Monogamy in the Bible...where?

[AgnosticBoy]

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.

I’ve found evidence to go against your view involving ‘occasionalism’ but lets play out your logic. Based on biology, we know that fertility is not dependent on God so the biblical writers view in this case is nothing more than superstition. So now we not only have the biblical writers being potentially wrong on history, being wrong on the science, but based on your view they’re also wrong on some of their understanding of the supernatural. That latter case is very damning because it brings into question what other supernatural related concepts (God, spirits) the Jews might have gotten wrong. Did they simply not understand natural phenomenon, and as such ‘falsely’ attributed things to a “god” just as they did with fertility??

Factoring in your view, there are at least two reasons as to why God approved polygamy. One being that He did not keep Leah or Rachel in an infertile state and the other is about God’s concern. Under your view, God is responsible for ‘fertility’. But when it comes to people who He dealt with directly, God can also be responsible for infertility when there’s sin involved (Genesis 20:17,18). God dealt directly with Jacob and his family and He choose to impregnate (as opposed to “closing the wombs”) of TWO wives for ONE man. Also the text mentions God’s involvement as being more than just about fertility, since God was also concerned about the love in the poly marriage. Leah corroborates the author’s words by attributing the love of her husband to God. I assume that just because the biblical writers were ‘occasionalist’ about fertility does not mean that they were occasionalist about knowing God’s concern (ONE man not loving TWO women) when it is revealed.

“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!

Under your view, God did all of the things you just asked about. The biblical writers literally believed this. I’m not sure if you were expecting me not to believe this based on my modern day understanding of science because my understanding would be irrelevant. We should be interpreting the Bible based on how the biblical writers understood the world.

cont’d

 

[AgnosticBoy]

cont’d

“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?

To both of your questions, yes and yes. It seems like you expected me to answer no to the first question as if I’m supposed to imposed my modern-day knowledge (in your case, what you think is more rational for God to do) on the text. It doesn’t work that way. The text should be interpreted based on how the ancient Israelites would’ve understood it.

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.

Concubines were considered wives. Culturally-speaking, any children born to a concubine was considered to be the child of the wife to whom she was under. There is nothing immoral here in this case.

“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?

Rachel took credit for the child for the reasons I mentioned earlier. Under your view, it was God who did this, and yes it is human belief that God did this. There is no distinction between what God did and “human belief”. These people came up with the God that you think you know better than them!

 

[Jim-Eustachius]

Where does it say that concubines are wives? Concubines are concubines.

E.g., Kings 11:3 states that King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines, if a concubine was a wife then that verse would be 1000 wives.

Edit:

Secondly, just because God looks after someone and cares for us doesn’t mean he approves of our behaviour, henceforth him helping out those who practised polygamy doesn’t mean he supports it. An example of this can be found in Genesis 4:11-16 with the mark of Cain, intended to protect him from killers after he himself killed his own brother. God didn’t support the death of Abel, however that doesn’t mean he wouldn’t protect Cain.

Thirdly, I find it odd that you are asking Catholics to argue against polygamy ‘sola scripture’ under the guise of logic and rational analysis when your own arguments are filled with subjective opinions which contradict other views on the same scripture (eg, “ohhhh but culturally this and that”). We have a wealth of knowledge apart from scripture (we came from the people who originally decided what goes into our bible), so saying we can’t use any other texts or oral tradition is ridiculous as these things have also largely been maintained since the origins of our scriptures and provide further depth to them.

Especially ridiculous as meanwhile you expect us to take your 21st century opinions as gold. So excuse me but I’m finding this whole exercise a bit weird.

-Kindest regards, James.

 

[TK421]

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?

There is no moral foundation in solo scriptura. A person can make the Bible say almost whatever they feel like.

The Magisterium recognizes that monogamy is established in Genesis from the very beginning. The polygamy of the ancient world - including in Israel - was a result of concupiscence and man’s lust for acquiring status and wealth.

