Hey everyone!
An argument often used against biblical polygyny is the idea that God himself never prescribed the marrying of multiple wives. I disagree with this notion on the basis of:
- Levirate marriage law (Deuteronomy 25:5)
- The account of King Jehoash (2 Chronicles 24:2- divine prescription via the proxy of Jehoiada the priest)
- King David being given Saul's wives (2 Samual 12:8- if not a prescription, at least the enabling of it).
Still, this does not seem to convince certain people of biblical "prescription" of polygyny, which I do understand to an extent. However, I might have stumbled across a clear example of divine prescription of polygyny in the book of Hosea. I haven't heard this case being used anywhere in the polygyny vs. monogamy-only debate, however, so let me know what you think or if I'm missing anything.
In Hosea 1, God commands Hosea to marry a prostitute to symbolize God's union with sinful Israel that had gone astray. And then later, in Chapter 3, Hosea is commanded to marry again, this time to an adulterous woman. Here are the passages side by side in the NAS95:
Hosea 1: 2 When the Lord first spoke through Hosea, the Lord said to Hosea, “Go, take to yourself a wife of harlotry and have children of harlotry; for the land commits flagrant harlotry, [a]forsaking the Lord.” 3 So he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim, and she conceived and bore him a son.
Hosea 3: 1 Then the Lord said to me, “Go again, love a woman who is loved by her husband, yet an adulteress, even as the Lord loves the sons of Israel, though they turn to other gods and love raisin cakes.” 2 So I bought her for myself for fifteen shekels of silver and a homer and a half of barley. 3 Then I said to her, “You shall stay with me for many days. You shall not play the harlot, nor shall you have a man; so I will also be toward you.”
Interestingly enough, the distinction of two women being married is translated out in interpretive translations like the NIV, but is retained in literal translations like the ESV, NAS95, and LSB. Some scholarly commentary posits that both instances are the same woman, that she left Hosea, and then he got her back in Chapter 3. I find this conclusion exegetically unlikely.
Not only is the leaving/remarriage scenario of the same woman never stated in the text, there is also language that differentiates the two women. The first woman was a woman of whoredom, the second an adulteress, being loved by "another man" (as rendered by the ESV), as if she had at one time belonged to another. The Hebrew word used here for "another" is a bit confusing, but it seems to refer to the fact that he had belonged to another man at one point in time.
Also, the second woman seem to be distinct because of the use of the Hebrew word Hosea 3:1 od, which denotes chronological succession, often translated in literal translations as again- which, oddly enough, is left out in some English translations.
Additionally, it says that the second woman was purchased at a price. This could be due to indentured prostitution, or possibly the mohar bride price (but to whom, as an adulteress?). Either way, without my looking further into the cultural exegesis of this transaction event, it seems strange to me if a man who husbanded and bore children with a woman, even if she has left him, would have to pay the bride price or purchasing price again to get her back. Again, I'm not an ancient near east scholar, but to me this seems to, again, to denote a second woman.
It seems highly likely that the marriage events to Hosea in Chapters 1 and 3 are distinct marriage events to separate women in the prophet's obedience to Yahweh's instruction. There is no indication within the narrative that the first wife left Hosea, so we have to assume that plural marriage was being practiced by divine ordinance- we therefore have a clear case of God's "prescription" of polygyny.
So what are the prophetic implications?
The common prophetic interpretation of these passages seems to be (based on the assumption that both marriages are to the same woman) that they are to symbolize how Israel left God, but God still takes her back. This is a beautiful thought, of course, but with the evidence that this is a second woman, I think that it does not hold weight. Besides, her marriage in Hosea 1 already symbolized this because Hosea took her out of whoredom to become her husband. For this event to reoccur would be redundant.
This leaves two possible interpretations with the understanding that Hosea 3 refers to a second woman:
Prophetic interpretation 1: The second woman represents the kingdom of Judah, in keeping with prophetic literature like Ezekiel 23 and Jeremiah 3. Meh.
Prophetic interpretation 2: The second woman represents the Gentiles. I find this more likely considering the eschatological wording of the rest of the chapter, (especially the use of the phrase "in those days"). Also, the description of woman #2 as an adulteress (as opposed to a harlot) aligns with the nature of the Gentiles as a whole, because we were once given to paganism, but we have now been redeemed through Christ. This is distinct from the denotation of the woman of harlotry (Israel), as expounded upon in passages like Ezekiel 16, where she intentionally left her husband to play the whore among her neighbors (adultery is implies in t his case, but harlotry is expounded on). The second woman was not a whore, per se, retaining the title of adulteress.
Am I missing anything? Is this a smoking gun? Am I missing some key pieces of ANE cultural context? Let me know what you think!
