MONOGAMY AGAINST POLYGAMY: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF MATHEW (5:31-32) AND MARK (10:2-12) FROM CROSS-CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES IN PASTORAL LEADERSHIP
INTRODUCTION
Monogamy against polygamy is an old age debate in Christian theology. Despite its age, this debate keeps surfacing on various circles, including the social media. Monogamy, in particular, is under assault in the secular culture of the postmodern West, and within Christianity (Bowman 2015). This debate has been a challenge to pastoral leadership in the church from the time Christianity was ushered in Africa. There has never been a unified approach to this problem among the various Christian denominations (Boult, 1981). Either, the church’s stand on monogamy, which is by far the most common, has had implication on how the church handles polygamists that turn their life to Jesus. There is now an increasing push from the new generation, demanding permission to go polygamy, with an argument that there is no firm scriptural ground that restricts polygamous life.
From the surface value, Mathew 5:31-32 and Mark 10:2-12 does not deal directly with the issue of monogamy or polygamy. Both gospels report on a question raised by pharisees to test the position of Jesus Christ regarding Mosaic legalities on divorce practices in marriage. However, Jesus’ response pointed to the essence of marriage itself (Gen 2:23-24). His response to the question implied to his listeners that the whole marriage practice had gone through serious modifications over time. These modifications are responsible for the essence of divorce practices. Otherwise, the original design was for the married individuals to become inseparably united for the rest of their lives. The word ‘individuals’ referring to a male and a female, is important in this critical analysis. The analysis looks at whether these individuals constitute a perfect marriage before God if they either perpetually remain two (monogamy), or even if they reconfigure into multiple partners (polygamy).
This work is organized in four major sections. The first section looks at the description of key terminologies used in this paper. The second section looks at the analytical exegesis of Mathew 5:31-32 and Mark 10:2-12 as guided by historical evidences from political and cultural aspects, religious aspects, economical aspects, geographical aspects, and the theological aspects of the texts. The last section looks at the cross-cultural and pastoral leadership perspectives. The last section concludes the discussion.
DESCRIPTION OF KEY TERMINOLOGIES
The term ‘marriage’ is central to this paper. It is commonly defined as a partnership between two members of opposite sex who constitute a husband and a wife. Scholars who study human culture and society have, however, disagreed on whether marriage can be universally defined. This paper looks at two scholars to generate the working definition concepts which build up a marriage partnership.
Eyo (2018) defines marriage as a mystical and physical union between a man and a woman, and that, marriage in African context, biblical or the Greek context, is meant for a lifelong companionship between the two spouses. Riggs and Cynthia (2010) define marriage as a social, economic, and legal covenant between a man and a woman.
The reference to mystic and covenant in both definitions bring in a religious component into their definition of marriage. In other words, we can define marriage as a legal and religious commitment in which a man and a woman share emotional and physical intimacy. The usual roles and responsibilities of the husband and wife include living together, having sexual relations with one another, sharing economic resources, and being parents of their children. Riggs and Cynthia (2010) identify types of marriage arrangements that are mainly practiced in the contemporary society. The types include monogamy and polygamy.
Monogamy is a marriage arrangement in which a person is married to only one spouse at a time. This type of marriage is deeply rooted in Judeo-Christian tradition. The European culture increased the incidences of monogamy in Africa due to spread of Christianity where many church communities ranked monogamy as the only divine form of marriage. The book of Genesis and 2 Timothy are regarded as foundational by both defenders of monogamy (Bowman, 2015). The main quoted scriptures for this Christian tradition are Genesis 2:24,25 and 1 Timothy 3:12. The former verses clarify that God created only one spouse for Adam, and the later verses are an admonishment for church leaders, to be husbands of one wife. Their conclusion has been that God intended marriage to be monogamous.
Polygamy is a marriage arrangement where a person is married to multiple spouses at the same time. Further to this, there are two polygamy subtypes. The first subtype is polygyny, where one man is married to more than one wife. The second subtype is polyandry, where one woman is married to more than one husband. According to Riggs and Cynthia (2010), shortage of eligible males led to the rationale that women must share a husband to survive economically.
The Oxford Languages dictionary defines divorce as the legal dissolution of a marriage by a court or any other competent body. It further qualifies divorce as a separation or dissociation of something from something else, typically with an undesirable effect.
