Details
In this video, we are diving into the arguments presented in “Does the Bible Endorse Polygamy?” by @119Ministries to provide a thoughtful and respectful rebuttal and shed light on the often misunderstood practice of polygyny. Article for this teaching: https://godhonesttruth.com/wp/2024/01/12/polygyny-107-rebuttal-to-119-ministries-god-honest-truth-live-stream-01-12-2024/ Polygyny Series Playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZk643l4iAPXp0uVF-yKqiZ6Tx1-D3EoB
Comment
In this video, we are diving into the arguments presented in “Does the Bible Endorse Polygamy?” by @119Ministries to provide a thoughtful and respectful rebuttal and shed light on the often misunderstood practice of polygyny. Article for this teaching: https://godhonesttruth.com/wp/2024/01/12/polygyny-107-rebuttal-to-119-ministries-god-honest-truth-live-stream-01-12-2024/ Polygyny Series Playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZk643l4iAPXp0uVF-yKqiZ6Tx1-D3EoB
Listen to Polygyny 107 - Rebuttal to 119 Ministries by God Honest Truth MP3 song. Polygyny 107 - Rebuttal to 119 Ministries song from God Honest Truth is available on Audio.com. The duration of song is 01:33:59. This high-quality MP3 track has 320 kbps bitrate and was uploaded on 13 Jan 2024. Stream and download Polygyny 107 - Rebuttal to 119 Ministries by God Honest Truth for free on Audio.com – your ultimate destination for MP3 music.
Comment
Loading comments...
This video is a rebuttal to a video by 119 Ministries titled "Does the Bible Endorse Polygamy?" The speaker reviews the previous videos in the series on polygyny and discusses the upcoming rebuttals to other ministries. They emphasize that this video is meant to be respectful and educational. The speaker also provides information on 119 Ministries and invites them to have a discussion on the subject. The terminology used is clarified, and it is mentioned that not all points made by 119 Ministries will be addressed in this video. The speaker also mentions areas of agreement, such as the definition of sin, the definition of adultery, and the subject of alcohol in the Scriptures. The previous video by 119 Ministries on polygamy is briefly mentioned, and a disagreement is expressed regarding their statement that there is not one instance of polygamy in Scripture that led to a fruitful and blessed result. Shalom, and welcome to our next video in our polygyny series. This is going to be a rebuttal video to a video put out by 119 Ministries, and they titled their video, Does the Bible Endorse Polygamy? Now before we get to that rebuttal portion of our video, we're going to be reviewing what we have accomplished so far in this series on polygyny. In our first video, we went over the introduction and terminology that we would be using during this series of videos in the polygyny series. In our second video, we went over the various polygynous that you find coming from the scriptures. In our third video, we went over how polygyny is regulated and guided by the scriptures themselves. In our fourth video, we went over various polygynous throughout history that you may have not ever heard of before, let alone know that they practiced polygyny themselves, mostly Christians that practice polygyny throughout history. Then in our fifth video, we went over patriarchy and how that's especially important to plural marriage and polygyny, but also for monogamy as well. In our sixth video, we went over the advantages and the disadvantages of polygyny. And now in this video, this will start the first in this series of a grouping of videos in which we rebut various other videos put out by other ministries on the internet. Now this video is going to be, like I said, all about the video put out by 119 Ministries. In our next video, we're going to be doing a rebuttal to a messianic teacher named David Wilber and also a mainstream preacher named Mike Winger. In our final video in the series and also our final video in our grouping of rebuttal videos, we're going to be doing a rebuttal to a ministry called Kingdom in Context, a ministry called Wretched, another ministry called the Jude 3 Project, and then a video put out by Southern Seminary. Now as you may have already noticed, this video is going to be in a little bit different style than our normal videos. Over the years, we have gained a lot of benefit and a lot of teaching and education from 119 Ministries. This is not a condemnation of 119 Ministries as a whole or even as a majority of what they put out. This is just a rebuttal to this one particular video regarding polygamy. So doing this style of video is more of in honor of 119 Ministries and thanks of what they have provided over the years and what they continue to provide as they continue throughout the future. Now the video that 119 Ministries put out is entitled, Does the Bible Endorse Polygamy? This video has been out for quite a while now and we've been wanting to make this video for a number of years, but I've never actually had the opportunity to get around to it. Doing this polygamy series on God on His truth has finally afforded us the opportunity and the ability to make a rebuttal video to 119 Ministries. So who is 119 Ministries? Maybe you've never heard of them before, but they are a ministry that was founded in 2010. They are focused on the truth of His word, the scriptures, and in every video they encourage others to test everything according to the word. Remember, continue to test everything. Shalom. Currently, they have over 680 videos on YouTube and also over 680 posts on Instagram. If you'd like to know more about 119 Ministries, you can visit their website at www.testeverything.net or www.119ministries.com. You can also find them on various social media platforms such as YouTube, Twitter, now known as X, Facebook, Instagram, and many more places. This video that we're making right now is meant to be a respectful, insightful, and educational video in response to the 119 Ministries video that they put out. We noticed that 119 Ministries is not in the habit of making rebuttal videos. Instead, they do straight-up teaching videos. However, they did do a video in response to Pastor Mike Winger when he put out a video on Messianic or Hebrew roots. In that video, 119 Ministries was very respectful, and we really appreciated the tone in which they responded to Pastor Mike Winger, who is also a respectful person who puts out similar kinds of videos. Likewise, this is meant to be the similar sort of video in response to 119. As such, we would like to send an open invitation to 119 Ministries if they would like to come on and have a chat about this subject, about their video, about this video that we're making, or otherwise, if they feel so to make a rebuttal video to this video, we look forward to watching and reviewing that video as well. Now, just to get into some quick terminology that may be slightly different than what we've used in the past, in our series on the subject, we have been using the word polygyny, which technically and specifically refers to one man married to multiple wives. We've also used the phrase plural marriage. Now in the video that 119 Ministries did, they used the general term polygamy, but in the context of one man married to multiple wives. Likewise, as a response to 119 Ministries' video, we will also be using this term polygamy interchangeably with the term polygyny. Now as we go through this presentation, we'd just like to make note that we will not be able to read every single slide that we put forth on your screen. We make the slides and the notes available for you in a post on GodHonestTruth.com. You can also check out the link down below in your description, and that should be available regardless of whether you're watching on a video platform or listening through an audio podcast platform. Just click on the link down below, that'll take you to the post on GodHonestTruth.com, and there you can find the on-demand video that you're watching now. You can also find the draw slides that you have in front of you here, and you'll also be able to find the notes that we put together for this particular video. In addition, we also won't be able to get into every single point that 119 Ministries makes in their video, Does the Bible Endorse Polygamy? However, if you would like us to make a response video to a certain point that was not addressed in that video, then please write us and let us know, and we will consider making a follow-up video to this one as well. We try to address the main points that 119 Ministries did make, however. Regardless, if there's something you would like more information on, contact us through our email at team at GodHonestTruth.com, and we'll either be able to answer that for you or we'll be considering making a follow-up video to this one addressing points that were not addressed in this particular video. And now, just some additional quick terminology that we'll be using during the course of this video, and which we would like for you, the viewer, to keep in mind as we go throughout this teaching. The first term we would like for you to keep in mind as you go throughout this teaching, and by extension, every other teaching that we or any other ministry does, is the term exegesis. Now, exegesis means what you get out of the Scriptures themselves, what the Scriptures are actually telling you, what you can pull out of the Scriptures without