He didn’t see it or chose not to. But many others did. John Calvin being a prominent one.
Nonetheless, plural marriages cannot reflect Christ and His Church, which Ephesians demonstrates.
I never referenced any of these passages so this again is yet another example of you not addressing my specific point. You do believe that some OT stories were meant to be taken literally, correct? You’ve offered no logical (non-arbitrary/non-selective) method or evidence to show that my referenced passages should be taken in a non-literal sense. I’m sure many want it to be since it goes against their view, but that would be a highly biased reason to label something non-literal.
My example was simply to show that using “wife” in the singular does not necessarily mean that polygamy is out of the picture. Some might otherwise say that just because the "wife’ is singular, that means Rachel was in monogamy when that’s not the case of course.
Well technically in 1 Cor. 7, Paul does not talk about the husband being “single” or “unmarried” after a divorce. The marital status of the divorced man is not mentioned at all and that allows for cases involving polygamists who divorce one wife but are still married to other wives. Paul only mentions the wife being unmarried or single and tells her to “remain” that way.
I’m glad that you saw the need to resort to other text. Just going by 1 Cor. 7 alone, I could’ve made a decent case for polygyny. So you should not have a problem with me resorting to other passages to show clarifications and/or exceptions, as well.
You touched on it by taking it out of the context in the 2 verses. It was said in Ephesians marriage is now supposed to reflect the Christ and His Church. Polygamy cannot do that.
Some of us have day jobs.
One might hope that folks would see the weakness in relying on Luther’s theological views in discussions with Catholics. (We generally think that his theological musings which diverge from Church teachings aren’t particularly valid.
)
Of course not. However, that wasn’t my argument. Simply pointing to a word in the singular and making assumptions about it … well, that isn’t a very good argument.
And they’d be wrong, too, just as you’re mistaken about God’s views on polygamy.
Actually, no.
No. We see elsewhere that Paul sees intercourse with another as sinful. The ‘one flesh union’ is exclusive.
Sure. Let’s see what you’ve got.
Before I give a full response, can you define what you mean by “secondary causation”. And also, can you provide evidence that the ancient Jews held this view.
God is the ‘primary cause’ of all things. However, he gives humans the ability to think, reason, and choose courses of action freely. Therefore, humans – on their own and through their own agency – can be the sources of causes of various effects. Aquinas talks about this. When I place a lit match up against a piece of cotton, I’m causing the cotton to catch fire. It’s not the case that God, seeing that I expect cotton to be flammable, sees my action and personally causes the cotton to burst into flame (the Islamic philosopher al-Ghazali made the argument that it really is just God doing all the acting, and I’m causing nothing.)
Well, there are no ancient philosophy texts from pre-exilic days to which we can turn, so the ‘evidence’ is Scriptural. There are contemporary philosophers who make the claim that the ancients kept the two notions in a sort of cognitive tension. From a simple review of the OT, though, it seems clear that there was the idea that God’s will was supreme. There are many instances in which the OT author claims that events happened because God willed them.
“I form the light, and create the darkness, I make weal and create woe; I, the LORD, do all these things.” – Isaiah 45:7.
They knew what acts made a baby, so it’s not that they “knew nothing about biology”. It would be fair to say that they knew that childbirth following menopause wasn’t expected.
I think it’s reasonable to suggest that they’d associate natural phenomena with God’s will.
That doesn’t follow. We look at the events themselves, and we see that the events being described aren’t normal. It’s not so much that they were “unable to distinguish”, but they certainly knew, through experience, what didn’t happen on a regular basis, and so they knew when something extraordinary was occurring!
That’s a stance that you might validly take. However, where you go off the rails is when you suggest that their fertility demonstrates God’s desire that polygamy be practiced.
Please cite the evidence that you’re referring to. I actually posted counter-evidence so your argument already runs into a problem. In light of that, I believe your view in any absolute form is incorrect. I’m sure the ancient Jews attributed some things to God that were really not caused by God. Christians still do that today. But there were things that they did understand in terms of secondary causes, and child bearing is one of them. There also would’ve been times that they claimed God did something and be correct about it.
There is a difference between ‘moral’ evil and natural evil. The passage you quoted most likely refers to the latter type. If God caused or did ‘moral’ evil, then he would not be all-good.
Sorry, but I’m not buying this until you present evidence that would justify your point. I am willing to believe that the ancient Jews didn’t understand some secondary causes, but I’ve at least presented evidence that they understood some.
Even if the ancient Jews were able to distinguish between regular vs. extraordinary events, both would still fall under God’s doing. So there would still be false attributions. If you were trying to say that “extraordinary events” would be accurate attributions of God’s doing then even there I disagree because among other things you’re relying on their judgement of extraordinary. A person may think something is extraordinary because they missed or overlooked the simple explanations. I’ve had people consider it extraordinary that a relative called them right around the time they thought of the relative. The problem here is they tend to forget the times that they thought about their relative and received no call.
Well the text is clear on this matter. ONE man loving two women and impregnating them are non-monogamous acts. God’s concern and actions were directed at towards helping these non-monogamous acts play out. If someone is against something, you don’t do things to help, encourage, or cause the thing that you’re against, and this is especially true when an all-good God is involved. This is common sense.
One thing I’ve observed from a lot of Christians is that they are “obligated” to believing their view. Logic and evidence is secondary. Whereas in my case, logic and evidence is primary and my views follow from these two. All of my views are subject to change.
If He caused them. If, on the other hand, this is merely writer’s understanding, based on an occasionalist viewpoint, then this is not an indication that God was acting in favor of polygamy.
The text mentions that God caused their pregnancies. The text also mentions why he did it. On the other hand, what you’re proposing is not in the text so you have no evidence. In fact, I offered counter-evidence that directly relates to the writer’s understanding the biology behind childbearing.
The keyword you used is “allowed”. In the case of Jacob, God did not simply “allow” or just sit back. He stepped into the situation - the situation being a non-monogamous act itself (the impregnation of TWO women using ONE man’s seed). So you can’t even say that God worked with Jacob despite his poly marriage. God actually had a hand in the non-monogamous aspects or functioning of Jacob’s marriages.
It’s an analysis of the text. Not sure how that’s not a use of the Scriptural text as ‘evidence’.
This is a common explanation. Its veracity has nothing to do with the fact that God does not approve of polygamy.
Hold on a second! You just dismissed my analysis of Scripture as ‘unevidenced’, and now, you’re proposing an analysis of Scripture as ‘evidence’? Sorry… that kind of double standard simply doesn’t cut it.
Two thoughts:
We know God caused Sarah’s pregnancy despite incest being forbidden later.
My conclusion is based off of direct evidence - what’s directly stated in the text. Your view is inferred from the text. That is the distinction I was trying to make. I accept that an inferences can be valid, but only when you have something within the text to work off of. You don’t have that and I’ll explain why.
I elaborated on this point already. I’ll add that my point on adultery is based on direct evidence and inference. Your explanation is simply ad-hoc.
The non-monogamous act in this case would be sex with TWO women and impregnating TWO women. Jacob did the former, and God did the latter. And the text actually mentions why He did it. Some Christians tell me that this was done for a greater good to increase the population of Israel, but I can’t help that the text also gives its own reason for why God did this and it was so that ONE man would love TWO women which is also a non-monogamous act itself. I won’t get into the problem of using the ends to justify the means which also goes against Catholic doctrine. Either way, wanting TWO women to be loved is one reason if not the single reason.
God showed concern that Jacob did NOT love TWO women. That was not Jacob’s concern. This is the first point showing that God wanted non-monogamous behavior.