The following is an analysis of the transcript of the discussion which occurred on Hank Hanegraaff's radio program, "Bible Answer Man", on September 25, 2000.

While it is true that it had been only a couple of mentions by a caller to his "Bible Answer Man" radio show of this Christian organization of TruthBearer.org, the significant factor of the comment is that twice Hank Hanegraaff affirmed that he was "familiar" with this ministry. It is for that reason, therefore, that this matter has indeed been posted here to the web-site.

For indeed, in this organization's Mission of Bringing Christian Polygamy to the Churches, therefore in trying to help provide further research for Hank Hanegraaff, as well as for anyone else with similar Christian-based media programs, this is provided and it is prayed that this will be a blessing of insight and information, that Christian Polgamy really is indeed, absolutely Scriptural.

May this be a blessing for all who read it.

Before delving into this analysis, it is important, as a matter of fairness and Christ-centered lovingkind respectfulness, that readers should compassionately understand the following. Namely, there is an obvious advantage of having the time with which to respond more thoroughly and comprehensively here in making this analysis than that which a person, such as Hank Hanegraaff, would have had in his trying to put forth his current understanding in the discussion quickly in an on-the-spot "live" conversation.

As such, while this analysis will address and analyze the argumentations which Hank Hanegraaff attempted for use to refute polygyny, it must also be understood with compassion that his attempts to refute polygyny with Scriptures, even though the attempted argumentations fail to do so, the argumentations were nevertheless given in a sincere expression of what he has understood to this point (and having likely not spent as much research into the topic of Christian Polygamy as we have in this ministry), while Hank Hanegraaff was also being at the "disadvantage" of having to reply quickly and "on the spot" in a "live radio" program.

With that understood, the analysis of that discussion may now begin.

Any reader of this analysis who may be in need of further research or information regarding some of the specific doctrinal issues pertaining to Christian Polygamy as will be mentioned herein as mentioned on that particular show of the "Bible Answer Man" is fully encouraged to:

Also See:
     EXEGESIS [ Scripture Proofs ]
     Scripture Search Tools -- GET VERSES
     How God BLESSED David -- A Scripture Study
     Breaking Past the "ONE WIFE" Barrier

The sequence of the discussion occurred as follows:

• Gina specifically asks about 2_Samuel 12:8 wherein God clearly says that He Himself had given David all of David's wives and if David had wanted more, God therein says that God would have given David more.
  
  
• Hank never actually addresses or answers that specific question. (He may not have realized that he never answered her, though.)
  
  
• Hank attempts to refute it by changing the topic with his first attempted Scripture for refutation, Deuteronomy 17:17.
  
  
• Gina points out that Deuteronomy 17:17 is only directed to specific individuals, kings.
  
  
• Hank very positively and quickly concedes how that could be seen that way.
  
  
• Hank sincerely attempts to suggest that there is some kind of "larger principle" going on about the topic in the Scriptures, although he actually does not cite a single Scripture for establishing that that (actually, rather subjective) approach is a valid hermeneutic toward reading the Scriptures. Indeed (even though he may not have realized it), such an approach only results in his only having presented a subjective perspective. (This fact here is important to note because that kind of subjective approach to the Scriptures is something which he specifically, being one who genuinely tries to be dedicated to only having the Scriptures speaking for themselves, would otherwise normally not be willing to knowingly do such a subjective approach in his approach toward reading the Scriptures.)
  
  
• Hank tries to make an indirect mention of Matthew 19:3-9 (although not citing it specifically) about causing adultery by the unrighteous putting away of a wife, and he puts forth a (also, rather subjective) reading of the "one flesh" re-quote therein, where our Lord Jesus is re-quoting the original "one flesh" verse of Genesis 2:24 which had actually been written by Moses, a Godly man who had married two wives himself (see Exodus 18:1-6 and Numbers 12:1).
  
  
• Hank then genuinely tries to use his second attempted set of Scriptures for refutation, 1_Timothy 3:2,12 (and by implication, also Titus 1:6).
  
  
• Gina yet again points out how those verses only refer to specific individuals of church position, elders, bishops, or deacons.
  
  
• Hank again has to concede those verses could be seen that way too. Even though his two attempted "big guns" of passages to try to refute polygyny have not succeeded, he is humble in openly confessing his concession.
  
  
• Gina tries to bring the conversation back to her original question about 2_Samuel 12:8, and God's perspective of David who had had a number of wives.
  
  
• Having realized that he has conceded that his two attempted "big gun" passages of Deuteronomy 17:17 and 1_Timothy 3:2,12 can indeed be seen as still allowing for polygyny with men who are not kings, bishops, elders, deacons (even without our herewith further demonstrating what those passage actually DO say), Hank responds by saying that seeing those verses can only be seen that way in what he calls "seeing those verses in isolation". But the thing to remember here is that HE was the one who tried to use them "in isolation" as his attempted two "big guns" to try to refute polygyny. In terms of HIS using them, therefore, that would make them indeed "able to be viewed in isolation" because HE was sincerely attempting to use those passages that way in the first place. (It is understandable how, at that moment, as he was saying it, he might not have likely realized this fact as he said it, though.) The thing of all this is that these were the two attempted "big guns" of passages he was using. If they were such powerful "big guns" with which to refute polygyny, then surely they could absolutely stand "in isolation", to support the position that one is taking.
  