any presuppositions or adding anything into it. The reverse of that is a word called eisegesis. This means reading your own interpretations and reading your own preconceived notions back into the text, making the text say what you want it to say instead of the Scriptures saying what they actually say. So, in other words, exegesis is what you get out of Scripture, eisegesis is what you put into Scripture. As you go throughout this teaching video, and as you go through other teachings from other people also, make sure to keep these terms in mind. We want to perform exegesis and let the Scriptures guide us instead of eisegesis and us trying to guide what the Scriptures say. It's the Scriptures that should change us, not us changing the Scriptures. So, we'd like to start out this video addressing some points that we in 119 Ministries definitely agree on and they do a good job at addressing in some of their other videos. For example, the issue of the definition of sin. This concrete definition of sin as breaking God's law is expressed in several passages. First John 3.4, everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness. Sin is lawlessness. According to John, sin is transgression of God's law. Fourth, sin is transgression of the Torah by definition. The definition of adultery. In the Scriptures, adultery does mean cheating on your spouse if you are a woman. But if you are a man, adultery refers specifically to sleeping with another man's wife. Adultery is when a married woman sleeps with a man that is not her husband. Adultery is when a man sleeps with a woman who is married to another man. The subject of alcohol in the Scriptures. The answer is simple. The Bible condemns not the drinking of alcohol, but the abuse of alcohol. These are points that we are in agreement on, even though we may disagree on some other stuff, we can still come together as brothers in Messiah. So a few years ago, 119 Ministries had another video called Berean Bridges, Is Polygamy Permissible? In this video, they briefly address the subject of polygamy, but it's not nearly as thorough and in-depth as their most recent video, Does the Bible Endorse Polygamy? However, they do make some statements in their previous video that is not made in this current video. For instance, one of the statements they make in their Berean Bridges video goes such as, there is not one instance of polygamy in Scripture that led to a fruitful and blessed result. We would respectfully disagree. As we pointed out in our Polygynous of the Scriptures video, one of the wonderful, most blessed things that occurred through the practice of polygyny is our Messiah. Our Messiah's lineage has a profound history of polygyny. Most notably, that of Bathsheba, Jacob, etc. Also in that video titled Berean Bridges, they make the statement of, in God's eyes, those who partook in plural marriage were openly practicing adultery. However, this doesn't really agree with their definition of adultery as we've addressed before. And we've played for you before, straight from 119 Ministries. And also in another video, it seems like they would not condemn marriage to multiple women as sin. Even if a man had wedding vows that did not specify that he had to be sexually faithful to his wife, sleeping with a woman who is not married to him is still sexual immorality and is a sin. They also state in another video that if something is prohibited or an offense to the Almighty, that should be clearly stated in Scripture. If God considered drinking alcohol a sin, we can reasonably expect that to be clear in the Scriptures. After all, the Bible unambiguously prohibits the consumption of meat from certain animals like pigs and shellfish. Surely, if consuming certain drinks were an offense to God, the Bible would clearly prohibit it like it does consuming certain meats. It's not like alcoholic drinks were unknown in the ancient world. And also that we ought to base our theology on what we can clearly see from Scripture. We ought to base our theology and practice on what we can clearly see in the Scriptures. And we would happen to agree with these points. If Scripture is going to condemn something, Scripture is not shy about outright condemning it. Such as what 119 Ministries here has already stated, alcohol, food laws, Sabbath, etc. So keep that in mind that we should base our theology and what we believe on what is clearly stated in Scripture. Another good point that 119 Ministries makes is just that because Scripture condemns the abuse of a good thing does not indicate the prohibition of a good thing. Again, it's not the alcohol that's the problem, but the abuse of it. So if you haven't done so already, and you haven't watched 119 Ministries' video, Does the Bible Endorse Polygamy, after you get done with this video, go down below, click on the link, and go watch their video to see their take on this subject. Now in their video, Does the Bible Endorse Polygamy, 119 Ministries does make a lot of the same arguments that people have made for many years that have already been disproven. They add a few more things to it, which we will address in tonight's video. But they sort of also take somewhat of a different approach to a lot of other people nowadays. Nowadays, some people that are against polygamy state that it was practiced in the Old Testament, but now in the New Testament, it's all done away with. We obviously would disagree with that. 119 Ministries, on the other hand, tries to make the case that even in the Old Testament, it was prohibited, and was done away with, and was supposed to be not done. So we will be addressing the points they made, and also this aspect as we go through tonight's video. Now as we look in Scripture, we see the people, they knew how to eat clean, and they knew what was unclean to eat. And we don't really find that much condemnation of eating unclean in Scripture because the people already knew not to eat unclean. We also find direct explicit condemnation and prohibition against working on Shabbat. However, there are only a few instances in Scripture where we can clearly see that someone worked on Shabbat and was condemned for it. Now keep this in mind because as you go throughout Scripture, there is no explicit direct prohibition against plural marriage. And we see time and time again that the people of the Scriptures had zero problem with others practicing this form of marriage. So that begs the question, why did the people of Scriptures not have a problem with polygyny? After all, Sarab gave Hagar to Abraham, Laban gave both of his daughters to Jacob. Now they were sisters, so Jacob did marry sisters, and Jacob married multiple women. Afterwards, Rachel and Leah gave their handmaids to Jacob as well who already had multiple wives. So why did these people not have any problem with polygyny? But nowadays we do. If it was actually prohibited back in the Scriptures, why did no one in Scripture ever understand this? Why did no one in Scripture ever have a problem with a man having more than one wife? Why is it only nowadays, thousands of years later, that certain scholars say that Scripture actually prohibits it, when for thousands of years, no one actually recognized it? So multiple times throughout their video, 119 Ministries makes the statement that polygamy is explicitly prohibited by Scriptures. The Bible does, in fact, explicitly prohibit the practice of polygamy. That is to say, the Torah explicitly prohibits polygamy. We would conclude that Leviticus 18.18 gives us an explicit commandment against the practice of polygamy. Second, the Bible does, in fact, appear to explicitly prohibit the practice of polygamy. We've established that the Bible does, in fact, appear to explicitly prohibit the practice of polygamy in Leviticus 18.18. The Bible, the Torah, explicitly prohibits polygamy. And in other parts of the video, they seem to state that the Bible seemingly prohibits polygamy. And since we've already demonstrated how the Torah likely prohibits polygamy in Leviticus 18.18, likewise, while it's theoretically possible that polygamy might be permitted in extremely rare circumstances, seems to be condemned in the Bible, although these biblical narratives provide no explicit verbal condemnation of this practice, the narrator presents each account in such a way as to underscore a theology of disapproval. So, if the Bible explicitly prohibits polygamy, it would not need to seemingly prohibit polygamy. But what does explicitly actually mean? And keep this in mind as we go throughout the rest of this teaching video and also as you watch 119 Ministries' video as well. Explicitly means something that is stated clearly and without any vagueness or ambiguity. So as we go throughout this teaching tonight and as you watch 119 Ministries' video, keep in mind and think about is what is being presented stated clearly and without any vagueness or ambiguity. If it is, then it's explicit. If it's not, then it's definitely not explicit. So, in their video, 119 Ministries, they produce about a one-hour long video. Almost 20 minutes or one-third of their video is centered around the verse Leviticus 18, verse 18. And since 119 Ministries takes up such a large amount of time on this one verse, we will dedicate a significant amount of this video as well. Leviticus chapter 18, verses 18. And do not take a woman as a rival to her sister to uncover her nakedness while the