We believe that God has designed and reserved marriage for lifelong unions of a man and a woman. And the reason we take that position is because we believe it is the teaching of the Bible.
But you’re probably well aware of one of the big problems with that: What about Old Testament polygamy?
The Old Testament includes examples of and laws relating to polygamy – marriage between more than two people.1 Does this disprove our claim that the Bible teaches marriage is the lifelong union of two? Does this mean that God approves of marriage relationships that take other forms?
I don’t believe it does, and I want to show why by walking us through what the Old Testament says about polygamy. I’ll give you a heads-up that we’re going to have to get a bit technical with some texts. But it’s worth it. Sexual ethics really matter (think how seriously Jesus views them in Matthew 5:27-30 and 15:18-20), and so it’s important that we put in the effort to faithfully understand the teaching of Scripture.
Monogamy as God’s plan
Before diving into what the Old Testament says about polygamy, it’s helpful to first notice the wider context of those passages. There are good reasons to conclude that the Old Testament presents monogamy – a union of one man and one woman – as the God-ordained and God-approved plan for marriage.
The creation accounts of Genesis 1 and 2 both present monogamy as God’s plan. In Genesis 1, we see this in the side-by-side placement of ‘male and female he created them’ (v.27) and the command, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth’ (v.28). Since being fruitful requires the union of two and then unites them ongoingly through the responsibilities of parenting, the implication is made that human sexual unions are designed to be unions of two. This is something Jesus knew. He draws the same conclusion from Genesis 1:27 when quizzed by the Pharisees on the topic of divorce (Mark 10:6-7).2
There are good reasons to conclude that the Old Testament presents monogamy as the God-ordained and God-approved plan for marriage.
There are also many reasons to see the account of marriage’s origins in Genesis 2 as demonstrating God’s plan that marriages be unions of two. Genesis 2:24 states: ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.’ The placement of this verse as the culmination of the narrative begun in verse 4 gives it great weight. It is not a throwaway comment but an explanation of why things are as they are. This point is further reinforced by the fact the statement is part of a creation narrative talking about origins, including the origin of marriage. The generic language used to describe those involved (‘a man’ and ‘his woman/wife’) also suggests the statement of a timeless principle.
Both the immediate and wider context of Genesis 2:24 point to the same conclusion. In the immediate context, the union of the man and the woman is presented as a fitting reunion of what was separated when woman was taken out of man (note v.23 ‘flesh of my flesh’ and v.24 ‘they shall become one flesh’, as well as the role of ‘Therefore’ at the start of v.24). In the wider context, it is significant that polygamy is first practised by Lamech (Genesis 4:19) a member of Cain’s family tree (i.e. the baddies), while no mention of polygamy is made in Seth’s family tree (i.e. the goodies; Genesis 5:1-32).
The creation narratives present monogamy as God’s plan for marriage, and Jesus’s words to the Pharisees about marriage demonstrate that he believed the Genesis creation accounts present a model of marriage which is the only form God intended (Mark 10:5-9).
Beyond the creation accounts, we find monogamy being, by far, the more common practice among God’s people and the form of marriage assumed in most relevant laws (e.g. the singular ‘wife’, rather than ‘wives’, in Exodus 20:17 and Deuteronomy 5:21). While this is not conclusive, it does point towards monogamy being recognised as the God-ordained norm. The Wisdom Literature offers further support for this conclusion: both Proverbs (e.g. 5:3-20; 18:22; 31:10-31) and Song of Solomon assume that marriage will be between just two people. As Derek Kidner summarises, ‘In Proverbs, the union of one man with one woman is clearly shown to be the norm, both by the absence of any allusion to the discords of polygamy … and by the fully personal bond taken to exist between husband and wife.’3
Throughout the Old Testament, monogamy is presented as God’s plan for marriage. So how do we understand the reality of polygamy in the Old Testament? Let’s dive in and consider polygamy in the different types of Old Testament literature – narrative, law and prophets.
