POSTED 30 OCTOBER, 2008

Is Polygamy for Today?

by J.K. McKee
editor@tnnonline.net

the case against polygamy

In recent days a number of issues have hit the Messianic community. Each one of these issues has had a variety of distinctly negative effects as people have denied Yeshua’s Divinity, questioned His Messiahship, and have questioned whether certain books of the Apostolic Scriptures are trustworthy. Our ministry has stood firmly against the false teachings that have entered into our midst, standing for Yeshua’s Divinity and Messiahship, and engaging with the text of various Biblical books under fire to provide reasonable answers. We have done our best to stop the tide of error sweeping through the Messianic world, knowing full well “if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet and the people are not warned…his blood I will require” (Ezekiel 33:6). People who see extreme problems, possessing the skills and abilities to address them—and who do nothing—will be held accountable by the Almighty.

There are an entire host of issues seen in the Torah that today’s Messianic movement is either unwilling or unable to address. Some of it has come about because various teachers or leaders “just don’t want to go there” or “open that can of worms.” Others do not know what to do. But avoiding the controversial issues seen in the Torah is not an appropriate course of action. The Lord Himself has said, “this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach” (Deuteronomy 30:11). With a little research into the Scriptures, and with some basic engagement of Ancient Near Eastern history, many of the tough questions we have about the Pentateuch and its instructions can be adequately answered.

Messianics too quickly jump over issues like murder, genocide, and slavery as seen in the Torah.[1] You cannot totally blame people for wanting to not discuss these sorts of things, as they are surely not pleasant subjects for one living in the Twenty-First Century to contemplate. But they are a part of the Biblical narrative, and if we are mature Believers we will consider them (cf. Hebrews 6:1-2). Yet many of those issues can be relegated to the more philosophical disciplines. We do not practice slavery or indentured servitude in modern society today, and very few of us will ever have to serve on a jury where the prosecution is seeking the death penalty.

However, a controversy has just arisen regarding a subject that is seen in the Scriptures, was practiced by some people within Ancient Israel, and could adversely affect not only the growth of the Messianic movement—but also severely shake up families and our youth. It has the capacity to grind our faith community and the work God has called us to do to a grinding halt if not stopped immediately.

No one who reads the Bible denies that polygamy—the practice of a man having more than one wife—is seen within the text. The Patriarch Jacob, who was the progenitor of the Twelve Tribes of Israel, had two wives and two concubines (Genesis 31:17; 37:2). King David, a man testified by the Lord to be “a man after His own heart” (1 Samuel 13:14), had multiple wives (1 Samuel 18:17-30; 25:38-43; 2 Samuel 3:2-5). King Solomon, whom many consider to be the wisest man who ever lived, had hundreds of wives and concubines (1 Kings 3:1; 11:3) that made up an entire harem (Song of Songs 6:8).

“So what is the problem?” it is said. “Some of the most important figures in the Tanach Scriptures had multiple wives, and so Messianic men today should be able to have multiple wives as well. YHWH is restoring Biblical patriarchy! Women need to learn their place.”

There are, in fact, many problems to be explored when considering whether or not polygamy is an acceptable practice for today’s Body of Messiah. Was it the ideal at Creation for the man to have more than one wife? When a man has more than one wife, is he truly fulfilled emotionally and spiritually with his multiple spouses? Is the household where one man has multiple wives and children from those multiple wives truly a place of love and affection, or one of discord and suspicion? Does the Bible portray men who had polygamous relationships as being genuinely fulfilled, and children who were true examples of godliness? Does a man having multiple wives express the sentiment that he places great value on women, or that they are simply property to be acquired? And, how many in the Biblical period actually had the financial means to afford more than one wife? Does the Bible really lend support to the practice of polygamy today?

In this critical article, we will directly answer these questions and many more. Make no mistake about it, while polygamy is recorded to have been practiced in Scripture—it by no means is endorsed by Scripture! Not a single commandment in the Torah condones the practice of polygamy.[2] God never intended a man to have more than one wife, families where the husband is polygamous have suffered immensely from it, and polygamists today are motivated by uncontrollable sexual urges that demean women and the equality that Messiah Yeshua has restored to the genders (Galatians 3:28).[3] And not only will we consider these factors, but we will also take a look at many of the Tanach examples where polygamous relationships are portrayed, later weighing in the teachings and thoughts of Yeshua and the Apostles. How do we stand against this new wave of aberration? Will Messianic men arise who recognize women as having great value and recognize them as their equals?

Genesis and the First Marriage

The prototype for a proper marriage relationship is seen at the very beginning with the creation of the first two human beings: “God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27, NRSV). Both the male and the female bear the image of God, meaning that aside from their anatomical differences, they possess the same capacities of intelligence, reason, and spirituality. While the male was created first, this by no means is an indication of God’s preference of the male gender over the female gender.[4] On the contrary, the Lord says of Adam, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him” (Genesis 2:18). The woman, Eve, was to be Adam’s ezer kenegdo (ADgnK rz[), a significant ally for him who would fulfill all of those things and more that he needed.[5] Victor P. Hamilton comments,

“It suggests that what God creates for Adam will correspond to him. Thus the new creation will be neither a superior nor an inferior, but an equal. The creation of this helper will form one-half of a polarity, and will be to man as the south pole is to the north pole.”[6]

Genesis 2:21-24 tells us how God made the first female:

“So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. The Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. The man said, ‘This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.’ For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.”

Here, we see that the woman was brought out of the man’s tzela ([lc) or “side,” and that Adam’s response was to admire God’s creation of Eve. The man is the “head” of the woman, meaning that he is her origin (1 Corinthians 11:3).[7] The respect that a man is to give to a woman is most severe in the Scriptures. From the beginning of human history, the marriage relationship was intended to be between one man and one woman. One way that v. 24 can be translated is “Therefore a man forsakes his father and mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh,”[8] which could be taken, as Hamilton notes, “to leave father and mother and cling to one’s wife means to sever one loyalty and commence another.”[9] Surely while sons are to be loyal and respectful to their parents (Exodus 20:12; Deuteronomy 5:16), in the marriage relationship one’s primary loyalty and duty is now to the wife.

V. 24 is clearly a piece of the narration in Genesis 2 designed to call those reading or hearing back to an important principle established at Creation. It is introduced by the words al-ken (!K-l[), “Therefore” (RSV), “For this reason” (NASU), or “This is why” (CJB, HCSB). Nahum M. Sarna explains, “‘al ken…introduces an etiological observation on the part of the Narrator; that is, the origin of an existing custom or institution assigned to some specific event in the past. In this case, some interrelated and fundamental aspects of the marital relationship are traced to God’s original creative act and seen as part of the divinely ordained natural order.”[10] Indeed, in Genesis 2:21-24 marriage is most definitely not defined as being between two people of the same gender joined in a homosexual relationship.[11] But also, marriage is presented as being a relationship between one man and one woman—as opposed to one man and multiple women. This is a teaching upheld by Yeshua the Messiah (Mathew 19:5; Mark 10:7-8). The Jewish and Christian theological traditions have both looked to Genesis 2:24 as presenting the ideal for a monogamous marriage relationship, and Genesis 2:24 is often quoted in the liturgy of most Jewish and Christian weddings, joined with the Messiah’s word “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate” (Matthew 19:6; cf. Mark 10:9).

