“If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish the food, clothing, or marital rights of the first wife.” Ex. 21:10
In a previous sermon I spoke about what Jesus actually taught about divorce, as opposed to what Christianity thought he taught, and therefore what most Christian faiths have taught for hundreds of years. When I was researching the recent history of divorce, I was amazed at how little the basic issues have varied over time, even from Moses’ and Jesus’ days. I suppose I should not have been so amazed, given that human nature has not changed at all.
In this sermon I want to look at an issue that in the Western world was more or less settled a long time ago, but that in some corners of the world remains a hot issue. And that issue is polygamy.
If you heard the previous sermon, you will understand that many statements on issues like this are written in a Case Law genre. That is, a historical case is used to delineate the law, but it is truncated dramatically, such that it uses key phrases to encapsulate and summarise a much longer law. The legislators and most of the public understood the full statement of this law by the key phrases contained within the brief statement.
Such is the case with a series of laws relating to the treatment of slaves or servants, in Exodus 21:1-11. They are couched in the casuistic style that is typical of all ancient Near Eastern collections of laws. The individual topics are presented in the form of specific rulings about hypothetical situations that can then be used as a template and applied generally to many similar cases in life.
Hebrew Law is Particularly Sensitive to Slaves
Having recently experienced liberation from bondage, the Israelite is enjoined to be especially sensitive to the condition of the slave.
You will remember that the Decalogue opens with the statement that Yahweh had freed Israel from 400 years of grinding slavery in Egypt (Ex. 20:1-3). This is the underlining principle guiding all laws around slaves. They may have had to sell themselves into slavery simply to survive, or a father may have been forced to sell his children into slavery, but Hebrew slaves were protected by strong laws in Israel.
The slave is termed “your brother”; he possesses an inalienable right to rest on the Sabbath day and on festivals; when circumcised, and thus identified with the covenant between God and Israel, he participates in the Passover offering; he is to be “avenged” if he dies from a beating by his master; and the loss of a limb, even a tooth, at the hands of his master automatically gains him his freedom. A fugitive slave may not be extradited and is accorded protection from maltreatment and the right to live wherever he chooses. Finally, a six-year limit is set on his term of service.[1]
The Rabbis sometimes joked that “he who buys a Hebrew slave is like one buying himself a master.”[2]
The Case of a Female Slave
Exodus 21:7–11 (NRSV) — 7 When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. 8 If she does not please her master, who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed; he shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt unfairly with her. 9 If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. 10 If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish the food, clothing, or marital rights of the first wife. 11 And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out without debt, without payment of money.
In the ancient world, a father, driven by poverty, might sell his daughter into a well-to-do family in order to ensure her future security. The sale presupposes marriage to the master or his son.[3]
The father was restricted in selling his daughter this way. He could do so only if he was utterly destitute. She must be below the age of twelve years, and I am not sure what the reason for this was. A woman could not sell herself into slavery nor could she be sold by a court for insolvency, as a male could, in order to make restitution for stolen goods. On top of these protections, she could not be sold to a man as his wife without her knowledge or consent.
The girl must be treated as a free woman. If her husband took an additional wife, she must retain an equal footing and be provided for in the same manner as the new wife. There was not supposed to be any favouritism, at least not in terms of material support. If the husband breaches faith in any of these three matters listed, the woman could gain her freedom without paying any compensation for her bride price, which would normally be the case if she or her family initiated a break with the husband.
These laws were meant to protect the girl from sexual exploitation and safeguard her rights. Of course, in our enlightened days, these laws may sound exploitative, but in the context of the times, they were a long way ahead of the surrounding nations.
And love, in the sense that we define it today, could develop in such a relationship, as attested to by an epitaph discovered on a grave in a village outside Jerusalem, where it is clear from the inscription that the man arranged to be buried next to his ʾamah, his slave wife.
When Verse 8 stipulates that if the woman does not “please” the man, this may relate back to Moses’ statement on divorce recorded in Deuteronomy 24:1-2, where he states that a man can divorce a woman for something “objectionable,” that is something pretty seriously wrong with the woman, some indecency.
Whatever it means, this man cannot deal with her in an abusive fashion in any sense of the term. He must treat her as he would treat any wife, and if she is given to his son (Verse 9), she must be raised as one of the family and treated as a daughter-in-law. Additionally, she would be protected from sexual abuse.
If he finds something objectionable about her, he cannot sell her outside of the family, which is what “foreigner” means in this instance. He cannot get rid of her cheaply. She can be redeemed by her blood family, but because he has “dealt unfairly with her,” in the sense that he is the one who has “broken faith” with her, not her with him, he must allow her to be redeemed or to go out as a free woman.
Now I want you to notice in verse 10, we have stated, as the whole of the Older Testament attests, there is the presupposition that polygamy was normal practice. It is simply accepted, at least in OT times, and is here being regulated. Shortly we will look at what Jesus has to say on this, but the OT accepts the legitimacy of polygamy.
