Ralph W. Klein and Andrew E. Steinmann on Deuteronomy 17:17 Not Being a Blanket Condemnation of Polygamy

Commenting on Joash, who is described as having done right before God, receiving two wives from Jehoiada (2 Chron 24:2-3), Ralph W. Klein commented as follows:

 

3 Jehoiada procured for him two wives, and he fathered sons and daughters: Jehoiada, who had served as foster father to Joash while he was hidden in the temple for six years, and who had engineered the plot that put Joash on the throne and executed Queen Athaliah, continued to be a father figure to Joash by arranging for two of his marriages. One of these wives was possibly Jehoaddan, the mother of Joash’s successor Amaziah (2 Chr 25:1), although it is not impossible that Joash had more than two wives. Two wives are clearly less than the many wives prohibited in Deut 17:17, or the fourteen wives that Abijah had (2 Chr 13:21). Joash’s sons and daughters are a sign of his being under blessing. This verse is an addition by the Chronicler. Dillard (188) attributes it to the source the Chronicler cites in v. 27, but the generic character of this information makes that an unnecessary option, in my opinion. (Ralph W. Klein, 2 Chronicles: A Commentary [Hermeneia—A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012], 338, emphasis in bold added)

 

 Another (conservative Protestant) commentator also noted that:

Since it was common in the Ancient Near East for kings to practise polygamy, Deuteronomy 17:17 limits the king to a few wives, not many: ‘He must not acquire many wives for himself so that his heart won’t go astray’ (csb). Solomon was an example of a king who broke this law and whose heart did turn away from God (1 Kgs 11:1–8). (Andrew E. Steinmann, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary [The Tyndale Commentary Series 1; London: Inter-Varsity Press, 2019], 178-79, emphasis in bold added)

 

Note the following from Taylor Halverson’s article, “Deuteronomy 17:14–20 as Criteria for Book of Mormon Kingship,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 24 (2017): 2-3 n. 4, where he quotes a certain troublemaker:

 

Robert Boylan noted for Deuteronomy 17:16–17 that “the Hebrew verb *RBH has the nuance of growing exponentially, not just lineally, with respect to something (cf. the same form of the verb used in Deuteronomy 17:16–17 in Exodus 1:10, 12; Deuteronomy 8:13[x2]; Psalms 49:17; Proverbs 29:16; Isaiah 40:29; 55:7; Dan 11:39; Hosea 12:2). As one lexicon puts it, the hi. רָבָה most often means make numerous or multiply. These forms especially portray the abundance of God’s giving and the fullness of his mercy: in the promise to multiply the patriarchs into a great nation (Genesis 17:2, 20; 22:17; 26:4; 48:4; Exodus 32:13; Leviticus 26:9; Deuteronomy 1:10; 7:13), in the multiplication of signs and wonders to his glory and the destruction of Egypt (Exodus 7:3), and in his gracious redemption (Psalms 78:38; Isaiah 55:7). Conversely, Israel and all humanity stand before God continually multiplying sin, wickedness, and rebellion (Genesis 3:16; Ezra 10:13; Ezekiel 16:25, 26, 29). The remedy for the human malady is not found in multiplying possessions (as the Hebrew kings attempted, cf. Deuteronomy 17:16–17). Rather, God must wash and cleanse the sinner thoroughly (ָרָבה, niv wash away all; Psalms 51:2 [4]). Then the sinner may understand, along with the poet David, how God stoops down to make the righteous great (ָרָבה, 2 Samuel 22:36 || Psalms 18:35 [36]). The hi. ָרָבה can also mean many or increase, like the many gardens of Israel divinely destroyed by blight and mildew (Amos 4:9; NIV reads the proposed emendation הֶחֱרַבְתִּי, “many times I struck”), or the increase that comes from saving money little by little (Proverbs 13:11). Here ָרָבה is to be understood as a gradual or steady increase, or larger sums compared to multitudes. See further הַרְבֵּה. The hi. ־ְל + ָרָבה + inf can mean do something frequently, copiously, continually. For example, Hannah prayed continually to the Lord for a son (1 Samuel 1:12; NIV kept on), the woman of Tekoa begged David to prevent continued killing of her family (2 Samuel 14:11; NIV adding to the destruction), King Manasseh provoked God’s wrath with the continual practice of evil (2 Kgs 21:6 || 2 Chronicles 33:6), as did Amon his son (2 Chronicles 33:23) and all the people of Judah (36:14). Even as the Leviathan (#4293) does not “keep begging” for mercy (Job 41:3 [40:27]), so the Lord has stopped listening to the continual prayers of his people (Isaiah 1:15). Yet if the wicked repent, stop doing wrong, and learn to do right, God will copiously pardon (Isaiah 55:7; NIV freely pardon) — just as he has done continually throughout Israelite history (Psalms 78:38; NIV time after time he restrained his anger).’ VanGemeren, W. (Ed.). (1997). New international dictionary of Old Testament theology & exegesis (Vol. 3, pp. 1038–1039). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.”