A man is happiest when he is celibate and free of a wife or material attachment. He is also happy when he has one woman and is married to her for life.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

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

True. But your logic is flawed. Jabal, the son of Lamech and a descendent of Cain, is called the father of tents and livestock (Genesis 4:17-20). Is living in a tent or keeping livestock evil?

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

A design comes with rules. Where do we find out about the rule regarding widows and remarriage? Hint: It’s not in Genesis 1. So your Christian tradition is wrong to limit ALL of God’s plan for marriage at the point of Genesis 1.

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

‘Moral’ law can not be phased out. It is still in effect. The indication that polygamy was accepted is embedded in the 10 commandments if you factor in what ‘adultery’ meant to the ancient Jews. Furthermore, I want logic and evidence that polygamy was phased out for “moral” reasons as opposed to “societal” reasons.

Again, you ignore the full context of Eph 5.

Perhaps you’re not factoring in the type of content that’s in Ephesians 5. The part that talks about Christ and Church in a marriage is an analogy so not every aspect of it should be taken literally. That would also mean not every aspect of it is a prescription. For instance, Christ’s marriage to the Church is only in a spiritual sense, but you would not say that a man is married to his wife only in some symbolic spiritual sense. In the same way, Christ having one bride, the Church, does not necessarily mean that we can have only one bride. If the analogy was taken literally, then that could actually leave a Christian with 2 marriages, one with God and one with their spouse. Interestingly in the OT, God portrayed Himself as a polygamists but He never divorced the kingdom of Judah. Romans 11:1-6 talks about a righteous remnant of national Israel that is distinct from the Church. So if you factor in both OT and NT, then we can say God continued His marriage with Judah (presumably part of the “remnant” mentioned in Romans 11), and He adds another marriage in the NT. So that actually leaves Him with two marriages.

To get to the bottom line, one prescription I gather from Ephesians 5 is that we are to bond to our wives in a similar way that Christ bonds to the Church. Considering all of this, Christ’s marriage does not necessarily mean monogamy but rather it points to a two-person model for marriage (the latter doesn’t restrict the number of concurrent marriages someone can have).

 

[ATraveller]

Honestly, the problem here is that Scripture isn’t open for interpretations of all kinds. Even with Sola Scriptura, which Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians absolutely reject (along with Prima Scriptura), the Patristic writings matter and are guides in understanding Scripture, which isn’t ordinary literary work as some agnostics and atheists treat it as. It doesn’t operate in a vacuum or from a blank slate, which you are doing. The blank slate approach goes against the Christian religion.

Why You Can't Read Scripture Alone | Christianity Today

And those who interpret Scripture and teach doctrine are only those gifted by the Holy Spirit as mentioned in various Epistles and the Church that was established by Christ Himself. (This is a broad and general statement so no Catholics vs. Protestants vs. Eastern Orthodox arguments please.)

It’s always bizarre for those without the Holy Spirit in them commanding Christians to believe what isn’t part of the Faith and doctrines handed down by the Apostles and Church Fathers including Justin Martyr (100 - 165) and Irenaeus (c. 130 - c. 202) (who condemned polygamy in his work called Against Heresies), both of whom I mentioned earlier because they wrote about the topic.

So your Christian tradition is wrong

This is the best line yet. Christians, especially well-trained theologians and those who helped build it since the 1st century, don’t know their religion.

 

[Gorgias]

Factoring in your view, there are at least two reasons as to why God approved polygamy. One being that He did not keep Leah or Rachel in an infertile state and the other is about God’s concern.

God did not keep Lot’s daughters infertile. Does that imply that God approved of their incestuous behavior?

Did they simply not understand natural phenomenon,

I think you’re being a bit anachronous. Were there natural phenomena that they did not understand? Clearly – we know today, through application of scientific reasoning – about phenomena which they could not have possibly been in a position to explain. On the other hand, the claim is not that they were stupid. They were able to observe and draw conclusions.

and as such ‘falsely’ attributed things to a “god” just as they did with fertility??

If you believe in the God of the Bible, then you know that He appeared to some (through His angels) and spoke to some and performed miraculous works. It’s too simplistic of you to merely wave your hand and say “if they got this thing wrong, then they got all things wrong.”

