Polygamy & Divorce in the Bible
|
|
Difference between polygamy and polyamory? Click here!
- The first church was Jewish. Jesus and the apostles (all Jews) could not have abolished polygamy without leaving a significant number of texts treating that problem and all related issues (inheritance law, educational law, divorce law, custody law etc.).
- Under certain circumstances, the Torah even demanded polygamy. If a married man died without having children, his brother was required to marry his sister-in-law in order to provide an heir for the deceased. In such cases, only the second child was considered to be the child of the surviving brother
- The New Testament does not deal with polygamy. Since polygamy was widespread in Judaism and the Jewish population in the Roman Empire was significant (some historians estimate about 6-10%), it was unnecessary to talk about it.
- In the Bible polygamy was legal, divorce allowed, but adultery was a punishable.
- The term 'adultery' had a different meaning in Judaism than the Greeks and Romans gave it. Our understanding of 'adultery' is due to the Romans. Cf. the page on 'adultery'.
- As a result, we completely miss the point when Jesus talks about divorce and adultery.
- In our Western understanding, adultery is almost exclusively linked to 'pleasure' (i.e. 'sex').
- In the Bible, the problem of adultery (and divorce) was strongly linked to 'responsibility' (at that time there were neither contraceptives, nor social insurance – the survival of women and children depended on the father).
- In Judaism, marriage set a slave (i.e. servant) free. If a woman was not treated correctly by her husband (precisely: 1. food, 2. clothing, 3. sexual intercourse), she could obtain a divorce and remained free.
- In other words, if a wife was neglected on a sexual level, then this was a valid reason for divorce.
- So, a woman could easily file for divorce, but a man could only do so when the his wive had acted in an adulterous way. If the man was not satisfied with his wive, he could marry another one.
- In monogamy, marriage is a question of relationship. In polygamy, marriage is a question of community. Living together in a group is easier.
- In short, Jesus was not against divorce, he was against men divorcing their wives for any arbitrary reason. In a polygamous environment this is a big difference.
Background: Jesus was taken to task by the scribes because of a popular controversy at that time concerning a Mosaic law text (the constitution of that time). The reason for this was that in the year 10 of our era, the political presidency of the highest Jewish court (the Sanhedrin) and as a consequence, the jurisprudence regarding divorce had changed. The starting point for this was a vague Hebrew formulation in the Constitution that invited bold interpretations. Among other things, there was a view (held by the Jewish Supreme Court until the year 10 CE) that men could dismiss one of their wives if she was not beautiful enough or if she could not cook well. So what was the real problem? With each additional wife and the resulting children, the cost of living for the household increased. So some men had the idea of simply replacing one of their wives! To do this, they simply had to shift the emphasis of the Mosaic law on divorce. The beginning of the question in Greek (Εἰ ἔξεστιν) is sometimes translated simply as ‘is it permitted?’ This is imprecise, as the turn of phrase literally means ‘does it come out of?’ (implied ‘the Mosaic constitution’). The Greek text indicates that the question was related to the law. Indeed, many English Bibles translate ‘is it lawful’. The question was not whether divorce was legal (of course it was), but under what conditions divorce was legal. And this is exactly how the question of the scribes was formulated: 'Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?' (Mt 19:3).
Jesus' teaching on divorce aimed to protect women and children!
The various interpretations of the constitutional text regarding divorce requested by the husband illustrate the vague wording of Mosaic law. This contrasts sharply with the divorce procedure initiated by a wife. In this regard, the constitution (i.e. the Torah) was so clear that there was no debate. It should also be noted that the legal principle upheld by Hillel, the former president of the Sanhedrin, until the year 10 CE (that a husband may divorce his wife on any grounds) effectively amounted to granting a husband at least the same ease in seeking a divorce as that afforded to wives. However, in my view, this was precisely the opposite of what Moses had required. The husband was in a position of strength, as he was permitted to have several wives. It should therefore have been more difficult for him to divorce a woman.
Placing the Messiah's statements in a monogamous context completely distorts the original message. And it leads to a derogatory view of divorce in churches. According to the Catholic Church the marriage is still indissoluble and divorce is illegal in the strongly Catholic Philippines to this day.