An argument often used against biblical polygyny is the idea that God himself never prescribed the marrying of multiple wives. I disagree with this notion on the basis of:
- Levirate marriage law (Deuteronomy 25:5)
- The account of King Jehoash (2 Chronicles 24:2- divine prescription via the proxy of Jehoiada the priest)
- King David being given Saul's wives (2 Samual 12:8- if not a prescription, at least the enabling of it).
Still, this does not seem to convince certain people of biblical "prescription" of polygyny, which I do understand to an extent. However, I might have stumbled across a clear example of divine prescription of polygyny in the book of Hosea. I haven't heard this case being used anywhere in the polygyny vs. monogamy-only debate, however, so let me know what you think or if I'm missing anything.
In Hosea 1, God commands Hosea to marry a prostitute to symbolize God's union with sinful Israel that had gone astray. And then later, in Chapter 3, Hosea is commanded to marry again, this time to an adulterous woman. Here are the passages side by side in the NAS95:
Hosea 1: 2 When the Lord first spoke through Hosea, the Lord said to Hosea, “Go, take to yourself a wife of harlotry and have children of harlotry; for the land commits flagrant harlotry, [a]forsaking the Lord.” 3 So he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim, and she conceived and bore him a son.
Hosea 3: 1 Then the Lord said to me, “Go again, love a woman who is loved by her husband, yet an adulteress, even as the Lord loves the sons of Israel, though they turn to other gods and love raisin cakes.” 2 So I bought her for myself for fifteen shekels of silver and a homer and a half of barley. 3 Then I said to her, “You shall stay with me for many days. You shall not play the harlot, nor shall you have a man; so I will also be toward you.”
Interestingly enough, the distinction of two women being married is translated out in interpretive translations like the NIV, but is retained in literal translations like the ESV, NAS95, and LSB. Some scholarly commentary posits that both instances are the same woman, that she left Hosea, and then he got her back in Chapter 3. I find this conclusion exegetically unlikely.
Not only is the leaving/remarriage scenario of the same woman never stated in the text, there is also language that differentiates the two women. The first woman was a woman of whoredom, the second an adulteress, being loved by "another man" (as rendered by the ESV), as if she had at one time belonged to another. The Hebrew word used here for "another" is a bit confusing, but it seems to refer to the fact that he had belonged to another man at one point in time.
Also, the second woman seem to be distinct because of the use of the Hebrew word Hosea 3:1 od, which denotes chronological succession, often translated in literal translations as again- which, oddly enough, is left out in some English translations.
Additionally, it says that the second woman was purchased at a price. This could be due to indentured prostitution, or possibly the mohar bride price (but to whom, as an adulteress?). Either way, without my looking further into the cultural exegesis of this transaction event, it seems strange to me if a man who husbanded and bore children with a woman, even if she has left him, would have to pay the bride price or purchasing price again to get her back. Again, I'm not an ancient near east scholar, but to me this seems to, again, to denote a second woman.
It seems highly likely that the marriage events to Hosea in Chapters 1 and 3 are distinct marriage events to separate women in the prophet's obedience to Yahweh's instruction. There is no indication within the narrative that the first wife left Hosea, so we have to assume that plural marriage was being practiced by divine ordinance- we therefore have a clear case of God's "prescription" of polygyny.
So what are the prophetic implications?
The common prophetic interpretation of these passages seems to be (based on the assumption that both marriages are to the same woman) that they are to symbolize how Israel left God, but God still takes her back. This is a beautiful thought, of course, but with the evidence that this is a second woman, I think that it does not hold weight. Besides, her marriage in Hosea 1 already symbolized this because Hosea took her out of whoredom to become her husband. For this event to reoccur would be redundant.
This leaves two possible interpretations with the understanding that Hosea 3 refers to a second woman:
Prophetic interpretation 1: The second woman represents the kingdom of Judah, in keeping with prophetic literature like Ezekiel 23 and Jeremiah 3. Meh.
Prophetic interpretation 2: The second woman represents the Gentiles. I find this more likely considering the eschatological wording of the rest of the chapter, (especially the use of the phrase "in those days"). Also, the description of woman #2 as an adulteress (as opposed to a harlot) aligns with the nature of the Gentiles as a whole, because we were once given to paganism, but we have now been redeemed through Christ. This is distinct from the denotation of the woman of harlotry (Israel), as expounded upon in passages like Ezekiel 16, where she intentionally left her husband to play the whore among her neighbors (adultery is implies in t his case, but harlotry is expounded on). The second woman was not a whore, per se, retaining the title of adulteress.
Am I missing anything? Is this a smoking gun? Am I missing some key pieces of ANE cultural context? Let me know what you think!