A common objection thrown up by those who argue against Biblical polygyny is the fact that in Biblical polygynous families, we see a lot of family difficulties and sometimes, outright pain. Setting aside the equally common rebuttal that in monogamous families, we see the same kind of pain, there’s something about the difficulties that polygynous families experience that naysayers are not considering, and quite possibly that’s due to a monogamy-only translator bias, as well as the all-too-human reflexive avoidance of pain.
Before we go into the weeds with the Greek-to-English translations, I want to note that a recent story broke about when a Tanzanian miner became an overnight millionaire when he sold two of the largest chunks of Tanzanite ever found in that African country. The BBC article that reported the find also mentioned that the miner had 4 wives and 30 children. The Fox News article that reported the same story linked to the same BBC article mentioned the 30 children but was silent on the 4 wives. This is an excellent current example of how discomfort with polygyny will lead to suppression of relevant facts.
Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
From the colonial period to the second decade of the twenty-first century in the United States of America, marriage has been the subject of legislation and court decisions. Specifically, the question that I am exploring herein is how statutes and court decisions define or permit “who can marry whom?” The following is not intended to be a detailed overview of more than four centuries of history. Undoubtedly, there exist monographs and books written on this topic and the interested reader can search them out. I did a search through DuckDuckGo on “history American marriage laws”, which returned several hits. The first sites, including Wikipedia, contained some information about the changes in American law since the colonial period and several things jumped out at me and that’s what I want to discuss. The reader is warned that this might be “getting into the weeds” somewhat, but the overall trend addressing “who can marry whom?” is what I’m interested in sharing with you.
In the opening article in my new “Marriage Laws” series, I made the proposition that Yeshua clearly said that some things belong to YHVH only, and that marriage is one of those things that YHVH has reserved to Himself, and not given to Caesar (the government) to legislate. In forthcoming articles, I will explore how “Caesar” in America and other societies in the past has arrogated to himself the power to regulate marriage. In this second article, I am going to answer the question of what YHVH has said about marriage. It turns out that He has said a great deal, and nowhere has He said that Israel’s rulers have any legal jurisdiction on this topic. If they don’t, how much less jurisdiction do the nations have?
We will begin at the beginning during Creation Week in which we are going to analyze what He said and did through the aftermath of the Fall. Later, we will discuss what He put into the Sinai Covenant and the related statutes and judgments in Leviticus and Deuteronomy.
When people put forth arguments against the polygyny laws of the Old Testament, one of them is that if there are laws on the books that make polygyny illegal, then even if it’s legal in the Old Testament, it’s not legal in the present day, and the secular law is the controlling authority and should be obeyed.
Is it possible that the vow taken by the groom in the traditional Christian ceremony to “forsake all others” is rooted in Gentile tradition and law and without biblical justification? Is it possible Christendom has used Pauline verses, improperly translated and incorrectly understood, to prop up a position he never took and likely never believed? Does research actually show that the real root of monogamy-only is entirely Greco-Roman, used to empower the State and reduce the authority and power of men and their families?
The most recent issue of Patriarchs’ Journal (V. 3 Issue 21) has a very thought provoking article by attorney Rick Knuth titled, “So Which ‘Traditional Marriage’ Do People Want To Save?’
“Until the passage of Married Women’s Acts in 1898, a married woman’s property was controlled by her husband, even property she brought it into the marriage. Married women were legally incompetent to transfer assets or make binding contracts for themselves…
“This was preceded by an even older tradition, “coveture,” under which a woman, once married, lost her separate identity. The wife was considered to be her husband’s property, and all she owned was under his control. He could dispose of his wife’s property and could command her labor, even her body itself.”
In fact, Knuth points out in his short and rather pithy article that marriage as a ‘romantic union between a man and a woman’ is quite a new ‘tradition.’ Among other valid points he presents, Knuth reminds the reader that civil and state regulation of marriage is also more occasional than traditional. As I have pointed out, the state has no place in marriage bonds and, for that matter, Scripturally, neither do religious ‘authorities.’
The point to really consider is, ‘are God’s ways better than man’s? Cognitively, we know the resounding answer is ‘Yes!’, but our flesh often cries out against it. Just as with Shabbat, feasts and eating clean, we should simply embrace the Word of God regarding family structure and marriage while trusting that blessings follow obedience.
Additional thoughts regarding marriage, family and the restoration of Israel in our Restoring Kol Israel series.
God gave Jacob a vision, then gave him four wives! Wait, What?!
Sure to spark real discussion and digging in the Scriptures, this week’s portion discusses the importance of vision for every man and the family he leads, as well as going where most are terrified to tread…. What God says about family structure.
This short (if you can call it that) commentary is not meant as a final authority as there is simply too much in this portion related to headship, patriarchy and family structure to cover it all. However, this is a great place to begin the discussion with a number of linked resources for further research. The key is to pursue truth and shed tradition and false doctrine.