Valentinian's Imperial Threesome

Valentinian is the Christian Roman Emperor said to have engaged in Polygamy, below is Copy/Pasted from his Wikipedia Page.

Socrates Scholasticus gives an interesting account in his Historia Ecclesiastica of Valentinian's marriages, that has inspired some to call this emperor polygamous. According to the text: the empress Justina^[53]

became known to Marina Severa, wife of the emperor Valentinian, and had frequent dialogue with the empress, until their intimacy at length grew to such an extent that they were accustomed to bathe together. When Severa saw Justina in the bath she was greatly struck with the beauty of the virgin, and spoke of her to the emperor; saying that the daughter of Justus was so lovely a creature, and possessed of such symmetry of form, that she herself, though a woman, was altogether charmed with her. The emperor, treasuring this description by his wife in his own mind, considered with himself how he could espouse Justina, without repudiating Severa, as she had borne him Gratian, whom he had created Augustus a little while before. He accordingly framed a law, and caused it to be published throughout all the cities, by which any man was permitted to have two lawful wives. The law was promulgated and he married Justina, by whom he had Valentinian the younger.

— Socrates Scholasticus, Historia Ecclesiastica, IV.31

Now Wikipedia goes on about how scholars doubt the veracity of this claim, citing sources from a Century later who instead say Severa was exiled before he married Justina, and referring to the lack of evidence of this Law legalizing Polygamy.

Independent verification of this Law probably vanished because later Emperors expunged it.  What we now know of Roman Law largely comes through the compilations and reforms of Theodosius and Justinian.  

It's also theorized that this comes from someone wanting to smear Justina for her perceived later support of Arianism.  But this is an odd way to go about calling her a Slut.  Also Socrates Scholasticus is known for his lack of interest in demonizing Heretics, he is so kind to the Novatians that many have assumes he was one, but then others point out that he showed the same fairness to the Arians.

What fascinated me here is that this really isn't just an example of standard Patriarchal Polygyny.  It starts with Severa seeing Justina naked and getting turned on in-spite of being a Woman.  This wasn't a strictly Het plural marriage, this was a True Threesome.

Valentinian is also an interesting Emperor for his Domestic Economic Policies as well.  A lot of the negative things said about him are from Senatorial Class historians, who indeed still dominated the writing of Roman Imperial history even during Christianization.  Valentinian made reforms to help the Poor including providing them with Healthcare.  Even though during this era The Church was already starting to lose it's Anarcho-Communist roots, Valentinian was still, if we tried to force modern political terms on the era, at least a Social Democrat.

Scholars also like to doubt the alleged Arianism of Valens because of Valens' closeness to Valentinian who was his brother.  But Valens definitely had a different economic philosophy then his brother being much more fiscally Conservative.  Brothers can disagree on Religion just as easily if not more so then they do Economics.  That forcing an Arian Bishop on the Arabs was the reason for Mavia's revolt is pretty hard to deny.

This also kind of repeats the situation of the children of Constantine.   Now the fact that in both cases the Nicene got the West while the Arian got the East might make one suspect all Four Emperors were just pandering to the popular winds of their populations.  But often popular opinion is influenced by the rulers.   And to me the evidence shows that Arianism wasn't popular with the common people in most of the East, just among elites in Bithynia.

Mono Mia

Three times in the Pastoral Epistles Paul makes a comment about Overseers (Bishops in the KJV) and Deacons being the "Husband of One Wife", or in some more literal translations "of one wife a husband".  1 Timothy 3:2-12 and Titus 1:6.

When Protestants are attacking the Catholic Priestly Celibacy doctrine they quote these verses as if no less then one is the point.  But then when trying to claim the Bible teaches strict Monogamy will argue the point is no more then one.  Either of those applications would be a lot more plausible to me if the Greek word used was Mono, but instead the word used is Mia.

