What Exactly is Biblical Monogamy?
[This post was submitted as a suggestion on the Add Your Ideas page. We thought it was a good candidate for discussion, so we adapted it as a stand-alone post, crediting the suggesting party. – MH]
MH readers, I have a question related directly to the stories here. MarriageHeat states in its guidelines that posts are meant to support and uphold “Hot Biblical Monogamy.” But what is that exactly? How do we define it? Is monogamy having only one wife ever or just one wife at a time? Does it require a marriage license or simply a commitment (private or public) to one person?
Many of us practice serial monogamy by choice or due to the death of a spouse. I think that as we now have more and more partners in life, we need to examine what makes the difference, biblically speaking. Is the true wrong actually cheating? Is it sex without a license?
We are to believe God sent a worldwide flood to kill almost everyone for the sin of violence and rained down fire and brimstone that killed many for the sexual sins of Sodom and Gomorrah, yet did nothing when kings had hundreds of wives and as many or more concubines. If all sins are equal, why was the wrath of God so different? Are kings and the wealthy held to a different standard? Maybe, as some think, sex is not a sin when it’s not with your one-and-only spouse if you can afford to take care of a possible resulting child or cure an STD.
Remember, the Roman Catholic Church once said one sex partner for life. Later, once you’d consummated your marriage, it was for life unless you could pay for and convince a tribunal that you deserved an annulment. Things change.
Don’t get me wrong; I think it’s important to make sex hot for couples. I just think they can decide what that relationship involves.
SecondMarge;
Interesting. The questions that you've raised are interesting, In fact I've asked some of the same questions that you've raised, a time or two. More specifically not questioning God, but attempting to understand Him, in good faith as that would apply to the punishment that was brought by means of "the flood" and that punishment at Sodom and Gomorrah (for sexual reasons) {although my understanding the punishment here was the sin of an unnatural basis, a man with a man and a woman with a woman}. But the point or question that you've posed concerning the kings of the Old Testament v the common man and the seemingly double standard we read about is or could be confounding to some (like me and you).
I've often wondered; did God punished David for looking on another man's wife and then taking her for his own. Or was God's punishment of David wrought forth because he sent her husband into battle to intentionally have him killed?
Sitting on a church board of deacons as I have in the past, the issue of qualifications for service within the church became a huge issue of debate when it came to divorce and remarriage. Most on that board believed that if a person (male or female) that had been divorced or divorced and then remarried, they were exempt from positions of leadership, teaching a Sunday school class, etc. I differed on the position and took the "husband of one wife" to mean, one wife (or husband) at one time (not multiples at one time). I've never held to the conviction that divorce or divorce and remarriage is an unpardonable sin. My understanding of that is that there's only one sin (the sin of rejection of Jesus as one's personal savior) that is unpardonable.
Anyway, I'm sure you're post will bring about many thought-provoking questions and comments. And I'm anxious to read them. Thank you for sharing.
Many scholars say Sodom and Gomorrah was about rape not consensual same sex activity. Although most historians say it never happened in the way the Bible says which more than likely was later added by monks who wanted to disapprove of same sex activity. But that is another topic.
Biblical Biblical scholars say S&G was about same sex rape, and further confirm that the larger Biblical teaching on rape and same sex activity condemns both. I would also add that if historians say it never happened in the way the Bible says, then the historians are wrong, not the Bible. Further, the laughable hypothesis that monks added it is so unsupported, and just a way for people who want to approve of same sex activity.
It is difficult to discuss this topic without going deep into the weeds of who wrote the Bible and why. To judge blindly what history and science have discovered as wrong because it is not in agreement with scripture and that is called faith an no one wants to tell someone they can not choose faith as they perceive it. But Christianity is far far far from monolithic. And we too often quote a passage that no more obviously means one thing than a Shakespeare sonnet or Frost poem, despite how clear our decision. The reason for sins, like modern laws change with time.
Applying what is not covered? In which of the hundreds of different forms of the faith are we going to trust those decisions? No offense what seems clear and obvious to some has gotten hundreds killed for heresy over the generations. Excuse me if I don’t find it necessary to sacrifice any goats.
