The NXR Podcast - July 23, 2025


THE LIVESTREAM - Matt Walsh Vs Andrew Tate: Traditional Marriage & Polygamy


Episode Stats


Length

1 hour and 49 minutes

Words per minute

173.88498

Word count

19,127

Sentence count

576

Harmful content

Misogyny

33

sentences flagged

Toxicity

40

sentences flagged

Hate speech

95

sentences flagged


Summary

Summaries generated with gmurro/bart-large-finetuned-filtered-spotify-podcast-summ .

Transcript

Transcript generated with Whisper (turbo).
Misogyny classifications generated with MilaNLProc/bert-base-uncased-ear-misogyny .
Toxicity classifications generated with s-nlp/roberta_toxicity_classifier .
Hate speech classifications generated with facebook/roberta-hate-speech-dynabench-r4-target .
00:00:00.000 Leave us a five-star review on your favorite podcast platform.
00:00:03.800 I get it. It's annoying. Everybody asks, but I'm going to tell you why.
00:00:07.540 When you give us a positive review, what that does is it triggers the algorithm
00:00:12.040 so that our podcast shows up on more people's newsfeeds.
00:00:16.280 You and I both know that this ministry is willing to talk about things that most ministries aren't.
00:00:21.860 We need this content for the glory of God to reach more people's ears.
00:00:26.800 matt walsh and andrew tate had a little spat on x recently over the last 24 to 36 hours over the
00:00:38.020 topic of polygamy matt walsh as a western catholic he was arguing for monogamy he's saying that
00:00:45.920 monogamy is the marital structure that built western civilization and he's not wrong andrew
00:00:51.960 Tate, on the other hand, was arguing for having as many children as you can through as many
00:00:57.320 wives as you can, or in his case, maybe it's not legally a wife, but some kind of pseudo
00:01:03.400 partnership, concubines of sorts.
00:01:06.060 And this kind of became the talk of the town. 0.87
00:01:09.220 So today we want to do an episode talking about polygamy.
00:01:11.960 And first, we're going to address it from the Bible.
00:01:14.140 What does the Bible actually teach in the case of polygamy?
00:01:17.260 Is it ideal? 1.00
00:01:18.800 Is it a virtue?
00:01:20.540 Lower than that.
00:01:21.400 is it if it's a vice is it a permissible vice or is it inherently sinful is it sinful in some cases
00:01:28.260 or sinful in all cases these are the questions that we're going to answer in the first segment
00:01:33.180 dealing with the scripture and then in the second segment of the show we're also going to be
00:01:37.940 addressing monogamy versus polygamy as it pertains to the western and european tradition looking at
00:01:45.620 even pre-Christian eras in Europe, even northern tribes looking at the Germanics, looking at the
00:01:52.220 Celts, and seeing what was going on here even before the gospel was brought to bear. Were they
00:01:58.980 mostly monogamous, or were they mostly polygamy, polygamist? This is the kinds of questions that
00:02:05.880 we'll do our best to answer in this particular episode, and then dealing with, of course, some
00:02:10.260 of the specific tweets that we saw from both Andrew Tate and Matt Walsh. Now this episode is
00:02:16.420 brought to you by our premier sponsors, Armored Republic and Reese Fund, as well as our Patreon
00:02:22.500 members and our generous donors. If you'd like to join our Patreon for extra exclusive ad-free
00:02:29.500 content, you can do so by going to patreon.com forward slash right response ministries. And if
00:02:36.680 you'd like to make a donation today, you can do so by going to rightresponseministries.com
00:02:43.300 forward slash donate. Let's tune in now.
00:02:55.800 All right, here we are. Let's just, I think we should just lead off with some of the tweets
00:03:02.040 that have gone viral at this point. Do we start with Andrew Tate and then look at Matt Walsh and
00:03:06.600 him responding or what yeah let's uh let's go ahead and do our best to steel man a position
00:03:10.640 to steel man a position is the opposite of to make a straw man out of it so to straw man is to put up 0.70
00:03:15.120 the weakest the most pathetic version of the argument and say well look how easy it is to
00:03:19.920 knock over whereas the steel man is to say if i could make the case as best as possible even if
00:03:24.220 i don't agree with it what would i what would i argue and tate's argument kind of goes along the
00:03:28.980 line of here in the west especially you have be it a court system be it a cultural of a culture
00:03:34.180 of feminism that the whole system is rigged against the man and so men that undergo voluntarily
00:03:39.440 marrying one woman they kind of in some ways his argument would be well they kind of subject 0.80
00:03:44.460 themselves to you could have your money taken your wife also could go crazy she could say
00:03:48.680 i'm going to take your son and i'm going to turn him into a girl and you're never going to see him
00:03:52.720 again and so he sees those different things he says hey uh men you should have you know don't 0.93
00:03:58.120 put all your eggs in one basket as many women as would be willing to as possible and as many children
00:04:02.800 through them and uh listen to what he says in responding to matt because matt is kind of the
00:04:06.740 illustration of the opposite right andrew tate claims to have 40 children with nine different
00:04:10.940 women matt walsh has i think six kids with one woman which good for matt praise god but listen
00:04:16.600 to how he kind of responds to matt as matt's making the point that like hey marriage is good
00:04:20.280 all of these different things he says this he says hey matt agreed on this point any man with
00:04:25.460 a brain this is why any man with a brain doesn't hand over the keys to his castle so the wealth
00:04:30.880 that he's built, his job, his properties, everything he's accrued, doesn't hand over 0.60
00:04:34.620 the keys to his castle to a misandric legal system that is a feminine-coded legal system 0.98
00:04:39.400 and over emotional, unchecked females. The world has changed, Matt. Women are a fraction 0.95
00:04:45.600 of what they were. Telling men to just get married and be loyal gets men wrecked. The 1.00
00:04:51.640 only way they hold the relationship together is to give up any ounce of masculinity. Living
00:04:56.400 hell. The smartest move on the chessboard. This is his claim. So all of that, and I even
00:05:00.780 touched on it too it's true about the court systems the smartest move tate says on the chess
00:05:05.600 board for a man now is to get rich and have as many children as he wants from as many women as
00:05:10.980 he wants and take care of them all second world avoid first world courts own your empire and women
00:05:17.760 will respect you in return for provision and he follows up and says you have four sons and i have
00:05:23.340 i think it's something like 20 or 30. like on paper matt is just not going to have 20 sons and
00:05:28.960 if he does, someone please conduct a wellness check on his poor wife. So that's kind of the
00:05:34.540 steel man of the arguments. He's saying, Hey, and it is true. And I personally know these men and
00:05:38.180 you can't just say like, well, you know, just, just be a good man and be loyal. These are real
00:05:42.160 cases where I men have, I remember one good brother, his wife was, uh, was holding off and
00:05:47.380 filing divorce papers until the 10 year mark because at the 10 year mark, she was entitled
00:05:51.260 to more of his wealth. She was going for his kids to take custody of them. She was going for his 0.88
00:05:55.820 money and not just his money but as much money as he should he she could get while she was sleeping 1.00
00:06:00.900 with another man and the court system she walked in she got everything she wanted here in texas
00:06:05.940 two years ago like that legitimately happens he's a good faithful man leading the family working hard
00:06:11.620 and she took him for everything that he's worth now there's not a single boilerplate solution to
00:06:16.500 that that's not really the topic of what we're saying today but we have to be honest that there
00:06:20.320 is a point that the men were saying i don't know about this marriage thing like that kind of sounds
00:06:25.700 like i'm setting myself up for a lot of risk that risk is real even though tate's point is wrong
00:06:31.780 well just have as many children with as many women as possible no that's not the right response
00:06:35.280 either but the problem he points out i really think is a real one yeah anything to add anything
00:06:41.160 no yeah i think that's uh you know you you can certainly understand why when andrew date talks
00:06:47.820 about this it's there where the appeal is coming from like i i do understand like in this common
00:06:53.160 you know in this context like men are i mean you have a large swath of men who i think have been
00:06:58.940 alienated by women for one reason or another um and uh as a consequence i think they've sort of
00:07:05.100 turned away from like a biblical ideal of marriage i'll put it that way um and uh you know and what
00:07:12.060 tate's saying about relationships and how you know in the modern context women abuse you know in a
00:07:18.720 way abuse men and use men so on and so forth like i think it's appealing to say hey actually your
00:07:23.860 instincts that you're you're being told to sort of uh suppress um for in this like western sort
00:07:31.440 of schema they're actually they're actually appropriate um and uh and and that's where
00:07:37.080 andrew tate's appeal is coming from i think it's partly on like the physical uh side of things
00:07:41.780 like hey exercise you know hustle try to get as much money as you can but i think on the relationship
00:07:46.300 side as well um he you know how he talks about hey you know ballers kings so on and so forth
00:07:53.300 they get a lot of women i think that that just appeals to men i think i think matt walsh is
00:07:58.680 coming with more of the sort of historical biblical view of marriage and trying to articulate that
00:08:05.460 um sort of in this back and forth that we're looking at um and uh yeah we see it come to
00:08:10.640 we say it come to a clash i think it's appropriate west to sort of steel man uh you know some of the
00:08:16.240 good points that tate's making like like you've done um but uh but also see why why it's so
00:08:22.940 commonly held in the christian sort of schema matt walsh what matt walsh will say so yeah um yeah
00:08:29.380 let's play matt's video all the benefits for the man uh that traditionally are baked into the
00:08:35.960 equation of marriage according to god's design have been stripped away with our modern feminist 0.97
00:08:41.160 tradition that we now have here in the west so you think of what's the incentive for a man to
00:08:47.480 get married um part of it is legacy lineage that he would have posterity that would carry on his
00:08:53.500 name um i mean today you have you know hyphenated last names you know often uh the wife not even
00:09:00.640 taking uh the last name of the husband you also have all these women on birth control continuing
00:09:06.340 to be on birth control, even entering into marriage. So they're not actually producing 0.99
00:09:12.120 offspring. They're not actually going to provide a child, an heir for that man. The other incentive
00:09:18.640 from a biblical perspective is that sex, the only proper context within Christian thinking,
00:09:24.820 Christian ethics, is within marriage between one man and one woman. And there are prevalent cases
00:09:33.240 of women who refuse to sleep with their husbands and and so there's there's no there's no moral
00:09:40.680 obligation in the minds of many women today uh you know that the idea of conjugal rights i mean
00:09:46.320 you think of even you know some of our laws as it pertains to uh incarceration uh like why why
00:09:53.240 are there conjugal rights it's like you're a criminal you broke the law like you could be a 0.76
00:09:57.140 murderer you know you murdered someone i'm sorry you don't get to uh you don't get to have sex 0.99
00:10:02.560 with your wife. And yet, on the books, we have had this system of conjugal rights, even for 0.99
00:10:09.480 criminals, because what we're saying is that it's not just the criminal being able to receive
00:10:15.800 that sexual intimacy, but he has an obligation to fulfill that for his wife, for his spouse.
00:10:22.020 And so she has a right to it. And it's actually outlined as a right. And this is what we see in
00:10:27.860 scripture i believe it's first corinthians chapter 7 where the apostle paul says do not deprive one
00:10:33.140 another unless by mutual consent and even then over only for a time um uh so that you may devote
00:10:40.400 yourselves to prayer but then be rejoined together uh for there is much temptation in the world um
00:10:46.940 and and so even the apostle paul who as far as we know remained single he's talking about married 0.78
00:10:53.940 couples and saying, if you're married, you should be having sex. And, you know, like he doesn't,
00:10:59.640 you know, he's not a legalist about it. He's not putting, you know, a timestamp, you know,
00:11:03.000 like you have to set alarms on your phone, you know, to, you know, but, but he's saying, you
00:11:07.260 know, the, the overarching, at least, you know, concept is that that sex would be somewhat
00:11:11.980 frequent. It would be somewhat regular. And, but he binds it in language of duty, not, not merely
00:11:18.420 recreation or pleasure. You should do this because it's fun. It's like, no, you, the husband has
00:11:23.920 a duty to his wife and the wife has a duty to her husband but in our feminist society where there's 1.00
00:11:30.860 you know there's there's no sense of that that remains a woman can marry a man not sleep with 1.00
00:11:37.640 him not bear children for him if she does bear children or at least you know conceive children 0.95
00:11:44.340 she can murder his children with impunity a wife think about that even in marriage even not just 0.99
00:11:49.900 out of wedlock but even in marriage your wife who you're legally married to can take your unborn 0.98
00:11:56.280 child to a hit man and pay him your money that you've earned and have that child murdered your
00:12:03.700 child and there's not a dang thing that you can do about it legally but you cannot stop her and 0.92
00:12:10.620 if you tried by force to stop her you would go to jail and your child would still be murdered
00:12:17.220 in the womb because she's got a nine-month window to carry it out. Ample provision in time. 0.92
00:12:24.060 So you get married and there's no guarantee. It's like, well, I want to get married because I'd like
00:12:29.020 to be able to have sexual intimacy. There's no guarantee that she'll sleep with you. Well,