The Oriental Orthodox Church (which includes the Coptic, Nubian, Ethiopian and Armenian Churches) is commonly accused of Monophysitism (believing Jesus had only one nature, usually Divine rather then Human) by Chalcedonians.  They however insist that they are instead Miaphysite because they believe Christ's Divine and Human natures are United.

They take this use of Mia and Physis from a quote of Cyril of Alexandria, but Cyril is also revered as a Saint by Chalcedonians who insist what Cyril said in that quote is perfectly compatible with the Chalcedonian Definition.  The Chalcedonian Definition itself is not really why the Oriental Orthodox reject Chalcedon, but rather Chalcedon's condemnation of Dioscorus.  I don't want to get into all that here, the point is the Greek word Mia while often translated "one" can refer to something there is more then one of.

I think the point of these three quotes in the Pastoral Epistles was the Unity between Husband and Wife.  But my point is that phrasing was never meant to rule out being untied with more then one wife.  BTW the Husband and Wife being One Flesh verses also use Mia.

Many people (Muslims, Unitarians, Modalists, JWs, some Jews and even Secularists) accuse Nicene Trinitarian Christianity of not being truly Monotheist.  And we typically feel compelled to defend the applicability of the term Monotheism to us.  But I have recently been asking, why?  Monotheism and Monotheist are NOT Biblical terms.

I've looked at every New Testament verse that says "One God" or that "God is One", or "One Lord" or "Lord is One".  And likewise none of them use Mono either but instead Heis.  Some material from my Trinity in the Hebrew Bible and the YT videos I linked to in it are worth remembering here.

When Mono is used in the New Testament, in the KJV it partly because of context tends to get translated "Alone" or "Only" instead of simply One.  While it is used close to Theos in the text sometimes it's never directly used of how many Theos exist or that we worship.

According to the Strongs Concordance, Mia is the "irregular feminine" form of Heis.  Now it's easy to guess why Paul used a feminine form when referring to wives.  But why did Cyril use a feminine form when referring to the Divine and Human natures of Christ?  Is it simply that Miaphysite rolls off the tong as a name for your Christology better then Heisphysite?  Or maybe it's because Cyril said this while he was engaging in the Theotokos controversy and wanted to stress that it was in the Womb of a Woman that Deity and Humanity were United?

But perhaps Cyril had some awareness of what I talked about in The God of The Bible is both Masculine and Feminine?

So this Trinitarian Christian feels prepared to suggest that maybe we should stop clinging to the title of Monotheist and instead claim we are Miatheists, we believe True God is Three Persons who are United in One Being or Essence.  #Miatheism

In fact given how often Mono is translated things like "Only" and "Alone" I am willing to consider using it to define God potentially in conflict with the Nicene understanding of The Trinity.  Calling God the Monad was part of Gnosticism and Neoplatonism.  C Baxter Kruger likes to make the point that God didn't create Humanity because he was lonely, that theory on the "why" of Creation ignores The Trinity.  God created Humanity because they were a family that wanted to add to that family.  Elohim was technically plural right there in Genesis 1:1.

Saying "One Flesh" does not rule out Polygamy.

I went pretty in depth on Anti-Polygamy arguments awhile ago.
https://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/2018/08/just-accept-that-bible-doesnt-condemn.html

What really annoys me though is how often I see people argue simply that a Man and Woman becoming "One Flesh" when they are united (Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:5-6, Mark 10:8 and Ephesians 5:31) in marriage somehow proves only Monogamy is valid.  It boggles my mind how people think this statement rules out Polygamy. 

They are operating under an assumption that you can only legitimately become "One Flesh" with one other person, even though nothing in Scripture says that.

In fact the New Testament actually teaches that the Entire Church is supposed to be One Flesh, we are The Body of Christ because we are the Bride of Christ and thus made One Flesh with Christ.

Paul even directly connects these ideas in 1 Corinthians 6:15-16, where he argues that the reason Believers shouldn't have sex with prostitutes is because the members of Christ shouldn't become "One Flesh" with the Members of a Harlot.