other is alive. Now in their video, 119 Ministries makes the assertion that Leviticus 18, 18 is a general prohibition for everyone regarding all women, not just specifically sisters. They state that this verse should rather be rendered and understood as taking a wife to another wife. However, this does not hold up when you examine the evidence from scripture and history and lexicons, etc. They make a great effort in trying to prove their point, but in the end, it just does not measure up. For instance, when we look at various other translations, the vast majority of them always say a wife to her sister, not a wife to another woman. There is only one translation I was able to find on studybible.info and other places where it says wife to another. So obviously the translators of the Bible throughout history have understood this to mean wife to her sister. Even the Septuagint, which was translated and produced before the first century, before the time of Yeshua, understands this verse to be talking about sisters. Later on, the Latin Vulgate also understands this verse to be talking about sisters specifically and not women in general. Nowadays we have been separated from the original writing of this verse by thousands of years. So why is it now in these modern times that modern scholars think that this verse should be understood differently than the way people of scripture understood it, that the way people of history understood it, and the way everyone has understood it for thousands and thousands of years? Why is it only now that this should be understood differently? And that's definitely a question to keep in your mind. Are these scholars performing exegesis or are they performing eisegesis based on their preconceived notions in modern culture? And we can review even more historical information to understand whether or not this is talking about sisters specifically or women in general. For instance, if we look at the Talmud, and just as a point of clarification, we are not endorsing the Talmud as authoritative in our lives or theology and dogma. We are simply illustrating how the people who wrote the Talmud understood this verse to read. This is way back in the day, thousands of years ago, how they would have understood it back then. And the way the writers of the Talmud understood Leviticus 18.18, they understood it to mean sisters. For instance, we look in Yevamot 8b and they understood Leviticus 18.18 to be about sisters. We also see it again in Yevamot 8b to be about sisters. And again, about sisters. So over and over and over again, we see the Talmud understanding Leviticus 18.18 to not be talking about women in general, but that it is talking about sisters specifically. So translators of scriptures do not view this verse like 119 Ministries does. And neither do ancient sources view this verse like 119 Ministries does. In fact, the reasoning behind their entire argument on this point is fallacious. It's a type of false equivocation. And false equivocation states that because two things are alike in some respects, they are necessarily alike in all other respects. False equivocation also commonly results when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence does not hold up because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors. For example, say someone states that snow is white, that bird is white, therefore that bird is cold. This is an example of false equivocation. Another example, you see two cars, you say they are both cars, therefore they both run on gas. The statement in front of you is an example of false equivocation. And finally, schools with music programs produce students with better reading skills. So if we want to raise the reading level at poor performing schools, all we need to do is expand music programs. This is another example of false equivocation. Likewise, 119 ministries include several verses to try to make their case that this verse in Leviticus 18.18 should actually read one to another or a wife to another. They give several examples, but they're not taking into account context as it relates to the passage in conversation here. And for this reason, among others, their point does not hold up to scrutinizing. Now anyone who has eyes to see and ears to hear can read this verse, whether in the original Hebrew or in a translation, and understand that the main point of this verse is not about polygamy and not really about sisters at all. But the main point of this verse is about rivalry and keeping rivalry out of your marriage. And not bringing in a sister or even another woman in general as a rival to your wife you already have. Eventually, 119 ministries comes around to somewhat making this point. Third, the fact that Leviticus 18.18 prohibits polygamy in general is made all the more clear when we consider their reason for the commandment, which is to prevent rivalry between two wives. You shall not marry a woman in addition to her sister as a rival. This consequence applies to any type of polygamous union, not merely that of marriage between two literal sisters. And then to try and support their point and to try to prohibit polygamy in general, they raise the point of 1 Samuel chapter 1 verse 6. And unfortunately, they later make the statement that this rivalry is caused by the women competing for the attention of their husband. The rivalry and strife are due to women competing for the attention and love from the same man. Would only sisters experience rivalry competing for the attention and love of the same man? Of course not. However, scripture clearly states that 1 Samuel 1.6, the rivalry and strife is because of barrenness, not plural marriage. The same is true for Sarah and Hagar. Sarah gave Hagar as an additional wife to Abraham, and there was no rivalry until Hagar had a child. Then the contempt for Hagar began with Sarah. And the same is true for Jacob and Leah in Genesis chapter 30 verse 1. And when Rachel saw that she bore Jacob no children, Rachel envied her sister and said to Jacob, give me children or else I am going to die. At one point, 119 ministries appeals to texts found at Qumran, texts that are better known as the Dead Sea Scrolls. Interestingly, this interpretation of Leviticus 18.18 was shared by the Qumran community, a first century Jewish sect, from whom we get the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Temple Scroll paraphrases Leviticus 18.18 as follows. He may not take a wife from any of the nations, rather he must take himself a wife from his father's house, that is, from his father's family. He is not to take another wife in addition to her, no, she alone shall be with him as long as she lives. If she dies, then he may take himself another wife from his father's house, that is, his family. However, this section of text from the Temple Scroll is not in reference to Leviticus 18.18. In fact, this section of the Temple Scroll is in reference to kings specifically, more likely referring to Deuteronomy 17.17. Even the book that 119 Ministries gets this quote from, the heading above this very section, states that it's for kings, not everyone in general. Even Messianic teacher David Wilber, who agrees with 119 Ministries' stance on polygamy, admits that this passage which comes from the Temple Scroll is an expansion on Deuteronomy chapter 17, a chapter which outlines regulations on kings specifically. Now keep in mind, the Essenes, which most people generally agree that they were Essenes at Qumran, there is some dispute about that, but I think the general consensus is that they are or were Essenes. But these Essenes at Qumran had some rather interesting, if not peculiar and weird ways of doing things. For instance, when we look in the community rules that was also found at Qumran in the Dead Sea Scrolls, we see a couple of interesting things and guidelines for their community. They state that the nature of all the children of the men is ruled by two spirits within each of us. They state that if any man has uttered the most venerable name, even though frivolously, he shall be dismissed and shall return to the counsel of the community no more. So people like us here at God Honest Truth and people like 119 Ministries would be banished from Qumran because we have pronounced the name of Yahweh. They also state that whoever has spoken foolishly has to do three months of penance, which leads to the question, what do they consider to be foolish speech? It's a rather subjective term. They also state that whoever has gone naked before his companion without having been obliged to do so shall have to do penance for six months. Whoever has spat in an assembly of the congregation shall do penance for 30 days. They state that whoever has guffawed or laughed foolishly shall do penance for 30 days. So maybe laughing wasn't allowed in Qumran? And finally they state whoever has drawn out his left hand to gesticulate or gesture with it shall do penance for 10 days. Now this last one is somewhat understandable given the facts of the day. Before running water and modern toiletries, you had a clean hand and an unclean hand. Your clean hand is what you generally ate with and picked up stuff with. Your unclean hand was what you generally cleaned certain things with. So in this respect, we can kind of understand how the essay that Qumran was considered someone's left hand as unclean and therefore not proper to show that in a professional setting