As a direct result of the Fall,[12] the tranquility and unity that was to exist between the male and female genders was quickly lost (Genesis 3:16 compared to 4:7), with a battle erupting between the two. While the man and woman were to originally be equal partners and allies of each other in the marriage relationship, now with sin entering onto the scene, the physically stronger man would inevitably dominate a physically weaker woman who would try to be his boss: “your urge [teshuqah, hqWvT] shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you” (Genesis 3:16, NJPS).[13]

The restoration of what Sarna calls “the absolute equality of the sexes”[14] that once existed in Paradise, would have to come when the Seed promised to Eve would arrive and crush the serpent (Genesis 3:15; 1 Timothy 2:15, Grk.). Any instance where men are portrayed as having more than one wife runs completely against the Edenic ideal and against the trajectory back toward that original egalitarianism.[15] Sometimes we see polygamy being tolerated by God over against more severe sins like the idolatry and child sacrifice that erupted in the Northern and Southern Kingdoms, which eventually brought His judgment down upon them.[16]

Marriage in the Tanach: One Man and One Woman

While the full restoration of equality between males and females would only come when Messiah Yeshua arrived on the scene (Galatians 3:28), with the Torah working forward toward that end,[17] the witness of the commandments in the Torah upholds the ideal marriage as being between one man and one woman as originally seen in Genesis:

“You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor” (Exodus 20:17).

“But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife and my children; I will not go out as a free man’” (Exodus 21:5).[18]

“You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife; it is your father's nakedness…The nakedness of your father's wife's daughter, born to your father, she is your sister, you shall not uncover her nakedness…You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's brother; you shall not approach his wife, she is your aunt. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law; she is your son's wife, you shall not uncover her nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother's wife; it is your brother's nakedness…You shall not have intercourse with your neighbor's wife, to be defiled with her” (Leviticus 18:8, 11, 14-16, 20).

“If there is a man who commits adultery with another man's wife, one who commits adultery with his friend's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death” (Leviticus 20:10; cf. Deuteronomy 22:22).

“He [a priest] shall take a wife in her virginity” (Leviticus 21:13).

“Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘If any man's wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him…” (Numbers 5:12).

“You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, and you shall not desire your neighbor's house, his field or his male servant or his female servant, his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor” (Deuteronomy 5:21).

None of these passages describe “wives” in the plural, as meaning that one is prohibited from lusting or adulterating with “one of someone else’s wives.” A man having a single wife is what is clearly portrayed.

Now, it is not at all impossible that some commandments listed above may concern a man having a later second wife because the first wife has died. When Leviticus 18:18 prohibits a son from sleeping with “his father’s wife,” this could very well not be his mother, but be his stepmother. The death of a man’s first wife, often by childbirth, was not something uncommon in the Biblical period—and there is no Torah prohibition on remarriage (except remarriage to a divorced spouse in Deuteronomy 24:4). In fact, the Apostle Paul uses the Torah’s instructions on proper sexuality within marriage to describe how Believers in Yeshua are like the widow released from “the law concerning the husband[19]” (Romans 7:2), meaning that they have been discharged from the Torah’s condemnation upon sinners (cf. Galatians 3:13).[20] But remarriage and a man having children from a sequence of marriages brought about by the unfortunate death of his wife/wives is different than polygamy.

The witness of the Tanach’s Wisdom literature is also clear about the ideal marriage being between one man and one woman:

“An excellent wife is the crown of her husband, but she who shames him is like rottenness in his bones” (Proverbs 12:4).

“He who finds a wife finds a good thing and obtains favor from the Lord” (Proverbs 18:22).

“A foolish son is destruction to his father, and the contentions of a wife are a constant dripping” (Proverbs 19:13).

“Enjoy life with the woman whom you love all the days of your fleeting life which He has given to you under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 9:9).

“I have made a covenant with my eyes; how then could I gaze at a virgin?...If my heart has been enticed by a woman, or I have lurked at my neighbor's doorway, may my wife grind for another, and let others kneel down over her. For that would be a lustful crime; moreover, it would be an iniquity punishable by judges. For it would be fire that consumes to Abaddon, and would uproot all my increase” (Job 31:1, 9-12).

Proverbs 12:4 and 18:22 should particularly stand out: a wife is a singular treasure that a husband should greatly value. Once you begin to add more wives—to that single wife who is the ateret ba’lah (Hl[B trj[, Proverbs 12:4) or “crown (of her) husband”—it is then that the woman becomes devalued and demeaned and/or cheapened in comparison to a man. Such a lessening of a woman’s worth should never be present in today’s Kingdom of God! It is not unlike that common, sinful urge today for men to “conquer” women as sexual exploits.

Scores of examples of how women are treated as less valuable than men—even in today’s world—can be considered. It is not uncommon in various third world countries for women to have abortions when it is revealed that the child she is carrying is female. Worse yet, if a child’s gender is unknown and a female is born, sometimes it is left out in the open to die, in spite of orphanages that would gladly take the child. And even when there are families whose children are both male and female, when the male child is sick it is given preferential treatment over the female child. These are abominations that God will rightly judge.

God made men to have a single wife in a monogamous marriage relationship. This wife is to be a person who her husband values above all others, save only God Himself. The only reason that a man should have another wife would be in that terrible instance of his first wife being taken from him by death, or a justifiable reason for divorce such as adultery (cf. Matthew 19:19). Even so, the monogamous marriage relationship is a privilege to those who participate in it.

Problem Texts that Appear to Support Polygamy

While men having multiple wives is clearly not the ideal as originally portrayed by Adam and Eve in Paradise, some in the Messianic community believe that the Torah actually allows men to have multiple wives. A review of some of the passages that would seem to suggest that polygamy is an acceptable practice is certainly in order, especially as we confront this danger in our faith community. Is polygamy permitted—or is there more to consider?

Exodus 21:7-11

“If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do. If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He does not have authority to sell her to a foreign people because of his unfairness to her. If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights. If he will not do these three things for her, then she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.”

These regulations are given as “judgments” (Exodus 21:1, KJV) or mishpatim (~yjPvM), indicating that they compose Pentateuchal case law. There are some translation and textual issues that need to be considered in any interpretation of Exodus 21:7-11. It does concern the selling of a young woman to a family as an intended wife for either the man or for his son (v. 7-9), in a kind of indentured servitude vis-à-vis an arranged marriage for a family that is destitute and needs a daughter provided for. But how this is applied and whether or not polygamy is even a factor are things we must examine carefully.

V. 8a in most Bibles is rendered as “If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself” (NIV). There is a very subtle, yet significant, difference in the reading lo (Al), “for himself,” versus lo (al) or “not,”[21] with only a handful of Hebrew witnesses reading with lo “for himself.”[22] Both sound exactly the same audibly, yet textually the superior reading is lo or “not.” When “not” is recognized as the correct reading, the clause asher-lo ye’adah (Hd[y…al-rva) translates as “so that he does not choose her”[23] or “so that he did not designate her.”[24] The textual issue of v. 8a is important because of what is seen in v. 10, “If he takes to himself another woman…” Because of the man’s rejection of the woman contracted to him (v. 8a), he is now free to take another as his wife (v. 10). No polygamy need be present.

Another issue regards v. 10b, where it is said that the woman rejected may not be refused “conjugal rights” (NASU) or “marital rights” (RSV). Here, it would seem that the woman contracted to him, who he has now rejected and taken another in her place, should still be allowed some sexual pleasuring (perhaps by a male prostitute?) even though she is unmarried! The term onah (hn[) is a difficult one to translate, as BDB simply defines it as “cohabitation.”[25] The challenge with viewing onah this way is that it does not follow the standard Ancient Near Eastern formula of “food, clothing, and ointment”[26] (cf. Hosea 2:8; Ecclesiastes 9:7-9). Sarna notes for us that “Rashbam and Bekhor Shor favor another rendering of ‘onah as ‘dwelling,’ ‘shelter,’ which is supported etymologically by the Hebrew noun ma’on, me’onah, ‘dwelling, habitation.’”[27] Onah does come from the root a-v-n (!W[), a verb form for “dwell” (BDB).[28] So, far be it from the woman being refused “her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights” (NASU)—it would be more akin to “her food, her clothing, or her shelter,” or perhaps even “her oil.”[29] Not providing these things for the woman he rejected, she is then free to leave and cannot be sold by him (v. 11).