Divorce is therefore a formal ending of a marriage and involves a legal process. If one gets a divorce, it means that marriage is officially over. The other fact is the pain which is associated with divorce. Divorce is anti-social and, unlike marriage, it is not often celebrated (Eyo, 2018). It is often gloomy and very traumatic process because of the reasons and the accompaniments of the divorce. The divorce process takes time and, in some cases, its process is cumbersome. It is no surprise that God, the author of marriage, hates divorce:
“For the LORD God of Israel says that He hates divorce, for it covers one’s garment with violence,” says the LORD of hosts. “Therefore, take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously.” (Malachi 2:16 KJV).
Divorce was a concession passed in Mosaic law due to hardness of men’s heart (Mark 10:5).
ANALYTICAL EXEGESIS OF MATHEW (5:31-32) AND MARK (10:2-12)
Technically, Matthew and Mark are referred to as synoptic gospels. Together with the gospel of Luke, the three gospels contain many of the same stories, and that those stories are sometimes presented in the same sequence within each of the three gospels. However, there are substantial differences in style from one gospel to the other, and in addition to the shared content, each gospel has content that is completely unique to itself.
Both Matthew 5:31-32 and Mark 10:2-12 present a conversation between Jesus and the Pharisees on the topic of divorce. The Pharisees approached Jesus and asked if it was lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause because they wanted to trap him. In his basic response, Jesus did not touch on issues of monogamous or polygamous marriage. His reference to the essence of marriage is what brings out the issue of monogamy and polygamy. He first responded by drawing attention to the creation narrative in Genesis 2:24,25 (before the fall) where God created Adam and Eve, one male and one female. In authoritative translations (KJV, NKJV), Gen 2:24 is prescriptive (as the law or norm would require, stating what ought to be) rather than descriptive:
“For this reason, a man shall leave his father and his mother and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.” Gen 2:24.
This is what Bowman (2015) called the ‘covenantal interpretation’ of Genesis 2:24. The future-tense verb forms (“shall leave,” “shall become”) are used, as they often are in English, to express intended, expected, or commanded action (e.g., “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” Lev. 19:18). The covenantal and kinship loyalty for man toward his wife is analogous to the covenantal loyalty that the Lord shows toward Israel and that he expects the same in return from Israel. Since Israel’s relationship with the Lord is unique and exclusive (Deut. 6:4-5), the implication is that the covenant bond between a husband and wife is also meant to be a unique and exclusive relationship Bowman (2015). It would also appear that under the original marriage design, separation or rearrangement of whatever form was not anticipated.
b. Cultural and Historical Considerations
It is exegetically upheld that God directed his words (as written in the Bible) to particular people in particular historical and cultural situations. Cultural and historical examinations are therefore primely important because readers are expected to be sensitive to the difference between absolute instructions and those instructions that are culturally dictated.
Mathew and Mark write their text in the New Testament before destruction of the temple, around 50 AD. This time Palestine was under the occupation of the Roman empire. Because of the close contact between the Jewish and the Roman culture, the attitude of the people toward practices of divorce, monogamy or polygamy had been influenced not only by Mosaic theological considerations, but they were also influenced by the norms and values of Judeo-Roman culture.
From the scripture, it appeared culturally and religiously normal for divorce to be practiced, where one group practiced divorce for every reason, but one group practiced divorce for cases of marital infidelity only. The question being brought to Jesus was to resolve a theological complication involved in this practice for the two groups. Marriage is both a cultural and a theological issue, it is therefore necessary to consider the cultural obstacles which complicates the theological evaluation of the problem. Jesus’ approach in his response was to reveal the inherent shortcomings of this religious cum cultural practice as he forces them to reexamine the original intention of marriage.
i. Marriage in the Pre-Patriarchal Era
Traditionally, pre-Patriarchal Era is the period after Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden, ending with the introduction of Terah in Gen. 4:1-11:26 (Bowmans, 2015). In this era, polygamy is mentioned only once, involving Lamech who had two wives (Gen. 4:19-24). Although the narrative contains no direct statement condemning polygamy, there are several reasons in the context of the pre-patriarchal narrative that imply God’s disapproval of Lameck’s bigamy.
Lamech is the wickedest man in Genesis, he marks the moral corruption of the descendants of Cain, the first murderer (Gen. 4:17-18). Lamech boasts that he will take revenge far greater than what even Cain had done: “If Cain’s revenge is sevenfold, then Lamech’s is seventy-sevenfold” (Gen. 4:24).
