False Witness on Polygamy: A Response to Michael Foster

[Mojo]

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.

I made almost this exact point as well. It was part of my , “where are your other witnesses?” line of inquiry.

Again, I was trying to be brief and not derail the original poster’s inquiry with you and @YoreyC

 

[Mark C]

It's an important point, worthy of repeated emphasis, and at the heart of a true "polygyny argument" because IF some imposter (and the Pharisees excelled at it, as do the modern xtian variants) tries to say "This the LORD prohibited," when YHVH said NO such thing, then He has some pretty specific things to say about them.

 

[Heavens Declare]

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.

Mind blown!

 

[YoreyC]

It's an important point, worthy of repeated emphasis, and at the heart of a true "polygyny argument" because IF some imposter (and the Pharisees excelled at it, as do the modern xtian variants) tries to say "This the LORD prohibited," when YHVH said NO such thing, then He has some pretty specific things to say about them.

uncharitable characterization.

competent contra-P does NOT argue that god "said" as in explicit prescription that polygamy is bad.

competent contra-P argues that god perspicuously implied that polygamy is bad.

 

[Mojo]

uncharitable characterization.

competent contra-P does NOT argue that god "said" as in explicit prescription that polygamy is bad.

competent contra-P argues that god perspicuously implied that polygamy is bad.

Implications can often be in the eye of the beholder, as such not reliable.

 

[YoreyC]

which is, again, not an argument.

 

[Mojo]

which is, again, not an argument.

You’re right. Implications are not arguments.

 

[YoreyC]

then you agree with mine, and therefore have lost.

 

[Mojo]

then you agree with mine, and therefore have lost.

You’re an oddly interesting dude.

Of course, that’s my opinion based on implications and inferences of your posts, so definitely not much of an argument or fact. Let me see… I guess I lose again?

 

[Mark C]

uncharitable characterization.

"uncharitable" != UnTrue

 

[YoreyC]

it is indeed untrue that competent interlocutors argue how you imply.

 

[Mkb]

If their heads and hearts had not been in turmoil I might have addressed other things they said as well as this point.

If remarriage after divorce was not possible Jesus would have told the woman at the well she had had a husband and had commited adultery with 5 men since him....

....but that is not what it says....

That is more or less what he did say. The miracle was that he a complete stranger to her, her village, and her people could tell her this without talking to her or the people in the village first. Also Jesus elsewhere says you can get divorced but anyone who does so except for adultery forces their spouse to commit adultery.

 

[Mkb]

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.

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.

Looking at a woman lustfully is committing adultery leaves the obvious question of how one commits adultery with one’s own wife. The idea that the wife/wives would be an exception is an implication but it seems like a pretty obvious one.

 

[Joleneakamama]

That is more or less what he did say. The miracle was that he a complete stranger to her, her village, and her people could tell her this without talking to her or the people in the village first. Also Jesus elsewhere says you can get divorced but anyone who does so except for adultery forces their spouse to commit adultery.

This is debatable. We understand Him to be explaining that just "putting away" (sending out) a wife was causing her to commit adultery because YHWH required a written certificate proving her eligibility for remarriage, while it was ok to just "put away" a woman (see the story in Ezra) if the union was "Pornia" (unlawful in the first place....see Ezra).
It seems to be clear though that if a man divorces his wife unjustly the sin (if any) would be his. The woman according to scripture is free (not sinning) to be another man's wife.

Looking at a woman lustfully is committing adultery leaves the obvious question of how one commits adultery with one’s own wife. The idea that the wife/wives would be an exception is an implication but it seems like a pretty obvious one.

Also true!
I pity the woman who commits to a man who did not greatly desire her!

Adultery is taking a married woman, adultery of the heart is wanting to.

 

[Man_in_the_Middle]

That is more or less what he did say. The miracle was that he a complete stranger to her, her village, and her people could tell her this without talking to her or the people in the village first. Also Jesus elsewhere says you can get divorced but anyone who does so except for adultery forces their spouse to commit adultery.

forces their wife to commit adultery. not spouse... In other words, a woman today that leaves her husband is not causing her husband to commit adultery.

 

[Mojo]

Looking at a woman lustfully is committing adultery leaves the obvious question of how one commits adultery with one’s own wife. The idea that the wife/wives would be an exception is an implication but it seems like a pretty obvious one.

But is it an implication derived from logic, culture, history?

I would say it’s not so much an implication as an application of the body of Torah (as the basis) and the body of scripture (as extension) that indicates that looking on anything that is your own cannot be lust.

 

[Mark C]

But is it an implication derived from logic, culture, history?

I would say it’s not so much an implication as an application of the body of Torah (as the basis) and the body of scripture (as extension) that indicates that looking on anything that is your own cannot be lust.

And the keyword (in English) is really "covet." That is the specific reference of Yahushua in Matthew 5. It applies to something that is "outside your permitted reach," because it is not yours.

You can lust for, but not covet, your own wives.

 

[Joleneakamama]

But is it an implication derived from logic, culture, history?

I would say it’s not so much an implication as an application of the body of Torah (as the basis) and the body of scripture (as extension) that indicates that looking on anything that is your own cannot be lust.

Are you sure? Lust means to desire greatly. What it can't be if it is yours is coveting what is your neighbor's.

 

[Maddog]

And I maintain that Coveting is lusting after something you are not able to legally obtain.

 

[frederick]

I would say it’s not so much an implication as an application of the body of Torah (as the basis) and the body of scripture (as extension) that indicates that looking on anything that is your own cannot be lust.

I disagree. To "lust" is to have a strong desire for something, often that desire is sexual.
From a biblical perspective, lust (Matt.5:28) is from ἐπιθυμέω, to desire, to desire strongly. The word is neutral, therefore it is the context which indicates how we interpret the word. Luke 22:15 records Jesus using this word, ἐπιθυμέω, regarding His desire to eat the passover with the disciples. His desire to eat the passover was not inappropriate.

Whether we understand the word lust in a contemporary context or from a biblical definition, a person can lust for his or her own spouse with strong sexual desire and that desire can be most appropriate.