The Christian Polygamy Movement - Dr. Gardoski

[DaPastor]

Here is an anti-Christian Polygamy article written by Dr. Gardoski, a professor at Baptist Bible Seminary in PA. You will find that is arguments are quite shallow, having really not addressed the counter arguments to his popular anti-polygamist arguments. However, we should know where they are coming from:

http://faculty.bbc.edu/kgardoski/SubPag ... vement.pdf

 

[lutherangirl]

Pastor Randy,

Thanks for posting this, because these agruments in this article are the same ones I hear from many Christians that are against Christian polygamy. I use to believe this way at one time too. I have to be honest; sometimes I go back and forth still searching and seeking God's will for my family regarding plural marriage. My uncle, who is a missionary, would have a hard time if he found out that my eyes are being opened to the possibility of Biblical pm. I think it is wise to always promote both sides of an agrument and let people, through prayerful consideration, listen to what God is calling them to do. If we only show one side; it is like we are trying to hide something. Everyone is on a different step in their walk with the Lord, so it is always good to show some basic pros and cons.

Michelle

 

[DaPastor]

Hi Michelle,

These arguments are certainly the same arguments that everyone else brings up. I am surprised that a man who has a Ph.D. would present such a shallow theology work to the internet. To me, this just demonstrates that the author was not interested in wrestling with the issues this topic naturally brings up, but was more interested in preaching to his own choir. Having begun my Ph.D. program, I know that my facilitators would never allow me to turn in such a shallow composition.

From my perspective, it is always healthy to look at a doctrine from many positions. This helps us think out all the issues better. So, I agree that showing both sides of the discussion is a good thing. On the other hand, I know that when we read an article like this one it makes us review our own understanding of the topic and may cause some confusion. However, I would like to point out that those who have written about this topic on our side, for the most part, do wrestle with all the issues this topic naturally brings up. For example, if one compares what Tom Shipley wrote in "Man and Woman in Biblical Law" with the article Dr. Gardoski wrote, one will see a marked contrast of depth. Some would argue that that is because Tom wrote a book, and Dr. Gardoski only wrote an article. Ok, then let's compare what Blaine Robison's article entitled "Polygamy" (http://www.blainerobison.com/concerns/polygamy.htm) with Dr. Gardoski. What a contrast! Blaine displayed a much deeper understanding of the topic than does Mr. Gardoski.

Concerning your uncle, is he Lutheran? If he is, you can always remind him about how Luther embraced polygyny as a option for believers - and did not consider it a sin! BTW, I do not know if I ever shared with you that I was raised Lutheran, and graduated from a Lutheran Seminary. I am not a Lutheran today, but thought I would just share a little bit about my background.

Blessings

 

[Anonymous]

Yes,

I think it is definitely an article with an agenda. Lots of times he will suddenly jump to a conclusion and you wonder how in the world did he get there all of a sudden!

 

[joe88]

I'd say his arguments were weak as well. He spends almost half his paper going over how God allowed the practice for Godly men, equivocates for a while (even dismissing some of the arguments of those on his side), and then comes out with a strongly worded conclusion that pretends as though he had laid out a strong case.

One of his key conclusions is that God did not in fact give Saul's wives to David as wives, but as servants. Well then, why would God bring that up in relation to a parable concerning taking another man's wife? Also, all of the supposed negatives of polygamy did not relate to polygamy at all, rather open favoritism and adultery. Therefore, he is only left with creation as his sole argument.

However, if one relies solely on the creation account as establishing the normative will of God, then he would have to argue for nudity, veganism, labor without tools, subsistence living as gardeners, and only taking a wife who had been taken as a rib out of her husband. He did start to go that way by implying that musical instruments, cities, and metal tools were immoral, but clearly that position could not be sustained by using Scripture alone. Clearly, the creation account tells us that God's creation was perfect, but the Word also says the Law is perfect. If God considered polygamy sinful, He wouldn't have mandated it for some (levirate marriage), promoted it (David), engaged in it symbolically Himself. In fact, the author ignored a glaring problem in his paper: Ezekiel 23 and Jeremiah 3 portray God Himself as a polygamist (not to mention the NT 10 virgins passage). Does God engage in sinful (or even questionable) conduct?

 

[Mark C]

While I don't disagree with the comments above, folks, as I read the article, I couldn't help but think something else entirely was really at work.

The man is double-minded. (See James 1:8)

He sees, over and over again, that God "never condemns polygamy [sic]". And over and over again he is compelled to add the words "pro se" to this observed lack of prohibition, as if that is God's excuse for caving in to sin, paganism, and the 'traditions of men':

...But what about later OT revelation which does appear on the surface to place God’s stamp of approval on polygamy?

