CLAIM:
Humans aren’t naturally built for monogamy, and the idea of finding “the one” is just a myth. In a lifetime, men may end up having multiple wives. Even in the Bible, we see that men had multiple wives and sexual partners, sometimes at the same time.
REBUTTAL:
There are three issues here: the matter of finding “the one” (the perfect mate), the matter of biblical polygamy, and the matter of promiscuity (multiple sexual partners). Let’s handle them in that order:
Finding the Perfect Mate
When we think of “the one” who would be our perfect spouse, we typically focus on compatibility, which is often measured by appearances, shared interests, shared opinions, and enjoying time spent together. When there is compatibility, we expect affection to flourish. Once that affection has matured to “love,” we talk about “being a couple,” which, for Christians, means getting married.
Compatibility and affection appear to be the consistent prerequisites for entering into a marriage in our society. This is embedded into our culture. Our songs, television programming, and movies reinforce this. We have apps on our phones that will identify the most compatible companions to begin our dating adventures.
With this heightened emphasis on compatibility and affection, it seems shocking to many people that it is all a relatively recent precursor to marriage. From ancient times to the 18th century, arranged marriages were the predominant form of marriage worldwide, with minimal input from the couple.
In the 18th century, couples began to have more input, but approval from the family was crucial. The traditional question still asked in many contemporary marriage ceremonies—“Who gives this woman to be married to this man?”—is a remnant from that era when family consent played a central role in the union of two individuals.
For the first half of the 20th century, couples often went on chaperoned dates. The changes have come dramatically and rapidly when measured over the full breadth of history.
In the Bible, the last words of which were written over 2,000 years ago, dating was not an issue. The consistent focus of a believer’s life was on the adoration and glorification of God (Psalm 73:24-25; Isaiah 43:7; 1 Corinthians 10:31). This meant all things in life were directed first towards God and His will. Marriage, therefore, was not a self-serving relationship. It was a partnership in the lifelong quest of glorifying God.
Surely, since the fall into sin, the temptation has been there to think superficially, sexually, and selfishly in the pursuit of a marriage partner (2 Samuel 11:2-4; Matthew 5:27-28; 1 Peter 3:3-4). Our focus on glorifying God in all things, however, makes the “perfect” marriage partner someone who shares that same ideal.
Both in Matthew 19:5 and Mark 10:7, Jesus prefaces the reference to marriage with the words “for this reason.” Understanding the “reason” helps us understand what is wrong with the claim and its superficial notion of the perfect spouse.
As mentioned previously, human life was created for the glorification and adoration of God. God’s creation of man was intended to give him rule over creation, and the creation of the woman was meant to assist man in this task. As I pointed out in an earlier claim in this series, the same Hebrew word describing the woman’s role as a helper also describes God as a helper (Exodus 18:4; Deuteronomy 33:26; Psalm 70:6). It is not a subordinate term, but rather a cooperative and partnership term.
We are reminded that marriage is a relationship intended to last a lifetime (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:6; Mark 10:9; Romans 7:2-3), but sin challenges that (Matthew 19:8).
The shift from being God-centric to man-centric is also a shift from an eternal perspective (Matthew 6:19-21; 2 Corinthians 4:16-18; Colossians 3:1-2) and to a temporal perspective (Genesis 25:29-34; Matthew 26:14-16; Luke 12:16-21). When we think in a man-centric and temporal manner, our focus is on pleasure, gratification, personal gain, personal glory, and immediacy. Finding “the one” fits perfectly because the shift has gone from “God” to “me,” my pleasure, and my satisfaction.
From a Christian perspective, however, finding “the one” only happens when the husband and wife realize “the one” is not each other but God. He is the One! Together, as husband and wife, they carry out the mission of glorifying God in all things. The pleasures and joys of compatibility and strong affection (love) are the fantastic bonuses or blessings of a God-pleasing marriage, but they are not the essence.
In a wedding sermon preached by the Lutheran theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-1945), he stated:
Marriage is more than your love for each other. It has a higher dignity and power, for it is God’s holy ordinance, through which He wills to perpetuate the human race till the end of time. In your love you see only your two selves in the world, but in marriage you are a link in the chain of the generations, which God causes to come and to pass away to His glory, and calls into His kingdom. In your love, you see only the heaven of your own happiness, but in marriage you are placed at a post of responsibility towards the world and mankind. Your love is your own private possession, but marriage is more than something personal—it is a status, an office. Just as it is the crown, and not merely the will to rule, that makes the king, so it is marriage, and not merely your love for each other, that joins you together in the sight of God and man.