Polygamy in Old Testament narrative
Old Testament narratives do contain examples of polygamy among God’s people. It’s worth noting that it is relatively rare though,4 and is usually only the practice of kings and other significant figures (such as the patriarchs in Genesis).5 The statistical norm was clearly monogamous marriage even though polygamy was sometimes practiced.
But just because polygamous marriages are found among God’s people in the Old Testament, this doesn’t necessarily mean that it was a practice God approved of or endorsed. In fact, there are reasons to think the opposite.
Whenever we approach narrative in the Bible, we have to consider what is prescriptive (telling us how to live) and what is descriptive (simply reporting what happened). There is nothing to suggest that the accounts of polygamy are prescriptive, supporting polygamy. They are descriptive accounts and are actually designed to warn readers off polygamy. It is noticeable that, almost without exception, the polygamous marriages in Scripture face problems because of their form (consider, for example, the fallout of Abraham’s relationship with Hagar (Genesis 16, 21) or the tension between Hannah and Peninnah (1 Samuel 1)). The narratives thus offer a subtle critique of the practice: it isn’t in keeping with God’s plan and therefore it inevitably causes problems.
Just because polygamous marriages are found among God’s people in the Old Testament, this doesn’t necessarily mean that it was a practice God approved of or endorsed.
It has also been suggested that there may be evidence of both Jacob and David repenting of polygamy and returning to monogamy after key points in their lives.
The key point for Jacob was his encounter with God at the river Jabbok (Genesis 32:22-32).6 Before this, Jacob refers to both Rachel and Leah as his wives (Genesis 30:26); afterwards, he refers only to Rachel as his wife (Genesis 44:27), and when he talks about burying Leah, having just used the word ‘wife’ to refer to Sarah and Rebekah, wives of his father and grandfather, he says only ‘I buried Leah’, with no reference to her being his wife (Genesis 49:31). It is also notable that only Rachel has any further children after the Jabbok encounter (Genesis 35:16-17) – this may suggest that while Jacob continued to care and provide for Leah, and their servants Zilpah and Bilhah who had been given to Jacob as additional wives, it was only Rachel with whom he continued in a sexual relationship.
The genealogy of Jacob in Genesis 46 is also important – only Rachel is said to have been Jacob’s wife (v.19), while Leah, Zilpah and Bilhah are identified only as those who bore children to Jacob (vv. 15, 18, 25). By contrast, the genealogy of Esau identifies multiple women as Esau’s wives (Genesis 36:2-3, 9-14). This may suggest that Jacob returned to monogamy with Rachel after his encounter with God and the author of Genesis is reflecting this in the way he talks about the family of Jacob.
David may have repented and returned to monogamy in a similar way after he returned to Jerusalem following the death of Absalom.7 We are told that David ‘took the ten concubines whom he had left to care for the house and put them in a house under guard and provided for them, but did not go in to them’ (2 Samuel 20:3). Later, Abishag the Shunammite is brought to attend to David, but he ‘had no sexual relations with her' (1 Kings 1:4). Together, these points may suggest that David returned to monogamy with Bathsheba in the later part of his life.
If it is the case that Jacob and David repented of their polygamy, this stands against any claim of God approving of the practice.
Two other texts are worth briefly discussing. It has sometimes been claimed that God’s words to David in 2 Samuel 12:8 show divine approval of polygamy.
‘And I gave you your master's house and your master's wives into your arms and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah.’
These words are a way of talking about David inheriting Saul’s estate. They don’t necessarily mean that David took the women as his own wives and certainly don’t show that God intended him to do so. In fact, it is certain that God did not intend this: Saul’s widow Ahinoam was the mother of David’s wife Michal and so such a union would have been a form of incest outlawed in Leviticus 18:17.8 In addition, the use of parallel language in the warning to David in 2 Samuel 12:11 shows that it doesn’t imply God’s approval – God would clearly not have approved of someone defiling David’s wives, even if he would permit it as judgement on David.9
Another text sometimes claimed to show divine support for polygamy is 2 Chronicles 24:2-3:
‘And Joash did what was right in the eyes of the Lord all the days of Jehoiada the priest. Jehoiada got for him two wives, and he had sons and daughters.’
