From a mailing list I join.
In Bible and life polygamy is not the answer
Binsar Lumbantobing, Jakarta
When famous Muslim preacher Aa Gym reportedly asked his wife, "Mama, can I
please remarry? Would you prefer I take a virgin or a widow?" he probably
was not aware of the immense controversy that he was about to impart upon
his fellow Indonesians.
Presumably in defense of Aa Gym, Daniel Hummel surprisingly makes reference
to the Bible in his supposedly Islamic article titled Polygamy part of
Islamic social order, published in The Jakarta Post on Dec. 8, 2006. As the
Bible describes polygamous practices by prophets such as Abraham and David,
and Jesus never explicitly denounced polygamy in the Gospel, Hummel
therefore appears to suggest that practicing polygamy does not contradict
the Bible's teachings.
A deeper examination of that holy book, however, says otherwise. In the
beginning, the biblical God created one man and one woman: Adam and Eve. God
could have easily made one man plus two, three or even five women, but He
did not. So the Bible says that God, in early time, established a stage for
the union of human males and females based on monogamy.
Abraham and David indeed practiced polygamy, though God did not instruct
them to do so. In fact, Abraham took a second wife because he doubted God's
promise to grant him offspring, and David invoked God's anger when he
married Bathsheba. In any case, a prophet's practice is not automatically
applicable to his followers. Otherwise, a Bible-based man would surrender
his wife to a state leader, as Abraham did to his wife.
Jesus' silence on the issue of polygamy can hardly be interpreted as his
endorsement of it. As Emmet Fox says in his book, The Sermon on the Mount,
Jesus "was careful to teach principles only, knowing that when the spirit is
right, details will take care of themselves". Thus Jesus' commandment, which
instructs man to love his neighbor as he loves himself, is sufficient
guidance for a married man in maintaining his moral fiber. The married man
will understand that he must submit himself to his wife, as he desires the
same from her.
Jesus also said that a man shall leave his parents and be united firmly to
his wife, and the man and his wife shall become one flesh. Since the
original Greek manuscript confirms the singularity of the word wife, a
Bible-oriented man cannot be in a state of "one flesh" with two or more
women.
Later in his article, Hummel seems to dismiss the notion of equality between
men and women. He reminds readers that even the Bible was "written from an
overwhelmingly male perspective" . It is a fair assessment, but the Bible is
not discriminative toward women.
For starters, the original Hebrew text and modern translations of the
Bible's Book of Genesis clearly say that in the beginning both man and woman
were created in God's image. God subsequently blessed them both and provided
them with equal authority over all things. This means they were to enjoy an
equal status, function and responsibility. And as a subtle message to all
believers, God did not create Eve from Adam's head, so she could be his
master, or from his leg, so she would be his subordinate, but rather from
his side, so she was to be his equal partner.
Elsewhere in the Old Testament, the Bible describes God several times as
having female characteristics, such as crying out "like a woman in labor",
showering her people with the fondness of a mother and rendering love
similar to a quiet rest in the arms of a divine mother. Furthermore, at
least two Old Testament books are devoted primarily to women. These are the
books of Ruth and Esther. The main female characters within these books
exemplify godliness to women and men alike.
In the New Testament confirmation of equality between man and woman is quite
striking. Jesus was born on earth through Mary, and used female analogies to
portray his own love for people.
When we put all the pieces together from the beginning till the end, the
Bible emerges as a pro-monogamy and pro-equality text.
As the grand finale, Hummel confidently secures the necessity of practicing
polygamy by classifying it as a remedy for alleviating poverty among widowed
females. Unfortunately, this argument is shaky, if not dangerous.
First, the actions of prominent characters in the Bible and Koran hinted
that the polygamy issue could not be reduced to an economic debate. Abraham
took a second wife because of his insecurities. David married Bathsheba
absolutely due to lust.
Second, overcoming poverty among widowed females by way of polygamy is
nearly impossible for mortal men like us. Human males are not
psychologically equipped to take up the challenge. Their tendency is to
avoid marrying an unattractive woman. Careful examination of Aa Gym's second
wife's picture says it all. She is undoubtedly more pleasant looking,
fresher and younger than the first. Let's be very blunt: there exists a
gigantic pool of poor-and-unattracti ve widowed women for Aa Gym to choose
his second wife from, yet he did not marry any of them. And this is the norm
among men, particularly those who can afford to financially support an extra
wife or more.
It would be wise of Hummel, and others, to discard economic justifications
for practicing polygamy. Polygamy is actually a danger to modern society.
Polygamy harms people. Even Aa Gym admits that "polygamy hurts women very
much".
More often than not, polygamy has brought unnecessary conflict to affected
family members, from Abraham's time to today.
Polygamy helps many women entertain the fallacy that key to financial
stability is marrying a man. If we strip away the polygamy option, widowed
women could actually be allowed to financially excel. The secret here is to
support their growth when they embark on creative journeys, and to allow
them equal opportunities during their expansionary stage.
The writer is a businessman and church activist.