or in a polite society. But still it seems rather odd to us today in our modern culture. So just because we do things nowadays in our modern culture doesn't mean that everyone in the past was wrong. Keep that in mind as we go through this teaching and explore this subject because we should base our ideas, our dogma, our theology on what Scripture states, not what our modern culture states. Even the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus has some interesting things to say about the Essenes. At one point in his book, The Wars of the Jews, he states that the Essenes on Shabbat, the seventh day, do not even go to stool, meaning they do not go number two. They hold it in the entire day. So there's no doubt that the Essenes at Qumran definitely opposed plural marriage and polygyny. However, their text of Leviticus 18.18 that is found with the Dead Sea Scrolls matches exactly with the Masoretic text. It's only in their extra-biblical commentaries and things they write in which they disagree with polygyny. It's not in their scriptural text. So if Leviticus 18.18 is supposed to mean something other than what we plainly read, how can Yahweh penalize us for going by what we plainly see from the Scriptures? Remember, Yahweh is not the author of confusion. It does not make sense for the creator of the universe to send a secret code in his law which was only revealed to a few people in today's modern society, and that his instructions really mean something totally different than what we get out of Scripture. Another point that 119 Ministries tries to make is that the Jews had all but abandoned polygamy by the first century because of the perceived disastrous effects of polygamy that 119 Ministries perceives. The disastrous consequences that have accompanied the practice of polygamy throughout Israel's history perhaps contribute to the Jewish people all but abandoning the practice by the first century. However, that's not what we get from history. For instance, we get from Josephus that it is the ancient practice among us to have many wives at the same time. And again, we're speaking about Herod the Great. Now Herod the King had at this time nine wives. And again, Herod did not marry for quality, she said, but for beauty. We have taken notice already that Herod had several wives and that he was well enough pleased with polygamy being allowed by the Jewish law. And once again, Herod had nine wives and children by seven of them. So we can see from the account of Josephus that polygamy among the Jews, even in the first century, was still going on. But did it continue on past the first century? We read Justin Martyr writing, Herein prudent and blind masters, referring to the Jewish teachers, even until this time permit each man to have four or five wives. And if anyone sees a beautiful woman and desires to have her, they quote the doings of Jacob. Now keep in mind, Justin Martyr was writing in the second century. Again, Justin Martyr writes, If it were allowable to take any wife, or as many wives as one chooses, and how he chooses, David would have permitted this. Nevertheless, the men of your nation, i.e. the Jews, practice this all over the earth wherever they sojourn. So Justin Martyr is writing regarding the Jews and insinuating in his writings that the Jews are still practicing polygamy even in the second century. Biblical scholar and rabbi J.H. Hirst says, Polygamy seems to have well-nigh disappeared in Israel after the Babylonian exile. Early rabbinic literature presupposes a practically monogamic society, and out of the 2,800 teachers mentioned in the Talmudim, one is only stated to have two wives. In the fourth century, Aramaic paraphrase of the book of Ruth, the Kinsman, refuses to redeem Ruth, saying, I cannot marry her, because I am already married. I have no right to take an additional wife, lest it lead to strife in my home. Such paraphrase would be meaningless if it did not reflect a general feeling of the people on this question. At another point in their video, trying to establish that polygamy had been done away with by the first century, they referenced the fourth century work, the Targum of Ruth, and in this, they refer to a quote which only pulls one small, short statement out of the Targum of Ruth. It reads, I cannot marry her, because I am already married. I have no right to take an additional wife, lest it lead to strife in my home. I suppose the viewer and whoever is listening to this is supposed to insinuate that the fourth century Jews thought that polygamy was altogether done away with and prohibited by Old Testament scripture. However, when you take this in greater context from the Targum of Ruth, you see that it's not a general prohibition against polygamy, and they really didn't think so. Instead, it's about other reasons, namely strife, rivalry, and resources. In his book, The Story of Jewish Polygamy, writer Mark Goldfeder states, In the biblical account, the only reason that the Redeemer gives for not redeeming is that doing so would impair his own estate. A simple reading of these verses might imply that this is so because by marrying Ruth, he would be required to expend capital for property that would go to Ruth's firstborn son, who would be legally regarded not as his own son, but as the son of Ruth's deceased husband, Maklan, as per the rules of liveret marriage. The Targum, however, tells a slightly different story. Boaz said, On that day that you buy the field from the hand of Naomi, and from the hand of Ruth the Moabite, wife of the deceased, you are obliged to redeem, and required to act as her brother-in-law, and to marry her, in order to raise up the name of the deceased upon his inheritance. The Redeemer said, In such circumstances I am not able to redeem myself, because I have a wife, I have no right to marry another in addition to her, lest there be contention in my house, and I destroy my inheritance. You redeem my inheritance for yourself, for you have no wife, for I am not able to redeem Mark Goldfeder goes on to state, Interestingly, the Redeemer does not say that he is not allowed to marry a second wife, just that it may result in contention in his house, reflecting the already established biblical view that polygamy, while not illegal, is at the very least inadvisable from a practical household standpoint. So, we see here that Mark Goldfeder is not stating that scripture is prohibiting polygamy, rather, he's stating the opposite, almost, in that polygamy is probably inadvisable. And as we go on throughout history, past the 4th century, we do not see any condemnation or prohibition of polygamy within Judaism or the Jews until we get to about the 10th century when Rabbi Gershom finally puts out a law and a statement prohibiting a man from having more than one wife. From the article, Bigamy and Polygamy on JewishVirtualLibrary.org, Rabbino Gershom, then Yudah, in his court enacted the Tekana prohibiting a man from marrying an additional wife unless specifically permitted to do so on special grounds by at least 100 rabbis from three countries. And in another article titled Rabbino Gershom, Ben Yehuda, it reads, according to tradition, Rabbino Gershom declared that a man could have only one wife at a time. This ruling was revolutionary. According to the Mishnah and the Talmud, a man could have four wives at the same time provided he could keep them fed, clothed, and sexually satisfied. Rabbino Gershom decreed that only one wife was permitted. This law became binding for all Ashkenazic Jews and established a major cultural split between Sephardic and Ashkenazic Jewry. We also read from an article titled Contemporary Halakhic Problems on Sepharia.org, polygamy is not banned by scripture but was forbidden among Western Jews following an edict prescribing plural marriages promulgated in approximately the year 1000 by the renowned Ashkenazic authority Rabbino Gershom. Now keep in mind, this was around the year 1000, about the 11th century, when Rabbi Gershom enacted the first prohibition in Judaism denying the ability for a man to have more than one wife. Rabbi Gershom was also up in Germany when this happened. However, this did not spread to all over the world, to all Jews everywhere. However, a little over 100 years later, down south in the land of Egypt, a Jew by the name of Maimonides is still under the impression that a man can have multiple wives at the same time. And Maimonides writes, a man has the prerogative of marrying several wives, even 100, whether at one time or one after the other. His wife may not object to this, provided he has the means to provide each wife with her sustenance, clothing, and conjugal rights as befits her. He may not, however, compel his wives to live in the same courtyard. Instead, each one is entitled to her own household. So we can see that even after the very first prohibition within Judaism by Rabbi Gershom, not all of Judaism understood this to be illegal, whether on a scriptural point or whether from a Judaic point. Even down south in Egypt in the 12th century, around 1100, Maimonides is still under the impression that it's okay to have more than one wife. So no, licking meat was not all but abolished by the 1st century. Exodus chapter 21, verses 7-11, And when a man sells his daughter to be a female servant, she does not go out as the male servants do. If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master, who