDERSTAND more than YOU DO because I keep HIS precepts and through them I GET UNDERSTANDING and HATE EVERY FALSE WAY.

Monogamy as marriage is a false way, a crooked path and YOU, the collective cowards of "Reformed Wisdom" teach it as Holy Writ. God indeed is not pleased, for this is the God that stares balefully at any who ADD to his word, and you ADD to it. You have in your laziness and cowardice DISARMED the flock and made them ready for wolves. 550 plus years of the Reformation and you sit on your hands and congratulate yourselves that you need do no more.

How can I swagger and do so righteously? Because I indeed do not swagger, but boast of the power of God's wisdom which I have submitted to. I preach nothing new. I invent no new doctrine. I merely look at God's will like Abraham did with Isaac and I submit to it. It's time. Get in FRONT of the question that was long overdue for review. Do it before you are forced. Debate me. Lose. Then Change. Or is God's truth TOO MUCH FOR YOU? 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