00:12:34.500 I'd like to have a son. There's no guarantee that she'll give you children. Well, you know, 0.78
00:12:40.380 but maybe she'll get pregnant. There's no guarantee that she'll continue to keep the pregnancy and 1.00
00:12:45.400 won't murder your child with legal impunity um and she can go and take all of your stuff 0.72
00:12:52.320 and she will win she will the entire court system is geared towards her so the moment that you get
00:12:59.520 married um you're entering into a scenario where especially for worldly men who aren't christian 0.63
00:13:05.980 you're looking at less sex not more less sex if any sex at all uh you're looking at a hyphenated
00:13:13.980 last name um you're looking at uh no posterity maybe some murdered posterity and probably um
00:13:23.600 her ending up taking you know 50 of the company that you started when you finally or she finally
00:13:29.440 opts out yeah and taking my stuff and the house um so andrew tate is right in terms of the diagnosis
00:13:36.320 and that's where the red pill has always been right as long as they've been around
00:13:40.400 um they're absolutely right and a lot of christians don't still just don't quite get it a lot of
00:13:47.220 pastors i don't i don't think they quite understand how how high the stakes really are and and how
00:13:54.000 incredibly corrupt uh and and how rigged the deck is against the husband so i'm sympathetic uh in
00:14:02.120 that regard um but at the same time what andrew tate is arguing for not only is it not the
00:14:09.020 Christian position. Um, but it's also not the Western position, which makes sense when you
00:14:14.380 think of Andrew Tate and the fact that, you know, when he, when he finally realized, okay, you know,
00:14:19.020 like I need to, I can't just remain undeclared when it comes to my faith religion. I need to
00:14:26.180 kind of, you know, make up my mind here. And he, and he realized, you know, like, Hey, if I'm going
00:14:30.780 to be based and right wing, you know, whatever that is for Andrew Tate, um, there's not really
00:14:36.180 a category of i'm based in right wing and uh and i'm agnostic oh so you're a lib right i'm based
00:14:43.140 in right wing but i'm an atheist you've never met someone like me before yeah yeah we we have it's
00:14:48.420 called james lindsey and you're actually a leftist there is no right wing category that's not profoundly 0.92
00:14:54.360 religious right there's not not not really and so i mean dave rubin is a very more uh wait he's gay
00:15:00.020 yeah exactly so so what they you know what what guys realize as they start going down you know 0.55
00:15:05.180 take the red pill, go down the red pill rabbit hole, is they realize, okay, I've got to be
00:15:11.280 religious. I've got to pick one. And so naturally, which religion does Andrew Tate pick? Well, he
00:15:16.560 picks Islam, not Christianity, but Islam. Islam is not Western. Islam is, you know, it's not 0.94
00:15:24.740 American. It's not European. And so, you know, he picks a religion that allows for polygamy. He 1.00
00:15:31.720 picks for a religion that allows for multiple wives and and all these you know allows for harems 0.98
00:15:37.700 and allows for and and so for me to see like okay here's here's uh you know an allegedly you know
00:15:43.880 islamic guy and he's going to argue for you know some version of polygamy makes total sense but
00:15:52.080 but i think it's you know it's good and we're going to do that uh now but but to argue you
00:15:57.480 know the biblical uh impetus against uh what andrew tate is positing but then also uh to show
00:16:04.780 that this this is not uh it's not it's not american it's not european uh it's not just
00:16:12.340 that it's not christian it's not western this is not how western society was built you want to go
00:16:18.300 to societies that embrace polygamy great um then then enjoy living in a hut right but if you want
00:16:26.000 cathedrals and you want airfare and you want you know smartphones and cell towers if you want
00:16:34.640 civilization then you're looking at christian nations and you're looking at monogamous nations
00:16:42.580 you're not looking at nations with harems the nation that allows you to have multiple wives
00:16:48.400 is also the nation where you live in a grass hut so enjoy your hut but to take all the benefits of 0.93
00:16:55.960 Western society while mocking some of the bedrock principles that built Western society is 0.84
00:17:05.340 disingenuous at best and hypocritical, more likely. Let's play Matt's clip, kind of his
00:17:11.580 rebuttal too. And we've pointed out, obviously, we agree with Matt much more on this, but he does
00:17:16.040 still kind of miss the mark a little bit. The setup which Andrew Tate describes and promotes
00:17:21.560 where men have children by many different women
00:17:23.980 has lots of historical precedent.
00:17:26.580 It does. 0.71
00:17:27.880 This is the way that primitive societies
00:17:29.940 have operated for thousands of years.
00:17:31.640 And today, this strategy, if we can call it that,
00:17:34.720 is very popular in certain communities in this country.
00:17:38.100 And you could always spot those communities
00:17:39.900 because they're the ones that are the most dysfunctional,
00:17:42.740 the filthiest, most destitute,
00:17:44.240 and crime-ridden places in the country.
00:17:46.720 Show me the murder rate
00:17:47.820 and the average yearly income in any neighborhood,
00:17:49.860 and I will tell you whether most of the children in that neighborhood have a father in the home
00:17:54.220 or not. And I will never be wrong. Andrew Tate talks about this kind of lifestyle as though
00:18:00.420 it's natural. In a post on Sunday, he made that claim explicitly. He said, quote,
00:18:05.120 monogamy isn't natural for men. Men are men. This is how they'll always be.
00:18:11.520 And he's right in a certain way. It is natural. It's natural in the sense that it appeals to our
00:18:16.780 most base and uncivilized impulses. Another word might be primitive. An even better word would be
00:18:23.360 animalistic, which is why it's so commonly found in the animal kingdom. Reptiles and fish behave
00:18:28.720 this way. You're not going to find a monogamous lizard or shark. Monkeys are almost always
00:18:34.780 non-monogamous. Go down the list of animal species and they almost all approach family
00:18:40.220 formation the way that Andrew Tate prescribes. But the problem is that we are not monkeys or
00:18:47.680 lizards or sharks. We are human beings. And my controversial contention is that we should act
00:18:53.600 like it. Is monogamy natural? Even better, it's supernatural. Man and wife become one at the
00:19:02.300 altar. They are bound together by the vow they made before God. This is above our base instincts.
00:19:10.220 And so is composing a symphony or sculpting the statue of David out of a massive hunk of marble.
00:19:15.960 These things are achieved just like any great thing is achieved by rejecting temptation,
00:19:22.260 subordinating our base desires, embracing some measure of hardship for the sake of something
00:19:26.860 far greater than whatever momentary pleasure we can experience by giving into them.
00:19:31.800 And there is nothing in this world more manly, more masculine than that. In fact, I would say
00:19:37.420 this is the very definition of masculinity. Can you do the harder thing for the sake of the greater
00:19:44.940 good? If you're going to impart one thing to your sons and your daughters as a father, it should be
00:19:52.160 this. Teaching them how to do the harder thing for the greater good. And if you can't, or if you
00:20:01.500 won't, then you aren't manly. And no matter how much money you have or how much you can bench
00:20:06.900 press. It doesn't matter. Now, Tate says that men will be men, and yes, that's true, but
00:20:12.580 will they be good men? Will they be men of virtue and fidelity and discipline?
00:20:20.360 They can be, if they pursue the higher thing. In a similar way, I might say that many men
00:20:26.580 will father children. That's easy to do. But will they be fathers? They have children. Will 0.88
00:20:34.000 they raise them. That's the hard part. I keep talking about hardship and difficulty, rightly so,
00:20:41.380 but I don't want to make it sound like being a faithful husband and father is nothing but misery
00:20:45.920 and drudgery and all you can do is just grit your teeth and bear it. That's not the case.
00:20:51.120 I love being married. I love being a dad. It's a lot of fun much of the time. It's a source of
00:20:56.360 great joy. That's what happens when you simply let go of your childish need to put your own
00:21:02.220 immediate gratification before anything and everything all the time. You discover an ability
00:21:06.200 to do the harder thing and actually enjoy it. The way that guys like Tate describe marriage
00:21:13.200 makes it seem like, you know, we're living in entirely different universes, and perhaps we are.
00:21:18.500 Because he describes marriage like it's a labor camp. A man is imprisoned by his controlling,
00:21:23.380 ungrateful, promiscuous wife who runs out to cheat on him as soon as he leaves for work in the 0.95
00:21:27.760 morning. He makes it seem, or outright claims, that it's essentially impossible for a man to 0.84
00:21:32.140 find a good, faithful woman who will bear his children, stay true to her vows, and respect
00:21:37.740 and love him until he dies.
00:21:39.600 But how could it be impossible?
00:21:42.940 I am currently in such an arrangement.
00:21:46.120 I know many men in the same boat.
00:21:49.300 If you don't know any truly happy and faithful marriages, then I would suggest that the problem
00:21:54.280 isn't with marriage.
00:21:55.880 It's that you are surrounding yourself with awful people.
00:21:59.580 now finally back to the subject of raising boys
00:22:04.480 yeah we agree with a lot of that i agree with a lot of that i think there was a lot of criticisms
00:22:13.140 i think specifically aimed at tate that were that were more relevant than i think his defense of
00:22:19.220 marriage doing the harder thing for the greater good i thought was great yeah i agree with that
00:22:23.680 at the end there though is when he's kind of starts to like you know um he he kind of almost
00:22:32.020 kind of made it like i'm in a good marriage my wife is is kind and faithful and and therefore
00:22:38.240 it seems like he was implying um that that women like matt's own wife are prevalent and that they
00:22:45.940 grow on trees yeah and i'm like where do you if you know where please tell the young man
00:22:51.720 out here looking for a wife i wonder when matt i i assume he's he's has to been married for at
00:22:57.420 least a decade yeah oh yeah wes will look it up i i i'm gonna guess i think he got married 15 years
00:23:03.800 ago plus that sounds about right that's what i'm gonna guess but go ahead well i was just gonna
00:23:08.660 say like also one thing as you're watching this clip like becomes evident is that what what matt
00:23:15.500 walsh is criticizing about andrew tate's um sort of version if you will of polygamy is something
00:23:21.680 that actually outright you know outright should just be condemned like because because what he's
00:23:26.840 saying is true you think about islam i think aquinas specifically did a study of islam and
00:23:31.580 essentially described it as the pursuance of lust like that is what that is the embodiment of that 0.97
00:23:37.960 faith right um it's just money power precisely yeah it's just permit it's just permissive
00:23:44.260 and so in the way that matt walsh is criticizing andrew tate and what he's how he's talking about
00:23:49.580 dating and marriage and uh polygamy it that is the right that is the right criticism to make
00:23:55.940 because that i mean we were talking about before the episode like for 99 of men who are liking
00:24:02.000 andrew tate's tweet here and espousing this kind of view like it it is a selfish lustful motivation
00:24:08.460 and and we should just as we the point i'm trying to make here is we should distinguish
00:24:12.580 the criticisms we're leveraging at tate and and his view of polygamy from the very real presence
00:24:18.340 of polygamy in scripture that we're forced to wrestle with as christians and that you know
00:24:23.120 church fathers so on and so forth and church history have wrestled with it's just different
00:24:26.960 It's just a different context, different reasons, so on and so forth.
00:24:32.600 He was married 2011, so he was 25 years old at the time, about 14 years ago.
00:24:37.440 And that probably was a time where it was easier to find a good woman.
00:24:40.700 We've talked about this before. 1.00
00:24:41.840 A lot of women marry for potential in men.
00:24:43.700 So they see a man that is working hard, but he's not there yet.
00:24:46.580 He's disciplined, but he can grow in it.
00:24:48.340 And they say, I want to come along for that journey.
00:24:50.640 But men at some level, they're marrying for youth, like the ability to bear children.
00:24:54.720 but there's also an element of a past in there.
00:24:56.700 A past can't be erased, and there's men that would say no to some women
00:25:00.040 because of the lifestyle, specifically a promiscuous lifestyle that they've lived.
00:25:04.400 And my point is that it's actually possible in a given nation, for example, 1.00
00:25:07.860 of all the women of marriageable age,
00:25:10.560 that more women would have a past that would disincline them towards marriage. 1.00
00:25:14.080 It could be more or less. 1.00
00:25:15.860 So you could have a time like ours in which the vast majority of women, 1.00
00:25:19.360 for one reason or another, are generally ineligible for marriage,
00:25:23.120 whether it be by their temperament, whether it be by their views being feminist.
00:25:27.720 There can be, a Christian man can be looking to date,
00:25:30.580 and proportionally there would be more eligible Christian women
00:25:33.780 that he could date 50 years ago than today.
00:25:36.460 It's not a fixed number that there will always be a fixed number of Christian women,
00:25:39.520 and all of those Christian women would be good women that you should be happy to marry.
00:25:42.940 And I would definitely say, right now it would seem, 1.00
00:25:45.800 there is a dearth of good Christian women to find and to marry 1.00
00:25:49.280 that want to be mothers, that want to be good stay-at-home wives,
00:25:52.440 that want to respect and submit to their husbands that wasn't always the case 20 30 40 years ago but
00:25:59.400 that most certainly probably is the case now and telling people well hey i did it when it was easy
00:26:03.520 like that's great but that doesn't help a lot of men who are saying it is rough out here