has engaged her to himself, then he shall let her be ransomed. He shall have no authority to sell her to a foreign people because of him deceiving her. And if he has engaged her to his son, he is to do to her as is the right of daughters. If he takes another wife, her food, her covering, and her marriage rights are not to be diminished. And if he does not do these three for her, then she shall go out or not without silver. So at one point, 119 ministries addresses this passage in the scriptures and states that it has absolutely nothing to do with polygamy. When the passage speaks of the man taking another wife to himself, it is assumed that this refers to another wife in addition to the young maid servant mentioned previously in the passage. Thus, it is argued that this passage permits polygamy. However, when you carefully read through the passage, it is clear that these laws have literally nothing to do with polygamy. A plain reading of the text demonstrates that these laws are in regards to what is to be done when an engagement falls through. These instructions in the Torah are all about looking after the best interest of the maid servant so that she does not end up on the street if engagement plans fall through between her and her master. It has nothing to do with polygamy. But is that true? Is that what we get from scripture? Let's look at this again verse by verse. Verse 7, And when a man sells his daughter to be a female servant, she does not go out as the male servants do. So a father is selling his daughter to be a female servant, presupposing that she is going to be married. Verse 8, If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master, who has engaged her to himself, then he shall let her be ransomed. He shall have no authority to sell her to a foreign people because of him deceiving her. So if the one who bought the female servant does not like her, if he finds something displeasing in her, then he is to allow her original family to buy her back, to be ransomed. He cannot sell her off. Verse 9, And if he has engaged her to his son, he is to do to her as is the right of daughters. So if it's his son that he bought her for, and she marries his son, he is to treat her like a daughter, not as a common everyday servant or slave. Verse 10, If he takes another wife, her food, her covering, and her marriage rights are not to be diminished. Now here, this is the verse that is speaking regarding polygyny. Now if this word another meant in context that he was taking a separate, a different wife and not marrying the girl he bought, there would be no reason to diminish what he has or give him to the wife he is married to because he would only have one wife. In fact, this verse would only make sense if he were increasing the number of wives that he had and therefore putting a strain on resources. This verse is stating that if he is to take an additional wife, that every wife, the previous wife, her food, her covering, and her marital rights are not to be diminished. And then in verse 11, And if he does not do these three for her, then she shall go out for naught without silver. So in verse 10, one way that we can determine and understand this as meaning an additional wife is because in verse 8, if she is displeasing in the eyes of her master, he is to let her be ransomed. Now if he's taking a separate, different wife and not marrying the one he bought, then he would not keep her around and he would not need to provide for her food, covering, and marital rights because she would be ransomed back to her original family. Instead, verse 10 is referencing keeping her around as a wife and taking an additional wife. In fact, in John Gill's exposition of the Bible, he takes a similar understanding of this verse, Exodus chapter 21 verse 10. He states that the father takes another wife for his son or the son takes another wife to himself after he has betrothed and married his father's maidservant. So here John Gill is assuming that the additional wife is in regards to the master's son, not the master himself. Either way, it's referencing taking an additional wife, not a separate and different wife. In fact, other translations of the Bible understand this the exact same way. The NSB states, if a man takes a second wife, he must continue to give his first wife the same amount of food and clothing and the same rights that she had before him. And from the CSB, if he takes an additional wife, he must not reduce the food, clothing, or marital rights of the first wife. And many translations have the phrasing, if he takes another wife, which could leave open the possibility to understand it as an additional wife or as a separate and different wife. But these translations on your screen make it clear and true to the original that the man is taking additional wives, i.e. polygamy. Even the Talmud, as a historical source referencing Exodus chapter 21 verse 10, understands this verse as meaning to take additional wife, not another separate different wife. Here we can see from Kedushin 9b and also from Kedushin 16a, that even when the Talmud was written, way after the writing of Exodus 2110, they still understood the original meaning which was a man taking an additional wife to the one that is spoken about in the passage. Deuteronomy chapter 17 verse 17, And he is not to increase wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor is he to greatly increase silver and gold for himself. 119 ministry starts out by quoting this one specific verse. I'm not going to accuse them of taking it out of context because they then go on and attempt to try to provide context. However, they start out by stating this one specific verse and then they say that we see something interesting when we examine the immediate context surrounding this verse. The command not to acquire many wives is among several commandments given to the kings of Israel. This is often interpreted as God forbidding a king from marrying an excessive number of women, but implicitly permitting polygamy for kings on a moderate level. In other words, he just said that a king is allowed to marry multiple women, just not too many. When this verse is taken in isolation due to the imprecise language used, there simply isn't enough evidence to say that this verse prohibits polygamy. However, when we read this verse in its immediate context, we see something interesting. These are the verses that immediately follow. And we agree. You do see something interesting when you take the surrounding verses and take the context of this entire passage. However, 119 ministries does not go before this verse like they should. Instead, they go beyond this verse which completely takes it out of the context that it's meant to be in. They also imply that this passage in this section of scripture applies to everyone, not just kings specifically. However, this section of scripture is specifically for kings and specific laws are for specific people. Does this passage give us a law against drinking alcohol? No. It gives Aaron and his sons, that is those who serve as the priests of Israel, a law against drinking alcohol. So regardless of God's reasoning for giving this command to Aaron and his sons, it should at the very least be acknowledged that this is not a general command given to everyone. So let's examine the verses that lead up to Deuteronomy chapter 17 verse 17. Deuteronomy chapter 17 verses 14 through 17. When you come to the land which Yahweh your Elohim is giving you, and shall possess it and shall dwell in it, and you shall say, Let me set a sovereign over me, like all the nations that are around me, you shall certainly set a sovereign over you whom Yahweh your Elohim shall choose. Set a sovereign over you from among your brothers. You are not allowed to set a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. Only he is not to increase horses for himself, nor calls the people to return to Mitzrayim to increase horses, for Yahweh has said to you, Do not return that way again. And he is not to increase wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor is he to greatly increase silver and gold for himself. So when we read this section in its proper context, we can see that number one, this is regarding kings specifically and not everyone in general. Number two, we can also see that this makes no sense in prohibiting polygamy, not even for kings, because it states that he shall not increase silver and gold for himself, and that he also shall not increase horses for himself. Are we to state that a king is to only have one piece of gold and one piece of silver and likewise only one horse? This makes absolutely no sense. Therefore, we understand that it's not limiting the king to just one of any of these, including wives. For instance, we read on later in Scripture, in 1 Kings 10, verses 26-27, And Shlomo gathered chariots and horsemen, and he had one thousand four hundred chariots and twelve thousand horsemen, whom he stationed in the chariot cities, and with the sovereign in Jerusalem. And the sovereign made silver as common in Jerusalem as stones, and he made cedars as plenty as the sycamores which are in the low country. So we can see here that King Solomon had thousands of horses, not just one. We can also see that King Solomon's reign made Jerusalem and Israel so prosperous that silver was as ordinary and common as the rocks on the ground. Also in 2 Chronicles 