you are just poorly characterizing discernment, which we are expected to use. everything bad doesn't come with an explicit condemnation.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
False Witness on Polygamy: A Response to Michael Foster
Nope. Discernment would say all things are lawful, but not all are expedient.
“Yes, polygyny is never forbidden, but walk carefully and consider your possible consequences. It’s not something you want to walk into without serious consideration”
It’s not specifically or implicitly forbidden. That’s my point. At the very best it’s neutral. Anyone who implies forbidden status is deluding themselves.
In fact, scripture’s neutrality is exactly what started me on this journey to Biblical Families.
I’m probably in the minority here now as one of those who doesn’t go around reading scripture and looking for all the implicit or explicit promotions of it in scripture either.
It doesn’t need any implicit or explicit promotion. It just is. The mere fact that scripture describes it and NEVER prohibits it is fascinating. One has to look really hard for its implicit forbidden status. So much so that it exemplifies the very term of eisegesis.
There are plenty of “sins” that those of us who grew up in more fundamental churches can remember being implicit and “evident”, but lacking any scripture. Alcohol and tobacco come to mind. In case you didn’t know, Jesus made grape juice at the wedding in Cana. The Passover wine is really just old grape juice. Smokers only smoke because they’re drawn to the flames of hell where they’re going because…they don’t care for their temple of their body, never mind all those preachers either high blood pressure and diabetes from overeating. Gluttony isn’t a sin against the temple, only Jack Daniels and Marlboros are.
Man_in_the_Middle
Seasoned Member
LOL As a child, I heard all those old preachers preach those sermons! I always wondered why gluttony and gossiping and complaining weren't spoken so strongly against!!
But even going to the movies was a sin back then. Renting a video and watching it at home was a sin. Watching TV was akin to digging through a garbage can of filth to get to the one good thing at the bottom.
That same preacher today is retired and loves to watch his westerns on TV and videos. Crazy!!
And looking at women is lustful and adulterous because Jesus and Job said so. Job made that vow so it must mean all men are bound to it.LOL As a child, I heard all those old preachers preach those sermons! I always wondered why gluttony and gossiping and complaining weren't spoken so strongly against!!
But even going to the movies was a sin back then. Renting a video and watching it at home was a sin. Watching TV was akin to digging through a garbage can of filth to get to the one good thing at the bottom.
That same preacher today is retired and loves to watch his westerns on TV and videos. Crazy!!
We want you to get married and have babies but you aren’t supposed to look at women. Just figure it out.
We could go on, but I think my point is made. If you twist your implicits around enough, you can arrive at any doctrine you want, even gay Jesus.
I think the difference @Mojo was pointing at with this comment here
is that discernment is deciding what is expedient among moral choices for your own life, while what most who oppose polygyny do instead is declare a moral choice sin. A moral choice may still involve sacrifice or difficulty. Raising a large family is rewarding, but is an investment into the well being of your children that takes time and resources.
Your choice of words "Everything bad doesn't come with explicit condemnation" sounds similar to some of the double minded kind of thinking we run into OFTEN while engaging those grounded in their own feelings rather than scripture. Sin is the worst kind of "bad" and it is defined in the Bible. Human errors in judgment are to be expected. These YHWH allowed for and created laws like the Sabbath of years and canceling of debts, the 50th year Sabath of Sabaths too, to keep men free from bondage to other men.
Most will judge people like us and condemn us too....without ever showing us where we are outside of Biblical law. The first book of opinions, and 2nd Traditions, and fearful emotions are NOT part of the Bible and ONLY bind the consciences of those ignorant of the truth.
Which is precisely why I brought up tobacco and alcohol.
Much of what has magically been declared “sin” in especially American churches developed over time, but mostly during the social conscience era of the late 19th and early 20th century, and in many ways as an extension of Victorian sensibilities.
Social activists rightfully saw the degradation of society brought on by excesses of alcohol, opium, extreme child labor and prostitution.
In order to rally the troops to helping to remedy the scourges, there was a religious plea that illegitimately linked the negative affects of excess to any participation, even if minimal or recreational. They were MADE sin.
We engage in choices each day that reflect on our personal values and morality. If others extrapolate poor choices or poorly executed choices as somehow sinful, that’s on the accuser, not the accused.
*I hope this makes as much sense in writing as it does in my head because I’m really tired and fading fast right now.
I realize that this was written to others, but for clarification for those of us on the sidelines as the others interact, are you proposing that Jehoaida, as priest, was acting as magistrate and administrating within the bounds of that which was already considered legal?
I’ll bow out after this and let you converse with our other two brothers alone.