I believe once you have made a commitment to your spouse through marriage, you should live your life as God intended in his written word through scriptures, and most pointedly, The Commandments. His word is abundantly clear, to be faithful and loyal to your spouse – I also believe that if scripture was ever updated on this matter it should say:
"Thou shall remain faithful and loyal to your spouse while both are bonded through marriage."
I believe it's all about commitment to one another and God when joined together in holy matrimony.
And I also believe that husband and wife should explore all exciting avenues that strengthen their bond, and sexual exploration should be fully encouraged to achieve maximum compatibility and communication. God truly encourages passionate sexual bonding with one's spouse.
Is it not being loyal if your spouse approves and the other person is not married? There’s a great deal of debate that the sin is doing it without approval of your spouse not the sex itself. This has been debated with biblical references often. It would also lend some explanation to Solomon getting a book in the Bible describing his recruitment of additional wives being approved.
If you mean a consensual "three-way" with an unmarried third person, that is outside the Biblical definition of marriage and monogamy. You may not like it, and may want it to be different, but that doesn't make it so. Not sure what "debate" you're talking about, but there's no debate about this issue in mainstream, conservative Christianity, nor in liberal Christianity. And there's no debate between the two branches. Each significantly disagrees with the other. Debate implies that there's consideration of the view in question. There is not.
I don't believe that polygyny was/is wrong or is a "sin", God actually allowed it. But I do understand that it (polygamy) is not for everyone.
I feel a little risky saying this here when this site is like all about monogamy, but I needed to say my opinion.
That is what I believe as well.
David was a man after God's own heart, and while he certainly had his failings we are told in no uncertain terms when and what they were. The fact that he had at least 17 (?) wives, some of whom had been Saul's before him, is certainly shocking and scandalizing to our modern sensibilities…yet it is never once marked down as a sin. In fact, concerning the whole scandal with Bathsheba, Nathan the prophet told him that God had given him those wives, and would have given him even more f he had not been greedy and taken that which belonged to another.
Just my two cents. 🙂
I would take issue with this statement, polygamy is clearly sinful and any excuse of it would be a conscience seared against God's clear word. In genesis in 1 Corinthians 7 and many other places it's clear that man was made for one woman and gives clear guidelines for divorce and remarriage.
I would also take issue with saying David is an example of why polygamy is okay. David also murdered, stole, and committed adultery. The reason we can be "men after God's own heart" after committing sin like this is because faith is considered as righteousness and Christ keeps no record of wrong.
The question it brings up to me is did the women approve of David, Solomon and others taking additional wives or did women have lessor rights and regarded as possessions? Was wealth the determining factor? Certainly the 100th wife of Solomon that listened to the sweet words we read on Songs must have known their life would have been easier than as the wife of a poor commoner. Fathers would gladly “sell” their daughters into royalty.
“Serial monogamy” because of divorce or the death of a spouse is definitely allowed… in my opinion. I was divorced, and I remarried a few years later. I met my Melodie 2+ years after the divorce. We’ve now have had 30 years or so of a delightful and very sexy marriage! (Hence my 89 MH stories!) and we have also been full participating members of our church.
As far as polygamy, my ancestors practiced it for a time. (Yes, we are of that branch of Christianity called The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.) The practice of polygamy was terminated by the church in 1890. Some offshoots of the “Mormon” church still practice it. Personally, I’m very happy with my one wife! We believe that over the thousands of years of the children of God on Earth, polygamy was the exception and not the norm.
It appears that some of the ancient Israelites practiced it—like when a brother died, his brother or closest male relative married the widow to raise seed up to his brother. So Boaz, Ruth’s husband, may well have had a first wife before Boaz met Ruth. And obviously, Abraham and Jacob had more than one wife or a combination of wives and concubines. Concubines were like a wife without a contract, but it appears that all of Jacob’s three concubines became full wives.
Marge this is a very intriguing post with several important issues. Thank you for posting it. I think we need to realize that God will punish the wicked and reward the righteous in the end (from an eternal perspective). I think of the scripture in Malachi about the Lord remembering His faithful when he makes up His jewels. I also think of Jesus’ parable of Lazarus & the rich man in Luke 16. We can turn to Jesus Christ to repent of our sins, and He will forgive. But the unrepentant will face the eternal consequences of their wicked choices. Of course, many wicked people face major consequences for their sins while still on Earth. And all unrepentant people live without the full peace that the forgiven live with.
