Monogamy in the Bible...where?

[AgnosticBoy]

We know God caused Sarah’s pregnancy despite incest being forbidden later.

True. SOme might also say this is a moral conflict if incest was wrong at the time and an all-good God aided in the process. My view is that incest was “moral” for some time. Later on, God made it immoral. The morality of incest is established via God’s action in the case you bring up. We can also throw in simple math and biology and say that incest was the only means for Adam and Eve’s children to procreate given the fact that they were all related.

This is not a problem for my view because we have direct evidence that incest was practiced and later on banned in God’s law. We also have direct evidence that polygamy was practiced but it was never banned in God’s law. That’s a big difference. Also, we find support for polygyny in a section of God’s law that is binding forever, i.e. , the 10 commandments (specifically, "thou shall not commit ‘adultery’ "). A lot of people are unaware of what ‘adultery’ meant back then, and I believe this ignorance was prevalent even amongst early Gentile Christians. If they knew what it meant, then they would’ve known that it makes no sense for God to have expected monogamy but to only restrict women from any and all extramarital sexual acts.

 

[Gorgias]

My conclusion is based off of direct evidence - what’s directly stated in the text.

Right. An analysis of the text. Which is what I was doing, too.

AgnosticBoy:

You have not shown why the your view that ancient Jews attributed things to God because they did not understand secondary causes should be accepted over my alternative that the Jews understood secondary causes AND the times God intervened.

All we have to do is examine “the direct evidence” of the Bible, in which divine activity is claimed to be cause of events (especially events which today, we’d claim as having been caused by people or by natural causes).

Inference should not conflict with direct evidence (what’s directly stated in the text). You don’t even need inference if direct evidence can solve the matter.

Hold on a second, though – you’re not addressing ‘direct evidence’. What you’re addressing is your personal interpretation of the text. There’s a big difference between those two! So: why should we accept your personal interpretation, especially considering that it conflicts with Jesus’ own words in the Gospels?

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.

God didn’t impregnate Jacob’s wives – Jacob did.

This is the first point showing that God wanted non-monogamous behavior.

You’re taking a particular event and interpreting it in a non-standard way that conflicts with God’s word and Jesus’ statements.

It’s not that “God wanted non-monogamous behavior”; it’s that God did not stop Jacob from sinning, and He allowed natural processes (sexual intercourse) to fulfill the natural goals to which they’re oriented.

but again God caused the impregnation

It’s your assertion that it’s God who causes impregnation? You really are an occasionalist, then, eh?

Would you at least acknowledge that this poses a problem for your side?

Why would I? It doesn’t!

My view is that incest was “moral” for some time. Later on, God made it immoral.

Seriously, AB, your attempts at theological interpretation are wildly inaccurate. In the Letter to the Hebrews, we are reminded that Jesus (i.e., God) " is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teaching." (Heb 13:8-9)

Certain forms of incest violate the immutable divine moral law, and as such, have never been and will never be morally acceptable.

Also, we find support for polygyny in a section of God’s law that is binding forever, i.e. , the 10 commandments (specifically, "thou shall not commit ‘adultery’ ").

How you get “God accepts polygyny” from “thou shalt not commit adultery” is beyond reason.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Right. An analysis of the text. Which is what I was doing, too.

Analysis can involve direct evidence or inference or both. I’ve spent the last 2 or 3 posts asking for your “direct evidence”. Give me the evidence from Scripture, as in chapter and verse(s), that would justify your point.

Hold on a second, though – you’re not addressing ‘direct evidence’. What you’re addressing is your personal interpretation of the text . There’s a big difference between those two! So: why should we accept your personal interpretation , especially considering that it conflicts with Jesus’ own words in the Gospels?

The points about God wanting a man to love two women and impregnate them are not “my interpretation”. These 2 points are stated directly in the text. The author says God did it and he adds Leah’s own words to reaffirm that it was God and why God did it.

Also, keep in mind that my view incorporates Jesus’s teachings. I can explain how my view does not conflict with anything in the NT, as well, but for now I’m only focusing on one issue at a time.

God didn’t impregnate Jacob’s wives – Jacob did.

If we grant your theory, then sure. But shouldn’t you first prove your explanation before using it in an argument? What you’re doing is classic ‘ad-hoc’. Furthermore, you have not refuted my counter-evidence, which I referenced with chapter/verse (direct evidence), and my counter-explanation.

You’re taking a particular event and interpreting it in a non-standard way that conflicts with God’s word and Jesus’ statements.

Jesus’s teachings must also be understood within the context of the entire Bible and not just the NT. Secondly, Jesus did not even offer a comprehensive teaching on marriage. He covered certain issues as they came up. This is why you need to resort to the OT to find all of the other relevant rules on marriage.

It’s not that “God wanted non-monogamous behavior”; it’s that God did not stop Jacob from sinning, and He allowed natural processes (sexual intercourse) to fulfill the natural goals to which they’re oriented.

Even with “sexual intercourse”, an infertile woman can not procreate. The same applies for sexual intercourse with women of old age as in Sarah’s (Abraham’s wife) case. The unnatural process is when God gets involved and that’s exactly what the author tells us happens.

It’s your assertion that it’s God who causes impregnation? You really are an occasionalist, then, eh?

Only when it comes to infertile and old women having kids.

How you get “God accepts polygyny” from “thou shalt not commit adultery” is beyond reason.

It’s not beyond reason if you know what adultery means. There are different definitions or terms for adultery and the terms are dependent on the type of marriages allowed. So we can figure out one from the other.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

goout:

We interpret the bible:
As a whole, not passages in isolation
Through the eyes of Christ
And with the Church, not as individuals.

Your proposition fails in that true light.

To add on to my last response to you. Do you want to know a good place where doctrine or ideology is elevated above logic and evidence? American politics!

At that point, it’s no longer about the TRUTH but rather it’s about protecting your side even when logic and evidence is against it. This is why I went from being a Christian to Agnostic. I realized that many atheists and Christians are no different than politicians when it comes to getting to the truth.

 

[Gorgias]

I’ve spent the last 2 or 3 posts asking for your “direct evidence”. Give me the evidence from Scripture, as in chapter and verse(s), that would justify your point.

To my point: any Scriptural citation I give, it seems, you will interpret personally. Why should I give credence to the authority of your personal interpretation?

The points about God wanting a man to love two women and impregnate them are not “my interpretation”. These 2 points are stated directly in the text.

Please show me a direct quote from the text that asserts that “God wants a man to love two women.” You cannot do it, because it’s not part of the text. Oh… it might just be your interpretation of the text… but it’s not in the text itself.

What you’re doing is classic ‘ad-hoc’.

Show me that God impregnates. Always and everywhere. And, if you can’t do that (and you cannot ), then show me that your literalistic interpretation of the Scripture in question is authoritative. Otherwise, it’s just personal opinion.

Jesus’s teachings must also be understood within the context of the entire Bible and not just the NT.

Jesus, in a very real way, is the context of the entire Bible. One cannot dismiss Jesus and hope to demonstrate that he understands the teachings of the Bible.

Even with “sexual intercourse”, an infertile woman can not procreate. The same applies for sexual intercourse with women of old age as in Sarah’s (Abraham’s wife) case. The unnatural process is when God gets involved and that’s exactly what the author tells us happens.

Is Leah ‘infertile’? Is she “of old age”?

It’s not beyond reason if you know what adultery means. There are different definitions or terms for adultery and the terms are dependent on the type of marriages allowed. So we can figure out one from the other.

So… go there. I’m sure the discussion will be enlightening.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

To my point: any Scriptural citation I give, it seems, you will interpret personally. Why should I give credence to the authority of your personal interpretation?

The problem we have so far is that you haven’t given any Scriptural reference or basis. I understand that it doesn’t have to be stated directly in the text, but at the least it should be based on it. Your evidence should also factor in my objections as well because they speak directly against your point.

Please show me a direct quote from the text that asserts that “God wants a man to love two women.” You cannot do it, because it’s not part of the text. Oh… it might just be your interpretation of the text … but it’s not in the text itself.

