• 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.

Need help refuting the Qumran argument

Jeff Ray

Jeff Ray

Member
Real Person*
Recently a foe of polygamy challenged me with this:

https://blog.logos.com/does-jesus-contradict-the-old-testament-on-polygamy/

At it's core, it's just another variant of the Matt 19 "Jesus said" argument. The twist is that, because Jesus quotes the Qumran version of the verse, and they opposed polygamy, I wasn't sure how to refute that part of their argument.

Do we have a concise refutation of the Qumran element, and if we do, could it be added to the Common Objections article?
 
Last edited:
The link doesn’t open for me on my iphone
 
I had never heard of this argument. It seems like they’re really getting desperate. Yikes. I don’t know if you can refute that kind of lunacy. Those are fools who will be very comfortable in their foolishness.
 
Without question, polygyny was widely practiced among the Jews even into the 3/400s CE. Yeshua never addressed it either indirectly or directly. Matthew 19 is about divorce, not monogamy.

I'd cite sources that prove poly was widespread... see 'Polygyny at the Time of Yeshua and Second Temple Period' at https://natsab.com/biblical-marriage/

Also, search early church fathers preaching against Jews and plural marriage. I.e., preaching againet validates the contemporary polygyny.
 
In short, Instone-Brewer (and others) are reading too much into the variants that say "they two" instead of "they".

Even if the original text did in fact say "they two" that doesn't do any damage at all to the PM case. Marriage is a covenant between two people, a husband a wife. That is all that the text is saying. No one disagrees with that.

But "they two" is probably not in the original given that neither the Masoretic Text or the Dead Sea Scrolls show that reading (even Instone-Brewer calls attention to that fact the reading is missing from the Qumran site stating that is "unfortunate" that this is the case [1]). That is why "they two" is not the preferred reading.

Also, in my opinion, any person who acknowledges that PM was "allowed" in the OT has already lost. God's moral law has not changed.

Luck has addressed Instone-Brewer's in his book "The Biblical Case Against Polygyny and a Biblical Response" in chapter 5.

[1] Footnote 45: https://www.academia.edu/1331110/Nomological_Exegesis_in_Qumran_Divorce_Texts (I have not yet read all of this paper)
 
Last edited:
It doesn't open period for me. I get a "about:blank#blocked" error message in my URL/search bar.
 
Wow, this guy.
“When an African tribal chief converts to Christianity, what happens to all his wives? Should he divorce them........., or should he live away from them in a separate house, but continue to provide for them”
Or should he be allowed to maintain the commitments that he made? What is the most “Christian” thing to do?

“Polygamy had been considered perfectly normal and proper until the Romans took over and said it was disgusting and immoral.”
“Jesus took the side of the Romans against the Jewish establishment on this occasion.“
That’s the argument? That Yeshua took the side on Roman traditions against what, in some cases, Yah required in the OT?

“The Old Testament allows polygamy but doesn’t encourage it. .........the law actually made it mandatory in one circumstance“
Doesn’t encourage it, but does require it sometimes. That makes perfect sense, right? It’s like the Law was written down but has no connection to the Almighty.

“They couldn’t actually find a verse in the Old Testament that spoke against polygamy,”
So you have to add to the Word.
Perfectly understandable, right?

Every assumption is easily refuted, but I am tired of it and have other things to do with my life.
 
Thank you for fixing the link, the original is fixed now, too.

And thank you all for the responses. I see I have some more reading to do!

So to summarize, the real flaw is that "God made two" doesn't actually condemn polygamy, so the extra word doesn't change anything. In addition, I can press the point that Jesus was asked about divorce, not polygamy, and Jesus invoking the Qumran text only means He is affirming their rejection of divorce; their opinion of polygamy never enters the discussion.
 
One other thing:
Since divorcing two women at the same time is not on anyone’s radar, the question and answer was about just two people.
Having more than one wife didn’t affect the conversation, so you cannot make a declaration from silence.

edit: referring to when the Pharisees were questioning Yeshua about divorce, and this guy is trying to extrapolate monogamy only out of the confrontation.
 
Last edited:
steve said:
Wow, this guy.
“When an African tribal chief converts to Christianity, what happens to all his wives? Should he divorce them........., or should he live away from them in a separate house, but continue to provide for them”
Or should he be allowed to maintain the commitments that he made? What is the most “Christian” thing to do?

“Polygamy had been considered perfectly normal and proper until the Romans took over and said it was disgusting and immoral.”
“Jesus took the side of the Romans against the Jewish establishment on this occasion.“
That’s the argument? That Yeshua took the side on Roman traditions against what, in some cases, Yah required in the OT?

“The Old Testament allows polygamy but doesn’t encourage it. .........the law actually made it mandatory in one circumstance“
Doesn’t encourage it, but does require it sometimes. That makes perfect sense, right? It’s like the Law was written down but has no connection to the Almighty.

