Why Do Christians Interpret the Bible Differently?

Christians have been reading the same Bible for centuries, yet they disagree on some remarkably important teachings. So why do Christians interpret the Bible differently when they are often reading exactly the same words? These differences are not limited to minor details. Christians disagree over salvation, baptism, predestination, spiritual gifts, the Sabbath, church leadership, women in ministry, law and grace, the end times, and many other teachings. In many cases, Christians on opposing sides can quote Scripture to support what they believe.

The easy explanation is that some Christians simply misunderstand Scripture. But that answer becomes uncomfortable when we recognise that we could be among them. Every Christian approaches Scripture with existing beliefs, experiences, traditions and assumptions. We may sincerely believe that we simply accept what the Bible says, yet our understanding of what it says can already be influenced by what we expect it to mean.

That leads to an important distinction. There is a difference between what Scripture says and what we believe Scripture means. When we interpret the Bible, we are trying to understand the meaning of the text. Hopefully, our interpretation accurately represents what Scripture teaches. But believing strongly that our interpretation is correct does not make it correct. Sincerity, confidence and even years of studying the Bible do not make any of us incapable of misunderstanding it.

This becomes especially important when our beliefs are firmly established. A Christian may have believed a particular doctrine for decades, heard it preached repeatedly, studied books that support it and belonged to churches where it was accepted as unquestionable truth. Eventually, it can become difficult to separate what the Bible actually teaches from what we have always been taught that the Bible teaches.

The problem becomes even greater when we begin to confuse confidence in our interpretation with faithfulness to God. Once we are convinced that our understanding is what God says, questioning that understanding can feel like questioning Scripture itself. Changing our minds may even feel like compromising biblical truth. At that point, we may no longer be defending Scripture. We may be defending our interpretation of Scripture.

When Our Interpretation Becomes Our Truth

And this is where conviction can gradually become stubbornness. Christians are rightly taught to stand firm in the truth and not be carried away by every new teaching. But standing firm in biblical truth is not the same as refusing to reconsider our understanding of it. If no amount of Scripture or careful examination could ever cause us to question one of our beliefs, we need to ask whether we are still allowing Scripture to correct us.

Why Sincere Christians Reach Different Conclusions

Christians who disagree over doctrine are not necessarily dishonest, rebellious or unwilling to accept Scripture. Two people can sincerely believe that the Bible is the Word of God, study the same passages carefully, pray for understanding and still reach different conclusions. The problem is that none of us reads Scripture without bringing something to the text. Our previous teaching, church tradition, culture, experiences and existing beliefs can influence how we understand what we read, often without us even realising it.

This helps explain why disagreements can continue even when both sides can quote Scripture. We naturally notice passages that support what we already believe, but passages that challenge our beliefs often receive a different treatment. We may explain them through another verse, restrict their application to a particular audience or interpret them according to an established doctrine. Sometimes there are sound biblical reasons for doing this. The danger arises when we consistently allow our existing beliefs to determine how every challenging passage must be understood.

When We Read Into Scripture What We Want to Believe

There is another problem. Sometimes we read into Scripture what we want to believe. This does not necessarily mean that we deliberately twist the Bible. We may genuinely believe our interpretation is correct. But our desires can influence which interpretations seem reasonable to us. A promise of blessing is naturally easier to embrace than a warning of judgment. A message of reward is easier to receive than a command requiring obedience, sacrifice or restraint.

This can become particularly noticeable in the way Christians use the Old Testament. A promise of prosperity, protection, success or restoration given to a particular person or to Israel under particular circumstances may quickly become “God’s promise for my life.” Yet laws, commands and warnings found in the same Old Testament can just as quickly be dismissed with “That was the Old Covenant” or “We are under grace.”

Of course, not every Old Testament command or promise applies directly to Christians. Understanding who was being addressed, under which covenant, and in what circumstances is essential when we interpret the Bible. The problem is inconsistency. We cannot ignore the original audience when a passage contains a warning we do not like, but forget the original audience when the passage contains a blessing we want.

Maybe part of the reason is simply that we prefer good news. We like promises of blessing, protection and reward. We are less comfortable with warnings about sin, obedience, judgment and consequences. Yet if we allow what we want Scripture to say to determine how we understand it, we are no longer asking only, “What does this passage mean?” We are also allowing another question to influence us: “What do I want this passage to mean?”

When Our Theology Decides What Can Apply to Us

Sometimes the way we interpret the Bible is shaped by what we have repeatedly been taught in church. If Christians are taught for years that Old Testament warnings and commands have little relevance because they were given to Israel, they may eventually approach those passages already convinced that the warnings cannot apply to them. Yet some of the same passages may be quoted when they support a moral position or principle the Christian already accepts.

