Polygamy and levirate marriage

[onefour1]

Hi

This follows on from some discussions in another thread about polygamy in the Bible. I am posting it here due to its obvious relevance to LDS (given their historical practice of polygamy), but of course it is not exclusively relevant to them.

Deut 25:5-6 (NIV):


Basically, this passage starts off by saying, that if a man's married brother dies without a son, then the surviving brother must marry the dead brother's wife. How is this relevant to polygamy? There is no requirement that the surviving brother not already be married.

So, how could polygamy be a sin, if God here commands it?

Now, a few more points. Firstly, the phrase "brothers are living together" - possibly, this refers to some kind of extended family living arrangement. If that interpretation is correct, then this may not be a universal rule, but rather one applicable to a particular type of family arrangement (which may no longer exist in most societies). Yet, even if it is only an obligation in certain limited circumstances, the fact remains - how could it be a sin if God commands it?

Secondly, it is not clear if there are multiple brothers, which one has the obligation. According to the Talmud, the older brother is expected to do so, but if he refuses and a younger brother consents, the law is nonetheless obeyed.

Thirdly, what is the penalty for not obeying this command? The penalty is limited to a public shaming (Deut 25:6-10):

Now, I think in the day, even if this is only a shaming, it would have been rather severe. The way the practice has developed since (it is retained in contemporary Judaism), the element of shame has been lost (since in practice very rarely do either the brother or the sister-in-law actually want to get married, and this is a way convenient to both of them to get out of it, and it has turned into a formalistic ceremony with a very different meaning from the original). But I think it is clear that in the original, it is a rather severe shaming.

I think it makes the most sense to understand this as a commandment, with public shaming as a penalty for violation.

So we are left with the conclusion - that God commanded polygamy, at least in certain specific circumstances. If God commands polygamy, how can it be a sin to do what God commands?

I think that is the strongest pro-polygamy argument based on the Pentateuch. But here are some more:

1] Exodus 21:10 (NIV): "If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights." If polygamy was prohibited as sinful, there would be no need for this regulation. The Bible generally doesn't contain statements of the gentle murder paradox ("If you are going to murder, then murder gently"). The fact that it is regulated implies that it is permitted and not prohibited, and therefore not sinful.

2] Deut 17:17 (NIV) says of the King: "He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold." Note that it clearly says "many wives", rather than "more than one". Another point, which the NIV obscures, but the KJV makes rather clear "Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold." "multiply" does not mean having more than one, it means no having too much. The King is not allowed to multiply silver and gold, but he is nonetheless allowed more than one piece of each. In the same way, the King is allowed to have more than one wife, just not too many. Both occurrences of the word "multiply" are the same word in Hebrew.

If God wanted to say that the King could have only one wife, surely the Bible would have said that. Instead, it is clear, the King is allowed to have more than one wife, just not too many wives.

Another argument that is made, is that the biblical accounts of the kings condemn them for breaking this violation. But note, it is not for polygamy that they are condemned, but for excessive polygamy. Excessive polygamy is a violation of the Torah, and king Solomon is condemned for violating this prohibition, and the Bible reports the negative consequences from his sin. If instead he had stuck to moderate polygamy (two or three wives, say), then he would not have sinned against the Torah, and many of the negative consequences would not have occurred.

One final point - Judaism has always taught that polygamy is permissible according to the Torah and Tanach. Among the Ashkenazi it is prohibited, but that is due to a rabbinical decision in the 11th century, not due to the Bible, and they agree that polygamy was permissible prior to then (and even today, it is arguably still permissible from the Ashkenazi perspective among Jews not subject to Ashkenazi customs). Among Sephardi Jews, polygamy is considered religiously acceptable, albeit rarely practised (and especially not in Western countries.) Say what you like about Judaism, but when the plain reading of the Torah/Tanach says something, and furthermore Jews have always agreed it says that, I take that as a pretty convincing argument that that is what it says.

Zack

Excellent Post!!