The import of this law on polygamous marriages is that even in the case of a marriage to a slave woman, she retains the same rights as a free woman. The man must treat them equally, at least according to the letter of the law, but ideally, he will treat her as an equal in the spirit of the law as well.
The formulation once again gives every appearance of being ancient technical legal language. The Torah here specifies three basic necessities of life to which each wife is entitled. It is generally agreed (1) that Hebrew sheʾer, literally “flesh,” is an ancient word for “meat,” ...extended to cover food in general, and (2) that kesut is certainly “clothing.”
It is the unique word ʿonah that has generated debate. The Septuagint, Peshitta, and Targums all understood it to refer to the woman’s conjugal rights. This interpretation... is also found in rabbinic sources.[4]
It seems, as was the case generally in the laws of the ancient Near East, that a wife is legally entitled to sexual gratification. This word may also refer to a home or dwelling place and it has even been suggested that it may be interpreted as “oil”. The general idea is that this woman is entitled to the run of the house, including this man’s bed.[5]
These three conditions of equal treatment in marriage also became the grounds for divorce in their denial, which is very clearly stated in verse 11.
Exodus 21:11 (NRSV) — 11 And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out without debt, without payment of money.
The third condition is essential if you are going to give birth to children, which was more important than we would give it credit for today. In ancient cultures it meant the continuation of your name and family line, of sustenance in your old age, and of course has always been intensely desirable for many women.
Jesus and Polygamy
I would like to now move to Jesus’ opinion of polygamy in the New Testament.
But you say, Jesus didn’t say anything about polygamy? Well, let’s see.
Matthew 19:3–9 (NRSV) — 3 Some Pharisees came to him, and to test him they asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?” 8 He said to them, “It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery.”
Did you notice the clear statement here by Jesus about polygamy? No? Let’s look again.
Jesus is approached by some Pharisees with a specific question about divorce. It turns out, as I explain in another sermon, that this was part of a debate between two Rabbinical schools within Judaism at the time. We won’t look into that today, but what we will look at is the fact that Jesus seems to use this occasion to not only weigh in on the issue of divorce but to teach several points on marriage and celibacy in general.
At first Jesus avoided their question about divorce and directed their minds back to the ideal at creation, where a man and a woman were given the blessing of becoming “one flesh”, or having a sexual and social union in marriage. Jesus was here shifting the debate to things he considered more important.
Summary of Jesus' Teaching Here
When the arguments are unpacked from their abbreviated form, we find that Jesus was teaching several separate matters that don’t necessarily relate directly to the central divorce debate here:
1. Marriage should be monogamous. Here Jesus was agreeing with the Qumran community. This made polygamy untenable for Christians and made it possible for the woman to divorce a man if he was unfaithful in this or other ways. By stressing that God made one female and one male, and that the two shall become one flesh he was sidelining polygamy. This was hitting the Pharisees where it hurt. Polygamy was accepted in the ancient world but had started to come under attack in Judaism by Jesus time. The message was they were not to mess with God's original intentions, and they were not to play with women like a toy.
2. Divorce is never compulsory. Forgiveness is always possible. Divorce should be avoided unless the erring partner stubbornly refuses to repent. Marriage, ideally, should be lifelong.
3. Marriage is optional. You can remain single if you wish. This was not possible in Judaism at this time because they understood that God was commanding them to produce children.
4. Hillelite "any matter" divorces are invalid. Here Jesus was agreeing with the Shammaites that divorce was only acceptable on very serious grounds.
5. By not challenging the other universally accepted grounds for divorce in Moses (Ex. 21:10-11), about material provisions and emotional provisions, Jesus was agreeing with these.
We are only going to look closely at point number one today, but judging by the way Jesus labours this point, and being stuffed uncomfortably into a primary debate over divorce, it appears to be particularly important for him.
Notice the repetition here. Jesus interrupts this raging debate on divorce and points his listeners back to creation and says God, (verse 4) “‘made them male and female,’ [singular – that’s No.1] 5 and [God] said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, [‘a man’ shall be joined to ‘his wife’, singular – that’s No.2], and the two shall become one flesh’? [repeating and belabouring the point that two become one flesh – that’s No. 3] 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. [Can Jesus make his point any clearer – this is the fourth time] Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” [It appears this is the fifth time he is belabouring this point of two becoming one.]
There are few other options but to admit that Jesus is denying polygamy here. If he had wanted, for some strange reason, to allow polygamy, he would have had to say, ‘And the three (or more) shall become one happy family.’
That reminds me of the quip about polygamy which probably holds a lot of truth.
Why should polygamy not be punishable? Because any guy having multiple wives has punishment enough already!
Or another one bringing an age-old, much-maligned person into the picture, asks:
What’s the biggest problem with polygamy? Answer: Multiple mothers-in-law.
I have a couple of other polygamy jokes, but let’s get back to what Jesus is saying before I get myself into real trouble.
Jesus and the Qumran Community
As Jesus surreptitiously addresses the issue of polygamy, sandwiching it into the debate about divorce that the Pharisees brought for him to adjudicate on, he uses both sets of arguments used by other Jews.
