Bible Polygyny



Lamech was in the line of Cain.

 Lamech was the first polygamist.

Lamech was a murderer.

 Therefore polygamy is bad and all polygamists are murderers and in the line of Cain.

Ok, let's assume
this nonsense above is real
and apply it to
Abraham, another polygamist.

Abraham was
a faithful servant of God.

God called and blessed Abraham.

Abraham was a polygamist.

Therefore all polygamists are called, blessed and named the friends of God.

Lamech and Abraham are featured in the same book written at the same time.

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church
and gave Himself for it.
Eph 5:25

 

This refutation falls in the “always bad consequences of polygamy” category. It is one of those desperate arguments the logic of which is abhorred in the discussion of any other subject.

The first recorded polygamist was Lamech;
Gen 4:19  And Lamech took two wives to himself. The name of the first one was Adah, and the name of the other was Zillah.
Gen. 4:23-24
And Lamech said to his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice, wives of Lamech, listen to my speech. For I have killed a man because of my wound, and a young man because of my hurt.  For Cain is avenged seven times, and Lamech seventy-seven times.

Lamech was in the line of Cain and a murderer both of these seen as bad omens and this blanket of reflected wickedness is thrown over all polygamists.

But wait! there was a murderer before Lamech, Cain was the first to shed blood.

Cain, the first murderer, was monogamist it seems and a farmer;
Gen 4:1-2  And Adam knew Eve his wife. And she conceived and bore Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from Jehovah. And she bore again, his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.

Should we thus blanket all monogamist farmers as potential murderers?

The first murderer was a man, thus following this reasoning, only men are murderers?

Cain was Adam's firstborn son, ahhhhh, so following this stupid logic, all first born sons are pre-potent for murder.

Perhaps country women should avoid marrying monogamous farming men, especially first born sons because there is a threefold potentiality they will be murdered by their husband.

Let me explain;
1. The man she considers is a farmer like Cain who was a murderer. And following the illogical argument of monogamy only, then farming men are murderers.

2. If the man is the firstborn he is thus more likely to murder. Cain was the firstborn and a murderer.

3. Cain was a man, and the first murderer was a man so all men have this potentiality to murder.

Now, if the man is the firstborn son of a polygamist farmer, then there is a fourth compounding factor, namely the first polygamist was also a murderer therefore this extra consideration should just about tip the scales against any sound thinking woman to marry any man.

Even I am confused trying to write according to this "Christian argument".

All this reasoning is outside the Word of God and logic. At no point does the Lord judge Lamech for having two wives, only an observation is made.

What will we now do with Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Gideon and King David who were not in the line of Cain? Are these all pre-potent for murder?

If monogamy only Christians are going to be consistent, then they must conclude that since these men of God are not in the line of Cain, and were good men for the most part and God's faithful servants, then polygyny must be good.

Good and bad people marry with good and bad consequences. Many non-Christians do not murderer, in fact some Christians marry non-Christians with no negative consequences.

Monogamy and Polygamy are Biblical marriages neither of which are the result of sin. There are good and bad things recorded in God's Word within both monogamy and polygamy but marriage structure is not the basis of good or evil. People do wicked things because of sin, not their marriage structure.

Please recognize the Lamech argument for the nonsense it is.

Polygyny is not sin or the result of sin. If one verse could be found to name polygyny as sin there would be no need of this website.

Return to Objections Page

Return to
Directory Page