Rise of Empires: Persia and Rome in Profile

[Note: In light of the fact that both Persia and Rome are significant empires integral to the biblical narrative in both the Old Testament (Persia) and New Testament (Rome), sharing this historical background paper may be helpful to gain a broad appreciation of these empires. Obviously, this is only a rough sketch of these two global ancient empires.]

There are many areas to evaluate and examine ancient empires. In this paper, the Persian and Roman Empires will be evaluated based on their similarities and differences. This will be done by considering four lines of comparisons and contrasts.

First, I look at the rise of the Persian and Roman Empires, then, the political and economic bases that sustained each empire. Third, I consider the impact of environmental factors upon Persia and Rome and conclude with the major internal and external challenges that Persia and Rome confronted and how they were resolved.

These areas of discussion will be considered in light of class lecture notes[1] on the Persian and the Roman Empires respectively, and the related sections of Craig A. Lockard’s book, Societies, Networks, and Transitions: A Global History, 3rd edition (abbreviated SNT).[2]

The Rise to Empire

Persia. The rise of the Persian Empire is connected to its expansion through conquest. In the seventh century B.C.E., the Persian kingdom competed against the Medes until Persian dominance displaced them. The Persian kingdom begins significant expansion during the reign of Cyrus II (Cyrus the Great) in the sixth century B.C.E. (r. 550-530) and Cambyses II (r. 530-522 B.C.E.). These kings were members of the “ruling family” known as the Achaemenid and they reigned during the “peak” of the classical Persian Empire (SNT 140). Then, King Darius I (r. 521-486 B.C.E.) who usurped the throne continued Persian expansion on to the time of Xerxes I (r. 486-465 B.C.E.). 

In a period of fewer than one hundred years, the small coastal Persian kingdom expanded through conquest to include Afghanistan, western India along the Indus River, and Central Asia in the east; in the west, their geographic control included Mesopotamia, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, and all of Anatolia including the most western Anatolian kingdom of Lydia.

Rome. Concerning the rise of the Roman Empire, the expansion through conquest does not occur during the imperial period (31 B.C.E.-476 C.E.), but instead during the period of the Republic (509-31 B.C.E.).

As Map 8.2 in SNT (169) demonstrates, there was still unrest in certain areas of the Empire despite the Pax Romana (13 B.C.E.-180 C.E.); moreover, territories were still being added to the Roman Empire by the death of Emperor Hadrian (138 C.E.). The vast geographic territory touching the Mediterranean Sea (southern Europe, Greece, Anatolia, northern Africa, Egypt, etc.), however, is not technically the product of the Roman Empire (SNT 165).

The rise of the Roman Empire is more the result of political maneuvering away from a representative government towards a government of concentrated power in one man. This maneuvering begins with Julius Caesar.

Caesar is a victorious general who desires to become a member of the Republic Senate and was named Dictator upon arrival in the city of Rome. He violated the traditions of disarming at the city limits and the military one-day celebration to show the spoils of war; instead, Caesar crosses the Rubicon river armed, and celebrated for three days. Consequently, the senate responds to his actions by assassinating him. This ushered in a political civil war, where Caesar’s adopted son (nephew) Octavian and the allies of Julius Caesar take revenge upon all the assassins and their families, confiscate lands, and even kill slaves.

Octavian ultimately would become the first Roman Emperor, renamed himself Augustus, and reigned for approximately forty-one years (r. 27 B.C.E.–14 C.E.). The consequence was the loss of democracy, the rise of consolidated power, and as Juvenal notes distractions (“bread and circuses” SNT 168).

Thus, the rise of these two empires is seen from two different arcs. With Persia, the kingdom becomes an empire through traditional means – conquest and domination. The Roman Empire emerged due to political maneuvering rather than conquest. Yet, the rise of these empires emerges from a similar source: a small region or city that becomes a dominant world power.

Politics and Economics

Persia. Lockard describes the Persian rule during the imperial expansion as an “autocratic but culturally tolerant government” (SNT 141). In general, then, the diplomacy strategies of the Persian kings provided codified and humanitarian laws, kind economic policies, provincial governments, and expressed religious and social-cultural tolerance toward the peoples they conquered by force. Cyrus II (the Great) issued what is often called the first charter of human rights, and Darius I provided a codified law similar to that of Hammurabi.

