The Bible and Polygamy: Does the Bible Sanction Polygamy? — A Reader’s Guide

The Disputed Meaning of <em>Ishah</em> and the Limits of Law

Pratt repeatedly challenges Newman's translation of the Hebrew ishah, arguing that it should be rendered “wife” rather than “one” in certain contexts. He insists that if ishah means “wife,” then the laws in Exodus and Deuteronomy that address a man's actions toward a woman apply to married men as well as unmarried ones. Pratt uses this to counter Newman's claim that such laws implicitly forbid polygamy. He points to the law of rape and the law of enticing a maid, asking: “Will any person pretend to say that a married man is not a man?” For Pratt, the general language of these passages proves they are not limited to bachelors. Newman's counterargument, based on a marginal reading in Leviticus, is dismissed by Pratt as a “forlorn hope.” The debate thus turns on whether the Bible's legal codes are restrictive or permissive by default.

The King's Horses and the Question of Multiplication

Pratt addresses the objection that Deuteronomy 17:17 forbids a king from multiplying wives. He notes that the same verse also forbids multiplying horses, and asks rhetorically whether that means a king could have only one horse. The absurdity, he argues, shows that “multiply” means to accumulate excessively, not to take more than one. He then turns to the story of Ruth and Boaz, citing Josephus to claim that Boaz's unnamed kinsman—who had the right to marry Ruth—was already married. This, Pratt contends, proves that the levirate marriage law applied to married men. Newman's reliance on Josephus is turned against him: if the historian is credible here, then his testimony supports polygamy. The exchange illustrates how both debaters mine the same sources for opposing conclusions, with each side accusing the other of selective reading.

Divorce, Adultery, and the Silence of Malachi

Pratt examines Malachi 2:16 and Matthew 5:32, arguing that these passages condemn divorce, not polygamy. He states that Malachi's declaration that God hates “putting away” is about protecting wives from arbitrary dismissal, not about limiting the number of wives a man may have. Similarly, Jesus' teaching on divorce in Matthew 5 is interpreted by Pratt as a prohibition against remarriage after an unlawful divorce, not as a ban on multiple concurrent marriages. He reasons that a man who puts away his wife unjustly becomes an adulterer and thus forfeits the right to remarry, but this says nothing about a man who never divorces. The absence of any explicit condemnation of polygamy in these passages is, for Pratt, a significant silence. Newman's position, though not fully excerpted, appears to rely on a moral or typological reading of Genesis 2:24—that marriage was instituted as monogamous—a claim Pratt does not directly engage in the available text.

Readers should attend to the rhetorical structure of the debate: each speaker frames his opponent's position as an innovation or a departure from plain scripture. The excerpts show Pratt emphasizing lexical precision and legal application, while Newman (inferred from Pratt's rebuttals) appeals to the Edenic ideal and the moral trajectory of the Bible. The appended sermons and correspondence may further illuminate how these arguments were received within the LDS community. The volume is best approached as a primary source for nineteenth-century American religious controversy, not as a neutral exegetical study.

I keep thinking about that old debate—how two people can read the same words and find such different truths. It stayed with me longer than expected. The same quiet feeling came back reading The Gospel of St. John: A Series of Discourses. New Edition — Reading Notes, where each discourse feels like someone gently unfolding a verse rather than arguing over it. Strange how a book can feel like a resting place.