|

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
|