Polygamist Spotlight #2 - Lamech

I do not think anyone could write a better article on this subject than Tom Shipley did in his groundbreaking work "Man and Woman in Biblical Law" Below is his article on Lamech edited by me to reflect Hebraic names:

B'reisheet 4:19-24

19 And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah. 20 And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle. 21 And his brother’s name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ. 22 And Zillah, she also bare Tubal-Cain, an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubal-Cain was Naamah. 23 And Lamech said unto his two wives, Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt. 24 If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.

Lamech is the first polygamist mentioned in Scripture. (This does not necessarily mean he was the first polygamist, only the first mentioned.) It is not my purpose here to examine the precise meaning of Lamech’s much-disputed words to his wives. What is important is that Lamech is a perverse character no matter which view of his words one takes. In comparing his crime to Cain’s, we may safely conclude that his act was murder and not merely self-defense or an accidental killing. Lamech was a true son of Cain.*

It is often claimed by biblical commentators that the perverseness of Lamech’s character “proves” that his polygamy was evil, as well. Polygamy, we are assured, is a result of the Fall. Yahuwah, we are told, manifested His way to the sons of men by providing only one woman for Adahm, but perverse Lamech “corrupted Yahuwah’s plan for holy matrimony.” I pointed out in the previous article, “In Defense of Patriarchy and Polygamy,” and in the series of articles, “Patriarchy Before the Fall,” that the relevant and determinative principle concerning polygamy arising out of the creation is the headship of the man. There can be legitimately only one head but many subordinates. I also pointed out the logical fallacy of reasoning from the particular (Adahm) to the universal (all men). Monogamy was no “law” for Adahm; it was a circumstance. (If he was indeed monogamous)

The standard explanation of Lamech’s polygamy is also logically fallacious. The syllogism goes like this:

Major premise: Lamech was evil.

Minor premise: Lamech was a polygamist.

Conclusion: Polygamy is evil.

The logical fallacy lies in the a-priori assumption that all of Lamech’s acts were evil. But good men and evil men have many activities in common; eating and drinking, working and resting, laughing and crying, sleeping and rising, marrying and raising children, etc. The fact that Lamech was evil does not, and cannot, prove that his polygamy was evil, as well. Thus, we see that the above syllogism is “reductio ad absurdum.”

And really, men who are Biblical scholars should set a much higher standard of argumentation for the rest of the assembly than this all-too-typical and shoddy approach to Lamech’s polygamy.

A more likely explanation to account for the inclusion of the fact of Lamech’s polygamy in the

biblical text is to show the contrast between Yahuwah’s goodness toward Lamech and the utter

unthankfulness of Lamech toward Yahuwah; Yahuwah in His providence blessed Lamech with two wives and children by them both, yet Lamech, instead of rendering thanks and praise to Yahuwah, violates a fundamental law against taking human life. Looked at in this light, we can see the true magnitude of Lamech’s perversity.

In any event, the standard approach to Lamech’s polygamy by Christian scholars is not worthy of their profession. The “logic” behind the typical commentary is utterly without merit. It is amazing that those who make this argument are not called to task by other scholars for the “dumbing down” of their profession. But because the anti-polygamy stance within Christian circles is so monolithic, shoddy commentary such as dealt with above is bypassed with hardly a blink of the eye. This constitutes toleration of the practice of “handling the word of Yahuwah deceitfully,” something Christian commentators should not tolerate, either on their own part or others.

(end excerpt)

*I have always interpreted Lamech's words to mean that he killed someone in self-defense. It would not seem strange to me that the first mentioned polygamist would suffer attacks. I know of many today who are attacked for just advocating polygamy. (Myself included)