 |
| Lego scene of Leah telling Jacob to have sex with her slave Zilpah. From the Brick Testament. |
[content note: In the world where the bible was written, there wasn't really a concept that women should have a choice over whom they married and/or had sex with. A lot of what is discussed in this blog post is not really consensual- or rather, it's hard to say, because they didn't have the concept of consent.]
In my post The Bible and "Purity", I presented the idea that, contrary to what I had been taught in purity culture, it is *not* true that the bible teaches it's a sin to have sex outside of monogamous hetero marriage and that this rule is the same for both men and women. Instead, what we see in the Old Testament can be better explained like so:
Basically, it goes like this: A girl who's in a good family, with a father who can protect her and have high standards about whom she's going to marry- she is a pure girl. On the other hand, there are plenty of girls and women whom anyone can have sex with, and nobody cares. Slaves, sex workers, girls who don't have their father protecting them, prisoners of war, etc.
So don't think of sex as being "1 man + 1 woman." It's either "1 man + 1 pure woman" or "1 man + 1 impure woman."
If she's an impure woman, well, whatever, a man can have sex with as many impure woman as he wants, and why should anyone judge him for that? (Some people would say it's good and normal for a man to be sexually experienced in this way.) Even if he's married, he can still have sex with slaves and sex workers, whatever.
But if she's a pure woman, oh gosh, well a man might actually get in trouble for that- watch out for her father. That would actually be a serious thing, to have unmarried sex with a pure woman. But, still you can't judge the man as harshly as the woman because maybe it's just an honest mistake and he didn't know which kind she was.
In the ancient world portrayed in "Womanist Midrash" and "The Red Tent," women were treated better if they were in the "pure" group rather than the "impure" group, but most of the time they didn't have much control over that. Try as hard as you can to stay as one of the "pure" ones, because we all know it's totally fine for men to rape the "impure" ones, that's just the way it is.
Here's the follow-up post about polygamy.
---
There's a lot of polygamy in the bible. A lot of male bible heroes who have multiple wives and "concubines."
The way I've always heard Christians talk about polygamy in the bible was like this: Yes, there is a lot of polygamy in the bible, but it's always portrayed as a bad thing. The bible always shows that it leads to problems, like a man unfairly favoring one wife over the others, the rival wives being jealous, all kinds of family drama. Yes, there is polygamy in the bible, but it's OBVIOUS that the bible is teaching us that God doesn't want it to be that way. In the beginning, God made Adam and Eve- marriage is supposed to be 1 man and 1 woman. Even though many many people in the bible did not follow God's plan for marriage, it's clear that the bible portrays that as a bad thing. It's clear that the bible is teaching that polygamy is a sin.
I disagree with this. I do NOT interpret the bible as consistently portraying polygamy as a bad thing. In ancient times, people viewed it as a positive thing for a man to have multiple wives- it was a sign that he was rich and successful. And some of the biblical writers also thought this way- there are bible passages about a man having multiple wives which make a lot more sense if you read them with the assumption that this was a sign of success rather than a sin.
There are many many bible stories that show problems caused by polygamy. Even so, I don't read these as meaning that the biblical writers believed the entire concept of polygamy was always bad, and no one should ever do it. In some cases, the bible portrays the problems as not necessarily being caused by polygamy itself, but by other issues. And in other cases, there are aspects of the situation which are portrayed positively- I read this as saying that even though there are some common pitfalls you have to watch out for, it doesn't mean the whole thing is bad and wrong.
And, when the bible gives rules related to polygamy, it never comes right out and says "polygamy is a sin, don't do it." It gives rules for how a man should treat his wives fairly if he has multiple wives. And there are certain circumstances where the bible commands that a man should not have many wives- but this only applies to men in those circumstances, not all men.
Buckle up, I have receipts. We're going to look at polygamy in the bible, and we're going to see that it's NOT consistently portrayed as a bad thing.
I hope you woke up this morning and said, "I want to read 10,000 words about polygamy in the bible."
---
Lamech, the first polygamist in the bible
Lamech married two women, one named Adah and the other Zillah. Adah gave birth to Jabal; he was the father of those who live in tents and raise livestock. His brother’s name was Jubal; he was the father of all who play stringed instruments and pipes. Zillah also had a son, Tubal-Cain, who forged all kinds of tools out of bronze and iron. Tubal-Cain’s sister was Naamah.
Lamech said to his wives,
“Adah and Zillah, listen to me;
wives of Lamech, hear my words.
I have killed a man for wounding me,
a young man for injuring me.
If Cain is avenged seven times,
then Lamech seventy-seven times.”
In Genesis 2, God creates Adam, and then creates Eve because Adam needs a partner. This basically sets up "God's plan" for gender and marriage. Adam and Eve are monogamous. But then in chapter 4, we get the first example of somebody having multiple wives.
I've always heard Christians interpret the story of Lamech like this: [okay, with the caveat that this is an extremely obscure bible story and most Christians have never heard of Lamech] People are sinful and are already straying from the perfect design that God made, even though this is only chapter 4. Obviously God intended marriage to be monogamous, but this guy Lamech has 2 wives, also he's a murderer. Clearly this is showing that polygamy is wrong.
Is that what the biblical writer was saying, though? Lamech was a murderer, and seems to be bragging about it, clearly he's a bad dude, also he's the first polygamist- so you see, polygamy is bad. But... this is such a bizarre bible story that I can't really confidently tell you what it's supposed to mean. The section I've pasted above is all the bible has to say about Lamech. Really. That's it. You read this and go "what?" and there's no clarification at all given in the bible.
There are also positive things about Lamech mentioned in the section I've quoted, like what kinds of skills his descendants had. His descendants from his multiple wives made important contributions to civilization.
People can certainly use this passage to argue "see, the bible always portrays polygamy as a bad thing" but I'm not sure it's so clear. Imagine the original audience reading this- if they lived in a society where polygamy was normal, would they notice anything in this passage that suggested to them "polygamy is always wrong"?
