Polygamist of the Old Testament

[Guest shiloh357]

And within the Scriptures there are many cases of recorded of one having multiple wives with no recorded trouble. You are presenting as you so eloquently stated: "an argument from silence, at best; conjecture at worst. We don't know either way..."

But I am not making an argument from silence. God may not outright call polygamy a sin, but He gives us ample examples of problems that polygomy breeds. He does not need to trot out EVERY polygomous marriage before us to make that point.

The fact is, God does not show us ANY happy polygomous marriages. He does not give us a equal number of examples of polygomous arrangements and demonstrate that He has blessed such arrangements. In EVERY single case where we are allowed to "behind the veil" we find nothing but strife and problems. We do not find the same degree of exclusivity with monogamous arrangements.

Within a given church, it is not the ones who are happily married that we hear the most about. It is the troubled relationships that we hear the most about. So too is true of the Scriptures, for these things are presented in so that we might learn from them. Relatively, there is only a handful of polygamist relationships in which we read of trouble. I am confident that there were literally thousands of such relationships. Perhaps many in which there was no trouble.

Like I said, we find with polygamist marriages NOTHING but trouble. We do not find monogamous marriages only being trotted out when there are problems.

My view is in accord with not only the pshat, but also remetz. I do not put much stock in drash and sod, for I do not care to allegorize or mysticize the text. Is there some to be gleaned through drash and sod? Yes. However it must remain in accord with the pshat reading.

When working with cults and the doctrines thereof: The commonality between almost every single one of them, was that they would use drash and sod to interpret the text to the point of overthrowing the plain and simple reading. Drash and sod must remain in accord with the pshat reading.

Drash and sod do not amount to allegorizing or mysticizing. There may be some who use it that way, but Drash applies to pracitcal application in the sense of the lesson learned from the text, and sod applies to the deeper spiritual application, not mysticising.

It could also be said that you are attempting to apply drash here above and beyond the pshat reading. Drash can not be used to supercede the pshat, not of the verse, nor of the surrounding context.

No, the problem starts with the fact that I don't agree with what you think the pshat is in the first place, and therefore, my application of drash is based on what I perceive to be a more accurate pshat.

Let me ask you a point blank question: Do you interpret Deuteronomy 17:17A as meaning that a king is to have only 'one' wife?

Yes.

Further: If one interprets it in that manner would it be a fair statement to say that any king who took more than one wife was acting in a manner that was not in accord with the 'Instruction' Torah?

He is out of step with God's will for marriage.

Alright, once again let's examine the simple text:

[Deut 17:16] Devarim YZ:YV raq lo' yarbeh_lo susim

[Deut 17:17] Devarim YZ:YZ ve lo' yarbeh_lo nashim

Here is a very simple rendering so it is relatively easy for everyone here to see:

Deut 17:16 Only not have many horses

Deut 17:17 And not have many wives

To insist that Deuteronomy 17:17A means only 'one' wife, so also we must insist that a king may only have one horse.

Wrong. There is one glaring problem here. God had already established His plan for marriage. From the beginning it was very simple: One man marries one woman, and they stay married until they die. That is God's ideal plan. So, since God is the ultimate, overarching author, then it only follows that implicit in the commandment not multiply wives is that the King is to follow God's plan for marriage. That supercedes the verb construction. The intent of the author is what we want to glean, and that requires MORE than just looking at the Hebrew. Hebrew is important, but it is not the most important part of the interpretative process. If we did not know what God's plan for marriage was, then you might have a point. His commandment against multiplying wives needs to be understood within the context of what God created marriage to look like.

The intent of the author with respect to horses and money pertained to the king not putting his faith in either riches or his own power/strength. One of the distinctives of ancient Israel is that their armies did not go to war with chariots and horses. They were to trust in the Lord for the victory. Going to war on foot against an army of men with horses, heavy cavalry and chariots would put foot soldiers at a great disadvantage, but that is how God proved that it was He that gave Israel the victory.

In summation: It is impossible to imply that Deuteronomy 17:17A is intended to refer to 'one' wife.

Wrong.