The New Covenant does not make the Old Testament irrelevant or simply replace everything that came before it. It builds upon and fulfils what God had already revealed. The sacrificial system finds its fulfilment in Christ, and the way some laws are administered changes, but the spiritual principles behind God’s commands do not disappear. Those principles were already present in the Old Testament.

Leviticus 19:17–18, for example, commanded God’s people not to hate another person in their heart, not to take vengeance or hold a grudge, and to “love your neighbor as yourself.” The law was therefore never concerned only with outward behaviour. It also addressed what was happening in the heart.

Jesus later referred directly to Leviticus 19:18 when He identified “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” as the second greatest commandment (Matthew 22:39). Yet Jesus took this command even further. When He said, “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another” (John 13:34), He was not introducing the command to love for the first time. What was new was the increased standard by which that love was to be measured. Leviticus said to love your neighbour as yourself. Jesus said, “just as I have loved you, that you also love one another.” Christ’s own sacrificial love became the standard.

This continuity is also evident in 1 John 2:7–8, where John describes the command as both old and new. The old command had not simply been discarded and replaced. Its demands were revealed more fully in Christ.

We see the same principle in Jesus’ teaching concerning murder and adultery. He did not reduce God’s requirements. He showed that obedience reaches beyond the outward act and into the heart. Murder concerns more than physically killing someone. Jesus addressed anger as well. Adultery concerns more than the physical act. Jesus addressed lust in the heart (Matthew 5:21–30).

The New Covenant cannot simply be used as a reason to dismiss Old Testament commands, principles and warnings. In some cases, Jesus places an even greater demand upon His followers. The question should not simply be, “Was this given to Israel?” but “What does this reveal about God’s will, and how does it apply to us under the New Covenant?”

When Doctrine Determines the Answer Before We Read the Text

The same problem can occur with doctrines developed from the New Testament. Once we become firmly convinced that a particular doctrine must be true, we can begin approaching every passage with the conclusion already decided.

For example, a Christian may firmly believe that salvation can never be lost. Due to this, they may read every warning to believers already convinced that it cannot be warning them about losing their salvation. So, they conclude that the warning must mean something else.

In the same way, someone who regards a particular spiritual experience or gift as confirmation of their standing with God may assume that the experience itself proves that their relationship with God is secure.

The issue here is not simply whether either doctrine is right or wrong. The problem occurs when the conclusion begins controlling the interpretation before the passage has been allowed to speak for itself.

This can quietly remove personal accountability. Instead of asking, “What is Scripture warning me against?” we begin asking why the warning cannot apply to us.

Instead of allowing a difficult passage to challenge our theology, we explain it in a way that protects what we already believe. We may then look for another passage that appears to support our belief, even if that passage has to be taken out of context to do so. In this way, we are no longer allowing Scripture to determine our belief. We are using selected parts of Scripture to defend a conclusion we have already reached.

That does not, by itself, prove that the doctrine of eternal security is wrong, nor does it settle debates concerning spiritual gifts. Those questions must themselves be examined from Scripture. The point is more fundamental: no doctrine should be allowed to make us immune to biblical correction before we have even examined what the passage actually says.

The New Testament itself prevents us from simply dismissing Israel’s warnings. After recounting Israel’s sin and judgment, Paul tells Christians:

“Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction…”
1 Corinthians 10:11

He immediately follows this with:

“Therefore let the one who thinks he stands watch out that he does not fall.”
1 Corinthians 10:12

Paul was writing to Christians and deliberately used what happened to Israel as a warning to them. Whatever conclusions we eventually reach concerning individual doctrines, this should at least make us cautious about dismissing an uncomfortable Old Testament warning with the words, “That was for them, not for me.”

When Our Beliefs Become Part of Our Identity

Our beliefs do more than influence how we interpret the Bible. Over time, they can become part of how we identify ourselves as Christians. We may identify with a particular denomination, church tradition or theological position. We may also have personal experiences that we understand through those beliefs. Eventually, questioning the belief can feel like questioning much more than our interpretation of a passage.

When someone then tells us that they believe our interpretation is wrong, we may not hear only, “I think you have misunderstood this Scripture.” It can feel like an attack on our faith, our church, people we respect, experiences that have been important to us, and even part of who we are.

That makes changing our minds much more difficult. We are no longer being asked only to reconsider an interpretation. We may feel that we are being asked to give up something that has helped define our Christian identity.

We can see this in the labels Christians use for themselves. Someone may identify as a Baptist, Pentecostal, Charismatic, Calvinist, Arminian, Adventist, Reformed Christian or by another theological or denominational label. There is nothing necessarily wrong with using a label to describe what we believe. The danger begins when the label becomes something we feel we must defend.