---
Abraham
Okay, we have to talk about Abraham's polygamy, but first we have to talk about how he let other men take his wife Sarah away, on two separate occasions. In Genesis 12, Abraham tells the Egyptians that Sarah is his sister, so then Pharaoh takes her (and has sex with her? not clear). [Note: In Genesis 12, Abraham was using the name Abram, and Sarah was using the name Sarai.] In Genesis 20, we again find Abraham telling people that Sarah is his sister- so then Abimelek takes her (but doesn't end up having sex with her).
All my other examples of polygamy in the bible are about a man having multiple wives. Whatever is going on with Sarah here, it's not really polygamy because she's just passed around like an object who doesn't have any say in it. But I should include it in this blog post.
(Isaac also pulls this same trick in Genesis 26- he claims that his wife is his sister. But people figured out she was really his wife, so nobody ended up having sex with her.)
In all 3 of these cases, the bible portrays it as wrong that Abraham and Isaac lied like this. But the really weird thing is, God is mad at Pharaoh for taking her, not with Abraham for lying about it. Genesis 12:17 says, "But the Lord inflicted serious diseases on Pharaoh and his household because of Abram’s wife Sarai." (Same thing in Genesis 20- God is mad at Abimelek for taking her, not with Abraham. Genesis 20:3 "But God came to Abimelek in a dream one night and said to him, 'You are as good as dead because of the woman you have taken; she is a married woman.'") Pharaoh and Abimelek are the ones who get in trouble- why????? Whatever sexual morality the biblical writers were working with, it's clearly very different from what modern Christians are teaching. That should give us the message that the bible's view on polygamy is much more complicated than "polygamy is always wrong."
Okay let's move on to Abraham and Hagar. Abraham and his wife Sarah had no children- but God promised him that he would have a huge number of descendants. God's promise didn't seem to be coming true, though, so eventually Sarah said, "The Lord has kept me from having children. Go, sleep with my slave; perhaps I can build a family through her." (The slave's name was Hagar.)
In ancient times, it was normal for men to have sex with their slaves. (In the book "Womanist Midrash," Wilda Gafney talks about how we should understand slavery in the bible to mean sex slavery.) But Abraham was not doing this until Sarah suggested it- I take this to mean that he was only interested in having a monogamous relationship with Sarah, until she talked him into having sex with Hagar just for the purposes of having a child.
The bible portrays this as wrong. Abraham and Sarah should have just remained monogamous and trusted in God's promise that they would have a child in that way, rather than taking matters into their own hands. So yes, the biblical writer does have the assumption that God wanted them to be monogamous- the biblical writer is *not* coming from the perspective that polygamy is fine.
Indeed, when God promises that Abraham will have many descendants (Genesis 12:2-3, Genesis 13:14-17, Genesis 15), Sarah is not mentioned. If everyone thought polygamy was fine and normal, then it would totally make sense to interpret God's promise as saying that Abraham is allowed to have sex with other women, and God's promise can be fulfilled in that way. But no, when Abraham has sex with Hagar, this is portrayed as wrong, because he is not trusting in God's promise. (After Hagar has a son, Ishmael, God again gives his promise to Abraham, but this time God explicitly says Abraham will have descendants through Sarah. Genesis 17:15-21, Genesis 18:10-14)
I'm very curious about this, because in other bible passages, polygamy is seen as normal, but in this case, when Abraham takes Hagar "as his wife," it's wrong- even though God never directly gives Abraham a command "you have to be monogamous." As the readers, we are supposed to just *know* that Abraham is supposed to be monogamous.
What's the actual issue? Is it that polygamy is wrong? Is that that Abraham and Sarah weren't trusting in God's promise? Is it because Hagar was a slave and didn't have any say in this? Is it that they should have interpreted God's promise to mean Abraham would have children through his primary wife, regardless of whether there were other wives? Is there some reason Abraham should have known that it would be wrong to have children through Hagar, even though that was a normal thing that men did back then? (In Genesis 17, God reiterates his promise that Abraham will have many descendants, and in verse 18, Abraham says, "If only Ishmael might live under your blessing!" How did Abraham know that Ishmael wasn't supposed to "count" as the fulfillment of God's promise?)
When the New Testament talks about Abraham, Hagar, and Ishmael, the biblical writer focuses on trust in God's promise, and the freedom vs slavery comparison between Sarah and Hagar. Not the monogamy vs polygamy aspect of it. Very interesting. (Galatians 4:21-31)
And after Hagar gets pregnant, there is drama and jealousy between Hagar and Sarah. Sarah mistreats Hagar and sends her away, into the desert.
So, the bible story about Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar can very easily be interpreted as saying "even though it was normal for men to have multiple wives and/or have sex with their slaves back then, it was obviously wrong, obviously God thought it was wrong, obviously Abraham would have known it was wrong, and you see all the problems that it caused." Sure, I'll give you that. *I* think it's more complicated than that, but okay, you *could* read it that way.
---
Esau
Isaac and Rebekah had 2 sons: Jacob and Esau.
When Esau was forty years old, he married Judith daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and also Basemath daughter of Elon the Hittite. They were a source of grief to Isaac and Rebekah.
Then Rebekah said to Isaac, “I’m disgusted with living because of these Hittite women. If Jacob takes a wife from among the women of this land, from Hittite women like these, my life will not be worth living.”
So Isaac called for Jacob and blessed him. Then he commanded him: “Do not marry a Canaanite woman. Go at once to Paddan Aram, to the house of your mother’s father Bethuel. Take a wife for yourself there, from among the daughters of Laban, your mother’s brother. May God Almighty bless you and make you fruitful and increase your numbers until you become a community of peoples. May he give you and your descendants the blessing given to Abraham, so that you may take possession of the land where you now reside as a foreigner, the land God gave to Abraham.” Then Isaac sent Jacob on his way, and he went to Paddan Aram, to Laban son of Bethuel the Aramean, the brother of Rebekah, who was the mother of Jacob and Esau.
