Polygamy: Legalism or Sexism

[Hugh McBryde]

The Bible says in Exodus 20:13 "You shall not murder." Wait. Stop right there. Don't look at any more of Gods laws."

We are assuming you have looked at all of God's laws, and you have no evidence to offer to balance Levirate law out. We both know what God commands is righteous. God commanded men to do a thing that caused them to kill Amalekites. We have this commentary as well:

Moreover, you also know what Joab the son of Zeruiah did to me, how he dealt with the two commanders of the armies of Israel, Abner the son of Ner, and Amasa the son of Jether, whom he killed, avenging in time of peace for blood that had been shed in war, and putting the blood of war on the belt around his waist and on the sandals on his feet. Act therefore according to your wisdom, but do not let his gray head go down to Sheol in peace."

The blood of war is different than blood shed in peace. I will take David's evaluation, over anyone else.

You say it yourself:

So what is it? Will you try to make a decision based only on half of the information and thus subvert God's justice? Or will you finish the dispute and judge rightly?"

You have the word, you have not found the mitigating passage. I would be entirely open to hearing this if you find it again somewhere else, but I will not dither on this point now. Either find new evidence later, and thus appeal your case, or cede the point. The Old Testament is closed. Polygyny was entirely acceptable. That acceptance is built into the meaning of Genesis 2:24 and when Christ quotes it, firmly stating that it does NOT change, he does not then allow changes to it's meaning when it is quoted by HIM, or by anyone else subsequent to him.

I'm not going to play around with this JT. You've lost this point. Accept it and move on. Realize that as a trial lawyer does, and fight the battle with what evidence you have. Appeal if you discover new evidence later. It helps focus you one what arguments are good. That would be a change in law, such as the forbidding of marriage between brother and sister. Whereas it was necessary and right for Adam's children to marry among themselves, it is now wrong because this was later put under the ban. I accept fully that God could have come later and said to us in the "Church Age" that monogamy was now fitting and best. I do not accept that it was even slightly disfavored in former times and you have not made that case nor has anyone else.

[Lionroot]

unless you have an ace up your sleeve...

I am only saying that we must look at all the evidence before we come to a conclusion...

By all means, look at all the evidence. Each piece of evidence says something. In this case the text applies to all men. That is the evidence we find here. How you interpret that piece of the evidence is important.

...yet some want to make an entire case limiting the information to one verse that does not specifically mention polygyny (or multiple spouses) or monogamy.

In fact it has been asserted without challenge that no such distinction existed in the Hebrew language. Without such a distinction, one would expect not to see one.

I have already admitted that this verse may lead to polygyny,

I certainly respect that. I would add that you have not presented any evidence that would allow one to arrive at another conclusion.

however I have also pointed out that there may be possible arguments against polygyny that we have not yet taken up.

Until you do the consequence of the verse is apparent, and such a position is established in silence. I would suggest that in a court of law, you could not even present such a case built on such presumption.

In a court of law a decision is made at the end of the debate, not half way through. The same is true in a debate. Should we make a conclusion based on only part of the discussion? ...So what is it? Will you try to make a decision based only on half of the information and thus subvert God's justice? Or will you finish the dispute and judge rightly?

In a debate points are made throughout the debate. Upon battles wars are won. This battle doesn’t decide the war, but I will not allow the impact of it to be trivialized.

[Hugh McBryde]

Let's examine now the "less than prefect" case of forced marriage in the Law of God.

If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged to be married and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins." Exodus 22:16-17 (ESV)

Previously we had discussed "Levirate Law." This law also forces a man to marry and gives him UTTERLY no option, only the refusal of the seduced girl's father can forestall the marriage. I suspect, since the girl was "ruined" by the standards of the day, which I often suspect ought to be our standards now, it would be rare that the father "utterly" refused. It is in fact what Tamar pleads in the odd case of her half brother's rape, of her. Right or wrong Tamar insists to Amnon that seduction/forced intercourse with a virgin unbetrothed trumps "half sister" rules:

Now therefore, please speak to the king, for he will not withhold me from you."

This casts doubt entirely on the notion that refusal for any reason in the deflowering of a virgin, was regular. I submit it is the only such instance we have. Dinah does not count, as Shechem was not of Israel.

Having set that background, I realize that in this case a wrong act has preceded the solution. Tamar claims the trumping of other laws she, Amnon and her father David were subject to by citing this as the overriding law. Nevertheless, it would have been better for them not to marry as it would have been better for Amnon not to force her.

Since though, this is a law that provides the offending man no option, and we often forget the "other woman," who is the frequent and other bride of the offending man. His existing wife. As with Levirate Law it is rash to assume adult Israelite men were single. I am sure there were some, but the instance of singleness was rare in that society, again, reminding you of the obligation to preserve posterity.

What of the offender's WIFE? She clearly has no say in this, and has no ability to divorce in Hebrew law to be separate from her husband who has seduced/raped a virgin of Israel. God again forces an innocent to accept another wife in her home when she has done NOTHING WHATSOEVER to deserve the presence of another woman in the household?

