Marriage Myths, Part 8 - How Many Wives?

Today’s post looks at a most curious form of marriage to many - polygyny. Though the graphic appears to misspell polygamy (the word most people associate with the practice), it may be somewhat accurate in that it was trying to spell polygyny. What is the difference? Polygyny is specificially the practice of keeping multiple wives. Polygamy does not specify a certain sex of the partner, and is a term that can be used of a wife with multiple husbands.

It is no doubt that polygyny is present in the Bible. The question we are investigating today is “Why?”  Did it serve a practical purpose? If we remind ourselves, as I’ve pointed out in this series, that marriage was not personal in the ancient world and sex was not a mystical act for mutual pleasure, then polygyny seems far less boring and less objectionable.  But why was it practiced to begin with?  To answer this, we need to look at 2 things. Can any insights we’ve discovered about ancient marriage so far help us? And who practiced polygyny, anyway?

We’ll answer the 2^nd question first, as it will make our answer to the 1^st question clearer. To do this, let’s take a brief look at the names actually mentioned in the graphic, and see just who they were.

●      Lamech (Genesis 4:19-24) –descendant of Cain. Father of Jabal, Jubal and Tubal-Cain, themselves fathers and representatives of the major trades and skills in ancient civilizations (farmers, musicians and blacksmiths).

●      Esau (Genesis 26:34–35) – founder of the nation of Edom, a neighbor to and source of trouble for Israel for centuries. Note that Isaac and Rebekah were not pleased with his marriages.

●      Jacob (Genesis 29:14-30) – father of 12 sons, patron and progenitor of the entire tribe of Israel. Anyone who has actually read the story knows he did not WANT 2 wives. He was promised 1 and tricked into marrying another because it was customary. So he continued working to earn the wife he originally desired. Is that a bad example of love, even by modern romantic standards?

●      Ashhur (1 Chronicles 4:5) –descendant of Hur, father of Tekoa.

●      Gideon (Judges 6-8) – noteworthy and brilliant military leader. He destroyed pagan places of worship in Israel and rescued them from the Midianites – establishing 40 years of peace (Judges 8:28).

●      Elkanah (1 Samuel 1:1-2) – father of Samuel (an important prophet). Before Samuel’s birth, the text mentions Hannah had not given him any children.  Keep in mind how important we’ve noted childbearing was throughout this series - a second wife would not be unthinkable (though we are not told this is the reason for the arrangement).

●      David – 2^nd king of Israel and king of greatest reputation in Jewish history.

●      Solomon – 3^rd king of Israel, wisest man in history and also highly reputable in Jewish history.

●      Rehoboam – 4^th king of Israel and son of Solomon. Eventually became 1^st king of Judah when the kingdom split.

●      Abijah (2 Chronicles 13) – 2^nd king of Judah. He warred with Jeroboam and gained many wives as he “grew in strength”.

●      Jehoram (2 Chronicles 21:16-17)– king of Judah. Mostly notable for the bowel disease he was infected with after forsaking God and embarrassing Judah with his attempt to conquer Edom.

●      Joash (2 Chronicles 24:3) 8^th king of Judah. Collected large sums of money to help rebuild the temple, though later led Israel into idol worship. Note the wives were chosen for him by the high priest, Jehoiada.

●      Ahab (1 Kings 16:29-34) – king of Israel during the time of Elijah. I am not aware of him having more than one wife. He is notable for the one wife he did have - Jezebel, the daughter of the Ethbaal (king of Tyre). Jezebel converted Ahab to Baal worship and slaughtered countless prophets of Israel. Even if he had wanted more wives, this was not a woman who would have likely shared them.

●      Jehoiachin (2 Kings 24:15) – king of Judah when Israel was taken into captivity by Babylon.

●      Belshazzar (Daniel 5:2) –king of Babylon, the largest kingdom of the day. Also the last king before the nation was conquered by the Medes.

On closer look, do you see what most of these individuals have in common? They are not ordinary characters. These are people of high honor and status – rare individuals of extreme importance. At least 8 of the 15 mentioned in the list are kings! Of those who were not kings, we have descendants of important people, and some of the patriarchs who founded entire nations in the Middle East.  These were far from everyday people. This means the practice of polygyny was clearly not common, or for common people.

In the case of Lamech, we have an even more interesting reason to understand his possession of multiple wives. A close look at the story shows it serves the purpose of explaining the source of stereotypes related to skills and trades practiced most common in the ancient world. The names of each of his wives translate to “dawn” and “shadow”, respectively. So “dawn” gives birth to herdsmen and musicians (skills practiced by day). Similarly, “shadow” gives birth to blacksmiths, whose sister was Naamah (pleasure) – things practiced by night. [1] In short, Lamech’s two wives are not objects of desire, but explanations for why this duality exists.