Now Esau learned that Isaac had blessed Jacob and had sent him to Paddan Aram to take a wife from there, and that when he blessed him he commanded him, “Do not marry a Canaanite woman,” and that Jacob had obeyed his father and mother and had gone to Paddan Aram. Esau then realized how displeasing the Canaanite women were to his father Isaac; so he went to Ishmael and married Mahalath, the sister of Nebaioth and daughter of Ishmael son of Abraham, in addition to the wives he already had.
Esau marries 2 Hittite women, and his parents are not happy about this. Specifically, they are unhappy because they don't like Hittites- not because of Esau's polygamy. When Esau realizes they are unhappy, he goes out and marries a third woman who is not a Hittite.
My question is, did that make it better?
Clearly, Esau believed that would make it better. He believed that his parents would be more pleased if he was married to 2 Hittite women + 1 non-Hittite woman, rather than just 2 Hittite women. Was he right? Did Isaac and Rebekah see it as a good thing when Esau married this third woman, Mahalath?
In the past, when I read this passage, with the assumption that obviously polygamy is wrong, I felt it was completely ridiculous that Esau thought he could fix his parents' disapproval of his wives by just marrying another wife. I thought, actually he's making it worse! (And Esau is typically seen as one of the "bad guys" in the bible, so it's very natural for Christians to judge him and say he was wrong about this.)
Esau thought it would be *better* to have 3 wives, 1 of which his parents approved of, rather than having 2 wives. Did his parents see it that way too? Did the biblical writer see it that way?
This bible passage very much does NOT support the assumption that obviously the bible teaches that polygamy is wrong.
---
Jacob
Jacob had 4 wives. Here's how that went down. (See Genesis 29-30)
Jacob was in love with his cousin Rachel, and her father Laban agreed that they could be married. But, on their wedding night, somehow Rachel got swapped with her sister Leah, so Jacob ended up having sex with Leah. (???? What on earth, how can you not notice you're having sex with the wrong person? I think some of these characters knew more than they let on.) So Laban says, "It is not our custom here to give the younger daughter in marriage before the older one. Finish this daughter’s bridal week; then we will give you the younger one also, in return for another seven years of work." So Jacob does that, and that's how he ends up married to both Rachel and Leah.
This is fascinating. You have sex with the wrong person on your wedding night, and the solution to this problem is polygamy? Why was that the go-to solution, and everyone agreed to it? Yes, I know people were weird about women's "virginity" back then- now that Leah had had sex with Jacob, people would see her as worthless if Jacob didn't stay married to her. I don't think this was anyone's ideal solution, yet they all agreed to it, possibly because the alternatives were all worse.
At the very least, it shows us that these characters' attitudes toward polygamy were very different from ours.
Rachel and Leah fought over Jacob's affection- because he loved Rachel rather than Leah. Leah gave birth to a bunch of babies, trying to outdo her sister and earn Jacob's love in that way. Meanwhile, Rachel was unable to have children, and she was jealous of Leah. So, Rachel took her slave, Bilhah, and told Jacob to have sex with her, so Bilhah's children would "count" for Rachel. Then Leah does the same thing with her slave Zilpah. That's how Jacob ends up married to 4 women.
You can see in this story that polygamy causes a lot of problems. Rachel and Leah fight with each other, and they drag Bilhah and Zilpah into it, using them as tools in their competition to see who can have the most children. Then the children from the different wives end up fighting with each other- Joseph is Jacob's favorite child because he's Rachel's son, and the other brothers are jealous and they sell him into slavery and tell Jacob he must have died. Also, Jacob's son Reuben has sex with Bilhah. A lot of family drama going on here.
At the same time, though, I don't really think this bible story is giving us the message "polygamy is always wrong."
It's strange how this is kind of portrayed as not being Jacob's choice, it's just things that happened to him. He gets tricked into having sex with Leah, and then Laban says that means he *has to* marry her, in addition to Rachel. Then Rachel and Leah want Jacob to have sex with their slaves, and they act like if he refuses, it's unfair to them, because they deserve to have children, using slaves if necessary. So he goes along with it. Polygamy is something that just kind of happens, in this story.
Here are a few other interesting things in this story:
In Genesis 31, Jacob decides to leave Laban, pack up everything, and go. He says to Rachel and Leah, "I see that your father’s attitude toward me is not what it was before, but the God of my father has been with me. You know that I’ve worked for your father with all my strength, yet your father has cheated me by changing my wages ten times. However, God has not allowed him to harm me. If he said, ‘The speckled ones will be your wages,’ then all the flocks gave birth to speckled young; and if he said, ‘The streaked ones will be your wages,’ then all the flocks bore streaked young. So God has taken away your father’s livestock and has given them to me." He's talking about how Laban told Jacob that the speckled or streaked goats would belong to Jacob, and then apparently God caused the goats to have more speckled or streaked offspring.
Laban was dishonest in the way he changed Jacob's wages when Jacob worked for him, similar to how he was dishonest when he switched Leah and Rachel on Rachel's wedding night. Jacob doesn't mention that part in this section, but he does say that even through all this, God did not allow Laban to actually harm Jacob. So, does Jacob see it as a bad thing that he ended up with 4 wives? Does he see this as something that God allowed? Does he see this as a way that he ended up blessed by God, in spite of Laban's dishonesty?
After Jacob and his whole family pack up and leave, Laban follows them, unhappy that they left in such a hurry. Jacob and Laban then come to an agreement- check out Genesis 31:48-50,
Laban said, “This heap is a witness between you and me today.” That is why it was called Galeed. It was also called Mizpah, because he said, “May the Lord keep watch between you and me when we are away from each other. If you mistreat my daughters or if you take any wives besides my daughters, even though no one is with us, remember that God is a witness between you and me.”
Laban emphasizes that God is watching, so Jacob better not mistreat Rachel and Leah, or take other wives besides them. But, wait a minute, Jacob ALREADY has taken other wives besides them. So Laban's concern here is not with polygamy itself, but the possibility that Jacob might marry additional wives who become rivals to Rachel and Leah and cause Jacob to mistreat them. If it's just the 2 slaves, Bilhah and Zilpah, Laban knows them and sees that Jacob is still treating Rachel and Leah well, even though these 2 additional wives are in the picture- so Laban is not concerned about them.
