• 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

Abraham Kilian

Abraham Kilian

Member
Male

00000000 - THUMBNAILS.png​

SUMMARY:​

In a theological landscape where pastors can thunder confidently while the text whispers otherwise, Kilian’s new rebuttal to Michael Foster’s anti-polygyny essay exposes the deeper issue beneath the rhetoric: false witness disguised as moral certainty.

This is not a quarrel over preference—it’s a confrontation with a pattern of pastoral overreach. With exegetical precision and historical clarity, Kilian shows how Foster’s claims collapse under the weight of Scripture itself: Torah regulates polygyny, the prophets employ it to portray God’s covenantal posture, and the New Testament never condemns it. Yet Foster imputes motives YHWH never names, condemns what YHWH regulates, and binds consciences where YHWH has not bound them.

Kilian’s analysis draws from pronomian theology, Jewish law, and early Christian canon. From the patriarchs to Basil the Great, he demonstrates that biblical plurality was never treated as inherently sinful—only human sin within marriage ever is. And in the process, he exposes a deeper danger: when a pastor adds sin where God has not, he unintentionally steps into the role of legislator, not teacher.

This rebuttal is not an advertisement for polygyny; it is a defense of textual integrity, covenantal consistency, and the Ninth Commandment’s demand for truthful testimony—especially from those who shepherd God’s people.

The conclusion is unmistakable:
Where Scripture permits, no shepherd may forbid. Where God is silent, no pastor may thunder.

📖 Read the full rebuttal:
👉 https://www.maximapotentia.com/post/michael-foster-polygamy-response
 
One modification/suggestion:
Abraham Kilian said:
...when a pastor adds sin where God has not, he unintentionally steps into the role of legislator, not teacher.
Click to expand...
It's actually worse. A genuine "legislator" should be bound by the constitution. (By oath, in the USA. Yes, they lie, but that makes them liars, not legislators.)

A pastor who claims "thus spoke YHVH," when He did not, is a 'ravening wolf,' or a false prophet. Teachers, says the Messiah, are held to a higher standard.
 
Last edited:
I suppose I should listen to it but we all know that anti biblical claims again polygamy is just transparent grifter fodder...so it is sometimes difficult to whack up the interest in what sort of toddler tier drivel is being pushed out by that sort. What jumps out at me at first blush though is more about creepy physiogomy and a projected untrustworthy vibe.
10/10 can visualize him making the weird soy face open mouthed facial expression as part of a sermon

cover2.jpg
Looks more like he should be advocating niche feminist topics or wanting to do a deep dive into hidden easter eggs in Disney's Frozen.
 
Abraham Kilian said:

View attachment 11794​

SUMMARY:​

In a theological landscape where pastors can thunder confidently while the text whispers otherwise, Kilian’s new rebuttal to Michael Foster’s anti-polygyny essay exposes the deeper issue beneath the rhetoric: false witness disguised as moral certainty.

This is not a quarrel over preference—it’s a confrontation with a pattern of pastoral overreach. With exegetical precision and historical clarity, Kilian shows how Foster’s claims collapse under the weight of Scripture itself: Torah regulates polygyny, the prophets employ it to portray God’s covenantal posture, and the New Testament never condemns it. Yet Foster imputes motives YHWH never names, condemns what YHWH regulates, and binds consciences where YHWH has not bound them.

Kilian’s analysis draws from pronomian theology, Jewish law, and early Christian canon. From the patriarchs to Basil the Great, he demonstrates that biblical plurality was never treated as inherently sinful—only human sin within marriage ever is. And in the process, he exposes a deeper danger: when a pastor adds sin where God has not, he unintentionally steps into the role of legislator, not teacher.

This rebuttal is not an advertisement for polygyny; it is a defense of textual integrity, covenantal consistency, and the Ninth Commandment’s demand for truthful testimony—especially from those who shepherd God’s people.

The conclusion is unmistakable:
Where Scripture permits, no shepherd may forbid. Where God is silent, no pastor may thunder.

📖 Read the full rebuttal:
👉 https://www.maximapotentia.com/post/michael-foster-polygamy-response
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link to the full rebuttal. It is a good read. 👍
 
i know michael, and he knows me.

to be very charitable to michael, he's an extremely productive, and extremely busy man. 9 kids, a church to run, and works full-time.

largely for the sake of time, he plays hard and fast with heuristics - what kind of men are advocating for this? from his perception its usually single guy losers who cant even get 1 wife. guys who focus on fringe weird shit and have nothing real to show in their life.

to him, this is the "fruit" of this "movement." therefore, it is a poisonous tree.

that's largely how he has ever approached this, the few times he's attempted.

now and again he'll do some work and break open one of our favorite prooftexts. see here for his treatment of 1 sam 12:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1849174111961985156
 
To assume that Yah's rebuke to David for doing EXACTLY what He was saying He didn't have to do because He "would have given" that which David was after is:
"just sloppy reading and bad hermeneutics."
Click to expand...