00:26:08.320 yeah yeah finding a good woman is pretty difficult i'm always i've quoted it before people get mad
00:26:16.020 at me i understand that there are um there's some other context to this in the higher interpretive
00:26:20.960 level um and how it pertains to more spiritual things but uh nonetheless you still have in the
00:26:26.960 book of ecclesiastes he says when i was searching but still not yet finding i found one upright man
00:26:33.400 among a thousand but not one upright woman among them all classic i feel like that like that's
00:26:41.000 kind of like uh these days i could probably you know for the single man that could be your life
00:26:44.920 verse uh maybe a little bit discouraging maybe pick a different verse it's a little bit more
00:26:49.660 hopeful but um yeah let's turn just a biblical portion of this so the biblical arguments and
00:26:55.600 that was even some of the criticism that matt walsh got matt you should be making these arguments
00:26:59.160 for monogamy based on scripture right and i couldn't help a little bit but think the way
00:27:03.760 he was kind of describing polygamy to your point antonio we have to be honest about this you will
00:27:08.280 not win if you're not honest with people that oppose you so if you're arguing for monogamy
00:27:12.740 which we are you do need to be honest about what the bible says whether it be abraham whether it
00:27:17.720 be Esau, whether it be David, whether it be Solomon, Joash later on in the book of Kings.
00:27:24.580 There were a number of biblical patriarchs who had multiple wives. Abraham was two. I think Esau
00:27:29.920 was two. Is it Isaac as well? He has four, I believe. Yeah. So Isaac has four. David has,
00:27:37.060 it seems, about eight. Solomon, just put them all to shame. Jacob has four because he marries
00:27:42.020 Rachel, Leah first, and then Rachel, and then each of them have a servant that married Jacob.
00:27:47.260 So Jacob has four.
00:27:48.680 I think Isaac is two.
00:27:49.720 Yep.
00:27:49.980 So you have a number of cases in scripture.
00:27:53.420 And if we're perfectly honest, we don't see anything necessarily in the text.
00:27:56.920 Now, the first man who's married to two women, Lamech, this would be in Genesis chapter four,
00:28:01.020 he is condemned.
00:28:01.800 He's known as a violent man.
00:28:03.120 It records there that he's married to two women.
00:28:05.100 And he boasts about being too violent to a young man who just slighted him ever so slightly.
00:28:10.080 And he says, all right, if Cain was avenged, let me tell you how much I'm going to avenge
00:28:14.100 someone who offends me.
00:28:15.420 And the difference is Cain.
00:28:16.560 in the case of cain and cain was you know he was no saint but in the case of cain it's god exacting
00:28:22.160 this vengeance sevenfold right i'll put my mark on you because cain is like you know okay um you're
00:28:28.640 gonna allow me to live after killing my brother abel you know and i'm gonna be a wanderer and 0.96
00:28:32.880 i'm being banished but um people are gonna find me and kill me you know and god makes him this 0.53
00:28:38.640 promise and says i'll put my mark on you so that if anybody finds you and tries to lay a hand on 0.99
00:28:43.120 on you, tries to harm you or kill you, I will exact vengeance on them sevenfold. Whereas Lamech 0.99
00:28:49.380 is saying, if Cain's vengeance was sevenfold, mine will be 77fold. So he's saying, it'll be
00:28:55.320 exponentially more. And he's also saying, I'm going to exact that kind of vengeance. And he's
00:29:02.760 talking about that in the context of presumably what we can tell implicitly is like a young boy
00:29:09.240 who doesn't commit a crime but just slights him, offends him.
00:29:14.760 And so he's like, I'm going to go and absolutely destroy 1.00
00:29:17.160 and murder and kill this young boy. 1.00
00:29:19.240 So that's the wickedness of Lamech. 1.00
00:29:22.440 He was wicked because he had two wives. 0.88
00:29:24.180 No, it's wicked because he's wicked. 0.90
00:29:26.180 But then you do have to grapple with the fact that
00:29:28.600 the most wicked guy so far in the biblical narrative
00:29:32.660 other than Cain, and arguably from what you can tell
00:29:35.360 from the text he's he's you know he's 11 times more wicked than cain so thus far in the biblical
00:29:42.980 narrative from genesis chapter 1 it's the most wicked guy in scripture we've seen thus far he
00:29:48.380 he also happens to be descriptively the first guy in scripture who has more than one wife
00:29:53.600 yep so not not a great you know and abraham's marriage to hagar that that does not go well
00:29:59.960 either sarah gets jealous she kicks her out she nearly dies in the desert uh same thing with
00:30:04.780 Jacob, there's strife and everything. Probably the best you could do would be David. So David
00:30:09.660 did not have 800 wives like Solomon, who, for the record, took him and led his heart away from God
00:30:14.400 later on in his life, which was the specific warning about kings multiplying wives.
00:30:19.140 We have David who had about eight wives and is likely some other concubines.
00:30:22.780 And you could make the argument with Bathsheba, and we're just trying to kind of go through the
00:30:26.480 biblical narrative to say what the Bible says about this. And you can say with Bathsheba,
00:30:29.840 well, see right there, like the fault was with Bathsheba. But if we're being technical,
00:30:33.120 the fault was that he slept with the wife of another man. So Bathsheba was Uriah's wife.
00:30:37.820 Because David had other wives. Exactly. And it was permissible for David at that time. I thought 0.60
00:30:43.920 there was an interesting comment here from Foxhound in the chat. He said, and he's right,
00:30:48.380 when we're making biblical moral arguments, descriptive texts, they're not nothing,
00:30:53.760 but they are descriptive rather than prescriptive. Prescriptive meaning that the Bible's actually
00:30:57.920 you know explicitly commanding something descriptive is it's just describing a picture
00:31:03.240 of something right like what you just referenced with David and Bathsheba right that's a descriptive
00:31:07.580 what's going on well David you know sleeps with Bathsheba another man's wife and then sends you
00:31:13.560 know her husband Uriah to the front lines and has Joab and everybody retreat from him so that
00:31:19.360 essentially you know effectively he's murdered so you'd read that that's that's in the Bible
00:31:23.720 but it's a descriptive um text and it's not prescribing saying so this is what you do to
00:31:28.960 live a good and godly life you need to find somebody who's a close friend uriah was one of
00:31:33.000 the 30 mighty men he was he wasn't just a random guy in israel he was one of david's friends you
00:31:37.080 need to find a close friend top 30 friend list and uh and you just sleep with his wife you know
00:31:42.300 and make sure that he uh that he you know set the stage for him to die in some tragic um accident so
00:31:48.600 that's a descriptive text not prescriptive so too with lame going back to that real quick
00:31:53.240 foxtown just brought up you know you can argue that if you wanted to play the devil's advocate
00:31:57.880 you can argue in another one you can say well the first uh the first monogamous marriage in the
00:32:03.400 bible led towards the fall of the entire human race adam and eve like i want that to happen again
00:32:10.540 probably should cut out all that monogamy right you know so so that that is a fair point so lamech
00:32:17.180 i think there's i think there's something there but uh but if that's if that's the you know the
00:32:21.340 whole foundation of the argument then no that's not strong enough yeah but if we talk about like
00:32:25.920 i you know you think about arguments for monogamy against polygamy i i wouldn't necessarily go to
00:32:32.260 lamech i i think there's a couple other things and as you read the church fathers i think there's
00:32:36.340 two sort of primary ways that monogamy as not only the ideal but um uh that all other forms
00:32:44.180 of marriage would be sinful polygamy bigamy um i think the best arguments are going to be
00:32:49.100 Christological. And so this is the way that Christ and the church mirror a husband and a bride and
00:32:56.820 that being sort of a view of marriage. And that sort of aligns with Genesis 2, 24, that a husband
00:33:04.240 should leave his parents and cling to one wife, hold fast to one wife. So you have that sort of 0.86
00:33:09.440 Christological view, biblically speaking. And then I think the natural law arguments are also
00:33:13.300 something that comes out in sort of the anti-Nicene church fathers, which is to say that
00:33:18.860 polygamy introduces disorder. It's a disordered sort of a version of the family. So you think
00:33:25.280 about like Andrew Tate, he's got 40 kids and nine wives. Can he possibly be a biblical father
00:33:31.640 to all 40 of those children? Can he sort of do his duty to sort of raise them in the fear and
00:33:39.560 admonition of the lord so and so as parents are commanded as fathers are commanded um and so you
00:33:45.000 have that sort of that one's tough because you think of like adam and eve you know adam lived
00:33:49.300 you know over 900 years like adam probably had he probably had over 100 kids yeah easily and so like
00:33:56.760 so i i do understand i like the christological argument i i like that a lot i was going to say
00:34:03.080 what i would add is um just an argument from um from creation itself so like when jesus makes his
00:34:10.020 argument about um against divorce he says you know well moses uh told you that um that if you
00:34:17.320 want to divorce your wife you must offer her a certificate of divorce but i tell you and then
00:34:22.880 and then what he appeals to similar to the apostle paul when he's arguing for male headship in first
00:34:27.320 timothy uh chapter two uh jesus but i tell you from the beginning it was not so and i think that
00:34:33.720 that is a strong argument to just to say from the beginning um the first marriage is one man
00:34:40.260 and one woman god god could have i mean adam has a few more ribs right like i'm you know like i'm
00:34:46.800 not a biologist but you know but like i'm pretty sure we have more one more than one uh rib in our
00:34:51.740 body like i mean seriously like god could have taken you know uh one from each rib cage and
00:34:57.180 here's here's two wives yep you know but he but he doesn't and i and i do think that that's a
00:35:01.900 more significant argument yeah and i think that i think that argue from argument from creation is
00:35:06.520 more is actually upstream from the natural law argument because you you would struggle to find
00:35:11.980 biblical prohibitions against polygamy like really the only approach you can take is say
00:35:16.560 how did God create man in the garden? Perfect, holy, righteous. And then what flows from that 0.77
00:35:23.740 naturally? And then, and so, yeah, you're totally right. I think the appeal to creation,
00:35:28.840 the appeal to natural law. Now, natural law though, like technically, for example,
00:35:33.280 you think of the inverse, which would be one woman with multiple men. That is, it's literally 0.65
00:35:38.760 baked into the fabric of the universe. The psychological effect, this is for women as 1.00
00:35:42.800 relates to biology and pair bonding and maybe someday we do have to do it we'll do a whole
00:35:46.720 episode on the effects of it but a woman that sleeps with multiple men will have all sorts of 0.91
00:35:51.160 downstream health issues psychological mental health issues her likelihood of divorce so if
00:35:56.480 you're talking about a woman that slept with multiple men prior to marriage and increases
00:35:59.960 her likeliness of divorce but you don't actually see that with men men who would have multiple
00:36:04.460 partners other women they don't experience that at all if one woman put it this way solomon had 0.99
00:36:09.520 800 some wives and concubines combined if one woman had heaven forbid 800 male partners in her
00:36:15.840 lifetime she would be psychologically destroyed her body would literally not survive it and god
00:36:20.980 has made the fabric of the universe that so i would say at some level in natural law we don't
00:36:25.620 see an equivalence in that no you have men that would as the head of the home then potentially 0.80
00:36:31.420 like even moses an argument could be made there's zipporah and then there's a kushite woman
00:36:35.920 potentially being two separate individuals that's actually and we'll make this point kind of in the
00:36:40.260 second one that is actually probably and even Rush Dooney makes this point a valid real family but
00:36:46.420 one woman with multiple men with somehow the woman serving as the head of it the the federal
00:36:53.240 representative the matriarch the matriarch that's impossible so I agree with you like natural
00:36:57.840 just even having multiple women in the same household Rush Dooney has examples yeah it's
00:37:02.780 not great they get jealous just like we see in the bible but it is still possible but natural law
00:37:07.700 for sure tells us that the inverse is impossible yeah there's gradations against nature for sure
00:37:14.440 yeah exactly we've talked about that before actually ironically in the context of an episode
00:37:19.980 about andrew tate sitting in the right direction everybody lost their mind obviously the point that
00:37:25.900 i was making and i literally said it if you just panned out and didn't clip me out of context all
00:37:29.980 the time is there are sins which um are in accordance with nature but still sins and then
00:37:35.500 there are sins which go against nature right so like romans chapter one that's one of the things
00:37:40.060 that paul argues about homosexuality says that men exchange natural relations with women and
00:37:46.160 were inflamed with lust for one another so a man who's promiscuous is sinning but he's sinning in
00:37:52.820 a way that does accord with nature it doesn't accord with the law of god right but it does
00:37:57.600 accord with nature so it's still sin and it's not absolving that and saying that it's not a sin
00:38:02.140 but a man who's promiscuous is not sinning at the same degree the same level as a man who's
00:38:08.820 sleeping with another man not all sin contrary to popular opinion not all sin is equal all sin
00:38:14.500 apart from repentance and faith in the lord jesus christ is equal in its ultimate eternal effects
00:38:20.120 that it will separate you from the love and intimacy of the triune god forever in hell so
00:38:27.860 all sin is equal in that aspect but not all sin is equal both in the sight of god but then also
