su- Lawgiver, see it clearly, and, therefore, reject the inference.
In fact, this verse, if it does not contain a general prohibition of polygamy in plain terms, certainly does contain a prohibition of polygamy in respect to two sisters. It also assigns the reason of this prohibition, the vexation and unhappiness that would result from it to the first wife; and does not the same reason apply to this sinful practice, whether the two wives be sisters, or be taken from unrelated families? See the case of Elkanah and his wives. (1 Sam. 1:1–8.) Had not the Hebrews been misled by the prevalence of this vicious custom, they might have derived salutary instruction from this prohibition, which was designed to impose a restraint on polygamy.
The inference in favor of polygamy is urged by none; it is abandoned by all as unsound and inadmissible: and why should not the inference in favor of the marriage in question be relinquished as untenable? Will it be said, If this marriage were sinful, the prohibition would have been delivered in plainer terms? The assumption is unfounded, and does not accord