[onefour1]

Another verse that I brought up in another thread reads:

2 Samuel 12:7-9
7 ¶And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;

8 And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.

In these verses, Nathan the prophet begins with "Thus saith the Lord God of Israel". So Nathan as a prophet is telling David what the Lord has instructed him to say to David. Nathan goes on to quote the Lord by saying, "...And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom...". This verse is telling us that the Lord himself through his prophet Nathan gave David the wives of Saul into his bosom. Thus the Lord God allowed David to take many wives. ZackMartin, this is just more evidence that God desired men in Old Testament times to take into their bosom multiple wives.

[Cow Poke]

Another verse that I brought up in another thread reads:

2 Samuel 12:7-9
7 ¶And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;

8 And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.

In these verses, Nathan the prophet begins with "Thus saith the Lord God of Israel". So Nathan as a prophet is telling David what the Lord has instructed him to say to David. Nathan goes on to quote the Lord by saying, "...And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom...". This verse is telling us that the Lord himself through his prophet Nathan gave David the wives of Saul into his bosom. Thus the Lord God allowed David to take many wives. ZackMartin, this is just more evidence that God desired men in Old Testament times to take into their bosom multiple wives.

Aside from the fact that you're wrong, and this has already been debunked repeatedly, can you please cite proof that God wanted polygamy in the Christian Church?
Did Smith allegedly restore the OT Church --- or was it the Christian Church?

[onefour1]

Aside from the fact that you're wrong, and this has already been debunked repeatedly, can you please cite proof that God wanted polygamy in the Christian Church?
Did Smith allegedly restore the OT Church --- or was it the Christian Church?

The LDS argument is that God at times allows polygamy and at other times does not. It is not our stance that polygamy was allowed by the Lord when he established the Church of Jesus Christ. But it is quite evident that during Old Testament times it was acceptable to God. This being the case, plural marriage is not always a sin with God. Thus LDS doctrine teaches that if God requires his people to live the law of plural marriage he will command them. Otherwise, they are not to live the law.

[Cow Poke]

The LDS argument is that God at times allows polygamy and at other times does not.

Yes, I'm fully aware of that.

It is not our stance that polygamy was allowed by the Lord when he established the Church of Jesus Christ.

That's good to know!

But it is quite evident that during Old Testament times it was acceptable to God.

If it were "quite evident", it would not be argued so much, would it?

This being the case, plural marriage is not always a sin with God.

You're building your castle on a premise that has not been established - only claimed.

Thus LDS doctrine teaches that if God requires his people to live the law of plural marriage he will command them. Otherwise, they are not to live the law.

Well, yeah, but a lot of us don't believe Smith got that "commandment" from God, and I don't believe Smith's wife believed he got it from God, or Smith wouldn't have had to threaten her with "destruction".

Did Smith "restore" the NT Church, or the OT Religious system. Simple Question.

[Cow Poke]

The LDS argument...

And QUIT LICKING YOUR NOSE!!!!!

[ZackMartin]

The context shows that the other brother was unmarried. Because if he was married he would not have been living under the same roof as his brother. He would have had his own place with his wife.

Is the term "dwell together" in the text that specific in meaning that it would only apply when living under the same roof? What about if they lived in the same village? Why couldn't that count as "dwell together"?

Even if it does mean "under the same roof" - is it impossible that, at least sometimes, married children lived together with their parents? Even if the cultural norm was for married children to set up their own homes, can you be sure that this norm knew no exceptions?

I should note, the traditional Jewish interpretation, is that "brothers living together" means "brothers alive at the same time" (see Rashi's commentary).

also, it may only be referring to a kinsmen, not an actual brother because in Lev 20 it says:

Lev 20:21 21 If a man marries his brother’s wife, it is an act of impurity; he has dishonored his brother. They will be childless.

The traditional Jewish explanation, is that levirate marriage is an exception to the above verse - that marrying your brother's wife is prohibited in all cases except those when it is required. I don't see anything implausible about this explanation.