In Laban's mind, the issue is not polygamy, but about the way that polygamy might cause Jacob to mistreat some of his wives.
Also, we might even say that this story portrays polygamy in a positive way: The 12 sons of Jacob become the 12 tribes of Israel. This is a very important thing that the bible talks about all the time- the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the 12 tribes of Israel. Is it a good thing, from the biblical writer's perspective, that Jacob had so many wives, because then he was able to have such a huge number of children?
---
Rules about marrying a slave
If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.
As I said in a previous blog post, this passage always confused me because initially it sounds like it's talking about slavery, but then by the end it sounds like it's talking about marriage- as a kid I thought maybe it's about the case where somebody falls in love with his slave and wants to marry her.
No, turns out that when the bible talks about "slavery", we should understand this to mean "sex slavery." (The NIV translation I've pasted above uses the word "servant", but, come on, this is slavery we're talking about.) Kinda messed-up, isn't it, when marriage and slavery blur together and you can't tell which one it's talking about.
Basically what this passage is saying is, if a man has sex with his slave, he has to treat her as a wife and provide for her. If he ends up marrying another woman later, the slave wife is still his wife, and he must provide her "food, clothing and marital rights." "Marital rights" means sex. (See this page which shows how different English translations of the bible treat this verse.)
So basically, the law that God gave in Exodus says if you marry a slave woman, and then you want to marry another woman too, that's fine, but you can't neglect your slave wife. In fact, you must NOT be monogamous- you owe it to your first wife to continue having sex with her.
---
Rules about kings
When you enter the land the Lord your God is giving you and have taken possession of it and settled in it, and you say, “Let us set a king over us like all the nations around us,” be sure to appoint over you a king the Lord your God chooses. He must be from among your fellow Israelites. Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not an Israelite. The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the Lord has told you, “You are not to go back that way again.” He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold.
One of the requirements God gives (through Moses) about kings is "He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray."
Okay, that's interesting- what counts as "many" wives? Would 2 wives be "many" wives? This passage doesn't ban polygamy for kings- it just says a king shouldn't have so many wives that his "heart will be led astray." So... he can have several wives, a moderate number, not an absurd high number- such that it doesn't cause him to go "astray" whatever that means.
(I always assumed "his heart will be led astray" was referring to kings who might marry foreign women who practice other religions, and they will influence the king to follow these other gods. But it could mean other things- like maybe it means there's so much drama going on in his household that he can't focus on his king responsibilities.)
---
What if your firstborn son is the son of the wife you don't love?
If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love. He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his father’s strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him.
So, it's fine for a man to have 2 wives, but he has to treat them fairly. He has to make sure that the firstborn son receives the inheritance that he is supposed to- even if the firstborn is the son of the unloved wife.
This passage shows us one of the common problems that would happen in a polygamous relationship structure- the man favors one wife over the others, and favors her children over the other children. This bible passage says it's wrong to do that. But it doesn't say it's wrong to have multiple wives.
---
Gideon
The story of Gideon is told in Judges 6-8. Here's a basic summary: An angel came to tell Gideon that God wanted him to go fight Israel's enemies. Gideon has a bunch of questions about why he should believe that this angel is legit, and why he should believe that God will give him success if he goes to battle. God gives Gideon some signs, so then Gideon believes it. Then Gideon leads the army to battle- but first, God tells him to send most of his soldiers home. In this way, it's obvious that Gideon's army is way too small, and when they defeat the enemy army, it shows that it was God who did it, not the strength of Gideon's army. In Judges 8, he has sort of a disagreement with some of the Israelites that want to know why he didn't involve them in this battle. Later, near the end of his life, he asks the Israelites to give him some gold, and he makes it into an ephod, and the Israelites worshiped it as an idol, which was a bad idea.
And then, right at the end of the account of Gideon, as the bible is summarizing his life, we find out he had many wives (Judges 8:28-32):
Thus Midian was subdued before the Israelites and did not raise its head again. During Gideon’s lifetime, the land had peace forty years.
Jerub-Baal [Gideon] son of Joash went back home to live. He had seventy sons of his own, for he had many wives. His concubine, who lived in Shechem, also bore him a son, whom he named Abimelek. Gideon son of Joash died at a good old age and was buried in the tomb of his father Joash in Ophrah of the Abiezrites.
The bible portrays Gideon very positively. Typically, when Christians talk about this bible story, we discuss what it says about faith- the way Gideon initially didn't believe the angel and asked for signs, the way he sent most of his soldiers home so everyone would see that his little tiny army's victory was only possible because God was on his side. To the extent that Gideon made mistakes, and we see a few bad things happening as a result of that (like making the gold idol), this has nothing at all to do with his polygamy.
The story of Gideon does not show anything negative happening due to the fact that Gideon had many wives.
In fact, in the passage I pasted above, the point is to show us that Gideon had success during his lifetime. He lived a long life, and Israel was at peace during that time. As another example of Gideon's success, the bible tells us that he had many wives, and seventy sons, wow, good for him!
In Gideon's story, polygamy is portrayed as an indicator of success, of having a good life.
---
Hannah
1 Samuel 1 tells us the story of the birth of Samuel, a very important prophet in the bible. There was a man named Elkanah, who had 2 wives, Hannah and Peninnah. Peninnah had children, and Hannah did not.
Year after year this man went up from his town to worship and sacrifice to the Lord Almighty at Shiloh, where Hophni and Phinehas, the two sons of Eli, were priests of the Lord. Whenever the day came for Elkanah to sacrifice, he would give portions of the meat to his wife Peninnah and to all her sons and daughters. But to Hannah he gave a double portion because he loved her, and the Lord had closed her womb. Because the Lord had closed Hannah’s womb, her rival kept provoking her in order to irritate her. This went on year after year. Whenever Hannah went up to the house of the Lord, her rival provoked her till she wept and would not eat. Her husband Elkanah would say to her, “Hannah, why are you weeping? Why don’t you eat? Why are you downhearted? Don’t I mean more to you than ten sons?”