The provinces were governed by a satrap (“protector of the kingdom”) who enforced established laws and paid taxes yearly to the king (SNT 143). Also, the religious and social-cultural tolerance shown to the diversity (language, religion, territories) of the growing empire is thought of as “most crucial” to its political success since it allowed Persia stability and flexibility not only in governing but also in battle and in commerce. Xerxes, however, was a less tolerant and more burdensome king (SNT 145).

Economically, other elements complimented Persia’s political success such as Darius completing the first Suez canal which temporarily unifies the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea, thus expanding the land-based commerce of Persia (e.g. the “royal road”) to also include maritime trade from the west to the east. The trade routes not only reinforce the economic forces of the Persian Empire but also extends the political power of its aristocracy.

Rome. The Roman Empire, on the other hand, saw unquestioned control of the Mediterranean for nearly a century and a half (27 B.C.E.-180 C.E.) following the emergence of Caesar Augustus. This is known as the Pax Romana (Roman Peace). By the first century C.E., Rome was a multinational, diversely populated empire. Despite this diversity, there was equality under Roman law and emphasized personal responsibility before the law. It is believed that Stoicism, a Greek philosophy, influenced Roman law in its policies of tolerance, moderation, and acceptance of life (SNT 168).

Meanwhile, the economic bases of the Roman Empire came from its growing trade routes and industries which took advantage of its maritime technologies and routes, and its vast networks of Roman roads across land extending over 150,000 miles (SNT 171). The trade routes on land not only connected Europe, Greece, Anatolia, and Egypt, but Rome made contact with India on the Silk Road, and even with China. Unfortunately, overconsumption and lack of productivity from the western part of the Empire would overburden the economic system, inflation would be a problem, and expensive conquests would deplete the mines and the farmlands (SNT 172).

Thus, the political and economic bases of Persia and Rome faced similar challenges of managing a multinational population and a vast expanding trading network. They both extended a measure of political toleration and equality, and both took advantage of land-based and maritime trading and commerce. Yet, in Persia it would appear that the policies of intolerance would hurt the empire; meanwhile, in Rome, it would be the overconsumption of its scarce resources, and a lack of fiscal responsibility that would hurt its political and economic future.

Environmental Factors

Considering the environmental factors of both the Persian and Roman Empires, respectively, geography is crucial. Map 7.1 in SNT (142) demonstrates some topographical elements of the geographic environment of the Persian kingdom and the breadth of the Persian Empire at its height (cir. 500 B.C.E.).

The Persian homeland was on the northwestern shore of the Persian Gulf and would suggest the potential to have some maritime trade and quite possibly some naval strength needed to control those waters. Persia would then have some connection to India, China, and Egypt. It would also probably have rich fisheries. However, on its northern borders, the Persian kingdom faces the Zagros Mountains and other mountain ranges. It is therefore landlocked on this side. The Persian kingdom also would then have depended upon land-based trade.

When the imperial expansion occurred, trade opportunities were strengthened along newly controlled waterways (Indus River Valley, Suez, the Mediterranean Sea, etc). It may be observed that many of the environmental factors that shaped Persia were overcome through expansion as a result of conquest.

Based on Map 8.2 in SNT (168), there would be a tremendous impact of environmental factors upon the Roman Empire.

First, the fact that the Mediterranean Sea is the center of the Roman Empire suggests its importance in shaping the environment of Rome. There would be fishing, and fisheries, maritime travel and trade, maritime technologies, and naval capacities. There would also imply that the world would be more connected due to maritime travel.

Second, the mountainous European lands like Greece and Italy would also imply that it would be possible to be landlocked in various places, so on land, there would be difficulty in travel and communication. The valleys and small communities would also be a natural place for the growing of grapes and shepherding. This would suggest then wool, fabrics, textiles, and dairy products. The environmental factors of the Roman Empire would also imply the sharing of many ideas from the farthest parts of their world.

Thus, both the Persians and the Romans had experienced due to their environments maritime travel, trade, and diet. Rome however appears to have had more diversity in land-based production in dairy, wool, olive trees, and vineyards.

The Challenges of Empire

Every political system and government has pressures working on it from within and from outside. For all their success, the Persian and Roman Empires are no different.