Many commentators note that the author of Chronicles is using a structure parallel to the account of Joash’s reign in 2 Kings 12:1-3: the declaration that Joash (known as Jehoash in 2 Kings) did right is followed by the ways that Joash fell short. In 2 Kings 12:3, the ways Joash fell short are introduced with ‘nevertheless’ (raq). The same can and should be assumed at the start of 2 Chronicle 24:3, demonstrating that the acceptance of two wives was a way Joash fell short of God’s standards.10
A final point is relevant to Old Testament narratives: it is striking that there are no records of polygamy among the people of God in the later, post-exilic period.11 This suggests that as part of the focus on a return to purity and holy living that characterised this period, there was a return to God’s intended plan of monogamy.12
Polygamy in Old Testament law
There are a handful of relevant legal passages in the Old Testament.
Leviticus 18:18
‘And you shall not take a woman as a rival wife to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is still alive.’
While traditionally interpreted as prohibiting a man from marrying the biological sister of his (living) wife, there are strong reasons to believe this verse prohibits all polygamy.13
A key issue is the meaning of the phrase ‘a woman to (el) her sister’. Every time this phrase is used elsewhere in the Old Testament, it has a distributive sense, giving the meaning ‘one in addition to another’ (e.g. Exodus 26:3; Ezekiel 1:9).14 It therefore makes sense to assume the same meaning here, making the verse a prohibition on taking ‘one wife in addition to another’, i.e. any practice of polygamy regardless of the relationship, of those involved.
There are strong reasons to believe this verse prohibits all polygamy.
This is further supported by the fact that a prohibition on marrying biological sisters could have been conveyed more clearly using the simple construction ‘a woman and (we) her sister’. This simple construction is used in the previous verse to outlaw sexual relations with ‘a woman and (we) her daughter’ (Leviticus 18:17). We might reasonably expect the same here if the author wished to talk about two biological sisters.
The structure of the passage also supports reading Leviticus 18:18 as a general prohibition of polygamy. The chapter contains two collections of prohibitions. The first, verses 6-17, condemns various forms of incest. The unity of this section can be seen in the use of repeated structures that are visible even in English translations. Verses 7-17 all follow exactly the same pattern, starting with ‘the nakedness of…’ and leading up to ‘you shall not uncover’.
By contrast, each verse in 18-23 starts with the conjunction ‘and’ (we) and includes the phrase ‘you shall not…’, with various verbs being used, but never the verb ‘uncover’.
It is clear from these patterns that the prohibitions fall into two separate collections. The first is about incestual relationships. The second is about more general prohibited sexual relationships. The form of verse 18 shows that it is to be joined with what follows rather than what precedes it. It is not a prohibition about incest; it is one of the more general prohibitions about sexual relationships. This fits the conclusion that the prohibition is not about marrying two biological sisters (a form of incest) but about marrying any two women.
Finally, it is helpful to note that this is how the verse was read by the Jewish community at Qumran, the community that produced the Dead Sea Scrolls. For example, The Temple Scroll prohibits polygamy for the king. It is expounding Deuteronomy 17 (on which see below), but clearly also alludes to Leviticus 18:18: ‘He shall not take another wife in addition to her, for she alone shall be with him all the time of her life. But if she dies, he may marry another’ (11QT 57:17-19, emphasis added).15
Exodus 21:7-11
‘7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.’
It is often assumed that these verses refer to polygamy – the man purchases a woman who becomes his wife (v.8) but then takes an additional wife (v.10). It is sometimes then claimed that this passage indicates divine approval of such polygamy.
However, there are two reasons for questioning this conclusion. The first is that this is an example of case law. Case law lays down guidance for what is to take place in a certain situation. That does not necessarily indicate approval of the original situation. This can often be seen in biblical case law: for example, Exodus 22:1 doesn’t endorse theft but legislates for when it happens. Jesus shows that God gave case law for situations of which he doesn’t approve when he discusses with the Pharisees the laws around divorce from Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (Mark 10:5-6). Therefore, if these verses do legislate for situations of polygamy, that does not demonstrate that God approves of the practice.