I believe God-ordained marriage is a commitment unto death between two people. In earlier times, a man could have any number of those commitments as long as he could provide for all their wives' needs (including sexual) and their offspring, and—judging from Rebekkah's story—if the woman agreed. The culture dictated the particulars of the contract, betrothal period, and ceremony, it usually entailed a public celebration with social validation. Without those, the relationship was one of a concubine rather than a wife, which usually didn't provide any monetary protection in case of arbitrary divorce.
Even with a public commitment, marriages didn't always last. Though God only allowed divorce in the case of infidelity (or lack of virginity, which could indicate fraud if the marriage contract indicated the bride was one), the laws of Leviticus gave directions for a man to provide for the monetary support and social vindication of a woman he just didn't want any more. When questioned on this, Jesus said that for him to do so and then marry another made him an adulterer, and if she married again, he'd made her an adulteress.
I don't know what to do with that. He broke faith with her, so I get the first part. She had no choice, so I don't get the second. Should she who remained faithful be lonely the rest of her life unless her husband takes her back? Yet that's how I read it. I would love to read other opinions on those verses (Matthew 5:32 and 19:9; Luke 16:18; 1 Cor 7:10-11).
Clearly, though, Jesus didn't want married people to break their commitment for frivolous reasons; he wanted them to stay together and work it out. But Paul, while not recommending divorce, indicated that if a non-believing spouse left, the abandoned believer was free to remarry within the faith. This is something each person and couple must wrestle with if considering divorce and remarriage. But I don't believe it is for us to condemn others.
There are many Christians who were divorced by their spouse for reasons other than infidelity. That doesn't mean they can't find love again with a person who will love them until death, as has happened for LovingMan. There are others whose faith in their spouse was broken when that spouse was unfaithful; while they may be able to reconcile, Jesus validated the right of divorce in this case. And death has always been the end of the marriage contract, biblically speaking. A widow or widower may remarry if they wish, even in the Catholic church; an annulment is only necessary for remarriage after divorce. Even one of David's wives (his second, I believe) was a widow.
As to "serial monogamy by choice," I believe this refers to "monogamous until one of us doesn't want to be anymore," and that is analogous to the concubinage of the Old Testament at best and to the frivolous divorce (though without a decree) that Jesus spoke against at worst. It doesn't take a certificate to commit for life, but if you *are* committed for life, why not make it public and official? Hedging one's bets doesn't convey a high degree of commitment or trust, imho. Still, I know from family experience that there can be practical reasons some choose not to get the certificate; the threat of losing a late spouse's social security benefits is an example.
Marge asked, "Is the true wrong actually cheating? Is it sex without a license?" God didn't command the license. He did command fidelity. He didn't prohibit multiple wives, but he did say to obey the laws of the land you are in, and most today do prohibit them. The point about the ability to treat venereal disease would relate more to the desire for a virgin wife than the number of them one had, I think.
I think it's interesting to note that, in almost all of the examples we have of the patriarchs of Israel having multiple wives/concubines, the idea was the wife's rather than the husband's, (the first two sister-wives of Jacob being the exception.) And despite that, all we know of resulted in rivalry, not a peaceful home. I think it's no coincidence that God only made one woman for his first man.
Exceptional points Crazy Happy. One thing seems certain we don’t live in the same world that existed two millennium ago. Just as Solomon’s seduction techniques of hundreds of women would not be worshipped today there are other practices that are no longer necessary. We have couples that are happy in sexless marriages and even more where one is very unhappy in the lack of sex. Which is something we hope MH can help.