9, verses 24-25, and 27-28, And each man brought his present, objects of silver and objects of gold, and garments and armor and spices, horses and mules, the matter of a year by year. And Shlomo had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen, whom he stationed in the chariot cities, and with the sovereign at Jerusalem. And the sovereign made silver in Jerusalem as the stones, and made cedar trees as plenty as the sycamores which are in the low country. And they were bringing horses to Shlomo from Mitzrayim and from all lands. So Scripture is not prohibiting a king specifically, or people in general, from engaging in polygamy. It is not prohibiting kings specifically, or men in general, from having more than one wife, or from having more than one horse, or from having more than one piece of silver or one piece of gold. And we're going to have much more about King Solomon coming up later in the video. Numbers chapter 12, verse 1. Now Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moshe because of the Cushite woman whom he had taken, for he had taken a Cushite woman. Now in their video, 119 Ministries makes the claim that this Cushite woman is Moses' first wife Zipporah. As Scripture is referring to one and the same woman. And therefore, Moses only had one wife, not two. The suggestion that Moses is a polygamist is based on the assumption that Moses' wife, Zipporah, a Midianite, is a different woman than the Cushite woman mentioned in Numbers 12, verse 1. However, there is simply no evidence for this assumption. The most likely explanation is that the Cushite woman refers to Zipporah. But is this actually true? What can we see when we look into the Scriptures for ourselves? We first meet Zipporah in Exodus chapter 2, verse 21. And Moshe agreed to dwell with the man and he gave Zipporah, his daughter, to Moshe. This is when Moshe and Zipporah first get married. And if you believe the timeline from Biblehub.com, this happened in about the year 1486 BCE. The next we hear of Zipporah comes from Exodus chapter 4, verses 24-25. And it came to be on the way in the lodging place that Yahweh met him and sought to kill him. And Zipporah took a sharp stone and cut off the foreskin of her son and threw it at his feet and said, You are indeed a bridegroom of blood to me. Now in this second mention of Zipporah, this is when Moshe is going back to Egypt in order to get the people of Yahweh and bring them out of Egypt. On his way back to Egypt, he's traveling with Zipporah and his son and Zipporah takes a sharp stone, a knife if you will, and circumcises her son because Moshe had not done it already. Now if this is to be believed from the timeline at Biblehub.com, this is now the year 1446 BCE, approximately 40 years after the first mention of Zipporah. So at some point, Zipporah was going back to Egypt with Moshe. After that, we know that Zipporah returned to her father. We don't know exactly when, but she went back to her father in the land of Midian. The next instance of Zipporah we find in Exodus chapter 18 verses 2 and 5. And Jethro, Moshe's father-in-law, took Zipporah, the wife of Moshe, after he had sent her back. Jethro, Moshe's father-in-law, came with his sons and his wife to Moshe in the wilderness where he was encamped at the mountain of Elohim. Now this also supposedly happens in the year 1446 BCE. So Moshe and Aaron and all the people are out there in the wilderness and we know from scripture that Moshe's father-in-law, Jethro, suggests to him to divide the people up into hundreds and fifties and etc. and set judges over them so that he doesn't have to take care of all of the business of the people of Israel. And we can see from what's on the screen here that Zipporah was there with Moshe and Jethro, her father. It would only make sense that Zipporah, going to meet her husband Moshe in the wilderness with all these people, would probably meet the people that Moshe was with. People like Aaron and Miriam, etc. etc. There's no evidence that Zipporah and Moshe secreted off by themselves without anyone knowing and no one never knew about Zipporah. Then we come to Numbers chapter 12 verse 1 and we read, Now Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moshe because of the Cushite woman whom he had taken, for he had taken a Cushite woman. Now if the timeline again at Bible Hub is to be believed, this happens a year later in 1,445 BCE, approximately one year after Zipporah comes and meets Moshe in the wilderness with all the people. So at this point, Miriam and Aaron already had ample opportunity to meet and know Zipporah in the wilderness a year earlier and even possibly Zipporah may have returned all the way back to Egypt with Moshe, although we don't know that for sure. However, we do know that according to the timeline that we have here from Bible Hub and just a straight reading from scripture, Miriam and Aaron would have had the opportunity to meet and know Zipporah before Numbers chapter 12 verse 1. So on that account, it makes no sense for them to now speak against Zipporah when they had the opportunity to do so beforehand. Also note that scripture has no problem using Zipporah's name when it's describing Moshe's wife. Therefore, it makes no sense for scripture to then change things around and simply describe her by a nationality instead of her actual name. So this leaves us with two possibilities of the way to interpret this verse and understand what's going on. Number one is the 119 ministry's understanding as Zipporah is the same as the Cushite woman. However, given the information and evidence that we've already went over, this seems highly unlikely. Or number two, that the Cushite woman was different than Zipporah. 119 ministry then goes on to state that the only way to arrive at the conclusion that Moses had more than one wife is through a series of baseless assumptions. Whatever the case may be, the text certainly does not prove that Moses had more than one wife at the same time. The only way to arrive at such a conclusion is through a series of baseless assumptions. However, when we look at scripture and not modern scholars, scripture should be our basis. When we look at scripture, it would be a baseless assumption to assume that Moses only had one wife. 2 Samuel chapter 12 verses 7 through 8. Then Nathan said to Dawid, You are the man. Thus said Yahweh, Elohim of Israel, I anointed you sovereign over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Shaul. And I gave you your master's house and your master's wives into your bosom, and gave you the house of Israel and Yehudah. And if that were not enough, I also would have given you much more. Why do we assume that God's giving of Saul's wives to Dawid implies that Dawid married them? There is no evidence to suggest that. It's much more likely that God's giving of Saul's house and wives into Dawid's arms merely speaks of all of Saul's estate being transferred to Dawid's care. There's nothing in the text that indicates marriage at all. There's no evidence to suggest that Dawid married Saul's wives? There's actually no evidence to suggest that Saul's wives were given to Dawid just for upkeep. In fact, there's really no reason for Dawid to provide the upkeep of Saul's wives. Saul's wives were widows at this point because Saul was already dead. And there's plenty of provisions in scripture that take care of widows. And these are provisions enacted on everyone, not just the king. For instance, in Exodus chapter 23 verses 10 through 11, this is regarding the sabbatical year and it says, let the fields rest and you leave it and let the poor of your people eat it. This would more likely than not include widows as well. Then in Leviticus chapter 19 verses 9 through 10, it talks about leaving part of the harvest for the poor and the stranger. Again, the poor likely more than not to include widows. Then in Deuteronomy chapter 14 verses 28 through 29, it's describing the triennial tithes. And this tithe is to go to the lewite, the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow. So the triennial tithe goes, part of it goes to widows for their upkeep. And this is in regards to everyone to do this. Then in Deuteronomy chapter 16 verses 10 through 11, talking about during Shavuot, at the festival of Shavuot, you shall rejoice before Yahweh your Elohim, you and the widow who are in your midst. So during Shavuot, you take care of the widow and this is for everyone, not just kings. Then in Deuteronomy chapter 16 verses 13 through 14, during the festival of Sukkot, that during the festival of Sukkot, you shall rejoice in your festival, you and others and the widow. So during Sukkot, include and take care of the widow. This is for everyone, not just the king. Then in Deuteronomy chapter 24 verses 19 through 21, it talks about when you reap your harvest in your field and you have forgotten a sheep in the field, let it be, don't go back for it. This is for the fatherless, the stranger, and for the widow to take care of these people, including the widow. And again, in Deuteronomy chapter 26 verses 12 through 13, talking about the triennial tithe again, that when you have given it, give part of it to the widow. Once again, provisions to take care of the widow. And this is for, again, everyone, not just the king. So as we can see, there are already laws and provisions in place to take care of widows. Saul's wives would have been widows