At that point, evidence against one of our beliefs can feel like evidence against us. Reconsidering a doctrine may mean reconsidering a label we have used for years, teachings we have defended, experiences we have interpreted through that belief, or even the church community to which we belong.

This can make a theological discussion surprisingly emotional. The person questioning our interpretation may only be asking us to reconsider what a passage means, but we can experience the question as something much bigger. If my belief has become part of how I identify myself, challenging my belief can feel like challenging who I am.

And that creates another danger when we interpret the Bible. Instead of asking, “Could I be wrong?”, we may instinctively begin defending the belief because, without realising it, we are also defending ourselves.

When Spiritual Experiences Become Part of Our Identity

For some Christians, this identity is also connected to claimed spiritual gifts and experiences. A person may identify themselves as someone who speaks in tongues, receives prophecy, experiences healing, receives words from God, or operates in other spiritual gifts. These experiences can become more than something they believe has happened. They can become part of how they understand who they are as a Christian and their relationship with God.

This can make biblical examination especially difficult. Questioning the interpretation of an experience may be heard as questioning whether the experience happened at all, whether the person genuinely has the Holy Spirit, or even whether their faith is real. The discussion therefore becomes deeply personal.

Yet an experience, no matter how sincere or powerful it may seem, cannot be what determines how we interpret the Bible. The experience itself must also be tested by Scripture. Otherwise, we risk reversing the proper order. Instead of using Scripture to determine how we should understand our experiences, we begin interpreting Scripture in a way that protects what we have already experienced and believe to be true.

This distinction is important. We are not necessarily saying that someone invented or imagined an experience. They may genuinely have experienced something. The question is whether their interpretation of that experience is biblically correct.

Two pairs of glasses resting on an open Bible, illustrating how different perspectives can influence how Christians interpret the Bible.

Are We Willing to Be Wrong?

Maybe one of the most important questions we can ask ourselves when we interpret the Bible is this:

What evidence from Scripture would cause me to admit that one of my beliefs is wrong?

If the truthful answer is “nothing,” then we have a problem. Our belief has become something that Scripture is no longer permitted to challenge.

This does not mean that we should constantly doubt everything we believe. Christians should have convictions, and we should stand firmly on what Scripture teaches. But there is an important difference between saying, “I will not abandon what Scripture teaches” and saying, “I will not reconsider what I believe Scripture teaches.”

The first is conviction. The second can become stubbornness.

Being willing to reconsider an interpretation does not mean that our faith is weak. It means that our loyalty to Scripture must be greater than our loyalty to a denomination, a theological system, a preacher, a spiritual experience, or even a belief we have defended for many years.

And that willingness must apply to all of us.

We should be willing to test the teachings of others against Scripture, but we must also be willing to allow Scripture to test us.

Why Do Christians Interpret the Bible Differently?

So, why do Christians interpret the Bible differently?

  • Sometimes it is because we have been taught differently.
  • Sometimes our church tradition influences how we understand a passage.
  • Sometimes we approach Scripture with an established theology that already tells us what a passage can or cannot mean.
  • Our experiences can influence us.
  • Our desires can influence us.
  • And sometimes a belief has become so closely connected to our identity that questioning the belief feels like questioning who we are.

None of this means that truth is impossible to know, or that every interpretation is equally valid. Two contradictory teachings cannot both be true simply because sincere Christians believe them. Scripture still has meaning, and our responsibility is to seek that meaning rather than the meaning we would prefer it to have.

And that requires more humility than we sometimes realise. We can study Scripture for decades and still misunderstand something. We can have qualifications, preach sermons, teach others, defend a doctrine passionately and still discover that we were wrong.

We Can Hear Wrong Too

There may be no person more stubborn than a Christian who is convinced that their interpretation of Scripture is what God Himself has said. Once we reach that point, changing our minds can feel like compromising God’s Word.

The same danger exists when we believe that we have heard directly from God. A Christian may sincerely say, “God told me”, “God showed me“, or “The Holy Spirit revealed this to me”. Once we attach God’s authority to what we believe we have heard or understood, questioning it can become even more difficult.

But we can hear wrong. We can misunderstand. We can mistake our own thoughts, desires, emotions or expectations for God’s direction. Sincerity does not make us incapable of error.

That is one reason Scripture tells believers to “test the spirits” (1 John 4:1) and “examine everything; hold firmly to that which is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). Even something we believe has come from God must not be placed beyond biblical examination.

No new revelation, prophecy or message claimed to be from God or the Holy Spirit will contradict what God has already revealed in Scripture. God does not contradict Himself. If what we believe we have heard contradicts Scripture, then what we heard did not come from God, regardless of how strongly we believe that it did.

Scripture must remain the final authority. We should never reinterpret the Bible to protect something we believe God personally told us.