After this, Hannah prays and makes a vow to God that if she has a son, she will dedicate him to God- and so, she ends up giving birth to a son, Samuel, and brings him to the temple so he will grow up to be a prophet.
Elkanah is a very minor character in the bible- we don't know much about him, but we see that he loves Hannah, he is generous toward her, and he supports her in her vow to send Samuel off to be a prophet. Elkanah is portrayed very positively in the bible- there is no bible verse that says he did a bad thing by having 2 wives.
But this passage does show us one of the common issues caused by polygamy- the conflict between Hannah and Peninnah. Christians can make the argument "see, the bible always portrays polygamy as a bad thing that causes problems like this, so it's always wrong" but I don't see it that way. This was the situation that Hannah, Elkanah, and Peninnah were in- I don't read this passage as saying they shouldn't have been in this relationship structure in the first place. I read it as saying this was a pretty normal relationship structure, and it was also pretty normal to have conflict between the multiple wives, but that doesn't mean the whole entire thing is bad and wrong.
(When you read the story of Hannah and the birth of Samuel in children's bibles, they never mention that her husband had multiple wives!)
---
Saul
Saul was the first king of Israel. God chose him to be king, and initially he was a good king, but then later God was not pleased with him. Modern Christians view Saul as a "bad guy" in the bible.
In 1 Samuel 14:49-51, we find out that Saul's wife's name was Ahinoam. In 2 Samuel 3:7, we find out that he also had a concubine named Rizpah. In 2 Samuel 12:7-8, we find out that Saul had wives that were taken by David after Saul's death- more on this in the section on David below.
So, Saul had multiple wives/concubines. But, he is seen as a bad guy- so should we conclude that this is an example of the bible portraying polygamy as a bad thing? No, not really. The bad things that the bible shows Saul doing are:
- He offers a burnt offering, instead of waiting for the prophet Samuel to come and do it- this goes against God's command. (1 Samuel 13:1-15)
- Generally not being a good leader in battle- he has the army sitting around not doing anything, then he made all the soldiers take a vow to not eat anything, then he finds out his son Jonathan ate honey and so he decides he will kill Jonathan- but then the other soldiers step in and stop him (1 Samuel 14)
- God commanded Saul that after he defeats the Amalekties, he should kill all of them (men, women, and children) and also all of their livestock- but Saul doesn't kill *all* the livestock- this is the incident that leads God to reject Saul as king (1 Samuel 15)
- Saul tries to kill David (1 Samuel 18:10-11, 1 Samuel 19, 1 Samuel 20:30-33)
- Kills everyone in the town of Nob because the priests there helped David (1 Samuel 22)
- Consults a medium- which God had commanded the Israelites not to do (1 Samuel 28)
None of this has anything to do with his multiple wives. The multiple wives are barely mentioned- they are just one tiny detail in the story the bible tells about Saul. Saul was a "bad guy" but polygamy had nothing to do with that- it was normal for kings to have multiple wives, nothing to see here.
David is regarded as a "good guy" in the bible, and we're about to see that David likely had more wives than Saul.
---
David
David had quite a lot of wives. Here, let's try and list them all.
- Michal (1 Samuel 18)
- Abigail (1 Samuel 25)
- Ahinoam (1 Samuel 25:43)
- Maacah, Haggith, Abital, and Eglah (2 Samuel 3:1-5)
- more concubines and wives (2 Samuel 5:13-16)
- Saul's former wives (2 Samuel 12:7-8)
- Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11)
- 10 concubines (might have already been counted in the ones I've listed) (2 Samuel 15:16)
Does the bible portray this as a bad thing?
Well, initially, no. David marries the first 7 wives before he becomes king. For most of this time, he is on the run from Saul. The bible shows David successfully avoiding Saul, being supported by an army of loyal men, and having a bunch of children born to him from 6 of the wives (Michal and David are separated at this part of the story). Basically it shows that David's doing the right thing, obeying God, trusting in God's promise that he will eventually become the king, and God is rewarding him by making him stronger and more successful. Having a bunch of wives is part of that God-given success.
Then, after King Saul dies and David is making his claim to be the next king, one of his conditions is that Michal comes back to him- she had married another man. Michal was Saul's daughter, and it's clear that the reason David wants her back is to show his dominance over the house of Saul. In 2 Samuel 3:12-16, she is forcibly taken from her husband Paltiel, and he follows her, weeping, until he is told to give up and go home.
Does the bible portray this as a bad thing that David did- taking Michal away from her new husband, purely for political reasons, when David already had a bunch of other wives? I don't know what the biblical writer's position was on this. To me, it's a very disturbing story. But also, at that time, men did use women as political tools in their quest for power- this was normal behavior from a man who wanted to become king.
So you can't say "the bible always portrays polygamy as a bad thing." Before David becomes king, he is polygamous, and the bible doesn't show any problems being caused by this. And then, in the process of becoming king, he forcefully takes Michal back, and it's unclear whether the biblical writers sees this as good or bad.
Later, though, David has a bunch of family drama. Was this drama caused by his polygamy? No. It was because he "committed adultery" with Bathsheba (actually rape) and murdered her husband.
Ah, so let's recap the story of Bathsheba, which starts in 2 Samuel 11. David was the king, and one day he happened to see Bathsheba, whose husband Uriah was one of David's soldiers, and ordered her to be brought to him to have sex. (This is rape.) Bathsheba gets pregnant, and David tries to cover it up by having her husband killed and then marrying Bathsheba. Then God sends the prophet Nathan to David to tell him this was wrong.
In 2 Samuel 12:7-12, Nathan tells David that he will be punished:
Then Nathan said to David, “You are the man! This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more. Why did you despise the word of the Lord by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own.’
“This is what the Lord says: ‘Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity on you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.’”
And indeed, after this, a lot of bad things happen in David's family. Bathsheba's baby dies. David's son Amnon rapes his half-sister Tamar. Tamar's brother Absalom murders Amnon in revenge. Then Absalom tries to take over the throne from David, and David is forced to flee- during this time, Absalom rapes some of David's concubines. Eventually Absalom is killed. Later, when David is old, his son Adonijah attempts to become the next king- but David puts a stop to it and says Solomon (Bathsheba's son) will be king instead. Solomon has Adonijah killed.