Exodus 21:7-11 is not about polygamy; it is about what to do with a woman contracted to a man as his wife, and how he is to properly treat her should she not be what he wants. If he rejects her as a wife, he still has to provide for her basic needs. If he fails to do this or fails to see that she is redeemed (v. 8), she is free to leave ein kesef (@sK !ya). He has to let her go “without any exchange of money” (HCSB).

Leviticus 18:18

“You shall not marry a woman in addition to her sister as a rival while she is alive, to uncover her nakedness.”

Some have seen hints at polygamy in Leviticus 18:18. One way of looking at this is as a prohibition to a man to marry his wife’s sister while the wife is still alive, as the two wives would become rivals and cause chaos in the house. Another view is that this permits a man to take another wife, just one who is not the sister of a man’s first wife while the wife is still alive. The second view permits polygamy.

There is some difficulty with how to understand the phrase ishah el-achotah (Htxa-la hVa), literally meaning “a woman to her sister.” In many cases, this is understood idiomatically as meaning “one woman to another,” with “sister” taking on a more generic sense. While viewing “sister” generically would not be inappropriate elsewhere, Walter C. Kaiser indicates “There is no reference to a relationship by blood in the [various] other”[30] cases where such language is used, unlike in Leviticus 18. Previously in Leviticus 18:16, the Lord decreed “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother's wife; it is your brother's nakedness.” A woman was not permitted to have sexual relations with her brother-in-law, as a part of the prohibitions against incest. Clearly, we have to place Leviticus 18:18 within the scope of the legislation where God demands of Ancient Israel, “not [to] do what is done in the land of Egypt where you lived, nor are you to do what is done in the land of Canaan where I am bringing you; you shall not walk in their statutes” (Leviticus 18:3). Both the Egyptians and the Canaanites were sexually lewd people whose deviant practices—which included polygamy—the Israelites were not to follow.

Kaiser correctly concludes, “The closeness of relationships given in the text would seem to force us to say that the text prohibits…marriage between a man and his sister-in-law (wife’s sister). Leviticus 18:18, then, is a single prohibition against polygamy and abides by the law of incest stated in the same context.”[31] A man is not permitted then, to ever marry his wife’s sister, or for that same matter marry any one of his wife’s “generic sisters” (meaning females in the community) while she is alive. He is only permitted to marry another wife when his current wife is no longer living.

Deuteronomy 21:15-17

“If a man has two wives, the one loved and the other unloved, and both the loved and the unloved have borne him sons, if the firstborn son belongs to the unloved, then it shall be in the day he wills what he has to his sons, he cannot make the son of the loved the firstborn before the son of the unloved, who is the firstborn. But he shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the unloved, by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the beginning of his strength; to him belongs the right of the firstborn.”

Deuteronomy 21:15-17 on the surface, at least to some Bible readers, does appear to reflect a condition of polygamy within Ancient Israel. After all, “If a man has two wives…” (v. 15). But is the context of this passage a man who presently has two wives, one who he loves and one who he does not love? Or is the context of the passage the proper dispensing of inheritance to the firstborn son, perhaps a son born to an unloved wife (v. 17)?

Kaiser indicates that in v. 15 “The Hebrew verb is not so easily translated.”[32] The clause in question opens v. 15, ki tih’yeyna l’ish she’tey nashim (~yvn yTv vyal !yyht-yK), “If a man have two wives” (JBK). The verb tih’yeyna appears in the Qal imperfect tense, which is normally translated as a future tense verb in English,[33] i.e., “If a man will have two wives…” Kaiser goes on to say, “Hebrew is notoriously disinterested in our Western preoccupation with the tense of the verb and time in general.”[34] This means that when one translates the Hebrew Tanach into English, context must always be considered, and value judgments have to be made. So, is Moses issuing a ruling based on whether a man has two wives at the same time, or has had two wives in a sequence, with one dying and being replaced by another?

Ki tih’yeyna l’ish was translated into languages with more specific verb tenses long before English came on the scene. The Greek Septuagint renders v. 15 with clause ean de genōntai (ean de genwntai), meaning “If there have been…” This is similarly followed by the Latin Vulgate’s rendering si habuerit homo or “If a man have had…”[35] These ancient versions reflect a second view that it is not a man who presently has two wives as being the issue, but rather a man who has had two wives throughout the course of his life.

The concern of Deuteronomy 21:15-17 is that proper inheritance is offered to the firstborn son. If the man has had two wives, with one wife dying and him marrying a second time, he cannot disregard children born from his first marriage. He must still consider the firstborn son from his first marriage to be the firstborn son, one who is to be granted a greater share of inheritance. Deuteronomy 21:15-17 cannot be viewed as endorsing any kind of polygamy as that is not the central focus of the text; inheritance is the focus of the text.

2 Samuel 12:7-8

“Nathan then said to David, ‘You are the man! Thus says the Lord God of Israel, “It is I who anointed you king over Israel and it is I who delivered you from the hand of Saul. I also gave you your master's house and your master's wives into your care, and I gave you the house of Israel and Judah; and if that had been too little, I would have added to you many more things like these!”’”

In 2 Samuel 12:7-8, we see a declaration by the Prophet Nathan to King David. The Lord tells King David how He has “anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul” (NIV). He also says, “I gave your master's house to you, and your master's wives into your arms” (NIV) or “possession of your master's wives” (NJPS). Here, some would stop and say that God Himself did not allow, but instead gave, King David the previous King Saul’s multiple wives. So, God must endorse polygamy as a valid practice, at least here for Israel’s monarch.

King Saul only had two wives: Ahinoam (1 Samuel 14:50) and the concubine Rizpah (2 Samuel 3:7). If a Divinely allowed polygamy is considered here, then it is not insignificant for us to note that this Ahinoam was David’s mother-in-law (cf. 1 Samuel 18:20, et. al.). This would have been a form of incest directly condemned by Leviticus 20:14: “If there is a man who marries a woman and her mother, it is immorality; both he and they shall be burned with fire, so that there will be no immorality in your midst.” It is notable that Ahinoam is the name of one of King David’s later wives, but there is a difference between “Ahinoam the daughter of Ahimaaz” (1 Samuel 14:50) and “Ahinoam of Jezreel” (1 Samuel 25:43; 27:3; 30:5; 2 Samuel 2:2; 3:2; 1 Chronicles 3:1) and they are not the same woman.[36]

The difficult phrase to translate appears in v. 8, v’et-nashei adonekha b’cheqekha (^qyxB ^ynda yvn-taw). Here, the imprecision of Hebrew can reflect on interpretation, which has King David practicing incest and hence liable to being burnt alive. Or, “the wives of thy lord, into thy bosom” (YLT) is more akin to “the women of your lord into your care,” as nashei can be rendered as either “wives” or “women.” This would mean, as Kaiser describes, “everything that was Saul’s, including all his female domestics and courtesans, passed over into David’s possession.”[37] 

When the four passages in the Tanach (Exodus 21:7-11; Leviticus 18:18; Deuteronomy 21:15-17; 2 Samuel 12:7-8), which seem to allow for polygamy, are carefully considered—they by no means allow for this aberrant practice. Each one of them has a specific context that reflects a specific situation in the Ancient Near East, and anyone claiming that polygamy is specifically condoned in the Tanach is not guided by the ideal as established in Genesis.

The Tanach’s Testimony on Polygamy:
Was it really worth it?

Even though there is no verse in the Scriptures that would somehow give Divine approval for polygamy, no objective reader denies that it appears in the Tanach. “Indeed, the OT is replete with illustrations of polygamous marriages” (ABD),[38] including men such as: Abraham (Genesis 16; 25:1-2), Jacob (Genesis 29:15-30), Esau (Genesis 26:34; 36:2; 28:9), Gideon (Judges 8:3), Elkanah (1 Samuel 1:2), David (1 Samuel 18:17-30; 25:38-43; 2 Samuel 3:2-5), Solomon (1 Kings 3:1; 11:3), and Rehoboam (2 Chronicles 11:21). One of the obvious errors of those believing that polygamy can, or should, be practiced today is in failing to recognize the types of men who had multiple wives. Both liberal and conservative Biblical scholarship recognize that the examples of polygamy seen in Scripture are limited. The common man simply did not have the financial wherewithal to support multiples wives and families:

“Looking at these lists of polygamists, one is led to the conclusion that polygyny may have been limited to men who occupied leadership positions who were well off, or who had some other claim to distinction…[T]he books of Samuel and Kings record little about any commoner, or the marriage of any commoner” (ABD).[39]

“Polygyny (the practice of having multiple wives) was largely confined to the ruling and upper classes” (ISBE).[40]

Most are in agreement that Genesis 2:24 lays forward the grounds for a proper Biblical marriage, but that does not always mean that the ideal was necessarily followed. In fact, some have attributed polygamy as being one of the reasons that God was required to send the Flood to destroy ancient humanity (Genesis 6:1-7), save Noah—who was monogamous—and his family. Yet we see it revived again in the lives of the Patriarchs Abraham and Jacob, and observed by many of the monarchs of Israel, both of the Northern or Southern Kingdoms. So what happened? Perhaps things were a bit different for those before the formal giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai—after all, Abraham and Jacob could easily have been following Mesopotamian traditions inherited from their homeland in Ur. But after Mount Sinai and the codification of the Torah, surely the understanding that polygamy was not something intended by God was understood?

Many find support for polygamy on the basis of the harsh conditions of the Ancient Near East. “Women’s life expectancy was much shorter than that for men, and pregnancy was among the leading causes of death for Israelite women. In this situation, polygyny became a way to maintain the supply of women in the household as well as to increase its fertility” (EDB).[41] Such a position obviously feeds some kind of male dominance. “Wherever the emphasis of marriage is placed on procreation or the sexual satisfaction of the man, more than likely polygyny will flourish” (ABD).[42] Yet, how frequent was this observed in Ancient Israel given the economic realities for most households? This is where the Scriptures are clear that most polygamists were wealthy men, as opposed to the common man. And today in the Twenty-First Century West, the stark economic reality is that rather than having more children, having less children is more financially feasible for monogamous married couples.[43]

The testimony of Israel’s monarchy leads many to conclude that the practice of polygamy by many of its kings makes it acceptable. As Kaiser observes, “Some will wonder: Why was no punishment inflicted on these polygamists by the government?”[44] The answer is blatantly obvious to anyone who reads through 1&2 Kings or 1&2 Chronicles: the significant majority of Israel’s kings were absolute monarchs who could seldom be reprimanded for any issue. Kaiser continues, “there was censure for this type of adulterous action in the Deluge and in the law of Moses. In addition to this, the narratives of Scripture imply that this state of affairs is the major reason for much of the misfortune that comes into the domestic lives of these polygamists.”[45] It is rightly summarized: “polygyny created problems for Hebrew married life” (ISBE),[46] notably including:

·  Abraham’s and Hagar’s unhappiness (Genesis 21:8-16)
·  Rachel’s bitterness (Genesis 30:15)
·  The death of Gideon’s offspring (Judges 9)
·  Hannah’s anger (1 Samuel 1:6ff)
·  David’s complicity with the death of Bathsheba’s husband (2 Samuel 11)
·  Solomon’s idolatry (1 Kings 11:1-8)[47]

Messianic men today who somehow think that HaShem is restoring polygamy to the Body of Messiah have an immense problem when they encounter Deuteronomy 17:17 in the Torah, where it is said of Israel’s future kings, “He shall not multiply wives for himself, or else his heart will turn away; nor shall he greatly increase silver and gold for himself.” We see specific warnings here that a monarch shall not “acquire many wives for himself” (CJB) nor seek after great wealth. The ArtScroll Chumash commentary on this verse is quite valuable:

“Self-aggrandizement was typical of monarchs…Not so [an Israelite] king…because his glory was the glory of the nation, he was required to maintain the dignity of his office, but he had to curb his appetites and make himself an example of moderation and obedience to the Torah.”[48]

Indeed, this is followed by the instruction, “Now it shall come about when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself a copy of this law on a scroll in the presence of the Levitical priests” (Deuteronomy 17:18). One might say that ha’torah ha’zot (taZh hrATh) could apply to the singular decree for the king not to multiply wives. Yet it is clear that even though Moses issued a direct command against polygamy for Israel’s future monarchs, they did it anyway. Why did they do this? Was it because Deuteronomy became a forgotten book of the Torah, only to be rediscovered during the time of the Josianic reforms (2 Kings 22:3-13; 2 Chronicles 34:9-21)? T.D. Alexander explains,

“It is hardly surprising…that knowledge of the ‘book of the law’ should have been neglected, if not deliberately suppressed, by the Judean and Israelite monarchies. As the book of Kings reveals, the contents of Deuteronomy offer a serious indictment of the practices of many kings. To take but one example, Solomon’s desire for wealth (1 Kings 9:10-10:29), horses from Egypt (1 Kings 10:28-29) and many wives (1 Kings 11:1-8) stands in marked contrast to the advice given in Deuteronomy 17:16-17. Given the overall spiral of spiritual and moral decline that followed on from the reign of Solomon and eventually led to the destruction of the Jerusalem temple by the Babylonians, it is hardly surprising that specific references to the ‘book of the law’ are few and brief.”[49]

The Book of Deuteronomy gives a most serious indictment against the kings of Israel being polygamous and multiplying wives for themselves, something that hit its lowest point in the life of King Solomon. In spite of his wisdom, the post-exilic testimony of Nehemiah 13:26 is that “the foreign women caused even him to sin.” Solomon’s polygamy, and the state-sponsored idolatry that came with it (1 Kings 11:4-7), was a direct cause of the division of Israel into the Northern and Southern Kingdoms (1 Kings 11:31). It is absolutely ridiculous for any “Two-House advocate” to claim that the Lord is restoring polygamy to His people—especially when polygamy was a major cause of the division they are claiming must be repaired!

The only way one can get around Moses’ decree against polygamy in Deuteronomy 17:17 is by resorting to a source critical view of the Pentateuch. Rather than being a product of Mosaic origin, the Torah is only the compilation of the J, E, D, and P sources after the Babylonian exile. Rather than being re-discovered during the time of King Josiah, the critical view holds that the Book of Deuteronomy was a “pious fraud” written by an anonymous “Deuteronomist.” It was “discovered” (actually, found for the first time) during the refurbishment of the Temple, and Deuteronomy’s view against polygamy would thus only be an observation looking back on how the practice brought devastation and gross instability to the people of Israel[50]—rather than Moshe Rabbaenu’s (Eng. Moses our Teacher) future warning. I do not know about you, but I just do not see the Messianic movement shifting itself from adhering to Mosaic authorship of the Torah to the hypothetical sources of JEDP!

When we honestly consider the problems caused by polygamy, and how it does little more than serve the so-called sexual needs of the man, it is clear that HaShem is not in the process of restoring a practice to His people that He never intended! Polygamy was a major cause of Israel’s division and exile. Yet, we do need to consider some of the examples of polygamy as seen in the Tanach, especially as they may be offered as “proof” that the Lord somehow approves of it.

Examples of Polygamy to be Considered: Good or Bad?

The following are some specific individuals from the Tanach that are often provided as examples of why polygamy should be an acceptable practice for Messianic men today. Is it? Given what we have just mentioned about whether or not it was “worth it” for the ancients, it is necessary that we survey a number of the men who had, or are claimed to have had, multiple wives. Take important note of the fact that advocates of polygamy have to provide examples of evil men to support their view that it is acceptable.

Lamech is the first person we see in the Bible who was polygamous. “Lamech took to himself two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other, Zillah” (Genesis 4:19). Lamech is a poor figure, however, to appeal to for the value of polygamy. He is one who is a boastful speaker and vengeful, who says “For I have killed a man for wounding me; and a boy for striking me; if Cain is avenged sevenfold, then Lamech seventy-sevenfold” (Genesis 4:23b-24). He compares himself as being greater than Cain, the first murderer (Genesis 4:8). Lamech’s son, Tubal-cain, was responsible for forging instruments of bronze and iron (Genesis 4:22), arguably some of the first weapons of war. Lamech is a figure associated with violence who we should not be emulating, having set his lot with Cain.

It also behooves us to take a look at one of the Rabbinic views of who Lamech was to his two wives: “[he] would take two wives, one to bear children and the other for pleasure. The latter was meant not to have children and would be pampered like a bride, while the former would be bereft of companionship, and left mourning like a widow throughout her life.”[51] This is exactly the kind of situation that polygamous marriages often end up demonstrating: a husband will have to pick which wife he favors and which wife he does not favor. Should we be following after a man who likened himself as greater than Cain?[52]

Abraham, because of being credited as the father of faith (Romans 4:16), is widely considered by polygamists today to be the example of the appropriate polygamist to emulate. Abram was the husband of Sarai, originating from Ur in Mesopotamia (Genesis 11:29). Was he a polygamist? This is a hasty conclusion drawn by people who while rightly noting Abraham’s trust in God’s promises (Genesis 15:6), fail to note Abraham’s mistakes as a human being. His wife Sarah was barren and could not have a child (Genesis 16:1-2), and so she gave Abraham her handmaiden Hagar: “Abram's wife Sarai took Hagar the Egyptian, her maid, and gave her to her husband Abram as his wife” (Genesis 16:3). It is debated whether the clause lo l’ishah (hVal Al) represents “for him, for a wife/woman,” or “as [a] concubine” (NJPS). But what is not debated is that in giving Hagar to Abraham, Sarah is employing pagan practices from Mesopotamia. Sarna details,

“The custom of an infertile wife providing her husband with a concubine in order to bear children is well documented in the ancient Near East. The laws of Lipit-Ishtar (early 19th cent. B.C.E.) deal with the case of a harlot who produces children for the husband of a barren wife; these become the heirs. An Old Assyrian marriage contract (19th cent. B.C.E.) stipulates that if the wife does not provide him with offspring within two years she must purchase a slave woman for the purpose.”[53]

The results of what transpire immediately after Hagar conceives speak for themselves. “[W]hen she [Sarah] saw that she [Hagar] had conceived, her mistress was despised in her sight” (Genesis 16:4b). Sarah was not happy at what had happened, actually telling Abraham, “May the wrong done me be upon you. I gave my maid into your arms, but when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in her sight” (Genesis 16:5a). Sarah is completely distraught at the conception of the yet-to-be-born Ishmael, and so God Himself must send an angel to reassure her that her own descendants will be quite numerous (Genesis 16:10). Serious problems were caused by Abraham and Sarah thinking that they could “help God,” rather than waiting on Him and conceiving naturally as was done in the case of Isaac (Genesis 18:1-15; 21:1-7; cf. Hebrews 11:11-12).

The Apostle Paul uses the comparison of Hagar’s child and Sarah’s child in his letter to the Galatians, saying “the son by the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise” (Galatians 4:23). The Galatians were to be children of the free woman, the Heavenly Jerusalem (Galatians 4:25), as God’s process of salvation history had progressed forward to the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34; cf. Hebrews 8:8-12) as the previous covenant had devolved (not because it was “bad” nor on its own) into a system of improper proselytic circumcision—often prioritized before faith in God—for covenant inclusion (Galatians 5:2-3).[54] In Paul’s mind Abraham’s sexual bond with Hagar and the resultant Ishmael was kata sarka (kata sarka) or “according to flesh,” compared to Abraham’s wife Sarah and their son Isaac who was di’ epaggelias (di epaggeliaß) or “through promise.” The Galatians were in danger of embracing a similar mistake.[55]

Trying to do anything without steadfast trust in God will bring problems, and both Hagar and Ishmael ultimately have to be sent away (Genesis 21:10-21). This shows that Abraham’s bond with Hagar was not as her husband, but instead ishah is rightfully extrapolated as a “woman” akin to “concubine.” Abraham maintained a monogamous relationship with Sarah until her death (Genesis 23), and is said to have later taken a wife named Keturah with whom he had six sons (Genesis 25:1-2). Genesis 25:6 makes a reference “to the sons of his concubines, Abraham gave gifts while he was still living, and sent them away from his son Isaac eastward, to the land of the east,” speaking of b’nei ha’pilagshim (~yvglyPh ynb) or “sons by concubines” (NJPS). Some assume that these are additional women, but Jewish interpreters view these as the sons born of Keturah and/or Hagar,[56] and their descendants (cf. Genesis 25:3-4).

We cannot forget that when dealing with the early chapters of Genesis, especially the Patriarchal narratives, that Abraham was the first Hebrew (Genesis 14:13) to cross over into the new destiny that God had set for him. He was leaving behind a different way of life in Mesopotamia, and entering into a new way that God would show him. Yet as can be easily seen by Sarah giving Hagar to her husband, there were still some of the old ways that they practiced—and that they reaped the consequences from following. Abraham may have joined with Hagar, but it was by no means a good thing that Messianics should follow today! (This is only intensified by us realizing that Ishmael’s descendants largely became the Arab Muslims that want Israel and the West destroyed today.)

Isaac is notably absent from the list of those who would be considered polygamous, or having flirted with any kind of concubine (Genesis 24), but his son Jacob was not immune from this. At the insistence of his mother Rebekah, Jacob flees the wrath of his brother Esau by going to Haran, to his uncle Laban (Genesis 27:41-45). He is specifically instructed from his mother and father not to take a wife from among the locals, but instead to return to the ancestral home country to find a wife (Genesis 27:46-28:2). As he makes his way to Laban, he is smitten by Laban’s daughter Rachel, agreeing to work seven years so he may be her husband (Genesis 29:11, 18). Rachel was the younger of Laban’s two daughters (Genesis 29:16-17).

When the seven years have expired and the time comes for the wedding, “Laban gathered all the men of the place and made a feast” (Genesis 29:22). In the midst of what was sure to be some heavy drinking, “in the evening he took his daughter Leah, and brought her to him; and Jacob went in to her” (Genesis 29:23). Jacob is stunned the following morning that it was Leah, and not Rachel, with whom he had sexual relations, and he confronts Laban: “What is this you have done to me? Was it not for Rachel that I served with you? Why then have you deceived me?” (Genesis 29:25). Laban broke the agreement for Jacob serving to marry the younger Rachel. Laban’s response cannot be under-emphasized if we are to understand Jacob’s polygamy properly:

“It is not the practice in our place to marry off the younger before the firstborn” (Genesis 29:26).