at this point, and there would have been a structure in place for them to be provided for and cared for, from the harvest that are in the fields to the triennial tithes regarding everyone. I seriously doubt the kings of Israel, specifically King David, would have been out plowing his own field and leaving the food in his field that he plowed for the widows of the land, including Saul's widows. No, more likely than not, this scripture is referring to Saul's wives then being David's wives. Second, just a few verses later in verse 11, God says that he will give David's wives to David's neighbor who would then sleep with them. Now, Absalom's sleep with David's wives was not only adultery, but also incest. Therefore, if we're going to say that God's giving of Saul's wives to David is an endorsement of polygamy, assuming that David married Saul's wives, which again, there's no evidence of, then that same logic could be used to say that God's giving of David's wives to Absalom is an endorsement of incest and adultery. But obviously, that would be absurd. So, is this really an endorsement of incest and adultery? Let's take a look at scripture and get a fuller picture about what's going on here and see whether or not scripture is endorsing polygamy and incest and adultery, or whether something else is going on. Again, 2 Samuel chapter 12, verses 7 and 8. Then Nathan said to David, You are the man, thus said Yahweh Elohim of Israel, I anointed you sovereign over Israel, I delivered you from the hand of Saul, I gave you your master's house and your master's wives into your bosom, and I gave you the house of Israel and Yehudah. And if that were not enough, I also would have given you much more. So here in this section, we can see that everything listed is in regards to David being blessed. David receiving blessings. Blessings such as being anointed king over Israel. Blessings such as being saved from Shaul or Saul trying to kill him. Blessings such as being given wives. Blessings such as being given both the northern part and the southern part of the nation of Israel. Then it goes on to say that if that were not enough, I would also have given you much more. These are a list of blessings, and yes, wives are a blessing. Proverbs chapter 18 verse 22, He who has found a wife has found good, and receives favor from Yahweh. So then after Nathan in scripture lists all these blessings that David has received, he goes on to describe something a lot different. Second Samuel chapter 12 verses 9 through 12. Why have you despised the word of Yahweh to do evil in his eyes? You have struck Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and his wife you took to be your wife, and you have killed him with the sword of the children of Ammon. And now the sword does not turn aside from your house, because you have despised me, and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife. Thus said Yahweh, I am raising up evil against you from your own house, and shall take your wives before your eyes, and give them to your neighbor. And he shall lie with your wives in the sight of the sun. For you did it in secret, but I shall do this deed before all Israel and before the sun. So now in this next section, Nathan is describing curses that are going to come upon David because of the evil that he did. First you get the blessings that Yahweh bestowed upon David. And then because David sinned and messed up, that's when the curses come in. We see the same pattern in other places in scripture as well. For instance, in Deuteronomy chapter 28, in verses 1 through 13, we see that if you obey the voice of Yahweh and do all his commands, the Torah, then blessings shall come upon you. You will be blessed for obeying the Torah, for what Yahweh tells us to do. Then after that, in Deuteronomy chapter 28, verses 15 through 68, we see that if you do not obey Yahweh, if you do not do the Torah, then curses shall come upon you. The exact same pattern that we saw with David. That when you do good and you obey Yahweh, you get blessings. David was blessed. David was blessed with the kingship of Israel. David was blessed with being saved from Saul. David was blessed with many wives and the unification of Israel. Then David sinned. And by sinning, that means he broke what Yahweh had commanded the people to do. He committed adultery and he committed murder. Because of that, he was then cursed. And we never see in scripture Yahweh endorsing and wanting curses for anyone, such as leprosy, the snakes in the wilderness, etc., etc. Yahweh doesn't endorse curses, but he does endorse blessings. David was blessed with many things, including multiple wives. In fact, scripture has this to say about King David. First Kings chapter 15, verse 5. For David did what was right in the eyes of Yahweh and did not turn aside from all that he had commanded him all the days of his life, except in the matter of Uriah the Hittite. So here we see that David, or Dawid, did what was right in the eyes of Yahweh throughout his entire life, including his polygamous marriage. The only thing that scripture tells us that David messed up on was in the matter of Uriah the Hittite, implying both the adultery with Bathsheba and the murder of Uriah. Third, David could not have married Saul's wives because, in addition to violating God's law against polygamy, he'd also be violating an anti-infest law. As we see in 1 Samuel 14.50, one of Saul's wives was a Noam, who was the mother of David's wife, Michal. Leviticus 18.17 prohibits marrying one's mother-in-law. Thus, this passage certainly does not give any support to the view that God approves of polygamy. Yes, it is true that scripture prohibits one from marrying your mother-in-law. You cannot be married to your wife and her mother. That would be a sin. So did David commit sin by marrying his mother-in-law? Well, there's actually no evidence of that. Let's go through the scriptures and look at what we can draw out of the scriptures instead of reading into the scriptures. In 1 Samuel 18.27, David marries Michal and that happens approximately the year 1015 BCE. Later on, in 1 Samuel 25.44, even though Michal is married to David, King Saul marries her off to another man and that happens in about the year 1011 BCE. Then in 1 Samuel 31.4, Saul dies and that happens in about the year 1010 BCE. Once that happens, in 2 Samuel 3.14, David finally gets Michal back and that happens about 1006 BCE. And finally, in 2 Samuel 6.23, we have the last mention of Michal in about the year 1000 BCE. And this brings us to the verse at hand, 2 Samuel 12.8, where Yahweh references giving Saul's wives to David and this would happen about the year 991 BCE, a full nine years after the last mention of Michal. So in scripture, there is a clear prohibition about taking a wife back after she goes and becomes another man's wife. For this reason, it's very likely that Michal was not considered a legitimate wife of David after she came back to David. Deuteronomy chapter 24, verses 1-4. When a man takes a wife and shall marry her, then it shall be, if she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found a matter of uncoveredness in her, and he shall write her a certificate of divorce and put it in her hand, and send her out of his house, and if she left his house and went and became another man's wife, then the latter husband shall hate her and write her a certificate of divorce and put it in her hand, and send her out of his house, or when the latter husband dies, who took her to be his wife, then the former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her back to be his wife after she has been defiled, for that would be an abomination before Yahweh, and do not bring sin on the land which Yahweh your Elohim is giving you as an inheritance. Jeremiah chapter 3, verse 1, Elohim said, If a man puts away his wife and she goes from him and becomes another man's, does he return to her again? Would not that land be made greatly unclean? But you have committed whoring with many lovers, and would you return to me, declares Yahweh. So there is a strong possibility that Michal would not have been considered a legitimate wife of David after she came back from her second marriage. We even see after her return that Michal despised David and they had a very contentious interacting with each other. We are then told in 2 Samuel chapter 6, verse 23, that Michal died without having any more children. Therefore, Michal did not have any children by David. So, it is also quite possible that Michal died before David took possession and married Saul's wives, which means that he would not have been marrying his mother-in-law, he would have instead been marrying another woman. Perhaps the most obvious example of the disastrous consequences of polygamy is King Solomon, who had married 700 women and had 300 concubines. Solomon's polygamy was in direct opposition to the commandment given to kings in Deuteronomy 17, 17 not to multiply wives. We acknowledge that Solomon married many foreign women, and those foreign women knew other gods, which also appears to have influenced Solomon to also go after other gods. However, scripture notes how many wives Solomon had for a reason, and clearly, this did not go well for him. The biblical author is clear that Solomon's idolatry and eventual downfall were the direct result of his polygamy. So, 119 ministries makes the assumption that it was polygamy that brought King Solomon down. But is this really true? Let's look at the scriptures for ourselves and see what we can take out of the scriptures to determine what actually led to King Solomon's downfall. 