...The point of all this is that none of the Mosaic legislation considered above condemns outright or prohibits polygamy per se. The Law regulates polygamy, forbids incestuous polygamy, and prohibits pagan and excessive polygamy in light of other Mosaic legislation. But it does not forbid polygamy outright. However, one could respond once again that, as in the case of the pre-
Mosaic patriarchs, God is neither commanding nor openly condoning polygamy in the Mosaic Law, but rather merely regulating it as it already existed in ANE society.

...God does not condemn David’s polygamy
per se...
...most importantly, God seems to be telling David in this passage that Saul’s wives are one of the blessings God has given to David!

...This is more than the toleration of polygamy (as with patriarchs). This is even more than the regulation of polygamy (as in the Mosaic legislation). This appears to be a clear-cut case of divine approval and even promotion of polygamy...

...How are we to take this?

To openly acknowledge the obvious - that God "does not forbid polygymy" -- PERIOD -- and then to insert the requisite volumes of caveats, "per se" conditionals, and disingenuous "BUT..." weasel-wording requires a significant amount of effort and dissemination.

It is no doubt akin to convincing early would-be Christians that a LITTLE pagan leaven really DOESN'T actually "leaven the whole lump" - in spite of whatever God Himself may have said over and over.

He is essentially doing what the Adversary has learned to do so well, ever since his initial success in the garden: Take a few apparently-harmless "additions" and "subtractions" to the Word, and then build a whole false Doctrine on top of them.

It boils down ultimately to a series of "twistings" of what Is Written:

"But, but, but..." the Big Lie continues, "has God not said?..."


No wonder he found it necessary to keep it shallow, Randy!



Blessings,
Mark

 

[Tlaloc]

This guy is very entertaining. Check out page 10 of http://faculty.bbc.edu/kgardoski/SubPages/Tongues.pdf

"Now what does Paul say about tongues? He says they will stop. When will they stop? Paul doesn't say." And he spends that paragraph and the next lamenting about how Paul said nothing about when these gifts will stop. I thought the ceaseationists that maintain that 'the perfect' in 1Cor13:10 is scripture where stretching it, but verses 9 and 10 are directly junctured to v8 by the words For and But, there is no way to split them up. His argument is founded in totally ignoring part of the statement. What a nutter, it reminds me why I laughed out loud and heartily when my relatives wanted me to seminary.

 

[Mark C]

I have to admit, it is difficult to read such tripe without a tendency to become a bit agitated.

For example, this bit of self-delusion really tends to stick in my craw:

Negative Portrayal of Polygamy


Before looking at the negative portrayal of polygamy in Scripture, a preliminary word is necessary to put things in perspective. Throughout the recorded OT history, from creation to the divided kingdom of Israel, there are only about eighteen examples of polygamy...

OK - I can't help but note that he ignores quite a few of them in order to perpetuate the lie. While ignoring the "sons of Issachar" who had "many wives" is an obvious one, and Moses may well be another, it is choosing to disregard the example of God Himself (both via the prophetic witnesses of Jeremiah 3 and Ezekiel 23, and the parable of the Ten Virgins, FIVE of whom are ready for their Bridegroom) that is most egregious.

But if that wasn't bad enough - he's just getting warmed up:

From the eighteen examples, several clearly present polygamy in a negative light. They shows us the tragic consequences for those who practiced it.
Before mentioning the obvious ones, I would like to comment on Lamech. Can it really be coincidental that the first polygamist in Scripture...is the murderous and rebellious Lamech, descendant of the murderer Cain? Yes, it is true that Scripture does not condemn Lamech’s polygamy or reveal any negative consequences of it.
However, it seems difficult to get around the impression that, seeing as how it follows so quickly on the heels of the monogamous model set forth in the creation narrative, and in the light of his generally wicked character, Lamech’s polygamous act was a direct violation of the divine will regarding marriage.

And yet this man who is so SET on reading into Scripture something something which is ALSO unstated - that "monogamy" is "normative" in SPITE of the fact that Hebrew does not even have a NAME for this man-doctrine of prohibiting to marry - now proceeds to ignore the obvious.

Let me paraphrase his own Bad Logic, just for effect:

Can it really be coincidental that the first Monogamist in Scripture...is the rebellious Adam, the "man by whom sin entered the world"? (Rom. 5:12) Yes, it is true that Scripture does not condemn Adam’s monogamy or reveal any negative consequences of it.