People keep misunderstanding what Jesus said about marriage and the Resurrection in his response to the Sadducees in Matthew 22, he's not saying there will be no more sex or marriage, that would undermine it being a return to Genesis 2.  When that time comes there will be only one Marriage that matters, we will all be married to each other in Christ.

So yes I am arguing that in a sense The Church should view itself as a giant Polyamorous group marriage.

The context of what Jesus said when He made the One Flesh reference was about condemning divorce (meaning He was willing to directly condemn something Moses allowed if He wanted to) and so would include a Husband with two wives wanting to divorce one because he decided to be Monogamous, if the relationships were consummated he was "one flesh" with each of them.

Just accept that The Bible doesn't condemn Polygamy

I myself was once on the bandwagon of trying to deconstruct the Old Testament's approval of Polygyny.  Though at the same time I also deconstructed the presumed New Testament arguments against it.  My mind has changed on a lot of things since then.

This is prompted partly by me watching a recent YouTube video by William Schnebolen, who's gone all Hebrew Roots now.  He's coming at it partly from an Anti-Mormonism angle, which is Ironic.

There are a lot of inconsistencies between what The Book of Mormon teaches and the doctrines that Joseph Smith and even more so Brigham Young would develop later.  Indeed the Book of Mormon actually says the kinds of things The Bible should have said if any of it's authors ever wanted to condemn Polygamy or specifically Polygyny.  And I agree with the Mormon historians who've argued that Joseph Smith never practiced or approved of Polygamy, it seeped into Mormonism through another short lived movement who's members were absorbed into the early LDS church.

Schnebolen even repeats the whole "it's oppressive to women" thing, which is a riot coming from someone who now wants to impose The Torah on the modern world.  The fact is Monogamy has also been traditionally based on viewing women as property.  But even more then that, Polyandry in most cultures that have practiced it still practiced it Patriarchally, the woman was still property just shared property.  No numerical form of Marriage is inherently Patriarchal, it's society that is Patriarchal.

I believe that under The New Testament gender no longer matters, so Polygyny isn't the only form of Polygamy I support, I support Polyandry, Group Marriages, Open Marriages, Polyamory, everything so long as all parties involved are consenting and adults.  And those Mormon communities practicing Polygyny very non-consensually came into existence because of the government making it illegal, just like how so many other forms of prohibition have failed.

The perception that the New Testament is for strict Monogamy is mostly dependent on a lack of any direct references to Polygamy in it.  But I think a lot of that may be because some in the early Church were iffy on continuing marriage as a custom at all, Paul's attitude towards it was complicated and the Disciples left their wives to follow Jesus.

Another factor is how the Greek speaking Early Church Fathers are given primacy in the history of how the New Testament has been interpreted since they spoke the same language (to the point where their Semitic contemporaries works mostly weren't preserved at all). Where that applies to favoring them over the Latins like Augustine I agree.  But the trade off is the New Testament books weren't the only Greek writings to influence them.  The New Testament was a Greek text written mostly by Hebrews.  

You see the Greeks were the first culture in all of history to oppose Polygamy (though they still felt a Husband could have mistresses) and this was among the Greek ideas adopted by Rome.  The Greeks and Romans happen to be the only Pre-Christian cultures to have any opposition to Polygamy, unfortunately they helped shape the development of Christianity.

Every ancient source on 1st and 2nd Century AD Judaism besides the New Testament is clear that they were still practicing Torah based Polygamy, Josephus, Philo, the Talmud, the Early Church Fathers, and even Pagan sources.  Why didn't Jesus ever address this problem if He viewed it as a problem?   

Taking Jesus statement about a man and wife being made one flesh as against Polygamy is massively manipulative.  The context was about condemning divorce (meaning He was willing to directly condemn something Moses allowed if He wanted to) and so would include a Husband with two wives wanting to divorce one because he decided to be Monogamous, if the relationships were consummated he was one flesh with each of them.

Romans 7 cited the part of the Torah it does to prove a principle that you're not bound by the Law anymore at Death, and then explains how believers are Dead to the Law in Jesus at Baptism.  So no this chapter can't be used against Polyandry.