I hope this doesn’t get me excommunicated. These are just MY opinions. My sexual ethics have changed a lot in the last… maybe 5-6 years. I’ve been paying much closer attention to what the Bible does and doesn’t say, and the context of what time and culture some Scripture was written to, and the genre of scripture (poetry, letters, prophecy, etc). My conclusion is simply this… WE (the Church) too often like to use the word “Biblical” as an adjective, partly because it gives our opinions authority (so we think). But many many many things we label as “Biblical” is an effort to twist scripture a certain direction. When I joined this site, I was all on board with “Biblical monogamy” and believed the idea that the culture says that “Biblical marriage” is one man and one woman, period. My personal opinion, and one I purposely have kept private is that monogamy isn’t holy, right, or Biblical… and neither is non-monogamy. I believe that honoring, respecting, and loving your spouse is the paramount principle. Usually this leads to monogamy. But if a couple mutually and consensually wanted to step outside of monogamy, and it benefited their marriage, I don’t think there is anything wrong with that. In fact I would argue it is “Biblical non-monogamy” (LOL) because the spouses are fully loving and caring for each other holistically. Sometimes the non-monogamy doesn’t work, and then should be stopped. Our ethics should be guided by our love of others and investing in things that are healthy and beneficial (to ALL… so this rules out secret affairs). Our ethics (and Theology) should NOT be built upon single lines of poetry taken out of context from scripture. •• Even though I no longer believe in the principle of Biblical monogamy, I respect this platform and the good that it is doing. I have never voiced my different opinions or requested the site to change directions. Hot monogamy is still fun, sexy, and beneficial. I just think it can be celebrated without saying “THIS is the only way to be sexually Biblical.” •• Curious, what would anyone think about the site just celebrating “Hot Monogamy” and removing the reference to “Biblical”? That’s the word that seems to be kind of manipulative.
Thank you Fearless, and it was fearless of you to say. I could not have said it better myself. I have long thought it was the lie, the cheating, not the sex that was wrong and destructive to the relationship. Monogamy might be best for the majority of people it clearly is not for everyone. For those that find a way that both agree on I see no sin in their decision. Consenting adults.
I do believe that the catholic church twisted the scriptures to make Christians think that monogamy was the only way to live as a family when actually, God always allowed his followers to have more than one wife. Jesus in the parable of the seven virgins used polygamy to show the glory and bliss of a wealthy and blessed man, and God would never allow any of His children to engage in sinful acts, so polygyny is actually biblical.
What I wanted to know and I am not sure is:
"Could a man share his wife with others without defiling the marriage bed?".
"Could this be beneficial to their marriage?"
If biblical non-monogamy is to be accepted by Christian, should this site change it's definition?
Hubby here: To offer a slightly different view, I believe the Bible is the Christian’s guide for faith and life. Where it speaks, we need to listen. Where it does not speak, we need to carefully apply Biblical principles to fill in the blanks. I believe the Bible is absolutely inspired by the Holy Spirit, and thus infallible in the original language texts. As an aside, “error analysis” on current translations show an amazing alignment with original language texts when found. We don’t need to worry about reliable translations being, well, reliable.
Also, it is not a “regular” book written by dead, white guys, which needs to be rejected and replaced with contemporary mores and values. The Bible is as applicable to faith and life today as it was back in the day. And we need to let scripture interpret scripture when it does so, rather than isolate a verse that fits what we want, and proof-text from that.
The Bible has teaching, history, poetry, and other styles of writing, and each needs to be understood using the appropriate tools. (Biblical exegesis is the actual interpretation of the sacred book, the bringing out of its meaning; hermeneutics is the study and establishment of the principles by which it is to be interpreted.) Opinion is not a good method of Biblical understanding.
So, the Bible is clear that marriage is between one man and one woman (polygamy is NOT supported in the Bible. The Old Testament argument is not a complete understanding of Biblical standards on marriage and polygamy). Divorce and remarriage were not originally contemplated, and Jesus authorized the “exception” in cases of infidelity. Paul added abandonment. Remarriage after the death of a spouse was never an issue. These are in the Bible, and so should compel our conscience.
I would caution against the term “serial monogamy”, which is too clever by half, easily misinterpreted, and more descriptive of Hollywood than a group of believers. The Bible, the Christian’s rule for faith and life, calls for monogamy. It provides for remarriage (not serial monogamy) in certain situations, but the base case, the stable platform on which Christian monogamy stands is well said in Malachi 2:16 …
“For the Lord God of Israel says
That He hates divorce,
For it covers one’s garments with violence,”
Says the Lord of hosts.
“Therefore take heed to your spirit,
That you do not deal treacherously.”