Sadly, marriage today is often viewed as little more than a type of personal relationship, to be entered into or abandoned at will. As such, it bears the fickleness of human emotions. It begins with the quest for someone to change our reality, “the one” who excites us in our lows, calms us in our highs, accentuates the traits we want, compensates for the traits we lack, and, especially, makes us feel good.
Paulo Coelho (b. 1947), the Brazilian author, wrote in his novel “Eleven Minutes” the main character’s perspective on the intensity and sometimes all-consuming nature of romantic love in this way:
Love is like a narcotic. At first it brings the euphoria of complete surrender. The next day, you want more… you’re not addicted yet, but you like the sensation… But then you get used to that person, and you begin to be completely dependent on them. Now you think about him for three hours and forget him for two minutes. If he’s not there, you feel like an addict who can’t get a fix.
It is this narcotic nature of affection that also makes it a precarious foundation on which to establish a lifelong union. Focusing on finding “the one” places a terrible burden on a relationship that already involves two flawed human beings (Genesis 8:21).
When writing about love that leads to the commitment of marriage, C.S. Lewis (1898-1963) wrote:
The promise, made when I am in love and because I am in love, to be true to the beloved as long as I live, commits me to being true even if I cease to be in love. A promise must be about things that I can do, about actions: no one can promise to go on feeling in a certain way. He might as well promise never to have a headache or always to feel hungry.
The secular quest for the “perfect mate” is a selfish one, rooted in meeting one’s own selfish needs. So long as the mate continues to provide the narcotic effect that was experienced when the relationship began, the relationship endures. But love can be fickle through no fault of the person. Age and disease, the natural predators of us all, rob relationships of their earlier selfish benefits. Appearances fade (Proverbs 31:30) and health declines (Genesis 27:1; Ecclesiastes 12:1-7). Sometimes, through no fault of their own, the circumstances or the actions of others bring hardship that tarnishes the emotional highs of earlier experiences (Joshua 7:1-26).
Think about the promise we make in our wedding vows:
…for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death do us part.
It is an easy commitment to make at the peak of life. But what happens when things change? That is the point that Lewis is making. The promise made in a marriage must be rooted in something far more reliable than the precarious footing of emotional love.
That is why Christians understand that in marriage, the promise is rooted in our relationship with God.
What About Polygamy
This is a troublesome matter in the Bible. It is certainly there (Genesis 4:19; Exodus 21:10; 1 Samuel 25:39-44; 1 Kings 11:1-3). While it seemed to be permitted, it was not commanded, and the examples we have in Scripture often portray them as troubled relationships full of envy, dishonesty, cruelty, and distrust (Genesis 16:4-6; Genesis 21:9-10; Genesis 29:30-31; Deuteronomy 21:15-17; 1 Samuel 1:6-7).
The abundance of polygamy in the Old Testament prompted Martin Luther to write in correspondence:
I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the Word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter. (Letter to Chancellor Gregory Brück in 1524).
Luther’s words, while not comparable to the inspired word of God, do reflect the challenge of polygamy in the Bible.
A closer study requires us to recognize that while polygamy seemed common in the Old Testament, it was not universal. Consider the following monogamous examples:
- Adam and Eve (Genesis 2:24)
- Noah and his sons (Genesis 7:7-13; 1 Peter 3:20)
- Isaac and Rebekkah (Genesis 24:67)
- Joseph and Asenath (Genesis 41:45-50)
- Moses and Zipporah (Exodus 2:21; Exodus 18:21In Numbers 12:1, there is a reference to Moses marrying a Cushite (Zipporah was from Midian). Some scholars theorize that this was intended as an insult against Zipporah. Others have suggested it was a second wife Moses married after the death of Zipporah. Unlike other polygamous relationships mentioned in the Bible, Zipporah and this “Cushite wife” are not mentioned as living simultaneously. Therefore, Moses was not considered to be a polygamist.).
Nowhere does the New Testament narrate or condone the practice of polygamy among believers. References to marriage always speak of one man and one woman (Matthew 19:4-6; 1 Corinthians 7:2; 1 Timothy 3:2; 1 Timothy 3:12; Titus 1:6).
Luther’s correspondence on the matter seems, unfortunately, not well thought out. The Lutheran theologian Johann Gerhard (1582-1637) wrote a 23-volume set of books entitled Loci Theologici, in which he addressed the question of polygamy in his section “On Marriage, Celibacy & Related Matters.” He made these seven essential points:
- In Matthew 19:4, Jesus quotes Genesis and emphasizes that God “made them male and female” from the beginning, establishing the pattern for monogamous marriage.
- Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9, “if it is adultery to dismiss one’s wife and marry another, how much more is it a sin to marry another while the first is retained.”
- In Romans 7:2 and 1 Corinthians 7:39, the Apostle Paul states, “A woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive.” He reasoned: “If it is wrong for a woman to marry another man while her husband is alive (polyandry), then it is also just as wrong for a man to marry another woman or women during the life of his wife (polygyny).”
- 1 Corinthians 7:2 demonstrates the exclusive and monogamous nature of the marital relationship.
- According to 1 Corinthians 7:4, “neither husband nor wife has the right to make their bodies available to any other person, as is done in polygamy.”
- 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6 “refer not to virtues that belong only to bishops, but to virtues that bishops should have in common with all Christians.”
- “Marriage, as originally ordained, prefigures the relationship of Christ (who is One) and the Church (which is one)” based on Ephesians 5:22-33. Polygamy would destroy this symbolic representation of the exclusive relationship between Christ and His Church.
In summary, polygamy is a troubling practice in the Old Testament in light of what is written about marriage in the New Testament. While there have been many theories as to why God tolerated it in the Old Testament, they are theories and not much more. As we live in the freedom of the New Testament times (Romans 6:18; Galatians 5:1; Galatians 5:13; 1 Peter 2:16-17), we are challenged to view marriage through the lens of the blood-bought freedom that comes through Christ. Gerhard’s points stand as far more compelling than Luther’s brief comment on the topic in a letter.
The Matter of Promiscuity
The moral failings of God’s children are always especially troubling. We initially blush over King David’s indiscretion with Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11:1-27). Then we are shocked to see the sin amplified with the orchestrated effort to kill Uriah, the transgressed husband of Bathsheba. We read of the Israelites’ miraculous deliverance from Egyptian slavery, only to be stunned by their construction of a golden calf idol (Exodus 32:1-20). We are shocked by the dishonesty of Ananias and Sapphira, as they attempt to appear especially generous while concealing private gain within the context of the church (Acts 5:1-10).
The Bible is full of stories of people who should have known better. The Bible’s stories of prostitution, rapes, and other acts of immorality tempt us to question the credibility of biblical evidence or to feel especially self-righteous, presuming to have risen above all of that. And then we come to the Apostle Paul’s incredibly candid observation about himself:
For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. (Romans 7:19)
When he wrote to the young pastor, Timothy, he confessed:
Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst. (1 Timothy 1:15)
Promiscuity is a real problem. It has been in biblical times, and it remains so today. Its ubiquitous nature does not somehow suggest acceptance or correctness. It merely demonstrates how quickly and easily the particular sin of sexual immorality permeates humanity.
The presence and pervasiveness of immorality expose the problem, but only with twisted logic can it justify it. God’s word is clear on this matter. Sexual immorality is contrary to His will (Matthew 5:27-28; 1 Corinthians 6:18-20; Galatians 5:19-21; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3-5; Hebrews 13:4). The evidence in Scripture is plentiful and compelling. God’s children, demonstrating deep appreciation for the sacrifice of Christ for their sins, will flee the temptation of sexual immorality (1 Corinthians 6:18) as evidence of their love for God and the salvation He procured for us in Christ.
Conclusion
The claim presupposes that marriage is all about the couple. It is not surprising that people think that way in today’s world. What used to be a joke about finding a clergy license to perform marriages in the back of a magazine is a reality today. Celebrities with no interest in God or any organized religion have become “ordained” ministers and have presided over weddings.
“No-fault divorce” became available in all fifty states starting in 1969. Instead of a lifelong commitment, it is often treated like a commodity.
Additionally, marriage, which was created by God (Matthew 19:4-6), has evolved into something different. Civil unions, cohabitation, gay and trans marriages, and so forth not only skew God’s essence of marriage but represent outright rebellion to God’s plan for marriage. In other words, our sinful natures (Genesis 8:21) are not simply widening the umbrella or what is marriage; we have crafted an antithesis to God’s view of marriage. Doing so tempts us with thoughts of making marriage disposable, having multiple spouses, and engaging in promiscuity. None of these activities honors God with our bodies (1 Corinthians 6:19-20).
God’s plan was for marriage to be a monogamous relationship between a man and a woman, and it is to last a lifetime. Sin has corrupted our obedience to this will of God, but it cannot change what God’s will is in this matter.
0 Comments