I hear your arguments, but I’m not certain that they stand up to close scrutiny…
No, I don’t think that’s the position of the Catholic Church. It’s more like a historical observation that, culturally, the people of God went from monogamy to polygamy and back to monogamy. So, if you’re saying that the culture of the ancient Semites allowed polygamy, then I’d agree with you. However, if you want to claim that God endorsed it for a period, you’re going to have to substantiate that claim.
Not sure what this means. Where would we expect to find a ‘dispensation’ for polygamy?
Yes, but in the section which Paul claims is “from God”, he only talks about a spouse in the singular. And, in the context of divorce, he’s plainly claiming that, being divorced, a person is [to remain] single. If there were even the whiff of a context of a supposed tolerance of polygamy, then there would not be the presumption that a divorced person was single!
I disagree. His comments are always in the singular, not the plural. This is not ‘silence’.
Do you have a particular passage in mind?
Your point makes it seems like cultural norms/trends were followed without regards to an ‘objective moral system’. If an objective moral system exists, as indicated by the OT, then cultural norms/trends (going from monogamy to polygamy to monogamy again) should not be a determining factor for morality.
There are times when it is not necessary to bring up polygamy when talking about marriage. One reason is if you’re referring to one wife instead of all wives, and we find examples of this like in Genesis 46:19 which refers to Jacob “wife” (singular) eventhough he had multiple wives. Secondly, you would not need to bring up polygamy when you’re referring to ‘dyadic’ (between two people) rules as opposed to ‘communal’ rules. Eventhough polygamy involves multiple wives, but in the Bible, each wife was in a separate marriage. So in effect, the polygynous male had multiple two-person (one wife and one husband) marriages. So the rules in 1 Corinthians 7 can be viewed as dyadic rules (as opposed to monogamous rules), and the polygamous is to apply them to each of his two-person marriages. As for communal rules, I’m not aware of any in the Bible but an example would be if God required all spouses involved to pool their resources.
Not quite. What Paul is saying is for the “wife” (not husband - 1 Cor. 7:10-11) to remain single. Interestingly, I find this being support for polygamy or at least the unequal marital rules that we find fitting into such a system. If the wife divorces the husband (or separates) it does not say the husband remains single and I believe that’s because polygyny was allowed. However, it clearly says the wife must remain single and that’s because poly_andry_ is not allowed.
Individual Christians aren’t ‘married’ to Christ. Collectively, we are in essence cells, organs and limbs that form one Body. One Bride. One Church.
To have more than one wife is to say there is more than one Church. Two or three wives don’t form one wife. They are not limbs and etc. of one wife but are individual people.
Also consider:
This passage is often used as a support for the Catholic monogamy crowd but the problem here is the first marriage or first occurrence of anything does not necessarily count for everything God wants. If you consider only this passage, then you won’t know what to do if a spouse dies, or if a spouse cheats, or if there’s a divorce, or what counts as adultery, etc. God obviously revealed these rules later on.
The point is that they developed “cultural norms/trends” despite the presence of and in contradiction to “an objective moral system.” They did do it… and it was against the will of God.
Genesis 29 is reporting on the actions of Laban and Jacob. Not once does it assert that God “wanted” this to happen. You’ve demonstrated my point, not yours : people did what they wanted to do, despite what God had set as moral norms.
Did God ‘punish’ every sin, at the time of the sin, as reported by the OT? Not so much.
Women were chattel. Men could do with them pretty much as they wished. I sure hope you’re not going to attempt to assert that this is what God intended , are you?
That’s pretty weak, as arguments go. Yes, that verse says “The sons of Jacob’s wife Rachel”… I mean, it’s pointing to one person, in particular, and by name! Why you would think that this non sequitur helps prove your point is mystifying.
Except that, in my example, I’m able to demonstrate that Paul’s context is “when you divorce your wife, you’re now single.” Your points here do not refute that assertion.
Except that, when you divorce, you’re single – not the spouse of another, but single. You keep trying to ignore that fact.
That would work… but only if Christ hadn’t laid down the law of “one husband - one wife” in the Gospels. It’s a good point you’re making… but only if the teachings of Christ didn’t precede the ministry of Paul. (It’s still a subtle enough point that it was a really nice try…
)Actually… they do demonstrate the error in your logic.
See my posts. I’m doing nothing if not addressing your specific arguments.
Actually, it directly contradicts your argument that specific marriages are between a man and a woman, not between a man and many women. This (as well as Paul’s discussion of intercourse with prostitutes) makes it clear that the man and woman become ‘one flesh’. (That would imply that any future polygamous marriages are between the ‘one flesh’ and the new wife.)
…IF you read the Bible as a literalist fundamentalist.
You’re hung up with one phrase that you took out of a wider context. There’s no point in convincing you.
But what many people tend to not get is non-Christians aren’t the ones in charge of telling Christians what to believe.
I’m not telling Christians what they believe, but rather I’m applying logic and evidence to show what the Bible actually says. I have no ideological commitments unlike you. I don’t accept something as true and then go back and read the text in light of that “preconceived” truth. Instead, I clear my mind of all assumptions. I approach the Bible like any other work of literature. I see that as being more conducive to having an objective view/understanding of the Bible.
Great to know Christians should be told by non-Christians how to believe Christianity.
A few fringe individuals who have sexual problems.
No, I think like Martin Luther, they see the weaknesses in your position. They see that there is a strong case for polygamy in the Bible and that put together with weaknesses in your point makes them support it or at least keeps them agnostic about it.
I agree.
The reason you didn’t notice what God “wanted” is because you didn’t notice how God “acted”. His “wants” and “actions” go hand-in-hand in that his actions reveal what He wanted. God took action for ONE man to love and impregnate TWO women - He did so because He wanted it! Lets show this directly from Scripture: