Theology Unplugged - Problem Passages of Scripture (Part 2): Does the Bible Condone Slavery and Polygamy
**iTunes users: Give Theology Unplugged a review on iTunes.
To many people the Bible is very confusing, especially when dealing with issues in the Old Testament and the law. Specifically, people are surprised to see that the Old Testament seems to be permissive, to some degree, concerning slavery and polygamy. Join us as we wrestle with these issues.
Our ministry is a partner based ministry. This means that the majority of our support comes from people like you. Please consider supporting Reclaiming the Mind Ministries as we make theology accessible. Donate today.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
- Theology Unplugged - Problem Passages of Scripture (Part 2): Does the Bible Condone Slavery and Polygamy
- Theology Unplugged - Hermeneutics - 7 - History of Interpretation through the Reformation
- Theology Unplugged - Basic Principles of Interpretation
- Theology Unplugged - What Does It Mean To Be Orthodox? (Part 1)
- Theology Unplugged - Hermeneutics 10 - Illustrations of How to Interpret
Jason Dulle on 28 Apr 2008 at 7:33 pm #
Michael,
I just finished listening, and have some questions/challenges for you. While I agree with many of the explanations you provided, and have even offered them to others in the past, I don’t find them totally satisfying, and seek to buttress them.
For example, why wouldn’t God just eradicate slavery altogether, rather than accommodating the culture by putting restrictions on it? It is my understanding that homosexuality was widely practiced in the ANE, and few societies had laws against it. Did God accommodate to the culture on this one? No, He said those who engage in homosexual acts should be killed. In fact, God micro-managed the lives of the Israelites, going against the surrounding cultures at almost every turn, and yet when it comes to slavery He feels He can’t demand the Israelites stop treating His children as property? And why accommodate on this issue rather than adultery (more widespread than homosexuality)? Would you rather have your daughter be another man’s property, or sleep with him out of wedlock? Neither is good, but the former is much worse, and yet that is what God chose to accommodate for His children? That doesn’t seem reasonable.
As for polygamy, I agree with you that even though we don’t find any explicit prohibition against the practice in the OT, the narrative implicitly speaks against it by showing the negative consequences for those who had multiple wives. But this is not tantamount to a moral prohibition. At best it says the man who marries more than one woman is asking for trouble! But if you’re willing to deal with the trouble, why not? If it is morally wrong, where is the moral condemnation?
As for claiming that kings were prohibited from having more than one wife because they were told proleptically not to “multiple to themselves wives,” this should not be understood to refer simply to more than one wife. In the same context the king is told not to multiply to himself horses, but no one thinks that means he could only have one horse. The point was that he should not have too many wives, which means God gave the king legal permission to have several.
As for Solomon, his problem was not that he had too many wives, but the religion of those wives. If he had married 700 good Jewish girls, he wouldn’t have fallen into idolatry. So I don’t think we can use Solomon as an example to show why polygamy is wrong qua polygamy. At best we can use him to show that you shouldn’t marry someone of a different religion. But that holds true for even one wife.
Also, have you considered 2 Sam 12:8? The Lord spoke to David through Nathan the prophet saying, “And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and Judah….” This is in the context of the Lord’s blessings, and one of those blessings included multiple wives. Far from a moral condemnation, and far from a “you’re stupid to have multiple wives, but if you want too, well then…go ahead,” polygamy is spoken of as God’s blessing.
I agree with you that polygamy was not God’s ideal (a la Genesis 2, and Jesus’ teaching on unjust divorce and remarriage, which is little more than consecutive polygamy), but saying it is not God’s ideal and saying it is sin are two different things. Any thoughts?
C Michael Patton on 28 Apr 2008 at 9:26 pm #
Jason, good comments. I think that you have summed up the issues well. There are some difficulties with these issues, but we can have a basic understanding through a progressive hermeneutic. But it does not answer all the questions.
