Christians are fond of defending the sanctity of Biblical Marriage. One man, one woman, bonded for life, sexually exclusive, and celibate before marriage. The thing is, that’s not in the Bible. In order to find that model of marriage, we have to move much farther forward in history. If anyone was to take the Bible literally, a “Defense of Marriage Act” would look more like this:
Polygamy
Taking the Bible as a whole, there are far more references to polygamy — and far more approval from God himself for the institution — than for monogamous marriage.
- If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn: Deuteronomy 21:15-16
- Earlier in the same chapter, rules are spelled out fortaking captive slaves and adding them to your harem of wives.
- And David took him more concubines and wives out of Jerusalem, after he was come from Hebron: and there were yet sons and daughters born to David. 2 samuel 5:13
- David, the direct ancestor of Jesus, the savior of the entire world, had 6 wives and many, many concubines. Concubines, by virtue of NOT being wives, are pretty solid evidence that non-married sex wasn’t an especially bad thing in the Old Testament.
- Speaking of non-married sex, King Solomon, the wisest man in the history of the universe, had 300 concubines. Think about how many times you had sex last year. Solomon probably had you beat before he even got to the first of his 700 wives. 1 Kings 11:3
- Rehoboam, Solomon’s son, didn’t do quite so well. He only had 18 wives and 60 concubines. 2 Chronicles 11:21
- Esau had three wives. At first, he married two Caananite women, but his parents were mad at him — not for having two wives, but because they were foreigners. So he found himself a good Jewish girl and took her for his own. (LINK)
Jesus’ take on Polygamy
Christians love this passage: 5. and said, `For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh‘ ? 6. So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” Matthew 19: 5-6. It proves Jesus advocated one man, one woman, with no divorce, right?
Well… not exactly. For some reason, they forget the rest of the passage. 8. Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.” Jesus goes on to prohibit divorce, but NOT multiple wives.
More importantly, there is not a single passage to be found in the New Testament where Jesus condemns, outlaws, or otherwise prohibits polygamy. Really! There isn’t a single one. Read it for yourself and see. One would think that if it was important for his followers to abandon the marital traditions of hundreds of years, and more importantly, of his own forbears — those men who were individually chosen by God – he might have taken a moment to mention it.
“Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.”
I agree with the vast majority of this post. However, this argument is inaccurate. In Greek, the plural of “your” is used. Matthew 19.8 basically says “Moses permitted you guys to turn away you guys’ wives because you guys’ hearts were hard…” etc. Your argument would work if it were a singular “your”.
Posted by J. Quinton | July 28, 2011, 1:48 pmI find it interesting that you find a logical connection between divorce and polygamy. God hates divorce (Mal 2:16) but permitted it. The Matthew passage mentioned is about divorce, not multiple spouses so why would you expect it to address polygamy? However, taking the Matthew passage at face value it says that a husband and wife will be come one flesh, not WIVES but WIFE. So there isn’t any room there for multiple wives. Just because polygamy was a practice of some in the Old Testamant does not make it the rule for us today.
Posted by excogitatingengineer | July 28, 2011, 1:59 pmJ, I hesitated before including the bit about “wives.” The thing is, I looked at as many translations as I could find on the interwebZ. (It was over 30.) There were about as many uses of “wife” as “wives,” and all kinds of sentence structures that made the whole thing… baffling.
But in the end, I included it because people read translations, not Greek. If you ask a million people to show you their Bibles, all but three of them are going to show you a translation in their language. They trust their Bibles, and they don’t give a damn about Biblical scholars.
And ultimately, the same argument applies: Jesus spoke of men (plural) divorcing wives (plural), which is still relatively ambiguous. Did he mean: Moses permitted you guys to turn away you guys’ (multiple) wives? Or did he mean: Moses permitted you guys to turn away you guys’ (singular) wives?
Maybe I missed something in grammar school, but that’s still an ambiguous passage to me. And the broad point still stands: Jesus never bothered to prohibit the predominate marrying tradition for the last several hundred years.
Posted by Living Life Without a Net | July 28, 2011, 2:11 pmExcog, that’s the whole point. Christians use that passage to “prove” that Jesus was all about one man one woman. But it’s not what the passage addresses. So… if they’re not using that passage, which passage are they using to prove Jesus support for monogamous marriage?
Posted by Living Life Without a Net | July 28, 2011, 2:13 pmAgain, I agree that the vast majority of people are going to be looking this up in their English Bibles. But, as nontheists, I would like our arguments to be as strong as possible. The ambiguity of the sentence could work in your favor, but it could also work against you.
The stronger position to point out would be that Jesus never explicitly condemns polygamy. As a supplimentary to that, you could then point out that Matt 19.8 might have been the perfect opportunity to condemn it – especially since it was still being practiced during the time period of Jesus:
Posted by J. Quinton | July 28, 2011, 3:30 pmThe foundation of marriage as I see it in Scripture is in Genesis 2:24. It appears to be the cultural norm in the New Testament as well. I would also point to marriage as being a picture of Christ and His Church. There is just one bride.
