Anything in the OT that bans polygamy?

[Benadam]

You claimed that God never approved of polygamy, but then why did he want ONE man to love TWO women and impregnate them which is what happened in Genesis 29:30-33? Your claim conflicts with clear biblical evidence.

I don’t see God having a part in the polygamy. I see that it comes about through deception. The desire was for the ideal form of marriage but polygamy became an unwanted obstacle imposed by Laban. This story demonstrates the deficiency inherent in this form of marriage. The marital bond is forced to conform to a matrimony that is unnatural and difficult unable to fulfill it’s purpose. As the two passages below typify.

So Jacob went in to Rachel also,and he loved Rachel more than Leah.
31 When the Lord saw that Leah was unloved,

This would be reasonable reasons to allow polygamy, but there are a few problems here. One obvious problem is that it’s pure speculation unless you have evidence to show why God allowed polygamy. I would claim that it was allowed for love for more than one woman. Your claim is just as good as mine because it’s based on speculation.
[/quote

]Not speculating here. I’m not interpreting just informing you about the morality of polygamy as I’ve learned from my faith.
It looks like God had to work to right the evil caused by polygamy here. No happy lives. Laban used his daughters and Jacob. The consent was for a normal marriage. The deception and immorality of Laban forced polygamy here. That’s not evidence of God’s will. Also it demonstrates the evils that would have to be considered in the example I gave.

If what you said were true, then the Catholic Church would allow polygamy in some circumstances rather than banning it completely.

Agnosticboy, I posted the Catholic view. It is not the ideal only permissible in conditions that are practically non-existent

In what circumstance, would it be okay to rape a woman? Or is rape always wrong? In what circumstance would it be okay to reject God?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

I respectfully disagree. Just because Jesus said divorce was “allowed” doesn’t give you a free pass to arbitrarily claim that something else was also allowed in the same way. First prove that God did not want polygamy just like he didn’t want divorce. If anything my two pieces of evidences covers this point since God was directly involved in promoting polygamous relationships, which goes against “allowing”. Also, polygamy is accounted for in the ‘moral’ law.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

I don’t see God having a part in the polygamy. I see that it comes about through deception. The desire was for the ideal form of marriage but polygamy became an unwanted obstacle imposed by Laban. This story demonstrates the deficiency inherent in this form of marriage. The marital bond is forced to conform to a matrimony that is unnatural and difficult unable to fulfill it’s purpose. As the two passages below typify.

You left the key pieces out. While Jacob’s polygamy started as a result of deception, the fact of the matter is that he had two wives which again is polygamy. God plays a role not in the start but in the continuing of the relationship since he wanted Jacob to love TWO wives and impregnate them. You’re arguing as if only starting polygamy counts as polygamy when loving TWO women and impregnating them is also part of polygamy.

It looks like God had to work to right the evil caused by polygamy here. No happy lives. Laban used his daughters and Jacob. The consent was for a normal marriage. The deception and immorality of Laban forced polygamy here. That’s not evidence of God’s will. Also it demonstrates the evils that would have to be considered in the example I gave.

You’re not factoring in though that God is all-good, so if he’s going to “right” something it should be in a moral way. Under your logic, If polygamy was wrong, then “righting” the situation for an all-good God should’ve involved breaking up the unlawful relation. Remember, God had no problem calling out adultery like when he told a king not to touch Abram’s wife. But yet you consider impregnating two women and loving them as “making it right”. You’re essentially supporting my point by calling that a “right” action by an all-good God.

Agnosticboy, I posted the Catholic view. It is not the ideal only permissible in conditions that are practically non-existent

You have not proven any conditions or that there has to be conditions for polygamy to be allowed. In fact, I doubt that really matters in the context of the Catholic Church since only monogamy is moral - no exceptions.

Please also answer my questions about your original claim of morals being circumstantial - remember I brought up rape and rejecting God.

 

[BlackFriar]

You are all over the place.
Who the heck really knows, I am speculating like everybody else.
I have already stated I am OK with God either tolerating or not tolerating.

But whatever, polygamy was practised acceptably by holy men in the OT. God certainly doesnt want the spiritually mature to do so. If you cannot call that hardness of heart then call it undeveloped spiritually.

 

[Benadam]

God certainly doesnt want the spiritually mature to do so. If you cannot call that hardness of heart then call it undeveloped spiritually.