00:38:34.820 certainly in its temporal earthly consequences and effects and we've talked about that multiple
00:38:40.660 times so there are sins which are absolutely immoral their sins but accord with nature and
00:38:47.660 then there are sins that go against nature and those sins which betray nature and contradict
00:38:53.120 nature are greater sins with greater temporal effects and they are more abominable in the sight
00:39:01.020 of god god hates all sin but he goes to great lengths in multiple texts throughout the proverbs
00:39:08.220 for instance, to say God doesn't like any sin, but six, no seven, are detestable to him or
00:39:17.620 abominations to him. So even from God's purview, some sins are greater than others. And certainly
00:39:25.020 from a human viewpoint and temporal effects, some sins are greater than others. So all that being
00:39:32.440 said, back to a woman having multiple husbands, one of the reasons that that doesn't 0.92
00:39:38.200 work is because of the principle of male headship, which is a part of the natural order. In the case 0.85
00:39:45.400 of a man who has multiple wives, there is still one head. In the case of a woman who has multiple 0.92
00:39:52.280 husbands, she cannot. It's not just, oh, she won't be a good head. She's not the head. She cannot be 1.00
00:39:58.920 the head. She's not the head of that household. And so by virtue of one woman having multiple 1.00
00:40:04.860 husbands then that means if she has three husbands there are three heads and anything with more than
00:40:10.340 one head is a monster as the old adage goes and so now you don't just have you know like three
00:40:16.280 wives who are struggling with strife and jealousy but now you have three men who are vying against
00:40:23.760 one another competing one another for the authority of that household and the children
00:40:29.000 and its direction and its economic production and all these. So you never see that. And I think
00:40:36.940 that's worth noting. You never see that in the Bible. So what we'll talk about here in a moment
00:40:42.860 a little bit later, none of us, just we'll go ahead and as a disclaimer, we feel comfortable
00:40:48.720 saying this. Polygamy is not esteemed in scripture. It's not dignified in scripture,
00:40:57.000 and it's not the ideal. Now, whether or not polygamy is a sin, we're going to address that
00:41:03.060 here in a moment. If there is permissibility, not ideal, but at least a moral permissibility
00:41:11.420 in some cases, and we'll talk about that in a moment, for polygamy, what we can all agree on
00:41:16.880 is there's not even the permissibility. There's not even a conceivable, not one conceivable
00:41:24.300 hypothetical scenario where polygamy would even be permissible in the case of it being one wife
00:41:31.220 with multiple husbands because it goes against nature nor would it be i think permissible to
00:41:36.020 make the argument that polygamy is at ever the ideal too so you can't make woman with multiple
00:41:41.100 men you can't make even say you can't ever make that even permissible that's what god kind of
00:41:46.440 intended from the beginning none of that we're going to discuss the arguments be it from church
00:41:50.060 history be it from nature uh what are some possible scenarios where god's word maybe has some some
00:41:55.760 wider boundaries yep so let's go to our first commercial break and we will be right back
00:41:59.520 the danger of centralized power is often represented by the word king as americans
00:42:06.040 we hate the word king civilian ownership of body armor is about helping people to have increased
00:42:13.340 power to resist tyrants and criminals. And so Armored Republic is about helping
00:42:19.700 you to preserve your God-given rights to the honor of the Lord Jesus Christ
00:42:23.600 because he is the king of kings and he governs kings and he will judge them.
00:42:28.780 This is Armored Republic and in a republic there is no king but Christ.
00:42:34.840 We are free craftsmen and we are honored to be your Armorsmith choice.
00:42:43.340 running your business with purpose means looking beyond last month's numbers to next year's
00:42:58.720 vision kaylee smith offers cfo level strategy scaled just for small businesses at mid-state
00:43:06.320 accounting she takes care of your compliance bookkeeping and tax returns while providing
00:43:12.500 holistic advisory and fractional CFO services to help you steward your resources with a distinctly
00:43:20.420 Christian perspective. Ready to align your finances with your future? Then call Kaylee
00:43:26.380 Smith at 573-889-7278 for a free, no-obligation consultation. Mention the Right Response podcast
00:43:37.420 to get 10% off your first three months.
00:43:41.560 Prefer to explore online?
00:43:43.240 Then you can visit midstateaccounting.net
00:43:46.760 to learn more or schedule a call.
00:43:49.540 Again, that's midstateaccounting.net.
00:43:52.900 With Midstate Accounting,
00:43:54.440 you'll plan for tomorrow while operating in faith today.
00:43:58.140 So call Kaylee Smith at 573-889-7278.
00:44:04.700 Again, that's 573-889-7278.
00:44:11.380 Heaven's Harvest takes pride in providing you with the best freeze-dried emergency survival food kits on the market.
00:44:19.080 Their kits stand out because they prioritize serving sizes and calories that will sustain you for the long haul.
00:44:26.220 No gimmicks, no fillers, just a diverse array of nutritious options that will pleasantly surprise you.
00:44:33.160 But they're more than just emergency food.
00:44:36.500 They're advocates for sustainable preparedness.
00:44:40.000 Their heirloom seed kits include heirloom, non-GMO, non-hybrid, open pollinated seeds,
00:44:47.160 ensuring that your garden produces the same quality and variety year after year.
00:44:53.100 Packaged in high-grade Mylar foil, their seeds have a 10-year shelf life.
00:44:58.680 So get 10% off your Heaven's Harvest order by using our special discount code, RRM, at checkout or by clicking the link in the description below.
00:45:10.960 Made in the USA and free shipping on orders above $99 for the U.S. only.
00:45:18.780 So welcome back.
00:45:20.300 We're going to ask the question, is polygamy always, in every case, a sin?
00:45:25.720 And I want to lay this and I'll toss it over to Antonio.
00:45:28.320 I like what the Westminster, I think it's the Shorter Catechism, what it defines sin as,
00:45:32.840 because sin is not just, it's not arbitrary.
00:45:35.580 It's not left up to, well, this felt like a sin, or I would even say internal states,
00:45:39.820 like we have to be careful just attributing sin to, well, I didn't feel this in worship,
00:45:43.660 or maybe I was distracted.
00:45:45.320 Sin very specifically in the Westminster Shorter Catechism is any want of conformity to
00:45:50.020 or transgression of the law of God.
00:45:53.420 Sin is the word itself in Greek, to miss the mark.
00:45:55.860 it's want of so the lack of conformity so a a negative sense i didn't do what was required by
00:46:02.300 the law of god or transgression of in its positive connotation actively transgressed actively
00:46:08.080 disobeyed and very specifically the law of god and we say god's law the ten commandments is the
00:46:12.980 best encapsulation of it both nature and god's word teaches us the law of god what to do and
00:46:19.420 what not to do and for theonomist for example levitical law is then expounded so expounding
00:46:25.220 upon what it means to not murder, what it means to not steal. Here's what that looks like in the
00:46:29.120 commonwealth. Here's what that looks like for the state to step in and say, hey, this counts as
00:46:34.160 murder. Hey, this counts as theft. So sin, any want of conformity unto or transgression of the
00:46:40.640 law of God, or asking in every single case anywhere, has polygamy always counted as that? 0.75
00:46:46.740 Yeah. And, you know, I think you think about church history, I think the predominant view
00:46:52.960 on marriage is that polygamy is sin. And we'll have to look at some quotes from some church
00:46:58.060 fathers in the second and fourth century who said as much. But there have been a few theologians
00:47:04.080 through time who have kind of viewed, and we've talked about this sort of in the buildup here,
00:47:08.980 viewed polygamy as sort of a post-fall concession. I think you could admit it to be such.
00:47:14.360 Luther famously said that, you know, polygamy was something like less ideal, but certainly in
00:47:22.280 particular context was permissible. And he used that to sort of make sense of the patriarchs in
00:47:27.640 the Old Testament. And then you had guys like Calvin who came and said, polygamy is actually
00:47:32.420 worse than divorce. And it's sort of a more grievous transgression, if you will. And I think
00:47:39.660 we talked about natural law. I think most of the arguments sort of were built upon this idea of
00:47:46.820 the created order, one man, one woman in the garden, and that being sort of, and polygamy
00:47:52.200 sort of being a transgression of that natural law. So we can, let's look at some of these quotes and
00:47:56.440 we can see how this was articulated. We can first take a look at Tertullian. We're looking here in
00:48:00.720 the second century. Tertullian states here, now if any limitation is set to marrying, such as the 0.86
00:48:07.680 spiritual rule, which prescribes but one marriage under the Christian obedience maintained by the
00:48:13.120 authority of the paraclete or the Holy Spirit, it will be his prerogative to fix the limit who has
00:48:17.960 once been diffuse in his permission. So here you can see that articulation of the difference in
00:48:22.920 the Old Testament, the diffuse permission around marriage now being changed in the New Testament
00:48:29.280 with this prerogative to fix the limit to one marriage. And this goes back, Joel, to that
00:48:33.920 Christological view and sort of Christ's teachings sort of superseding what the Old Testament was
00:48:41.620 commanding for marriage. Then we can jump to the next one here, which is Ambrose. So now we're
00:48:48.360 talking about the fourth century, circa fourth century here. It says, it is not licit for you
00:48:55.780 if your wife still lives to take another wife, for indeed to seek another when you have your
00:49:00.240 own is a crime of adultery. So here we see the categorization of polygamy into the sin of
00:49:07.580 adultery, violating the Decalogue. This is most serious because you think in your sin that you
00:49:13.120 should seek freedom in the law. So this last sentence is becoming particularly important
00:49:17.380 because obviously in various contexts in sort of medieval and pre-medieval Europe, there were
00:49:24.480 places you could live in polygamy be permissible by law. And here we see Ambrose saying, even if
00:49:30.800 you live in a place where you have freedom in the law, you ought not as a Christian hide your 0.65
00:49:36.300 polygamy behind that freedom, that it would still be sin. And so pushing back against this idea
00:49:40.980 that there's a pragmatic element to biblical marriage. And so this is just simply to lay
00:49:48.380 the groundwork for how the early church fathers are thinking about polygamy, obviously making
00:49:54.280 different various arguments, trying to wrestle with the Old Testament. But I think it's helpful
00:50:00.120 at least to just, like I said, set that sort of framework. And then we can talk about some of the
00:50:04.460 complexities. I also, Joel, you mentioned sort of two approaches to how we think about polygamy.
00:50:13.020 And specifically after the Matt Walsh clip, you said, firstly, it's not Christian. And that way,
00:50:18.260 I think we're saying it's not ideal. It's not what God holds in highest esteem for creation.
00:50:23.700 And then you also said it's not Western. And I think that's really important. We think about 0.61
00:50:28.580 what is the Western common law, English common law and American common law jurisprudence had
00:50:35.120 to say about polygamy? And obviously we know that polygamy has been outlawed. It's one of the big
00:50:39.020 reasons that the Mormons, for example, were so persecuted in the 19th century is because of the
00:50:44.160 practice of polygamy and the way that it violated laws. Well, we can go all the way back to William
00:50:49.200 Blackstone. So did some of the fundamental commentaries on the laws of England. Blackstone,
00:50:54.140 I'm sure people are familiar with, he would essentially review laws in medieval Europe and
00:50:59.660 specifically medieval England and try to give justification and rationale to them. And so much
00:51:05.000 of it is biblical rationale, but there's also a ton of natural law baked in as well. And it's
00:51:09.900 super interesting. But I have this quote here from William Blackstone, just to bring a little
00:51:13.740 bit of clarity to how it's distinctly non-Western polygamy. Blackstone says,
00:51:20.700 another felonious attempt with regard to the holiest state of matrimony is what some have
00:51:25.260 corruptly called bigamy, which properly signifies being twice married, but it is more justly
00:51:30.420 dominated polygamy or having a plurality of wives at once. Such second marriage, living the former
00:51:37.540 husband or wife, is simply void in a mere nullity by the ecclesiastical law of England. So the church 0.61
00:51:43.880 obviously outlawed polygamy at the time. And yet the legislature, on top of the church's prohibition,
00:51:49.680 the legislature has thought it just to make it a felony so a criminal act by reason of its being
00:51:55.480 so great a violation of the public economy and decency of a well-ordered state for polygamy
00:52:01.600 can never be endured under any rational civil establishment whatever specious reasons may be
00:52:08.460 urged for it by the eastern nations the fallaciousness of which has been fully proved
00:52:13.480 by many sensible writers so you see here uh both the ecclesiastical sort of prohibition so we see
00:52:20.100 the biblical argument being brought in but also a natural argument he talks about public order
00:52:24.680 and decency um and and in terms of why polygamy would be outlawed um and and yeah and so i think
00:52:31.680 it becomes evident whatever the case is whether we're saying it's uh like calvin it's it's it's
00:52:36.880 worse than divorce or whether we're saying like luth like luther it's a post-law concession it's
00:52:41.320 less than ideal. It is certainly not Western, and it's certainly not something that should be
00:52:46.100 promoted. Yeah, polygamy seems to always attach itself to Christian heresies. So whether it's 0.98
00:52:52.640 Islam, which is a Christian heresy, came, you know, in 700 AD, and you can tell from the Quran that
00:52:59.280 Muhammad was, you know, listening to much of, you know, the oral tradition and even looking at some