Paul's statements in the Pastoral Epistles about Bishops and Deacons being the "husband of one wife" have been interpreted as meaning no more then one when opposing Polygamy, but no less then one when addressing the Vatican's doctrine of a Celibate clergy.  However it does not say "Only one".

Schnebolen actually says Paul had to say this because of the Polygamy being practiced by the Pagans of Corinth, which shows his ignorance of Pagan Greece.  Quite the contrary the context of Paul saying the Bishop should be "blameless" suggests it's about appeasing the norms of the secular society they live in not rejecting them.  Well as Americans the norms of our secular society are supposed to be about valuing the Freedom to live however you want. 

Jesus told a parable about 10 Virgins awaiting the same Bride Groom, which goes against the usual trend of the Bride of Christ doctrine being presented as a Monogamous marriage even though it's literally not.  I think that the Church should be viewed as a giant Group Marriage, here is an old website advocating for Christian Polyamory.
http://www.libchrist.com/

Some scholars think Lazarus, Martha and Mary of Bethany weren't literally siblings but that the women were his Sister-Wives, I'm not inclined to agree with that given my theories about them, but I can't refute it either.  Brighamite Mormons view Mary and Martha as Sister-Wives of Jesus, which I have a controversial response to.  If Jesus was married to the Sisters at Bethany then He was married to the Brother too, if anything His love for Lazarus is described more strongly.

Now onto the attempts to say the Old Testament didn't really approve of it all that glowingly and was subtly vilifying it all along.  That is kind of the key to making their narrative work.

1 Kings 11 is the main discussion of Solomon's wives.  Now I agree that Solomon is not as glowingly approved of as people assume.  But using this narrative to paint Polygamy as the problem is a blatant manipulation of the text.  The wives promoting the worship of Pagan gods was the problem, the story spells that out for us.  Scripture interprets itself on this issue.

And attempts to blame the dysfunctionality of David's family on his Polygamy are equally decimated by reading II Samuel 12.  It happened as a Judgment for David's adultery and murder of Uriah, and Yahuah tells David he only needed to ask if he wanted more wives.

This drama began with Amnon's rape of Tamar.  And it's tempting to suggest that he wouldn't have lusted after her if she had the same mother based on modern psychological theories.  But we have no evidence he did have any full siblings, and no direct evidence these children were raised in a compartmentalized fashion like we often assume of ancient royal Polygamy.  The connection to the Bathseba situation is that Amnon followed his father's example and simply took what he wanted, and then didn't properly take responsibility for his actions.

Now to Deuteronomy 17.  Most scholars of the Hebrew agree Deuteronomy 17:17 is not limiting the King to only one wife, simply saying some restraint is to be practiced.  But Schnebolen wants to get really technical about what "multiply" means in the KJV (he seems to be be maintaining his old KJV onlyism even as a Hebrew Roots person now, which is weird).  How about we interpret all of these rules equally?  Is verse 16 saying the King can't have more then one single horse?  Of course not, that would be absurd, you need more then one horse just to draw one chariot. 

Many scholars see a connection between this part of Deuteronomy and Solomon.  Atheists say Deuteronomy was actually written later then 1 Kings 11, and Believers see it as a covert Prophecy.  Thing is, a break down of this connection shows that David basically followed these instructions while Solomon broke every part of it.  The total number of David's wives may not have exceeded 10 (8 are named) and a few more concubines (which Abishag may have been counted among).  Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.  So even without Deuteronomy making the line exactly clear, it's obvious how Solomon was excessive in a way prior Biblical Polygamists were not.

Now to the Patriarchs.

On the subject of drawing a connection between the Polygamy of the Patriarchs and their families dysfunctions.  It should be pointed out that Isaac had only one wife and no concubines and that didn't prevent the same thing from happening, parental favoritism and sibling rivalry still happened and it's effects lingered over the rest of the Biblical narrative even more directly then Hagar and Ishmael.  It's post Biblical history that makes Ishmael seem like a bigger conflict then Edom to modern Judeo-Christians.