While it is clear that Laban deceived Jacob in sending the undesirable Leah to him, Laban says lo ye’aseh ken b’meqomenu (WnmAqmB !k hf[y-al): “It is not done so in our place” (YLT). Laban broke the agreement he made with Jacob by subjecting him to local Mesopotamian customs. IVPBBC indicates, “It is the practice of people of the ancient Near East…for the oldest daughter to be married first.”[57] And so what does Jacob do? He contracts with Laban for another seven years so he can marry Rachel (Genesis 29:27-30). The scene that is depicted is, “the Lord saw that Leah was unloved, and He opened her womb, but Rachel was barren” (Genesis 29:31). Leah’s having children should have caused Jacob to love her (cf. Genesis 29:32), versus the wife he wanted in Rachel. And not only does Jacob gain children from Leah (Genesis 29:32-35; 30:16-21), but also from the her handmaiden Zilpah (Genesis 30:9-13) and Rachel’s handmaiden Bilhah (Genesis 30:1-8). Leah and Rachel giving Jacob their respective handmaids was no different than Sarah giving Hagar to Abraham, as the family is still observing some pagan Mesopotamian customs.

The scene of Jacob’s family depicts that Rachel and Leah argue with one another. Rachel asks Leah, “‘Please give me some of your son's mandrakes.’ But she said to her, ‘Is it a small matter for you to take my husband? And would you take my son's mandrakes also?’ So Rachel said, ‘Therefore he may lie with you tonight in return for your son's mandrakes’” (Genesis 30:14-15). Here, we can see the rivalry between the two wives of Jacob not only among two sub-families—but over “mandrakes” (Heb. dudaim, ~yadWd)[58] which made up an ancient aphrodisiac! Rachel is remembered by God and He allows her to conceive (Genesis 30:22-24), although she later dies after giving birth to Benjamin (Genesis 35:16-18).

It is commonly argued by Messianic polygamists that since it is quite obvious that the Twelve Tribes of Israel were descended from children of a plural marriage relationship that Jacob had with two wives, in addition to two concubines, that it should be acceptable for today. But was Jacob’s family the ideal for any of us to emulate? Consider the fact that Joseph, the first son of Rachel, became Jacob’s favorite (Genesis 37:3). And also consider the intense jealousy that Joseph’s brothers bore toward him by selling him into slavery (Genesis 37:18-35). Is the ideal “Israelite family” one where the siblings, born from different mothers, plot against one another? Keep in mind that the reason the Lord chose Israel was because “you were the fewest of all peoples” (Deuteronomy 7:7). Is this because they were just a small people, or because their character traits epitomized a fallen humanity that needed to be redeemed? The Patriarch Jacob may have been the progenitor of the Twelve Tribes, but he was still a human being who made mistakes.

Jacob’s brother Esau was also a polygamist, but by no means should he be considered the ideal person to emulate. “When Esau was forty years old he married Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Basemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite” (Genesis 26:34). This is followed by the summarizing remark, “and they brought grief to Isaac and Rebekah” (Genesis 26:35). Esau was a largely independent man, against the wishes of his parents, being one who “made life bitter” (RSV) for them. Because Esau married some of the local women, Rebekah tells Isaac, “if Jacob takes a wife from the daughters of Heth, like these, from the daughters of the land, what good will my life be to me?” (Genesis 27:46). And later we see that Esau took more wives into his herem: “Adah the daughter of Elon the Hittite, and Oholibamah the daughter of Anah and the granddaughter of Zibeon the Hivite; also Basemath, Ishmael's daughter, the sister of Nebaioth” (Genesis 36:2-3). The polygamy of Esau was not something that made his parents very happy.

The figure of Judah, who would sire the most prominent of the Twelve Tribes of Israel, is sometimes offered as an example of a polygamist, when this is really not the case, although his situation does need to be evaluated. Judah took a Canaanite woman named Shua as his wife, with whom he had three sons: Er, Onan, and Shelah (Genesis 38:1-5). Er’s wife was Tamar, although he died young (Genesis 38:7). Not performing the ritual of the levirate marriage he had agreed to, Onan also died (Genesis 38:8-10).[59] Tamar agrees to continue to live in the house of Judah, so she can be married to the youngest son Shelah when he is mature (Genesis 38:11). Judah’s own wife Shua dies, somehow concurring with the season of sheep-shearing (Genesis 38:12-13).

It was at this time when Tamar notices that even though Shelah has grown up, he has not yet been given to her, so she takes off her widow’s garments (Genesis 38:14). Judah encounters her, and “he thought she was a harlot, for she had covered her face” (Genesis 38:15). And so what does Judah do? He contracts to spend the night with Tamar—thinking she was a prostitute—giving her his seal and staff. Sleeping with his daughter-in-law that night, Tamar is impregnated (Genesis 38:17-18). Later he is unable to find this prostitute, because Tamar changes back into her widow’s garments (Genesis 38:19). Judah inquires of his friends as to where the qadesh (vdq) or “temple prostitute” (Genesis 38:21-22) had gone.

Three months later Judah is informed that his daughter-in-law Tamar “has played the harlot, and behold, she is also with child by harlotry.” Judah’s response to this is straightforward: “Bring her out and let her be burned!” (Genesis 38:24). And so what does Tamar do? “I am with child by the man to whom these things belong…Please examine and see, whose signet ring and cords and staff are these?” (Genesis 38:25). We see that Judah recognizes these as his own, and he can do nothing more than say “She is more righteous than I, inasmuch as I did not give her to my son Shelah” (Genesis 38:26). Judah never had relations with Tamar again, and she gives birth to the twins Perez and Zerah (Genesis 38:27-30).

Judah is not a figure who was in a polygamous marriage relationship, but he was hypocritical in consorting with a prostitute later discovered to be his own daughter-in-law. Judah made a very foolish mistake in wanting his sexual appetites appeased for one night, unknowingly giving Tamar his seal and staff. In the end, though, when he was confronted with his sin he recognized that he had done wrong. The example of Judah is present in Scripture so none of us ever has to repeat such a mistake.

The life of Moses is very interesting for us to consider, especially when we weigh in the fact that Moses spent a considerable time of his early life as a prince of Egypt. Many Messianics consider Moses to be a figure worthy of emulation, and advocates of polygamy often claim that Moses had multiple wives. The testimony of Exodus 2:21 is that the Midianite Jethro “gave his daughter Zipporah to Moses.” All are agreed that Moses had at least one wife.