But sometimes changing our minds is exactly what submission to God’s Word requires.

The goal should never be to make Scripture agree with us.

The goal is to allow Scripture to correct us.

This Article Answers the Following Questions:

This article addresses several questions Christians commonly ask about understanding Scripture, including:

  • Why do Christians interpret the Bible differently?
  • Why are there so many different Christian beliefs?
  • Why do Christians disagree about what the Bible says?
  • How do I know if I am interpreting the Bible correctly?
  • Can Christians misunderstand the Bible?
  • Does the Old Testament still apply to Christians today?
  • How should Christians interpret Old Testament laws and warnings?
  • Can church tradition influence how we interpret the Bible?
  • Can our personal beliefs affect how we interpret Scripture?
  • How do we know if a message or prophecy is really from God?
  • Can Christians mistake their own thoughts for God’s voice?
  • How should Christians test what they believe against Scripture?
Dr Francois Meyer with banner across bottom stating, theology and biblical studies.

Written by Francois Meyer (PhD, DDiv, DTh)

Visit the online store for courses and books

Was Marriage Invented by Humans or Instituted by God?

A recent social media post claimed that marriage was not instituted by God but invented by humans. The author argued that marriage existed long before the Book of Genesis was written, that many biblical figures had multiple wives, and that ancient civilizations treated marriage as a legal contract rather than a sacred institution. As a result, the post concluded that marriage is simply a human invention that has evolved over time.

At first glance, these arguments can seem convincing because they contain a number of historical facts. Ancient civilizations did have marriage laws before the Old Testament was written down. The patriarchs of Israel did practice polygamy. And marriage has taken many different forms throughout history and across cultures. However, do these facts really prove that God did not institute marriage?

Was Marriage Invented by Humans or Instituted by God?

Bold split-design illustration asking, 'Was Marriage Invented by Man?' The left side depicts human tradition with dark city imagery, while the right shows a couple walking toward a bright sunrise, symbolizing God's design for marriage as presented in the Bible.

The answer depends on asking the right question. The issue is not whether ancient societies practiced marriage before Genesis was written. Christians have never claimed that marriage began when Moses wrote the Book of Genesis. Rather, the question is whether Genesis records God’s original design for marriage at the beginning of human history, or whether marriage is nothing more than a social institution created by human societies for practical reasons.

To answer that question, we need to distinguish between history and theology, between describing what people did and prescribing what God intended. We also need to examine the claims carefully, instead of accepting conclusions simply because they sound persuasive.

In this article, we will consider both the historical evidence and the biblical evidence. We will examine ancient marriage practices, the marriages of the patriarchs, the teaching of Jesus, and the purpose of marriage in Scripture. By the end, we should be able to answer an important question: Was marriage invented by humans, or was it instituted by God?

Marriage Existed Before Genesis Was Written

One of the core claims made in the social media post is that humans were marrying thousands of years before the Book of Genesis was written. This statement is historically correct, but it does not prove the conclusion the author draws from it.

Most biblical scholars agree that Genesis was written down during the second millennium or first millennium BC, depending on their view of its authorship and composition. However, the events recorded in Genesis, including the creation of Adam and Eve, are presented as taking place long before the book itself was written. Christians have never believed that marriage began when Moses wrote the words of Genesis. They believe Genesis records what happened at the beginning of human history.

This is an important distinction. The date a historical account is written is not the same as the date of the events it describes. For example, a modern history book about Julius Caesar may be written more than two thousand years after his death, yet no one would argue that Julius Caesar only existed when the book was published. In the same way, the fact that Genesis was written after ancient civilizations already had marriage customs does not determine whether the events it records actually happened.

The social media post also points out that ancient civilizations such as Mesopotamia had marriage contracts long before Israel became a nation. This is also true. Archaeologists have discovered legal documents and law codes, including the Code of Hammurabi, that regulated marriage, inheritance, divorce, and property rights. These records show that marriage was an established social institution in the ancient Near East.

Was Marriage Invented by Humans?

However, these documents tell us how societies regulated marriage. They do not tell us where marriage originated. Governments regulate many aspects of life, but regulation does not necessarily mean they created the institution itself. Modern governments have laws governing adoption, inheritance, education, and contracts, yet no one concludes that governments invented families, learning, or promises.

The historical evidence therefore establishes that ancient societies recognized and regulated marriage. It does not answer the larger question of whether marriage was originally designed by God or developed entirely through human culture. To answer that question, we must turn to the biblical account itself.

Did God Institute Marriage?

The Bible’s teaching about marriage begins, not with Abraham, Moses, or the nation of Israel, but with creation itself. According to Genesis, marriage was not introduced as part of Israel’s law or culture. It was established before sin entered the world, before governments existed, and before any nation had been formed.

