-
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
And I notice you completely ignored when I "highlighted" (in bold, EMPHASIZED font, even!) the "context" that the False 'Teacher' so transparently tried to have you forget:
I say again, there is a difference between a reasoned argument, particularly from Scripture, and a bald-faced attempt to Twist His Word.
Do you GENUINELY not understand what it means to utterly ignore the context of an entire story - like Nathan chastening David for sex with another man's wife - and then claim that what he (He!) then said means something radically different than that very context?
If that is "hard to parse," and you buy into the BS that was fed there, then I can't help you.
Likewise. Flatulence masquerading as 'argument' is generally not "falsifiable," other than by the smell.
1). Nor does it say it’s wrong. So then wouldn’t it negate itself as a non factor (not declared to be right or wrong)?
2). Wouldn’t that defy scripture? Deferring to another for one’s own sins has been frowned upon since Adam. The priest couldn’t make the king take wives.
3). Nor does it say it’s wrong. One could make the argument that both points (approval or disapproval) are eisegesis. But it goes back to 1). No judgment either way renders it a negated non factor that really wasn’t meant to comment on it negatively or positively, just descriptively.
your point on "negation" is the same point the argument is making.
the argument is not that the prooftext is necessarily contra-poly; the argument is a negation of the prooftext as necessarily being pro-poly.
this is useful if proven but you'd be hard-pressed, i think.
the argument is not that the prooftext is necessarily contra-poly; the argument is a negation of the prooftext as necessarily being pro-poly.
you could use this to prove that joash sinned too, but that wouldn't help you.
if you can assign agency to joash, and not jehoiada, then the minor premise 2. the text assigns agency and responsibility for polygamy with jehoiada would be defeated. if joash did what was right, and joash is responsible for taking multiple wives, then this is the pro-poly verse you want.
this is useful if proven but you'd be hard-pressed, i think.
Last edited:
Man_in_the_Middle
Seasoned Member
If Joash was too young to have his own agency, then why bother stating that he did what was right in the eyes of God. Either he had agency and it was fine by God that he took two wives OR, he didn't have agency so his actions would not be held against him in the eyes of God. If his actions were not held against him, then he was neither doing good or evil.
The bible said that Joash WAS doing what was right in the eyes of God, therefore he had agency and was responsible for taking two wives and it was OK with God.
That is my take on it anyway.
proving he had agency in general is not enough.
men have agency in general. however sometimes pressures and authorities can force us to do wrong.
in such situations where there is an "imbalance of power," mercy is granted to the one who was pressured to do wrong, and they'd be rightly exonerated.
this could be such a situation, especially considering joash' youth and jehoiada's tenure.
men have agency in general. however sometimes pressures and authorities can force us to do wrong.
in such situations where there is an "imbalance of power," mercy is granted to the one who was pressured to do wrong, and they'd be rightly exonerated.
this could be such a situation, especially considering joash' youth and jehoiada's tenure.
Man_in_the_Middle
Seasoned Member
Scripture does not even hint at that as a possibility....
Man_in_the_Middle
Seasoned Member
I guess the reason I would think that it would by all means need to express that is because otherwise, the understanding goes in the other direction altogether.
And to be honest, this has been a favorite proof text of mind for some time.
To think it could be read in the negative is really surprising to me. lol
People will use any excuse to deny the undeniable. What is undeniable is that God never puts a restriction on the number of women a man can have. Kings are not to multiply women, but no number is stipulated. The fact that King Joash had two women chosen for him by Jehoiada and he was blessed with sons and daughters doesn't contradict the rest of Scripture. I rest in the fact that denying the undeniable doesn't change or prove anything.I guess the reason I would think that it would by all means need to express that is because otherwise, the understanding goes in the other direction altogether.
And to be honest, this has been a favorite proof text of mind for some time.
To think it could be read in the negative is really surprising to me. lol
My focus on the negation aspect is to address the overall “meta” argument that all of our collective positions ultimately hinge (in my opinion)…There is no absolute prohibition in scripture.
An honest broker who is reading scripture (and this is coming from a proponent of the permissibility of poly) can render a conclusion of negation. But negation would then equal permission because there’s no explicit promotion or prohibition (neutrality). It follows the natural order, and that which follows God’s natural order cannot be said to be prohibited.
However…in this particular section of scripture, I have to agree with @Mark C in that Mr. Foster is guilty of a poor hermeneutical approach. He cherry picks a portion of the narrative to force feed a negation that isn’t there if the full narrative is taken into consideration. If the full narrative is considered, then the portion he uses is absolutely divinely promotional.
to be clear the argument isn't that it's a contra-poly proof text. it's that it's *not* a pro-poly proof text.I guess the reason I would think that it would by all means need to express that is because otherwise, the understanding goes in the other direction altogether.
And to be honest, this has been a favorite proof text of mind for some time.
To think it could be read in the negative is really surprising to me. lol
for my purposes it's a good enough answer to show that more work is needed. the proof text is not the "slam-dunk" it gets treated as. in truth, proof texts never are.
the 2 chr answer is from someone else; his co-author, and one of my teachers, Bnonn Tennant. michael was the one who answered 1 sam.
the condemnation doesn't have to be explicit. of course any high-level argument against poly would not claim there to be an explicit prohibition.
And this is where their position goes off the rails. It’s a process of divination, magic, sorcery.
“It’s not specifically forbidden, but we just intuitively know it’s not right because we have this superior insight or…fill in the blank”.
It’s a poor hermeneutical approach. Scripture needs to define scripture, not social theory or Victorian prudeness.
For those who are otherwise drawn to more conservative, strict construction arguments when it comes to government and constitution, these arguments are some of the most “living document” arguments you can encounter.
I have seen several trying to support monogamy ONLY claim that David did not have sex with Saul's wives. What the prophet said to David actually proves otherwise. David got in trouble HAVING SEX with another man's wife, getting her PREGNANT, then arranging her husband's untimely death because besides Bethsheba ONLY Uriah would have KNOWN THAT CHILD COULD NOT HAVE BEEN HIS!
Look at the words of Yeshua in Matthew 7:7Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: 8For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. 9Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? 10Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? 11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?
These read this and make the article "a" restrictive too!
Yet they would have you believe YHWH was saying He would have given David MORE PLATONIC RESPONSIBILITY .....INSTEAD??
That YHWH would do a bait and switch on David?
Amen!
I had a conversation this past week with a couple I really like and admire who have built their belief system on that faulty foundation of believing that "ONLY monogamy is righteous, pure, holy, and marriage according to YHWH" they believe that the number of marriages changes the substance. That the "marriage bed" and "one flesh" relationship that I had with my husband for 25 years has been defiled because he took another wife. Rather than realize that his "marriage bed" with his second is also undefiled as we are all staying within His moral boundaries for marriage.
They also believe (not surprisingly) that remarriage after divorce is adultery because they try to make the "New Testament" the complete authority instead of the light that illuminates the authority of what His apostles called Scripture.
Well, at least they are consistent. Most church folks today give absolution for divorce for just about any reason, including the all encompassing irreconcilable differences.
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....