 

It should be obvious that Deut 17:17 is not against plural marriage per se, but an exponential increase (“many”) wives (as well as chariots and gold).

 

On Deut 17:17 and Jacob 2, see:

Polygamy, Deuteronomy 17:17, and Jacob 2:24 cf. (Rashi on Deuteronomy 17:17 and the King Having Plural Wives)

2 Samuel 21:6 as a Possible Reference to Crucifixion

  

impale. There is no scholarly consensus on the exact form of execution, except that it obviously involves exhibiting the corpses. Some understand it as a king of crucifixion. (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 2:404)

 

 

6 The exact meaning of the hiph form of the verb יקע is uncertain, and this problem is reflected by the differing translations both ancient and modern. G may suggest crucifixion in the sun (similarly Tg. and Vg) while Syr. thinks of a sacrifice. The same variety is also attested by the modem versions: “hang them” (rsv, RAV), “hurl them down” (neb), “dismember them” (nab), etc. (A. A. Anderson, 2 Samuel [Word Biblical Commentary 11; Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1989], 249)

 

 

The meaning of the verb translated hang is uncertain. In the story of Jacob wrestling with the angel, it seems to mean “dislocated” (rsv “put out of joint”; Gen 32:25). In Jer 6:8 it is translated “alienated.” And in Ezek 23:17–18 the meaning appears to be “turned away from.” Holladay gives the meaning for the form of the verb here as “be exposed with broken limbs.” In the present context it has been translated in a variety of ways, including “impale” (njps, Fox, and nrsv), “hurl … down” (reb), “dismember” (nab and njb), “crucify” (Knox), and “be killed” (niv), as well as the traditional understanding, “hang” (rsv, tev, Goldman, and others). The idea of being impaled or fastened onto a stake after having been run through by it may be the best translation of a very uncertain term. (Roger L. Omanson and John Ellington, A Handbook on Second Book of Samuel [UBS Handbook Series; New York: United Bible Societies, 2001], 1092)

 

Here is the Aramaic of Targum Jonathan to the Prophets for 2 Sam 21:6:

 

 יִתיַהבוּן לַנָא שִבעָה גֻברִין מִבְנֹוהִי וְנִצלֹובִנוּן קֳדָם יְיָ בְגִבעְתָא דְשָאוּל בְחִירָא דַיְיָ וַאְמַר מַלכָא אְנָא אַתֵין׃

 

Here is an English translation:

 

6. let there be given to us seven men from his sons and let us hang them before the Lord in Gibeah of Saul, the chosen of the Lord.” And the king said: “I will give (them).” (Targum Jonathan of the Former Prophets [trans. Daniel J. Harrington and Anthony J. Saldarini; The Aramaic Bible 10; Collegeville, Minn.: The Liturgical Press, 1990], Logos Bible Software edition)

 

Randall P. Spackman on Joseph Smith's Comment that it was "1800 years since the Savior laid down his life" on April 6, 1833

In History, 1838–1856, volume A-1 [23 December 1805–30 August 1834]: 284, set during April 1833, we read:

 

The day was spent in a very agreeable manner, in giving and receiving knowledge which appertained to this last kingdom. It being just 1800 years since the Savior laid down his life that men might have everlasting life, and only three years since the church had come out of the wilderness preparatory for the last dispensation, they had great reason to rejoice;

 

Commenting on this, Randall P. Spackman wrote:

 