  
• Moving forward, Hank tries to add a third passage, 1_Kings 11:3-4, to his arsenal of attempted "big guns" (with Deuteronomy 17:17 and 1_Timothy 3:2,12), although he honestly confesses that he is not all that sure of it. And indeed, upon looking at that very third attempted "big gun" passage, even though it would be understandable that Hank may not have realized it as he said it, that very 1_Kings 11:3-4 passage rather clearly affirms Gina's point of her question regarding the issue of God's view of polygamist David is correct. That passage compares Solomon's heart as not being "perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David", there in 1_Kings 11:4. But neither Hank nor Gina openly realize this actual fact about that verse at the time.
  
  
• Thus, by this point, even though he understandably does not realize it, Hank's three attempted "big guns" have not succeeded to prove any form of prohibition of polygamy, nor has he answered Gina's original question pertaining to how our holy God Himself said that He would have given the already-polygamous David MORE wives if David had wanted, in 2_Samuel 12:8.
  
  
• Hank then purports that he could give "other verses" which purportedly EXPLICITLY show his attempted refutation. Unfortunately, though, he never actually cites a single verse. Again, it must be compassionately understood that it can be difficult to remember "everything" when one is "on the spot". Yet, also, while he certainly may not have intended it, by saying that statement without citing a single verse, it still nevertheless rather leaves any listener with having to simply "trust" that Hank is correct about that assertion without any Scriptural actuality to prove that Hank has not made a mistake about that. And that is something which Hank very positively usually would otherwise not want to be presenting about himself.
  
  
• Gina then asks a question about what should a wife do with a husband who would apply what this ministry (here at TruthBearer.org) has now identified as being the hellfire-bound sin of covenant breaking concept of FORCE polygamy.
  
  
• Almost sounding as if the entire preceding discussion had not even taken place, Hank replies back only with his presupposition that he doesn't believe a man can have more than one wife. That is, he has still not yet proven his argument with Scripture at this point, and yet is advancing his understandable perspective with a sound of finality to the assertion. And that is relevant to note here considering that Gina's first question about polygamist David and God in 2_Samuel 12:8 had still not been answered. (Again, Hank might not have realized he was responding this way, gven the difficulty of being "on the spot" in this kind of "live" situation.)
  
  
• Hank then proceeds to apply his perspective that the modern concept of so-called "adultery" has occurred if a man marries more than one woman. (He doesn't even inquire about the marriage covenant issue nor deal with the issues of covenant breaking doctrine issues.) Instead, it is evident that Hank is simply repeating what he has obviously been taught in the past, and likely to have otherwise taken others' inherited views on the matter of polygamy for granted, and thus having not looked more deeply into the issue. (This is understandable how that kind of taking the matter for granted can happen.) Howbeit, his perspective here reveals that Hank has simply not yet looked further into the Hebrew texts of the Scriptures with which to understand the true definition of "adultery" as it was orginally written. If or when he does, he could then instead discover that in Exodus 20:14, where the 7th Commandment is listed, the "Thou shalt not commit adultery" is written in the Hebrew text with the Hebrew word translated to English as "adultery" being "na`aph", and which only means "WOMAN that breaketh wedlock". Thus, it would be seen how, if a man marries two women who are not the wives of another man, then actually no woman is breaking her wedlock, which in turn clearly means that no Scripture-defined adultery ("na`aph") occurs in such a case. (This is how, therefore, only 22 verses later, in Exodus 21:10, it is obviously NOT Scripturally-defined as adultery for a man to have more than wife, simply being instructed that he not diminish the food, raiment, or duty of marriage if he marry another wife. And it is also how Deuteronomy 21:15 can begin with, "If a man have two wives...")
  
  
• Hank then changes the topic by seemingly trying to re-direct the discussion away from the Scriptural discussion to instead associating the topic of polygamy as if it is somehow a "mormon" thing. Of course, though, Gina had only been talking about Scriptural issues, never once saying anything that was NOT based only on the Old and New Testament Scriptures. He also refers to the hardship on women which some of the specific "mormon" theology in some circles would appear to advance, even though, again, that is not what Gina had been talking about in her questions. (This kind of "tainting" tactic of associating polygamy as a "mormon" thing is a standard method that is often employed as a last resort means, about which many of us in Christian Polygamy have often observed will happen whenever someone else is not succeeding with their Scriptural argumentation in their attempts to refute polygamy. It is likely that this tactic employed here was something that, while likely not deliberate on Hank's part, was probably done out of a learned habit, rather than with any deliberately negative intent.)
  
  
• Gina positively overcomes that inaccurate associating of polygamy with "mormonism" by her immediately making mention of this ministry, and how TruthBearer.org is a CHRISTIAN ministry, not "mormon".
  
  
• Hank admits twice that he is aware of this organization of TruthBearer.org.
  