Here is the thing, Jacob had the most wives, and yes it wasn't any more premeditated then Abraham's situation, but he still had twice as many as Abraham (I now agree with viewing Hagar and Keturah as the same woman).  And yet, in-spite of all the issues Jacob's family had, his family was the one that stuck together, this was where they stopped breaking off into separate nations and in fact remain one pretty united people until Solomon, Rehoboam and Jeorboam messed it up, and that break up wasn't divided along the lines of Jacob's wives.  Leah is treated as Joseph's mother in his dream in Genesis 37, and children of a city of Judah are refereed to as Rachel's children in Matthew 2.

It's common to compare when Rachel asked Jacob to lie with Bilhah to Sarah asking Abraham to lie with Hagar.  But this time it didn't end the same, neither woman wound up despising the other.  Both of Jacob's handmaiden concubines get fully promoted to wives without Leah or Rachel needing to die first.

Among the three Patriarchs, there is a direct correlation between how many wives they had and how well their family stuck together.  Jacob's family had it's issues, but every family has issues.

With the Patriarchs when Polygamy becomes a problem it is the favoritism and jealously that is the problem, not having more then one in the first place, and that's why it was still a problem for Isaac.

The Lamech of the line of Cain in Genesis 4 gets brought up in this debate.  First of all there is no Biblical basis for the law of first mention, the law of needing two references to build doctrine has at least some basis but even it some question.  However the law of first mention is just made up.

And as I recently talked about, Racists love to claim the first Mixed Marriage was also in Genesis 4.

There is nothing in the Lamech narrative to support a connection between his cryptic claim to have killed someone and his having two wives. In fact his confessing his sin to his wives may be the light in this situation.

New Testament on Marriage.

Now I feel I've shown that the Old Testament doesn't joyfully endorse Harem Polygyny/Concubinism as much as people think. On the other hand, is the New Testament as anti-anything other then absolute monogamy as people assume?

 Matthew 19:5-6 says "For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

 It is common to insist that the "one flesh" emphasis while not explicitly saying only one wife still would make it awkward to involve more then two people. The poetic idea is the wife as the husband's other half, and the word translated "twain" does imply duality. Still the intent of the verse is against divorce. Again as a Libertarian, I don't support divorce being legally restricted either, Jesus' command was about the promise made before God, not a legal contract.

Marriage references in Paul's Epistles seem to assume monogamy, but Paul was writing to a Greeco-Roman audience, for whom monogamous marriage was the norm well before Jesus was born. (Though the Macedonian and Hellenistic rulers weren't as strict about it). Indeed, many would say that Western Christianity's devotion to monogamy is another example of how it is really more Hellenistic and Roman in origin then Jewish.
http://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/scheidel/010903.pdf
But Greek Monogamy still treated adultery as a one way street. To modern readers it's outright annoying how the Odyssey treats the threat of Penelope remarrying or being unfaithful as a horrible catastrophe, while Odysseus has two affairs on his journey home without the slightest condemnation. And also Euripides play Andromache revolves around a conflict between a wife and her husband's mistress, and the narrative is firmly on the "other woman's" side, (Of course Hermione is a spoiled brat Neoptlemus only married for politics, while Andromache is the widow of Hector he took as a spoil of war, and yet they do seem to have fallen in love somewhat). So I understand the points in the above PDF I linked to.

The Church's marriage to Christ, is in how it's treated a Monogamous marriage between a Bridegroom and a Bride, the Church as a collective unit is The Bride.

1 Timothy 3:2, 12, 5:9 and Titus 1:6 refer to how an Overseer (Bishop is an unfortunate KJV rendering, the most obvious area where it's Anglicanism is an issue) should be the Husband of "One Wife" the word for "one" here is "Mia" (Strong# 3391) which can be interpreted as meaning "only one", "Heis" or "Monad" are the standard Greek words for "one". But these are special guidelines for Overseers, the rule here could also mean no less then one (hence how Protestants use it against The Vatican) and elsewhere it's clear Christians can choose to be single for life if they wish.

