2 Samuel 12:8 is a curious verse that at first glance might
seem to be God’s endorsement of polygamy.
Some Bible scholars have argued that this is the case. 2 Samuel 12:8 says in the New International
Version of the Bible and some other translations, “I gave your master’s house
to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and
Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more.”
What is happening in 2 Samuel 12, the larger context of the verse, is that the prophet Nathan is confronting King David over his adulterous affair with Bathsheba and his arrangement to have her husband, Uriah, killed. The prophet Nathan speaks verse 8 to David on behalf of God, and what God is saying here is that when He handed the kingship of Israel from Saul (David’s master) to David, He gave David Saul’s house and Saul’s wives and all the people of Israel and Judah and He would have given David even more if this had not been enough.
What is happening in 2 Samuel 12, the larger context of the verse, is that the prophet Nathan is confronting King David over his adulterous affair with Bathsheba and his arrangement to have her husband, Uriah, killed. The prophet Nathan speaks verse 8 to David on behalf of God, and what God is saying here is that when He handed the kingship of Israel from Saul (David’s master) to David, He gave David Saul’s house and Saul’s wives and all the people of Israel and Judah and He would have given David even more if this had not been enough.
The crucial question, then, is what did it mean for God
to give Saul’s wives to David? Was God
giving them to David to be his wives and thereby tacitly endorsing
polygamy, or was God giving them to David’s care and oversight rather than to a
rival contender for the throne (Saul’s son Ishbosheth), thereby solidifying
David’s claim to be king? The second
interpretation is the correct one.
2 Samuel 12:8 was originally written in Hebrew, and the
Hebrew word that gets translated “arms” by the New International Version is an
obscure word that can be translated in other ways, as any Hebrew lexicon I know
of will show. The New King James Version
more accurately translates the word as “keeping,” saying, “I gave you your
master's house and your master's wives into your keeping…” The New American
Standard Bible is highly respected for the accuracy and literalness of its
translation and it also captures the proper sense of the Hebrew when it says, “I
also gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your care…”
Also consider that David had married
Saul’s daughter, Michal, thereby making Saul’s wife David’s
mother-in-law. If God had given David
his mother-in-law as a wife, God would not only be endorsing polygamy but
incest as well. This proposition so
thoroughly violates other Scriptures, God’s character, and common sense that I see
no need to invest any more words in refuting it.
God did not give Saul’s wife Ahinoam and his concubine
Rizpah to David as wives. God gave them
into David’s care and keeping in order to confirm that David was God’s choice
to succeed Saul as king. If God had
given Saul’s wife and concubine into the care and keeping of Saul’s son
Ishbosheth, whose soldiers were fighting against David’s for the crown, this
would have greatly undermined David’s accession to the throne. I’m sorry to disappoint liberal scholars, but
2 Samuel 12:8 is in no way whatsoever God’s endorsement of polygamy.
The problem with this interpretation is that it undermines the entire point of Nathan's chastisement. The point is that God had already given David every blessing, including Saul's house and wives. If David was merely "protecting" Saul's wives, why would Nathan had listed that as a blessing that God had given David.
ReplyDeleteThis is compounded by the next verse, where God says, "And if this were too little, I would add to you as much more." More what? Mouths to feed? Women to protect? Of course not! It included Saul's wives to enjoy.
Context clearly undermines the argument your stretching to make.
Rev. Becker is right. Consider:
ReplyDeleteJam 1:27 27 Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.
In the ancient world orphans and widows were among the most destitute of people dependent on the charity of others. This is why helping orphans and widows is the purest form of religion because it imitates the character of God who helps us all because spiritually we are helpless. To be holy and like Christ reflecting the character of God means we need to be a helping hand to all. When we help the helpless we bear the image of God. We are not limited to James' example of orphans and widows. Yes, we must help orphans and widows but they are also a metaphor for a larger concept of how we should always be ready to help anyone in need whether it is spiritual or material. God made Himself a servant to us in Christ and so in our union with Christ we need to be a servant to all. The theme of this section in James 1 is that we are to be hearers and doers of God's word. Basically, James concludes the section by saying in a very colorful manner that we need to be holy like God imitating his benevolence. It is not a matter of pleasuring ourselves with worldly conquests, but experiencing true pleasure in glorifying and enjoying God by imitating His character.
Copperhead, while I still maintain that the verse is not God’s endorsement of polygamy, I do agree with the main thrust of your critique that I did not put enough emphasis on the context of the passage. I touched on the political ramifications involved in the transfer of one king’s harem to the care of the next king, but I should have developed this much more thoroughly because this point is foundational to my argument.
ReplyDeleteA great example of this is found in 1 Kings 2, where Adonijah is trying to usurp Solomon’s claim to David’s throne. Adonijah asks for Abishag, who had not been David’s wife or concubine, merely his nursemaid. Yet Adonijah knew that having her would be a political maneuver for the throne and Solomon knew it too, which is why he had Adonijah killed for this treasonous act. 1 Kings 2:22 says, “And King Solomon answered and said to his mother, ‘Now why do you ask Abishag the Shunammite for Adonijah? Ask for him the kingdom also—for he is my older brother…’” I should have used this example and more thoroughly developed the context that God had given David a tremendous political blessing by giving Saul’s wives into David’s care as opposed to the care of their closer relative, Saul’s son Ishbosheth, thereby depriving Ishbosheth of an important claim to the throne. Your critique has made and will make me think more carefully and hopefully write better – thank you!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThese interpretations are incorrect. Both in the article and comments.
ReplyDeleteNathan prophecies David's wives will be taken by another:
__________________________________________
2 Samuel 12:11
Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.
__________________________________________
And then, it comes true!
__________________________________________
2 Samuel 16:22
So they spread Absalom a tent upon the top of the house; and Absalom went in unto his father's concubines in the sight of all Israel.
__________________________________________
Obviously, the Lord gave the harem to David to have sex with. Just as Absalom later did to him (which was prophesied).
The real question is whether the Lord humiliated both David and Saul with wickedness, or whether the harem was a privilege.
But this one thing is for sure: David did'go in unto' and have intercourse with Saul's wives.
The answer may be found in Jacob's deceiving his father Isaac. God punished Jacob's deceit with Laban's deceiving him... but yet the Lord was pleased with Jacob's believing in the blessing, while Esau thought he had it coming him by virtue of birthright... same as the people today who claim to be 'God's chosen' by birth, (i.e. winning the genetic lottery) instead of acknowledging that no one comes to the Father but by Jesus.