Exegesis of Exodus 21:10 and Polygamy in Ancient Israel

Exodus 21:10, part of the Covenant Code, states, "If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marital rights" ^[1]. This verse is situated within a larger section of Exodus (21:1–23:19) that provides specific examples of case law, following the general principles laid out in the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:3-17) ^[12]. These laws are presented in a format common to ancient Near Eastern legal codes, beginning with a hypothetical "if" statement ^[12].

The immediate context of Exodus 21:10 concerns the treatment of a female servant who was given to a man as a wife or concubine by her father (Exodus 21:7-9). If the master is displeased with her, he cannot sell her to a foreign people but must allow her to be redeemed ^[1]. If the master designates her for his son, he must treat her as a daughter ^[1]. Exodus 21:10 then addresses the scenario where the master, having taken this woman, subsequently takes another wife ^[1].

The key terms in Exodus 21:10 are "food," "clothing," and "marital rights" (often translated as "conjugal rights" or "duty of marriage"). The Hebrew word for "marital rights" is ‘onah, which the Babylonian Talmud explicitly connects to the mitzvah of engaging in sexual intercourse with one's wife at regular intervals ^[6]. This verse mandates that even if a man takes an additional wife, he must not neglect the first wife's basic provisions and conjugal needs ^[1].

This passage is significant because it implicitly acknowledges the practice of polygamy in ancient Israelite society, while simultaneously regulating it. While the divine institution of marriage, as described in Genesis 2:24, emphasizes monogamy ("they twain shall be one flesh") ^{[2, 4]}, the Mosaic Law tolerated polygamy to some extent ^{[7, 10]}. Tertullian, a patristic writer, notes that while God blessed the union of one man and one woman, polygamy was permitted among the patriarchs ^[7]. Charles Hodge, one theologian, explains that the toleration of polygamy under Mosaic law is distinct from immutable divine laws, similar to how other judicial enactments specific to the Hebrew theocracy were abolished with the new dispensation ^{[5, 10]}.

Rabbinic tradition, as seen in the Babylonian Talmud, interprets Exodus 21:10 in discussions about marital obligations. For instance, the Gemara uses this verse to juxtapose a Hebrew maidservant with another woman a master might marry, implying that the maidservant, when taken as a wife, has similar rights to any other wife ^{[8, 9]}. The requirement to not diminish her "conjugal rights" is considered a mitzvah (commandment) ^[6].

The interpretation of this verse, particularly in relation to Deuteronomy 21:15 ("If a man has two wives, one beloved and the other unloved..."), has been a point of discussion. Some interpretations of Deuteronomy 21:15 suggest that it refers to a situation where the first wife has died, thus not directly legislating on simultaneous polygamy ^[3]. However, the plain reading of Exodus 21:10, "If he takes another wife to himself," clearly implies the existence of a prior wife ^[1].

While the Old Testament permitted polygamy, the New Testament consistently upholds monogamy as the ideal, reflecting the original creation ordinance ^{[2, 4]}. The Apostle Paul's instruction that a bishop must be "the husband of one wife" (1 Timothy 3:2) is seen by some as reinforcing monogamy for church leaders, though Hodge argues against the inference that this implies private members could have multiple wives, as it would contradict Christ's express prohibition ^[11].

Exodus 21:10, therefore, serves as a legal provision within the Covenant Code that, while not endorsing polygamy, regulates its practice by ensuring the rights and welfare of the existing wife when a man takes an additional spouse. It highlights the concern for justice and protection for women within the legal framework of ancient Israel.