Polyandry is the term for a marriage between one woman and plural husbands. The Wikipedia page says the Bible condemns it simply by citing the adultery laws. That's obviously flawed logic however. The Bible doesn't address it, the Hebrew Bible is the product of a very Patriarchal culture that never even heard of it as an option. In the New Testament Paul might have heard of it from the examples in ancient Sparta, or Caesar's account of the Celts practicing it, but if he did he chose not to address it.

The most common form that has actually been practiced is Fraternal Polyandry, a pair or group of brothers sharing a wife. The Torah does say that if a husband dies before producing an heir, that his widow should marry his nearest living kinsman (who would be a brother if there was one) to produce a son that would in a sense legally be considered the son of the dead husband. The reason for this is it is vital that the family line of inheritance continue, it was considered important for the tribe as a whole that no individual family line perish. So, what if a Husband becomes unable to reproduce but still lives? Like he becomes Sterile due to illness, or loses his genitals in an injury? Given the intent of the law, I could imagine it being allowed there if they'd have considered it.

On the other hand, Jesus condemns a man married to a divorced woman who's husband still lives as adultery. But that needs again to be understood in the context of the condemnation of divorce.  As I said in other articles, it's only reproductive sex God really wants to restrain.

I frankly don't approve of the modern world's over attachment to Monogamy for all romantic relationships, because it's fueled by jealously which is a very unhealthy emotion. And as I've explained elsewhere, not all sex outside marriage is a sin like is commonly taught.  Loving more then one person should not be inherently wrong.

But how do I morally view Marriage? Or rather the Hebrew custom we associate with marriage? Everyone should agree that marriage is about more then just sex, and many even that it's more then just love.  From my understanding of the intent of what the Bible portrays about it, it's even more then just a "committed relationship", it's the foundation of the family. To me it is implied in the function of marriage that you will at least try to have and raise children. This is why it annoys me how often on TV two people get married and have apparently never discussed the children issue till they find out a week after their honeymoon they're not on the same page there, sadly I'm sure that does happen in real life too often, but it shouldn't.

I believe ideally children should have both a father and a mother. But I know we live in a fallen imperfect world where that option isn't always possible, so I don't support single parents having their children taken from them. And I certainly don't want adoption limited.

To people complaining about Gay adoption I'd say two parents are still better then one, even if they're  the same gender at least one has the option of staying home, and certainly it's better then none. In fact I want adoption made a lot easier in general, it's become a lot more complicated in recent decades, they don't even have orphanages anymore. To me even the most dysfunctional family is preferable to the state raising them in foster care.

As the Hebrew Scriptures demonstrate, Harem Polygyny creates rivalry problems. So for the purpose of raising children I consider a monogamous marriage best. But other people also being involved doesn't have to be a problem. So I don't consider open marriages a sin, so long as everything is done openly and honestly.

So in summery, legally I want marriage to have no restrictions at all, morally I consider one husband and one wife best to raise children, but will pass no judgment on those trying to do it differently.

Do The Hebrew Scriptures condone Polygamy as much as we assume?

Before I get into what the Bible says here. I want to remind everyone that I'm a Libertarian in my political views (at least Socially). So regardless of what Marriage should be Biblically, Spiritually, Morally or Ethically I absolutely do NOT want the state regulating it in any way. I would rather marriage not be a civil institution at all, but as long as it is I fully support legalizing Gay Marriage, Polygamy, Bigamy, Polygyny, Polyandry, Polyamory, Groups Marriages, open marriages and so on.  As long as all parties involved are consenting adults it's none of my or the state's business.  Now to get to the subject at hand.

Does The Bible define Marriage as "Between one man and one woman" as so many of my fellow Fundamentalists say?