Further: To do so implies that the Kings of Judah and Israel, who wrote a copy of the Scroll for themselves, did not understand their own language and that each of them who took more than 'one' wife did so in direct contradiction to the Instruction Torah.

I am not implying it at all. I am stating it outright.

[damo1]

Was polygamy permitted in the OT or mercifully not dealt with by Jehovah?

damo1

it was permitted but jesus dealt with that when he was nailed on the cross thats the way i see it even though in some countrys its practised and in the muslim country its acceptable

i looked at king david samuel and job and abraham and see that god did not lift his hand of them

but as i read threw the new testamont i see that the laws wear a little diffrent compared to the laws layed out in the old testamont

the mormans to this day believe its off god and say its healthy for a man to marry as many wifes as he wants to

though this is what puzzled me as i was going threw leviticus and trying to see for my self weather their was such a law allowing a man to marry as many wifes as he pleases and this is what i found

Leviticus 20

14 if a man marries a women and her mother it is wickedness they shall be burned with fire both he and they that there may be no wickedness among you

Leviticus 21

10 if he takes another wife he shall not diminish her food her clothing and her marraige rights

this is what i have come across nothing saying god was against this other wise it would be hear and god help me i cant find this in the old testamont so is their some were else i too should be looking ?

but this is what i have found concerning this

in social anthropology polygamy is the practise of marraige to more than one spouce historically polygamy has been practised as polygyny { one man having more than one wife } or as polyandry { one women having more than one husband } or less commonly as polygamy { one person having many wifes and many husbands at the same time }

in contrast monogamy is the practise of each person having one spouce

so when looking at polygamy one needs to look at the history and the other terms of polygamy i stated like polygyny and polyandry were one women can have many husbands

Exodus 21 - 10 which states that multiple marraiges are not to diminish the statues of the first wife

Deuteronomy 21 15 - 17 which states that a man must award the inheritance due to the first born son to the son who was actualy born first even if he hates that sons mother and likes another wife more

Deuteronomy 17 - 17 which states the king shall not have too many wifes one source of polygamy was the practise of levirate marraige where a man was required to marry and support his deceased brothers widow as mandated by

Deutoronomy 25 5 - 10 all of those instances of polygamy are very narrow cases rather than genral rules

Exodus 21 - 1o speaks of jewish concubines

Deuteronomy 21 15 - 17 speaks of the children of a hated wife implying she is divorced the kings behavior is condemned by the prophet samuel in 1 samuel 8

in the modern day Rabbinic Judaism has out lawed polygamy Ashenazi Jews have followed Rabbenu Gershoms ban since the 11th centuary some Sephardi and Mizriah Jews from yemen and iran discontinued polygamy much more recently as they immigrated to other countrys where it was forbiden

the state of israel has severely limited the jews to enter polygamy marraiges but instituted provisions for existing polygamys families immigrating from countries where the practise was legal

you just cant have this answer propped up and have an honest answer as to this day as i said its stil practised in countries were its accepted

i was given foot notes by a friend of mine as i was realy intrested in this my self as if i were alive in the time david and samuel and abraham wear i would also have had more than one wife but i am happy having one wife that is enough for me

hope this helps

from damo

[Guest LadyC]

As the OP set the subject in the patriarchal period, everyone to my knowledge and memory say they are not advocating it for today. Is that merely because it is illegal in Western culture? Or do you think the liberation of women to a higher equality in society changes that practice? Which would create the natural question is polygamy downgrading to women? If that is so, wouldn't that make it sinful both today and yesterday?

in the ancient days, polygamy was permitted for the protection and provision of women. without a husband, a woman who had no father or sons to support her was left to her own devices... and there weren't many options available to them. it's not like they could run down to the welfare office, or like they could go get a job to pay their own rent. plus, women generally outnumber men from birth... and even more so once men were of age to fight in battle, or even to go out and do the hunting, work the fields, tend the flocks, exposing themselves to danger from predatory animals and such.

in many countries, that is still pretty much the case. women still outnumber men, women aren't typically able to support themselves, and the death rate among men is probably much higher than in women.

so in such a culture do i think it is demeaning to the woman to be one of many wives? not really. i think it is more demeaning to a woman to have no husband and have to scrounge for scraps of food, or to resort to prostitution.

i have absolutely no problem with other countries allowing the practice of polygamy. i'm just very, very glad that i don't live there! i don't share!