Are you suggesting that divorce was wrong but polygamy was okay? If so, are you arguing in favor of polygamy? Just wondering if you are trying to argue a point or just trying to undermine the Biblical view…
Posted by excogitatingengineer | July 28, 2011, 3:51 pmThe “Biblical View” in the historical-critical approach is polygamy. Just because one could have multiple wives didn’t mean that they could afford it. Which was why it was more common among Jewish kings.
If you want to promulgate your own religious tradition’s “biblical view” then I would suggest first straightening that out with the other 29,999 sects of Christianity (and the Jews and Mormons as well).
Posted by J. Quinton | July 28, 2011, 4:26 pmLOL Bill, when was the last time a Christian actually followed the bible?
They don’t because society and inert morality override religion. I haven’t seen a case where religious morality overrides inert morality.
Posted by Alison | July 28, 2011, 7:01 pmThanks Quinton. However, my standard is the Bible and not others who claim to be Christian. The Biblical view of marriage is husband and wife for a lifetime. The Biblical view would be derived from the text not a historical-critical approach.
Allison, you are correct that Christians don’t follow the Bible 100%. In actuality we cannot obey the law of God which is why He sent Christ to die on the cross for the sins of His people. I thank God for His grace and the forgiveness of sins that is available through the atoning blood of Jesus Christ.
Posted by excogitatingengineer | July 29, 2011, 10:23 amOkay, let’s stick to the text.
Jesus tells a parable that assumes a polygamous view of marriage – the seven virgins/brides waiting for their (single) bridegroom (Matthew 25.1). Yes, it’s about being ready for his supposed return, but he uses polygamous marriage as his illustration.
In the early church, the writers of both 1 Timothy and Titus are unable to assume that would-be bishops will confine themselves to one wife; they have to be told it! 1 Timothy 3.2 reads: ‘A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach’. Why do they have to be told? Because one man/one woman marriage was still evolving, even as late as the second century when these letters were written.
Posted by Neil | July 29, 2011, 11:40 amThat’s so awesome, Excog. I just showed you the proof from your own Bible that you’re wrong, and you still believe what your pastors tell you. Look at it yourself, Ex. Read the whole thing and find one place where anybody says marriage is one man, one woman for a lifetime.
It’s just not there. And polygamy IS there. All over the place.
Posted by Living Life Without a Net | July 29, 2011, 12:23 pmThat is very interesting. However, you can’t make a text mean what you want it to mean. You have to interpret it in light of what the author intended. The particular text you are using in a parable. Parables are intended to teach a main point. You are taking details of a parable to make the text mean something that it doeesn’t. The point of the text is to be ready for the return of Christ and to not get caught unprepared. Clearly Christ only has one bride because there is just one universal church, which is the bride of Christ.
I enjoyed chatting with you. I pray that you will enjoy the greatest blessing that Christ can give. Blessings, Excog.
Posted by excogitatingengineer | July 29, 2011, 1:06 pmThank you for posting. I will wish against hope that you will have a moment of clarity and reason, and I will continue advocating for better education so that fewer people will waste their time praying for me.
Posted by Living Life Without a Net | July 29, 2011, 3:48 pmHi Excog. How was I making the text mean something it doesn’t? You are in greater danger of doing that by saying it needs interpreting! I acknowledged what the parable was about but pointed out the uncritical use of polygamous marriage Jesus uses as his analogy. No amount of ‘interpreting’ changes that.
I note you don’t comment on the references from Timothy and Titus. Sorry, Excog, but you are letting faith blind you to the Bible’s actual portrayal of marriage (see the original post).
And Christ can’t ‘bless’ me or anyone else. He’s a fictitious, supernatural character, loosely based on a failed apocalyptic preacher!
Posted by Neil | July 30, 2011, 5:33 amTrying to make the point that “Jesus never said this, so it must not be important,” doesn’t quite work with Christians. Jesus never actually did away with the clean and unclean laws, rather he upheld them. Yet, Christians don’t follow the clean and unclean laws because it was later *interpreted* that that’s what Jesus actually said. Jesus never created a religion separate from Judaism… early Christians did that via *interpreting* what Jesus said. So try as you might to find any text you want, the Christian response will be “That’s not what he meant.”
Posted by Melcockles | December 4, 2011, 8:43 amEXCOGITATINGENGINEER’s writings here are a HUGE example of how ignorant so many people who call themselves Christians really are about Biblical exegesis. They have no Idea how to understand the culture and people of the time when these ancient texts were recorded. They prefer to believe a childish view of the bible instead of the real culture that existed during the time. The Bible has many words in it of many different people and groups. It is not a perfect book, only God is perfect.
Posted by Benjamin | March 2, 2012, 2:26 pmLet’s not forgot that our religious texts were written for the socio-economic circumstances of the day and not for those of us who might possibly be reading them hundreds or even thousands of years later.
Posted by Victoria M. Reynolds | May 27, 2012, 11:11 pmThis kind of not rational mediocrity and hubris will lead to our self destruction
Posted by Renato | July 17, 2012, 11:02 am