All right, let’s sweep aside some of the brush first. You’re calling the Bible’s authority into question here, but as a Christian you already confess that it is God’s Word. That means we’re not starting with the idea that Scripture is one voice among many; we’re starting with the fact that it is the voice that defines what marriage is. The question isn’t whether the Bible is objective—it is—but whether we’re willing to bow to its definitions instead of trying to retrofit them to cultural comfort.

On the “Jesus was married” idea: the authoritative record we have—the Gospels—never even hints at this. If something that significant were true, it wouldn’t have been left out any more than the resurrection would have been left out. Later apocryphal writings that suggest otherwise aren’t just outside the canon, they’re outside the apostolic witness. And biblically, Jesus’ marriage is real—but His bride is the Church (Ephesians 5:25-27), and His covenant with her is the fulfillment of every marriage covenant in redemptive history.

The “different interpretations” among churches don’t make the Bible subjective any more than bad math answers make math subjective. The standard is there in black and white. People can twist it, ignore it, or misapply it, but that’s on them, not on God’s Word.

As for polygamy: Scripture records it, but never commands it. Every time it shows up, it creates division, envy, and rebellion. That’s not me “reading between the lines”; it’s how the Bible itself frames those accounts. The design was laid down in Genesis 2—one man, one woman, one flesh—and Jesus reaffirms that in Matthew 19. That’s the fixed pattern, and anything else is a deviation, however tolerated in times past.

Job’s trials are in a different category altogether. His suffering was the result of a divine test, not a violation of God’s order. You can’t compare his disasters to the messes created by polygamy any more than you can compare a surgeon’s incision to a mugger’s knife wound. Context determines meaning.

On adultery as a crime: under Israel’s covenant law, it was indeed punishable by death. Under the New Covenant, the church’s primary role is ecclesiastical discipline, not wielding the state’s sword, but the moral weight hasn’t changed. God still hates it, and societies that wink at it eventually reap what they sow.

Finally, this isn’t about my private interpretation—it’s about God’s stated design. Our job as Christians isn’t to negotiate the edges of that design but to conform to it. If Scripture says “one man, one woman, covenant for life,” then our standard is fixed, whether the surrounding culture applauds or not. The moment we start treating God’s Word as a menu where we can skip the parts that make us uncomfortable, we stop being hearers and doers of the Word and start being our own final authority. And as Christians, we both know that’s a role we’re not qualified to fill.