Over-simplifying, but briefly, I contend that the Hebrew word 'torah' is far better translated as His "instruction," rather than "Law."
Thus, "all Scripture" is valuable for instruction, but not necessarily as "Law." There are parables, negative examples, and many things that provide that instruction, and that includes 'precedent' as well.
There is also a reason the Bible uses the Hebrew words 'chuk,' 'mitzvah', and mishpat (and their plurals, e.g. mishpatim.)
Last edited:
I am presently working on an academic paper that speaks to how we identify passages in Scripture that possess genuine legislative force for the definition of sin. In that paper I introduce and then rigorously critique the widespread (though usually unarticulated) hermeneutical assumption I call “Whole-Canon-as-Flat-Law.”
By “Whole-Canon-as-Flat-Law” I mean the operating principle—common across evangelical, Reformed, Messianic, Hebrew-Roots, and even some progressive circles—that treats every verse in the Bible, regardless of literary genre, historical setting, or canonical position, as equally capable of functioning as binding statute that can create, modify, or abolish divine law. Narrative descriptions, prophetic metaphors, wisdom reflections, symbolic visions, and apostolic pastoral letters are all pressed into service as if they were clauses in a modern criminal code. The result is a canon that is simultaneously “very high” in authority and extraordinarily unstable in its moral output, because virtually any text can be mobilised to generate a new prohibition or to declare an old one obsolete.
Gentlemen, to answer the specific question about 2 Chronicles 24:1–3 (“Joash did what was right … and he took for himself two wives [plural] …”)—no, this passage does not legislate. It is historical narrative recording what a king did under the influence of the priest Jehoiada; it contains no prescriptive formula, no sanction, no procedural instruction, and no claim to universal normativity. Under the seven canons of divine legislation that I develop in the paper (especially Canon 1: Legality, Canon 4: Lenity, and Canon 7: Corroboration), a narrative notice that a Davidic king had multiple wives cannot create, expand, or repeal a statute on marital structure any more than the notice that Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kgs 11:3) legislates in favour of such arrangements. Both texts simply describe what was, without attaching divine approbation or disapprobation in statutory form.
This brings me to a hermeneutical error that most pro- and anti-polygynists make: turning non-legislative texts into “flat law” to support their positions. For example, anti-polygynists often treat 1 Corinthians 7:1 (“It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman”) and 1 Timothy 3:2 (“the husband of one wife”) as if they were statutory prohibitions criminalizing plural marriage universally, ignoring their pastoral and idiomatic contexts (advice on singleness amid immorality and character qualifications for elders, respectively) and the absence of penalties, corroborating witnesses, or explicit repeal of Torah's regulatory framework (e.g., Exod 21:10; Deut 21:15–17). Conversely, pro-polygynists might elevate 2 Chronicles 24:1–3 or 2 Samuel 12:7–8 (where Nathan conveys God's message to David, including “I gave you your master’s wives into your arms”) into permissive legislation, as if these historical or prophetic narratives were enacting positive law rather than illustrating regulated conduct under existing Torah statutes. In both cases, the Whole-Canon-as-Flat-Law error flattens genre distinctions, leading to unstable ethics where inspiration is conflated with legislation, and texts are weaponized beyond their jurisdictional competence.
I am happy to provide the full article after publication to anyone who would like to engage with it more closely.
By “Whole-Canon-as-Flat-Law” I mean the operating principle—common across evangelical, Reformed, Messianic, Hebrew-Roots, and even some progressive circles—that treats every verse in the Bible, regardless of literary genre, historical setting, or canonical position, as equally capable of functioning as binding statute that can create, modify, or abolish divine law. Narrative descriptions, prophetic metaphors, wisdom reflections, symbolic visions, and apostolic pastoral letters are all pressed into service as if they were clauses in a modern criminal code. The result is a canon that is simultaneously “very high” in authority and extraordinarily unstable in its moral output, because virtually any text can be mobilised to generate a new prohibition or to declare an old one obsolete.
Gentlemen, to answer the specific question about 2 Chronicles 24:1–3 (“Joash did what was right … and he took for himself two wives [plural] …”)—no, this passage does not legislate. It is historical narrative recording what a king did under the influence of the priest Jehoiada; it contains no prescriptive formula, no sanction, no procedural instruction, and no claim to universal normativity. Under the seven canons of divine legislation that I develop in the paper (especially Canon 1: Legality, Canon 4: Lenity, and Canon 7: Corroboration), a narrative notice that a Davidic king had multiple wives cannot create, expand, or repeal a statute on marital structure any more than the notice that Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kgs 11:3) legislates in favour of such arrangements. Both texts simply describe what was, without attaching divine approbation or disapprobation in statutory form.