00:53:05.820 of, you know, the apostolic writers within, you know, the Christian, you know, the biblical canon,
00:53:09.780 and then taking some of those things which he heard as oral tradition and some of the things
00:53:14.480 he saw written and then kind of piggybacking off of those as he was writing the quran so you have
00:53:19.540 like some of the the apocrypha you know legendary texts of like jesus from the womb as mary and
00:53:26.920 joseph are fleeing you know king herod and his edict and they're going to egypt and mary is
00:53:32.520 hungry and jesus from her womb speaks to a tree and the tree you know like bows over so that 0.81
00:53:40.300 mary can take some of its fruit and eat and muhammad is picking up on these things because 0.83
00:53:45.140 he thinks that it'll give credence to the quran and to islam because uh by piggybacking off of
00:53:51.460 christianity but he doesn't know what's true christianity and what are you know just extra 0.80
00:53:55.800 you know extra biblical apocrypha texts or parts of oral tradition and so my point is islam is a 0.93
00:54:01.520 Christian heresy. Judaism is a Christian heresy, and so is Mormonism. Mormonism is a Christian 0.92
00:54:09.560 heresy, and so it's actually prevalent and quite common that within Christian heresies
00:54:14.080 that there are, you know, allowances for polygamy, like Mormonism, you know, or Islam.
00:54:21.420 But within Christianity, which has dominated the West, you know, for easily a millennium,
00:54:27.940 if not a millennia and a half at this point, it's been pretty tight with monogamy. And the thing
00:54:37.360 that I was going to add is, because I've seen in the chat people saying, well, what do you do if
00:54:41.620 a Muslim family converts to Christianity? So there's missionary efforts in some African nation
00:54:49.860 where Islam is the predominant religion and you have families converting from Islam to Christianity
00:54:56.860 and some of those families. The husband has two or three or four wives. And I've actually
00:55:03.240 dealt with some of these cases where I've helped to disciple a little bit some guys who were
00:55:13.420 recently converted to Christianity from Islam and had more than one wife. And they said,
00:55:18.820 what do we do? Do we stay with our first wife or our most recent wife and send the other wives
00:55:24.220 away and i think biblically um i think by by implication implicitly uh the clear answer
00:55:32.020 is that uh you remain married to all all as many wives as you have three four wives whatever it is
00:55:38.740 you remain married to all of them you're faithful in your provision and protection
00:55:43.560 uh to all of them you don't send any away and you don't take any new ones and then per the
00:55:49.980 qualifications in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, when it comes to eldership, these guys who are now
00:55:54.880 Christian, these families, that man would not be qualified to serve as an elder in the church. 0.92
00:56:01.680 And so I liken it, the best way that I could describe it is I think it's similar to divorce 0.64
00:56:07.240 and remarriage, especially divorce without biblical cause, which is prevalent in our
00:56:13.740 Western context, primarily a Western apostatized context where much of the West has turned its
00:56:24.200 back on Christianity. And so today, having couples in our churches, our Christian churches,
00:56:30.520 that are on their second or third or fourth marriage, they're not married to two or three
00:56:36.340 or four individuals simultaneously, but it is their second, third, and fourth
00:56:41.240 marriage and by their own admission. And I've dealt with several of these cases by their own
00:56:46.860 admission. They would say, yeah, I divorced my spouse. They didn't divorce me. I divorced them.
00:56:53.120 There wasn't biblical cause. There was no adultery. I just, you know, we just weren't
00:56:58.420 getting along and we were angry with each other and I was angry at them and I filed for divorce
00:57:04.020 and, you know, and I see that that was a sin now, but I, I made this mistake. Maybe it was
00:57:10.400 pre-conversion before becoming a christian or in some cases sadly because sin still persists even
00:57:15.720 for the christian in some of these cases it's i was converted i was a christian but i was an
00:57:20.900 immature christian um and i chose to sin in this way but i divorced my wife without biblical cause
00:57:27.640 and since then i took another wife and remarried her so two sins actually occurred biblically
00:57:33.360 speaking one an unlawful divorce and then second remarriage in light of an unlawful divorce rather
00:57:40.040 than being reconciled to your former spouse. So two sins have occurred, but here's the key
00:57:47.100 language that I think will be helpful for the listener. There's a difference between having
00:57:52.640 sinned and sinning. There's a difference in I sinned, past tense, I committed a sinful action,
00:58:01.920 versus sinning, meaning I'm in an ongoing continual state of sin. And so in those cases,
00:58:08.500 um the the correct pastoral counsel to give like if you have you know a man in your church who says
00:58:14.800 i i unlawfully divorced my wife this is now my second wife i've been remarried i shouldn't have
00:58:20.080 done it i realize that now but i did it um and so i'm i'm planning on divorcing this wife also
00:58:25.780 and then going and being remarried to my first wife i hope that any christian pastor who's
00:58:30.880 listening uh would have the correct biblical instincts to counsel that individual and say
00:58:36.420 no no you sinned yes but you are not actively sinning now the best thing that you can do
00:58:44.800 according to the word of god is now be a faithful husband in your current marriage should you have
00:58:50.500 entered into this current marriage no but god redeems even unlawful means and you are currently
00:58:59.040 in the will of God, that is, in his sovereign will. God allowed this to happen. This falls
00:59:06.400 underneath the banner of his sovereignty, and the marriage that you are now in is not an active,
00:59:13.040 continual state of sin. This is a legitimate marriage. It's a valid marriage. It's not ideal,
00:59:20.820 right? Ideally, you would have been married once. You would not be on your second or third or fourth
00:59:25.620 marriage so this is not an ideal marriage but it is a marriage it is a legitimate marriage whereas
00:59:31.200 if two homosexual men walk into church and are you know according to them allegedly married
00:59:39.260 according to them and sadly according to our our provisions legally and our nation right now and 0.84
00:59:45.620 what the law allows for with with you know gay marriage and they walk into the church and they 0.64
00:59:50.560 say, hey, we've been converted. We're Christians. What must I do to be a disciple of Jesus? In that
00:59:58.620 case, you would not only counsel, but you would command that they immediately, as soon as possible,
01:00:05.380 absolve the marriage. In the meantime, they should separate immediately. They should live
01:00:10.480 separately. They should not engage in any inappropriate sexual behavior. They should
01:00:16.300 engage with each other as much as they have to legally to sort out the absolving or if legally
01:00:25.440 that's the only way to do it divorce of this marriage because it was never a legitimate
01:00:30.020 marriage it wasn't marriage so you can you can counsel someone to end a marriage that's not
01:00:36.260 marriage not only counsel but command someone insist that they end a marriage that's not marriage
01:00:41.760 but you cannot insist or command or counsel in fact you're obligated to command in the opposite
01:00:50.500 direction that anyone in any legitimate valid marriage remain faithful in that marriage so now 0.68
01:00:57.520 back to polygamy i think it would be likened to the scenario not of two homosexuals who think
01:01:03.860 they're married and according to the state are married but in the sight of god are not married
01:01:08.300 and therefore should end that alleged marriage. I think that polygamy is less likened to that
01:01:15.680 and more likened to the unlawful divorce and subsequent remarriage. So the unlawful divorce
01:01:24.040 and subsequent remarriage is someone who sinned, but is not sinning. So too, someone who is already,
01:01:31.080 so you're not counseling an 18-year-old young man about what has not yet been done,
01:01:36.900 but what he should do in the future. Hey, you know, this is what you want to do. You want to
01:01:40.360 go out there and get as many wives as you can. Like, no, that's bad counsel. But if you, if you 1.00
01:01:46.800 are ministering in an Islamic context or even a Mormon context, and so-and-so, you know, walks
01:01:53.060 into the church and he has not a husband, but he has two or three or four wives, he's not sinning.
01:02:01.820 he sinned he messed up he did something less than ideal less than god's ideal but he is not in an
01:02:08.820 active continual state of sin in fact i would argue that it would be sin for him to divorce
01:02:14.520 uh one or two or three or you know his and send away his wives so the obligation now falls upon
01:02:21.220 him to his fidelity is in the arena of protection and provision for those wives and part of the
01:02:29.100 provision so there's the spiritual and the physical aspect of both of those two categories
01:02:33.180 spiritually protect and physically protect spiritually provide and and physically provide
01:02:39.660 and when it comes to provision physical provision that's not only food and shelter and clothing
01:02:44.520 um and those kinds of things but it also one of those provisions in the physical provision category
01:02:50.380 is godly offspring so he actually has um she has conjugal rights and not just for the purpose of
01:02:57.340 union and pleasure but for the purpose of procreation she has rights and therefore he has
01:03:03.660 a moral obligation under god and under scripture that if he's going to be married to four wives
01:03:10.120 not only does he have to feed them all and clothe them all and shelter them all and disciple and 0.98
01:03:14.700 catechize them all and take them all to church he also has to have sex with all of them and he has 0.99
01:03:21.020 to have meaningful godly sex uh with the intent ultimately it's up to the lord whether or not 0.99
01:03:28.560 these wives conceive but with the intent and the design um of providing for each of them
01:03:35.760 multiple godly offspring and that actually falls underneath um his moral obligation the last thing
01:03:43.500 i'll say on this to like like west said in the beginning to steal man right so we are not
01:03:48.480 polygamist um but we don't want to just have silly straw man arguments against it we want to give it
01:03:54.360 a fair treatment to steel man um the the polygamy you know position i've talked to guys who hold
01:04:02.340 that view i've never talked to anybody who actually has you know more than one wife but
01:04:07.080 guys who hold that view and let me just start by saying um in every case when a guy says you know
01:04:14.020 i'm a polygamist you've never met anyone like me um he's always single and um and always wants to
01:04:22.180 have more sex you know and so like any anybody's like well you know joel i'm just trying to be
01:04:27.800 biblically faithful i'm just looking at the text and i'm um i find it i find it somewhat um fascinating
01:04:35.180 you know um it's it's a bit funny that the guys who are really really concerned about being just
01:04:41.060 you know, faithful exegesis and, you know, biblical fidelity all tend to fit the same
01:04:47.000 stereotype. Like I've never, I haven't met that 50 year old man who has a wife, you know,
01:04:50.960 and four children. Um, but I have met that 18 to 25 year old man who's currently single,
01:04:57.580 wants to have more than one wife because he is at the peak point in his life of testosterone
01:05:04.780 and likes the idea of having lots of sex. So I've talked to these guys, um, not the best
01:05:10.120 representatives for the position, given their, you know, their current earthly estate, the fact
01:05:16.760 that they're, you know, 18 years old and single. But some of these guys, you know, and they'll,
01:05:21.840 you know, I've had guys, you know, send me, you know, position papers on this is something that
01:05:26.680 I wrote or something that someone else wrote that, you know, like, I just want you to read it,
01:05:30.880 you know, just consider it with an open mind. And so to, you know, to steel man the argument,
01:05:35.540 um the best that i've come across in the pro polygamy camp in terms of uh even then i don't
01:05:42.860 see i haven't seen anything that's like this is the ideal but but permissible and permissible in
01:05:47.360 the west today uh you know um in our context today um the argument that they would make
01:05:53.260 is they would say biblically the moral obligation of the man to his wife or wives is not um sexual
01:06:01.420 fidelity. That that's actually not the pledge that he makes. It's the wife, the bride, that pledges
01:06:11.420 her duty is submission and faithfulness. Submission to his authority, which is why she can't have more 0.99
01:06:19.000 than one husband. Because what if she has two heads? What if they contradict? And she actually 1.00
01:06:23.240 cannot fulfill her vow um to be uh submissive to one federal head um and and then also simultaneously
01:06:31.840 submissive to another federal head if they're both saying two things that are contradictory
01:06:36.040 and so um so her obligation is submission and fidelity um with love and and and sexual you know
01:06:46.100 fidelity and faithfulness um and so so she has one husband because she cannot be sexually faithful
01:06:55.020 with more than one and she cannot be um in terms of authority submitted uh with with two authorities
01:07:02.840 more than one authority whereas on the husband's um moral obligation um most of the the biblical
01:07:11.320 text and i've had guys you know have sent me these papers and cited it and done you know the the
01:07:16.380 exegesis to the best of their ability and here are you know all the the relevant you know scriptural
01:07:20.920 text um the husband is commanded in scripture it's it's not faithfulness and it's not submission
01:07:27.880 it is protection and provision protection and provision and from you know as just you know a
01:07:36.520 form of art for argument's sake um it is you know physically possible within the realm of reason
01:07:43.720 that a high caliber uh successful wise man and i think if he's exceedingly wise he probably will
01:07:52.880 decide not to have more than one spouse but i'm a high caliber man can actually uh provide for