  
• Hank also appears to humbly realize that he cannot proceed further with "tainting" the topic of polygamy by inaccurately associating it as if it was exclusively a "mormon" thing in the ears of his Christian listeners. (His listeners would quickly discover that this ministry of TruthBearer.org is a CHRISTIAN ministry, not being about any "mormon" theology in at all.)
  
  
• Hank then tries to conclude the discussion. He concludes, making a very broad assertion that God somehow "condemns" polygamy and so that would mean that we Christians must not condone it. Yet, as he makes that very broad assertion with a sound of "finality", he does not actually cite a single verse to support such a powerfully broad assertion as that. (And again, this is not something he would otherwise be wanting to present of himself, as he would put forth a sincere desire to only let the Scriptures speak for themselves, without his making any claim of the Bible purportedly saying things without the Scriptures proving that the Bible does indeed say it. No doubt, Hank may not have realized that he was doing this very kind of thing here at the time, due to the understandable difficulty it can be for anyone to be so "on the spot" in such a "live" discussion.)
  
  
• As Gina's very first question had still not been answered, about 2_Samuel 12:8, wherein God is taking personal responsibility for giving David all his wives and saying that He Himself would have given David more if David had wanted, and now in the face of such a powerfully broad assertion that God supposedly "condemns" polygamy, Gina asks if Hank could give her "just one verse", only one verse, with which to once and for all fully refute polygyny.
  
  
• Hank then tries to confidently offer some further passages, although he does not (apparently) actually realize that the passages he cites do not prove his assertion in any way at all. 1_Corinthians 7 includes verses 10-11,27-28 which clearly show a situation where a married man, whose wife has departed from him, may marry another without sin and if the first wife then later returns, he is commanded of God to let her be reconciled to him AND to not put away the second wife ---for just one example of those verses there. Matthew 19:3-9 is only talking about prohibiting divorce for "EVERY CAUSE", but not about prohibiting polygamy. And Genesis 1:27 is only about how God made Man in His image, certainly not having anything to do with a prohibition of polygamy.
  
  
• Hank then brings it all to a close with his inherited perspective that supposedly the "whole tenor" of the Scriptures supposedly means that God somehow "condemns" polygamy.

Upon seeing the whole conversation, we observe the following things:

1. Although he may not have realized it, Hank never actually answered the original question about 2_Samuel 12:8.
   
   
2. Hank's three attmpted "big guns" (Deuteronomy 17:14,17, 1_Timothy 3:2,12, and 1_Kings 11:3-4) all fail to actually prove his sincerely made attempt to refute polygyny in the Scriptures. He even humbly conceded that his first two "big guns" may indeed be seen in such a perspective that would still not be proving a total prohibition of polygyny.
   
   
3. To counter that, though, he suggested that those "big guns" passages can only be seen that pro-polygamy way in what he called being "in isolation". The fact that Hank was the one who brought up those passages and that Hank was the one trying to use them "in isolation" with which to try to refute polygyny (indeed, using them as "big guns" even, indicating that he thinks them to be the most powerful proofs as he used them first in his attempts), would only indicate even that much more that, when he goes looking later, he would find that he does not have any verses which could indeed be used "in isolation" with which to refute polygyny.
   
   
4. Hank's attempted conclusion that God "condemns" polygamy is actually not to be found anywhere as being supported with Scripture, nor is it supported even by reading the passages he attempts to use in the end, either.

No doubt, Hank Hanegraaff had tried to do a good job, as it certainly can be difficult for anyone to effectively come up with all the correct responses while being so "on the spot" as in being on his show --- especially when one has not really taken all that much time to investigate the matter, as Hank would appear to have revealed in this matter of Christian Polygamy.

As well, it is also important to understand that, given the size of such of an audience as that which his "Bible Answer Man" radio program has, Hank would understandably want to be be absolutely convicted of the truth of Christian Polygamy before he could even dare allow himself the "freedom" to express that on such a program of that sort. As such, this matter here being a topic which, even though Hank Hanegraaff has expressed that he is familiar with this organization of TruthBearer.org, it is nevertheless also visibly clear that he has not yet investigated the matter further, nor even spent much time studying the volumes of available research and information herein available in this Christian cross-denominational ministry's web-site. Accordingly, it is wholly understandable that his responses in the conversation would be as they had been.

It is therefore prayed, should Hank Hanegraaff ever return to this web-site, or should anyone else in a similar media position read these things herein, that this analysis may have been of further help for him or for anyone in such investigation of further and deeper research into the topic of the absolute Scripturality of Christian Polygamy.

For even further research on some of the specific doctrinal issues pertaining to Christian Polygamy as mentioned herein and as on that particular show of the "Bible Answer Man", all readers are encouraged to

Also See:
     EXEGESIS [ Scripture Proofs ]
     Scripture Search Tools -- GET VERSES
     How God BLESSED David -- A Scripture Study
     Breaking Past the "ONE WIFE" Barrier

TruthBearer.org Media [Directory] Bible Answer Man, September 25, 2000 Transcript Analysis