Polygamy in the Law of God – P1
The issue of male polygamy (a man with more than one wife) is recurrent in church history, with treatises ranging from contextual acceptance (such as Luther accepting and even approving a king's bigamy) to complete demonization of the subject (as seen in much of the medieval church). However, rarely do we see a comprehensive treatment of the subject in terms of God's Law and Scripture - something we aim to address by examining the topic throughout the entire Scripture.
However, most who venture to address the topic immediately assume that family unhappiness came about because of polygamy and therefore conclude that such events must be a way for God to teach that polygamy causes conflicts (Jacob), breaks promises (Abraham), or goes against God's ideal in creation (Adam and Eve). All of these assumptions prove flawed not only due to cultural context (which we will address in part 2) but also by ignoring and breaking all the principles of biblical interpretation established by these same authors who oppose male polygamy.
After all, polygamy is a characteristic of "Christian" sects (Mormonism) or false religions (Islam), as well as a cultural element of ancient peoples among whom Israel found itself (Egypt?). We will address these questions in the second part, while in this part we will focus solely on polygamy in the Torah, or the first five books of the Bible.
And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23 And Adam 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. 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. (Genesis 2:22-24)
GENESIS 2 - ADAM AND EVE
The first event noted is that God created one woman and not two for Adam. Then - concludes the monogamist - God did not allow Adam to marry more than one woman (in his mind, if God allowed Adam to marry two, logically, He should allow two husbands for the woman). The fact is that in the law, we clearly see the prohibition for a woman to have two husbands, but never for a husband to have two wives (Deuteronomy 21:15; 24:1-4; Exodus 21:9, 10; Leviticus 20:10). However, below, we will consider the subject from weaker to stronger points.
The minimum required
It ignores the clear context of the creation of Adam and Eve, who were created not only alone but in their minimal capacity (without children, without a home, without clothes, without eating meat, etc.), so that although today we use clothes, eat meat, and have homes and children (to the point of finding it absurd not to have some of these things - 1 Timothy 6:8a), they were not established in the creation of man. We must understand, therefore, that if God allowed man to have multiple wives later, it was because in creation, God's intention was to show that even a man with nothing can have, at least, one wife.
The structure of an order
Another problem is that orders are given in the singular. Look at God's commandments in general and see which ones are in the plural. You will notice that every command of God is in the singular, which clearly explains the command to unite with the woman in the text. "Thou shalt not kill" (do not murder), "Thou shalt not steal" (do not steal), etc., are always in the singular. However, the best example is "love thy neighbor" (Leviticus 19:18). Should I assume that because the commandment commands me to love only one neighbor (in the singular), I cannot love more people? Well, of course, the commandment is written like this because in the worst condition you are in, it is possible for you to love your neighbor (help an individual), and also to prevent abstractions from those who claim to love humanity (something impossible humanly). God knows we are limited, and He always orders in the context of the minimum required.
Note: Indeed, even the commandment to honor father and mother emphasizes singularizing the parental figures, avoiding abstractions: "Honor your father and mother," not "your parents," proving, in any case, that a commandment of God is singular.
The mercy of an order
However, suppose that God commanded a man, in this text, in the following way:
Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wives, and they shall be one flesh
We would be demanding that men marry, at a minimum, with two women! God created Adam with nothing to show that even someone living in nature, without possessions, can at least have a wife, and if He created two women for Adam, He would be teaching us to burden individuals heavily. God made the world this way is the best way to allow polygamous marriage without lacking in mercy.
One flesh
It's funny that in our mindset, inherited from the Greeks, "one flesh" is seen as equal to 1 + 1. In the biblical mindset, it has never been like that. A man becomes one flesh with however many women he joins; for example, every time a man joins with a (cult) prostitute, he becomes one flesh with her (1 Corinthians 6:16 - not for a lifetime, as there is no contract). Now, if it is like this, why can't "one flesh" include two women and one man? Thus, they will all be one flesh, but with a marriage contract. We cannot deny that this contract was real with Abraham and Sarah, Hagar and Keturah, as well as with Jacob, Rachel, and Leah. All of them were one flesh with their wives, regardless of whether there were three or two (Deuteronomy 21:15).
Wife Bound to the Husband
It should raise suspicions that when Paul speaks of marriage, he always mentions that "the wife is bound to her husband" (Romans 7:2, 3; 1 Corinthians 7:39), but not that "the husband is bound to his wife." The issue is that Genesis 2 shows the reason: it is the man who joins "to his wife," therefore, the woman is "his," while he is not "hers," clearly establishing the marriage contract with freedom for the man and restriction for the woman. It is in this reasoning that Paul will always say that a woman can only remarry when her husband dies, but he never says this of the husband (Romans 7:2, 3; 1 Corinthians 7:39).
Interpretative Tradition
A great mistake looms over men who want to interpret Scripture from the history of the church, ignoring that Scripture itself establishes an interpretative tradition. Look, David interpreted passages from the Torah, so his interpretation is our tradition. In the same way, other prophets of God interpreted key passages of the Law that became clear because of them. Thus, we must assume that, since this text is one of those found in beginning of the scroll of the law, there was a great prophetic or theological tradition in the OT proving that its pointing was towards monogamy. However, this does not happen, and it does not happen because this text did not prove anything about monogamy.