The writer uses the plural term “wives” three times, and the names of the two wives also three times, in the space of five verses. This deliberate emphasis must be viewed in the context of how Genesis narrated wives of other men in the pre-patriarchal period. Adam had one wife; even Cain had one wife (Gen. 4:17); but Lamech, whose wickedness is far greater than his father Cain, took two wives. In a stark contrast to Lamech, Seth and his righteous descendants (Noah and his three sons), were monogamous.
ii. Marriage in the Patriarchal Era
Advocates of polygamy confidently cite Ibrahim and Jacob as positive examples of polygamy approval by God. However, the fact that the patriarchs engaged in an array of behaviors that is not directly criticized is not an approval of those behaviors. For example, the scripture in Genesis 12-50 neither justifies sin nor ignores it, it rather shows that God is faithful to his promises regardless of the moral failures of those he chooses to bless. Examples of other behaviors not criticized include:
Abram’s polygamy
Many incidents show that Abram’s polygamy is not something to be celebrated for. First, Abram’s sexual union with Hagar was not part of God’s plan. The way Sarai and Abram’s actions are described suggest that they were doing something that God did not approve. According to Bowmans (2015), the text (Genesis 16:2-3) indicates disapproval by describing the actions in language that parallels the actions of Eve and Adam in the temptation narrative:
Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:6,17): …she took of its fruit …and gave some to her husband (3:6). Because you have listened to the voice of your wife (3:17).
Abram and Sarai (Genesis 16:2-3): Sarai, Abram’s wife took Hagar… and gave her to Abram her husband. And Abram listened to the voice of Sarai…
In both cases, the woman (Eve; Sarai) initiated the series of events. She “took” (the fruit; Hagar) and “gave” it “to her husband” (Adam; Abram). In both cases, the man “hearkened to the voice of” his wife, he accepted what the wife gave him, and did what she proposed (ate the fruit; had sex with Hagar). The reader is meant to understand that Abram stumbled in allowing his wife to persuade him to have sexual relations with Hagar, just as Adam stumbled in allowing his wife to persuade him to eat fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Both Adam and Abram lived their future household life in a midst of pain.
In the New Testament, apostle Paul disqualifies Abram’s action as he says: Ishmael “was born after the flesh” whereas Isaac “was by promise” (Galatians 4:23; Romans 9:6-9). When Abram expressed concern that he would die childless and that his servant Eliezer of Damascus would become his heir, God did not advise polygamy (as Sarai thought from her cultural experience), instead God assured Abram that his biological son through Sarai would be his heir (Gen 15:2 4).
It is true that Sarai’s action was common in her culture, such that within that cultural context her giving Hagar to Abram as a second wife would not have brought disapproval or social criticism. However, the text shows that Abram’s sexual union with Hagar was not in God’s interest, it was an act inconsistent with Abram’s faith in God, to fulfill his promise.
Genesis is rich with indications of divine disapproval of the union of Abram and Hagar, and that Keturah is recognized as Abram’s wife after the death of Sarah. Therefore, despite the lack of explicit condemnation of Abram-Hagar union, Abraham is not a sound example of a divine approval of polygamy in the Bible.
Isack and His Sons’ Wives
Isack, Abraham’s son, had only one wife, Rebekah. Genesis gives a surprisingly lengthy account of how they came to be married (Gen. 24:1-67). Because of this account, Bible scholars have considered Isack an allegory to the LORD Jesus who (like Isack) was a result of some unique birth circumstances, and as the Holy Spirit (like the servant of Abram) is taking a lengthy process to espouse the Church as chaste virgin to the LORD Jesus (2 Cor 11:2).
Esau’s marriages were inconsistent with Isack own example and are generally presented in a negative fashion before Isack and Rebekah. There is therefore no basis for viewing Esau’s polygamy as approval.
Jacob had two wives and two concubines. However, this does not appear to have been the desire of his parents. Three times in three verses, Genesis shows that Rebekah and Isack’s desire was for Jacob to find ‘a wife’ (Genesis 27:46; 28:1-2; 28:6). The assumption of this repeated reference to ‘a wife,’ in immediate comparison to two references on Esau’s ‘wives’ (27:46), is that Jacob’s parents expected him to practice monogamy. Unfortunately, Jacob was tricked into marrying two women, who were (worse still) biological sisters. Jacob’s bigamy is therefore not to be understood as moral precedent for polygamy. Furthermore, the bitterness of polygamy drove Jacob into sleeping with two slave girls, Zilpah and Bilhah. The two girls did not have the social status of wives but were servant girls involuntarily pressed into service as surrogate mothers for two women, using them in their jealous competition against one another for their husband’s affection and esteem.