As is claiming that since 'sloppy reading and bad translation' result in other English mis-renderings that show the same bias, that somehow proves differently.


People come to Scripture having eaten a lot of poison from the 'tree' of a 'church' that rejected Him, and His Word, as Written.

The fact that there are a lot of people claiming "superior knowledge" in ignorance, and - worse - outright rejection of the Truth having had ample opportunity to "realize the error" is no real excuse. Yahushua hold teachers to a higher standard.

When does refusing to see what He Wrote, and dogmatically teaching error, become "sin"? Scripture gives many examples, including "saying YHVH said that which He did NOT say."

And - I offer as an example - myriad "doctors" whose ignorance, or willful blindness, gave them cover for killing ultimately MILLIONS of 'patients' through poison mRNA injections. They "should have known" better than to participate in something that people were hung after Nuremburg for:
deliberate failure to allow "informed consent."

Civil debate is fine. But there comes a point at which 'excusing Evil' is simply not.
 
And, sorry - this is just "beyond the pale." It deserves ridicule for asinine twisting:
1 Samuel 12:8 reads, “And I gave you your master's house and your master's wives into your arms and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah. And if this were too little, I would add to you as much more” (ESV).Some conclude that this passage shows God giving Saul’s wives to David to be his wives. However, that’s not what it says.
Click to expand...
So what does THIS guy then say?
What is the immediate and preceding context?
Click to expand...

THIS is what the Bible says it is:

"You are the man!!!!"

It should be noted he doesn't even mention THAT part.

The prophet Nathan is taking David, the KING, to task for having COMMITTED ADULTERY, taking another man's wife, and then killing him to cover it up. He just told a long story to make the point, and entrap David into passing sentence on his own crime!

And what does this "teacher" claim? It's not what the whole context of the story says. Good $@#$!@ grief.

That's not just stubborn blindness. It's just plain Lyin'.
 
his co-author, bnonn (also one of my teachers) formulated an answer to 2 chr 24:1-3:

Haha, I mean, it literally doesn't say that he did right in having two wives:

And Joash did that which was right in the eyes of Jehovah all the days of Jehoiada the priest. 3 And Jehoiada took for him two wives; and he begat sons and daughters.
Click to expand...

i said,

it does if jehoiada giving him two wives took place during the days of jehoiada
Click to expand...

he replied,

OK, so two things:

Firstly, "X did what as right in the eyes of Yahweh" is a formulaic statement. It obviously doesn't exclude him committing sins, which could in principle include taking multiple wives. Just wanting to make sure we have that understanding in place, not so much to rest anything on it, but just to be clear about how much weight the text will support either way.

Secondly, though, the passage is actually explicit in ascribing the agency of polygamy not to Josiah, but to Jehoida. So there is a clear break between Josiah doing what is right, and then Jehoida taking for him two wives. You would have to argue that the connection between these (i.e., the reason the one is placed right after the other) is that taking two wives was a positive good in God's eyes. It could just as easily be put there as a juxtaposition to show a contrast, because it is understood to be negative.
Click to expand...
 
It's not hard to formulate an answer to twisting. A paraphrase suffices, to "II Chron. 24:1-3:
Haha, I mean, it literally doesn't say that he did wrong in violating their fake 'law':

And [False Teacher #1] did that which was wrong in the eyes of Jehovah all the days of [False Teacher #1] the false priest. 3 And the fake spoke against him having two wives; and he begat more falsehood thereafter.
Click to expand...

"It doesn't say what I SAY HE SHOULD NOT HAVE SAID" is not 'exegesis.' It's perfidy.

Further. Just being a licensed False Teacher...
...obviously doesn't exclude him committing sins, which could in principle include...
Click to expand...
...declaring something 'sin' which He does NOT.

There comes a point to "wipe the dust off your feet" as 'testimony against them.'
 
frederick said:
I'm wondering, do those teachers think they know and understand the Hebrew Scriptures better than Jehoiada the priest of God did? Jehoiada didn't perceive any wrong in taking two wives for Joash. Hmmm.... I think I smell a little arrogance in the air.
Click to expand...
does jehoiada thinking something is right mean that god thinks something is right?
Mark C said:
It's not hard to formulate an answer to twisting. A paraphrase suffices, to "II Chron. 24:1-3:
Click to expand...
you're all over the place dude. its hard to figure out what you are saying.
 
i dont think its transparent. his case is valid:

1. the text doesn't say jehoiada did what was right
2. the text assigns agency and responsibility for polygamy with jehoiada
3. therefore, the text doesnt say that polygamy is right
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top