[Guest shiloh357]

so in such a culture do i think it is demeaning to the woman to be one of many wives? not really. i think it is more demeaning to a woman to have no husband and have to scrounge for scraps of food, or to resort to prostitution.

In near east polygamy though, a barren woman was the on the bottom of pecking order. She was the least favored and cared for. Not only was she looked down upon by her fellow "wives," but by society in general. The next highest, but still disfavored were the women who bore daughters and not sons. The only women stood a chance to have a decent life were those that bore sons, and if two or three did bear sons, there was fierce competition to see which son would have the most favor from the father, and it was in each mother's best interest to have her son become the chief heir.

The women who were barren and/or disfavored for other reasons had no stake in the inheritance when the husband died, and if they not fortunate to die in advance of him, they were left at the mercy of his heir. In the near east, it was bad enough to be woman with no rights. Stack on top of that, no longer being a virgin (which was enough to make them undesirable) and being too old to remarry, and having no way to take care of yourself indpendently, and they were in a world of hurt if their husband died, left them with nothing and they were cut off from their former family. If no other polygamist wanted them as wives, it would be pretty bad.

Polygamy was not a good deal for the women. It only benefited the "lucky."

[Ddavid from NC]

As the OP set the subject in the patriarchal period, everyone to my knowledge and memory say they are not advocating it for today. Is that merely because it is illegal in Western culture? Or do you think the liberation of women to a higher equality in society changes that practice? Which would create the natural question is polygamy downgrading to women? If that is so, wouldn't that make it sinful both today and yesterday?

in the ancient days, polygamy was permitted for the protection and provision of women. without a husband, a woman who had no father or sons to support her was left to her own devices... and there weren't many options available to them. it's not like they could run down to the welfare office, or like they could go get a job to pay their own rent. plus, women generally outnumber men from birth... and even more so once men were of age to fight in battle, or even to go out and do the hunting, work the fields, tend the flocks, exposing themselves to danger from predatory animals and such.

in many countries, that is still pretty much the case. women still outnumber men, women aren't typically able to support themselves, and the death rate among men is probably much higher than in women.

so in such a culture do i think it is demeaning to the woman to be one of many wives? not really. i think it is more demeaning to a woman to have no husband and have to scrounge for scraps of food, or to resort to prostitution.

i have absolutely no problem with other countries allowing the practice of polygamy. i'm just very, very glad that i don't live there! i don't share!

But isn't true that a country that employs polygamy, as a protection for the woman, is doing so because of the general low value of women. Which is the mistreatment of women? Is that not a sin?

[Richard_yaash]

in the ancient days, polygamy was permitted for the protection and provision of women

It was also to build up the population.

[Ddavid from NC]

in the ancient days, polygamy was permitted for the protection and provision of women

It was also to build up the population.

I was waiting for someone to suggest that argument. I don't disagree, but that places you closer to the argument, it was wrong but utilitarian to allow it to exist. I lean toward progressive revelation being the solution to this argument. Like to idiosyncrasies you allow in children merely because of their age and experience. Translation there were more pressing issues for their maturity level and grasp of the ethic of faith.

[sheya joie]

The name of the woman is escaping me, but if memory serves I think I was reading about one woman whom David had some issue with her husband and then the husband died (not Uriah), I dont remember how, but the point is that David married the woman. I'll get into the bible here in a bit and track it down, but it 'seems' like the reasoning in his taking her after her husbands death was more to make sure she was provided for because she had helped him when he needed the help...brought them food or something.

That was Abigail. 1 Samuel 25.

[Richard_yaash]

Due to formatting limitations, I have broken this into two separate replies, my apologies for the inconvenience:

And within the Scriptures there are many cases of recorded of one having multiple wives with no recorded trouble. You are presenting as you so eloquently stated: "an argument from silence, at best; conjecture at worst. We don't know either way..."

But I am not making an argument from silence. God may not outright call polygamy a sin, but He gives us ample examples of problems that polygomy breeds. He does not need to trot out EVERY polygomous marriage before us to make that point.