However, it seems difficult to get around the impression that, seeing as how it follows so quickly on the heels of the monogamous model set forth in the creation narrative, and in the light of his generally wicked character, Adam’s monogamous act was a direct violation of the divine will regarding marriage.

Give me a break!

 

[DaPastor]

I'd say his arguments were weak as well. He spends almost half his paper going over how God allowed the practice for Godly men, equivocates for a while (even dismissing some of the arguments of those on his side), and then comes out with a strongly worded conclusion that pretends as though he had laid out a strong case.

One of his key conclusions is that God did not in fact give Saul's wives to David as wives, but as servants. Well then, why would God bring that up in relation to a parable concerning taking another man's wife? Also, all of the supposed negatives of polygamy did not relate to polygamy at all, rather open favoritism and adultery. Therefore, he is only left with creation as his sole argument.

However, if one relies solely on the creation account as establishing the normative will of God, then he would have to argue for nudity, veganism, labor without tools, subsistence living as gardeners, and only taking a wife who had been taken as a rib out of her husband. He did start to go that way by implying that musical instruments, cities, and metal tools were immoral, but clearly that position could not be sustained by using Scripture alone. Clearly, the creation account tells us that God's creation was perfect, but the Word also says the Law is perfect. If God considered polygamy sinful, He wouldn't have mandated it for some (levirate marriage), promoted it (David), engaged in it symbolically Himself. In fact, the author ignored a glaring problem in his paper: Ezekiel 23 and Jeremiah 3 portray God Himself as a polygamist (not to mention the NT 10 virgins passage). Does God engage in sinful (or even questionable) conduct?

I wonder if he would be willing to conduct an online debate? If these are his strongest arguments, he doesn't have any arguments. Even though the creation account does set up some truths, one must always remember that these truths are in seed form and the rest of the Bible provides the bark, branches and leaves for the full revelation of the tree. The word of God is an unfolding of His revelation of that which was planted in the first few chapters of the Bible! If it wasn't for the progressive revlation of of Scripture, we would be hard pressed to understand much of the first few chapters at all!

 

[CecilW]

Can it really be coincidental that the first Monogamist in Scripture...is the rebellious Adam, the "man by whom sin entered the world"? (Rom. 5:12) Yes, it is true that Scripture does not condemn Adam’s monogamy or reveal any negative consequences of it.

LOL. Good one, Mark. Sadly, idiots abound. Oftentimes with the right to put high falutin letters after their names. Having become wise in their own eyes ...

 

[Mark C]

Sometimes, Dr. Cecil, the right answer does in fact seem to be ridicule, because the word "argument" is simply not an appropriate descriptor for such bull-droppings masquerading as analysis:

The so-called Christian Polygamy Movement is just another example of how untaught and unstable men so easily twist the Scriptures to their own destruction. The only sure measure of right and wrong is God’s will as revealed in His inspired word. To take descriptions of humanpractice as trumping God’s clearly expressed view on the subject of polygamy not only is hermeneutically questionable; it leads to gross theological error and immoral practice.

I have observed before that there are some areas within Scripture where there really MIGHT be valid cases for more than one interpretation of what is clearly stated. The distinction between lawful "divorce" and mere "putting away" of a wife (a frequent area of consternation here and elsewhere) may well be one of them. The issue of what is "food" or "meat", and what is not -- and whether God changed His mind about it -- may well be another. Well-reasoned cases can perhaps be made for more than one alternative understanding**.

But let's not mince words, folks. While there may be some concerns in the Word that are subject to mis-interpretation, polygyny is NOT ONE OF THEM! The fact that God permits a man to have more than one Covenant helpmeet, and describes Himself as Husband of more than one Bride is NOT deniable from Scripture! Ultimately, God is clear, and His Word teaches both by ordinance and by example.

"Forbidding to marry" was rightfully called a "doctrine of demons" -- and the burden of proof MUST rest on those who "by their tradition" (of Monogamy as an Idol superior to His Written Word) choose to ignore what He clearly and repeatedly states through multiple witnesses.

Sometimes it's not enough to note that God sent His own people into exile for failing to teach the difference between the "set apart and the profane", or for ultimately calling "evil" good, and "good", evil. This not-so-good-doctor does exactly that. He should be ashamed.





----------------------------------

** I do find a certain irony in this example that should be noted - regardless of how one comes down on the issue of whether pork is, or is not, "food":

Why is it that those who claim that God can't make up His own Mind about whether or not He permits something He makes clear PROVISION for in His Word -- polygyny -- can then turn right around and eat a ham sandwich? Can't a fellow so able to pontificate 'bout how Adam's Monogamous Ideal Marriage was "normative" figger' out what "you shall not eat" means? :lol:

After all, if He can change your very BODY so that it can now eat something He repeatedly called too "unclean" to even eat, somehow now no longer liable to cause the "curse" of disease, can't He do at least as much for marriage?

