Chick-fil-A Biblical Family of the Day

Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy: “We support biblical families.”

Today’s Chick-fil-A Biblical Family of the Day: Joash (2 Chronicles 24:2-3).

Joash did what was right in the sight of the Lord all the days of the priest Jehoiada. Jehoiada got two wives for him, and he became the father of sons and daughters.

"Fun fact I just learned: In Morse code 88 is the abbreviation for love and ..."

‘That’s why we are here’
"I showed one the actual termination letter showing Comey was fired because of hurting Clinton's ..."

‘That’s why we are here’
"I foresee the future of this coin thusly:Several thousand will be minted. Almost a hundred ..."

‘That’s why we are here’
"I am deeply curious what people complaining about the length of the Mueller investigation thought ..."

‘That’s why we are here’

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Darakou

    Guess Fred’s starting to run out of these, 2 wives is pretty par for the course in the bible.

  • I thought that was the point of the series.

  • rm

    We’re going to need new bumper stickers. 1 Man + n Women = Marriage Where 0 < n

  • As I keep saying, Two wives means more kids, and therefore bigger families, all to be brought to Chick-Fil-A of course. Mr. Cathy really should give discounts to polygamists with 20 children or more.

  • Darakou

    Yeah, but this is positively tame compared to the earlier entries with the incest and the cannibalism and whatnot. Maybe he should have started with this one and stepped it up as he went.

  • Carstonio

    I perceive a strong case for polygyny specifically (as opposed to polygamy in general) as almost solely about the man’s wants. Obviously it treats women as a sexual and reproductive commodity, but it also maximizes that commodity in light of the female monthly cycle. If some wives are having their flows, then the husband can use the others for his sexual wants. And since children are also considered fatherly property, polygyny means more wombs on the production line. Although the husbands in polygynous societies might seem like nobles or chieftains, to me they resemble glorified ranchers or herders with the wives as cattle or sheep.

  • But it’s been said that groups of women living together tend to have their periods at the same time after a while. 

  • Carstonio

    True. That would help explain why the husbands keep adding to their herds.

  • MaryKaye

    A _Scientific American_ overview article says that, while the area is still controversial, there’s fairly weak evidence for menstrual synchronization.  Most women have a strongly determined cycle length and they are all different, so it’s hard for them to stay synchronized.  Being around another woman may jiggle your cycle a bit but they don’t go into lockstep.  (This is my experience personally as well–I think the widespread perception that they do synchronize is because times when they match are more striking than times when they don’t.  And if your cycles are different lengths they will eventually match, for a while.)

  • Jim Roberts

    Warning: may trigger rage

    In one of my bible classes in college, we got to talking about the origin of polygamy in Scripture when someone mentioned this very thing – women in close quarters tending to have their menstrual cycles coincide over time.

    The professor’s commented that this must mean that every four weeks Solomon’s house would really stink, hurr hurr. After the shocked silence passed, he had the decency to dismiss the class early and within a week we had an apology from him and a new prof.

  • Münchner Kindl

     I remember reading a side-note (no source though) about how Christian missionaries in Africa, converting the polygynous old-fashioned marriages into “traditional Christian” marriages of only one woman per man, caused a lot of problems for the families, because multiple mothers meant a better chance of breastfeeding for the infants than only one mother, which was kind of important in African countries with frequent drought spells.

    In the Quran, the part that talks about marrying more than one woman also explictly says that “if you can’t afford to treat more than one woman well, you are only allowed one. This is still better for you to be faithful.” (It’s often cited from modern Muslims as to why they don’t have multiple wives – they can’t afford proper care for more than one wife and some children.)

  • Carstonio


    multiple mothers meant a better chance of breastfeeding for the infants
    than only one mother, which was kind of important in African countries
    with frequent drought spells.

    That could be accomplished other ways, such as a cooperative arrangement where all nursing mothers in a village agree to donate time with other mothers’ infants.

    Although mongamy might hypothetically lend itself more easily to sexual egalitarianism than would polygamy, I’m not arguing for the former. I’m really arguing that societies shouldn’t have artificial power imbalances between the sexes. My understanding is that polygyny as a societal norm or widespread practice (as opposed to individual exceptions to a monogamous norm) has almost always had the husband as the authority. Survival for any society shouldn’t depend on investing males with authority over females, in marriages or in general. That would imply that females naturally rebel against bearing children and have to be forced into it for the good of society.

  • flat

    well here is a clear case of values dissonance.
    Then again one of my favorite manga is Otoyomegatari. 

  • glendanowakowsk

    “Hey Joash, I’m going to the store.  Need anything?”
    “Some bread, a quart of milk.  Oh yeah, and a couple of wives.”