The way the bible tells it, all of this family drama happened as punishment for David's sin with Bathsheba. Before that, things were fine. David had a bunch of wives, and that was fine.
Look at what Nathan says in that passage I pasted above- "I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms." Nathan says that God gave Saul's former wives to David. God approved of this polygamy. It was a blessing from God, and David should have been grateful, rather than stealing another man's wife. The issue here is not polygamy- David is not condemned for that. It's fine for him to have lots of wives. It only becomes a problem when he takes a woman who is already married.
You could argue that maybe the biblical writer didn't agree with what Nathan said, so we shouldn't take this as saying the bible teaches that God *really did* give Saul's wives to David and approved of his polygamy. You could make that argument. But I don't really buy it.
Maybe the point is that polygamy is okay, as long as it doesn't go too far. David went too far.
---
Solomon
King Solomon is the most well-known example of polygamy in the bible. He had 700 wives and 300 concubines. 1 Kings 11:1-8 says,
King Solomon, however, loved many foreign women besides Pharaoh’s daughter—Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians and Hittites. They were from nations about which the Lord had told the Israelites, “You must not intermarry with them, because they will surely turn your hearts after their gods.” Nevertheless, Solomon held fast to them in love. He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray. As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the Lord his God, as the heart of David his father had been. He followed Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and Molek the detestable god of the Ammonites. So Solomon did evil in the eyes of the Lord; he did not follow the Lord completely, as David his father had done.
On a hill east of Jerusalem, Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the detestable god of Moab, and for Molek the detestable god of the Ammonites. He did the same for all his foreign wives, who burned incense and offered sacrifices to their gods.
King Solomon is portrayed as a very good king, for most of his life. He prays to God to ask for wisdom. If you've heard the story about advising 2 women to cut the baby in half, as a trick to find out who the real mother is- that's King Solomon, that's an example of him being wise. He builds the temple for God. God makes him rich and successful, and Solomon faithfully follows God's commands. Everything is going great for him.
But then, because he has married so many foreign women who practice all kinds of different religions, he starts to go off-track. He allows his foreign wives to set up altars for their gods. God is very unhappy about this- it means Solomon is not faithful to God any more.
Does this story teach us that polygamy is always wrong?
Well, no, not really. The issue here was that Solomon married women who practiced other religions, and he was influenced by his wives' religious practices. What if he had only married 1 woman, and she worshipped different gods, and influenced Solomon to do so too- I think the bible would portray that as just as bad as what we see here. (See: King Ahab, who married Jezebel- and I don't know of any other wives that Ahab had- and the bible portrays Jezebel as being a very bad influence on Ahab because of her foreign religion. Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but I could not find any bible references to other wives Ahab might have had besides Jezebel. I mean, sure, maybe he did, but the bible doesn't mention them- because the bible doesn't see polygamy as a problem, it sees foreign religions as a problem.)
Also, the sheer numbers we're talking about in Solomon's case are just ridiculous. 700 wives and 300 concubines? (I don't think you can even meaningfully say these are "wives"- he can't possibly have had a close relationship with all 700 of them- remember that next time you hear someone talking about "the biblical definition of marriage.") Maybe the point is not "polygamy is wrong" but "marrying 700 wives and 300 concubines is wrong- try to keep your polygamy to a reasonable number."
In the bible, marriage of kings is a special case, because they would marry foreign princesses in order to create political alliances. The bible warns that this might be a bad idea, because these foreign wives will try to influence you to practice their religions, which would be bad. Warnings about polygamy for kings are more about staying true to the "correct" god, rather than being about "God's plan for sex" and/or "the biblical definition of marriage is 1 man + 1 woman."
For the average Israelite man who was not a king, he would just marry an Israelite woman, or perhaps several Israelite women- in that case, you don't have the potential problem of his wives influencing him to practice the "wrong" religion.
The point of the story about Solomon's wives is not "polygamy is bad" but "marrying someone from the wrong religion is bad."
---
Esther
Eventually, the Israelites are captured by Babylon and sent into exile. Esther is an Israelite woman living under the rule of the Persian king Xerxes. Xerxes decides he needs a new queen, so he gathers a bunch of virgin women so he can have sex with each of them and pick one to be the queen.
Then the king’s personal attendants proposed, “Let a search be made for beautiful young virgins for the king. Let the king appoint commissioners in every province of his realm to bring all these beautiful young women into the harem at the citadel of Susa. Let them be placed under the care of Hegai, the king’s eunuch, who is in charge of the women; and let beauty treatments be given to them. Then let the young woman who pleases the king be queen instead of Vashti.” This advice appealed to the king, and he followed it.
Before a young woman’s turn came to go in to King Xerxes, she had to complete twelve months of beauty treatments prescribed for the women, six months with oil of myrrh and six with perfumes and cosmetics. And this is how she would go to the king: Anything she wanted was given her to take with her from the harem to the king’s palace. In the evening she would go there and in the morning return to another part of the harem to the care of Shaashgaz, the king’s eunuch who was in charge of the concubines. She would not return to the king unless he was pleased with her and summoned her by name.
When the turn came for Esther (the young woman Mordecai had adopted, the daughter of his uncle Abihail) to go to the king, she asked for nothing other than what Hegai, the king’s eunuch who was in charge of the harem, suggested. And Esther won the favor of everyone who saw her. She was taken to King Xerxes in the royal residence in the tenth month, the month of Tebeth, in the seventh year of his reign.
Now the king was attracted to Esther more than to any of the other women, and she won his favor and approval more than any of the other virgins. So he set a royal crown on her head and made her queen instead of Vashti. And the king gave a great banquet, Esther’s banquet, for all his nobles and officials. He proclaimed a holiday throughout the provinces and distributed gifts with royal liberality.
This is, uh, this is not great. These women all had to join the king's harem, and didn't have much of a choice.