Jason Dulle on 29 Apr 2008 at 2:56 pm #
Michael,
I’m not sure what to make of your response. Are you agreeing with my counter-arguments? If so, how do you think that affects the case you made?
While I agree with the concept of progressive revelation, that usually means new information not disclosed before, or further clarification of information disclosed previously. In this case, however, the moral status of polygamy shifts from agreeable (if not positive), to a prohibition. That seems less like progressive revelation and more like a reversal. I recognize that we find a parallel in the topic of divorce (“for the hardness of your heart Moses permitted you to divorce, but from the beginning it was not so”), but I must confess that I find that reversal problematic as well. As in the case of slavery, why was God so accommodating to their hard hearts on an issue like divorce, but not on other (seemingly) more trivial issues? He expected so much of them in other areas, and yet He only put a couple of restrictions on divorce rather than telling them it was forbidden? It doesn’t make sense to me. And yet, I will continue to believe in the midst of my ignorance!
Jeffrey on 14 May 2008 at 4:15 pm #
At 26′ 40″ - “The Bible clearly shows that people are not to be mistreated.” - Rhome
I’m struggling to see even that much.
Ex. 21:20-21: “If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.” (NASB)
This looks like a direct condoning of the beating of a slave within an inch of his life, provided that he is not accidentally killed.
Even wounds that are ulimately, but not immediately fatal are permissible (the NIV translates this part differently).
Randy on 11 Jul 2008 at 10:07 am #
Hello,
Jason said:
“As for polygamy, I agree with you that even though we don’t find any explicit prohibition against the practice in the OT, the narrative implicitly speaks against it by showing the negative consequences for those who had multiple wives.”
This violates sound hermeneutical principles as well as logic. Let’s just say that “negative consequences” are caused from “wrong reactions to circumstances for now.
“But this is not tantamount to a moral prohibition. At best it says the man who marries more than one woman is asking for trouble! But if you’re willing to deal with the trouble, why not? If it is morally wrong, where is the moral condemnation?”
Scripture all records some great blessings resulting from plural marriage.
“As for claiming that kings were prohibited from having more than one wife because they were told proleptically not to “multiple to themselves wives,” this should not be understood to refer simply to more than one wife. In the same context the king is told not to multiply to himself horses, but no one thinks that means he could only have one horse. The point was that he should not have too many wives, which means God gave the king legal permission to have several.”
I agree 100%
“As for Solomon, his problem was not that he had too many wives, but the religion of those wives. If he had married 700 good Jewish girls, he wouldn’t have fallen into idolatry. So I don’t think we can use Solomon as an example to show why polygamy is wrong qua polygamy. At best we can use him to show that you shouldn’t marry someone of a different religion. But that holds true for even one wife.”
I agree, for the most part. However, he violated the Law too by “multiplication” of wives.
“Also, have you considered 2 Sam 12:8? The Lord spoke to David through Nathan the prophet saying, “And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and Judah….” This is in the context of the Lord’s blessings, and one of those blessings included multiple wives. Far from a moral condemnation, and far from a “you’re stupid to have multiple wives, but if you want too, well then…go ahead,” polygamy is spoken of as God’s blessing.”
I agree.
“I agree with you that polygamy was not God’s ideal (a la Genesis 2, and Jesus’ teaching on unjust divorce and remarriage, which is little more than consecutive polygamy), but saying it is not God’s ideal and saying it is sin are two different things. Any thoughts?”
I disagree.
1. Genesis two is primarily a narrative about creation. If it is true that by God creating man and woman alone is tantamount to “God’s Ideal”, then it is also true that men should only work at farmers and we should also be vegetarians.
2. We may agree here, but for clarity, I will say that Jesus teaching on marriage and divorce was just that - a teaching on marriage and divorce. Jesus was making it clear that God’s intent was for long lasting marriages.
3. I agree that the Bible doesn’t call polygyny sin.
Blessings
Randy