When I did my radio show I enjoyed making fun of such "doublethink". I would remind folks of another well-known quote, but this one from Lewis Carroll's famous satire, the story of Alice Through the Looking Glass. The Red Queen told Alice how it was possible to believe such contradictions - in spite of evidence. In fact, she said, "I can believe SIX impossible things before breakfast!"

She was evidently a piker compared to some Semitary [sic] "teachers".

 

[CecilW]

... something He repeatedly called too "unclean" to even eat, ...

As I remember, that was too unclean to even TOUCH wasn't it? Much less eat!

And who you calling "Dr."? I got in waaaaay too much trouble playing doctor as a kid for it to be ME? :roll: :lol:

 

[Mark C]

And who you calling "Dr."?

I simply figgered -- based on demonstrated performance -- that you deserved at least as much as he did, Cecil...

 

[CecilW]

LOL. Why, THANK YOU, Kind Sir!

Maybe I need to tear apart a Doctoral Dissertation on the subject that I know of (anti, of course), and write a dissertation in approval. Maybe I could then qualify! 'Twould be fun, huh?

 

[DaPastor]

Hello Brother,

He sees, over and over again, that God "never condemns polygamy [sic]". And over and over again he is compelled to add the words "per se" to this observed lack of prohibition, as if that is God's excuse for caving in to sin, paganism, and the 'traditions of men':

...But what about later OT revelation which does appear on the surface to place God’s stamp of approval on polygamy?

...The point of all this is that none of the Mosaic legislation considered above condemns outright or prohibits polygamy per se. The Law regulates polygamy, forbids incestuous polygamy, and prohibits pagan and excessive polygamy in light of other Mosaic legislation. But it does not forbid polygamy outright. However, one could respond once again that, as in the case of the pre-Mosaic patriarchs, God is neither commanding nor openly condoning polygamy in the Mosaic Law, but rather merely regulating it as it already existed in ANE society.

...God does not condemn David’s polygamy
per se... most importantly, God seems to be telling David in this passage that Saul’s wives are one of the blessings God has given to David!

...This is more than the toleration of polygamy (as with patriarchs). This is even more than the regulation of polygamy (as in the Mosaic legislation). This appears to be a clear-cut case of divine approval and even promotion of polygamy...

...How are we to take this?

To openly acknowledge the obvious - that God "does not forbid polygymy" -- PERIOD -- and then to insert the requisite volumes of caveats, "per se" conditionals, and disingenuous "BUT..." weasel-wording requires a significant amount of effort and dissemination.

It is no doubt akin to convincing early would-be Christians that a LITTLE pagan leaven really DOESN'T actually "leaven the whole lump" - in spite of whatever God Himself may have said over and over.

He is essentially doing what the Adversary has learned to do so well, ever since his initial success in the garden: Take a few apparently-harmless "additions" and "subtractions" to the Word, and then build a whole false Doctrine on top of them.

I agree Mark.

I really believe that he is having a hard time wrapping his mind around the fact that God is not condemning polygamy, and if God is not condemining it, what is God doing? Sometimes people forget that if God was against it, all He needed to do was incorporate it within His Law. He incorporated many other regulations that prohibited popular practices. Does this author really believe that God would have skipped over something that was as important as marriage just because it was already being practiced!? This is even more absurd when one realizes that polygynny was not even a popular practice during this time period either. The best estimates are that less than 10 percent of the Jewish population had more than one wife!

 

[DaPastor]

Hi Mark

I have to admit, it is difficult to read such tripe without a tendency to become a bit agitated.

For example, this bit of self-delusion really tends to stick in my craw:

Negative Portrayal of Polygamy

Before looking at the negative portrayal of polygamy in Scripture, a preliminary word is necessary to put things in perspective. Throughout the recorded OT history, from creation to the divided kingdom of Israel, there are only about eighteen examples of polygamy...

I must agree that this was one of those statements that helped my eyes roll like this: :roll: I may not recover, so if when you see me next time don't think I am not paying attention to you. It may be that my eyes are still rolling!

Mar, although you shared some things that he conveniently left out of his diatribe, it is also interesting to note that most of those who practiced polygamy were the righteous! They were not the Egyptians. They were not the Canaanites. They were not the rebellious! They were the people of God! In fact, Gideon was already practicing polygny when He was called by God! God did not encourage him to repent, nor get rid of his wives, but instead used him as an instrument for the purposes of God!