In short, Jacob was a polygamist, but his multiple sexual unions came about as the result of deception, jealousy, insecurity, manipulation, and exploitation. This case is therefore far from establishing some sort of positive precedent for polygamy.
The bible hub commentaries shows that the divorce issue presented before Jesus (Matthew 5:31-32) was related to some rabbi sects (Shammai and Hillel) who were opposed on the approved causes for divorce. The Shammai affirmed that the words ‘some uncleanness’ in law concerning divorce (Deuteronomy 24:1) were to be understood of adultery only. On the other hand, the Hillel interpreted those words as any matter of dislike whatever. Hence the Pharisees asked Jesus, if it was lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause, in order to find error in his stand, or strengthen their position, on the issue of divorce. The opinion of Hillel was generally promoted by the Jews because it made ‘the burden’ a lot easier.
Jesus’ response elevated the position of Shammai, that the provision of divorce was intended to cater for the issues of adultery (in order to take care of the innocent party). However, Jesus’ real concern was not to settle the debate at the surface. He wanted to bring them back to examining the origin and design of marriage. He wanted his audience to know if God intended marriage to be temporal and monogamous or polygamous.
Presentation of Mathew 5:31-32 and Mark 10:2-12 does not introduce the economic aspects of marriage. However, historical facts indicate that issues of security and economy were mainly responsible for driving both formation and separation of marriages in the Middle East. In his article, Divorce: Causes and Effects on Children, Eyo (2018) quotes a study with findings that husband's unemployment was a key factor behind divorce. He contends that lack of money often causes marital problems to flare into a divorce filing. A married couple facing financial difficulties is often under a lot of stress, which in turn leads to constant arguing and lack of communication. Couples who don't see eye to eye on spending habits, or where one spouse has and controls the finances of the home, such couples tend to face marital strain that could culminate into divorce.
As we look at the answer the LORD Jesus provides, we find that he is neither interested in the religious nor socio-economic causes of divorce. He mentions adultery and quickly brings his audience to the original plan of marriage, which he advocates for his audience to examine and uphold. According to Gordon Wenham, debating about what reasons justify divorce misses the point of Jesus’ teaching, because he basically never approves divorce to be a perfect practice.
e. Theological and Biblical Considerations
According to the LORD Jesus, we must go back to the source of this divine institution as expressed in Genesis if we desire to know the biblical norms on marriage. In genesis 2:23-24, Jesus wanted to provide the once and for all cure rather than concentrate on the symptoms of the divorce problem. Jesus’ reference to the original prototype of marriage accompanies an argument for the ultimate restitution of marriage to the perfection which was lost because of sin which is responsible for the ‘hardness’ of their hearts. By implication, divorce is unpleasant human ingenuity, not of God (Ngewa, 2006).
Ultimately, Jesus’ argument breeds an important question: What is marriage in its purpose and design? The following sections two subsections dwell on the design of marriage in terms of the relationship between the married parties and the wider use of marriage imagery in the Bible.
i. Marriage as a covenant relationship between two parties
In its entirety, the Bible is characterized by extreme emphasis on relationships as a means of obtaining a deeper understanding of God and his redemptive plan for man. Both the Old Testament and the New Testament scriptures do therefore, unapologetically, use the intimate relationship between a man and a woman (marriage) as an allegory of God's relationship with man. Accordingly, the covenant relationship between Yahweh and His people is described by the image of marriage in such messages as Isaiah 50:11; 54:6, 7; Jeremiah 2:2; and Ezekiel 16.
In the New Testament, the apostle Paul brings the human marriage in the context of Christ's bridal relationship with the church (2 Cor 11:2 and Eph 5:23-32). Paul equates this allegory as ‘a great mystery’. Here, according to Bouit (1981), the word mystery does not mean enigma (paradox), it rather means a spiritual truth revealed in a veiled manner. Kippley (2005) defines this covenant as the ‘self-giving commitment of marriage.’ This means that in Christian marriage, the commitment between a couple is compared to a covenant; a binding agreement or promise that carries significant weight. Thus, when a couple enters into a marriage, they make a solemn promise that is not easily broken.
ii. Marriage as an imagery used to illustrate other biblical doctrines
The Bible reader is hereby cautioned not to misinterpret marriage and its original design because its imagery is used to illustrate other Biblical doctrines. Such doctrines include the doctrine of sin, the doctrine of Christ and the church, and the doctrine of eschatology.