Persia. Persia faces significant challenges, particularly during the reign of Xerxes (486-465 B.C.E.), son of Darius I, which will ultimately weaken the empire. Xerxes inherits a larger kingdom after his father’s conquests, but it comes with growing unrest among the Greek-speaking communities in the west which do not like Persian rule. The Scythians and several Ionic coastal cities become increasingly rebellious and Xerxes is forced to deal with the expensive task of shutting down their rebellion. Xerxes does so and desires to completely conquer the divided and weak Grecian peninsula; but, what should have been a “cakewalk” ends in an epic failure.

Moreover, Xerxes’ reign represents a significant shift towards intolerance, internal Achaemenid strife, and financial instability. Xerxes and his successors “unwisely reversed” the policies which had brought about the Persian Empire’s greatest strengths and flexibilities (SNT 145). The weight of these policy shifts weakened and exacerbated the empire internally and externally, and as a consequence, concluded with Alexander the Great’s conquest of the Persian Empire in 330 B.C.E.

Rome. Rome, as well, faced major internal and external challenges. As mentioned above, later in the Roman Empire there were significant political and economic problems that undermined it. As a result of an over-reliance upon soldiers, the emperor would eventually come from soldier-backed emperors and this transition did not come without consequences.

For example, “none died peacefully in old age” (SNT 172). Yet, also, conquests would end due to the overconsumption of natural and agricultural resources. Externally, Rome would face in its declining years the rise of the Celtic and German societies in Europe. These societies exhausted Roman military resources, especially since Romans could not raise enough taxes to pay for soldiers to fight them off, especially the Germans (SNT 172-173).

Thus, the internal and external conflicts seem more focused on the Empire during the days of Xerxes when there was a reversal of policies away from tolerance and goodwill towards its subjects. Instead, there was internal unrest and military embarrassment in his failure to conquer the Grecian peninsula. Meanwhile, Rome struggled with political shifts as well, but it suffered tremendously due to mismanagement of natural and financial resources, and the unrest generated by the Celtics and the Germans.

Observations

In conclusion, there are few observations that can be made regarding the similarities and differences between the Persian and Roman Empires.

First, while the Persian Empire rose to world power through traditional means of expansion through conquest, the Roman Empire emerges due to political maneuvering and the transition from a representative government to one of consolidated power in Caesar.

Second, the political and economic bases that sustained the Persian and Roman Empires demonstrate similar demands for managing multinational populations under their rule and the economic capacity to trade and connect to other nations, but each empire succumbed to undermining what made it strong. For the Persians, it was their political tolerance and for the Romans, it was their lack of restraint with their resources.

Third, both the Persians and the Romans had experienced due to their environment: maritime travel, trade, and diet. Rome however appears to have had more diversity it land-based production in dairy, wool, olive trees, and vineyards.

Fourth, the internal and external challenges which confronted Persia and Rome are similar in that are rooted in policy changes and military interaction with outsiders. In the case of Persia, it was a drastic change in policy, while in Rome’s case it was a lack of management.

Endnotes

  1. The class lectures referenced here are from Professor Ann Wiederrecht, Bakersfield College. The citation format/style for the paper will remain as submitted (cf. SNT, page).
  2. Craig A. Lockard, Societies, Networks, and Transitions: A Global History Volume 1: To 1500, 3rd ed. (Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning, 2015).

The Value of the New Testament Records

The New Testament is an ancient collection of 27 documents produced in the last few decades of the first century of the Common Era (i.e. AD). They represent the only authentic witness to the teaching of Jesus Christ and the application of His teaching to a variety of questions and issues that confronted the early Christians. Originally, each document was composed individually to address a certain issue, and slowly they were being collected together by individuals and church communities. Today, modern Christians have the luxury of purchasing these documents from antiquity in an anthology – a collected and organized body of related literature.

The present piece is a brief survey of some aspects of the New Testament documents which make them possess inherent value and enduring value sufficient enough to demand the attention of any reasonable person who has a concern for their soul and their eternal destiny. Everything that could be said on the subject is obviously not said here, but we commend the following points for a preliminary investigation.