Sources

Exodus “If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marital rights. -- Exodus 21:10”
Smith's Bible Dictionary “Smith's Bible Dictionary: Marriage — + Its origin and history .--The institution of marriage dates from the time of man's original creation. (Genesis 2:18-25) From (Genesis 2:24) we may evolve the following principles: (1) The unity of man and wife, as implied in her being formed out of man. (2) The indissolubleness of the marriage bond, except on; the strongest grounds, Comp. (Matthew 19:9) (3) Monogamy, as the original law of marriage (4) The social equality of man and wife. (5) The subordination of the wife to the husband. (1 Corinthians 11:8,9; 1 Timothy 2:13) (6) The respective duties of ”
Deuteronomy (Presbyterian) “Jamieson, Fausset & Brown on Deuteronomy 21:15: If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated--In the original and all other translations, the words are rendered "have had," referring to events that have already taken place; and that the "had" has, by some mistake, been omitted in our version, seems highly probable from the other verbs being in the past tense--"hers that was hated," not "hers that is hated"; evidently intimating that she (the first wife) was dead at the time referred to. Moses, therefore, does not here legislate upon the case of a man who has two wives at the same ti”
CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, section 49: his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife and they shall be one flesh.” ( Gen. ii. 23, 24 .) Or, as our Lord quotes and expounds the passage, “They twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.” ( Mark x. 8 .) “The two,” and no more than two, become one. This was not only the language of unfallen Adam in Paradise, but the language of God uttered through the lips of Adam, as appears not only from the circumstances of the case, but also from our Lord’s attributing to them divine authority, as He ev”
CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, section 39: the obligation of any divine law, which He has imposed upon them. (2.) That with regard to the positive laws of the Old Testament, and such judicial enactments as were designed exclusively for the Hebrews living under the theocracy, they were all abolished by the introduction of the new dispensation. We are no longer under obligation to circumcise our children, to keep the Passover, or feast of tabernacles or to go up 270 three times in the year to Jerusalem, or to exact an eye for an eye, or a tooth for a tooth. (3.) With regard to those”
Babylonian Talmud (Jewish (Rabbinic)) “Babylonian Talmud, Pesachim 72b.16: The Gemara raises another question: Nevertheless, there is the mitzva of the enjoyment of conjugal rights. One of a husband’s marital obligations is to engage in sexual intercourse with his wife at regular intervals (see Exodus 21:10), and this is considered a mitzva. The Gemara answers that we are talking about a case where it is not the time of her conjugal rights.”
Schaff ANF/NPNF (Patristic) “ANF Vol 4: Tertullian IV, Minucius Felix, Commodian, Origen — CHAP. II.--MARRIAGE LAWFUL, BUT NOT POLYGAMY.: We do not indeed forbid the union of man and woman, blest by God as the seminary of the human race, and devised for the replenishment of the earth [15] and the furnishing of the world,[16] and therefore permitted, yet Singly. For Adam was the one husband of Eve, and Eve his one wife, one woman, one rib.[17] We grant,[18] that 40 among our ancestors, and the patriarchs themselves, it was lawful[1] not only to marry, but even to multiply wives.[2] There were concubines, too, (in those day”
Babylonian Talmud (Jewish (Rabbinic)) “Babylonian Talmud, Kiddushin 165a.18:16: The Gemara rejects this opinion: What is unique about a yevama is that she is bound and standing waiting for the yavam , i.e., there is already a connection between them. Perhaps it is for this reason that intercourse enables a yavam to acquire a yevama , and the same cannot be said of a maidservant. Rather, it might enter your mind to say a different claim: Since it is written with regard to a the master of a Hebrew maidservant: “If he take himself another wife” (Exodus 21:10), this verse juxtaposes a Hebrew maidservant with another woman that a master”
Babylonian Talmud (Jewish (Rabbinic)) “Babylonian Talmud, Kiddushin 9b.16: The Gemara rejects this opinion: What is unique about a yevama is that she is bound and standing waiting for the yavam , i.e., there is already a connection between them. Perhaps it is for this reason that intercourse enables a yavam to acquire a yevama , and the same cannot be said of a maidservant. Rather, it might enter your mind to say a different claim: Since it is written with regard to a the master of a Hebrew maidservant: “If he take himself another wife” (Exodus 21:10), this verse juxtaposes a Hebrew maidservant with another woman that a master marr”
CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, section 49: ; xxxi. 10 ff. ) The apocryphal books contain clear evidence that after the exile monogamy was almost universal among the Jews; and it may be inferred from such passages as Luke i. 5 ; Acts v. 1 , and many others, that the same was true at the time of the advent of Christ. With regard to the toleration of polygamy under the Mosaic law, it is to be remembered that the seventh commandment belongs to the same category as the sixth and eighth. These laws are not founded on the essential nature of God, and therefore are not immutable. They are”
CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, section 49: marriage. There is no instance recorded in the New Testament, of the admission of a polygamist to the Christian Church. It has, indeed, been inferred from 1 Timothy iii. 2 , where the Apostle says, a bishop must be “the husband of one wife,” that a private member of the Church might have more wives than one. But this is in itself a very precarious inference; and being inconsistent with Christ’s express prohibition, it is altogether inadmissible. The meaning of the passage has been much disputed. What the Apostle requires is that a bishop ”
Exodus (Protestant academic) “Tyndale House on Exodus 21:1: 21:1–23:33 The terms of the covenant are now expanded. The beginning section (21:1–23:19) gives specific examples of the general principles stated in 20:3-17. The commitments to which God bound himself if the Israelites kept their side of the covenant are stated in 23:20-33, as are the blessings of obedience. 21:1–23:19 The statements found here are in the typical case-law format of ancient Near Eastern law codes. This format begins with a hypothetical situation introduced by the word “if.” The following statement of what is to be done in such a case is introduced”

Ask Your Own Question