In the Old Testament, sinfulness before God is characterized as adultery (Hos 2:2; Jer 3:9; 13:27). The prophet Hosea, in the description of his own marriage, used its imagery to illustrate how God is painfully patience with the sinfulness of man. God shows open jealousy when his partner pursues other overs (polygamy). He therefore creates difficult circumstances to let his lover consider coming back to him. However, persistence in sin will eventually be punished. The punishment entails a casting off, of which human divorce is a pale emblem (Hos 2:12).
The New Testament brings the doctrine of Christ and the church in which the marriage does illustrate Christ's love for, and leadership over, the church. It does also illustrate his intimate union with her (the church) through the indwelling Spirit (2 Cor 11:2 and Eph 5:23-32). Paul finds this a ‘profound mystery’:
“This is a profound mystery, but I am talking about Christ and the church.” (Ephesians 5:32 NIV).
The doctrine of eschatology is presented in the teaching of Jesus in Matthew 25:1-13. The second coming of Christ on earth will be as sudden as the coming of the bridegroom in that story. In the book of Revelation, marriage is used to describe the bliss, security, and glory of the everlasting kingdom using the human terms of a marriage feast (Rev 19:6-9).
f. Polygamous and monogamous forms of marriage
In the debate between monogamy against polygamy, those who belong to the school of monogamy frequently use the admonition against multiplying wives (Deut. 17:16, 17 and 1 Kgs 11:1-8). The other verses used by the school of monogamy in the New Testament include Mark 10:2-12; Matt 19:3-9; Luke 16:18; Matt 5:31,32. It is argued that these verses indicate a condemnation of polygamy. Similarly, the apostle Paul’s single-wife restriction to leaders of the church in 1 Tim 3:2 and Titus 1:6 are the other scriptures fitting the same argument.
On the other hand, the school of polygamy frequently argue their case based on the polygamy practiced by the strategic prophets like Ibrahim, Jacob, David, and Solomon, a practice which is scarcely condemned directly in scripture. While adultery is frequently found in the list of sins, polygamy is never found, they argue; though it could be a double count is polygamy amounts to adultery (in the strict sense). This school is also silent on the fact that this practice is not prominent among the strategic prophets (apostles) in the New Testament. This team is mainly guided in the Old Testament.
Bible scholars would generally admit to the fact that if the individual texts (in paragraph one) are scrutinized objectively, it is hard to find a single text which explicitly commands either monogamy or polygamy. One can hardly point with certainty to a single text in which polygamy is expressively forbidden or monogamy universally decreed. Instead of looking at individual texts to support or refute monogamy or polygamy, an illuminated Bible scholar would look at this debate within the wider scriptural teaching on marriage.
CROSS-CULTURAL AND PASTORAL PERSPECTIVES
a. The Scriptural Teaching on Marriage
The biblical ideal of marriage is the norm against which all marriages must be judged, regardless of their historical, geographical or socio-cultural background. I would buy from Bouit (1981) a radical argument that Christianity is not a culture, neither is it a natural religion in the sense of it being an expression of a society's religious needs. According to him, truth is of God, it is not something of human invention or construction, and that truth in Christianity transcends cultural limitations and can be a living force within every culture.
According to the pivotal scripture (Gen 2:23-24), the God-intended ideal of marriage is threefold: reciprocity, unity, and permanency. The three elements constitute the objective norm for all cultures and the ideal toward which Christian marriages, regardless of their religious and socio-cultural background, must strive.
b. The concept of Reciprocity in Marriage
The concept of reciprocity in marriage includes equality between two parties (individuals in marriage). In Genesis, both man and woman were given equal worth and dignity in creation. Even the subjection of the woman under man as recorded later in Genesis 3 does not appear to be an original desire or commandment from God, but an alternative remedy for the destructive result of sin.
