Walter HR Schwenk

                                                                         appreciatively, the editor

 

                                        **********************************


Dear Green Ranter;

            In our bible study today, questions of torah, adultery, and plural marriage came up. There seemed to be some dissent, and it was implied that a man who was said to have had two wives at the same time would of necessity have been an adulterer. Would you care to add your two cents worth to the fray?

                                                                                     Sincerely, Walter

Dear Walter:

           With pleasure. If you don’t mind, let’s for the sake of brevity try to examine the point at which all three topics; torah, adultery, and plural marriage overlap. I can’t see getting worked up to a frenzy on this one however. As we say, “where the bible speaks softly…” and you know the rest. As you are no doubt aware, there are both positive and negative commandments. This matter, however, may fall more into a “no man’s land” of torah, where the bible speaks very, very, softly. If you want a loud voice (which some of us true ranters and ravers really admire, at times) on the subject, you may need to appeal to the laws of the land, either the one in which you dwell, or some other that might interest you. Due to the multiplication of words and opinions in the Babylonish system, you can often get an explicit and dogmatic ruling out of a secular authority, that Yahweh in his wisdom chose to withhold from his instruction to his human family. It is so in this case.

          Let’s get an overview, first, of examples from the beginning, end, and selected mid points of the flow of history. If you will; “go with the flow.” First, Adam & Chawah in the garden of Edhen (rhymes with “they then”) were united in monogamy, which I think we can accept to be “plan A”, and the most direct and likely route to marital bliss. That this plan “A” is still viable and applicable is evident from two observations. One, that Yahweh has decreed that it is not good for the man to be alone, for which reason Chawah was created (a singular creation, we might note). And two, that barring large-scale slaughter of males, there will typically be insufficient women available to suffice more than one for each man, so that if many took two or more, many would also go without. This, we repeat, would not be good. Last, we can expect that, as Yahwshua told us, in the heavenly kingdom they do not marry; plan Z? And in between we find? We find all of the above, plus various combinations of plural marriage; formal and informal, licit and illicit, temporary and less temporary, none enduring beyond death. To this overview, let us compare and apply torah.

          To the best of my limited knowledge, there are only two items of the torah from Yahweh at Sinai that relate to plural marriage in the general population of Israel, and two from Mosheh later in torah. First Deuteronomy 5:5-10, the levirate marriage law. There appears (from this) to be no indication here that having his own wife would exempt the surviving brother from his obligation to his dead brother’s widow, in other words, an example of torah-condoned bigamy? Next consider please Leviticus 18:18, the law forbidding having sisters to wife while both are alive. To prohibit such a specific type of polygyny, with no explicit prohibition of polygyny in general, seemingly indicates either a gross oversight unbefitting our Elohim, or else a tacit toleration of the condition, no doubt subject to the rest of torah. For a third example, Exodus 21:7-11 helps us to understand some limitations on polygyny. Here it is evident that generally, it was considered unjust for a man to take another wife, if so doing infringed upon the current wife’s rights. In other words, it would be practically essential, before adding an additional wife, to gain the approval of the current one (or more). And fourth, torah provides (De. 21:15-17) direction for the contingency that a man must give the proper portion of inheritance to the eldest son, regardless whether he be the son of the beloved or the hated wife. I doubt it can be proved that this of necessity would relate only to one wife at a time.

          In a torah-ruled society, failure to consider and fulfill an earlier wife’s rights could only result in a very disagreeable domestic condition, or a nasty court battle. Even with a good faith negotiated deal, as with Avraham, Sarah, and Hagar, contention and strife was a real possibility. Let the buyer beware. And he may beware also, that in some jurisdictions, one can do some serious jail time for polygamy, even if done within torah. Perhaps a note to the wise would be in order though, that although torah does not forbid polygyny, neither does it encourage the practice, and it definitely does not demand it. “A single handful with contentment, is better than a double handful with travail and striving after wind.” Perhaps it should be considered also, that in practically every piece of marital advice given in the Renewed Testament, it is spoken in assumption that the union will be one man and one woman (at a time).

          On the other hand, you may be surprised to consider in reflection how lenient Yahweh has been in prosecuting the actual laws against polygyny. You will recall that the kings of Israel were prohibited from multiplying wives to themselves. Yet we see polygyny as the norm, rather than the exception for the kings of Israel and Yahwdhah (rhymes with how-saw). Yet rebukes from the prophets on this matter total zero, except where murder or adultery was also involved, as with Dawidh, Ooriah, and Bathshevah. Even where Dawidh inherited the wives of his father in law, Shaul, the matter was not prosecuted, even though it could possibly have been interpreted as taking a father’s wife, also a very serious matter. But let the lascivious, the hated of Yahweh beware: nothing in this letter should be construed to be license to commit acts of mere harlotry, fornication, or promiscuity. Your sins will find you out.

          Incidentally, and perhaps interestingly, what is sauce for the goose is not always sauce for the gander. There appears to be even less provision in torah for the tolerance of polyandry, which is defined as having more than one male mate at the same time, in other words, what is called the “oldest profession.” It was commonly called harlotry, or prostitution, and was usually considered dishonorable in Israel. 

           By the way, we can probably make a case for murder with Lamech, but without testimony from his wives and neighbors, adultery won’t hold much water. And remember, please, the penalties for false witness. It is still possible that Lamech could be allowed to defend himself from that charge as part of his trial for other crimes in the Judgement of Yahweh. Bigamy: definitely, but it’s doubtfull that we could get a U.S. court to take the case for adultery, so long ago, and so far away. And anyway, bigamy was not a U.S. crime during Lamech’s lifetime, so a U.S. trial, in my opinion, is a really long shot.

                                                          Was that worth two cents? G.R.

                 Ps.—Let me know, will you, if this covers the question adequately, or excessively, or if it missed the point altogether? Hey! You forgot to tell me what your point of view is!