Seems like you’re trying to set up a strawman. Keep in mind that I’m okay with inference and direct evidence.

My claim is in the text but with more wording of course.

Jacob loved Rachel and God knew it:
Genesis 29:30 Then Jacob also went in to Rachel, and he also loved Rachel more than Leah

Here is God’s observation:
Genesis 29:31
When the LORD saw that Leah was unloved.

The way God acts on that observation reveals that He wanted Leah loved which would lead to Jacob loving BOTH Rachel and Leah (TWO women!):
Genesis 29:31 When the LORD saw that Leah was unloved, He opened her womb

Leah confirms that God helped her so that her husband would love her:
Genesis 29:32,33 So Leah conceived and bore a son, and she called his name Reuben;[fn] for she said, “The LORD has surely looked on my affliction. Now therefore, my husband will love me.”
33 Then she conceived again and bore a son, and said, “Because the LORD has heard that I am unloved

Show me that God impregnates. Always and everywhere. And, if you can’t do that (and you cannot ), then show me that your literalistic interpretation of the Scripture in question is authoritative. Otherwise, it’s just personal opinion

False dichotomy. There’s direct evidence and then there’s inference. You have shown ZERO evidence for your analysis and/or inference. Explaining what secondary causation or occasionalism is does not demonstrate how it applies to the Bible.

Here is God’s intervention with the impregnation process (in bold font). If “impregnation” is the problem then we can at least say He took them from infertile to fertile - the same way He did with Sarah during her elderly age:
Genesis 29:31 When the LORD saw that Leah was unloved, He opened her womb

Do you want the passages about Sarah bearing children in “old” age and the “virgin” Mary event, as well?

Is Leah ‘infertile’? Is she “of old age”?

She was which is indicated by her womb needing to be opened. The same wording is used in Rachel’s case if you refer to Genesis 29:31 where it says she was barren, and Genesis 30:22 where it says God opened her womb.

Similar language is used elsewhere like in Genesis 20:17, 18. So opening or closing the womb relates to fertility.

cont’d

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Jesus, in a very real way, is the context of the entire Bible . One cannot dismiss Jesus and hope to demonstrate that he understands the teachings of the Bible

I never dismissed Jesus. My point was about factoring the information from both OT and NT and not just NT. You will not know all of God’s morals if you just reference the NT because some of the rules and God’s actions are contained in the OT, as well.

FYI: If Christians simply want to believe, then just believe… But for the ones that want to pass off their belief as being anything rational/coherent, then you must do so using logic and evidence.

 

[Gorgias]

The problem we have so far is that you haven’t given any Scriptural reference or basis.

Do you really need Scripture citations for every time the Bible says that God made something happen?

Your evidence should also factor in my objections as well because they speak directly against your point.

That’s pretty much what we’ve been discussing this whole time – the way that your interpretation of Scripture is at odds with Biblical teaching!

Seems like you’re trying to set up a strawman.

Nope. I’m serious. You haven’t shown that Scripture says “God wants a man to love two women”, but that’s your claim. So… this is your interpretation of Scripture. In this thread, it’s been demonstrated to you that this is antithetical to what God and Jesus say.

The way God acts on that observation reveals that He wanted Leah loved which would lead to Jacob loving BOTH Rachel and Leah (TWO women!)

God wasn’t consulted, nor did He approve of Jacob’s two marriages. Yet, He does continue to care for the well-being of His people. That’s all you’ve demonstrated here.

False dichotomy. There’s direct evidence and then there’s inference. You have shown ZERO evidence for your analysis and/or inference. Explaining what secondary causation or occasionalism is does not demonstrate how it applies to the Bible.

Hang on a second, and please put down that red herring.

The question you’re attempting to answer is “show me that God impregnates, always and everywhere.” Whether or not I’ve demonstrated anything, I’m asking you to show your cards on this particular claim.

She was which is indicated by her womb needing to be opened. The same wording is used in Rachel’s case if you refer to Genesis 29:31 where it says she was barren, and Genesis 30:22 where it says God opened her womb.