It is difficult to visualize full reciprocity in a polygamous marriage. The single party in a polygamous marriage which is usually men would in essence be discriminatory towards the other parties, the wives. Basically, polygamous structure is non-reciprocal when compared to a monogamous structure as testified by a number of scripture: Genesis 16:3-6; 21:9-11; 29:30-34; 30:8,15,18. Indeed, Bout (1981) argued that polygamy is a natural outgrowth of the fertility-oriented concept of life where a husband is not tied to a single wife, but his sheer attention is geared to bearing children to keep his lineage safe. The fertility-oriented concept of human love is a deviation of God's original purpose of reciprocity, it is the result of man's fallen state with its problem of survival, death, and the preservation of the family. In the New Testament, Jesus comes to rekindle the hope of life by defeating death so that together with reproduction, man can leave in the original plan of marriage without fear of extinction or servitude relationship with the opposite sex.
c. The concept of Unity in Marriage
God's intended purpose of marriage includes the concept of unity. The literal meaning of cleave in Genesis 2:24 is to stick, to paste, to be glued to a person. The term “cleave” in the text is derived from the Greek word proskollaō (Nyako, 2023). This term is a compound word derived from the preposition pros which means “unto, to, with, for, against, among, at” and the verb kollaō. According to Liddell and Scott in Nyako (2023), kollaō means “glue, cement...join one metal or other substance to another…join fast together, unite...put together or build...”. Liddell and Scott appear to be suggesting that kollaō is the act of physically joining one metal, material, or substance to another, using glue or cement with the intention of creating a strong connection. This definition can also be interpreted to mean assembling or constructing something by putting its parts together, building a cohesive whole.
Therefore, the marriage tie is firm, surpassing the natural blood ties existing between parents and children. The kollaō image infers to a total commitment to one another without interference caused by a second belonging (another partner) elsewhere. Barth (1975) called this structure of commitment a ‘full-life-partnership’ and sees it excluding polygamy. ‘There can be no third person alongside them.’
The image of kollaō refutes Malinowski (1962) who earlier on contended that monogamy is the underlying pattern for a polygamous marriage. He said: ‘In reality polygamy is not so much a form of marriage distinct from monogamy as rather a multiple monogamy. It is always in fact the repetition of a marriage contract, entered individually with each wife, establishing an individual relationship between the man and each of his consorts. As a rule, each relationship is little affected legally or economically by the others.’ To be safe in his argument, Malinowski was keen enough not to include aspects of spiritual and emotional effects that are part and parcel of marriage. He restricted himself on ‘little’ legal and economic effects on the other partners.
In his work, Barth (1975) asked four pertinent questions: “How can that mutual liberation and freedom in fellowship which is so constitutive of marriage be genuinely attained if at the same time it is also demanded of a second partner and can be to the advantage of this or that third party? How can there be fellowship and freedom (spiritual and emotional effects) if the orientation to each other (in which alone it can be realized) has to be constantly divided between two, very different second partners? And how can the order of life-partnership be fulfilled if there are two firsts and two seconds? In every dimension, he concluded: ‘a third party, whether male or female, can only disturb and destroy the full life-partnership.’
Nyajo (2023) shows that ‘one fresh’ in Greek is reflected as Suzeugnumi (verb), which means, “to yoke together.’ In ancient Greece, the phrase “yoked together” typically referred to the act of joining two animals, such as oxen, by attaching a yoke to their necks. It signified the physical connection between the two animals, which allowed them to work together in agreement, usually to pull heavy loads or plow fields. Figuratively, being “yoked together” in ancient Greek could also imply a partnership or collaboration between people, especially union in wedlock where a couple was united and working towards a common goal, just like the animals joined by a yoke. It does therefore make no sense that marriage would be polygamous because there are hardly any cases where a yoke joined three or more animals.
d. The concept of Permanency in Marriage
God's original plan for marriage includes permanency. It is an allegory of God’s covenant with his people (in the Old Testament) or Christ's relationship to His church in the New Testament (Eph 5:32). This means, ideally, marriage is expected to exclude divorce because it reflects the fidelity of Christ towards his church.
In Jesus’s argument, divorce implies a disintegration of the natural state of man (Matt 19:8) as he states: "but from the beginning it was not so." This implies that the command of Moses was only a permission to temporarily mitigate the effects of sin, and nothing more. Moses’ regulations were nothing more than a concession to this evil condition and never went beyond it. It constituted nothing but a legal form of dissolving marriage. In Jesus’s view, the Moses' regulation did not alter God's original purpose of permanency in marriage as in Gen 1:27 and 2:24.
