• 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

I'd forgotten to update on the exchange I was having with the preacher so here's my reply. Rather than have the discussion digress into a debate about polygamy generally, I have kept it focused on the right (or wrong) of Israel's kings to have more than one wife.
frederick said:
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.
Click to expand...

I thought you had Deut. 17:17 in mind with your comment so thanks for clarifying that. My question remains however, because it says in 2 Chron. 24:2-3 that Joash did what was right all the days of Jehoiada the priest, including having got two wives. Joash was a king of Israel and Jehoiada was a godly priest; God doesn't even hint that two wives were only allowed because of the hardness of anyone's heart.

Solomon's sin in having taken many wives is explained in the book of Nehemiah; it was in taking pagan women and they "caused even him to sin" (Neh. 13:17:26). It is important to remember the Hebrew word translated "many" is used in both verses 16 & 17 of Deut. 17. Throughout history people, including kings, have had more than one horse but no one says Deut. 17:16 forbids a person from such a situation. Historically most farmers have had multiple horses to work their land and it is only with the invention of machines that this has changed. Yet even with the development of machines the Armish today use teams of horses to work their land and no one considers that something God only allows because of the hardness of their hearts.

Regarding the passage in Matt. 19:4-8; Jesus is answering the question from the Pharisees and is specifically dealing with divorce; no one is to separate those whom God has joined together. It is eisegesis to read a ruling against a king having more than one wife into these words of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The Roman Catholic religion issued a decree at the Council of Trent in 1563 declaring, "If any one saith, that it is lawful for Christians to have several wives at the same time, and that this is not prohibited by any divine law; let him be anathema." Many people today are probably unaware that Martin Luther did not agree. This is indicated in his statement: “I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife, he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case, the civil authority has nothing to do in such a matter” (Martin Luther, De Wette, II, 459).

Could it be the influence of the Roman Catholic religion that has swayed people away from accepting Israel's kings as having the right to have taken more than one wife since there doesn't seem to be any sound scriptural justification for the belief?
 
I'd say the passage is just speaking about the king not abusing his position as king to take many wives. As one who is responsible to rule the people, his focus should be ministry to the people, and not personal wealth.

I would throw in this tidbit too, that much of the OT law was actually prophecy about the coming King, Jesus the Christ. The key word in the law is "shall" vs "should" or "ought". Thou SHALT not have any other gods before me, and so the Scripture, or prophecy, is fulfilled by Christ, and in Christ. Nobody could fulfill these prophecies, except one, the Lord himself. Of course the morality standards are learned, but really, there is so much more than that. Our morality ought not come from the law, but from the Spirit as he leads us in his love and the divine nature we've inherited by the new birth. Eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth is of the law, but Jesus taught us what the spirit of the law is, and how to walk worthy of an eternal life that is above the law, and under grace. The law was not made for the righteous, but for sinners of all kinds that are contrary to sound doctrine. Many point to establishing the law, and yes, we establish the law by faith, and its purpose, which is to bring the sinner to Christ, the Jew first, and then the Gentile. I know there may be many here who love to strive over the law, but it isn't profitable for anyone, in my opinion. Peace and blessings brother, in the Name of Jesus Christ the Lord.
 
I am really impressed by that pastor's first response to you @frederick. He immediately realised he was wrong on a point and conceded this. He then made a new point from another verse, but was very clear that he was adding his interpretation to it and knew that his conclusion did not necessarily flow directly from the passage. He's a thinker, not an emotive reactor. God may be working on him.

@Jerry Rose, welcome to the forum! Great to see someone sign up and immediately wade into something meaty - and you make an interesting point.
 
The sins of Solomon are very well explained with relation to this passage by Phil Vischer's "What's In The Bible" series. Here's the relevant clip. Pay attention to what it says - but pay even more attention to what it strategically does not say. This is a very careful exegesis, despite being made for children and pitched to not ruffle any feathers with the establishment. Unfortunately this clip stops before he finishes talking about Solomon but it covers the most relevant section.
 