Actually, that’s a Biblical turn of phrase. To “open the womb” means to bear one’s firstborn. It’s not an indication of a lack of infertility (other than the trivial observation that a child had been born).

I never dismissed Jesus. … You will not know all of God’s morals if you just reference the NT

Silly me. And here I thought that the word of the Incarnate Son of God was kind of authoritative…

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Do you really need Scripture citations for every time the Bible says that God made something happen?

What I’m gathering so far is that you don’t know how to prove your absolute viewpoint, especially in light of my counter-evidence and explanation. Now you expect me to do your work for you. Sorry, it doesn’t work that way.

Nope. I’m serious. You haven’t shown that Scripture says “God wants a man to love two women”, but that’s your claim. So… this is your interpretation of Scripture. In this thread, it’s been demonstrated to you that this is antithetical to what God and Jesus say.

I went through all of the work posting actual Scriptural citations, word-for-word, showing that God wanted TWO women loved by ONE man. This was the conclusion of the author and Leah, as well.

My analysis is that the problem here is not logical but rather it’s ‘doctrinal’. There can be a distinction, make no doubt about it! You want me to interpret Genesis 29 in a way that squares with your doctrine paradigm. I accept that it’s good to factor in all of the text overall rather than looking at a passage in isolation, but this only works when everything is coherent. It is possible for an isolated passage to serve as evidence on its own and to conflict with someone’s overall doctrine. So far, I’ve shown just that - Genesis 29 conflicts with your monogamy-only doctrine.

God wasn’t consulted, nor did He approve of Jacob’s two marriages. Yet, He does continue to care for the well-being of His people. That’s all you’ve demonstrated here.

You say all of this right after I presented DIRECT evidence showing that God took action on two non-monogamous functions themselves, i.e, procreation and love. That’s certainly more than “allowing”, or working with polygamists on things not involving non-monogamy itself. What I gather here is that you’d rather go on an unevidenced AD HOC explanation over DIRECT evidence.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

cont’d from last post…

Actually, that’s a Biblical turn of phrase. To “open the womb” means to bear one’s firstborn. It’s not an indication of a lack of infertility (other than the trivial observation that a child had been born).

I don’t completely agree with your point because there are multiple meanings of the expression “opening the womb” but you only go by one meaning. In the book of Exodus and other books I found the expression being used just as you explained. However, there are times that it mentions God “opened the womb” and then there are times when it doesn’t mention God doing it. The former scenario would involve an unnatural process like God helping “infertile” or “elderly” women bear children. The latter scenario would be the natural process which goes with your point.

In Leah’s case, it says that God opened her womb. Here is further support for my point that she had fertility problems. Genesis 29:23 indicates that Jacob had been having sexual relations with Leah. This was at a time before he worked seven more years for Rachel. So Jacob was already married to Leah and was having sexual relations with her during the 7 years he worked for Rachel. It only mentions Jacob and Leah having kids at some point after the 7 years that he worked for Rachel. So here we have at least 7 years worth of sexual relations and no kids. At this point it’s more than reasonable to say that Leah had some fertility problems since she produced nothing in 7 years and did not do so until “GOD” came into the picture.

Silly me. And here I thought that the word of the Incarnate Son of God was kind of authoritative

The entire Bible is authoritative. Jesus did not offer comprehensive teachings on everything there is to know so you obviously have to resort to other areas of the Bible. Jesus still accepted all of the moral laws in the OT when he preaches to not “sin”. Just because He didn’t mention bestiality, does not mean it’s okay nor is it wrong to reference the OT moral laws to see that it’s wrong.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Strong evidence should always trump strong doctrine.

 

[Gorgias]

What I’m gathering so far is that you don’t know how to prove your absolute viewpoint, especially in light of my counter-evidence and explanation. Now you expect me to do your work for you. Sorry, it doesn’t work that way.