According to MacArthur (2005), the passage quoted by Jesus in Genesis presents three reasons for the inviolability of marriage: (1) God created only two humans, not a group of males and females who could configure as they pleased or switch partners as it suited them; (2) the word translated “be joined” literally means “to glue,” thus reflecting the strength of the marriage bond; and (3) in God’s eyes a married couple is “one flesh,” forming an indivisible union.
The other element introduced by LORD Jesus under permanence of marriage is implied in the phrase: “let not man put asunder”. The Greek word used for “asunder” in the text is chōrizetō which is a conjugated form of the verb chōrizō and it literally means to “separate, divide.” (Bauer, 1990). Jesus’ use of this term emphasizes the sacredness and permanence of the marital bond. In contrast to his Jewish contemporaries, Jesus expressed his strong opposition to divorce. Nyajo (2023) argues that by using the Greek word chōrizetō as an imperative form of chōrizō, Jesus seems to suggest that no one has the authority to dissolve what God himself has designed. Therefore, Jesus, with the original plan of marriage in mind, suggests that divorce should not exist in marriage, save for infidelity.
e. The Drivers of Polygamy
If monogamy is the original idea in marriage, from where and how did polygamous type of marriage come into being? First, in Jewish culture childlessness was considered a serious affliction (Gen 16:3-6; 21:9-11; 29:30-34; 30:8,15,18; Psa 127: 3-5). It was the cause of Sarah's despairing laughter, Hannah's silent prayer, Rachel's passionate alternative of children or death, and Elizabeth's cry that God take away her reproach. In most of this scripture, the hunger for procreation often led to polygamous decision as a solution. According to Bouit (1981), the desire for a large family to inherit the father's goods and carry on the name, coupled with the sterility of some women, and probably a high infant mortality, are among the chief drivers of polygamy in the Old Testament. It has also been established within many African societies that due to similar emphasis on procreation, polygamy is regarded as the normal pattern of marriage.
Secondly, childlessness was lamentable in Israel because it interfered with the nation's messianic hope (Isa 49:20-23). The childless Israelite was barred from participation in the continuation of God's nation (Pretorius, 1975). Therefore, the birth of a child was a happening of theological value, which means, procreation was theocentric.
Polygamy is also a result of economic, social, and ideational pressures operating within the society. Polygamy is not only accepted in communities where the fertility-oriented concept is practiced, but also encouraged and honored. Fertility is considered as the measuring rod whereby the worth of, and dignity in, life is evaluated (Boit 1981).
Polygamy is therefore a deviation from God's original purpose as the result of man's fallen state and pressures of life. Polygamy is devoid of the divine nature of marriage and renders it simply as means of compensation for disability and survival, the means of ensuring a future, and as a remedy in the face of death. The truth is, and should be told, that it is the core of Jesus’ mandate to reverse the entire threat for human survival, not polygamy. Jesus’s mandate is to make mankind a new creation capable appropriating marriage in its original design.
f. Pastoral treatment of converted Polygamists
The question that remains is how do we handle polygamist who turn their lives to Jesus. Su (2018) advises pastors to look at two incidents that stand out in the Gospels: Jesus' dialogue with the Samaritan woman (Jn 4:7-42) and Jesus' treatment of the woman caught in adultery (Jn 8:1-11). In both cases Jesus forgave these adulterous women and, as a form of condemning the act, he called them to sin no more.
The pastoral leadership will glean an important lesson in combining the very high moral standard of Jesus' teaching of what marriage is (Mathew 5:31-32 and Mark 10:2-12), with the very great grace he exercised in pardoning the two women with extra marital practices (Jn 4:7-42; Jn 8:1-11). This is a classic example of how to apply biblical teaching pastorally that should guide Christian ministries today. Jesus did not apply what he taught on marriage legalistically. He did not throw the law at them and condemn them to judgement. Instead, he showed unusual compassion, he empathized and understood their sinfulness. Jesus understood the fallenness of the human nature and aimed to redeem not to condemn. He usually called for true repentance and a commitment to do what is right. At the heart of how Jesus dealt with adultery is the underlying principle that he wants a true decision both to repent and to commit to live rightly thereafter. Such an outcome is only possible if the person who has sinned does so genuinely and voluntarily from the heart. It is the heart-driven action of the repentant sinner that brings God's forgiveness and restoration, not the legal or communal punitive action.