FollowingHim said:
This is a very careful exegesis, despite being made for children and pitched to not ruffle any feathers with the establishment.
Click to expand...
Yes, very well pitched. Thanks for the link. Keeping it simple enough for children to understand helps even adults to be able to at least get the gist of it. If the children understand it, there's no problem. If adults, with all their biases, understand it..... :eek: :eek:
 
The whole series is available here if anyone wants to go through it with the kids. Even if only as an excuse to go through it yourself!
 
Bartato said:
One of the fallacious arguments I have heard from the monogamy only crowd is that Deut. 17 prohibits the king from having more than one wife. If the king shouldn't do it, then neither should anyone else.

Here is the text in question (ESV translation)

"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.’ And he shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold."

Obviously this is not a mandate of monogamy only for the king. The fact that God prohibits the king from excessive polygyny only makes sense in the context of regular polygyny being perfectly legitimate.

God said exactly the same thing about acquiring horse that He did about wives.
...not acquire many horses for himself
...not acquire many wives for himself

Nobody makes the foolish mistake of saying that this really means:
"The king may only have one horse". It isn't a problem for the king to have some horses, but he isn't to obsess about getting a bunch of them. He is to hope in God, not the strength of horses, riches, and foreign alliances. Likewise, with wives, it was ok for the king to have some, but not an excessive number (often involving alliances).

It seems to me that Solomon clearly violated all aspects of this command, while his father David did not.

Solomon
1. His heart was turned away from the Lord, like this passage said would happen.
2. He had 1000 women and crazy amounts of horses (getting them from Egypt), and ridiculous quantities of gold and silver.
3. He also violated Debut. 7 where Israel is commanded not to intermarry with the various Canaanite groups. Also this passage talks about the people being turned away from the Lord. That happened with Solomon (1 Kings 11).

Contrast that with David.
1. David had a lot of wives, around 20 probably
2. David had a lot of horses, gold,.and silver.
3. Though David sinned terribly in the matter of Uriah and Bathsheba, David never turned away from the Lord.

The horses, wives, gold, and silver were not a problem for David. They did not become his gods. His heart belonged to Yahweh.

1 Kings 15:5 esv
"...David did what was right in the
eyes of the LORD and did not turn
aside from anything that he
commanded him all the days of his life, except in the matter of Uriah the Hittite."

Clearly for this passage to make any sense, David did not violate Deut. 17
Click to expand...

Here my interpretation

The Jews wanted to be like the foreign nations. That is what these verses are about

God allowed them to have a king like the foreign nations. But these kings multiplied many wives and horses, and God warned them not to copy the kings in this regard.

And at that time only rich men could multiply many horses and wives, normal men could not. Because of this it was only forbidden to kings.

And remember that God did not allow David to build the temple, because he was a man of war.

Men who acquire MANY possessions and women have inflated ego and consider themselves better than other men. They are prone to commit adultery and oppress other men.
 
Last edited:
Bartato said:
The fact that God prohibits the king from excessive polygyny only makes sense in the context of regular polygyny being perfectly legitimate.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It is actually a pro-polygyny verse.

Normally men are limited by how many wives they can financially support. The king, who has relatively unlimited resources does not have this limitation, thus this verse to encourage him not to over do it.

In my opinion this limitation would apply to today's billionaire. I think the idea is not to take on a large number of wives who you can not have a legit relationship with and avoiding marriage as simply a power or status symbol.
 
Last edited:
cnystrom said:
Exactly. It is actually a pro-polygyny verse.

Normally men are limited by how many wives they can financially support.
Click to expand...

This reminds me of something I heard a man say in a video that wasn't pro- or anti-polygamy but referenced polygamy in Africa: that we may be looking through a mainly 20th-Century lens when we judge those who practice polygamy by focusing only on whether they make enough money themselves to provide financial support, because the main contribution that men make to women in our world is centered around the overwhelming degree to which men organize the world in a way that women can live in it safely and with relative comfort; what men buy isn't nearly as important as the physical and philosophical structures they create and maintain, so if a man is able to convince more than one woman that he has the requisite organizational skills, then who are we to question the appropriateness of his family structure?
 