So, now that you’ve seen what types of individuals practiced polygyny, that still leaves one question left – why was it practiced? What purpose could it have served? As we mentioned early in the series, marriage was the fusing of 2 families and their reputations, not just joining 2 individuals. A marriage in those days, then, could serve multiple purposes.

One of the more positive outcomes of marriage is that it would smooth over any instability in the relationships between the families. And just who are the types of individuals most likely to have many unstable and tricky social relationships? No less than political leaders – kings and people of high reputation. That’s why these are mostly the people you see in the list above (and in the Bible, and in all of ancient culture). Whether kings or patriarchs, their reputation was important to maintain. And one sure way to do that with potential rivals is to form an alliance through securing marriage.

To see how practical or important this actually would be, you have to realize how unstable politics could be in those days (if it’s not clear enough from reading 1 and 2 Kings and 1 and 2 Chronicles). Pilch and Malina note in their Handbook of Biblical Social Values that within the Roman Empire alone, 31 of the 79 emporers were murdered (assassinated).  [2] They go on to note of the remaining 48 that 6 committed suicide and 4 were forced out of power. [3] That leaves about half of the emperors able to reign without serious threat to their power. Looking at the history of the U.S’s now 44 presidents (with Barack Obam), one will find 3 presidential assassinations and 3 attempts at impeachments. This makes up not even 14% of our leaders, leaving the remaining 86% serving without serious threat to power.

When it comes down to it, polygyny did make sense in culture of the ancient world, but was still fairly rare. We have no need for it in our day, since we have more stable politics. And what troubles we do have are much easier to smooth over through diplomacy. It is absurd for us to assume something was wrong with this standard, though, simply because it seems odd to us. Despite the best efforts of Christians who have struggled to explain polygyny, we don’t have to assume God was working through sinful people. We don’t even need to assume that such things were sinful to start with. We just have to recognize them for what they are – political gains that helped to keep peace during chaotic and unstable times. And isn’t that something we all would hope our leaders would strive for?

 [1] "Lamech." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 2 Mar. 2012. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamech>.

[2] Pilch, John J., and Bruce J. Malina. Handbook of Biblical Social Values. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998. 7. Print.

[3] ibid

Marriage Myths, Part 7 - Prisoner or Pity?

 

In the ancient world, life was difficult on a daily basis. The struggle to survive from day-to-day could be harsh. To have “daily bread” would be a serious request for many people when crops were scarce. And much as it does with people today, especially in poor areas, this kind of daily conflict and struggle strains sanity and relationships with others. So to find conflict in the ancient world was not unusual. And with a person's honor (reputation) being a major concern, it was not unusual for such conflict to escalate in fighting or feuding.

On a larger scale, this means conflict amongst neighboring nations could easily turn into war. This is part of why war was so prevalent in the ancient world. Attempts may have often been made to prevent such skirmishes, but if the honor of a nation was put at stake, it could only be defended by battle by cultural standards of the day. In the case of Israel, we see this in the Pentateuch as God looks to lead His people, Israel, into the Promised Land, Canaan. His Honor was defended as the inhabitants, who had lived in ways clearly contradicting God's high standards, were driven out time and again to allow Israel to settle.

Of course, with every battle only one side wins and one side loses. With every loss is the shameful aftermath of defeat, the attempts to return to life as normal. With every victory, there are spoils to be collected, idols and temples to be destroyed, animals to take care of and resources to steward. But with only men serving as the fighting force, one also needed to be concerned with what would be done to the women and children that were innocent bystanders. How do they move on? How do they support themselves? These were real concerns and consequences of war.

With this in mind, today's topic is an attempt to consider a related issue we see in the Bible, which our graphic appears to depict. That is, that by God's command, virgins remaining after a skirmish were to be taken captive by Israel and given in marriage. Of course, to many in our sensitive Western world, this sounds unfathomable. Forcing virgins to marry people is one thing, but their aggressors? What could God be thinking? As you struggle with this notion, prepare to 'take every thought captive' while I delve deeper into the Biblical text.

The graphic specifically mentions 2 passages in which this practice is supposedly commanded - Numbers 31:1-18 and Deuteronomy 21:11-14. It objects that first, Moses commanded virgins to be taken as spoils of war. Secondly, it objects that sexual submission was supposedly required of the new virgins. So what are we to make of these charges?

By now, it should be no surprise when I say this second objection is bogus, and indeed curious. Nowhere in the associated texts is sexual submission mentioned or commanded. We have seen this objection raised time and again in the graphic, and in every case we've examined there is no hint of this in the Bible, or anything I know of ancient marriage. It remains unclear, then, why it is such a repeated objection. Clearly the graphic author has no concerns for accuracy in his claims! 