What the LORD Jesus did is how the church, through its leaders and members, are to minister to those who have sinned. Although Jesus sets very high standards for the church, his ministerial action shows that the very high bar does not call for execution of legalistic or strict punitive measures or condemnation. Truly converted polygamists should be welcome, at the same time allowing the Holy Spirit to guide on the solution for the socio-economic and security aspects of the married parties and their children. However, it is not advisable to grant them senior leadership in the church (such as church elder or deacon) in order to save the congregation from copying the polygamous practice.
This paper has established that Jesus’ teaching Mathew 5:31-32 and Mark 10:2-12 is a call to the original plan for the man and woman relationship in marriage as described in Genesis 1:27; 2:23,24. It is in the original plan we find three God-intended ideals of marriage: reciprocity, unity, and permanency. The three ideals are fitly feasible in monogamous marriage, the practice which should constitute the objective norm for all cultures in Christianity.
Secondly, marriage stands very close to the core of Christian doctrines. Such doctrines include the doctrine of sin where sinfulness before God is characterized as adultery and God is painfully patience with the sinfulness of man. He shows open jealousy when his partner pursues other lovers (polygamy). Christ relationship with the church is the other doctrine where marriage institution illustrates Christ's love for, and leadership over, the church. Marriage illustrates his intimate union with her (the church) through the indwelling Spirit. The other doctrine is on eschatology where the second coming of Christ on earth is taken as the coming of the bridegroom for His single bride, the church. The disciple of the Bible is cautioned not to misinterpret marriage institution from its original design as guided by the Christian doctrines.
In order to emphasis on the divine guidance on divorce issue, the LORD Jesus did not yield back to sympathize with his disciples who expressed difficulties in practicing the original design of marriage, marriage without divorce, save for incidences of unrepentant adultery.
Jesus replied, not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” (Mat 19:11-12).
REFERENCES
Adeyemo, T., Solomon, A., Issiaka C., Tewoldemedhin H., Samuel N., Kwame B., Isabel A. P., Yusufu T., 2006. Africa Bible Commentary. Zondervan.
Barth. K. 1968. On Marriage. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968
Bauer, J. B., 1990. ‘Chorizo’ Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, Horst Balz and Gerald Schneider (eds.), (Michigan: W. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company Grand Rapids)
Bouit, Jean-Jacques, 1981. A Christian Consideration of Polygamy. Professional Dissertations Doctor of Ministry. 626. https://dx.doi.org/10.32597/dmin/626 https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/dmin/626
Eyo, E. U., 2018. Divorce: Causes and Effects on Children. Asian Journal of Humanities and Social Studies (ISSN: 2321 – 2799) Volume 06 – Issue 05, October 2018
Gordon Wenham., (?) Divorce in First-Century Judaism and the New Testament. https://wisereaction.org/wp-content/uploads/gordon-wenham-divorce-first.pdf Accessed 16/5/2024 1232pm.
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/matthew/5-31.htm
Kippley, J. F., 2005. Sex and the Marriage Covenant: A Basis for Morality (San Francisco: Ignatius, 2005).
MacArthur, J., 2005. The MacArthur Bible Commentary. Published in Nashville, Tennessee by Thomas Nelson, Inc
Malinowski, B., 1962. Sex, Culture and Myth. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc.,
Nyarko, E., 2023. Jesus on Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage: A Reflection on Matthew 19:3-12 and Mark 10:2-12 from an Akan Perspective. Journal of Mother-Tongue Biblical Hermeneutics and Theology (MOTBIT) Vol.5 No.8 (2023) 137 – 149.
Ngewa, S. 2006. Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage. In Tokunboh Adeyemo (Gen. Ed.), Africa Bible Commentary: A One-Volume Commentary (Nairobi: WordAlive Publishers), 1149.
Pretorius, H., 1975. Childlessness. In T. D. Verryn (ed). Church and Marriage in Modern Africa. Johannesburg: Zenith Printers.
Riggs, B. A., and Cynthia, B.T., 2010. Marriage and Family: A Christian Perspective. Second Edition. Published by Triangle Publishing. Marion, Indiana 46953
Ukoma, A. N., 2010. Wideowhood in a Matrilineal Society: A Case Study of the Igbo of South Eastern Nigeria. African Journal of Religion, Culture and Society, Vol. 2 No, 2, 96-102.
Comments
Post a Comment