No, it’s not that. If you want, I can quote chapter and verse. It seems like such a manifest claim, however, that it seems silly to embark on the venture. If you’re claiming you’re unaware of the quotes, though…

I went through all of the work posting actual Scriptural citations, word-for-word, showing that God wanted TWO women loved by ONE man. This was the conclusion of the author and Leah, as well.

“God wanted two women loved by one man” is an interpretation, not a citation.

So far, I’ve shown just that - Genesis 29 conflicts with your monogamy-only doctrine.

No, and I don’t know how many more times you’ll need this pointed out to you: your personal interpretation of Genesis 29 – in contradiction to Jesus’ witness in the Gospels – conflicts with the Church’s doctrine regarding marriage.

AgnosticBoy:

You say all of this right after I presented DIRECT evidence showing that God took action on two non-monogamous functions themselves

Only if you insist on a fundamentalist-style literalistic interpretation.

AgnosticBoy:

What I gather here is that you’d rather go on an unevidenced AD HOC explanation over DIRECT evidence.

What you might gather is that I’d rather not go on an individual non-Christian’s interpretation of Scripture, especially when it conflicts with Jesus’ express comments to the contrary.

AgnosticBoy:

The former scenario would involve an unnatural process like God helping “infertile” or “elderly” women bear children. The latter scenario would be the natural process which goes with your point.

Both speak to a first child being born. That’s what the phrase means.

AgnosticBoy:

So here we have at least 7 years worth of sexual relations and no kids.

Are you sure about that? I think you should read the account more carefully. Ask yourself “how much time was there between the consummation of Jacob’s first marriage and the consummation of his second?” Go ahead… I’ll wait. (Hint: it wasn’t seven years.)

More to the point, once he had Rachel in his grasp, “he loved her more than Leah.” So… what’s that you were saying, again?

AgnosticBoy:

Jesus did not offer comprehensive teachings on everything there is to know so you obviously have to resort to other areas of the Bible.

Yes, but when Jesus explicitly discusses that marriage is between one man and one woman, and this has been God’s will from the beginning… your case completely breaks down.

Strong evidence should always trump strong doctrine.

I agree. Jesus’ statements about marriage being exclusively between one man and one woman is the strongest evidence possible. It trumps your interpretation.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Both speak to a first child being born. That’s what the phrase means.

“Opening the womb” refers to the childbearing process. You limit it to the firstborn but I’m not too sure on that after reading its various usages in the Bible. This is not where I disagree with you.

Our views differ in that my point distinguishes between Divine intervention (when it says God opens the womb) and the natural process (God not being the one to “open the womb”). I justified my distinction by giving examples where it says God opened the womb being in connection to barren women. I’ll elaborate more in the next response below.

Are you sure about that? I think you should read the account more carefully. Ask yourself “how much time was there between the consummation of Jacob’s first marriage and the consummation of his second?” Go ahead… I’ll wait. (Hint: it wasn’t seven years.)

I offered two different supporting reasons for my view that God was involved, one being how Genesis 29 mentions God’s concern and actions, and the other reason being how Leah was infertile based on 7 year sexual activity and no kids from that. I admit that the last supporting reason is not valid. I had just thought of it but it was a bad inference/reading on my part.

However, the first point still stands since it is based on direct evidence and you have not disproven it. The text itself is silent on whether or not Leah was barren but we can infer it based on God needing to open her womb. Even if Leah was fertile, we can still infer that God intervened because the text actually states God’s concern, which was a man not loving TWO women. His opening her womb was not done simply to procreate, which would be the simple natural process under your view (although my view makes a distinction between God being mentioned and not being mentioned in conjunction with opening the womb), but it was also done so that her husband would love her more. Leah confirms that God knew she was unloved and that God intervened by helping her reproduce so that she can become loved - that’s directly stated in the text.

More to the point, once he had Rachel in his grasp, “he loved her more than Leah.” So… what’s that you were saying, again?

Not sure what your point is since this occurred before Leah had kids. Once Leah and Jacob had kids, then the love for Leah would’ve increased.

Interestingly to add to my last point, if monogamy was expected then Leah was Jacob’s rightful wife. God should’ve never helped Rachel become pregnant and it’s clear He did so since she was infertile.