Before the Instruction [Torah] was given we have Jacob. Now Jacob took two wives, and yes, there were troubles there. Those troubles however brought about such as Leviticus 18:18. For the troubles we see prior to the Instruction, we see written within the Instruction precepts to intervene and help keep those troubles from occuring.

The fact is, God does not show us ANY happy polygomous marriages. He does not give us a equal number of examples of polygomous arrangements and demonstrate that He has blessed such arrangements. In EVERY single case where we are allowed to "behind the veil" we find nothing but strife and problems. We do not find the same degree of exclusivity with monogamous arrangements.

And there it is, you are presenting an argument from silence. Because the Scriptures are silent with regard to "blessing such arrangements". If we look to Rehoboam though, we see plenty of troubles within his life [particularly with Jeroboam], we see he had 18 wives and took MANY wives for his sons. He is attributed as acting wisely in dispersing his sons. Yet, Rehoboam was chastised/disciplined for turning away, yet humbled himself and was not totally destroyed.

We could look at the whole line of the Kings of Judah, of them how many are even recorded as having 'one' wife?

Asa, Jehoshaphat, Azariah, Hezekiah, Josiah, Zedekiah just to name a few of whom I do not even recall a single not alone multiple wives of them having ever been mentioned. In the case of some of these, their mother is mentioned from which we can extrapolate that yes they were married. That of course is relatively obvious anyway as they had children. But we can not conclude as to whether or not they were mongamous or polygamous. Nor can we conclude their marriages whether monogamous or polygamous were with or without trouble.

Jehoram OTOH is recorded as taking a wife and that act being evil: for he married a daughter of Ahab. He did evil in the eyes of the LORD [cf 2 Chr 21:4-6].

Because we do not see them as having even one wife listed should we build a case for celebacy? No. The fact of the matter is, we do not know how many wives they had.

Within a given church, it is not the ones who are happily married that we hear the most about. It is the troubled relationships that we hear the most about. So too is true of the Scriptures, for these things are presented in so that we might learn from them. Relatively, there is only a handful of polygamist relationships in which we read of trouble. I am confident that there were literally thousands of such relationships. Perhaps many in which there was no trouble.

Like I said, we find with polygamist marriages NOTHING but trouble. We do not find monogamous marriages only being trotted out when there are problems.

So let's take poll, a survey, let's review say the boards here and note how many instances of troubled monogamous relationships are recorded v. untroubled ones. Based upon that data, if troubled relationships are shown as having a greater frequency of occurrence, should we then build a case for celebacy?

It matters not if we are to speak of pologamy, monogamy or even celebacy, each of them of fraught with it's own problems.

My view is in accord with not only the pshat, but also remetz. I do not put much stock in drash and sod, for I do not care to allegorize or mysticize the text. Is there some to be gleaned through drash and sod? Yes. However it must remain in accord with the pshat reading.

When working with cults and the doctrines thereof: The commonality between almost every single one of them, was that they would use drash and sod to interpret the text to the point of overthrowing the plain and simple reading. Drash and sod must remain in accord with the pshat reading.

Drash and sod do not amount to allegorizing or mysticizing. There may be some who use it that way, but Drash applies to pracitcal application in the sense of the lesson learned from the text, and sod applies to the deeper spiritual application, not mysticising.

Yes, drash does, however it may not be used in a manner that is not in accord with the pshat reading. Drash is an abstraction from the text. Can such be good, yes, as I have already stated. However it may not be applied in a manner that is not in accord with the pshat. The pshat of Devarim YZ is clear, the remetz of Devarim YZ is clear and easily followed out. There is no need for drash nor sod with regard to Devarim YZ. The drash you are attempting to use upon Devarim YZ, is contradictory to the pshat and the remetz of the text. As for sod, I do not know how familiar you are with it, however in more cases than not it is a mysticizing of the text from which I have watched many use it in a manner that is nothing less the abominable.

It could also be said that you are attempting to apply drash here above and beyond the pshat reading. Drash can not be used to supercede the pshat, not of the verse, nor of the surrounding context.