I would call that hardness of heart. Maybe God did permit it in the OT for that reason. I read a pastoral kind of document talking about polygamy and I got the example I used from that. But it was articulated better.

 

[joeybaggz]

Hi. I already accept that polygamy is banned in the New Testament. I am also looking for passages in the Old Testament Bible that shows polygamy was unrighteous.

??

Trolling Post !!!

 

[AgnosticBoy]

I’m sorry but you haven’t proven your point. You’re speaking in very general terms. If you get to specifics then I can make my responses more specific, as well. By the way, two becoming one flesh phrase does not equal monogamy - it refers to a two person marriage and polygamy can be practiced that way. Not sure if that addresses some of your point.

 

[Benadam]

the fact of the matter is that he had two wives which again is polygamy.

but he only wanted one. You can’t show me God hand in making this marriage happen, and you can’t argue God approved of it just because it happened…Cain killed Abel…that happened so God must have approved it…yeah It’s a big no no …but God didn’t tell Cain not to do it

You left the key pieces out. , the fact of the matter is that he had two wives which again is polygamy.

yeah, that’s key

You’re not factoring in though that God is all-good, so if he’s going to “right” something it should be in a moral way.

what was I thinking? God comforting the unloved that isn’t making any thing right

You have not proven any conditions or that there has to be conditions for polygamy to be allowed. In fact, I doubt that really matters in the context of the Catholic Church since only monogamy is moral - no exceptions.

ok, Monogamy or nothing.

Please also answer my questions about your original claim of morals being circumstantial - remember I brought up rape and rejecting God.

I see a man in my yard and he steels a my sons bicycle, I pull out a pistol and shoot him before he gets too far away so I don’t have to walk to far to get the bicycle. Bad killing

I see a man in my yard and he’s about to stab my son with a butcher knife, I pull out my pistol and shoot him before he can stab my son. Good killing

 

[BlackFriar]

I’m sorry but you haven’t proven your point.

I don’t care.
As I said I am speculating for there is no clear answer my friend.

Your very desire to prove a clear point suggests whatever it is you want to prove will be an unbalanced view.

If you get to specifics …

If you want something specific to bite into why do you not bite into what I stated here:

But whatever, polygamy was practised acceptably by holy men in the OT. God certainly doesn’t want the spiritually mature to do so.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

but he only wanted one. You can’t show me God hand in making this marriage happen, and you can’t argue God approved of it just because it happened…Cain killed Abel…that happened so God must have approved it…yeah It’s a big no no …but God didn’t tell Cain not to do it

I accept that Jacob wanted one wife.
I accept that God did not start Jacob’s polygamous relationship.
I accept that I can’t argue that God approves of polygamy simply because Jacob ended up with two wives.

Here’s where we disagree and what validates my point:

• God wanted Jacob to love TWO women (that’s not monogamy since you only supposed to love ONE).
• God helped TWO women get pregnant by one man (monogamy involves getting ONE wife pregnant).

If God didn’t approve of it, then why did he do these actions? All of the actions of God are morally good by definition.

what was I thinking? God comforting the unloved that isn’t making any thing right

God did not simply comfort the unloved. God wanted BOTH women to be kept, loved, and impregnated. Yep, God comforted but just not in a way to supports your point since polygamy is immoral, and God can not do immoral things, ever.

I see a man in my yard and he steels a my sons bicycle, I pull out a pistol and shoot him before he gets too far away so I don’t have to walk to far to get the bicycle. Bad killing

You claimed that morals are circumstance-based, as in “murdering” is not always wrong. I fail to see how you proved that with your scenario here since it clearly involves a murder and you yourself called it bad instead of good.

I see a man in my yard and he’s about to stab my son with a butcher knife, I pull out my pistol and shoot him before he can stab my son. Good killing

This is a justified killing all throughout. No “murder” is involved here so this is not a case of “murder” being accepted by God (which you were supposed to show to connect with how polygamy being wrong was right in certain situations).

 

[AgnosticBoy]

There is only speculation to support the view that God allowed polygamy for a certain reason other than it being a moral option.

There is NO speculation on my part when it comes to the view that polygamy was a moral practice just like monogamy.

Lets not confuse the two.