“They couldn’t actually find a verse in the Old Testament that spoke against polygamy,”
So you have to add to the Word.
Perfectly understandable, right?

Every assumption is easily refuted, but I am tired of it and have other things to do with my life.
Click to expand...


It is very difficult to pursuade those who willfully suppress rather than heed God's written word.

Sometimes it is hard to discern the difference between the ignorant and misguided (on this issue, though they may be knowledgeable in general) and the willfully ignorant. I think we shouldn't waste much time on the wilfully ignorant, and mainly focus on the misguided ignorant (who are most of our Christian brothers).

Like Sandbee mentioned, if people admit the Old Testament allowed it, they have really given up the whole deal.

I always like to focus on one issue. Is polygyny marriage or adultery/sexual immorality? The Bible clearly treats it as marriage, not adultery or sexual immorality. Discussion over. That is all we need to know
 
Jeff Ray said:
The twist is that, because Jesus quotes the Qumran version of the verse
Click to expand...
Slight correction: The article does not say that Jesus quotes from a Qumran version of the verse, but that Jesus quotes Gen 1:27 which was one of the verses used at Qumran to support an anti-PM argument and that he says "from the beginning of creation" which is similar to the phrase that appears in the argument against PM (foundation of creation). (perhaps that's what you meant) There is no 'Qumran version of the verse'. In fact, the word 'two' is missing from the Genesis text found at Qumran!

The full quote from Qumran/Damascus Document:
They are caught by two (snares). By sexual sin (namely) taking two wives in their lives, while the foundation of creation is "male and female he created them" [Gen 1:27]. And those who entered (Noah's) ark [Gen 7:9]. And of the prince it is written, "Let him not multiply wives for himself" [Deut. 17:17] And David did not read the sealed book of the Torah which was in the ark (of the covenant), for it was not opened in Israel since the day of the death of Eleazar and Joshua and the elders. For (their successors) worshiped the Ashtoreth, and that which had been revealed was hidden until Zadok arose, so David's works were accepted, with the exception of Uriah's blood, and God forgave him for them.

That's right. They are saying that David never read the Law. This is plain error.

David, who wrote the psalms about loving God's law, never read God's Law? And if you doubt the authenticity of the Psalm headings (for which there is great evidence) just look at David's song in 2 Samuel 22. Both 22:1 and 22:51 identify David as the author of this song. In the song he states that he has all of God's rules and statutes (compare with Deut 6:1) before him (22:23). Sure sounds like he has been reading the Law as Deut 17:18-19 commands. Or the fact that David knew that the Law required a four-fold restoration of a stolen sheep in response to Nathan's parable. (Ex 22:1 and 2 Samuel 12:6)


Instone-Brewer's argument is based on trying to make associations between the statements of Jesus and that of Qumran. But the associations he manages to muster up are very weak. (As are the associations drawn by the Qumran commentators) He claims that the language used by Jesus was intentionally meant to remind people of the anti-PM argument found at Qumran.

Luck sums it up nicely:
"Now Jesus does quote Genesis 1:27 and then 2:24, but He doesn't cite 7:9. If He had, Instone-Brewer might have a point. But Jesus doesn't..."

And he says some other things that just don't hold up to scrutiny, as others here have pointed out.

Resources on the authenticity of the Psalm headings:
https://drbarrick.org/2016/06/psalm-inscriptions-inspired/
http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted...ext/books/frazer-pstitles/frazer-pstitles.pdf
 
The very concept of Levirite marriage makes polygamy a requirement of Talmudic law. If a brother dies then his brother must marry the dead brother's childless widow. And that's regardless of the surviving brother already being married!
 
MeganC said:
The very concept of Levirite marriage makes polygamy a requirement of Talmudic law. If a brother dies then his brother must marry the dead brother's childless widow. And that's regardless of the surviving brother already being married!
Click to expand...

Yep. The Law (Torah) actually requires polygyny under a few circumstances (Levirate marriage where bothers are already married, and the seduction of a virgin by a married man).

This is one of the many things I pointed out to the elder board of the church that I use to attend. Of course, they still kicked me out, apparently for being too Biblical.
:)
Quick question for our TK brothers and sisters. Do you guys practice Levirate marriage? I know it isn't something that comes up all that often, but would you if it did?
 
Sure, but having the circumstances line up is an impossibility in my family.

edit: Would we, yes. Do we? I don’t believe that anyone has faced that reality.
 
steve said:
Sure, but having the circumstances line up is an impossibility in my family.

edit: Would we, yes. Do we? I don’t believe that anyone has faced that reality.
Click to expand...
Given the extent to which some of us consider each other brothers, perhaps we should be considering taking that kind of responsibility for willing widows of our brothers.
 
Keith Martin said:
Given the extent to which some of us consider each other brothers, perhaps we should be considering taking that kind of responsibility for willing widows of our brothers.
Click to expand...
Been there, done that.
Even though she already had a son.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top