No probably not. But if I make too much noise or push the issue too far someone's sure to tell him.
-
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.
Thoughts on Deuteronomy 17:16-17 as pertains David and Solomon
- Thread starter Bartato
- Start date
I would also be interested in hearing his reply. Sometimes pastors repeat something they heard elsewhere without really considering an issue. That is likely the case here. Everyone assumes polygyny is wrong because that is all they have ever heard. With that in mind, they read their assumption into passages like this.
They overlook basic principles of hermeneutics such as "scripture interprets scripture". There are multiple passages that make it clear that Deut.
17 does not mandate monogamy for the king of Israel, most obviously the previous verse dealing with horses.
The passages commending rather than condemning polygamous kings like David, Joash(w Jehoiada), and Josiah further indicate that this interpretation of the passage is incorrect.
Clearly explaining these things tests the character of a man. Will he humbly believe and submit to the written Word of God, or will he compromise his integrity by refusing to accept clear truth.
Sorry, I don't know your situation well, but it is my understanding that you have more than one wife. Are you also part of a normal church? (Where people know that you have more than one wife)
The elders of the church we attend know that I believe polygyny to be lawful. Still, I only have one wife, and I don't generally go around talking about polygyny. I'm sure they would flip out if I showed up with two wives.
Just curious. Thanks
Thanks Steve, I'll check it out.
I don't want to derail this thread but yes, I have two.
I was the shepherd and teacher for an assembly for near on 20 years when I got the left boot of fellowship. Believing in polygyny is one thing but living what you believe is quite another. Since then I've been asked to leave other assemblies and loving brothers and sisters in the faith have done their utmost to destroy me. I've lost my home and family, and they hound my wives to leave me.
If you are like Joel Osteen who wants his best life now, don't come out of your closet and practice polygyny. It's a rough road to walk. Shalom
Edit: If God blesses you with the opportunity to take another wife; go for it. Don't pass up the opportunity to obtain favor from the Lord. Proverbs 18:22 He who finds a wife finds a good thing and obtains favor from the LORD.
Last edited:
Update for those of you who asked:
Here's the guts of the reply from the preacher I emailed a couple of days ago. I'll give him a few days and then address his faulty logic and eisegesis.
"Deuteronomy 17:14-17 ESV:
14 "When you come to the land that the LORD your God is giving you, and you possess it and dwell in it and then say, 'I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are around me,' 15 you may indeed set a king over you whom the LORD your God will choose. One from among your brothers you shall set as king over you. You may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. 16 Only he must not acquire many horses for himself or cause the people to return to Egypt in order to acquire many horses, since the LORD has said to you, 'You shall never return that way again.' 17 And he shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold.
As you can see the ESV states "he shall not acquire many wives for himself". At the time I was thinking of the older rendition such as that in the KJV which translates the phrase as "Neither shall he multiply wives to himself". From this it is easier to see how I got to the one wife idea. The verb in question is רָבָה (raba) and just from a brief analysis of Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee lexicon it seems that the ESV rendition is probably better although the verb can have the sense of both 'having many' or simply 'multiplying' or 'increasing' depending on context. As such, you are probably right and I should have been more careful with my wording.
In any case, it is also worth observing that polygamy was never God's plan from the beginning. Jesus picks up on this theme in Matthew 19:4-8 ESV:
4 He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate." 7 They said to him, "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?" 8 He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.
I'd probably want to say the same thing about polygamy as Jesus says about divorce here. It was allowed because of the hardness of men's hearts but it was not intended from the beginning."
Here's the guts of the reply from the preacher I emailed a couple of days ago. I'll give him a few days and then address his faulty logic and eisegesis.
"Deuteronomy 17:14-17 ESV:
14 "When you come to the land that the LORD your God is giving you, and you possess it and dwell in it and then say, 'I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are around me,' 15 you may indeed set a king over you whom the LORD your God will choose. One from among your brothers you shall set as king over you. You may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. 16 Only he must not acquire many horses for himself or cause the people to return to Egypt in order to acquire many horses, since the LORD has said to you, 'You shall never return that way again.' 17 And he shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold.
As you can see the ESV states "he shall not acquire many wives for himself". At the time I was thinking of the older rendition such as that in the KJV which translates the phrase as "Neither shall he multiply wives to himself". From this it is easier to see how I got to the one wife idea. The verb in question is רָבָה (raba) and just from a brief analysis of Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee lexicon it seems that the ESV rendition is probably better although the verb can have the sense of both 'having many' or simply 'multiplying' or 'increasing' depending on context. As such, you are probably right and I should have been more careful with my wording.