 

[DaPastor]

Hey Mark,

I also love the quote you quoted:

From the eighteen examples, several clearly present polygamy in a negative light. They shows us the tragic consequences for those who practiced it.
Before mentioning the obvious ones, I would like to comment on Lamech. Can it really be coincidental that the first polygamist in Scripture...is the murderous and rebellious Lamech, descendant of the murderer Cain? Yes, it is true that Scripture does not condemn Lamech’s polygamy or reveal any negative consequences of it.

However, it seems difficult to get around the impression that, seeing as how it follows so quickly on the heels of the monogamous model set forth in the creation narrative, and in the light of his generally wicked character, Lamech’s polygamous act was a direct violation of the divine will regarding marriage.

And yet this man who is so SET on reading into Scripture something something which is ALSO unstated - that "monogamy" is "normative" in SPITE of the fact that Hebrew does not even have a NAME for this man-doctrine of prohibiting to marry - now proceeds to ignore the obvious.

Of course, we both know that this is a fallacy of logic called "The non sequitur", that is, his conclusions "do not follow" from the evidence and argument presented. If this be true, then no one should get married. I love how you remade his false statement! Great job!

 

[DaPastor]

... something He repeatedly called too "unclean" to even eat, ...

As I remember, that was too unclean to even TOUCH wasn't it? Much less eat!

And who you calling "Dr."? I got in waaaaay too much trouble playing doctor as a kid for it to be ME? :roll: :lol:

Cool! Now we have three Docs on this board! No, I do not want an operation!

 

[CecilW]

Pastor Randy:

We've talked on other threads about demographics. I've found myself wondering about the basis for the assertion (seen elsewhere too, it seems to be common) that "during this time less than 10% of the Israelites had 2 or more wives."

The source of my skepticism comes from the time of the Exodus. Admittedly the practice could well have changed over time as Israel repeatedly attempted to lose their unique identity among the surrounding heathen nations.

But, as I understand it, one of the Egyptians' excuses for enslaving Israel in the first place was that theeir population was growing so rapidly in comparison to the Egyptions. Was that because the Israelite women enjoyed a shorter gestation period than the Egyptian? Or was it because the Egyptians were monogamist while the Jews were widely polygamist? So much so that the growth rate difference was not insidious or subtle, but distinctly alarming? Though I've seen no proof either way, my guess would be the latter.

A seeming confirmation, and possibility that God specifically intended to USE this situation occurs as they enter Canaan. God tells them that He'll drive the inhabitants out before them as their population expands to fill the country. This seems to imply that their population will be expanding rapidly enough to require more land fairly rapidly.

Just my thoughts ...

 

[Mark C]

Re: The Book of Numbers

...one of the Egyptians' excuses for enslaving Israel in the first place was that theeir population was growing so rapidly in comparison to the Egyptians. Was that because the Israelite women enjoyed a shorter gestation period than the Egyptian? Or was it because the Egyptians were monogamist while the Jews were widely polygamist? So much so that the growth rate difference was not insidious or subtle, but distinctly alarming? Though I've seen no proof either way, my guess would be the latter.

One of the things that J.W. Stiver's made note of in his book on polygyny was the data from the Book of Numbers. Take a look at the numbers in Numbers for some eye-opening statistics: (from Eros Made Sacred, Chapter 1)

In the Hebrew Scriptures, we find both monogamy and polygamy as accepted and even expected forms of marriage. Commentators, embarrassed by the polygamy in the Bible, try to mute the subject by insisting its practice was rare and abnormal. The record does not stand up to that assumption. Polygamy was a custom practiced extensively among God’s people.

An example of this fact is the near universal practice of polygamy by the Israelites during their captivity in Egypt and following the Exodus. Numbers 3:40-43 provides us with a census of the firstborn in Israel. The number given is 22,273 firstborn sons. We may safely conclude there were at least 22,273 families in Israel, since a family cannot have more than one firstborn son. There were, no doubt, families which had no sons.

That has no bearing upon this remarkable fact:

22,273 families are responsible for a total count of over 600,000 fighting men (Numbers 1:46). If you take 600,000 and divide it by 22,000, you get 27. The average Israelite household with sons had 28 of them!

The patriarch Jacob required four wives to get twelve sons. Is it too much to suppose that the typical Israelite needed twice as many wives to get 28 Sons? What about the daughters? If there was a daughter for every son, then there was 56 children per Israelite household, on the average scale. There is no way to know how many wives the average Israelite may have had, but it is impossible that the average woman could have had 56 children. Israelite society was a polygamous society.