Perhaps again, this fits the idea that more than one wife had no stigma attached to it at all, not just in society, but in God's eyes.

[JTownsend]

For Tamar we cannot conclude that there was one law that trumped another. Lev 20:17

17 " 'If a man marries his sister, the daughter of either his father or his mother, and they have sexual relations, it is a disgrace. They must be cut off before the eyes of their people. He has dishonored his sister and will be held responsible.

Perhaps the reason that Tamar said it would be allowed was because she was desperately trying to find some way out of her circumstance. Perhaps it was because her father did not hold to the law as he should have. But nothing in the law states that another law would trump it.

Lev 20:10

'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.

Obviously here adultery is attributed to both the man and the woman, with the punishment of death.

In the case of Exodus 22:16-17, we see a young girl lead astray, and apparently neither she nor the man is called an adulterer. This brings into question whether the man is married since we know the girl is not. If we are to presume that the man is married, then we can also conclude that this passage never calls the man an adulterer, nor condemns him for that sin. Since he was not condemned for the sin of adultery we can only conclude that he was not married. Since we don't know if he was married before, just like it wasn't included in Deuteronomy 25, we cannot say conclusively that this is a verse which supports or encourages polygyny.

I admit, and clearly see, that the possibility of polygyny is there to protect the innocent, but it is not an allowance for the action. At best we can say from both this verse, and that of Deuteronomy 25, that polygyny is a ramification of our sins (or the sin of Adam), and not necessarily encouraged or desired.

[Hugh McBryde]

For Tamar we cannot conclude that there was one law that trumped another."

Tamar THOUGHT it was so. The point is that this is context. When deflowered, it was Tamar's belief that she would be given to her brother. That points to customary response to the law, there are no other precedents to refer to in the Word.

Lev 20:10

'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.'

"Obviously here adultery is attributed to both the man and the woman, with the punishment of death."

Since adultery in the Old Testament is never defined as a man with a female not his wife, but only a woman with a man not her husband, then adultery depends entirely on the status of the woman. I still don't get, even being a veteran of many debates on this, how this becomes an issue, I don't contend that the man is not an adulterer, I contend he is not and adulterer when the female in question is not another man's wife. If she is, they are adulterer and adulteress.

I dont' say these verses I cite ENCOURAGE polygyny, but again, the man is not an adulterer as made clear by the fact that the female in question is NOT BETROTHED. If she was, he was liable for death as an adulterer. When she was unbetrothed, he was obligated to marry her. Again, nothing whatsoever is said about the marital condition of the man, it is irrelevant to the equation.

Once again, this passage is applicable to all men. Not men who were single. You cannot construe it to be adultery, if he is not married, YOU yourself have allowed that polygyny wasn't a sin, so you cannot claim now adultery as a defining characteristic of his marital state. If he is an adulterer because he takes another female not his wife, then you say polygyny is a sin. Even discounting this, I remind you, there is no place in the law where adultery is dependent on the marital condition of the man. Throwing aside all other factors, I will emphasize this.

Remember, the primary passage I depend on is Levirate Law, not this one. The seduction of a virgin is supporting material, not the source material. Levirate law calls on all men to marry their dead brother's wife if he has no heir. The seduction of a virgin calls on all men to marry the seduced, without option. The concept of adultery, as defined in the Old Testament never ever is said to depend on the marital state of the man, only the female's marital state or condition of betrothal.

[JTownsend]

For Tamar, why should we give any weight to her testimony on the applicability of the law? Was she a lawyer or some other high student of the law? We just don't know. I admit that Tamar says one law trumps another - but many authorities said or did things in the Bible that were just not true. Though I admit what Tamar says might have some bearing, I don't see enough evidence anywhere to suggest what she said is actually true.

Your other statements I fairly agree with.

Let me ask you this... cause I just can't figure it out...

God would protect the innocent. His law will protect the innocent. In the case of the young woman who is lead astray, she is protected by God where God supports marriage, but also allows the father to negate that option. In the case of a man who is married, who commits adultery with another married woman, how does God provide protection for the first wife or the married man if the law says he must be executed?

[Hugh McBryde]

For Tamar, why should we give any weight to her testimony on the applicability of the law?"

Tamar is the only contemporary context we have as to the interpretation of the law, without saying she is correct, we can say she reflects the general interpretation. That was a father would not refuse a maiden to the man who deflowered her. Don't make it more than I claimed it to be. I'm not arguing that particular law trumped the other, I'm saying Tamar did. I'm also saying that she gave context to our discussion.

In the case of the young woman who is lead astray, she is protected by God where God supports marriage, but also allows the father to negate that option."

Yes, he could negate it and receive the bride price. He would then have probably sold his daughter into concubinage as she would not be fit marriage material. There are two injuries, one to the man's house (honor) and to the girl. If he judges her to be in too much danger by going to the man who deflowered her, he can withhold and make her most likely, a wife of slavery to another man, or keep her in his home.

In the case of a man who is married, who commits adultery with another married woman, how does God provide protection for the first wife or the married man if the law says he must be executed?"

She has children. She rules her inheritance as matriarch. She just got made "CEO" of her dead husband's "Ranch." Honor thy father AND THY MOTHER.

If she has no children, then she is married off by Levirate law to his brother.

[JTownsend]

Aduro,
Sorry not to answer you last time. I totally agree with your statements. You helped illustrated my point very well. We cannot just stop and judge a law without looking at it in context of the entirety of scripture. That was my point.

Hugh,

JTownsend wrote:In the case of a man who is married, who commits adultery with another married woman, how does God provide protection for the first wife or the married man if the law says he must be executed?"

She has children. She rules her inheritance as matriarch. She just got made "CEO" of her dead husband's "Ranch." Honor thy father AND THY MOTHER.
If she has no children, then she is married off by Levirate law to his brother.

Excellent answer. Thank you.

I think this is the next verse we need to deal with: 2nd Sam 12:8 (in context, v.7-10)

7 Then Nathan said to David, "You are the man! This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. 8 I gave your master's house to you, and your master's wives into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more. 9 Why did you despise the word of the LORD by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. 10 Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own.'

Hugh, (Senior Language expert) Can you give us any insight into verse 8 where it states that God gave Saul's wives into David's arms (bosom)?

[Hugh McBryde]

Excellent answer. Thank you."

Yes, but I'm going to need a decision from you that isn't tabling the issue on what the meaning of Levirate Law is, with regard to fully acceptable polygyny in the Old Testament.

Hugh, (Senior Language expert) Can you give us any insight into verse 8 where it states that God gave Saul's wives into David's arms (bosom)?"

I'm on my way to becoming conversant in Hebrew, God willing. I am by no means an expert. What makes me look expert, if indeed I do look that way to anyone, is the fact that scripture is consistent and delving deeply into the original tongue just supports my argument more, not less. You turn over a rock of support in the Hebrew, and you find a bigger rock supporting it, underneath. That is not my doing, it is the LORD's.

The first use of the word translated Bosum, as I said before ( I am wondering why you want this repeated ) is with Sarai (before she is renamed Sarah) complaining that she gave Hagar into Abram's "Bosom" or "embrace." The Hebrew is "חיק (cheyq)." The next use of the word in Hebrew with relationship to "אשה ('ishshah)," the word translated to "wife" is in Deut 13:6, also in Deut 28:54 and then in verse 8, as you describe above. The words are again "אשה ('ishshah)" and "חיק (cheyq)." There really is no wiggle room here. God gives the dead King's wives, mostly likely concubines in status, into David's intimate sexual embrace. This is the complaint God is levying against David. Paraphrased is "I gave you wives (plural) already David, what do you want with your poor neighbor's one wife? If you wanted more wives, I would have given you more wives."

JT, we're moving on a little here and I am not really prepared to do that. I need your decision on Levirate Law, based on the things YOU have already told me, that you believe it enforced polygynies on men and women. Since that is the case, and you do not believe there was an out based on the reading of the passage, and in addition, you cannot find it, I'm going to be a bit insistent.

[JTownsend]

Hugh,
I am almost to a conclusion. Please bear with me. I will not defame the argument by posting my incomplete thoughts now.

2nd Sam 12:8 is very enlightening.

As for Levirite law and the whole conditional commands to marry, like I said earlier, I think they allow for polygyny to the extent of those specific circumstances, and excluding any argument that may be brought up in the future which might change my current conclusions. As an example, marrying your brother's widow seems to be acceptable according to the law, even lauded or commanded (Deut 25:5-10). In the case of Exodus 22:16,17 I still have issue with the understanding of adultery and how it applies to the whole thing. I will have to think about that verse some more. I can't think of any other verse in the OT where polygyny is indicated.

Are there additional conditional commands to marry that you can think of which we have not addressed yet?

[Hugh McBryde]

JT,

Thanks for your patience with me. I am crotchety to say the least.

Aside from the general command to be fruitful and multiply and the understanding that the husband/wife relationship is the only proper vessel for sexual relationships, there is no command to marry at all apart from the two I mentioned..

It is interesting to note that both are the result of sin in some way shape or form. Of course you could argue the majority of commands are the result of sin.

If there had been no sin, no man would have died and no man would have to take up the responsibility of Levirate marriage.

Certainly no man would rape or seduce a virgin.

I would add my personal observation that I think is soundly based that it was almost certain that Boaz was married. The issue is the description of his maidservants and young men. That suggests strongly that he had sons of his own already, and maidservants we know from Exodus 21 were allocated among sons and the head of household. Boaz being wealthy, and possessed of a healthy libido for his age doubtless had legitimate means to procure concubines, and certainly had the stock of female maidservants.

[Lionroot]

I think it important to note that most marriages are not the result of conditional commands. In fact, I cannot think of one marriage in the Bible that is. Instead the people of God, observed the restrictions of the law.