In any case, it is also worth observing that polygamy was never God's plan from the beginning. Jesus picks up on this theme in Matthew 19:4-8 ESV:
4 He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate." 7 They said to him, "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?" 8 He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.
I'd probably want to say the same thing about polygamy as Jesus says about divorce here. It was allowed because of the hardness of men's hearts but it was not intended from the beginning."
And there it is.
“I'd probably want to say the same thing about polygamy as Jesus says about divorce here.”
At least he’s honest about the fact that he is adding to the word of God.
Thanks Frederick,
I know just a tiny fraction of the pain you have been through.. I was officially called a false teacher and kicked out of church for teaching my small group Bible study that the Law of Moses clearly permits polygyny, and that I can't see anything in the New Testament saying otherwise.
I'm sure it would be worse opposition for people actually putting that into practice.
“I'd probably want to say the same thing about polygamy as Jesus says about divorce here.”
He might WANT to say that, but we can't say it, because Jesus didn't say it.
People sure love to quote this Matt.19 passage and relate it to polygyny when it clearly addresses divorce.
It kinda makes me want to bang my head into a wall.
The fact that the Bible permits polygyny sure is a difficult thing for people to accept.
He might WANT to say that, but we can't say it, because Jesus didn't say it.
People sure love to quote this Matt.19 passage and relate it to polygyny when it clearly addresses divorce.
It kinda makes me want to bang my head into a wall.
The fact that the Bible permits polygyny sure is a difficult thing for people to accept.
The fact that Matthew 19 is the go to verse for the anti polygyny people is a dead giveaway that they have no biblical case.
Indeed
@frederick should be like ‘oh yes I believe what Jesus said in Matthew, I am definitely apposed to divorce, but I’m only talking about marrying, not divorcing.’
Definitely
It is quite ironic that most churches lovingly extend fellowship to people who have divorced for unbiblical reasons, remarried in an adulterous manner, and may remain unrepentant.
At the same time, they cast out a polygynous man carefully following the instructions from God.
As often as people quote Matt. 19, we don't seem very good at following Jesus instructions there.
At the same time, they cast out a polygynous man carefully following the instructions from God.
As often as people quote Matt. 19, we don't seem very good at following Jesus instructions there.
The irony is extreme. We used to attend a church where when I had a conversation with the pastor and did not agree on plural marriage, he didn’t throw us out, he just didn’t speak to us for the next two years. About two years after that conversation, we moved on from that church. Ironically, around that time, one of the married ladies in the church had a secret “affair” (went a whoring) which then became public. The husband went to that same pastor for counseling and support. The pastor refused to call out the lady (who was still going to that church). Before you say, oh yeah liberal churches go figure, this was a fairly conservative church at least in reputation. She was in blatant sin, not called out. I made a biblical argument, shunned.
Pastors are often afraid of saying anything difficult to women.
Mother's day - Mom's are wonderful and we thank God for them.
Father's day - Guys we all really need to step up and do a better job.
Preaching through 1st Peter 3:1-7
Quickly skim over the six verses addressed to wives, and mainly focus on verse seven.
I've seen it.
Maybe that is part of the reason so many pastors can't deal with polygyny. It is a difficult thing for women to hear about.
That is pretty much their general approach and probably animates 90% of the outright hostility towards polygamy.
Maybe that's just his way of talking, or talking with you, but I see that as an unusually forthright approach to this verse. Like he know's he crossed the line and doesn't like it so couches it in those terms. He might be open to the truth if you're not too aggressive. Might.
This favor, is it simply the goodness of a wife or is does God look upon us with favor above and beyond that?
I found quite an interesting post from thetorah.com which I'll get to in a minute. First I'll just highlight God's reasons for giving this law:
Deu 17:14 “When you come to the land that the LORD your God is giving you, and you possess it and dwell in it and then say, ‘I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are around me,’
Deu 17:15 you may indeed set a king over you whom the LORD your God will choose. One from among your brothers you shall set as king over you. You may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother.
Deu 17:16 Only he must not acquire many horses for himself or cause the people to return to Egypt in order to acquire many horses, since the LORD has said to you, ‘You shall never return that way again.’
Deu 17:17 And he shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold.
so the law seems not so much to do with wives or horses as staying separate from the influence of their pagan neighbours.
A search on horses in Ancient Egypt found this article about Megiddo as a horse trading post on the way from Egypt to Assyria. It might be useful to consider because it deflects attention away from Solomon by attributing this trade to later kings particularly Ahab (but maybe not too useful as Ahab had 70 sons (2Kings 10:1).
Anyway here is the link:
https://www.thetorah.com/article/megiddos-stables-trading-egyptian-horses-to-the-assyrian-empire