The New Testament is a Written Record

As a written record, the New Testament holds enduring value. Several years ago, Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix made the argument that while God could have used angelic revelations, visions, and dreams, moral “oughtness”, or direct divine communication and intervention, God chose a permanent method to dispense his teaching and will – “the time-tested superiority of a written record of truth.”[1]

The value of a written record, particularly a religiously written record, is seen in Geisler and Nix’s concluding argument:

A written record has one additional advantage as well, namely, it can stimulate memory and conjure up within the individual’s imagination a host of personal implications that are latent within the given symbols or words of that record. Words, then, are not wooden as to prevent a “personal blessing” for the individual reader, particularly in light of the fact that biblical words are the objective vehicle through which the Holy Spirit applies truth personally and subjectively to each reader individually (cf. John 16:13; 1 Pet 1:11).[2]

Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible (Moody, 1986)

The New Testament, then, is a written record – a durative witness – to the life and teaching of Jesus Christ. A life that existed in eternity, was revealed in the sinless life of a human servant of God, and fully demonstrated to be divine in the death and resurrection of himself, Jesus of Nazareth (John 1:1-3, 14; Phil 2:5-8; 1 Tim 3:16; Rom 1:1-4). This is a permanent record of the Greatest Story Ever Told.

The New Testament is a Preserved Ancient Document

The modern availability of the printed word is somewhat deceptive. A printer was not some machine that vibrates and rumbles until the document we want comes into existence. A “printer” was far more a human process than the mechanical one that it is today, and for that reason the modern scene of printing is deceptive. Technology, for all its usefulness, also provides with its services a handicap in practice or perspective. When a person desired to publish a work during the pre-printing press era, it was accomplished manually – by hand.

Hence, like all ancient documents before the printing press, the only way the New Testament was published for churches and redistributed to the masses was to copy it by hand. The publisher is often described as a scribe, and it is a profession that goes back very early in recorded antiquity. Scribal work has a rich heritage of scholarship and workmanship behind it. The field of transmitting literature is a known trade skill from the 2nd millennium B.C. – where “men were being trained not merely as scribes, but as expert copyists.”[3]

At times the New Testament documents were copied at times by professional scribes, while other times it is evident that they were transmitted by genuinely concerned, but non-professional Christians. From a theological point of view, we must remember that inspiration belongs to the original documents (Isa 28:13; Jer 36:4, 27-32). The essential preservation of the word of God falls within the domain of God’s providential care (2 Kings 22:3-13). Consequently, inspiration secures the teaching we are to obey, while God preserves His message for posterity so that all may know his will.

The New Testament has survived the attempts of many to extinguish it from the face of the planet. One of the earliest forces against the church and its literature was the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire had a very strong negative position on foreign religions, viewing them “as threats to the morality and the very existence of the state and its own official religion.”[4] Furthermore, the Romans were against conspiracies, thinking that they were “bound together by oaths sealed in human blood.”[5] And finally, when enforcement of the Roman religion was in vogue, or some other political situation emerged requiring allegiance, suppression of foreign religions included the opportunity to recant and “the confiscation of foreign religious documents.”[6] These were applied to all foreign religions.

Eventually, Christianity became the object of Roman wrath and suppression as a foreign religion. Christians had to face life or death situations, the burning of their biblical literature or suffering as a martyr. Many kept their faith intact and met their Creator in obedience. Since these early centuries, others have tried to destroy the Bible and remove it from the world’s grasp but have been woefully unsuccessful. And while there may be modern advocates for the demise of Christianity, the New Testament (the Bible for that matter) stands strong.

The sheer existence of this collection of literature speaks volumes of the New Testament’s enduring value.

The New Testament is Abundantly Attested

There is another vantage point to which attention must be given in this discussion. As far as books from antiquity are concerned, the New Testament is the most attested ancient document in history. Recalling that the New Testament is not a product of the English language, modern Greek Testaments are the result of laborious research and study. Essentially, every Greek Testament is an edited text of thousands of ancient witnesses (i.e. copies, translations, and quotations) of the New Testament.