01:08:01.620 more than one woman and protect more than one woman and still that family unit that household 0.76
01:08:10.340 that involves one husband and more than one wife would still only have one federal head namely the
01:08:17.000 one husband so there's a reason why you know an argument can be made for permissibility although
01:08:24.400 i don't think i'm not a polygamist i don't think that we should do polygamy but an argument could
01:08:29.160 be made for polygamy in terms of one husband multiple wives an argument cannot be made under
01:08:37.220 any circumstances for one wife with multiple husbands and then getting into okay what are
01:08:43.240 these hypothetical circumstances uh where polygamy with one husband and multiple wives
01:08:49.040 might be you know morally permissible um scenarios like that would be you know and there are some
01:08:55.420 cases where you know you have christian authors talking about this um and and one that we'll
01:09:00.980 probably get to i think we have a quote from rush tuning um who um argues for the permissibility
01:09:06.340 of polygamy under some circumstances but one circumstance would be uh war um if a nation
01:09:13.360 is war torn and has been at war for um for several years with a form a formidable opponent
01:09:22.060 and half of the men of that nation right if it's a christian nation seeking to be an ethical nation
01:09:28.640 they're not sending their wives and children into battle so the women are still alive but the young
01:09:35.100 men have gone off to the battle lines and if it's a a heinous and tragic war it is conceivable that
01:09:43.440 you could have half of the male population of a nation under these circumstances in a given time
01:09:49.280 that have deceased and so there are twice as many young women looking for suitors as there are men
01:09:57.840 and they need to repopulate their nation because of the atrocities of war and the immense loss of
01:10:05.580 life that they've just experienced with half of their young male population and there's also
01:10:11.240 um a consideration to be made from compassion uh to the the sheer fact that um if you strictly
01:10:20.160 remain monogamous in these circumstances half of the young women will die alone and childless
01:10:26.820 and um and those fathers of this society who only had daughters it was no fault of their own
01:10:33.800 uh that their name would be snuffed out of the annals of history and they would have no one to
01:10:39.060 continue their line so there are scenarios where this could be conceivable but again i'll end with
01:10:45.420 this in our current apostate western context here in america in many nations in europe but i'll just
01:10:53.580 stick with america because i'm american if anything we have the opposite um i'll refer you
01:11:00.660 again to ecclesiastes while i was searching yet still not finding i found one upright man among
01:11:05.660 a thousand, but not one upright woman among them all. In our current context, you can see even from
01:11:11.320 the chat as we're broadcasting this episode live, the problem that we keep running into is that 0.99
01:11:18.300 there are simply not enough godly, submissive, Christian, modest women. There seem to be far 1.00
01:11:29.240 more men who are suited for Christian marriage than there are women. And so to think that in
01:11:39.160 this context that it would be ideal is absurd or even permissible for a Christian man saying that 0.96
01:11:49.640 it is virtuous and morally, biblically permissible for him to nab up three godly women as his wives 0.61
01:11:59.040 when there may only be four godly women currently in these United States that are single and all
01:12:06.300 these other men who are desperately seeking a spouse, I think is atrocious. I think that it's
01:12:13.880 theft. I think that it's selfish. I think it's greedy. I think that it's immoral and wrong.
01:12:23.060 Yeah. No, I like that pushback. Rush Dooney brings that point up that many men in their
01:12:27.800 pursuit of justifying polygamy that's they don't it's so short-sighted so okay you have one wife
01:12:33.940 and with that comes duties to in-laws for example so those children that you have with her also the
01:12:38.260 grandparents should be able to see them and enjoy them there's also going to be brother-in-laws
01:12:42.620 father-in-laws that are going to say hey if you don't care for her if you're abusive we're going
01:12:46.880 to come to your home and we're going to beat you and so what young man looks at that and then says
01:12:51.500 uh you know what i wish i wish i just had more of that more in-laws more grandparent duties and
01:12:56.940 dinners like going to dinner and honoring your your father-in-law your mother-in-law that's a
01:13:01.700 good thing so it's so short-sighted when men especially in our time in the west these united
01:13:06.660 states where the ratio is about 50 50 to say all the the duties and everything that comes with it
01:13:11.980 i'm not even doing one i think i would like three four x the multiple of it it's incredibly
01:13:17.700 short-sighted for something so shallow as i would like to have more sex now i'm going to push back
01:13:23.560 a little bit. I'm going to use Russ Juney because I think my intention here is, if we're looking at
01:13:28.860 the Scripture, we're going especially in the biblical law, it's interesting how there are
01:13:33.320 just areas where the law doesn't strike us where we think it would. It doesn't come across to us
01:13:39.580 the way we think it would. For example, lesbianism. Lesbianism is not punished by death in the Old
01:13:44.260 Covenant. If we're going through the text, Russ Juney says this, you look at it, it's only men 0.53
01:13:48.700 that are held liable to that high degree. Now, there could have been an argument from prevalence,
01:13:52.840 even though Paul does recognize that in Romans 1.
01:13:55.280 But there's times where the law looks at men and women and goes,
01:13:57.460 hey, these are not the same.
01:13:59.020 For example, if a married man was to sleep with an unmarried woman, 0.74
01:14:01.940 he had to pay his dowry, he had to provide all the services to her, 0.96
01:14:04.960 take care of her for the rest of her days,
01:14:06.560 but it was not the death penalty.
01:14:08.960 And so when we do look at the law, what we recognize,
01:14:11.400 I'm going to read Rush Dooney on this, is he says,
01:14:14.500 Rush Dooney, this is from a lecture that he gave on monogamy.
01:14:17.360 In other words, here in the law is elsewhere we find the biblical principle,
01:14:20.520 to whom much is given, much is expected.
01:14:22.220 We see, therefore, that the law only tolerated polygamy while establishing monogamy as the
01:14:28.040 standard. 0.99
01:14:28.900 The reason clearly was that the polygamous family was still a family, a lower kind of 0.96
01:14:33.260 family life, but still a form of family life and therefore tolerable. 0.95
01:14:37.440 The next example, again, this is from the same lecture.
01:14:40.640 In passage after passage, monogamy is assumed to be the God-ordained standard.
01:14:45.080 On the other hand, we must say that polygamy is recognized as a fact and regulated.
01:14:50.060 It is actually less prominent in biblical history than most people believe the number
01:14:53.420 of polygamous marriages that are cited in the Bible are relatively few.
01:14:56.720 It is only that people notice them more than anything else.
01:14:59.620 The case of Solomon is so conspicuous.
01:15:02.240 Now, to bring it to today is, again, for the reasons we just stated, but as a young Christian
01:15:06.660 man in the United States seeking polygamy, is he in sin?
01:15:09.900 Yes. 0.80
01:15:10.760 But actually, I think the sin here is, for one, it's a duty.
01:15:13.720 It's a sin against his fathers.
01:15:15.740 if you are a Western man, your fathers, they built this world on monogamy. I think of Bach,
01:15:23.240 I think of C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tokian, G.K. Chesterton. Those men all had one woman for life
01:15:29.940 that they married, that they were soulmates with. Norman Rockwell, they produced incredible art,
01:15:35.500 incredible works of fiction, incredible theological writings. The Western standard has been, we are
01:15:40.860 not the world of eunuchs, of harems, the world of a man's status is measured by how many women he
01:15:48.040 can get pregnant. Guys, we're European. And Europeans said, you have freedom, but that
01:15:54.160 freedom is bound by duty. The oath that you took at the altar, forsaking all others till death do 0.55
01:15:59.120 us part, that actually matters for something. And so I think the best pushback against it to give,
01:16:04.400 and we're giving it here, for one is saying the reason you're pursuing this is the desire for
01:16:08.060 more sex. But also, too, polygamy is an Eastern thing. So even if the Bible in its law at the
01:16:13.880 time says, hey, we do recognize that there are scenarios, for example, captive war brides or a
01:16:19.260 scenario where much of your population is wiped out by war, where this is a form of the family
01:16:23.260 that is acceptable, that is not today. Now, we don't go back and we don't condemn. I don't think
01:16:28.440 I wouldn't. The patriarchs like David, potentially Moses and Abraham, they were in a time where that
01:16:34.520 was something that was normal permissive i mean abraham is essentially managing a small nation
01:16:40.520 hundreds of fighting men massive amounts of wealth and literally his only wife that he has
01:16:46.260 she hasn't been able to have a kid for 90 some years so there's an understandability to it there
01:16:52.380 and it's her idea and it's her idea the one case where he shouldn't have listened to her
01:16:56.700 but i would say none of those apply today so i can perfectly say yeah i understand why david
01:17:02.620 had eight wives. That was the time he was king. I mean, the dude's literally like fighting for his
01:17:07.780 life. Seems like every single page of scripture. And he's still a man after God's own heart. Now,
01:17:13.620 he doesn't get to build the temple. No one who converted, for example, from Islam to Christianity
01:17:17.900 and has multiple wives, he can't be an elder. An elder must be a husband of one wife. But even in 0.99
01:17:22.180 the case of David not being able to build the temple, God cites the reason. And it's not because
01:17:25.980 he had more than one wife. It's because he shed too much blood. And if it was because of having
01:17:30.580 more than one wife then it would be a bit ironic that his son solomon ends up building the temple
01:17:34.660 who had that's even true a few wives yep so the point is i don't have to go all the way back
01:17:40.180 and begin to condemn the patriarchs to say today this is not something that should be pursued and
01:17:47.380 andrew tate is selling the lie he's telling you to revolt against your fathers revolt against the
01:17:52.620 tradition that made us revolt against this would definitely be specifically protestant i think of
01:17:57.080 the Westminster Confession that says marriage is between one man and one woman. No man may
01:18:01.480 lawfully add to himself more than one wife. You are revolting and sinning against your
01:18:05.460 fathers, against your Protestant tradition, and, famous words, stop it. Stop doing it.
01:18:11.340 And you're breaking the law.
01:18:12.460 Andrew Tate is Eastern. 0.82
01:18:13.480 Yeah, and you're breaking the law. 0.61
01:18:14.360 Polygamy is illegal in all 50 states, so if you are a quote-unquote polygamous, you are 0.96
01:18:18.480 breaking... 0.73
01:18:19.440 Yeah, you're just sitting against the magistrate. In fact, it's, I think, we'll take it from
01:18:23.400 two angles i think you know from a church perspective i don't know of any church in the
01:18:27.740 west that would let you as an let you become a member uh parishioner in good standing having
01:18:33.560 being married simultaneously to multiple people so then you forsake uh what's that short of being
01:18:39.140 a convert yeah like if you came if you came in it was already done yeah right but in terms of
01:18:44.920 sort of ordaining a marriage or or overseeing i don't know any christian church that would
01:18:49.580 officiate that officiate precisely and so you have both the legal aspect you'd be violating
01:18:54.000 if you're in a church as a member or parishioner you'd be violating the ecclesiastical aspect
01:18:59.160 um and them not sanctioning the marriage um so those are also things to think about but i think
01:19:04.020 like wes i really liked i like the russian quote i like you framed it i think what i walk away as
01:19:09.040 i read this saying is um there are all sorts of reason polygamy will be sin or would be sin
01:19:15.400 but it isn't necessary it isn't inherent to the polygamy it's inherent to the context it's inherent
01:19:21.140 to the reasons you're being married the the the circumstances by which you're married so on and
01:19:26.000 so forth is it legal um all of these things uh would sort of lead me to believe that 99 percent
01:19:32.380 of all polygamous relationships yeah are are sin uh in this day and age but uh and saying it that
01:19:38.560 way it's going to get you farther with the red pill young man today and i see where you're coming
01:19:42.560 it's good to say i i like that language of saying that it's not inherently sinful because
01:19:46.400 you know you could conceive of a scenario going back to what i was talking about you know earlier
01:19:50.320 but like in islamic nations let's say some sub sub-saharan african nation where it's you know
01:19:56.260 predominantly islamic and uh this guy you know let's say he doesn't already you know so it's
01:20:01.700 not the scenario of you know he's already has multiple you know brides as he's now coming to
01:20:06.540 christian faith but let's say he's he's recently converted he's a single a single eligible bachelor
01:20:12.420 and he happens he's in an impoverished country and let's say that in this scenario you know he
01:20:17.620 becomes a christian and he's a single bachelor he was a muslim you know you know recently but now
01:20:22.860 he's been a christian for a year and he's joined a christian church and in this christian church
01:20:27.460 let's say that there are 20 young single god-fearing christian women and he's the only
01:20:35.020 single man and there's no sign of there being any more you know single men in in the future
01:20:42.460 and he's rich he's eligible um he's successful and he's god-fearing and christian um in a scenario
01:20:51.180 like that um it may be permissible that he's okay um instead of 19 of you losing out um 15 of you
01:21:00.440 are going to lose out because i'm going to pick five but that is not our context yep at all