After creating Adam, God declared:

“It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” (Genesis 2:18 – NASB)

This is the first time in the creation account that God says something is “not good.” Everything else in creation had been pronounced good, yet Adam’s aloneness was incomplete. God’s solution was not to create another man, a group of companions, or a social institution. He created one woman, Eve, as Adam’s corresponding partner.

Genesis then records the establishment of marriage:

“Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24 – NASB)

This verse is significant for several reasons.

First, it speaks of a man and his wife. The language is singular, presenting one man and one woman becoming one flesh. The verse does not describe every form of marriage that would later exist in human history. Instead, it presents the relationship established at creation.

Second, marriage is described as a permanent union. The man leaves his parents, is joined to his wife, and together they become “one flesh.” This is far more than a legal contract. It describes a unique covenant relationship in which two individuals become united in a way that affects every area of life.

Third, this passage appears before the Fall. It is not part of the Law of Moses or the civil regulations given to Israel. It belongs to God’s created order. For this reason, Christians have traditionally understood Genesis 2:24 as revealing God’s original design for marriage rather than simply describing an ancient cultural practice.

This distinction is important. The Bible often records what people did without presenting it as God’s ideal. Genesis 2:24 is different. It is not describing a failure or compromise. It is describing God’s own work before sin distorted human relationships.

The question, then, is not whether later societies developed different forms of marriage. The question is whether God’s design at creation remains the standard against which all later definitions of marriage should be measured. As we shall see, Jesus answered that question directly.

If God Instituted Marriage, Why Did the Patriarchs Have Multiple Wives?

One of the strongest objections raised against the biblical view of marriage is that many of the Old Testament’s most well-known figures had multiple wives. Abraham had Sarah, Hagar, and later Keturah. Jacob married Leah and Rachel and also had children through Bilhah and Zilpah. David had several wives, and Solomon famously had hundreds of wives and concubines.

If God instituted marriage as one man and one woman, why did He allow these marriages to take place?

The answer begins with an important principle: the Bible often records what people did without approving of it.

This distinction between description and prescription is very important. A descriptive passage tells us what people did. A prescriptive passage tells us what God commands or intends. Confusing the two has led to many misunderstandings.

For example, the Bible records Noah’s drunkenness, Lot’s incest, David’s adultery, Peter’s denial of Christ, and Judas’s betrayal. No one argues that these actions are approved simply because they are recorded in Scripture. The Bible honestly records both faithfulness and failure.

The same principle applies to polygamy.

Polygamy means having more than one spouse. Polygyny refers to one man with multiple wives. Polyandry refers to one woman with multiple husbands.

Although the Old Testament records men having multiple wives, it also records the painful consequences that followed.

Abraham’s decision to have a child through Hagar brought conflict between Hagar and Sarah, division within the household, and lasting tension between their descendants (Genesis 16; 21).

Jacob’s marriages resulted in jealousy, rivalry, and constant competition between Leah and Rachel. Their relationship affected the entire family and contributed to bitterness among Jacob’s children (Genesis 29–30).

David’s family experienced repeated conflict, immorality, and violence. Although not every problem can be traced directly to polygamy, the fractured family relationships certainly did not reflect the peace God intended.

Solomon probably provides the clearest example. Scripture specifically states that his many wives turned his heart away from the Lord and led him into idolatry (1 Kings 11:1–8). Rather than presenting his marriages as a blessing, the Bible presents them as a major cause of his spiritual downfall.

It is also significant that nowhere does God command His people to take multiple wives. The Mosaic Law contains regulations concerning polygamous households, but these laws acknowledge that the practice existed. They do not establish it as God’s ideal. Just as the Law regulated divorce, slavery, and other realities within a fallen world, it also regulated situations that fell short of God’s original design.

The consistent pattern throughout Scripture is that departure from God’s design brings painful consequences. The patriarchs were men of faith, but they were also imperfect sinners. Their lives showed God’s grace despite human failure, not God’s approval of every decision they made.

This raises another important question.

If the examples of the patriarchs do not establish God’s ideal for marriage, where should we look?

According to Jesus, the answer is not found in what Israel’s ancestors did but in God’s design at creation.

Colorful illustration of a couple walking hand in hand toward a bright sunrise along a peaceful path, contrasting human tradition with God's design for marriage. The bold headline asks, 'Marriage: Human Tradition or God's Design?' against a vibrant landscape symbolizing the choice between human ideas and God's original design. It indirectly asks the question, "was marriage invented by man?"

What Did Jesus Teach About Marriage?

The clearest answer to the question of God’s design for marriage comes from Jesus Himself. Interestingly, when He was asked about marriage and divorce, He did not appeal to the examples of Abraham, Jacob, David, or Solomon. Instead, He went back to the beginning.