He quoted the key verse used by Qumran Jews (Gen 1:27) and even said this was what happened “at the beginning of creation” (Mark 10:6, which presumably reminded his listeners that Qumran Jews called this “the foundation of creation”. Then he quoted the verse preferred by Jews outside Palestine—Genesis 2:24—including the additional word “two” (Mark 10:8; Matt 19:5). By deliberately using both arguments, Jesus emphasized that he agreed with those Jews who taught monogamy, contrary to the Pharisees.[6]
Paul applied Jesus' teaching against polygamy by reversing the command that a man had to marry his dead brother’s wife.
Moses’ law restricted her marriage to someone of roughly her age—that is, she should only marry a brother of her husband—and she was allowed to refuse.[7]
Paul re-applied this law in the Christian context, by saying that a widow could marry whomever she wanted (1 Cor 7:39)—though he was keen to say that she should marry a fellow believer.
Obliging monogamy among Christians discontinued many scandalous situations, but it created a new problem for the church.
Suddenly there were more widows without husbands and without support because they couldn’t become anyone’s second wife. To try to help these widows, the church created a new type of social club for them—a widows’ association. [which was]...a good solution to their needs, and... far better than expecting these women to each find a new husband.[8]
In ancient cultures there were often too few men because of warfare or other reasons, and polygamy ensured that the population didn’t decline catastrophically. God’s purpose for marriage was to help individuals find mutual support in families, as the words of Psalm 68:6 says: “God sets the lonely in families.”
I am sure the Africans amongst us could enlighten us as to the many practical problems with polygamy, and could give us story after disastrous story from their personal experiences. And our church has struggled with how to deal with polygamy, taking various stances on it, which we do not have time to look at today.
I have a friend in Kenya whose uncle came across a group of boys near his home who were fighting and arguing on the football field. He approached them and berated them about their argumentative attitude, saying, “Didn’t your father teach you boys any civil manners?” The boys kept silent, so he continued, “Who is your father, anyway?”
The boys said, “You are!” At this acknowledgement, the man was a bit taken aback, but only a bit, because my friend assured me he has 48 wives!
After quickly recovering his composure, he came back to them with the question, “Well, who is your mother then?” Clearly he was not going to take all the blame here!
Summary and Conclusion
What we have to admit upfront is that scripture never absolutely condemns polygamy, and perhaps there are isolated instances where it may have some positive practical aspects. Moses lays down regulations governing it in Exodus 21, which like his laws on divorce were aimed at raising the status of women in that culture and offering protections for them in marriage.
The Older Testament condemns excesses like Solomon’s 1000 wives and concubines. Deuteronomy forbade amassing of horses, multiplying of wives, and accumulating lots of silver and gold (Deut. 17:14-20). But by his own confession, Solomon did all three. “I amassed silver and gold for myself, and the treasure of kings and provinces. I acquired…a harem as well - the delights of the heart of man” (Eccl. 2:8). But his harem did not bring happiness. Well…it probably did for a little while, let’s be honest men! But in the long run, “Everything was meaningless, a chasing after the wind; nothing was gained under the sun.” (2:11)
And Jesus is clear about the ideal of monogamous, lifelong marriage, as we have outlined here.
In terms of divorce Jesus pointed back to creation for the ideal, but faced with the realities of a sinful world, he agrees with Moses almost to the letter. And when it comes to polygamy Jesus points back to the ideal in the beginning, and by inference here, condemns polygamy. Jesus agreed with the Qumran community on this issue.
We Are All Slaves
Just as Israel was redeemed from slavery in Egypt, each of us must understand that the Lord has redeemed us from slavery. We were slaves of sin, and of another master, another regime, and Christ, by his death has redeemed us.
One of the practices of that other regime is polygamy, and except in exceptional circumstances, polygamy results in a degraded situation for women. It is far from the ideal of monogamous, lifelong marriage that the Creator instigated, and that Jesus endorsed, and we must rail against it in the interests of raising the status of women and promulgating justice in our society.
Because we have been liberated from slavery in this other regime, and we are now citizens of the Kingdom of God, we live by different principles, the original principles laid down for humanity at creation.
[1] Sarna, N. M. (1991). Exodus (pp. 118–119). Jewish Publication Society. [2] Ibid. [3] Sarna, N. M. (1991). Exodus (pp. 120–121). Jewish Publication Society. [4] Sarna, N. M. (1991). Exodus (pp. 120–121). Jewish Publication Society. [5] Rashbam and Bekhor Shor favor another rendering of ʿonah as “dwelling,” “shelter,” which is supported etymologically by the Hebrew noun maʿon, meʿonah, “dwelling, habitation.” A persuasive, although as yet philologically unsustained, argument has been made for understanding the term to mean “oil, ointment.” In many ancient Near Eastern texts there are clauses that make provision for “food, clothing, and ointment.” This same triad of commodities is found in Hosea 2:7 and Ecclesiastes 9:7–9. Likewise, the Egyptian wisdom text known as “The Instruction of the Vizier Ptah-hotep” advises “a man of standing” to fill his wife’s belly, clothe her back, and provide ointment for her body.
Comentarios