Yes, but when Jesus explicitly discusses that marriage is between one man and one woman, and this has been God’s will from the beginning… your case completely breaks down.

I will give a general response to this in a separate post. Unlike you, I don’t want to keep telling people I have logic and evidenced based reasons and never offering it. After my general explanation, I will get right back to focusing on one issue at a time.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Yes, but when Jesus explicitly discusses that marriage is between one man and one woman, and this has been God’s will from the beginning… your case completely breaks down.

Matthew 19, which contains what you stated, tends to be the main starting point that Catholics use to argue against polygamy. I’ll offer 3 general points:

1. First, Catholics assume that marriage being between one man and one woman means monogamy but that is not necessarily the case. It can also mean two people per marriage and that’s because stating the number of PEOPLE in a marriage is not the same as stating the number of MARRIAGES someone can have. No where in the Bible is the latter number restricted. With that said polygamy can be practiced as a two-person marriage system which involves having multiple concurrent marriages w/ two people in each. It makes sense to say that monogamy was never expected given all of God’s rules and actions, pre and post Mosaic Law, that were in favor of polygamy.
2. Second point is that Jesus did some restoration but it was the indissolubility of marriage. Many Christians overreach when they think he was also restoring monogamy because Matthew 19 was in response to “divorce” (marital “dissolution”) and Jesus answered on that point by restricting divorce. Divorce has NOTHING to do with polygamy in that you can have one without the other.
3. Third, virtually all of the NT rules on marriage can be viewed as dyadic rules (rules between two people) as opposed to rules for monogamy. The difference between the two is that the former could be rules that can be applied to each two-person relationships (assuming there’s multiple two-person relationships), whereas the latter can only be applied to two people in one relationship. Keep in mind that the polygamists in the Bible had multiple two-person (one wife and one husband) marriages. So if Paul teaches to love your wife, eventhough “wife” is singular but that’s not necessarily limiting it to just monogamy if the polygamists can apply it to each wife individually. Even in cases, where a rule logically applies to monogamy only, then we can consider exceptions if those exceptions can be shown in other parts of Scripture.

These 3 points, especially my last point (the more practical out of the 3), are part of the framework that I use to deal with all of the NT points that some might say relate to polygamy. Anyone can use them as an approach to handle any NT objection to polygamy.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Polygamy didn’t appear until after the Fall.

A monogamous couple caused the Fall. Procreation also occurred after the Fall. Is that evil, as well?

The original design of marriage was one man and one woman. Adam never had any other wives even after the Fall

The design of marriage was not “fully” revealed at this point. God’s plan is revealed to us at different stages of time. If you continue reading all of the rules on marriage you’d notice that polygamy was accepted.

Like divorce, it wasn’t supposed to be the case but only permitted through the hardness of our hearts.

There is direct evidence that divorce was allowed and banned. Jesus explicitly stated that. However, the evidence for polygamy being temporarily allowed in the same way is absent so it’s pure speculation. In fact, my evidence shows that God did not sit back and allow but rather He assisted with non-monogamous acts.

Christians are New Testament people. Our relation to the Old Testament isn’t similar to that of Israel, which has a branch of theology covering that.

You are not under the system of the OT but individual elements of the OT still apply, like the moral laws. You’re still not supposed to lie, cheat, or steal, etc. I also would not call something sin that God accepted as moral by virtue of His acts and rules.

The New Testament favours monogamy over polygamy. A comparison between marriage and Christ and His Bride, the Church is made. Singular not plural.

I wouldn’t say the NT favors monogamy but rather it uses a two-person marriage as an example and as part of an analogy. The way that a husband is one with his wife is the same way that Christ is one with the Church. This serves more as a description or explanation (to explain God’s relation to the Church) than it does a prescription. In the OT, God uses polygamy to explain his relation to Israel, does that serve as a prescription for polygamy? Every marriage should be just like that, a polygamous one? Of course not!

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.

This is not correct. A polygamists has multiple two person marriages. Each marriage would represent a separate/distinct one flesh union. Each of his marriages are a union like that of Christ and the Church. The man is the head of each marriage, each marriage represents one body, etc.