The Pharisees asked Jesus whether it was lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason (Matthew 19:3). Rather than entering a debate about the different schools of Jewish interpretation, Jesus directed their attention to the creation account in Genesis.

He replied:

“Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no man separate.” (Matthew 19:4–6 – NASB)

Notice what Jesus does.

First, He combines Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24. He begins with God creating humanity as male and female and then quotes the passage describing a man leaving his parents and being joined to his wife.

Second, Jesus attributes the institution of marriage to God. He concludes by saying, “What God has joined together.” Therefore, marriage is more than a human agreement or legal contract. It is a union that God Himself establishes.

Third, Jesus deliberately returns to creation rather than later Old Testament practices. He does not defend polygamy by pointing to the patriarchs, nor does He justify easy divorce because it was permitted under the Law of Moses. Instead, He treats Genesis as revealing God’s original intention.

The Pharisees immediately raised the obvious question:


They said to Him, “Why, then, did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?” (Matthew 19:7)

Jesus answered:

“ He *said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.” (Matthew 19:8)

This statement is very important.

Jesus distinguishes between what God originally intended and what Moses later permitted because of human sinfulness. The permission to divorce was not the original design. It was a concession made because people lived in a fallen world.

The same is true of other Old Testament practices. God gave laws about divorce, but that does not mean He wanted people to divorce.

The Mosaic Law also contains laws for situations in which a man had more than one wife. For example, Exodus 21:10 required a husband who took another wife to continue providing food, clothing, and marital rights for his first wife. Deuteronomy 21:15–17 protected the inheritance rights of the firstborn son in a polygamous household. These laws did not command or encourage polygamy. They recognized that the practice existed and protected women and children from being treated unfairly. T

The fact that polygamy existed among God’s people did not make it God’s ideal or mean that He approved of it.

In fact, Israel’s kings were specifically warned not to multiply wives for themselves because doing so would turn their hearts away from the Lord (Deuteronomy 17:17).

For Jesus, the standard was never the customs of ancient Israel or the practices of its patriarchs. The standard was the beginning.

This is why Christians believe God’s design for marriage is found in Genesis rather than in the later examples of Abraham, Jacob, David, or Solomon. Jesus Himself pointed beyond Israel’s history to creation, affirming that God’s intention from the beginning was the union of one man and one woman becoming one flesh.

Does Cultural Diversity Prove Marriage was invented by Humans?

The social media post also argues that because marriage has taken many different forms throughout history, it must be a human invention rather than something instituted by God.

It is certainly true that cultures have practiced marriage in different ways. Throughout history there have been societies that accepted polygyny (one man with multiple wives), others that practiced polyandry (one woman with multiple husbands), and still others that developed customs such as arranged marriages, ghost marriages, or families in which the husband moved into the wife’s household. Anthropologists have documented a remarkable variety of marriage traditions around the world.

However, this diversity does not answer the question of where marriage originated.

Different cultures have also held very different views on slavery, justice, inheritance, child sacrifice, and the value of human life. Some practices have been accepted in one society and condemned in another. The existence of different customs does not prove that there is no objective moral standard. It simply shows that people and societies do not always live according to the same standard.

The Bible repeatedly shows that humanity has departed from God’s design in many areas of life because of sin. The existence of practices that differ from God’s will should not surprise us. In fact, Scripture expects it.

This is why Christians do not determine what is right simply by looking at what most cultures have done or believed. If the majority determined what was true, then slavery, idolatry, and child sacrifice would all have been considered morally acceptable at various points in history.

Instead, Christians begin with God’s revelation.

The question is not, “What have people believed or done?”

The question is “What has God revealed?”

According to Jesus, the answer is found in the creation account, where God established marriage as the lifelong union of one man and one woman.

The variety of marriage customs throughout history tells us a great deal about human cultures. It does not tell us whether those customs reflect God’s original design. That question can only be answered by examining what God has revealed in Scripture.

Colorful illustration of a couple walking hand in hand toward a sunset, symbolizing God's design for marriage. The image asks, 'Marriage: Human Tradition or God's Design?' and highlights Jesus' teaching that marriage should be understood from God's design at creation (Matthew 19:4).

Is Marriage Only a Human Contract?

Another claim often made is that marriage began as nothing more than a business arrangement. Ancient marriage contracts certainly focused on practical matters such as dowries, inheritance, property, and the legitimacy of children. The Code of Hammurabi and other ancient law codes show that these issues were important in the ancient world.

No Christian should deny these historical facts. Marriage has always had legal and economic implications. Throughout history, it has affected inheritance, family alliances, financial responsibilities, and the care of children. Civil governments have therefore recognized and regulated marriage for thousands of years.