Moses’ life in Egypt prior to him finding out that he was a Hebrew (cf. Exodus 2:13-15) is a period that is left quite vague in the Scriptures. The author of Hebrews gives us a few clues as to what Moses’ Egyptian life might have been like, looking back on it and asserting, “He chose to be mistreated along with the people of God rather than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a short time. He regarded disgrace for the sake of Christ as of greater value than the treasures of Egypt, because he was looking ahead to his reward” (Hebrews 11:25-26, NIV). Egypt here is associated with “the fleeting pleasures of sin” (RSV). There is every reason for us to believe that Moses did have a “pre-Israelite” life of sin as an Egyptian—his experiences prior to meeting the Lord at the burning bush. One of the experiences could very well have been having a wife prior to Zipporah. The Jewish historian Josephus records how Moses, as an Egyptian warrior, was wed to an Ethiopian princess named Tharbis:

“Tharbis was the daughter of the king of the Ethiopians; she happened to see Moses as he led the army near the walls, and fought with great courage; and admiring the subtilty of his undertakings, and believing him to be the author of the Egyptians' success, when they had before despaired of recovering their liberty, and to be the occasion of the great danger the Ethiopians were in, when they had before boasted of their great achievements, she fell deeply in love with him; and upon the prevalence of that passion, sent to him the most faithful of all her servants to discourse with him about their marriage. He thereupon accepted the offer, on condition she would procure the delivering up of the city; and gave her the assurance of an oath to take her to his wife; and that when he had once taken possession of the city, he would not break his oath to her. No sooner was the agreement made, but it took effect immediately; and when Moses had cut off the Ethiopians, he gave thanks to God, and consummated his marriage, and led the Egyptians back to their own land” (Antiquities of the Jews 2.252-253).[60]

There is no difficulty in recognizing that Moses could have had a wife prior to Zipporah; the difficulty is in recognizing what Moses’ flight from Egypt did to that marriage. After killing the Egyptian, “When Pharaoh heard of this matter, he tried to kill Moses. But Moses fled from the presence of Pharaoh and settled in the land of Midian…” (Exodus 2:15). We can safely assume that when Moses had fled Egypt that all of his property in Egypt was confiscated, and his position in the royal court—including any marriages he had—were also nullified. Moses, the Egyptian who discovered he was a Hebrew, quickly became persona non grata after having left. Moses as a wealthy and ambitious Egyptian prince or noble could have easily gotten away with killing as many Egyptian taskmasters as he wanted, but the fact that he was a Hebrew changed everything for him and the previous relationship to whatever previous wife he had before Zipporah.

Moving ahead to the wilderness trek of Ancient Israel, some find evidence for Moses being a polygamist in the words of Numbers 12:1: “Then Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom he had married (for he had married a Cushite woman).” Some consider this ha’ishah ha’Kushit (tyvKh hVah) to be another woman independent of Zipporah, but since no proper name is mentioned we have to consider some possible background issues. Jewish and Christian commentators are largely agreed that this Cushite woman is, in fact, Zipporah, and Miriam and Aaron are criticizing their brother for marrying a foreigner as leader of Israel. J.H. Hertz notes that this is “Probably Zipporah, a native of Midian, which is a synonym of Cushan.”[61] J.A. Thompson concurs, “the reference may even be to Zipporah, who was, of course, a Midianitess…for Midian and Cushan are linked.”[62] The linking together of Midian and Cushan is seen in Habakkuk 3:7:

“I saw the tents of Cushan under distress, the tent curtains of the land of Midian were trembling.”

J.K. Hoffmeier indicates, “‘Cushan’ and ‘Midian’ occur in parallelism, which suggests that the terms could be synonyms. Since the peoples of Nubia and Ethiopia were black-skinned, possibly the term was applied to other darker-skinned nomadic peoples like the Midianites. Therefore the ‘Cushite’ woman…could well have been the Midianite Zipporah” (ISBE).[63] Hertz does not hide the fact that others have taken “the Cushite woman” to be another wife of Moses, but the problem with this view, as he states, is “Further details are not given, which fact led legend to step in and fill the gap…”[64] So, any claims that Moses had multiple wives at the same time can be seriously challenged, and there is no conclusive evidence that Moses was polygamous.

The judge Gideon is sometimes offered by advocates of polygamy as being someone worthy of emulation, especially as he is considered to be an example of faith due some kind of attention (Hebrews 11:32). Judges 8:30 summarizes, “Now Gideon had seventy sons who were his direct descendants, for he had many wives” or nashim rabot (tABr ~yvn). Gideon also had a concubine (Judges 8:31). So again, what is the problem? Perhaps we need to consider the major theme of the Book of Judges, here: “[E]very man did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 17:6; 21:25). This is something that influences almost everything one reads in Judges, and should not be underemphasized.[65]

Gideon’s life was a very interesting one, as he often tested the Lord to make sure that He really was present. Prior to an engagement with the Midianites and other eastern peoples in the Valley of Jezreel, Gideon placed a wool fleece on a threshing floor, requesting “confirmation” of the Lord by it being wet (Judges 6:36-38). The next day after the Lord had allowed the fleece to be wet, Gideon asked that the Lord make the fleece be dry (Judges 6:39-40). It is debated among interpreters whether Gideon tested God or not, demonstrating a lack of faith. It is clear that Gideon had doubts, and the incident of the fleece has since passed into the vernacular as a person requiring a specific “sign” of God before making a decision on something.

Gideon was successful in the military battle (Judges 7), saving the struggling and disparate nation of Israel from cultural extermination. At the same time, though, it is also likely that after the Midianites were defeated and then pursued by Gideon, that he had a personal vendetta to finish. He tells the fleeing Midianite leaders, “What kind of men were they whom you killed at Tabor?...They were my brothers, the sons of my mother…” (Judges 8:18-19). P.E. Satterthwaite remarks, “Gideon’s sole concern has not been God’s glory or Israel’s deliverance; he also has been avenging a private grievance. There is no reference to God’s involvement in any of these events.”[66] Subsequently, this includes Gideon’s later erection of an ephod emphasizing his own authority (Judges 8:24-28), not that much different than the golden calf (Exodus 32:2-4). When Gideon dies, Israel returns to its syncretistic form of Baal worship (Judges 8:33). There is no reason for us to doubt that Gideon’s polygamy was connected with the spiraling down of Israel’s religious environment. In fact, in later life Gideon was known by the name of Jerubbaal (Judges 8:35).

The result of Gideon having many sons from many wives is evident in Judges 9. Gideon’s successor, Abimelech, goes to his mother’s family in Shechem, saying “Which is better for you, that seventy men, all the sons of Jerubbaal, rule over you, or that one man rule over you?” (Judges 9:2). Abimelech, the ambitious leader that he is, sees to it that his own siblings are eliminated. “[H]e went to his father's house at Ophrah and killed his brothers the sons of Jerubbaal, seventy men, on one stone” (Judges 9:5). It should be no surprise that Sattherwaite can conclude,

“Gideon’s legacy is negative: he has encouraged an idolatrous cult, and he has acted like a king in all but name. His son Abimelech follows these paths to their logical conclusion: he is an idolater whose rise to power is supported by the shrine of Baal-Berith (Judg 9:4), and his life reflects all the worst aspects of monarchy—murderous family intrigues and the destructive and vindictive abuse of power (Judg 9:5, 34-52).”[67]

So should Gideon’s polygamy be something that is followed by Messianics today? Only if we want one son arising who kills the other sons once the father is dead.

Elkanah, the father of the Prophet Samuel, is attested as having two wives: “He had two wives: the name of one was Hannah and the name of the other Peninnah; and Peninnah had children, but Hannah had no children” (1 Samuel 1:2). To some degree or another, he was faithful to the Lord, going up to sacrifice to Him at Shiloh (1 Samuel 1:3), giving portions to Penninah and her children (1 Samuel 1:4). But to Hannah “he would give a double portion, for he loved Hannah” (1 Samuel 1:5). And what did this do to their household? “Her rival, however, would provoke her bitterly to irritate her” (1 Samuel 1:6a), as Penninah was actually referred to as the tzarah (hrc)[68] of Hannah, rendered by the KJV as “her adversary.” This is once again a good indication that Elkanah’s household was not a place of great peace and tranquility. Hannah urgently desired a son to please her husband (1 Samuel 1:9-11), and likely also to stop the taunting of Penninah toward her barrenness. Hannah only received Samuel when she pledged him to the Lord’s service (1 Samuel 1:19-22). Even while Elkanah is not depicted as an evil man, polygamy forced him to favor one wife over another, and his two wives were not friendly toward one another.