1 Kings 11 verses 1-4 And sovereign Sholomo loved many foreign women in addition to the daughter of Pharaoh, Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Zadonian, and Hittite women, from the nations of whom Yahweh had said to the children of Israel, You do not go into them, and they do not go into you, for they shall certainly turn away your hearts after their mighty ones. Sholomo clung to these in love, and he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines, and his wives turned away his heart. And it came to be, when Sholomo was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other mighty ones, and his heart was not perfect with Yahweh his Elohim. So, we can see here from scripture that it is not Solomon's multiple wives that turned his heart away. It was his marriage to foreign women in direct contradiction to previous statements from the Torah not to go into these foreign women. Nehemiah chapter 13 verses 25-26 Then I contended with them, and cursed them, and struck some of them, and pulled out their hair, and made them swear by Elohim, saying, You do not give your daughters as wives to their sons, nor take their daughters or your sons or yourselves. Did not Sholomo, sovereign of Israel, sin because of them? Among the many nations there was no sovereign like him, who was beloved of his Elohim, and Elohim made him sovereign over all Israel. Even him foreign women called to sin. So scripture itself, what we should base our beliefs on, tells us that it was the foreign women that brought about the downfall of Solomon, not the number of women. In fact, we can see this in other places as well. For instance, the case of King Ahab, who married a Phoenician woman named Jezebel, who is particularly illuminated in scripture for her idolatry. We can read in 1 Kings chapter 21 verse 25, Indeed, there never was anyone like Ahab, who sold himself to do evil in the eyes of Yahweh, because Jezebel, his wife, stirred him up. In fact, this theme and this law and this prohibition, this advice of not going in to foreign women, is not only found in the Tanakh, but it continues on into the Brit Hadashah as well. We see it in Deuteronomy chapter 7 verse 3, Joshua chapter 23 verse 12, Nehemiah chapter 13 verse 25, 1 John chapter 1 verse 6, 1 Corinthians chapter 6 verse 14, among others. So, the information and the evidence that we get from scripture regarding King Solomon is that it wasn't the number of wives that he married, it was the foreign wives that he married. Because scripture tells us, do not go into foreign wives. Do not take their daughters for yourselves. However, scripture never states, do not have more than one wife. You don't find that because scripture does not prohibit polygamy. King Saul, King David, King Solomon, they all understood this, so did everyone else in the scripture for thousands of years. So, 119 does get it right in saying that there are clear, explicit commands against homosexuality and adultery in scripture. If polygamy were so against God's will and design for marriage, we would expect God to make that clear in his law. After all, adultery and homosexuality likewise are distortions of God's original design for marriage. And thus, there are clear laws against those acts. Like homosexuality and adultery in the scope of sexual relationships, polygamy is a deviation from God's design, and therefore, we shouldn't be surprised to find a commandment in the Torah that prohibits it. First, like homosexuality and adultery, polygamy is a clear deviation from God's original design for marriage as established in creation. For example, with homosexuality, we see clear, explicit prohibition against homosexuality in Leviticus chapter 18 verse 22, in Leviticus chapter 20 verse 13, and elsewhere. This continues on up into the Brit Hadashah in 1 Corinthians chapter 6 verse 9-10, 1 Timothy chapter 1 verses 8-11, and etc. We also find clear and explicit prohibitions against adultery also, such as Exodus chapter 20 verse 14, Exodus chapter 20 verse 17, Leviticus chapter 20 verse 10, and otherwise. And once again, this also continues up into the Brit Hadashah with Mark chapter 10 verse 12, James chapter 4 verse 4, etc. etc. But unfortunately, 119 Ministries goes on to make the assumption that Scripture explicitly prohibits polygamy, and it never does. In fact, throughout their entire video, they never show an explicit prohibition against polygamy. They show certain verses that they then try to explain in a roundabout way prohibits polygamy, but never anything explicit. Something stated clearly and without any ambiguity. And they did not present any Scriptures like that regarding polygamy. We saw the explicit Scriptures regarding homosexuality, we saw the explicit Scriptures regarding adultery, but there are no explicit Scriptures prohibiting polygamy. In fact, any conclusion that posits prohibition of polygamy has to be done through eisegesis or reading a preconceived notion back into Scripture. And if you're looking for an explicit prohibition against polygamy, or an explicit Scripture which speaks against polygamy as bad and evil, you would not find it in Scripture. Instead, you would find it in something like the Book of Mormon. Book of Mormon, Jacob 2 verses 23 through 24. But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord, this people begin to wax in iniquity. They understand not the Scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms because of the things which were written concerning David and Solomon his son. Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord. Book of Mormon, Esther chapter 10 verse 5. And it came to pass that Riplakesh did not do that which was right in the sight of the Lord. For he did have many wives and concubines, and did lay that upon men's shoulders which was grievous to be born. Yea, he did tax them with heavy taxes, and with the taxes he did build many spacious buildings. So the Book of Mormon is not Scripture, not even close. It's a spurious invention of a man back in the 19th century. It's invented, it's false, it's made up. But if you're looking for a prohibition against polygamy, if you're looking for condemnation of polygamy, you don't go to the Scriptures to find this because you can't find it in the Scriptures. You have to go to other sources like the Book of Mormon or modern scholars. So in conclusion, Scripture never prohibits polygamy. Leviticus 18.18 is regarding sisters, but more specifically speaks against rivalry. Polygamy was practiced by the Jews into and long after the first century. Exodus chapter 21 verses 7-11 speaks not only of polygamy, but protection and provision of previous wives. Deuteronomy chapter 17 verse 17 is in regard to kings specifically, not everyone in general, and does not prohibit polygamy, even for kings. Numbers 12 alludes to Moses having two wives, not one. King David had multiple wives, but is only ever condemned for adultery with Bathsheba and the murder of Uriah. King Solomon was led astray by his marriage to foreign women, not multiple women. And that's just the God-honest truth. So once again, if you haven't watched 119 Ministries' video titled, Does the Bible Endorse Polygamy, go watch that after you watch this and see what their take on the subject is. And you'll fully understand what we are rebutting here in this video. The link is down below. Also down below, you'll find the link to the article post on GodHonestTruth.com, where you'll find the on-demand video that you're watching now. You'll also find these slides that were used in this video. And you'll find the notes that we put together about the information that we used during the making of this video. We'd also like to once again extend an invitation to 119 Ministries to come and have a chat with us. Or if you feel so inclined, we look forward to watching a rebuttal video that you might do. But the invitation is there. If you would like to come hang out on Zoom and we have a discussion between Brothers and Messiah, we're open to that and we're extending that invitation to you once again. So if you got something out of this video, make sure to go down below and leave us a comment as to what it is that you learned, what you got out of this, what you might have disagreed about even. Just go down below, let us know, or even say hi, because we always love hearing from you guys. While you're down there, hit that like button, hit the subscribe button, and ring the bell so that you're notified every time we go live or when we upload a new on-demand video. And also hit that share button and share it around with people that you may know. And finally, in closing, I would invite you, exactly the same way as 119 does, to test everything. And remember, continue to test everything. Shalom. Thank you for joining us for another production from God Honest Truth Ministries. We really do appreciate your time and hope that we have been of service to you. If you have any feedback, then please reach out to us by writing to team at godhonesttruth.com. And make sure to visit our website for more information on our social media links, audio Bibles, teaching resources, and so much more.
There are no comments yet.
Be the first! Share your thoughts.