This brings me to a hermeneutical error that most pro- and anti-polygynists make: turning non-legislative texts into “flat law” to support their positions. For example, anti-polygynists often treat 1 Corinthians 7:1 (“It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman”) and 1 Timothy 3:2 (“the husband of one wife”) as if they were statutory prohibitions criminalizing plural marriage universally, ignoring their pastoral and idiomatic contexts (advice on singleness amid immorality and character qualifications for elders, respectively) and the absence of penalties, corroborating witnesses, or explicit repeal of Torah's regulatory framework (e.g., Exod 21:10; Deut 21:15–17). Conversely, pro-polygynists might elevate 2 Chronicles 24:1–3 or 2 Samuel 12:7–8 (where Nathan conveys God's message to David, including “I gave you your master’s wives into your arms”) into permissive legislation, as if these historical or prophetic narratives were enacting positive law rather than illustrating regulated conduct under existing Torah statutes. In both cases, the Whole-Canon-as-Flat-Law error flattens genre distinctions, leading to unstable ethics where inspiration is conflated with legislation, and texts are weaponized beyond their jurisdictional competence.
I am happy to provide the full article after publication to anyone who would like to engage with it more closely.
I’m not sure if this was written to the whole group, or is a continuation of your two brothers discussion, but I’ll chime in briefly.
Most of us were likely raised under this hermaneutical approach ( “All scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for…”). And by all, it meant 66 books. While I agree with the inspiration, it doesn’t mean all books are equal, especially since all scripture at that time didn’t include NT.
I’ve shifted over the years. While I don’t give supremacy to the legal codes, I use them as the basis for flavoring and coloring what surrounds them, with not any of them contradicting them.
I’ve had to “discuss” this approach vigorously with two Christian brother in the last few years.
One brother was corresponding with me over the severity of the sinfulness of alcohol. His doctrine was based almost solely on the book of Proverbs. Since that book expresses deep warnings and disapproval of drunkenness, etc it screamed prohibition to him. I told him that I viewed Proverbs as a wisdom book, not a legal book. It was ensuring the reader understood the dangers of drink, not writing laws to prohibit it.
Another brother (a pastor of all things!) assured me that Romans was the definitive scripture that prohibits female same sex relations. I asked him if there were any other verses that corroborated that (two or three witness). He said there weren’t any necessary. This verse, combined with natural law, should tell us it’s prohibited.
I don’t have the time, nor the training to write a thesis on this proposition. I’m interested to see what you produce.
Agreed.
But I would point out that we must not neglect the 'fallacy of the negative,' and similar corollaries:
Both of those men 'participated' in something that was observed, and explicitly NOT condemned, whether or not "did what was right in the sight of YHVH" applies by immediate context.
I daresay that if he "took for himself two gay sodomite transgenders" the text not would have presented the same flavor...
(And I realize that's not a legal argument - but it might resonate with an undecided juror, were such still to exist...
)
An excellent summary statement and one to keep in the arsenal.
i agree with this. god is teaching us right from wrong even when he doesn't say "thou shall" or "thou shalt not."
is it interpretive? unclear? yes, but that's not an argument.
if we assume god can never contradict himself, and the bible is god's word, then this is just implied, and isn't a problem.
this might be something a very low-information atheist would say, but christians would contend it immediately, assuming god is perfect and unchanging and capable of perfectly communicating. apparent contradictions are merely that, when it comes to god's word. presumably. so this just isn't true.
it doesn't say "thou shall" or "thou shall not," so if that is what you mean by "legislate," then sure... but that is not to say it has no lessons for us on right and wrong.
imagine a hypothetical version of the tortoise and hare story wherein the moral lesson "slow and steady wins the race" is redacted. would the story still teach this lesson after the redaction? yes, it would, to a competent listener.
the rest of what you wrote is building on this error, so ill consider this response sufficient for now
if natural law indeed does witness as your pastor says, that satisfies your beckon for multiple witnesses, since god also wrote nature.
also, i dont think that's a valid use of the multiple witnesses bit.
He wasn’t MY pastor. He was A pastor.
The conversation was much longer. I said I would try to be brief in my description as to not distract from the inquiry with the other two brothers whose opinions were being asked. I told him I wasn’t trying to promote lesbianism, just the certain precision with which he proclaimed there to be no permissibility.
Here is another "fatal flaw." If Paul contradicted Scripture, or "added to" - since BOTH are prohibited! - then he is wrong. OR - the translation is bad, which is (as has been beaten repeatedly on this forum before) the demonstrable case.
The fact that "no other verses" demonstrate the error is, contrary to 'twisting,' another demonstration of the fallacy.