We should be interpreting the Bible based on how the biblical writers understood the world.

Sure. Our “literal sense” of the Bible is that which the inspired writer meant to communicate. The inspired writer of this narrative is telling us about all the dysfunctional family dynamics of Jacob’s marital situation.

The text should be interpreted based on how the ancient Israelites would’ve understood it.

No. Our understanding should take into account theirs. But that doesn’t mean that we much accept their world view. It just means that the meaning we glean from their narrative should be informed by their world view.

Concubines were considered wives.

Sure, but back that assertion up a few steps. They were concubines because their slaveholders gave them into marriage. Are you now suggesting that this story is telling us (1) slavery is ok and (2) sexual slavery is approved by God? “In for a penny, in for a pound”, @AgnosticBoy! If we have to hold to your take on polygamy, then we have to make the same analysis about sexual slavery in the same context of the same narrative. So… you’re gonna say that God wanted sexual slavery, then?

 

[Ziggy]

Jacob was suffering from his own shadiness. He was tricked by Laban just like he tricked his father Isaac into getting Esau’s blessing. The Older comes first is definitely the lesson.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

God did not keep Lot’s daughters infertile. Does that imply that God approved of their incestuous behavior?

God approved of it since He also made Sarah reproduce with her half-brother/husband, Abraham. If even this is not enough for you then consider the following:

• In Genesis 20:7, God referred to Sarah as Abraham’s wife. This means that in God’s eyes, the two had a valid marriage even if it was incestuous.
• God simply changed His rules and He let us know about it. He left Adam’s kids in a position to engage in incest, and left that practice in place presumably to help boost the population. But then it is explicitly stated not to engage in it by the time of Moses.

I think you’re being a bit anachronous. Were there natural phenomena that they did not understand? Clearly – we know today, through application of scientific reasoning – about phenomena which they could not have possibly been in a position to explain. On the other hand, the claim is not that they were stupid. They were able to observe and draw conclusions.

I don’t expect the biblical writers to have all of their historical and scientific (or natural world) information correct, but I do expect them to have a good understanding of the supernatural since they claimed to be connected to the one and only true God. God is the central character of the Bible and once they start getting things wrong about Him, like how or where He’s involved (involved with fertility, involved with emotions, etc) then that effects the validity of the Bible in a major way - the implications.

If you believe in the God of the Bible, then you know that He appeared to some (through His angels) and spoke to some and performed miraculous works. It’s too simplistic of you to merely wave your hand and say “if they got this thing wrong, then they got all things wrong.”

The problem is that we don’t know how much they got wrong. Most likely they were wrong on more things than just fertility, but I won’t go as far as saying that they got all things wrong.

Sure. Our “literal sense” of the Bible is that which the inspired writer meant to communicate. The inspired writer of this narrative is telling us about all the dysfunctional family dynamics of Jacob’s marital situation.

I’m more concerned about the morality of that form of marriage rather than the people you put in it.

cont’d

 

[AgnosticBoy]

cont’d

No. Our understanding should take into account theirs. But that doesn’t mean that we much accept their world view. It just means that the meaning we glean from their narrative should be informed by their world view.

Slight disagreement. If you want to believe in the Bible God then you should accept the biblical writers worldview since they’re the ones that introduce us to God, and tells us what He’s like, what He wants and doesn’t want, etc. You can not have an understanding of God that’s apart from the source that you use to know about him. And if that source has questionable information about God (and we don’t know how much questionable, because we usually find out from scientific knowledge which keeps growing), then that effects everything that’s built on that, including the Church’s understanding.

Sure, but back that assertion up a few steps. They were concubines because their slaveholders gave them into marriage . Are you now suggesting that this story is telling us (1) slavery is ok and (2) sexual slavery is approved by God? “In for a penny, in for a pound”, @AgnosticBoy! If we have to hold to your take on polygamy, then we have to make the same analysis about sexual slavery in the same context of the same narrative. So… you’re gonna say that God wanted sexual slavery, then?