See the case of David and Solomon. Both had the daily reading of the law for them (Deuteronomy 17:18), and David even said that he meditated on it day and night (Psalms 1; 19; 119); how did he, enlightened by the Spirit of God, see in the law the revelation of Jesus Christ or that God did not desire sacrifices (Psalms 40:6; 51:16, 17) even though the Law repeatedly mentioned the need for them, but did not notice the most basic of basics in a reading that, as it is now shown, would be extremely simple?
David, furthermore, had at least eight wives (Michal, Ahinoam, Abigail, Maacah, Haggith, Abital, Eglah, Bathsheba [the latter being the result of adultery, but not the others, interesting, isn't it?]), and he never noticed this? Even Solomon, when he fails to follow God's Law that limited the king's wives (Deuteronomy 17:17), has his mistake clearly pointed out, being contrasted with David, who kept many women without straying (1 Kings 11:4). Now, what does the interpretative tradition of this text (along with the rest of the Law) point us to? It seems quite simple.
Believers vehemently assert that no one (relevant) in the tradition or history of the church defended male polygamy, and suddenly, the "Xénos" and the "Magos" come to defend this? The question can be turned around: no one ever defended monogamy in the interpretative history of Scripture (from the OT and NT themselves), and suddenly, Greek and Roman believers (quite suggestive since they were monogamous) start defending monogamy?
The Shadow and the Reality
Finally, this text has a reason to be as it is that goes beyond itself. Fulfilling the fact that God announced the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10), Adam was a shadow of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:45-49). Now, the best way to literally symbolize the unity of the church was if God gave Adam only one wife. If God were to give Adam two wives, it would teach us a confusing message through the shadows of the Old Testament, suggesting to us that the Church could be double, without unity, or with permission to dispute among themselves (since two sisters enter into dispute if married to the same man [Leviticus 18:18]). The text is clear and does not compromise any message if we read it as God taught us to read His Law: by comparing it with itself (1 Timothy 1:8).
Note: Further below, we will see the case of Hagar and Sarah (as seen in Galatians), showing that the message conveyed by both is that Hagar foreshadows the Israel that persecuted the Church, while Sarah foreshadows the Israel that is free and persecuted. Therefore, if in a perfect world God were to give Adam two wives, it would symbolize through them bizarre things, such as the probability of cohesion between ancient Judaism and Christianity or the potential division within Christianity – something absurd.
Genesis 2 does not prove anything against polygamy; rather, it even presupposes it, given the need for the text to express other information beyond that.
GENESIS 4 – LAMECH, WICKED POLYGAMIST
Lamech is the first man recorded in Scripture to practice polygamy. Many assume that because he was wicked (having apparently killed two people, or we have a parallelism), everything he did in this regard is sinful. But a question arises: although I am not saved by what I do, can I act in accordance with the law in particular matters? Let's see how to deal with the passages regarding this issue:
And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah. (Genesis 4:19)
Now, the men might say: "God is implying that polygamy is a sin; look, Lamech was a wicked man, and look what he did." Yes, Lamech was a murderer (Genesis 4:23), but does that mean he was an adulterer? Furthermore, contradicting the interpretative tradition of the Old Testament clearly ignores the context of Lamech's wicked offspring:
And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle. 21 And his brother's name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ. 22 And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron (Genesis 4:20-22).
Wicked sons of the wicked produced: tents and domestication of cattle, two musical instruments, and work with brass and iron. Conclusion: to domesticate cattle, play these two instruments, and work with iron and bronze is sin! Wonderful! Of course not, because you know how to separate wickedness from action. We could even invert it: if Lamech had only one wife (like many wicked men out there...), what would that prove against monogamy? Nothing! The difference is that I, a polygamist, have the honesty to recognize when a particular text does not serve to defend or oppose something...
GENESIS 6 – NOAH, THE SECOND ADAM
We've already cited a text (1 Corinthians 15:45-49) which says that Jesus is the last Adam (not the second), for Christ, in reality, is the one who does everything that Adam couldn't do: He redeems, gives life, rules the world, etc. Wouldn't it be obvious that if Christ is the last, there must be other "adams" between Adam and Christ? Even the neo-Calvinists acknowledge this! (Just read the book by Morales to notice). It's obvious that the representative role of Noah, who is a Christ before Christ, needs to take into account the only wife he had. The Church was saved because of Noah; he was the righteous man (the first in Scripture – Genesis 6:9), therefore, representing that he would save the world by his righteousness (doesn't it remind you of something?).
Moreover, remember that Genesis 6 takes place in a context of intense wickedness, after women had become corrupt (Genesis 6:2-4). If Noah was a righteous man, and all the other women in the world died, then all of them must have been wicked! Would you want a righteous man to marry one of those corrupt women? Clearly not, or it wouldn't be fair anymore.