 

[BlackFriar]

Trying to have a coherent two way discussion with you is like pinning jelly to the wall.
You asked me to get specific … here you go:

But whatever, polygamy was practised acceptably by holy men in the OT. God certainly doesn’t want the spiritually mature to do so.

You wont do so, therefore I conclude you agree.

If you want to preach just do so, please dont look like you are responding to other posters!

 

[AgnosticBoy]

But whatever, polygamy was practised acceptably by holy men in the OT. God certainly doesn’t want the spiritually mature to do so.

What do you mean by “spiritually mature”? Pastors, priests, deacons? If so, I agree. Interestingly the spiritually mature in your religion, the Popes, priests, etc, tend to be single. However, outside of that circle, I see no proof that polygamy is prohibited.

 

[BlackFriar]

I give up. You seem to have no feel for the English language or what “spiritually mature” or “hard of heart” would typically mean."

It has nothing directly to do with “office”, I’ll leave others to explain if they have the patience.

 

[goout]

We also have the problem of the prophet Amos? taking a 2nd wife to teach a lesson…presumably at God’s inspiration.
And others…

But back to the thread question…is that the best we have in the whole of the OT for demonstrating that YHW always disagreed and never tolerated polygamy?

Have you ever read Genesis? The creation of man and woman?

What we are asking is if the OT shows God’s desire for the union of one man and one woman.
The definitive good of one man and one woman is revealed clearly and profoundly in Genesis. This is the primordial sign of God’s goodness. (ref St John Paul 2 Theology of the Body, “marriage is the primordial sacrament”)

Everyone:
to say the OT does not speak about the union of one man and one woman is to be blind to what morality is, the basis of it, and how God reveals it.
You may not like it, but it is definitively “in there”, from the beginning. While the OT records the practice of polygamy, it is not a matter of God’s design and will.

In the life and practices of the OT:

“adultery is not understood as it appears from the point of view of monogamy as established by the Creator. We know now that Christ referred to the “beginning” precisely in regard to this argument”
https://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/jp2tb34.htm

Polygamy detracts from the good of union of one man and one woman, as it was revealed from the beginning.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

I give up. You seem to have no feel for the English language or what “spiritually mature” or “hard of hard” would typically mean."

It has nothing directly to do with “office”, I’ll leave others to explain if they have the patience.

Spiritually mature is a vague term. Also, I asked you to provide evidence rather than just make assertions. Saying that polygamy is not for the spiritually mature is a claim but you didn’t provide anything to back it up.

Can you provide logic and/or evidence for your claim?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

to say the OT does not speak about the union of one man and one woman is to be blind to what morality is, the basis of it, and how God reveals it.

You may not like it, but it is definitively “in there”, from the beginning. While the OT records the practice of polygamy, it is not a matter of God’s design and will.

If polygamy is not God’s will, that would mean that God wants those in marriage to be in monogamy. He wants a man to love only ONE woman. So why did God want Jacob to love TWO women and impregnate them according to the story in Genesis 29:30-33?

This one example disproves your point.

 

[goout]

goout:

to say the OT does not speak about the union of one man and one woman is to be blind to what morality is, the basis of it, and how God reveals it.

You may not like it, but it is definitively “in there”, from the beginning. While the OT records the practice of polygamy, it is not a matter of God’s design and will.

If polygamy is not God’s will, that would mean that God wants those in marriage to be in monogamy. He wants a man to love only ONE woman. So why did God want Jacob to love TWO women and impregnate them according to the story in Genesis 29:30-33?

This one example disproves your point.

If we are to use your view of inspiration you can also ask thus:
Why is there not a hammered dome in the sky? It says such in Genesis.

Scripture is fully human, and inspired. We (Catholics) do not read scripture as fundamentalists

 

[AgnosticBoy]

If we are to use your view of inspiration you can also ask thus:

Why is there not a hammered dome in the sky? It says such in Genesis.

Please explain how my point on Gen. 29:30-33 is wrong rather than trying to lump me in with Fundamentalists.

 

[Elf01]

In my case I see it as God making the best of what had already happened.

If a man is married to multiple women he should not treat one worse than the other and there is no point in punishing the favorite by not letting her have children.

I see Rachel’s initial infertility as being caused by God. I have no direct evidence but I think it’s implied by mentioning Rachel being barren in the same sentence as God opening Leah’s womb.