Is it true that the original manuscripts (autographs) of the New Testament no longer exist? Yes. Does that automatically make the reliability of these 27 documents suspect? No. If so, “If one operated on the premise that no document is genuine unless the original is possessed, he would have to throw away the bulk of ancient literature.”[7]

It is important to know that there is a Mount Everest of evidence bearing testimony to the wording of the New Testament documents, more so than for any ancient document – or set of documents – to date. A comparison with other ancient works will help put the matter into perspective. Such ancient works like those of Homer, Plato, Aristotle, and Julius Caesar are made available based upon a handful of manuscripts (fragmentary or complete) dated close to millennia (1000 years), or so, after their original composition – if not later.[8]

Meanwhile, copies of the New Testament documents exist within less than half a century of their original composition and publication. The evidence exists in terms of manuscript copies, ancient translations, and allusions or direct quotations of these New Testament documents. Let us consider simply the manuscript evidence.

There are more than 5,000 manuscripts dating from the first few decades of the second century until the time of the printing press. Even within the shadow of their original composition, copies of the New Testament documents exist in part and in essential completeness in such a way that exceeds other ancient classical works.

In an article from Duke University’s Papyri Archive database, Peter van Minnen describes this unique phenomenon of the early New Testament manuscripts:

A careful comparison of the papyrus documents and manuscripts of the second and third centuries [100 to 299 AD] has established beyond doubt that about forty Greek papyrus manuscripts of the New Testament date from this very period. Unfortunately only six of them are extensively preserved.[9]

Peter van Minnen, “Dating the Oldest New Testament Manuscripts,” Duke Papyrus Archive

For example, the earliest fragment of the New Testament is found in Papyrus 52 (P52), an early witness to the copying of the Gospel of John beginning at least in the early second century. It is dated between AD 100-125 by most textual critics and when discovered in Egypt it created quite a stir,[10] for in conjunction with other papyri (P76, P66) it destroyed the academic notion of a second-century composition for the Fourth Gospel.[11]

The earliest and most complete manuscripts of the New Testament date to the fourth and fifth centuries AD. They are Vaticanus (4th century AD), Sinaiticus (4th century AD), Alexandrinus (5th century AD), and Ephraemi Rescriptus (5th century AD). These represent just about every literary category of the New Testament: the Gospels, Acts, Letters of Paul, General Letters, and Revelation. Vaticanus, however, does not have Revelation.

However, “even the book of Revelation, the most poorly attested writing in the NT, more than 300 Greek MSS have been found,” observes David Alan Black, Professor of New Testament at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary.[12] The earliest manuscript of Revelation (verso/back of P98) is dated to the second century AD, containing the text of Revelation 1:13-2:1.[13]

That there exist 300 manuscripts alone for the book of Revelation is astounding since we observed earlier that other classical works have a handful of witnesses upon which their translations are based.[14] Specifically, there are no manuscripts of Homer’s works the Iliad and the Odyssey, fragments or essentially complete, until the sixth and thirteenth centuries AD respectively. Homer is said to have lived somewhere around the ninth or eighth century BC, so this is a gap of some fifteen centuries.

Likewise, consider the man Gaius Julius Caesar (c. 102 BC-44 BC). Surely, there would be manuscript witnesses to any literary work of this man whose honors include the titles Pater Patriae (Father of the Fatherland), Pontifex Maximus (Highest Priest), Dictator, and in 43 BC the senate voted that Julius Caesar be regarded as Divus (Divine), posthumously included among the pantheon of Roman deities.[15] And, as a testament to the impact of this man and his name upon history, one source observes, “for two thousand years after Julius Caesar’s assassination, there was at least one head of state bearing his name” (link).

The Gallic War, or Commentaries on the Gallic War (Commentarii de Bello Gallico), recounts the complete victory of the Romans over the whole of Gaul (cf. “Gaul being entirely reduced” Gallic Wars 8:1)[16] and bringing an expansion to the Republic of Rome. One could assume, then, that Caesar’s Gallic War, the production of his later years (58 BC-50 BC), would be preserved amply. Instead, very few copies exist; to be exact, “only about nine reasonably good manuscripts” exist, “and they date to some 900 years this side of the originals.”[17] Nothing even remotely close to the half-decade gap between one of the last documents of the New Testament composed and the fragment papyrus P52 (100 AD-125 AD) which bears testimony to John 18:31-33 (recto) and vv. 37-38 (verso).