In terms of drawing conclusions about whether or not the writer of Esther approves of polygamy, I don't think we can really say much. Xerxes was a Persian king- he was not an Israelite, he would not be expected to be following the laws that God gave the Israelites. I think this passage shows us that that's just how some kings back then behaved, that's just the way it was, and doesn't really make a judgement on whether it's good or bad. Instead, the point of the story of Esther is how Esther navigates this oppressive environment, where she has very limited rights even though she is the queen, and how she protects the Jewish people from the threat of genocide.
Even as the queen, Esther is not allowed to go and speak to King Xerxes- she can only see him if he calls for her. The bible basically presents this as, that's just the situation Esther was in, and she bravely went to speak to him anyway, when her people were in danger. The bible doesn't say "hmm it's kind of wrong for a man to treat his wife that way, isn't it?" The bible doesn't say "it wasn't fair to Esther that Xerxes had a whole harem of women he was having sex with." It doesn't really hold him to any kind of standard like that, because, as I said, he was not an Israelite, he was an oppressive ruler over the Israelites- nobody is expecting him to treat them well and/or follow God's laws.
(Anyway, hope you think about that the next time you hear someone talking about "the biblical definition of marriage.")
---
Requirements for leaders in the New Testament
All the examples I have given so far have been from the Old Testament. In the New Testament, I don't know of any characters who were polygamous. (Do we count whatever drama was going on with Herod, Philip, and Herodias? No, I think that was seen as adultery rather than polygamy.) But there are a few places in the New Testament which give requirements for leaders in the church:
1 Timothy 3:2 (in the NIV translation) says an overseer must be "faithful to his wife" and 3:12 says a deacon must be "faithful to his wife." There are many English translations which use the term "the husband of one wife" instead.
Similarly, Titus 1:6, in the NIV, says an elder must be "faithful to his wife," but this is translated as "the husband of one wife" in many English translations of the bible.
What to make of this? "faithful to his wife" sounds like a normal requirement that we would still have today. "the husband of one wife" sounds like it was generally seen as acceptable for men to have multiple wives in that society, but church leaders in particular should not. I don't know which way the biblical writer intended this. Does it mean "I know some of you are polygamous- that's okay, but for leaders, we require them to be monogamous"? Does it mean "I know some of you are polygamous- that's not okay, and obviously not okay for your leaders either"? Does it mean "don't cheat on your wife [with the assumption that polygamous relationships are not accepted at all in this society]"?
The Old and New Testaments are very different in how they portray sex and marriage. As I said, I don't know of any examples of polygamy in the New Testament at all. Perhaps you could make a case that if we *just* look at the New Testament, it teaches that polygamy is wrong. Sure, okay. What I'm arguing against in this blog post is the belief that the whole bible teaches consistently that polygamy is wrong, because oh gosh no it doesn't.
---
What is my point?
So maybe you are reading this thinking, "uh, so Perfect Number thinks biblical-style patriarchal polygamy is okay, and she wants to die on this hill???? what?" No, I don't.
Modern American evangelical Christians claim that the bible clearly and consistently teaches a sexual ethic that goes like this: Sex is ONLY for monogamous hetero marriage. Sure, there were bible characters who had sex outside of marriage, sure, there were bible characters who were polygamous- but those are examples of what NOT to do. The bible always portrays that as wrong, and shows how it causes problems like conflict between the rival wives, or the man not treating all of the wives fairly.
Purity culture puts an additional "purity" lens on it (starting around the 90's, this is what Christian teenagers were taught, though conservative Christians who are older than that are often unaware of this "purity" ideology): The bible clearly and consistently teaches that you need to be pure. You need to be completely inexperienced sexually until your wedding night. If you have any sexual experience at all, you are disgusting. It is just simply disgusting to have sex with someone, and then later have sex with someone else. Eww. You owe it to your future spouse to be pure for them- and yes, these rules apply to both men and women (though in practice we see women getting judged much more harshly than men). God's plan is for you to be with exactly 1 opposite-sex spouse, and God wants you to have no sexual experience at all, ever, except for with this one person. Your sexuality does not belong to you, it belongs to God and your future spouse. If you are not a virgin, you will never have a healthy marriage- you have let someone else take away what belonged to your future spouse- you have bonded with someone in a way you will never get over, which will cast a shadow over your marriage for the rest of your life. Sex is meant to be the most intimate thing you can ever do- it bonds you together emotionally, and that bond will be marred by any previous sexual experience that either of you have. You must only have sex with 1 person, ever, in your entire life (unless you're a widow, then I guess it's okay to find a new spouse). This is God's design for sex. This is what the bible teaches.
It's not just the idea that it's a sin to have sex outside of marriage, or to be polygamous, or to have gay sex, but it's this whole overarching ideal that gets taught as "God's design for sex." From the very beginning, with Adam and Eve, God made sex to be this beautiful, powerful thing which bonds 2 people together. From the very beginning, God gave us clear rules for sex, because sex is so powerful that it's dangerous if it happens outside of the boundaries of God's law. From the very beginning, and all throughout, the bible clearly teaches that sex is a very serious thing that must be respected, we must follow God's laws, you can't just do whatever you want- God made sex, he made it ONLY for monogamous hetero marriage, how dare you think you know better than God.
This is God's plan, this has always been God's plan, this is the very foundational definition of what sex is, what God created it to be. This is God's plan for everyone- everyone should be celibate, right up until they get married to their monogamous opposite-sex partner. (Or, I guess, some people have "the gift of singleness" so God's plan for them is to never have sex or get married.) If you have ever strayed from this ideal, you are disgusting and worthless.
I'm here to tell you that the bible does NOT teach that. AT ALL.
Instead, what we have in the bible is this patriarchal system where men got away with mistreating and using women all the time. Some of the biblical writers didn't see anything wrong with this type of polygamy; in fact, they saw it as a sign of God's blessing. Some of the biblical writers pointed out the problems that can arise, or made laws to try to at least give women some protections.