01:21:06.680 exactly and being and again having kind of like you have to be honest with the law the law of
01:21:11.880 the old testament god's law which is good and right just did not forbid explicitly that type
01:21:17.120 of arrangement and so you just be honest and say it didn't now i don't think it would be wise
01:21:20.800 potentially because of x y and z but if we're honest with the text yeah david had a similar
01:21:25.760 arrangement it's similar to the slavery conversation it's like we don't want to just
01:21:30.440 sit here and be like oh slavery oh my gosh like oh and clutch our pearls and this is the most
01:21:35.720 terrible thing terrible terrible too uh there's a certain point where it's like you're calling god
01:21:41.620 terrible there are certain things that god allowed for that are you know lib mind takes offense at
01:21:50.980 and um and slavery not in all contexts not in every manner but um but you think of again like
01:21:58.000 old testament um context where like you just you just went to war and there's some scenarios where 0.68
01:22:04.220 like by divine you know eat it god says wipe them all out the women and children like jericho but
01:22:12.740 there may be other scenarios where god actually he allowed in the old testament and this this is 0.94
01:22:17.740 the case where you don't actually have to kill them all um and so then what do you do with all
01:22:22.860 these people and um in some of those cases what you do is you enslave them and then you treat them
01:22:31.360 fairly but they are slaves they become your property and god allowed for this and i'm not
01:22:37.600 saying again i'm not saying so let's bring it back let's do it you know but i'm not i'm also
01:22:42.380 not going to sit here and say you know what i'm better than god i am morally because that's
01:22:47.680 ultimately what you're saying you just have to recognize that and have just a little bit of
01:22:51.360 humility um whenever you find yourself being more compassionate than jesus whenever you find
01:22:57.080 yourself being morally superior to god um you probably should just sit down you know count
01:23:04.220 backwards from 10 catch your breath you know rethink your inks um that's not a good place to
01:23:09.460 be i i'll just i'll give you a hint as a as a basic rule of thumb when you think you're better
01:23:13.900 than god it's not a good place to be and so that's why you know we're we're in this episode it's like
01:23:19.980 all right so our episode today is is polygamy you know sinful um and you know the cameras you know
01:23:25.960 tune up and we say yes thanks for tuning in i hope you've enjoyed this episode please subscribe to
01:23:31.080 our youtube channel that's why this episode is is not as short and simple as that because
01:23:35.800 the reason why we're offering nuance and you know circumstances and what does church you know
01:23:42.780 history say what does the western tradition say what did you know Rush Dooney say what did this
01:23:46.980 guy say the reason why we're doing that is because we're not going to you know sit in these chairs
01:23:52.860 and tell you that polygamy is great because it's not but we're also not going to say it's inherently
01:24:01.480 sinful and exalt ourself to a station of moral superior superiority against god yeah and that's
01:24:09.140 it's actually so it's like oh well you guys are just dancing around like what we're yeah we are
01:24:14.600 dancing what we're dancing around is arrogance what we're trying to avoid is falling into the
01:24:21.200 the the pitfall of moral superiority against god which is just spiritual brazen pride and arrogance
01:24:29.620 I think of Job where God calls him a man who's blameless in all his ways.
01:24:33.620 Job had hundreds of slaves.
01:24:35.920 So it's like Job was blameless.
01:24:37.560 Hang on, God.
01:24:38.620 Hang on.
01:24:39.560 Hang on, God.
01:24:40.080 He was not, says my 21st century liberalism. 1.00
01:24:43.900 You're a fool. 1.00
01:24:44.620 You're proud. 1.00
01:24:45.440 I like it. 0.97
01:24:46.700 Rushduni in the Institutes of Biblical Law, he talks about the ultimate sin,
01:24:51.980 let's say, for the Sixth Amendment. 0.68
01:24:53.440 Let's take murder.
01:24:54.060 he says murder actually is a sin precisely because it's taking the life uh in a way that's
01:25:01.040 unauthorized by god in other words making god and the you you know usurping god's authority as
01:25:07.700 actually as the sort of preeminent sin and so that's why he can argue you talk about genocide
01:25:12.700 for example and the cases in scripture of genocide it's well it was authorized by god and therefore
01:25:18.000 not murder because god is the standard we don't have that today just we don't have prophets today
01:25:22.240 There's no prescriptive text for all people in all times and all places to exact genocide.
01:25:28.640 So that's not a universal prescriptive principle in the scripture.
01:25:33.100 Instead, it's always descriptive passages of certain times and certain peoples in certain places.
01:25:39.240 And it always came by divine revelation.
01:25:42.620 And we no longer have capital P prophets receiving new revelation from God that's extra biblical,
01:25:48.760 which means that we can never have conceivably in this gospel age until the final return of
01:25:54.880 jesus christ when he separates the sheep from the goats jesus will genocide yeah um all the goats
01:26:00.520 yeah that he would not no no no women goats no children goats none of them get to remain they 0.82
01:26:05.800 will all be cast into hell and christ will do it himself and he will do it to um to the praise of 0.82
01:26:12.240 of the the glory and honor of his father and uh and it'll be good and it'll be right and it'll be
01:26:18.120 just and and and all those things um but we in this gospel age um we don't we we are operating
01:26:25.100 we we fly by the radar we have we have the biblical text this is our revelation where our
01:26:33.180 eyes are not rolling back in our head we're not doing the you know witchcraft and wizardry you
01:26:38.580 know bethel school you know the protestant you know hogwarts we don't we don't do that um uh god
01:26:45.140 god is not speaking in that way any longer we do have divine revelation but it's inscripturated
01:26:50.800 it's canonized and there's no prescriptive text that says under these circumstances in this type
01:26:58.240 of war here's where you commit genocide we don't have that so then we follow just war theory which
01:27:04.540 is garnered principles depending who you're you know citing seven give or take principles that
01:27:11.500 are implicit but prescriptive from the whole of biblical text and none of those allow for genocide
01:27:18.060 so that's like why why we can say you know as an axiom you can't walk on water joel and i wouldn't
01:27:24.260 be lying right but god can make a man walk on water right yeah and you think i'm exaggerating
01:27:29.520 when i say like the west and monogamy so greece and rome at the time of christ this is pre
01:27:34.420 christianity spreading out by the 300s or so they had laws in the books that only the man could
01:27:39.700 only have one legal wife, especially in Rome. In Asia, a man would typically have one legal
01:27:44.520 wife, but concubines were very common. In most of Africa, a little bit different in
01:27:48.480 Egypt, but below the Sahara Desert, it was the same thing. It was tribes, it was the 0.90
01:27:52.640 chieftain of the tribe, accumulated all the wives. Some of Northern Europe, some of the 0.90
01:27:56.620 rulers there, they would have multiple wives. Monogamy really has been a Western thing,
01:28:01.840 and that's even prior to Christianity for the most part. Tacitus, when he's in Germania,
01:28:06.240 I think when he visits the German tribes and sees life there, like they held adultery as like a
01:28:11.300 terrible sin. If a woman committed adultery, she was, if not executed, run out of the town.
01:28:16.180 Like her commitment to the marriage was taken very, very seriously. And so again, if you're
01:28:21.320 an American and you're thinking about what is my duty to my forefathers, my duty to those who came
01:28:26.100 before me, my Christian forebears, monogamy is really high up there in just a way it isn't in
01:28:31.200 the east yeah right yeah we looked it up before we started recording you know and and and looked
01:28:35.680 at multiple citations but um even pre-christianity in the west um northern you know european tribes
01:28:43.600 and then certainly the greeks and the romans um monogamy was the norm um it wasn't uh universal
01:28:50.820 and exclusive um but primarily the uh the exception was first and foremost an exception
01:28:57.660 and then secondly it was almost entirely relegated to um to nobility uh it would be rare cases of
01:29:05.860 individuals like a charlemagne type figure right um you know like a king or a lord or someone like
01:29:11.160 that that didn't have a son to further his line and his wife was barren and so he was permitted
01:29:16.980 you know instead of sending her away charlemagne had about eight wives and 12 concubines yeah so
01:29:21.600 instead of sending this one away was permitted to take others so it was a rarity it was it was
01:29:28.960 narrowly you know applied to men of of high estate and nobility but the average common man
01:29:39.660 even pre-christianity pre-christidom in western societies was monogamous for centuries before
01:29:49.820 even hearing the gospel before even hearing of the christian faith and so there's something to
01:29:54.320 be said i'll i'll end with this and we'll go to our last commercial break and then we're going to
01:29:57.860 do super chats um but i'll end with this the chicken or the egg there is something to be said
01:30:03.660 for that why has the west been so successful first and foremost as a christian and as a pastor
01:30:10.060 um to boot i'm going to say that the west has been successful because of the immense mercy and
01:30:16.160 kindness and grace of god and um because the west was thoroughly saturated in christian revival
01:30:22.560 after revival and reformation and with deep christian roots stretching back a millennia to
01:30:29.100 a millennia and a half that's first and foremost that is true i also so not this is not a substitute
01:30:36.320 but in addition i do think that there is something to be said for why uh the west seemed to be um
01:30:44.920 a more conducive soil for the seed of the gospel to be planted and bring forth like jesus even
01:30:54.540 talks about you know like um that you know some will will be tenfold twentyfold thirty a hundred
01:31:00.120 fold returns right so there uh there's always going to be scenarios whether it be on an
01:31:05.300 individual basis or whether it be on a collective basis of different nationalities or whatever it
01:31:11.680 Maybe there's always, or different eras, different time periods, there's always a principle within
01:31:18.100 Christianity because Christianity does not assert egalitarianism where the gospel goes forth and
01:31:25.000 the ground, the person or the people are in fact receptive. And so they genuinely are born again.
01:31:31.000 They genuinely are converted and Christianized. And yet some people, some soils produce a tenfold
01:31:39.360 return and others a hundredfold return and and i think that you have to acknowledge at some level
01:31:45.900 that what made the west incredible was christianity and yet also christianity
01:31:52.540 went to many places and it thrived it really took root and produced a massive return in the west and
01:32:02.880 And I think that monogamy might be, actually, I think it's a significant concept just to ponder
01:32:10.220 that monogamy might be one of the core principles and building blocks of Western society, pre-Christ,
01:32:18.280 pre-Christianity, that made Christianity take such deep root and produce such great returns,
01:32:29.180 whereas christianity going to other places um there's an argument to me like what you think
01:32:35.480 of sub-sahara africa well christianity came later so so in some cases you can make arguments of
01:32:40.920 well christianity has been alive and well for 1500 years over there but only you know 150 years or
01:32:47.660 250 years over here sure but there are plenty of eastern places aside from just you know sub-sahara
01:32:55.560 africa um a certain asian context where christianity went early just as early arguably
01:33:04.260 from history just as early as it came to the west to european context and and so it's not that the
01:33:10.360 europeans just got a 500 year head start but there are other eastern societies where christianity
01:33:17.320 came it did take root it did actually produce something there was a return a tenfold return
01:33:22.820 let's say, genuine born-again converts and society being shaped for the better by Christian
01:33:31.860 virtues and Christian principles, but did not have the same hundredfold return that it had among
01:33:39.020 Europeans. And I think that part of it is because the soil there, although conducive enough for
01:33:46.560 genuine born-again conversion was not as conducive for civilization building, for world-shaping 0.61
01:33:56.900 policies and innovation. And I think one of those premier factors might be their view of
01:34:05.460 the family unit and monogamy. Westerners are monogamous because of Christianity and were
01:34:13.260 monogamous in large part before christianity which is part of why christianity flourished there
01:34:18.940 so greatly and so to have discussions of oh but maybe polygamy uh is good is um as the kids would 0.90
01:34:29.080 say retarded let's go to our last commercial break and we will be right back handling the 0.72
01:34:33.860 super chats that you guys put in if you haven't put one in yet uh go ahead give us a question or 0.58
01:34:38.860 a comment. We appreciate your kindness and generosity in supporting this ministry. We'll
01:34:43.600 go to the commercial break and we'll come back and as quickly as possible handle the super chats
01:34:48.280 and call it a day. Hello, brothers in Christ. Let me ask you something real. Are you truly
01:34:54.000 protecting and providing for your wife and children, not just in this life, but the one to
01:34:59.280 come? Here's a reality check. Only 45% of adults in America have life insurance and of those,
01:35:06.000 nearly two-thirds are underinsured. That's not good stewardship. And as Christian husbands and
01:35:12.720 fathers, we're called to do better. But what if you could protect your family's future and wisely
01:35:18.800 grow your wealth right now? That's where private family banking comes in. It's a proven strategy
01:35:24.860 that allows you to leverage your existing cash flow, build tax-free legacy wealth, and give your