But it is also likely that these verses are not even talking about a situation of polygamy.
Verse 8 exhibits some textual difficulties,16 but on either of the possible readings, it is not clear that the man goes through with the marriage he had intended when he purchased the woman. In fact, the prescription that he must allow her to be redeemed stands against the idea they were married. If they were married, we might expect mention of divorce and the accompanying certificate of divorce (cf. Deuteronomy 24:1).
In verse 10, two aspects have been read as implying polygamy. First, the phrase ‘if he marries another woman’. However, the word ‘another’ doesn’t have to mean ‘another in addition to’; it can have the meaning ‘a different, alternative’.17
Second, the reference to the ‘marital rights’ of the first woman – the one purchased in verse 7 – is seen as proof that the man has married her. But there are translational difficulties here. This is the only occurrence of the Hebrew word in the Old Testament making it hard to be certain of its meaning. The traditional translation is the least likely of the available options,18 and many commentators believe it is more likely to be related to oil or housing, both of which would fit the context well.19 Verse 10 is therefore likely to be referring to a situation where the man chooses not to marry the woman he has purchased (as could be suggested by verse 8). In this scenario, if she is not redeemed by her family, he cannot leave her destitute but must provide for her key needs. If he doesn’t, she is free to go without the redemption price having to be paid (v.11).
So, it seems unlikely that Exodus 21:7-11 is talking about a situation of polygamy. But even if it were, the nature of case law means the legislation can’t be taken as proof of God’s approval of the practice.
Deuteronomy 21:15-19
This law addresses a situation where a man has children from two wives, one whom he favours over the other (‘one loved and the other unloved’). The law insists that even if the firstborn is not the child of the favoured wife, they should still be given the double portion of inheritance due to the firstborn.
It tells us nothing about God’s perspective on the man’s practice of polygamy.
This law is seeking to protect the rights of the firstborn. It is another example of case law, legislating for a situation without necessarily approving of the situation. (Presumably the law doesn’t endorse the man not loving one of his wives, so it would be odd to insist that it does endorse the practice of having two wives.)20 The purpose of the law is to safeguard the firstborn son against being unfairly overlooked in inheritance due to his father’s relationship with his wives. It tells us nothing about God’s perspective on the man’s practice of polygamy.
It is also worth noting that while the situation envisaged may be polygamy, it is not certain that is it. The wording of the verse does not require that the man has the two wives simultaneously. It could be that one had died or that a divorce had taken place.21
Deuteronomy 25:5-10
Deuteronomy 25 offers legislation in relation to the practice of Levirate marriage. If a man died without having fathered a son, his brother was expected to marry his widow and their first child would be considered the offspring and heir of the deceased husband. This practice, which is found elsewhere in the ancient world, was about ensuring the legacy of the deceased (‘that his name may not be blotted out of Israel’ v.6) and clarifying the path of inheritance.
Some suggest that this law would result in God-sanctioned, and even God-commanded, polygamy, and thereby demonstrates God’s approval of the practice. However, this is far from clear.
If following this law did result in polygamous marriages, it would still be hard to claim it as evidence of God’s approval of polygamy. It would be evidence of God recognising the need for a practice that protected vulnerable widows and both ensured the legacy and protected the estate of childless men who died. If this resulted in God-sanctioned polygamy, it would only be in this very specific circumstance and would not undermine the idea that God’s plan and intention is for marriages to be unions of two. If this law makes space for polygamy, it is as a necessary exception to God’s plan of monogamy, not an indication that that plan doesn’t exist.
But it is also uncertain that this law does allow for polygamous marriages. The law clearly does not cover all potential eventualities (for example, it doesn’t discuss situations where there are no brothers). It, like most Old Testament law, is not trying to be comprehensive and tells us nothing about what should happen if the man’s brothers are already married.