This leaves us with examining the 2 Biblical passages to see if we can get a clearer picture of what's going on. First, in Numbers 31 we see God commanding Moses to get revenge against the Midianites (to fully understand why involves a careful and detailed study of Balaam). Moses then instructs the people in how to organize their army (Num 31:1-5), and the Israelites march to war (Num 31:6). Taking victory easily, they kill a handful of Midianite kings in the process (Num 31:7-8). They also exact revenge against Balaam, who had seduced Israel into prostitution and a state of being ritually unclean. 

With victory achieved, the Israelites proceed to handling the spoils (Num 31:9-11). Grabbing up Midiniates and rushing their flocks to safety, they proceed to raze the town and bring their spoils to Moses (Num 31:2). On investigation, Moses becomes furious to discover the women were left to live (Num 31:14-16). God had intended everyone to be killed. The Midianite women, after all, had done something unthinkably cruel and deadly (as Glen Miller shows in his web article[1]) in attempt to destroy Israel. With these women still alive, any children born would haunt the Israelites and threaten their existence. Justice could certainly not be served if such evil goes unpunished!

In response, Moses commands the Israelites to “finish the deed”, so to speak (Num 31:16). He only asks them to spare any woman who had “not known a man” (Num 31:18, KJV). And at this point, our story ends. Later verses detail how the spoils of war were distributed amongst Israel, based on the laws God had given Moses. But notice that we only see Israel being asked to spare these girls. At no point is marriage mentioned. That leads me to wonders why this scenario (whether or not our skeptic finds it objectionable) is even represented in the graphic.

In his detailed analysis of the event, Glen Miller notes something about the girls which might show why marriage is not mentioned. Picking up on cultural and contextual clues (translation: not stated outright in the story), Miller notes in all likelihood, the girls were not even of age to be married, or for that matter to even do any work! [2] Not only does this point to them likely being pre-pubescent, but it means they would have to be cared for, fed and trained for adult life in the years to come. [3] Far from what our graphic appears to depict, then, the reality is not only far less offensive, but clearly more complicated than the face value of the text suggests. Taking these women would have been both a blessing and burden, but marriage is not even in view.

Next on the radar is Deuteronomy 21:11-14, for which we may have a closer match to what the graphic's author envisions. As part of the laws given to Israel, Moses mentions that when God grants them victory and allows them to take prisoners, they may also take a woman as wife, if so desired. A period of mourning for her family is first required, but after that sex and marriage are allowed. So what are we to think of this?

First, consider that the husbands here would likely be dead from the battle. This leaves our women as widows, and without repeating much of what has been said already in this series, that was not a wonderful situation to be in. A woman in this position would easily seek death or prostitution if left alone. Offering marriage, then, is an honorable act - it allows the woman a chance to be supported, cared for and to find honor through a new male partner. We should think God is being very graceful to the women involved here!

As is often pointed out regarding other difficult Bible texts, this treatment is clearly a major step up from the law mandated by other cultures of the day. It was not uncommon for many of Israel's neighbors to allow murder, rape and abuse towards prisoners of war – without discrimination. [4] By allowing the captive instead to be taken into an Israelite family, she is given a chance to be reformed (to God's standards) and supported. Of course, modern skeptics are likely to object to this - it is, in essence, an example of legislating morality. But I dare you tell that to the woman who, by reasonable standards of the day, would have expected no less than rape or death.

In the end, then, only 1 of the 2 situations here represents marriage to POWs. Both situations do represent care and concern for the well-being of the female victims, and when considered in full cultural context, the situation where marriage is allowed (note it is not forced) does not seem as horrible as one's imagination may make it. In fact, it makes more sense to have married the women than leave them alone. Alone, they may be wiped out by the harsh conditions of ancient life - left to struggle to provide shelter and food for their children, with no working men available. Rather than being barbaric, then, this is an extreme act of kindness. God shows us through this how much he cares for life, and for people who are helpless. Rather than see these as ancient and outdated mores, perhaps we could learn much from this in our own day and age!

With this issue now having been put under closer scrutiny, this series is almost ready to be closed. All that remains is to take a look at polygamy. I hope by now you have realized things are never what they seem when skeptics are involved in the distortion attempts. Perhaps your mind anticipates what arguments will be used for polygamy. Perhaps you are waiting for this series to be finished. Maybe you are even pondering if polygamy is right for you. Whatever the case, stay tuned, and always be prepared!

Below is the TektonTV video on this subject.

[1] http://www.christianthinktank.com/midian.html

[2] ibid

[3] ibid

[4] Webb, William J. Corporal Punishment in the Bible: A Redemptive-movement Hermeneutic for Troubling Texts. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2011. 61-62. Print.