 

[ATraveller]

A monogamous couple caused the Fall. Procreation also occurred after the Fall. Is that evil, as well?

The command to procreate was after creation and prior to the Fall.

The design of marriage was not “fully” revealed at this point. God’s plan is revealed to us at different stages of time. If you continue reading all of the rules on marriage you’d notice that polygamy was accepted.

But it was in Gen 1. We know from Christian tradition that it was.

You are not under the system of the OT but individual elements of the OT still apply, like the moral laws. You’re still not supposed to lie, cheat, or steal, etc. I also would not call something sin that God accepted as moral by virtue of His acts and rules.

But what God no longer wanted and phased out. The Early Church Fathers indicated this.

I wouldn’t say the NT favors monogamy but rather it uses a two-person marriage as an example and as part of an analogy. The way that a husband is one with his wife is the same way that Christ is one with the Church. This serves more as a description or explanation (to explain God’s relation to the Church) than it does a prescription.

Again, you ignore the full context of Eph 5.

This is not correct. A polygamists has multiple two person marriages. Each marriage would represent a separate/distinct one flesh union. Each of his marriages are a union like that of Christ and the Church. The man is the head of each marriage, each marriage represents one body, etc.

No, it’s you who is incorrect. That’s a gross distortion and perversion of what is actually meant. Only a couple, actual people rather than relationships, can reflect Christ and His Church. A man and a woman can reflect that. Multiple relationships from one man can’t reflect that.

 

[Gorgias]

Our views differ in that my point distinguishes between Divine intervention (when it says God opens the womb) and the natural process (God not being the one to “open the womb”). I justified my distinction by giving examples where it says God opened the womb being in connection to barren women.

Every woman who has undergone childbirth goes from “not ever having a child” to “bearing her first child”. In other words, every woman – to use the Scriptural turn of phrase – has her “womb opened.” The question becomes the one you’re mentioning “is that natural process one of divine intervention?”

I admit that the last supporting reason is not valid. I had just thought of it but it was a bad inference/reading on my part.

OK – so, we’re back to your personal literalistic interpretation of Gen 29. Cool.

However, the first point still stands since it is based on direct evidence and you have not disproven it.

I think this is where we part ways. You keep saying “here’s what’s literally written, and therefore a literalistic interpretation of it is ‘direct evidence’, and therefore I’m correct” and I keep saying “not all Scripture is to be interpreted literalistically.” We’re in a loop.

Interestingly to add to my last point, if monogamy was expected then Leah was Jacob’s rightful wife. God should’ve never helped Rachel become pregnant and it’s clear He did so since she was infertile.

No. That’s a poor inference. Think about it for a second: by that standard, no woman in a Scriptural narrative should give birth out of wedlock or through adultery or through incest, since that would imply that God “helped” them “become pregnant” and wanted that sin to be ‘rewarded’. And yet, we see many instances in which these sins result in pregnancies. But, that doesn’t mean that adultery or fornication or incest are things God wants!

And so, we’ve come to another fun factoid about the belief system of the ancients: they didn’t know about eternal reward and punishment, so they thought that God punishes evil on earth with immediate temporal punishment, and He rewards goodness on earth with immediate temporal rewards. (See the whole Book of Job for a discussion of this dynamic.)

Since this is the case – and since childbirth is seen as a reward from God – the ancients thought that those who had children were good people who were being rewarded, and those who were barren were bad people who were being punished.

That’s not the case, though. Again, it’s an example of their misunderstandings of God and His nature. And you’re kinda buying their mistake hook, line, and sinker!

 

[Vico]

I have a friend who is politely claiming that the Bible does not teach us to be monogamous.
He claims that Matthew 19 and and 1 Corinthians 7 talks about divorce, sex, and the sanctity of marriage, but does not talk about monogamy.
He also talks about how “so many in Genesis and the Old Testament were polygamous or polyamorous.”
What response would you give?

The irreproachable are married only once.