I have a reply from the preacher I've been messaging about Solomon having more than one wife. He used Deut. 17: 17 as a basis for his comments, which I questioned him about. Below is the relevant portion of his response to the email I sent him. (You can read the email I sent him above.)

"I hadn't directly answered your question regarding Joash before because I thought I had said enough to clarify my position on that without having to say anything. Regardless, I'll return a slightly different question to you. Simply put, was Joash sinless? If so, why does it say that he did what was right? I ask this because I think it will help clarify my position regarding your question.

Regarding your comments on Deut 17, I would agree with you. No one says Deuteronomy forbids people throughout history from having multiple horses and neither am I. What I am saying is that Deuteronomy forbids the king of Israel from having many wives or from getting many horses from Egypt.

I then said that "it is also worth observing that polygamy was never God's plan from the beginning." In other words, I am not saying that Deuteronomy teaches this. Frankly, neither was I saying that Mathew teaches this. I mentioned Mat 19 because in that passage Jesus is interpreting Genesis 2:24. My point is more about Genesis 2:24 than about Mathew and its immediate context. That is why I said 'from the beginning'. The thing to note is that Jesus takes Genesis 2:24, which is simply a point about the nature of marriage extrapolated from the way in which God made Eve, and he says that this passage forbids divorce. My point is that it also seems to forbid polygamy, the nouns are singular.

Regarding Luther, I'd simply point out that he is hardly the standard of Orthodoxy. This is the same man who called James an epistle of straw and wrote such works as 'On the Jews and their lies.'

I hope that clarifies my position a little bit."

So that's where things have got to. He is suggesting Deut 17:16 doesn't mean the same thing regarding having multiple horses as v:17 means in forbidding the kings of Israel from having more than one wife... (?) He said, "What I am saying is that Deuteronomy forbids the king of Israel from having many wives..." With regard to his comment about Luther, I'll won't go down that road any further; there isn't going to be any benefit in debating one man's opinion over another's.
 
Confused on what the point is to asking whether Joash was sinless (was anyone?) or how that would prompt the question about what he did that was right. Is your debate partner implying that doing what was right doesn't speak to whether one could simultaneously be sinning? If so, it's kind of apples and oranges, but it's not only a stretch to assert that Joash taking two wives under Jehoiada's advisement is a sin -- it's also illogical on its face to essentially assign non-uprightness to something that is said in the context of it being asserted that everything Joash did was upright.

As for Deuteronomy 17, here's the literal translation of 16-17: "But he shall neither increase horses for himself nor cause his people to return to Egypt in order to get many more horses, for YHWH, He has said to you: You should not again return in this way further. He shall neither increase wives for himself that his heart may not withdraw, nor increase silver and gold for himself to excess." [CVOT] YHWH can be assumed to neither write more than is necessary nor leave out anything He meant to convey. He says:
  • The king-to-be may not multiply his horses.
  • The king may not send his people back to Egypt to get more horses.
  • The king may not increase wives to the point that his heart is not fully available to conduct the affairs of being king.
  • The king may not acquire more metal treasure than he needs.
In these, the entire issue is excess. YHWH did not forbid the king-to-be from having horses -- just not from acquiring more than was needed and from getting them through disobedience. YHWH did not forbid the king-to-be from acquiring gold and/or silver, period -- just from being excessive about it. And, in like measure, YHWH did not forbid the king-to-be from having more than one wife -- just from doing so in a manner that would have prevented him from treating the people over whom he would rule as a bride.

And that last one is no different from Paul admonishing elders, etc., from being polygynists (and there is dispute over even this), because their pastoral/leadership duties would be compromised by the divided loyalties for the resources of their time and energy.

Your preacher very conveniently stopped right in the middle of a sentence in order to proof-text.
 