None of this calls us to be callous or uncaring to those with marital difficulties or who suffer the death or abandonment of a spouse. These challenges call us to demonstrate the love and care of Jesus, but that does not mean upending broad Biblical standards. Classic Christianity has understood and applied these principles pretty well. Just because a sect, denomination, or individual goes wide of the path doesn’t mean that’s the “church’s” broad view and thus should be rejected.
If polygamy is wrong…why is it not listed in the foundational list of sexual sins in the giving of the law, which our entire moral code and the New Testament itself is predicated upon? And why is it that God said nothing whatsoever against it, even though practically ALL the patriarchs and great men of the OT practiced it? As you pointed out, opinion is not a good method of Bible understanding, and we know that God does not hesitate to lay out right and wrong in no uncertain terms. And nowhere in the Bible will you find a single word against polygamy.
My personal belief is that the idea of polygamy is repugnant to the modern traditions and opinions of the church, for a variety of reasons, and therefore has been 'excommunicated', as it were, out of hand. But in no way does it conflict with God's intended and stated purpose for marriage and sex.
I would like to offer something in a spirit of humility. I think it would be helpful on key points of disagreement – when one tries to bolster his or her point of view by saying "there is a great deal of debate" – to point us readers to the writings of the actual scholars who are debating.
If there is "a great deal of debate", it should not be too difficult to find. On the other hand, if there actually is not a great deal of debate on a subject, it is misleading to make the claim that there is. I think this is helpful in all discourse – not just this subject. If there is actually not a great deal of debate – it doesn't mean we can't talk about it. To make it sound like it is heavily debated can make it seem less established.
I profit from the questioning of long held traditions – to make us look soberly at the Scriptures. And then to hold to what they say. I've had my mind opened and changed on things too.
Anyway, I think this was worth mentioning.
LH
To clarify, this question was posted for discussion because it relates to the purpose of our site, not because we are considering changing it. MarriageHeat focuses on hot Biblical monogamy because our intended audience is married and monogamous Christian couples who enjoy or desire hot sex. Clearly, Biblical monogamy is one married husband and wife. Biblical polygamy is not the focus of our site.
Understood and respected. 🙂
It's interesting to me how many respondents voice the opinion that polygamy isn't sinful. What I wonder is why it even matters. How many of us live in places where it's legal? And how does it relate to the question "What is Biblical Monogamy?"
CHL: Well said. This idea of "the question" has been crashing around in my brain since this post came out, and even I got lost in the rabbit trails. The answer is provided in the title question. What is Biblical Monogamy? It's Biblical, that is, defined in the Bible, not external sources. And it's monogamy, not polygamy. Many of the comments could have been on a site called "PolygamyHeat". Let's move on.
I haven't been on this site in a while but decided to read more today. I value the opinions and the thought behind many comments. One thing I'm noticing is some are mentioning things like polygamy and others are talking about consensual sex with partners who are not their spouses (i.e. threesomes, foursomes, etc). From my understanding, those are not the same thing. Polygamy (and especially what has been referenced in scripture usually includes marriage to more than one spouse, not just "playing" with other people. I'm not here to give an opinion on the rightness or wrongness of either, but I fear that a lot is getting lost in word choice and semantics. Some may be playing the semantic game and others may just be more literal. When trying to have a thoughtful conversation, it is important to be on the same page about foundational definitions related to the topic of discussion, otherwise we could be going round in circles.
Yes this is a good point, it’s easy to get stuck on specific words. I think my overall point was not to promote one way of thinking… it was to say that NO ONE has the corner on something called “Biblical sexuality.” In fact, the point about monogamy vs polygamy is to just to say the Bible doesn’t “clearly define” marriage like some people state. I just don’t like when people attach the word “Biblical” to stuff to give it a (supposed) sense of spiritual authority. I don’t hear anyone asking MH to change their guidelines or the vision of the site. I am in a monogamous marriage. And I can understand why why that works for the vast majority. However I hope we don’t look down on people who find that non-monogamy is a healthy (and still Biblical) choice for them. The Biblical part comes down to love, compassion, respect, kindness, service, authenticity, and generosity… NOT by a cherry-picked verse out of a poem that supposedly defines what all marriages are for human history.