However, the fact that marriage has legal aspects does not mean it is only a legal institution.

Here is an example:

When two people purchase a house, they sign legal documents that establish ownership and protect their rights. Those documents are real and important, but they do not create love, friendship, or commitment. They simply recognize and protect an existing relationship or agreement.

The same is true of marriage. A marriage certificate records that a marriage exists, but it does not create the one-flesh relationship described in Genesis. The legal contract recognizes the marriage. It is not the source of the marriage.

The Bible presents marriage as far more than a civil agreement. Before there were governments, courts, or written contracts, God declared:

“It is not good that the man should be alone.” (Genesis 2:18)

He then created Eve and joined her to Adam. Genesis describes marriage as a relationship of companionship, covenant, and unity in which a man and a woman become “one flesh.” These truths existed before any human government established laws concerning marriage.

This does not mean civil marriage is unimportant. Governments have a legitimate role in recognizing marriages, protecting spouses and children, and establishing legal responsibilities. Christians should respect these laws where they do not conflict with God’s commands. But recognizing a marriage is different from creating marriage.

Throughout history, societies have defined marriage in different ways and attached different legal rights to it. Those definitions may change from one culture to another. According to Scripture, however, God’s design for marriage does not change. It was established by the Creator before any human government existed.

Therefore, the historical evidence and the biblical evidence point to different conclusions. History shows that human societies have regulated marriage in many different ways. Scripture teaches that the institution itself began with God at creation.

Conclusion

The claim that marriage is a human invention often sounds persuasive because it is built on genuine historical facts. Ancient civilizations had marriage contracts before the Book of Genesis was written. Marriage took different forms in many cultures. Several of the Old Testament patriarchs had multiple wives. None of these facts should be ignored or denied.

However, historical facts do not always support the conclusions people draw from them.

The existence of marriage contracts shows that ancient societies regulated marriage. It does not show that they invented it. The examples of polygamy in the Old Testament show what some people did. They do not establish God’s ideal for marriage. The variety of marriage customs throughout history demonstrates that human cultures have differed widely. It does not answer the question of what God intended from the beginning.

For Christians, the ultimate authority is not ancient culture, it is God’s revelation. This is why Jesus did not point His listeners to Abraham, Jacob, David, or Solomon when asked about marriage. He pointed them back to creation.

When Jesus returned to Genesis, He affirmed that marriage was established by God as the lifelong union of one man and one woman becoming one flesh. Human societies have often departed from that design, but the original pattern has not changed.

Ultimately, the question is the same one Jesus answered. Should we look to the changing customs of human societies, or should we return to God’s design from the beginning?

As Christians, our answer must be the same as Jesus’ answer: “From the beginning.”

This article answers:

  • Did God Really Institute Marriage?
  • Was Marriage Invented by Humans or Instituted by God?
  • Does the Bible Teach That Marriage Is Between One Man and One Woman?
  • If God Created Marriage, Why Did Bible Characters Have Multiple Wives?
  • Was Marriage Invented by Humans or Instituted by God?
  • Did Marriage Exist Before the Bible?
  • Does the Bible Approve of Polygamy?
  • What Is God’s Original Design for Marriage?
  • Did Christianity Invent Marriage?
Dr Francois Meyer with banner across bottom stating, 
theology and biblical studies.

Written by Francois Meyer (PhD, DDiv, DTh)

Visit the online store for courses and books

Posted in Uncategorised

Is Autism Caused by a Demon?

Some Christian parents have been told that their child’s autism is caused by a demon and that deliverance is the answer. Before making or accepting such a serious claim, there is one important question every Christian should ask: Does the Bible actually teach this?

Graphic asking whether autism and ADHD are caused by a demon, featuring a shadowy figure, an open Bible, and the autism infinity symbol, emphasizing a biblical examination of common claims about autism and ADHD.

This question is important not only for Christians, but also for autistic individuals and parents, whether they are Christian or not, who have encountered these claims and judgments. Some have stopped attending church because of what they were told. Others have questioned or even abandoned the Christian faith altogether because they could not accept teachings they were told represented biblical Christianity. If those teachings are not actually supported by Scripture, they should not become barriers that prevent people from honestly examining the Christian faith.

Few subjects create more confusion among Christians than autism and ADHD. Christians hold widely differing views about their causes. Some believe autism is a neurological condition. Others believe it is caused by demonic activity. These very different explanations cannot all be correct. Every claim should therefore be examined carefully in the light of Scripture.

Current scientific evidence describes autism as a neurodevelopmental condition that begins during early brain development, before birth. Research indicates that genetic factors are significant, and that various prenatal and early developmental factors may also contribute. Science cannot investigate or measure spiritual beings such as angels or demons. It can, however, investigate the physical and neurological characteristics of autism, and decades of research have consistently found evidence of differences in brain development rather than evidence that autism is caused by demonic activity.