01:35:31.440 family lasting security, all while aligning with your biblical call to provide and protect.
01:35:38.720 This is what it looks like to turn post-mill talk into post-mill action. Tap the link in the show
01:35:45.320 notes to book your free discovery call and take your next step toward financial discipleship
01:35:51.560 and multi-generational impact.
01:35:54.060 in the future it may be hard to persuade people that what happened starting in the spring of 2020
01:36:05.040 really did happen a fake pandemic was the signal that one morning began the foreclosure on
01:36:12.440 everything that had until the evening before been central to the idea of democratic constitutional
01:36:19.880 republics. The most shocking thing was not so much that this started to happen, but that almost no
01:36:26.760 one seemed to object to it happening. Almost no one sought to defend the rights and liberties
01:36:32.980 being overturned. Leftists clamored for more and more tyranny while most conservatives fell silent.
01:36:40.820 In this book, The Abolition of Reality, Irish dissident leader John Waters describes not merely
01:36:46.660 what happened, but the meaning of what happened, in what may well be judged by history as the most
01:36:52.740 heinous crime of all time. This book, as Winston in 1984 said, is for the future for the unborn.
01:37:02.620 Get it from Western Front Books at the link below. That's www.westernfrontbooks.com. Again,
01:37:10.220 that's www.westernfrontbooks.com. Sending your son to a competitive school often places a
01:37:19.600 significant additional burden on the family. While these schools promise high academic rigor,
01:37:26.660 character development, and preparation for top-tier universities, much of the workload
01:37:32.180 ultimately falls on the parents. The combination of early dismissals, as early as 2.30 p.m.,
01:37:39.220 heavy homework demands, and sports commitments can create an overwhelming and stressful experience
01:37:46.000 for both students and their families. At St. John's, our philosophy is different. We prioritize
01:37:53.280 structure, balance, and efficiency to ensure students thrive academically, physically,
01:37:59.760 and spiritually. Here's how we do it. Our instructors are the cornerstone of our commitment
01:38:06.180 to excellence, bringing a unique blend of expertise, discipline, and leadership to the
01:38:12.320 classroom. Earning $200,000 annually, our educators are among the most accomplished
01:38:18.160 in their fields. Nine-hour school days, classes run from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., maximizing learning
01:38:26.060 during school hours. Our confession brings clarity, fosters unity, and glorifies Christ
01:38:33.720 as we seek to instruct, develop, and mentor young men
01:38:37.860 in loving God and neighbor rightly to the glory of God.
01:38:42.520 Ordo amoris et soli deo gloria.
01:38:46.420 And finally, our curriculum, Integra,
01:38:49.500 is a challenging blend of STEM
01:38:51.900 with classical Christian humanities.
01:38:55.340 Campuses opening in the summer of 2026
01:38:58.380 in Dallas, Houston, Austin, and San Antonio.
01:39:02.660 Visit stjohns.academy to learn more and sign up today.
01:39:07.480 Again, that's stjohns.academy to learn more today.
01:39:14.980 All right, we're back.
01:39:16.200 We're going to go as quick as we can. 0.78
01:39:18.140 My oldest daughter, we have enlisted her this summer in horse riding lessons.
01:39:24.560 And this is her last horse riding lesson today.
01:39:28.760 And it has started pretty much right about now. 0.79
01:39:31.400 so i gotta go at least catch some of it uh super excited from which wife i'm just kidding yeah from
01:39:37.340 the the one wife that i have um all right so here's our first super chat from brian johnson
01:39:42.000 he gave us 10 bucks thanks brian we appreciate it he said if uh you converted a muslim man with
01:39:47.400 four wives to christ what would you recommend he do with his polygamous family we would recommend
01:39:52.920 he takes four more no uh we would say uh you keep the wives you do not send them away you don't 0.62
01:39:58.000 dishonor them. Part of what you have to understand is these are women who have now already been
01:40:03.640 married. They are no longer virgins. They are going to be less desirable. It's not that they
01:40:08.440 could just go and pick up another husband. You are sending them away to perpetual singleness.
01:40:14.980 And by virtue of sending them away, assuming that each of these four wives have born children for 0.93
01:40:21.340 you, you're sending away your children, which is unlawful and immoral and wicked, or you're 0.64
01:40:26.460 keeping the children and separating the children from their mother. So the only moral permissible
01:40:33.560 thing to counsel that Muslim man with four wives is you keep your four wives, you do your best not 0.97
01:40:40.220 to show favoritism among your four wives, you fulfill your duties both spiritually and physically
01:40:46.600 of protection and provision for each of your four wives and all the children they bear to you,
01:40:52.580 And then per 1 Timothy chapter 3 and Titus 1, you serve as a faithful member in the church and you cannot be an elder.
01:40:59.560 All right.
01:40:59.800 That would be the answer.
01:41:01.000 Wes, you want to take Nick Bonner?
01:41:03.220 All right.
01:41:03.640 Nick Bonner, two super chats.
01:41:05.660 Thanks so much, Nick.
01:41:06.400 First one, $20. 0.96
01:41:08.000 Nick asked or really said, the self-proclaimed top G, that's Andrew Tate, is indeed a fool, just not for the reasons Big Eva says he is. 0.96
01:41:15.060 Correct. 0.96
01:41:15.400 I really like the way of saying that.
01:41:16.640 like there is something about uh men who are championship fighters world-class chess champions
01:41:22.260 that reflects some level of discipline and self-mastery and tenacity and ambition and so
01:41:28.240 that's like insofar as young men see that and emulate it unafraid yeah don't care about what
01:41:34.440 the olympics mocked christ at the last supper and andrew and his brother were out front of the 0.99
01:41:38.240 french consulate protesting on behalf of christians right so there is tons of reasons why he is a fool 0.94
01:41:44.140 but exactly to nick's point it's not the reasons that big eva points out that's right and nick's 0.85
01:41:48.780 second chat another 20 nick said every girl i've dated in the church claimed that she wasn't a
01:41:53.640 feminist and wanted me to lead until i share my traditional views that they disagreed with
01:41:57.820 complementarians affirm male headship and theory only that's right it's like that office that
01:42:03.260 office skit from ryan where he's like i i want to be led but just when i'm in the mood to be led
01:42:08.260 i want to be led but uh lead me but only when i want to you know something yeah i love the idea
01:42:16.200 of male headship you know like he's the one that's working hard and working late but in practicality
01:42:21.060 i hate it theoretical male headship yeah no complementarianism is just uh functional
01:42:26.700 egalitarianism so you're absolutely right it's sad but very true uh i can do the last one yeah
01:42:31.640 dapper dan since five dollars he says change my mind when a man does something wrong mainstream
01:42:36.240 conservatives blame the man when a woman does something wrong they blame liberalism all right
01:42:41.000 i'm gonna give my best argument ready yeah i the only thing i would push back on that is i would
01:42:46.660 say so he said uh when mainstream conservatives um when a man does something wrong they blame the
01:42:52.960 man and when a woman does something wrong they blame liberalism the only uh you know slight
01:42:57.140 tweak that i would have to this is i would say mainstream conservatives when a man does something
01:43:00.920 wrong they blame the man and when a woman does something wrong they also blame the man um it's
01:43:05.220 the woman did something wrong and the man is at fault. And the only other thing that I would do
01:43:10.480 to tweak it slightly is I would include in that not just mainstream conservatives, but also
01:43:15.560 reformed Protestant pastors. It is 100% what you hear from them virtually all the time. Is your
01:43:25.860 wife cheated on you? Sounds like you were a bad husband. Like all the time. So it'd be one thing 1.00
01:43:32.740 if it's just bin shapiro you know or mainstream conservative you know political pundits but we
01:43:38.780 have grown very weary and tired of hearing this exact same rhetoric from uh from pastors over and
01:43:48.800 over and over again and the answer is simple it's because they are feminist they can say they're
01:43:54.440 complementarian they only have male elders and they can they can try to you know to showboat all 1.00
01:44:00.780 of their conservative cards and their credentials. But at the end of the day, they are still well
01:44:07.720 within the frame, the permissible, acceptable, current framework of liberalism. They are liberals
01:44:14.840 walking around in a Christian skin suit. It is 20th century liberalism. It may be the best of 0.91
01:44:21.100 liberalism. It may be the most conservative that liberalism can be, but it is still a shape, a form,
01:44:28.340 a version of liberalism and until modern western christians can break out of that grid break out
01:44:38.280 of the matrix of liberalism and i think the linchpin of liberalism is egalitarianism so until
01:44:44.000 they can get rid of egalitarianism across the board as it applies to patriarchy rather than
01:44:50.480 egalitarianism between men and women as it applies to nationality or ethnos or race as it applies to
01:44:57.360 peoples, different groups of peoples at every single level and as it applies to individuals
01:45:02.340 that Johnny and Jackie are not the same. Johnny and Jimmy are not the same. And there's a certain
01:45:10.200 extent to where Johnny and Jamal are not quite the same. And until pastors are willing to say that
01:45:17.780 without any malice, without any envy, without being rude or disrespectful with a desire to see
01:45:24.680 Johnny and Jimmy and Jackie and Jamal all in heaven together, all saved, all loving the Lord,
01:45:32.200 but until they're able to say that they're not the same and that we should not treat them the same
01:45:38.440 in the sight of God, equal in dignity. In the sight of the law, in terms of legal provisions,
01:45:45.080 okay. But beyond that, in society and culture as a whole, we must recognize distinctions. I really
01:45:53.320 believe that egalitarianism, the steamrolling of all distinctions, is the linchpin, the engine
01:45:59.800 of this freight train of liberalism. And we can't stop the train of liberalism and return to
01:46:08.360 historic Christianity without disabling the engine of the train, which is egalitarianism.
01:46:15.140 And you can't just sit there and say, well, I don't like this one portion of the engine,
01:46:20.000 right because i'm patriarchal so i don't like egalitarianism as it applies to men and women
01:46:24.340 but um egalitarianism as it applies to america and haiti i love that right haitians you can
01:46:32.160 you they're just you know nations are just fungible widgets and you can just um you know
01:46:36.740 you can just uproot and input 500 000 haitians and remove 500 000 you know european americans
01:46:43.560 and uh and nobody will bat an eye because it's just the same as long as they memorize the 0.71
01:46:48.200 Declaration of Independence and have eaten some apple pie and gone to one 4th of July, you know,
01:46:52.720 celebration like Vivek Ramaswamy, they can wear the Texas, you know, button-up shirt and a cowboy
01:46:57.540 hat, then we're good. If that's you, you are an egalitarian. You may think you're not because
01:47:04.120 you've only thought of egalitarianism as it applies to sex, gender, male and female, but you
01:47:09.520 are still in egalitarianism, which means you are still on the liberal train, which means you are
01:47:14.660 not on the historic Christianity train, and we won't win. You cannot punch your way out of the 0.91
01:47:21.440 frame while remaining in the frame. If you want to win, you have to unplug. You have to reject
01:47:27.660 the whole thing. You have to say it's all a lie. I will not be a lib. I will not be a lib. I'm sorry,
01:47:35.260 I will not be, but just a little bit of a lib, just a teensy little lib. I will not be a lib.
01:47:40.620 I'm a Christian, gosh darn it, hell or high water, I am a Christian, and I will not condemn 0.94
01:47:47.220 all my fathers throughout church history and all the apostolic writers and all the Old Testament 0.97
01:47:52.800 texts and God himself to hell because my modern sensibilities tell me that my moral framework is
01:48:00.100 superior to theirs. I will not do it. I reject liberalism wholesale, and until we can do that,
01:48:07.180 we will not restore the West because we will not restore the very thing that made it great, 0.98
01:48:12.680 which is historic Christianity, not 20th century liberalism walking around in a Christian 0.91
01:48:18.560 skin suit. So you must, you must, you must reject it. You must reject it. All right. That's all we 0.88
01:48:24.920 got for today. I hope you guys have been blessed and Lord willing, we will see you on Friday with
01:48:29.840 a special guest. We have Dr. Stephen Wolf lined up to come on the show. And it's really fitting
01:48:35.600 with my you know ending monologue you know ramp rampage whatever i was on just a you know rant
01:48:42.140 i'd like to think that it was a uh a holy rant but um it fits well with our next episode friday
01:48:48.000 3 p.m central time dr stephen wolf will be discussing uh discussing with him the article
01:48:52.800 that he recently published uh through american reformer and it's on what is it called christian
01:48:58.480 inequality christian inequality the defense there a defense thereof yeah so he's defending
01:49:04.320 um and and explicitly labeling it naming it as christian and what is it equality nope inequality
01:49:12.380 that'll be the topic for friday uh it's sure to be a banger and uh stephen wolf i think he always
01:49:18.340 speaks about these things um in courageous ways um uh ways that are um responsible well read um
01:49:26.900 and courageous, but also it's always rooted. There's citations, there's reasons. It's not
01:49:34.300 just flying by the seat of his pants. It's not unhinged. And I have no doubt that he will
01:49:38.620 produce for us a well-grounded argument for why historic Christianity allowed for, and even beyond
01:49:47.160 that, acknowledged and admitted inequality in a hierarchical world that God built within this
01:49:55.700 natural order. So that'll be our episode on Friday and we hope to see you then.