Concluding Thoughts

First, the New Testament is a preserved record of the teaching of Jesus. As such, it is more reliable than religions that depend upon oral traditions and folklore. Moreover, a solid record of revelation provides a stable record free from doctrinal revisions, unlike the on-again, off-again positions of the Latter Day Saints.[18] We may assume then, that since God provided the books of the New Testament in a written format, God has laid a high premium upon the value of these books. A follower of Jesus cannot subscribe to the notion that they can have Jesus apart from his word, for Jesus specifically denounces such a concept (John 15:1-11). The New Testament, then, is the indispensable resource for the faithful disciple of Christ – don’t leave home without it (cf. Prov. 7).

Second, in the providential hand of God, the New Testament has withstood the destructive forces of time and those brazen desires of the enemies of God who would attempt to destroy the words of Jesus. Scribes and everyday Christians have been copying the New Testament since the first century AD, and faithful Christians sacrificed their own lives to smuggle their faith into the hands of future generations. This story reflects the biblical tradition to share the Gospel with the world (Matt 28:19-20; 1 Pet 4:6). Paul instructed Timothy to train faithful men in the teaching and preaching of the word (1 Tim 2:2). This is the ministry of reconciliation (2 Cor 5:18), this is the ministry of mercy wherein we believe and speak of the redemption Christ offers (2 Cor 4:1-14). This faith is our responsibility to pass on to others.

Third, there are several hundred copies of the New Testament available from the second and third centuries AD testifying to the wording of these documents. The gap between the date of composition and manuscript evidence of their transmission is extremely narrow for an ancient document, or anthology of ancient documents when compared to the large gaps that exist among several classical works and their manuscript evidence. If these large gaps do not seem to make these classic works any less reliable, how then should we view the New Testament’s reliability when the gaps between composition and available copies are so much smaller? We should view its reliability as far more certain and established.

For these preliminary reasons, we then strongly submit that the New Testament has the enduring value sufficient to demand the attention of the spiritually sensitive and discerning. The child of God can ponder over these historical aspects of the New Testament, but in time we hope to offer an article to address some of the theological issues that also contribute to this argument that the New Testament record has enduring value.

Sources

  1. Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, revised and expanded (Chicago, IL: Moody, 1986), 323.
  2. Geisler and Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, 324.
  3. W. J. Martin, et al., “Texts and Versions,” The New Bible Dictionary, ed. J. D. Douglas (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1962), 1254; Daniel Arnaud, “Scribes and Literature,” Near Eastern Archaeology 63.4 (2000): 199.
  4. Robert M. Grant, The Sword and the Cross (New York, NY: Macmillan, 1955), 13.
  5. Grant, The Sword and the Cross, 15.
  6. Grant, The Sword and the Cross, 20.
  7. Wayne Jackson, “Are the New Testament Books Historically Credible?ChristianCourier.com (Accessed 4 Mar. 2002), par. 1.
  8. Jackson, “Are the New Testament Books Historically Credible?,” pars. 3-6.
  9. Peter van Minnen, “Dating the Oldest New Testament Manuscripts,” Duke Papyrus Archive Online (Accessed 12 Dec. 1995), par. 7.
  10. Philip W. Comfort and David P. Barrett, The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts, corrected and enlarged ed. (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 2001), 365.
  11. Luke T. Johnson and Todd C. Penner, The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation, revised ed. (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1999), 526.
  12. David A. Black, “Textual Criticism of the New Testament” Foundations for Biblical Interpretation, eds. David S. Dockery, et al. (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1994), 398.
  13. Comfort and Barrett, The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts, 628.
  14. Jackson, “Are the New Testament Books Historically Credible?,” pars. 3-6.
  15. Grant, The Sword and the Cross, 34.
  16. Gaius Julius Caesar, The Gallic Wars, trans. W. A. McDevitte and W.S. Bohn, MIT’s The Internet Classics Library.
  17. Jackson, “Are the New Testament Books Historically Credible?,” par. 6.
  18. In 1843, Joseph Smith wrote, “[35] God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises. [36] Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it.” (Doctrine and Covenants Sect. 132 pars. 29-40). Now the “mainline” Latter Day Saints do not practice polygamy due to doctrinal changes; however, as clearly evident by recent media, original-Joseph-Smith-Mormans are still practicing polygamy undercover.