It may well have been recognised that the obligation of Levirate marriage only fell on unmarried brothers. This is quite possible given the normative status of monogamy in the Old Testament and the likely prohibition on polygamy in Leviticus 18:18. It is also supported by the Targum for Ruth 4:6 where the redeemer whom Boaz first approaches says, ‘I cannot marry her because I am already married.’22 The opening phrase of Deuteronomy 25:5 is also significant: ‘When brothers reside together…’ This places some limitation on which brothers are obligated by the law. If it is a reference to those who live in close contact, it may restrict the obligation to unmarried brothers who are still part of the father’s or older brother’s household.23
Deuteronomy 17:17
‘And he shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold.’
The command that Israel’s future kings should ‘not acquire many wives’ has been read as a potential acceptance of a limited practice of polygamy – the king can have a few wives, but not too many. While the wording does leave some ambiguity, it is unlikely that God intended to suggest polygamy in moderation would be acceptable.
First, the phrase ‘he shall not acquire [lit: multiply] to himself’ is used in the same passage of horses (v.16) and silver and gold (v.17). Thus, the use of this phrase is likely designed to form a link between these three prohibitions, each being something that could draw the king away from faithfulness to God. This explains why this wording is used and why the prohibition is not given in more simple, direct language (e.g. ‘He shall not have multiple wives’).24
Second, the king was to model faithful living to the people. It is therefore implausible that he would be allowed to engage in polygamy given the prohibition on the practice for all Israelites (Leviticus 18:18). As already noted, this is how the Jewish community who composed the Dead Sea Scrolls read Deuteronomy 17:17, combining it with Leviticus 18:18 (11QT 57:17-19).
A careful exploration of the relevant passages shows that Old Testament law doesn’t provide any evidence of God endorsing polygamy and actually legislates against it. This supports the view that monogamy is presented as God’s plan for marriage.
Polygamy in the Prophets
In the Prophets we find God’s plan for human marriages becoming even clearer: human marriages point to the union of God and his people. As God speaks through his messengers, he begins to talk about himself as the husband of his people and his people as his bride (e.g. Isaiah 54:5-8; 62:4-5; Hosea 2:16).
But in Jeremiah 3 and Ezekiel 23, God talks about having two wives – Israel and Judah. Does this mean that God is polygamous and approves of polygamy?
It is the historical situation which requires God to use the metaphor of polygamy as he talks about his relationship with his people.
It doesn’t. We have to recognise that both chapters are using a metaphor to make a powerful point about the relationship between God and his people. The point is that God’s people are being unfaithful to him in a way which enacts the same level of betrayal as a cheating wife. Importantly, God is only in a relationship with these two wives because they were previously one. This is the point in Old Testament history when the people of God had divided into northern (Israel) and the southern (Judah) kingdoms (1 Kings 12:16-20). God has not taken for himself two peoples as his wife; he took one people who have now divided into two. It is this historical situation which requires God to use the metaphor of polygamy as he talks about his relationship with his people.
Both passages also specify that the two women are biological sisters (Jeremiah 3:7; Ezekiel 23:2). This means that any such relationship would contravene Leviticus 18:18 (on any reading of that verse). The metaphor therefore cannot be indicating divine approval of such marriages.25
God does use the metaphor of a polygamous marriage in the prophets, but this is to powerfully explain the situation in which he finds himself with his people. It is not a divine endorsement of polygamy.
What about polygamy in the Old Testament?
Let’s summarise: Do the stories and laws relating to polygamy in the Old Testament undermine the claim that God’s plan for marriage, as revealed in the Bible, is for it to be the lifelong union of a man and a woman? Not when we carefully look at the relevant texts.
The narratives of polygamy are descriptive rather than prescriptive. The difficulties consistently portrayed in polygamous marriages are meant to warn us off the practice, and it may even be that Jacob and David repented of their polygamy and returned to living in monogamy.
Some of the Old Testament laws believed to talk about polygamy probably don’t (Exodus 21:7-11, possibly Deuteronomy 25:5-10). Others, if they do talk about polygamy, allow it only as a necessary exception to God’s plan in exceptional circumstances (Deuteronomy 25:5-10), or offer no endorsement for the practice but seek to ensure justice for the children of such unions (Deuteronomy 21:15-19). And two laws offer an outright prohibition on polygamy, either for the king (Deuteronomy 17:17) or for all Israelites (Leviticus 18:18).
