Ben Ammi left four wives and over twenty children

Admitted

The camps state these facts themselves. You can make this point from their own teaching.

What is practised

Polygyny — one man, several wives — is practised in parts of the movement. Ben Ammi left four wives and more than twenty children.

It is settled practice at Dimona. Some street camps teach it as allowed, or even good.

They point back to the patriarchs.

Their argument, and it is a good one

God never forbade it. He regulated it.

That is not how Scripture treats sin. Exodus 21:10 legislates the rights of multiple wives.

Deuteronomy 21:15-17 sets out their children's inheritance. And in 2 Samuel 12:8 the prophet Nathan says God gave David his master's wives.

Where the answer is

Jesus is asked about marriage directly in Matthew 19 and goes back past Moses to the beginning: "they twain shall be one flesh." Two. Paul then requires an elder to be the husband of one wife.

Regulation is not approval. The same Torah regulates slavery and divorce.

How strong is this argument?

They admit this themselves: the practice is openly acknowledged. The regulation argument is genuinely their best and deserves an answer rather than a scoff.

What to say

"When Jesus was asked about marriage, where did he go back to?"

The African Hebrew Israelite village at Dimona, where polygyny is long-settled community practice

Venanzi's painting of Solomon led into idolatry by his wives, the scene behind 1 Kings 11

How they answer this — at its strongest

God never forbade it; he regulated it, and Nathan says God gave David wives.

The argument is that God never forbade polygyny. He regulated it, and that is not how Scripture treats sin. Exodus 21:10 and Deuteronomy 21:15-17 set out the rights of multiple wives and their children. In 2 Samuel 12:8 the prophet Nathan tells David that God gave him his master's wives, and would have given more.

Abraham, Jacob, Gideon, David and Solomon are patriarchs and kings, not villains. The messianic line runs straight through their households. They argue that the one-wife rule is a Roman and European import, read back into the text later.

And where marriageable men are scarce, they add, it leaves women unprotected and children without fathers. That is the practical evil the arrangement exists to prevent.

The verdict

They admit it themselves. Their best point is real, so answer it rather than scoff.

Graded admitted, because the practice is openly owned, not alleged.

The regulation argument is genuinely their best. It deserves an answer rather than a scoff, since Scripture does legislate for these households. But regulating a fallen practice is not approving it. That is how Jesus handles the parallel case. Moses allowed divorce for hardness of heart, but from the beginning it was not so (Matthew 19:8). He then goes behind all later law to Genesis 2:24, and the two becoming one flesh.

Deuteronomy 17:17 already curbs the practice in the one office where power made it easiest. The stories show it eating families alive every time. And the New Testament rule of one wife for leaders would make no sense as a test if plurality were simply good.

Open this case in the full study tool →