I'd suggest, if you want to gain an understanding of the traditional Jewish interpretation of the laws of levirate marriage, would be to read Rashi's commentary on Deut 25 (linked to above), and also tractate Yevamoth in the Talmud. No doubt the Talmud is rather hard to understand, but I think Wikipedia's article on yibbum is a good introduction. Of course, just because some interpretation is the traditional Jewish interpretation, that doesn't guarantee it is the right one, but I certainly think the traditional Jewish interpretation is plausible - Jews have been practising this law continuously for thousands of years.

Regards, Zack

[ZackMartin]

The New Testament clearly refers to "the husband of one wife", “Mias gunaikos andra”, which actually translates more to something like "a one woman kind of man" or a "man of one woman".

I already addressed in another thread, but this passage admits multiple interpretations. One is that it is a prohibition on bishops or deacons being celibate, since "mias" could also be translated as "first" rather than one, thus "man of first woman" (excluding the unmarried, but not the polygamous) - a "man of zero women" does not a "man of one woman" make. I think that's a bit implausible given Paul's approval of celibacy in 1 Cor 7, but I'm not going to rule it out as impossible.

Another interpretation is that "man of one woman" also includes those who have remarried after the divorce or death of their first wife. This is actually how the Eastern Orthodox Church interprets it.

Now, under either interpretation, why must we assume that this is a universal requirement for all believers, as opposed to a requirement for bishops and deacons only? If celibacy is prohibited for bishops and deacons, why should we assume it is also prohibited for those who do not hold these offices? If remarriage after death or divorce is prohibited for bishops and deacons, why should we assume it is also prohibited for those who do not hold these offices? Indeed, while the Eastern Orthodox Church prohibits remarriage after divorce or death for their clergy, they permit it for the laity. And thus, if indeed the passage prohibits polygamy for clergy, why should we assume it applies to the laity in that case either?

Zack

[Chrawnus]

Hi

This follows on from some discussions in another thread about polygamy in the Bible. I am posting it here due to its obvious relevance to LDS (given their historical practice of polygamy), but of course it is not exclusively relevant to them.

Deut 25:5-6 (NIV):


Basically, this passage starts off by saying, that if a man's married brother dies without a son, then the surviving brother must marry the dead brother's wife. How is this relevant to polygamy? There is no requirement that the surviving brother not already be married.

So, how could polygamy be a sin, if God here commands it?

First of all, God is not commanding polygamy here, atleast not directly. at most it's a permission of polygamy, and an indirect one at that. And it doesn't necessarily have to be the deceased man's brother that marries the widow either, it can also be a close relative too, as the story of Ruth shows:

Ruth 4:1-5

Now Boaz went up to the gate and sat down there, and behold, the close relative of whom Boaz spoke was passing by, so he said, "Turn aside, friend, sit down here." And he turned aside and sat down.
He took ten men of the elders of the city and said, "Sit down here." So they sat down.
Then he said to the closest relative, "Naomi, who has come back from the land of Moab, has to sell the piece of land which belonged to our brother Elimelech.
"So I thought to inform you, saying, 'Buy it before those who are sitting here, and before the elders of my people. If you will redeem it, redeem it; but if not, tell me that I may know; for there is no one but you to redeem it, and I am after you.'" And he said, "I will redeem it."
Then Boaz said, "On the day you buy the field from the hand of Naomi, you must also acquire Ruth the Moabitess, the widow of the deceased, in order to raise up the name of the deceased on his inheritance."

This shows that the law wasn't strictly limited to the dead persons brother. So if we're to go by the story of Ruth the Hebrew word for brother is most likely used in Deuteronomy 25:5 to refer to the closest (living) relative (i.e the kinsman), which could refer to the brother, but doesn't have to.

But now to something even more interesting. It seems like the Jews themselves understood something about the text that we don't. If we go back to the book of Ruth and read the next verse (Ruth 4:6) it says:

Ruth 4:6

The closest relative said, "I cannot redeem it for myself, because I would jeopardize my own inheritance. Redeem it for yourself; you may have my right of redemption, for I cannot redeem it."

