Polygamy & Adultery in the OT

[nwink]

If polygamy was "allowed" in the OT, then what would adultery consist of? Would "adultery" mean lustful thoughts/actions towards someone that was not one of your wives?

ALSO, is there a good resource (article, section of a book, previous PB thread, etc) about polygamy in the OT? (I think the clearest condemnation of polygamy is Christ talking about the institution of marriage in the Garden...that one-man-and-one-woman is how it was from the beginning)

Another question: might polygamy have been allowed because of the law in Deut 25 about if a man's brother die, that the man would then take his sister-in-law as his wife to perform the brother's duty? Deut 25:5 "If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him as wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her."

 

[JennyG]

what would adultery consist of? Would "adultery" mean lustful thoughts/actions towards someone that was not one of your wives?

surely yes, as with David and Bathsheba. His sin was taking another man's, even though he had plenty of his own (!) The principle is the same although the arithmetic is different.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Polygamy is an example of pragmatics trumping ethics.

Polygamy is like a government-sponsored "solution;" in order to solve one problem, the State must create a minimum of two new ones, at least one of which creates conditions that are worse than the original problem; thus, by an endless cascade of problems to ensure the perpetuation of the managerial class. (Someone, please look up the official nomenclature of this observation, it's in the same category as Peter's Principle and Murphy's Law.)

Adultery (proper) is the egregious instance of ungoverned lust, whereby one person takes the rightful property of another. And in case this sounds odd to 20th century ears, I would just point out this is the infallible statement of Paul, 1Cor.7:4. The married mutually surrender their deeds to the particular bodies each was born with to his or her spouse.

Plural marriages are an attempt to give cover to various lusts that are unsatisfied by the original contract. That lust may not be only for some new sexual gratification. It may be for children, see 1Sam.1.

A second marriage could "solve" the problem of immoral outlet for some stud's overactive glands, by giving it the cover of a legal marriage. It is recognized as a marriage by the society, and therefore is a marriage in fact. The question of whether this is a proper societal solution is important, but beside the point. One problem we often encounter in these kinds of analyses is an unwitting subversion of duly constituted authority; and so we describe foolishly things that are as if they aren't. Unions are made by marriages; and so they exist. They are unmade by divorces; and are no more. And as a tertiary point, the modern confusion over what sorts of persons can marry is complicated by the subversion of language--two men cannot marry (if that word is to bear its natural meaning) because such a "union" does not meet the natural criteria for marriages. All the present legal and media circus achieves is forcing society to create a new word to convey the meaning that "marriage" once did. Denial is not the problem the traditionalists have, but is a characteristic of the would-be "reformers" who war against nature.


Anyway, there's no question the polygamist is an adulterer any time his lust passes his marriage bound. The internal (to the marriages) tensions are in a way irresolvable in this life. People frequently have to live with the consequences of their sins (or the sins of others) for the duration of their earthly lives. The issue of adultery-proper may have been skirted by a recognized marriage, but now there are new sins and griefs to bear.



The issue of the levirate-marriage is incidental to the polygamy issue. Children have always been "social-security" for the passing generation. A childless widow was most precarious. And a poor woman alone in the male-dominated world of the ANE had very little to rely on. Even today, many such abandoned persons feel forced into prostitution. The levirate institution was a means for giving a child to one's dead-brother, for future help and maintenance of his widow (Onan's great sin was his selfishness and hatred).

That this created a "marriage" of a different kind than normal is generally admitted. It is quite possible that the brother was not expected automatically to provide repeated services for this sister-in-law, and that she continue in a more-or-less "widowed" status. The Dt.25:5 description unites the more general aspect of social convention with the unique Israelite cultural requirements related to the land and inheritance, all which should have attended a religious hope in Messiah.

One thing we can say about this issue: it comes about in a fallen world, in a world without love and natural affection. No childless widow should fear for her life and care. Is it the best solution? Perhaps it was, until the Savior came. There have been and are other approaches, which may suit our age better.

Certainly, today we do not need to "do our part" (participate) to ensure that the Messiah's people will continue until his birth. Our love for others should keep any widow from falling through to neglect. There is no concern to keep a widow "close" to one biological family; rather she is free to marry again, "only in the Lord." Polygamy disqualifies a man from serving as an elder in Christ's church--a strong discouragement from redeveloping that "solution" in the future, should Christ tarry his second coming.


I don't have further ideas for your reading.