On a couple of occasions, the Prophets talk of God being in a polygamous marriage with Israel and Judah, but this is a powerful way of talking about the people’s sin and is a necessary extension of Scripture’s God-Israel husband-wife metaphor, given the historical circumstance of the divided kingdom.
God’s plan is for marriages to be lifelong unions of a man and a woman. This is presented as God's plan in the Old Testament. It is not undermined by polygamy in the Old Testament. And it is still God’s good plan for us today.
- Strictly speaking, what we find in the Old Testament is polygyny – one man with multiple wives. For simplicity, I use the language of polygamy throughout this article.
- The Qumran community, producers of the Dead Sea Scrolls, also drew this conclusion from Genesis 1:27: ‘[A man] shall be caught in fornication twice by taking a second wife while the first is alive, whereas the principle of creation is, Male and female He created them’ (CD 4:20-21). Translation from Geza Vermes (trans.), The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (Penguin, 2004), p.132.
- Derek Kidner, Proverbs: An Introduction and Commentary (IVP, 1964), p.49.
- ‘In the OT there are thirty-three reasonably clear historical cases of polygamy out of approximately three thousand men mentioned’. Richard M. Davies, Flame of Yahweh: Sexuality in the Old Testament (Baker Academic, 2007), p.210.
- The notable exception is Elkanah in 1 Samuel 1 who has two wives, Hannah and Peninnah. It is likely that Elkanah took Peninnah as a second wife when he did not have any children with Hannah. We know that in the ancient Near East infertility was a common justification for polygamy. A few other exceptions are found in the genealogies of 1 Chronicles 1-9.
- For the argument made in this paragraph, see Davies, Flame of Yahweh, pp.187-188.
- See Davies, Flame of Yahweh, p.206.
- Davies, Flame of Yahweh, p.205.
- V. Philips Long, 1 and 2 Samuel: An Introduction and Commentary (IVP, 2020), p.370.
- This is a plausible reading of the Hebrew (waw consecutive + imperfect). See Davies, Flame of Yahweh, pp. 207-208.
- The one exception is Esther’s position as one of the harem of king Ahasuerus. However, Esther was ‘taken into the king’s palace and put in custody’ (Esther 2:8) by the Persian king. It is not likely that this was her choice or desire.
- Davies, Flame of Yahweh, pp.208-209.
- See the thorough arguments of Hugenberger, Marriage as Covenant: A Study of Biblical Law and Ethics Governing Marriage, Developed from the Perspective of Malachi (E.J. Brill, 2004), pp.115-118 and Davies, Flame of Yahweh, pp.193-198.
- The same is true of the masculine equivalent ‘a man to his brother’, e.g. Exodus 16:15; Numbers 14:4; 2 Kings 7:6; Jeremiah 13:14; Ezekiel 24:23.
- Translation from Vermes (trans.), Dead Sea Scrolls in English, p.214. See Angelo Toasato, ‘The Law of Leviticus 18:18: A Reexamination’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly.
- The two options are ‘If she does not please the master…’ (1) ‘…who has selected her for himself’ (NIV) or (2) ‘…so that he does not choose her’ (NIV footnote). See also the main text and footnote of ESV and NASB.
- See, for example, Numbers 14:24; Judges 11:2; Jeremiah 22:26. Davies, Flame of Yahweh, p.192.
- ‘Of these possibilities, the least likely is “conjugal rights”, especially if v. 8 reads “the master has not designated her.”’ T. Desmond Alexander, Exodus (IVP, 2017), p.477.
- Alexander, Exodus, p.477; Davies, Flame of Yahweh, p.193.
- Hugenberger, Marriage as Covenant, p.113.
- Davies, Flame of Yahweh, p.201.
- Hugenberger, Marriage as Covenant, p.115. The Targums are Aramaic translations/paraphrases of the Old Testament.
- Davies, Flame of Yahweh, p.202.
- Hugenberger, Marriage as Covenant, pp.119-120.
- Hugenberger, Marriage as Covenant, p.112.