Now, this verse doesn't specifically explain how it would jeopardize his inheritance, but if we read the Targum Ruth, we see something interesting:

6 The redeemer said, “In that case, I am not able to redeem for myself. Because I have a wife, I have no right to marry another in addition to her lest there be contention in my house and I destroy my inheritance. You, redeem my inheritance for yourself, for you have no wife, for I am not able to redeem.”

http://targuman.org/blog/targum-ruth...th-in-english/

I.e Jews somehow understood that even if it's not stated directly in the text, marrying a close relative's widow was not desirable if you yourself were married because it could jeopardize your own inheritance, and in that case it was therefore better to let the next closest relative marry the widow. (One can assume that if that relative was married then the duty of marrying the widow would presumably move to the third closest relative, and so on, until the closest unmarried relative was found).

Now, a few more points. Firstly, the phrase "brothers are living together" - possibly, this refers to some kind of extended family living arrangement. If that interpretation is correct, then this may not be a universal rule, but rather one applicable to a particular type of family arrangement (which may no longer exist in most societies). Yet, even if it is only an obligation in certain limited circumstances, the fact remains - how could it be a sin if God commands it?

I do believe it most likely refers to an "extended family arrangement", since families tended to stay in the same village and not move around that much, and therefore it would have been unnecessary to point out that the brothers were "living together" as that would have been the norm, not the exception. Which makes me believe it does refer to "extended family arrangement", especially since families of that era tended to include descendants up to the third or fourth generation.

Not that it matters that much, since ANE laws tended to be case laws, i.e they explained what should be done in a particular case, and then the judge was expected to figure out himself how to handle variations of that case. What that means is that the law of levirate marriage isn't limited to brothers living together, it was simply the case that was used in this...uhm...case.

Secondly, it is not clear if there are multiple brothers, which one has the obligation. According to the Talmud, the older brother is expected to do so, but if he refuses and a younger brother consents, the law is nonetheless obeyed.

And according to Ruth, and the Targum on Ruth it wasn't limited specifically to brothers, and already being married was a legitimate reason to refuse to marry the widow.

Thirdly, what is the penalty for not obeying this command? The penalty is limited to a public shaming (Deut 25:6-10):

Now, I think in the day, even if this is only a shaming, it would have been rather severe. The way the practice has developed since (it is retained in contemporary Judaism), the element of shame has been lost (since in practice very rarely do either the brother or the sister-in-law actually want to get married, and this is a way convenient to both of them to get out of it, and it has turned into a formalistic ceremony with a very different meaning from the original). But I think it is clear that in the original, it is a rather severe shaming.

I think it makes the most sense to understand this as a commandment, with public shaming as a penalty for violation.

I won't go in on the shaming part of it, since I have no apparent disagreements about what you said about it. However, your last sentence above, even while essentially correct, was not inherently understood to enforce, or even permit polygamous marriages, as Targum Ruth shows.

So we are left with the conclusion - that God commanded polygamy, at least in certain specific circumstances. If God commands polygamy, how can it be a sin to do what God commands?

Actually, were not left with that conclusion at all.

I think that is the strongest pro-polygamy argument based on the Pentateuch. But here are some more:

If that is the strongest pro-polygamy argument based on the Pentateuch then the case for polygamy isn't particularly strong.

1] Exodus 21:10 (NIV): "If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights." If polygamy was prohibited as sinful, there would be no need for this regulation. The Bible generally doesn't contain statements of the gentle murder paradox ("If you are going to murder, then murder gently"). The fact that it is regulated implies that it is permitted and not prohibited, and therefore not sinful.

Actually, in some cases the need for regulation is an indication that some things are undesirable or sinful, atleast if we're to believe the words of Jesus, and since both Christians and LDS hold the words of Jesus in highest authority, we should.

Matthew 19:7-9

They *said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?"
He *said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.
"And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

I.e some sinful behaviour was, if we are to believe the words of Jesus, actually allowed in the old covenant, but in order to not allow that behaviour to go completely out of hand, some regulations were put in place to prevent that.

So the fact that something is regulated doesn't mean it's seen as not sinful, in fact, it can even mean that it is in fact sinful, and that it was simply allowed for a time, "because of your hardness of heart".