I have to disagree, Fearless. I think those who are faithful for life to their spouse and meet their sexual needs "have the corner on" Biblical sexuality. If non-monogamy were to be Biblical, it would need to meet those same standards—life-long commitment to meeting their needs—and be legal where they live. That just isn't realistic in most of the world. Today, most nations follow the Greek and Roman ways: one marriage at a time, and if you want more or different, find some side action or divorce. This isn't what any part of the Bible calls us to. Should we hate or denigrate those who don't know or practice this? Clearly Jesus didn't. But he did make it clear what the standards are, and he didn't do it by cherry-picking a verse from Song of Solomon but by quoting from Genesis. "What God has joined, let no man separate."
I read many years ago in Scripture where even the King was supposed to have only one wife. Which means even David and Solomon were guilty of sin. Perhaps one of the ministers on the site can correct me if I am wrong. Solomon had a problem because the extra wives turned him away from God. Remember at different times God allowed different things that HE did approve of. If HE always punished for what HE disapproved of we would all be dead and in hell right now. We have all sinned and fallen short, that is why we need a savior.
Old Testament men had multiple wives for different reasons. Some were for death in the family, some were to solidify peace treaties, some were for just plain sinful appetites. None of those reasons necessarily mean God approved that I remember. Besides weren't the majority Old Testament. The difference then and now is that the husbands supported their families. They had enough income to provide and their extra spouses lived with them.
I would like to ask a question of our Mormon couple. When the men had multiple wives did they practice threesomes or did they have different days for different wives?
Genuinely curious… how do you know the reasons why NT husbands have more than one wife? I have read the whole NT and have not found the reasons listed. Did you read a book that covers first century Middle East— and can you share the title here? You might be right, but I just like investigating as well. I’ve read some books about what homosexuality was like in 1st century and it helped inform my understanding of the Bible’s teachings. I’ve never seen any studies on the “why” of polygamy, so I’m curious.
Always the woman’s fault. Eve corrupted Adam into having sex, and Kings satisfied their desires because their wives and concubines forced them. All total BS, in my opinion, and I doubt any of that nonsense was God talking. What better example for God to show having sex with more than one person than to destroy Solomon? If you are going to do it to Sodom and Gomorrah based on one act, why do nothing about thousands of acts. Why not show even a King must live by God’s rules. Sorry but all this sex is evil and women entice men sounds more like the early church where women were inferior and evil. Only Mary, who later was decided had to be a virgin to be good. God inspired most of the Bible, he didn’t dictate every word. Much of it was the supposed writing of disciples. Once sex was separated from bringing a life into the world, it stopped being a holy act.
Marge, you do know this explanation of the fall from grace is not the official teaching of the Church in any period of time, right? Not to say you weren't taught it, but it has never been held as truth by the Catholic Church or any Protestant denominations or sects except the Shakers, of whom none are left (perhaps for obvious reasons.) It came from one early Christian author, Tertullian, in the 2nd Century AD in the Roman provinces of Africa. But sex was a command of God to Adam and Eve *before the fall*; therefore, their having sex could not be sinful (disobedient) no matter who initiated it.
And as another has pointed out before, Mary's virginity was both prophesied in the Old Testament and attested to by herself when the angel Gabriel came to her. It wasn't an addition to the text. It isn't because sex is a sin that she was virginal; it was because Jesus was God's son, so not implanted in her womb in the usual way.
I'll also point out that catlover's reference to "sinful appetites" seemed to be pointed at the men, not the women in the relationships.
But God didn't condemn multiple wives. He made laws for how to treat them fairly. He did say for the king not to "multiply wives" to himself, as also horses or much silver and gold. This doesn't necessarily mean not more than one. And Solomon's ignorance of that guidance cost him a lot in his walk with God, for the very reason given in the prohibition, "lest his heart turn away."
Once again, I don't think the argument for or against polygamy really speaks to the question of what defines Biblical monogamy.
Sex isn't and never was separated from childbearing; it simply isn't the *only* reason for it. And the biblical guidance given for when and with whom to have it has always been "within marriage."
I am truly sorry for the pain you seem to have suffered from the teachings you received. Please know that God loves and cherishes you not just as a human but specifically as a woman.