 . . . Ludlow also asserted that Joseph Smith “believed the Savior was crucified on Arpil 6 in the thirty-third year of our present calendar (April 6, A.D. 33)” because on April 6, 1833 C.E., a group of Latter-day Saints met with Joseph Smith and he later record that “[t]he day was spent in a very agreeable manner in giving and receiving knowledge which appertained to this last kingdom—it being just 1800 years since the Savior laid down his life . . .” (Ludlow 1978: 151). April 6, 1833 C.E. was the Saturday following Good Friday, so it would have been natural for the Latter-day Saints to remember the Savior’s crucifixion during their meeting. While Joseph Smith may have had no reason to doubt the accuracy of the Dionysian year counting system, he new that the Book of Mormon did not describe the lifetime of Jesus as exactly 33 Gregorian years (see 3 Nephi 8:5). Ludlow’s interpretation, while well intentioned, reads far too much into Joseph Smith’s natural and general statement. (Randall P. Spackman, Introduction to Book of Mormon Chronology: The Principal Prophecies, Calendars, and Dates [FARMS Preliminary Papers; Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1993], 72-73)

 

Randall P. Spackman (1993) on Helaman 12:15

  

Mormon's discourse about the wickedness of his generation (Helaman 12) is filled with temporal ideas. In times of plenty, his people develop fickle hearts. The quickness of his people to turn to evil in times of ease is contrasted with their tardy return to God in times of trial. Mormon places human vanity and greed in perspective by contrasting human disobedience with the obedience of all the rest of God's creation -- the dust of the earth, hills, mountains, valleys, the whole earth, the foundations of the universe and the waters of the great deep. However, even the iniquitous eventually will obey God. They will be shut out of His presence. Mormon also teaches the principle of repentance -- change for the better. He notes that some will not repent despite the chastening of the Lord; misery will be the end of their time of probation.

 

In the heart of this discourse, Mormon describes the movement of the earth and the role of the sun or day in a manner that is central to his discussion of God's controlling power. His statement in Helaman 12:15 that “surely it is the earth that moveth and not the sun,” is a statement of astronomical reality and religious truth. The sun does not circle the earth as the Mesoamerican astrologers asserted. The sun is circled by the earth. The sun is not a deity; it is subject to God. Mormon's statement is a clear reference to, and correction of, the scriptural report of the great battle in which Joshua (Hebrew Yehoshua; Greek Jesus) called for the sun and moon to stand still. Joshua 10:12-14 states that Joshua spoke and “the Lord hearkened unto the voice of a man.” The “sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.” (Randall P. Spackman, Introduction to Book of Mormon Chronology: The Principal Prophecies, Calendars, and Dates [FARMS Preliminary Papers; Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1993], 5)

 

For another approach to Helaman 12:15, see:

 

David Grandy, “Why Things Move: A New Look at Helaman 12:15,” BYU Studies, 51, no. 2 (2012): 99-128.

Mankind Having Genuine Free-Will After the Fall in Scholium I of Jacob of Edessa (d. 708)

  

SCHOLIUM I.

 

(GEN. iv. 7)

 

From the fifth Scholium, in which he shows of the history concerning Cain, that because he was condemned for seven offences, he was accounted deserving of seven punishments.

 

Behold, if thou doest well, thou art accepted. And again, I accept thee if thou doest well. These are a manifest announcement that God willeth the welfare of man. He also expecteth him to repent. HE waiteth for him, and also giveth occasions, which invite him to this; He wishing his salvation.

 

But if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. Thou turnest to it, and it hath dominion over thee.

 

These are indications that the dominion of the body and freedom of the will belong to man. If he who willeth call to sin, to come to him, then it will have dominion over his soul; but if he do not will, sin is not able to come near him. Behold, it lieth at the door of thy mind, like a rapacious animal outside the door of a house. If thou turnest this way by thy will, and openest to it, it entereth and hath dominion over thee; but if thou dost not will, it is not able to enter thee. By these thou mayest clearly know that Satan is not the sower of sin, though able to oppress and act with violence for the sovereignty of the body. Neither is sin itself the seed of evil doing. Wherefore Cain was condemned, because he was not truly penitent for these things; but he actually opened by his will a door for sin, and it entered and had dominion over him; as God said concerning him, and he slew his brother, without offence (committed), from envy only. (Scholia on Passages of the Old Testament, by Mar Jacob, Bishop of Edessa [trans. George Phillips; London: Williams and Norgate, 1864], 1-3, italics in original)

 

W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison Jr., on Matthew 19:28

  

What is meant by κρίνοντες? Many have understood the verb to refer not to lordship but to a one-time judgement: Israel will be judged—some would say condemned—by the twelve at the consummation. In support of this conclusion, many ancient Jewish and Christian texts foresee a group of saints judging the world in the sense indicated. Further, 19:28 recalls 25:31, which introduces a depiction of the last judgement. But it is better to hold that for Matthew and his tradition, κρίνοντες had the range of the Hebrew šāpaṭ. In this case, the sitting on the throne designates the exercise of authority over a period of time. As the twelve phylarchs once directed the twelve tribes under Moses, and as Israel was once ruled by judges, so shall it be at the end. Compare the Shemoneh ‘Esreh, benediction 18: ‘Restore our judges as in former times.’ Consider these points:

 

(i) There is no parallel to the idea that Israel will be gathered only to be condemned. It could not be otherwise. The restoration of the lost tribes was a great eschatological hope, beginning with the OT itself. It was to be a proof of God’s power and faithfulness, a joyful miracle of reunion. One wonders whether Matthew’s text can really be so far from Judaism that its connotations are exactly the opposite—especially as our Gospel nowhere directs polemic against Jews in the diaspora. Even if the evangelist had given up on Palestinian Jews and/or Jews in his neighbourhood, why must he have lost hope for those scattered abroad?

 

(ii) 19:28 has almost certainly been influenced by Dan 7:9–27. But in Daniel the saints of the Most High take possession of the kingdom and govern (cf. Obad 21; Wisd 3:7–8).

 

(iii) In T. Jud. 25:1–2 and T. Benj. 10:7 ingathered Israel is ruled by the twelve patriarchs (cf. T. Zeb.: 10:2). Whether the texts are Jewish or Christian is unclear, and their date is disputed. But they show that it was possible to associate the eschatological restoration with rule by a body of twelve. Related texts appear in the DSS.

 

(iv) Lk 22:28–30, as its context reveals, proves that at least the Third Evangelist thought in terms of the disciples ruling.

 

(v) In Mt 20:20–1 the mother of James and John asks Jesus to let them sit at his right hand and his left in the coming kingdom. The imagery is very close to 19:28. Yet 20:20–1 is naturally taken to be about governing, particularly in view of 20:25 (‘the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them’). Is it not preferable to interpret 19:28 and 20:20–1 as referring to the same set of circumstances?

 

(vi) Mt 2:6 cites 2 Sam 5:2 = 1 Chron 11:2: ‘who will govern my people Israel’. To a first-century Jew this would have conjured up the eschatological hope for Israel’s restoration, the re-establishment of the twelve tribes. 19:28 is not the only Matthean text to imply such expectation. See also on 8:11–12.

 

We conclude: 19:28 envisages the twelve disciples entering ‘into God’s kingly power by themselves becoming rulers’. Israel has a future (cf. 1, pp. 23–4; 2, pp. 27–8). (W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew, 3 vols. [London: T&T Clark International, 2004], 3:55-56)

 

Note on the Text of 2 Nephi 24:2 (= Isaiah 14:2)

  

Isa 14:2 (KJV)	2 Nephi 24:2
And the people shall take them, and bring them to their place: and the house of Israel shall possess them in the land of the Lord for servants and handmaids: and they shall take them captives, whose captives they were; and they shall rule over their oppressors.	And the people shall take them and bring them to their place, yea, from far unto the ends of the earth. And they shall return to their lands of promise, and the house of Israel shall possess them. And the land of the Lord shall be for servants and handmaids. And they shall take them captives unto whom they were captives, and they shall rule over their oppressors.

 

The MT reads “to their place” (‎אֶל־מְקוֹמָם). However, 1QIsa^a Col. XII, line 2 readsאל אדמתם ואל מקומם, which provides some support for the Book of Mormon. Here is an image from The Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa^a): A New Edition, ed. Donald W. Parry and Elisha Qimron (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 32; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 24:

 

 

Commenting on this issue, Donald W. Parry noted that:

 

The scroll’s scribe was possibly impacted by the double manifestation of אדמה in the immediate context, first attested in v.1 and then again later in v. 2. Or, 1QIsa^a’s reading may be a conflation, based either on its Vorlage or another manuscript that read אל אדמתם. A targumic witness has לארעהון, which equals אדמתם, and another targumic reading attests לאתרהון, which corresponds to מקוממ, thus showing a tradition existed for both מקומם and אדמתם.

 

This plus of 1QIsa^a, together with an earlier plus in this verse (עמים רבים, see commentary above), serve to embroider Israel’s position of supremacy among the Gentiles and emphasizes the land in the context of Israel’s election or chosenness. (Donald W. Parry, Exploring the Isaiah Scrolls and Their Textual Variants [Supplements to the Textual History of the Bible 3; Leiden: Brill, 2020], 121)