First off marriage is an English word. Ancient Israel did have an institution of a union between a man and a woman, and the New Testament uses that relationship symbolically a great deal, (The Church is the Bride and Christ the Bridegroom, but on our wedding night it will be the Groom's Blood presented on the sheets). The gender designation of the parties in that union is specific.  In fact in Hebrew the word for woman is also the word for wife, and the word for man (as in the adult gender distinction, not as in mankind) is also the word for husband. But the modern custom of marriage practiced by western Christianity has numerous differences in function and practice from that union, well before we debate the gender distinction or number of people involved. I've written a dissertation on the verses alleged to condemn homosexuality altogether, they don't.

It is popular to point out that Polygamy was practiced in the Old Testament. We casually use polygamy to refer to a very specific form of polygamy, the word strictly speaking covers any kind of marriage with more then two parties involved. The polygamy practiced in Ancient Israel was Polygyny (One man with plural wives) and even a specific form of that, Harem Polygyny/Concubinism, which involved each Wife/Concubine having children of their own (or trying to anyway) and raising their own children, creating basically mini-families within the family. This can create rivalries for the favor of the father, and increase the chance of incest, if the children by different mothers aren't entirely raised together the natural barrier to being attracted to one might not develop as it normally would.

To call it common is simply misleading, like in most polygamous cultures it was mainly the wealthy and upper-classes actually practicing it. The Torah never outright forbids it in general, but Deuteronomy 17:17 in laying out guidelines for the future Kings says "Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold." They failed to obey this (Some anyway, at-least the first three or four, and especially Solomon) but it's interesting that the individual most capable of supporting that lifestyle is the one explicitly advised against it.

The Law of Moses tolerates many things that are still morally disapproved of.  There are no actual laws in the Exodus or Deuteronomy law codes against Drinking/Drunkenness or Prostitution either, but endless verses making clear they're disapproved of morally.

God only made one wife for Adam (Lilith is extra-Biblical nonsense, drawn on misunderstanding Genesis 1 and 2 and how they relate to each other). He could have made many more just as easily as he made Havah(Eve) but he didn't.

The first account of polygyny being practiced is among Cain's descendants in Genesis 4, now it would be unfair to condemn them based solely on that descent, but it is possibly a revealing context. The Midrash interprets the names as an attack on polygamy. Adah is there interpreted as the deposed one, implying that Lamech spurned her in favor of Zillah, whose own name is understood to mean she shaded herself [from Zillah at Lamech's side].

When it is practiced among the protagonists of the Biblical narrative, the results are jealous rivalries between the wives and their offspring. Abraham and Jacob were both forced into their situations by circumstances more or less beyond their control, they were not very extreme examples and yet those problems still occurred, and are the root of the Middle East crisis we have today (Arabs being mostly derived from Ishmael). Later Leviticus 18:18 does specifically condemn the kind Jacob engaged in, marrying two sisters.

I've seen some pro-polygyny sites make a point of Miriam being punished for disapproving of Moses's marriage to a "Cushite woman". I view the point being a condemnation of racism, Miriam was objecting to marriage to a foreigner, not a second wife. And besides, scholars don't even agree that this was a separate wife form Zipporah (We don't know the ultimate Genesis 10 background of the Kenites for certain, and there were Cushites in Arabia). And some would interpret that it didn't matter if Moses was in the wrong or not, Miriam was still out of line, I don't like that way of looking at it though. I've seen websites even cite Esau's polygyny as an endorsement of it, I don't like to vilify Esau as much as Jewish tradition does, but how he ran his family was certainly viewed critically by the Author of Genesis.

It's clearly a source of problems in David's family, the Bathsheba incident was the finale trigger, but it drew on roots already there, from seeds planted by David's polygyny. And with Solomon it's firmly linked to his inevitable corruption and falling away into idolatry, though their mostly being foreign, (point being religiously foreign not ethnically) is also a factor. Solomon didn't follow the other guidelines given to the Kings in Deuteronomy 17 either, which means the connection to that chapter isn't a coincidence.