Since theologians usually read the New Testament through the spectacles of monogamous Christianity, certain passages in the Bible are also translated accordingly:
For example, when referring to church leaders, the indefinite article is often interpreted as a numeral (1Tim 3:2 and verse 12 as well as Tit 1:6). In Hellenistic Greek (as in German or French for example), the numeral (1 woman) also serves as an indefinite article (a woman). Thus it happens that the requirement for church leaders to be 'man of a woman' (μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα) is sometimes translated as 'husband of one wife'. Thus, Bible translators make monogamy a prerequisite for church leaders. In Greek, the indefinite article is only occasionally used*, but it can serve to highlight indeterminacy. I.e. the apostle uses a vague term (man of some woman), thus indicating the diversity of the various situations addressed by it. And while 'man of a woman' may sound strange in English it is a common expression in Greek to speak about a married man. Accordingly, the apostle Paul (who was widower) speaks of a man who is (or was) married, as opposed to a man who has not or has never had any wife. The apostle was not concerned with the number of women a leader may have, but rather with the fact that those responsible should have experience in family life. When reading the context this becomes evident. The use of the numeral as an indefinite article in the passages just discussed is also confirmed by the fact that Paul uses exactly the same grammatical construction in 1 Timothy 5:9, where he speaks of a 'woman of (some) man' (ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή). The apostle there speaks of widows. The meaning 'woman of one man' would make no sense in this context. Because widows are characterized by the fact that in the past they had once been the 'wife of a man' (i.e. married). In other words widows are widows even if they became widows twice. If you know Biblical Hebrew, you will have noticed that this peculiarity is not only Greek, but also Hebrew (for instance, in 1 Samuel 1.1 there question of '(some) man' - אִישׁ אֶחָד – but not 'one man'). As a learned Jew, Paul seems to have used this way of expression intuitively in Greek as well.
For example, when referring to church leaders, the indefinite article is often interpreted as a numeral (1Tim 3:2 and verse 12 as well as Tit 1:6). In Hellenistic Greek (as in German or French for example), the numeral (1 woman) also serves as an indefinite article (a woman). Thus it happens that the requirement for church leaders to be 'man of a woman' (μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα) is sometimes translated as 'husband of one wife'. Thus, Bible translators make monogamy a prerequisite for church leaders. In Greek, the indefinite article is only occasionally used*, but it can serve to highlight indeterminacy. I.e. the apostle uses a vague term (man of some woman), thus indicating the diversity of the various situations addressed by it. And while 'man of a woman' may sound strange in English it is a common expression in Greek to speak about a married man. Accordingly, the apostle Paul (who was widower) speaks of a man who is (or was) married, as opposed to a man who has not or has never had any wife. The apostle was not concerned with the number of women a leader may have, but rather with the fact that those responsible should have experience in family life. When reading the context this becomes evident. The use of the numeral as an indefinite article in the passages just discussed is also confirmed by the fact that Paul uses exactly the same grammatical construction in 1 Timothy 5:9, where he speaks of a 'woman of (some) man' (ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή). The apostle there speaks of widows. The meaning 'woman of one man' would make no sense in this context. Because widows are characterized by the fact that in the past they had once been the 'wife of a man' (i.e. married). In other words widows are widows even if they became widows twice. If you know Biblical Hebrew, you will have noticed that this peculiarity is not only Greek, but also Hebrew (for instance, in 1 Samuel 1.1 there question of '(some) man' - אִישׁ אֶחָד – but not 'one man'). As a learned Jew, Paul seems to have used this way of expression intuitively in Greek as well.
* Actually, there is no indefinite article in Greek. Read more in my essay.
In a nutshell: Paul's instruction to be 'man of (some) woman' (i.e. married) Bible translators have made a 'man of one woman' (i.e. monogamous)!
In summary: By interpreting and sometimes even translating Jewish texts in a non-Jewish way, i.e. detached from their historical context, modern readers read things into the Bible that are not there.
By Chris Zürcher. Page updated on 21 July 2024