2] Deut 17:17 (NIV) says of the King: "He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold." Note that it clearly says "many wives", rather than "more than one". Another point, which the NIV obscures, but the KJV makes rather clear "Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold." "multiply" does not mean having more than one, it means no having too much. The King is not allowed to multiply silver and gold, but he is nonetheless allowed more than one piece of each. In the same way, the King is allowed to have more than one wife, just not too many. Both occurrences of the word "multiply" are the same word in Hebrew.

Well the fact that the Bible limits the amount of wives the king is allowed to take, even if it's not limited to just one, definitely shows that polygamous marriages, while not strictly prohibited, were certainly not desirable, which means that this passage is a case against, not for polygamy.

If God wanted to say that the King could have only one wife, surely the Bible would have said that. Instead, it is clear, the King is allowed to have more than one wife, just not too many wives.

Granted, but that the King was allowed multiple wives does not mean that it was something that was desirable. In fact, the fact that it was regulated is an indication that it's yet another example of God giving exceptions, because of the "hardness of heart" of the Israelites.

Another argument that is made, is that the biblical accounts of the kings condemn them for breaking this violation. But note, it is not for polygamy that they are condemned, but for excessive polygamy. Excessive polygamy is a violation of the Torah, and king Solomon is condemned for violating this prohibition, and the Bible reports the negative consequences from his sin. If instead he had stuck to moderate polygamy (two or three wives, say), then he would not have sinned against the Torah, and many of the negative consequences would not have occurred.

That's not clear at all. Solomon sinned because he started to worship the gods of his wives, it wasn't because of the number of wives he had. Granted, the amount of wives he had most likely had an impact on the number of gods he started to worship, but it wasn't necessarily the number of wives that was the cause of him sinning, but the fact that they led him to idol worship. So even if he would have been married to just two or three wives there is no reason to believe that he wouldn't have started to worship their gods.

One final point - Judaism has always taught that polygamy is permissible according to the Torah and Tanach. Among the Ashkenazi it is prohibited, but that is due to a rabbinical decision in the 11th century, not due to the Bible, and they agree that polygamy was permissible prior to then (and even today, it is arguably still permissible from the Ashkenazi perspective among Jews not subject to Ashkenazi customs). Among Sephardi Jews, polygamy is considered religiously acceptable, albeit rarely practised (and especially not in Western countries.) Say what you like about Judaism, but when the plain reading of the Torah/Tanach says something, and furthermore Jews have always agreed it says that, I take that as a pretty convincing argument that that is what it says.

Zack

One thing one has to have in mind is that if something is permissible is not the whole story, as I've hopefully shown. Even if something is permissible it doesn't automatically mean that it's desirable, or even that it's not sinful.

[Cow Poke]

I already addressed in another thread

So?

Now, under either interpretation, why must we assume that this is a universal requirement for all believers, as opposed to a requirement for bishops and deacons only?

You must have missed the part where I was addressing Church LEADERSHIP.

It's about Church Leadership, OC.

The most broadly accepted interpretation seems to be "man of one woman" or "one woman kind of man" -- something Smith certainly was not.

[Bill the Cat]

The wives of Saul that were given to David were political unions that God intended David to keep. Just because they were Saul's wives, does not mean they became David's wives. They became his to care for based on the political agreements made by Saul and the womens' fathers.

[moreta]

I already addressed in another thread, but this passage admits multiple interpretations. One is that it is a prohibition on bishops or deacons being celibate, since "mias" could also be translated as "first" rather than one, thus "man of first woman" (excluding the unmarried, but not the polygamous) - a "man of zero women" does not a "man of one woman" make. I think that's a bit implausible given Paul's approval of celibacy in 1 Cor 7, but I'm not going to rule it out as impossible.

Another interpretation is that "man of one woman" also includes those who have remarried after the divorce or death of their first wife. This is actually how the Eastern Orthodox Church interprets it.