The first monarch of Israel, King Saul, was a polygamist to some degree. His wife was Ahinoam daughter of Ahimaaz, who bore him five children: Jonathan, Ishvi, Malchi-shua, Merab, and Michal (1 Samuel 14:49-50). King Saul also had a concubine, Rizpah, who bore him the sons Armoni and (another) Mephibosheth (2 Samuel 21:8). While King Saul was never censored for having this concubine, his administration was not known for his great wisdom and he is testified as having disobeyed the Lord. Saul had the responsibility given to him to transfer Israel from being a loose confederation of tribes to an organized state with a central military (cf. 1 Samuel 14:52), a real power in the region. Saul’s reign as king did see a number of military victories (1 Samuel 11:1-11; 13:23-14:23), but he was also rebuked by the Prophet Samuel for not obeying the Lord in the matter of attacking Gilgal (1 Samuel 13:1-15; 15). Samuel specifically told Saul, “your kingdom shall not endure. The Lord has sought out for Himself a man after His own heart, and the Lord has appointed him as ruler over His people, because you have not kept what the Lord commanded you” (1 Samuel 13:14). We now know this person to be David, with whom Saul frequently fought (1 Samuel 18-24; 26-27).

Whether or not King Saul is a proper man to emulate could ultimately be determined by the circumstances surrounding his death. We see from very early on that “an evil spirit from the Lord terrorized him” (1 Samuel 16:14), meaning that he was open to demonic forces. Before his last engagement, it is recorded that “Saul had removed from the land those who were mediums and spiritists” (1 Samuel 28:3; cf. Leviticus 20:27; Deuteronomy 18:11). Yet in spite of this, what does Saul do? When he sees the Philistine army, he seeks out a medium so that he may call up Samuel from Sheol (1 Samuel 28:11). The king of Israel who had routed out all of the necromancers, actually swore by the Lord to the witch of Endor, “As the Lord lives, no punishment shall come upon you for this thing” (1 Samuel 28:10). When the ghost of Samuel appears, it tells Saul that he and his sons will be joining him in Sheol the following day, and the Philistines will achieve victory (1 Samuel 28:13-19).

The common argument would be that King Saul as the monarch of Israel had important sexual “needs” that had to be fulfilled—and that is why he had a concubine. But King Saul would be a poor man to emulate in any capacity as some kind of “spiritual giant.” King Saul made foolish decisions as Israel’s monarch that led to his dynasty stopping with himself.

King David is a much more complicated story than his predecessor. David is touted in Scripture as being a man after God’s own heart (1 Samuel 13:14), yet the Biblical record is clear that he practiced polygamy. What are we to do about this? Messianic advocates of polygamy being practiced today think that the example of King David closes the deal, and that monogamy is not necessarily always the best. But we need to carefully examine the homelife of King David’s family to see if polygamy for him indeed was the best, and what resulted of his many unions is something that we should want.

David’s first wife was Michal, the daughter of King Saul (1 Samuel 18:27). During the conflict between the House of Saul and the House of David, David acquired six wives: Ahinoam, Abigail, Maacah, Haggith, Abital, and Eglah (2 Samuel 3:2-5). Bathsheba also became David’s wife after the affair that he had with her, and the subsequent death of her husband Uriah (2 Samuel 11). David also had ten concubines within the royal house (2 Samuel 15:16). Obviously, as a monarch who had achieved some military exploits, David had the financial means to support multiple families. But, one would also think that with multiple wives David would not have needed to have had an affair with Bathsheba, something thoroughly rebuked by the Prophet Nathan (2 Samuel 12:1-14), especially for David’s order regarding the death of her husband Uriah (2 Samuel 11:14-24). It is not unfair to say that David had a sexual problem, perhaps best seen in his confessions in Psalm 51, composed shortly after being confronted with his sin:

“For the choir director. A Psalm of David, when Nathan the prophet came to him, after he had gone in to Bathsheba. Be gracious to me, O God, according to Your lovingkindness; according to the greatness of Your compassion blot out my transgressions. Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin. For I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me. Against You, You only, I have sinned and done what is evil in Your sight, so that You are justified when You speak and blameless when You judge. Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me. Behold, You desire truth in the innermost being, and in the hidden part You will make me know wisdom. Purify me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. Make me to hear joy and gladness, let the bones which You have broken rejoice. Hide Your face from my sins and blot out all my iniquities. Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me. Do not cast me away from Your presence and do not take Your Holy Spirit from me. Restore to me the joy of Your salvation and sustain me with a willing spirit. Then I will teach transgressors Your ways, and sinners will be converted to You. Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, the God of my salvation; then my tongue will joyfully sing of Your righteousness. O Lord, open my lips, that my mouth may declare Your praise. For You do not delight in sacrifice, otherwise I would give it; You are not pleased with burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and a contrite heart, O God, You will not despise. By Your favor do good to Zion; build the walls of Jerusalem. Then You will delight in righteous sacrifices, in burnt offering and whole burnt offering; then young bulls will be offered on Your altar” (Psalm 51).

Psalm 51 is an excellent testimony to the kinds of problems that polygamy will entail. Here, after his affair with Bathsheba—which seemingly would not have been necessary if he already had a harem of wives to choose from—David must entreat the Lord. He cries out to Him, “Don't thrust me away from your presence, don't take your Ruach Kodesh away from me” (CJB). He was very much afraid that God would stop demonstrating His favor upon him for this sin. We do know that the child conceived by this affair dies (2 Samuel 12:15-23). The sin of having Bathsheba’s husband Uriah being put on the front lines to die is a stain on King David remembered long after his own death (1 Kings 15:5).

Like those who had practiced polygamy before him, David’s household had some extreme problems. Amnon was the crown prince of David, and son of his wife Ahinoam (2 Samuel 3:2). He had fallen in love with his half-sister, Tamar, daughter of David’s wife Maacah and full-brother of Absalom (2 Samuel 3:3). 2 Samuel 13:1-14 records a scene of seduction and rape, where Amnon acts like he is sick, and Tamar comes into his bedroom with the cakes she has made. He demands that she have intercourse with him, and Tamar exclaims, “No, my brother, do not violate me, for such a thing is not done in Israel; do not do this disgraceful thing!” (2 Samuel 13:12). Tamar is then raped, and Amnon hates Tamar for not returning his love, sending her away (2 Samuel 13:13-19).

Absalom discovers what has happened, trying to reassure his full-sister (2 Samuel 13:20). King David hears of this, and is obviously not happy (2 Samuel 13:21). A strong hatred erupts between Absalom and Amnon over the rape of Tamar (2 Samuel 13:22). Two years later, we see that while Absalom and Amnon are alone with the sheepshearers, that Absalom instructs his servants to kill Amnon when he is drunk (2 Samuel 13:23-29). It is reported back to King David, “Absalom has struck down all the king’s sons, and not one of them is left” (2 Samuel 13:30), then specified to only be Amnon in retribution for Tamar’s rape (2 Samuel 13:33). Absalom flees to Geshur, and King David desires some kind of restitution with his son (2 Samuel 13:34-49). Later, this leads to an insurrection against King David by Absalom, with David and his court actually having to flee Jerusalem. Absalom ultimately does end up dead with the rebellion quelled (2 Samuel 15-18).

When we consider not only the rivalry that ensued from the sub-families of King David, but also the civil war that he fought against his own son Absalom, is polygamy something that really benefited him? Perhaps the testimony of Shimei should not be so easily dismissed: “The