Keith Martin said:
Confused on what the point is to asking whether Joash was sinless (was anyone?) or how that would prompt the question about what he did that was right. Is your debate partner implying that doing what was right doesn't speak to whether one could simultaneously be sinning? If so, it's kind of apples and oranges, but it's not only a stretch to assert that Joash taking two wives under Jehoiada's advisement is a sin -- it's also illogical on its face to essentially assign non-uprightness to something that is said in the context of it being asserted that everything Joash did was upright.

As for Deuteronomy 17, here's the literal translation of 16-17: "But he shall neither increase horses for himself nor cause his people to return to Egypt in order to get many more horses, for YHWH, He has said to you: You should not again return in this way further. He shall neither increase wives for himself that his heart may not withdraw, nor increase silver and gold for himself to excess." [CVOT] YHWH can be assumed to neither write more than is necessary nor leave out anything He meant to convey. He says:
  • The king-to-be may not multiply his horses.
  • The king may not send his people back to Egypt to get more horses.
  • The king may not increase wives to the point that his heart is not fully available to conduct the affairs of being king.
  • The king may not acquire more metal treasure than he needs.
In these, the entire issue is excess. YHWH did not forbid the king-to-be from having horses -- just not from acquiring more than was needed and from getting them through disobedience. YHWH did not forbid the king-to-be from acquiring gold and/or silver, period -- just from being excessive about it. And, in like measure, YHWH did not forbid the king-to-be from having more than one wife -- just from doing so in a manner that would have prevented him from treating the people over whom he would rule as a bride.

And that last one is no different from Paul admonishing elders, etc., from being polygynists (and there is dispute over even this), because their pastoral/leadership duties would be compromised by the divided loyalties for the resources of their time and energy.

Your preacher very conveniently stopped right in the middle of a sentence in order to proof-text.
Click to expand...
I get the impression he's got himself into a bit of difficulty trying to justify the statement he originally made and he's digging himself in deeper with his responses. Maybe tell him to stop digging and throw out the shovel?
 
frederick said:
I get the impression he's got himself into a bit of difficulty trying to justify the statement he originally made and he's digging himself in deeper with his responses. Maybe tell him to stop digging and throw out the shovel?
Click to expand...
Exactly. He's realised that Deuteronomy 17 doesn't forbid polygamy, nor does Matthew 19. He's honestly admitting this, but falling back on the general principle of "but it wasn't God's plan from the beginning".

Many things weren't God's plan from the beginning. Such as death of a spouse, widowhood, and subsequent remarriage. That is most certainly not in God's original plan (which didn't include death at all), and certainly not ideal. But just because it's not ideal does not make it sinful. Quite the contrary, remarriage in this case is entirely honourable and even instructed in some circumstances.

Ask him if something becomes sinful by virtue of not being in God's original plan, considering that example or any others you think of.

(I'm not conceding that polygamy was unplanned by God, rather simply suggesting how you can prompt him to continue his own thought process).
 
The part of the original plan that can still be followed is that woman was designed to be a man’s help and was designed to be with a man.
How would he propose that this happen without them marrying men who will be bad husbands? There simply aren’t enough available good men. And there are much fewer examples of righteous single women than there are righteous polygynist men in the Bible.
Every naysayer wants to dictate the man’s options, but none of them want to address where that leaves the women.
 
frederick said:
In the original creation wearing clothes wasn't ideal but Jesus wore clothes. These things seem to be hidden in plain sight from those who don't want to see them.
Click to expand...
Because if Jesus hadn't worn clothes, things wouldn't have been hidden but would have been in plain sight for those who don't want to see them.
 
FollowingHim said:
Because if Jesus hadn't worn clothes, things wouldn't have been hidden but would have been in plain sight for those who don't want to see them.
Click to expand...
But what about the people who wanted to see?
Clearly he was oppressing them.
 
frederick said:
And especially with more women among the Christian community
Click to expand...
From what I've read, this is more a phenomenon in the US church, and perhaps in the West as a whole. In other parts of the globe, men are a greater percentage of the practicing population.

That's not an argument in his favor, it's just not necessarily a universal truism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top