What we DON'T see in the bible is any kind of concern about a man needing to be "pure" for his wife. What we DON'T see is anybody claiming that any of the problems caused by polygamy are purity-related. What we DON'T see is anybody being concerned about whether a man is able to emotionally bond well with each one of his wives. What we DON'T see is bible heroes living according to the principle "sex is so powerful in the way it bonds people together, it's dangerous if you do it outside of God's laws." (You *could* make the case that that's a valid interpretation of the story of Abraham, but not really for any of the others I've discussed in this post.)
Okay, now I'm getting to my big point, which is:
---
It's like being rich
What does the bible say about being rich? Is it good or bad? Is it a sign of God's favor, or a sin?
Well, the biblical writers are all over the place on this. I won't track down a massive list of references like I've done for polygamy, but let me just show you a few:
Argument: Being rich is a sign of God's blessing
- Genesis 24:35 "The Lord has blessed my master [Abraham] abundantly, and he has become wealthy. He has given him sheep and cattle, silver and gold, male and female servants, and camels and donkeys."
- Deuteronomy 28 - says the Israelites will be blessed in every way if they fully obey God's law, and cursed if they don't
- Malachi 3:10 "'Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this,' says the Lord Almighty, 'and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that there will not be room enough to store it.'"
Argument: Being rich is a sin
- Amos 6:4-7 "You lie on beds adorned with ivory and lounge on your couches. You dine on choice lambs and fattened calves. You strum away on your harps like David and improvise on musical instruments. You drink wine by the bowlful and use the finest lotions, but you do not grieve over the ruin of Joseph. Therefore you will be among the first to go into exile; your feasting and lounging will end."
- Luke 6:20 "Looking at his disciples, [Jesus] said: 'Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.'" and 6:24 "But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort."
- James 5:1-6 "Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming on you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. Look! The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered the innocent one, who was not opposing you."
And there's a lot more where those came from. The bible talks about money way more than it talks about rules we should make for other people's sex lives- but you wouldn't know it if you just look at what kind of culture wars evangelicals are getting into.
So the bible sends some mixed messages about whether being rich is good or bad. In some cases, it's a sign of God's blessing. But, there commonly are problems associated with it- like when rich people are cruel and heartless towards poor people.
I would say the bible portrays polygamy in a similar way. It could be a sign of God's blessing. But also, you have to be aware that there are problems that can arise- like if a man isn't treating all of his wives well, or if the wives are jealous of each other, or the children of the different wives are fighting each other.
This is a far cry from the absolute terms which purity culture uses to talk about "God's design for sex."
---
In which I once again reassure you that I'm not saying that biblical-style patriarchal polygamy is fine
My point isn't "see, the bible says biblical-style patriarchal polygamy is fine, therefore, it is fine." My point is "see, the bible says [in some passages] biblical-style patriarchal polygamy is fine, therefore we shouldn't take the bible as a moral authority over us." Like, my goodness, so many of the verses I've cited here are SO BAD. The way women were treated, SO BAD.
---
So why are Christians so invested in this belief "the biblical definition of marriage is 1 man + 1 woman"?
For some reason, modern American Christians really want to believe that their view of sex and marriage is the view that's "clearly" taught by the bible. They want to believe the bible teaches, in very absolute terms, with life-ruining consequences if you go off-track, that sex is only for monogamous hetero marriage.
The bible doesn't teach that.
Part of this is, obviously, evangelical opposition to same-sex marriage, and to queer people existing in general. When evangelicals started saying, sometime around 2000, that we shouldn't legalize same-sex marriage because it goes against the bible, and then queer activists responded that the bible doesn't really give us a healthy model of marriage, yikes- well, evangelicals had to continue to pretend that it did.
When they started really pushing the slogan "marriage is defined as 1 man and 1 woman," it wasn't just about denying gay people the right to marry. (It was also about denying gay people the right to generally exist as visible members of society...) It was also preemptively taking a stand against polygamy. That was one of the big anti-gay talking points back then: If we let gay people get married, then that totally changes the definition of marriage, and then it's a slippery slope, next thing you know we'll be letting people get into polygamous marriages. And then marry their dogs. Or something.
And here, we should talk about how polygamy is different than polyamory. The polygamy we've been talking about in this blog post is very patriarchal and misogynistic, like a man owns a woman, and he can own multiple women if he wants, the only limiting factor is if he's wealthy enough to provide for them all. In modern times, some people are polyamorous, a concept which looks similar to polygamy on the surface, but it's not really. Polyamory means people who choose to be in relationships that could potentially be open to adding additional partners- and this is consensual, it's something that everyone in the relationship structure understands and agrees to.
I know people who are polyamorous. I support them. I'm queer; I support everyone figuring out what they want or don't want for themselves, and then pursuing it and honestly communicating about it to their partners.
I don't think polyamory was possible during ancient times, because women were never in a position to have a meaningful choice over things like that.
Anyway, it's very strange how conservative Christians use the bible to oppose same-sex marriage and polyamorous relationships, while the bible itself has plenty of examples of polygamy, which was much more harmful than anything that queer people and/or polyamorous people are doing now.
Maybe "strange" isn't quite the right word for it. Maybe what I actually mean is, we should ask some extremely pointed questions about their motivations for misrepresenting the bible in this way.
---
Conclusion
I've heard Christians say many times "yes, there's polygamy in the bible, but it's always portrayed as a negative thing. The bible teaches that marriage *should* always be 1 man + 1 woman." This is not true. This is simply not true. The bible shows plenty of examples of polygamy, and it's a mixed bag. Sometimes, the bible shows the problems that can be caused by it. Sometimes, it's presented as a normal thing. Sometimes it's talked about as a sign of God's blessing on a man.
Basically, very similar to the way the bible talks about being rich.
Modern American evangelical Christians claim they're just following the bible, and the bible "clearly" teaches a view of sex which conveniently allows them to make rules about everyone else's sex lives. But no, they're not getting that from the bible. That should make us ask where they are getting it from, and be very suspicious about their motives.
---
Related:
"The Red Tent" (this bible fanfic is great)
For Rizpah (or, a post about human sacrifice in the bible)
"God has one perfect guy for you!" Yeah, that's not biblical.
No comments:
Post a Comment