No, the problem starts with the fact that I don't agree with what you think the pshat is in the first place, and therefore, my application of drash is based on what I perceive to be a more accurate pshat.

Yet, I have transliterated the text for you so that it may be plainly seen by all here.

"A more accurate pshat": That is indeed an interesting statement. For remetz alone proves the viability of that statement as false.

Devarim YZ:YV raq lo' yarbeh_lo susim

Devarim YZ:YZ ve lo' yarbeh_lo nashim

Deut 17:16 Only not have many horses

Deut 17:17 And not have many wives

So according to your "more accurate pshat", a king could only have one horse as well. The structure of the Ivrit here demands that both are handled in the same manner.

To be continued.

[Richard_yaash]

Continuation:

Let me ask you a point blank question: Do you interpret Deuteronomy 17:17A as meaning that a king is to have only 'one' wife?

Yes.

Then according to your "more accurate pshat", you have deemed every king, who spoke, read and wrote the language, who wrote a copy of the scroll for themselves, as having sinned against YHVH.

Further: If one interprets it in that manner would it be a fair statement to say that any king who took more than one wife was acting in a manner that was not in accord with the 'Instruction' Torah?

He is out of step with God's will for marriage.

Shiloh my brother, I would sincerely caution you in this. I do understand where you are coming from, however we can not allow our own perceptions to interfere with the plain simple reading of the text.

Alright, once again let's examine the simple text:

[Deut 17:16] Devarim YZ:YV raq lo' yarbeh_lo susim

[Deut 17:17] Devarim YZ:YZ ve lo' yarbeh_lo nashim

Here is a very simple rendering so it is relatively easy for everyone here to see:

Deut 17:16 Only not have many horses

Deut 17:17 And not have many wives

To insist that Deuteronomy 17:17A means only 'one' wife, so also we must insist that a king may only have one horse.

Wrong. There is one glaring problem here. God had already established His plan for marriage. From the beginning it was very simple: One man marries one woman, and they stay married until they die. That is God's ideal plan. So, since God is the ultimate, overarching author, then it only follows that implicit in the commandment not multiply wives is that the King is to follow God's plan for marriage. That supercedes the verb construction. The intent of the author is what we want to glean, and that requires MORE than just looking at the Hebrew. Hebrew is important, but it is not the most important part of the interpretative process. If we did not know what God's plan for marriage was, then you might have a point. His commandment against multiplying wives needs to be understood within the context of what God created marriage to look like.

You are obviously referring to Bere'shyt [Genesis] 2:24. He also said, be fruitful and multiply in Genesis 9. Yet in Genesis 4, we already clearly have polygamy in practice.

All we need to do is look a little further in Deuteronomy...

Deuteronomy 21:15 If a man has two wives...

Did the author change his mind/intent just 4 short chapters later suddenly allowing for two wives? Remetz upholds the intent of the pshat within Devarim YZ. Further, remetz disallows the drash you desire to use here.

I am alarmed though, very alarmed by the statement, and I quote: "That supercedes the verb construction". That is a very dangerous statement IMO. Are we now to decide that our own doctrine(s) supercedes the text and the construct thereof?

Please come to your senses my brother, for that statement is as alarming as nothing I have heard in a long time. A statement such as that verges upon those of heretical cult leaders.

I have seen many many cult leaders throw out the construct of the Hebrew and the binyanim [conjugations] of Hebrew verbs in order to uphold their doctrines over that which is sound. I am indeed very alarmed by this statement my brother...

If we allow such as that, we may as well throw out the texts, for there is nothing left by which we may verify and approve sound doctrine... I am indeed very saddened...

In summation: It is impossible to imply that Deuteronomy 17:17A is intended to refer to 'one' wife.

Wrong.

Then please, demonstrate this to me from the text, from the plain pshat reading of the text within context.

Further: To do so implies that the Kings of Judah and Israel, who wrote a copy of the Scroll for themselves, did not understand their own language and that each of them who took more than 'one' wife did so in direct contradiction to the Instruction Torah.

I am not implying it at all. I am stating it outright.

You have taken a dangerous stand my brother...

Please, consider carefully this issue...

In His love,

Richard