1 Tim 3

2 Therefore, a bishop must be irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not a drunkard, not aggressive, but gentle, not contentious, not a lover of money.

 

[Gorgias]

It can also mean two people per marriage and that’s because stating the number of PEOPLE in a marriage is not the same as stating the number of MARRIAGES someone can have.

“A man” (singular) “shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife” (singular) “and the two” (not four or six or eight) “shall become one flesh” (not two or three or four).

No where in the Bible is the latter number restricted.

It’s pretty clear what Jesus is saying. You wish to make Jesus’ words say something they’re not saying.

It makes sense to say that monogamy was never expected given all of God’s rules and actions, pre and post Mosaic Law, that were in favor of polygamy.

No, it doesn’t. The rules never permit it, and the only case you can possibly attempt is “since God never struck down polygamists, therefore He loves polygamy”. And that’s a case that just doesn’t hold up, logically.

Keep in mind that the polygamists in the Bible had multiple two-person (one wife and one husband) marriages.

OK… I’ll bite. By that logic, a polygamous husband has more than one body? He becomes one body with his first wife. Then he becomes a second body with his second wife. Then he becomes a third body with his third wife? For this to make sense, you have to throw out “the two become one body” from both OT and NT.

So if Paul teaches to love your wife

He also teaches that one cannot have multiple “one body” relationships. See 1 Cor 6:

15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take Christ’s members and make them the members of a prostitute? Of course not!

16 [Or] do you not know that anyone who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For “the two,” it says, “will become one flesh.”

17 But whoever is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him.

So… if you cannot become one body with Christ and also one body with a prostitute – since that would make all three of you one body – then you likewise cannot have multiple marriages, since that would make you all one body. And, as we see in Scripture, “the two become one”, not “the three…” or “the four…” or “the five”. If you want ‘direct evidence’, there it is.

 

[Gorgias]

Isaac to Jacob, “May God Almighty bless you and make you fertile” (Gen 28:3) – that is, the human belief was that fertility was given by God.

“Isaac entreated the LORD on behalf of his wife, since she was sterile. The LORD heard his entreaty, and his wife Rebekah became pregnant.” (Gen 25:21). Did God do that, or say that He did that, or was this a merely human understanding? Does God change the world based on prayer? The Catholic understanding is that prayer doesn’t change God’s mind, it changes human hearts. Of course, the human understanding (even to today) is that God is a giant slot machine, and we hope that prayer makes us big winners!

“Abraham then interceded with God, and God restored health to Abimelech, to his wife, and his maidservants, so that they bore children; for the LORD had closed every womb in Abimelech’s household on account of Abraham’s wife Sarah.” (Gen 20:17-18). Had God really made all the women in Abimelech’s household infertile, just because Abraham lied to him and Abimelech acted unknowingly? Or, was that simply the human explanation for it?

“When Rachel saw that she had not borne children to Jacob, she became envious of her sister. She said to Jacob, “Give me children or I shall die!” Jacob became angry with Rachel and said, “Can I take the place of God, who has denied you the fruit of the womb?” She replied, “Here is my maidservant Bilhah. Have intercourse with her, and let her give birth on my knees, so that I too may have children through her.” (Gen 30:1-3). Did God want Jacob to have children through a woman to whom he was not married? Does the fact that children were born out of that relationship prove that God loves slavery and loves it when slave-0wners give the bodies of their slaves to others for sexual intercourse? Your take on polygamy says ‘yes, it must’… when clearly that is not a virtuous thing to do.

“When Bilhah conceived and bore a son for Jacob, Rachel said, “God has vindicated me; indeed he has heeded my plea and given me a son.” (Gen 30:5-6). Does the fact that Rachel claims that God ‘has vindicated’ her mean that this is truly the case? Or does it simply mean that this is her human belief?

If you want to take a lesson from the story of Jacob, Leah, and Rachel, it’s this: polygamy leads to seriously dysfunctional behavior. Two sisters were at each others’ throats as a result of the fact that their father gave them to the same man. This narrative is, in fact, the Bible telling us that polygamy is bad!