THE ASSOCIATION OF POLYGNY WITH OTHER EVILS
The Polygyny of
Corrupt Men
Doubtless there are instances where
polygyny is associated with men who were morally corrupt. Lamech is the first
(Genesis 4:9); Esau is another (Genesis 26:34). Lamech was in Cain’s line, and
he probably was evil for his treatment of the fellow who wounded him (Genesis
4:23). Yet the evil of these men was not essentially related to polygyny. Esau’s
wives were a concern to Isaac, not because of their number, but because of
their character. In the end, these guilt-by-association arguments are unhelpful,
because such logic would condemn monogamy was well. For example, Cain killed
his brother—and was evil—but the text does not mention more than one wife for
him. Should his evil taint his monogamy? Clearly not.
There are other undesirable
implications of ad hominem argument as well. What about righteous men
who had more than one wife—Jacob, Abraham and David, to name three. Would not their
general righteousness thereby justify their polygyny? The rejoinder is anticipated
that these “righteous” men were unrighteous when they married their second
wives. Abraham should not have taken Hegar, because that was against God’s
plan, which was to bless him through Sarah only. Jacob was a trickster trying
to outsmart another trickster (Laban) and got tricked into plural wives. David sinned
greatly in taking Bathsheba to himself.
Nevertheless this over-reads the text.
Abraham was never said to be wrong in taking Hagar as a concubine or even for having
a child by her. What the Scripture condemns in him his seeking to have the
child of promise by her. Consider the allusion to the situation in Malachi
2:15. There it is said, “ . . .And what did that one do while he was seeking
a godly offspring? Take heed then to your spirit, and let no one deal
treacherously against the wife of your youth.” In contrast to men in
Malachi’s day who divorced their wives, the prophet tells them that Abraham,
even in the effort to gain a child promised to him, did not divorce his wife in
the process. This implies that taking Hagar, and thereby becoming a polygamist,
was not a problem. He was righteous insofar as he did not put Sarah away in the
process.
Jacob may have been tricked by Laban,
but nowhere in Scripture does it suggest that Jacob was wrong in having two
wives, and since Rachel was second and thus Jacob should not have taken her—well,
there goes the line of Christ. For their part, Rachel AND Leah certainly
thought that God Himself was blessing them by giving them babies (Genesis 29ff)—even
those who came through their servant girls. They could, of course, have been
wrong in their analysis but who are we to say?
The story of David’s wives actually provides
a strong argument in favor of polygyny. Bathsheba was not his second wife—he had
several before her—but it is in regards to her case that one of the stronger
arguments for the propriety of polygyny can be formed. When Nathan the prophet
condemned David for taking Bathsheba, Nathan remarked,
[God] gave your master’s wives into
your care . . . and if that had been too little, [He] would have added
to you many more things [women] like these! (II Samuel 12:8).
It was not that David had plural
wives, but the prior marital status of Bathsheba, that constituted his sin . .
. (Clyde L. Pilkington, Jr., The Great Omission: Christendom’s Abandonment
of the Biblical Family—A Plea for the Return to Polygamy [Windber, Pa.: Patriarch
Publishing House, 2010], 114-15)