Now, under either interpretation, why must we assume that this is a universal requirement for all believers, as opposed to a requirement for bishops and deacons only? If celibacy is prohibited for bishops and deacons, why should we assume it is also prohibited for those who do not hold these offices? If remarriage after death or divorce is prohibited for bishops and deacons, why should we assume it is also prohibited for those who do not hold these offices? Indeed, while the Eastern Orthodox Church prohibits remarriage after divorce or death for their clergy, they permit it for the laity. And thus, if indeed the passage prohibits polygamy for clergy, why should we assume it applies to the laity in that case either?Zack

This paragraph is from an article that dicusses this very topic both in relation to the Early Church, and contemporary issues of Christian polygamy. (yes, there really is such a movement that isn't related to Mormonism in anyway.) The quote is specific to the bolded above, but do read the whole article. It's short.

It is clear (as the questioner notes) that those in Church government/leadership are to be monogamous (the 'husband of one wife' clause shows up in both statements of elder/deacon qualifications: 1 Tim 3.2 and Titus 1.6).

But these leaders are told to be examples to the flock, and the believers are told to follow the example of the apostles, disciples, and leaders. [Phil 3.17; 4.9; 1 Thess 1.6,7; 2 Thess 3.7,9; 1 Tim 4.12; Tit 2.7; 1 Pet 5.3; 1 Cor 4.6; 1 Cor 11.1]

Therefore, in the absence of other NT instruction, ALL believers are to emulate the purity and scripturally-mandated characteristics of our elders--including the monogamous one (2nd in each list!).

[master_mormon]

I would agree with Zack that Deut 25:5-10 provides a specific situation where polygamy was not only permissible but commanded if the living brother already had a wife when the brother died. I would also point out in your Deut 17:17 that you should also include verse 16

Deuteronomy 17:16-17: "But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way. Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold."

Are we to assume the king could only have one horse? The Lord would be upset if he had three horses? I don't think so. I believe this passage does not prohibit the king have more than one wife but he should not have an excessive number of wives. "Multiplying" from rabah" Strong's 07235

1) be or become great, be or become many, be or become much, be or become numerous
a) (Qal)
1) to become many, become numerous, multiply (of people, animals, things)
2) to be or grow great
b) (Piel) to make large, enlarge, increase, become many
c) (Hiphil)
1) to make much, make many, have many
a) to multiply, increase
b) to make much to do, do much in respect of, transgress greatly
c) to increase greatly or exceedingly
2) to make great, enlarge, do much
2) (Qal) to shoot

[Chrawnus]

I would agree with Zack that Deut 25:5-10 provides a specific situation where polygamy was not only permissible but commanded if the living brother already had a wife when the brother died. I would also point out in your Deut 17:17 that you should also include verse 16

Deuteronomy 17:16-17: "But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way. Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold."

Are we to assume the king could only have one horse? The Lord would be upset if he had three horses? I don't think so. I believe this passage does not prohibit the king have more than one wife but he should not have an excessive number of wives. "Multiplying" from rabah" Strong's 07235

1) be or become great, be or become many, be or become much, be or become numerous
a) (Qal)
1) to become many, become numerous, multiply (of people, animals, things)
2) to be or grow great
b) (Piel) to make large, enlarge, increase, become many
c) (Hiphil)
1) to make much, make many, have many
a) to multiply, increase
b) to make much to do, do much in respect of, transgress greatly
c) to increase greatly or exceedingly
2) to make great, enlarge, do much
2) (Qal) to shoot

Please read post #24.

[master_mormon]

Please read post #24.

I read it. One comment I will respond to is this

"Well the fact that the Bible limits the amount of wives the king is allowed to take, even if it's not limited to just one, definitely shows that polygamous marriages, while not strictly prohibited, were certainly not desirable, which means that this passage is a case against, not for polygamy."

Whether something is "desirable" or not is really based on preference or opinion. Lots of guys would say having one wife is one too many. It is more desirable for them to just have a live in girlfriend. How many wives is too much is not really said. Perhaps it depends on the individual. Perhaps for one man having 5 would be too much because he is not able to attend to the needs of all 5 while another might be able to and for this guy having 13 wives might be the cut off point. I don't see how it is a case against polygamy unless you are also going to say that the verse prior is also a good case at owning only one horse and not a few horses. Though not strictly prohibited, it is more desirable for man to have at most one horse.