Is Autism a Generational Curse?

The discussion does not end there. Some Christians reject the idea that autism is caused by a demon but instead believe it results from a generational curse. This is another serious claim that deserves careful biblical examination rather than assumption. In my book, I explain what the Bible actually teaches about generational curses, how these passages have often been misunderstood, and whether they can legitimately be applied to autism or ADHD. Many readers discover that the biblical teaching differs from what they have often heard.

What Does the Bible Actually Say?

If autism were caused by a demon, we would expect the Bible to say so clearly. Scripture records many accounts of demonic activity, yet it also describes those encounters in specific ways. The important question is whether those biblical descriptions match the lifelong characteristics of autism. Rather than relying on assumptions or personal experiences, we should carefully examine what the Bible actually says before reaching a conclusion.

If autism were the result of generational curses, we would likewise expect the Bible to teach this clearly. Yet before drawing that conclusion, we must first ask what the Bible actually means by a generational curse, who was affected, under what circumstances, and whether those passages can legitimately be applied to autism or ADHD today. These are important questions that deserve careful biblical study rather than assumptions or traditions.

Why Context Matters

One of the most common reasons Christians reach different conclusions is that Bible verses are often read in isolation from their context. A passage may sound convincing when quoted on its own, yet teach something quite different when read alongside the surrounding verses, the historical setting, and the rest of Scripture. Before concluding that autism or ADHD is caused by a demon or a generational curse, we should carefully examine every passage that is commonly used to support those claims.

A Biblical Response Begins with Scripture

Questions about autism deserve more than assumptions, opinions, or traditions. They deserve careful biblical study. If we are going to make serious claims about the cause of autism or ADHD, we should be able to support those claims with clear teaching from Scripture, understood in its proper context.

In Autism, ADHD, and the Bible, I examine the biblical passages most often used to support these claims, compare them with the characteristics of autism and ADHD, and explore what the Bible actually teaches. My goal is not to win an argument, but to help Christians respond with biblical truth, wisdom, and compassion.

The Proof Is in Scripture

Behind every theological discussion about autism is a real person, a real family, and often years of confusion, unanswered questions, and unnecessary pain. For that reason, Christians should be especially careful not to make claims that Scripture does not make. God’s Word is sufficient to teach what God intends us to believe. We should therefore be careful not to attribute teachings or beliefs to Scripture that it does not clearly present, especially when such teachings and beliefs greatly affect the lives of autistic individuals and their families.

I pray that this discussion will encourage Christians to examine the Scriptures carefully, support autistic individuals and their families with truth and compassion, and remove unnecessary barriers that have prevented some people from considering the Christian faith. That is the purpose behind the book: Autism, ADHD, and the Bible.

3D mockup of the book Autism, ADHD, and the Bible by Francois Meyer, PhD, showing one hardcover copy slightly open and standing on two closed copies against a light background
Portrait of Dr. Francois Meyer (DTh, DDiv, PhD), theologian and author, shown in a professional headshot against a neutral background, associated with an article on biblical discernment and testing spiritual claims in the digital age.

Written by Francois Meyer (DTh, DDiv, PhD)

Join the live Sunday sermons on YouTube for Scripture-focused teaching in a quiet, pressure-free environment.

You can view the Live Bible Teaching on Sundays
Join us every Sunday for in-depth Bible teaching.
🔔 Subscribe and turn on notifications.

🕘 Live at 09:30 (South Africa time)
🌍 Check your local time here

Spend some time on the website for more topics, studies, and blogs.
You will find answers to many questions in the blogs.

Visit the online store to enroll in a deep study of the Bible.

Posted in Uncategorised

Is God Speaking Through Social Media?

Understanding “Fortune-Cookie Faith” and Spiritual Manipulation Online

Is God Speaking Through Social Media? Many Christians today encounter short, comforting religious messages on social media that claim divine authority, leading many to ask whether God is speaking through social media itself. Phrases like “God led you to read this,” “If it is God’s will, nothing can stop it,” or “Type Amen to defeat Satan” are shared thousands of times every day.

These posts feel encouraging. They feel peaceful. They feel spiritual.

Many ask: “Is God Speaking Through Social Media?”

Continue reading →
Posted in Uncategorised

Should We Use the Name “Yahweh”? The no.1 Error

Many believers today use the name “Yahweh” in worship, prayer, and even breathing exercises, assuming it is the proper and biblical way to address God. It appears in popular songs, devotions, and online teachings, often presented as a rediscovered “holy name” that offers deeper intimacy with God.

But a crucial question is almost never asked:

Should Christians use the name “Yahweh” at all?

Continue reading →
Posted in Uncategorised