Number (1) is okay according to the Bible. I wouldn’t characterize concubines nor slaves turned concubine as “sex slaves” because they were more than just sex objects. Ideally, they would’ve also been cared for, as well.

I have one more response to one of your other posts but I’ll post it tomorrow.

 

[Gorgias]

God approved of it

OK. If you think that God approves of father/daughter incest, then I think we’re done here. Good luck with your theories. I’ll pray that God grants you greater understanding and corrects your errors.

Slight disagreement. If you want to believe in the Bible God then you should accept the biblical writers worldview

Not what the Church teaches.

I wouldn’t characterize concubines nor slaves turned concubine as “sex slaves” because they were more than just sex objects.

That’s right – they were enslaved sex objects.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Where does it say that concubines are wives? Concubines are concubines.

I’ll respond by quoting Catholic sources. Here’s from New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia - concubinage:

…in the Old Testament, for instance, a legitimate spouse, if of an inferior social grade, or a bondwoman, is often given the appellation of concubine, not to call in question the validity of her marriage, but to indicate that she did not share in her husband’s rank or property nor in the administration of the household to the same extent as the principal wife.
…
The meaning of the term in Roman law, and consequently in early ecclesiastical records and writings, was much the same; a concubine was a quasi-wife, recognized by law if there was no legal wife.

Here’s a biblical passage that refers to a concubine as being a “wife”:
Genesis 30:3-5

3 She said, “Here is my maid Bilhah, go in to her that she may bear on my knees, that through her I too may have children.” 4 So she gave him her maid Bilhah as a wife, and Jacob went in to her. 5 Bilhah conceived and bore Jacob a son.

I won’t give a full response to the rest of your points because I’ve covered most of them in depth throughout my discussion w/ Gorgias. Many Christians think the case for monogamy is rock solid, but my goal here was to show that there is room for doubt and most importantly, I used logic and evidence in the process. Even prominent Catholics, like Saint Augustine, agreed w/ polygamy under certain circumstances (Contra Faustum Book 22, paragraph 47).

 

[AgnosticBoy]

“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).

I’ll respond with 3 points:

• The words “man” and “wife” are singular because the passage is referring to one marriage. This does not cover how many marriages someone can have.
• The word “two” has to do with the number of people in a marriage, but this does not cover the number of marriages someone can have at one time.
• The “one flesh” phrase has two aspects. The physical aspect of it involves sexual intercourse. The spiritual aspect of it involves being seen as one body before God. This does not conflict with polygamy and I’ll elaborate later in this post.

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

It’s hard to believe that the ancient Jews would’ve understood your passage to mean anything like you suggest, especially given their understanding of ‘adultery’. There’s no sense in limiting marriage to just two people and then only restrict the wife (not the husband) from any and all extramarital relations.

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.

It doesn’t have to be explicitly stated. It can be inferred from God’s actions and from other related rules. My points on Genesis 29 and the terms of adultery justify this.

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.

Well keep in mind that we’re not talking about literal physical bodies. Even in monogamy, the husband and wife are not literally one body so objecting to my point as if it’s physically impossible is a useless point. I’ll explain my view using the 2 aspects I described for “one flesh”.

Physically-speaking, a polygamist husband is one flesh with all wives when he has sexual intercourse with all of them. And of course it’s very possible for one man to sleep with multiple women.

Spiritually-speaking, a polygamist husband is one flesh with each wife when God looks at each marriage individually. He sees that the man is at the head of each marriage.

cont’d

 

[AgnosticBoy]

cont’d…
(My last post here. The author of this thread should have enough to work with in considering both sides).

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

There are plenty of biblical examples of multiple and concurrent “one body” unions. For example, Jesus is one with the Father and one with Church. Christians are one with their spouse and one with God. In both cases, that’s one person having multiple “one body” unions. If you’re also thinking that only two people can become one then even that’s wrong because the Church is one body made up of billions of Christians. God is 3 beings in one body.

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.

I already covered this in my earlier replies in this post. In the case of a prostitute and her client, the reason why Christ is not a part of that is because it’s a “sin” and He does not honor the relation. The prostitute becomes one with her client “physically-speaking” but not “spiritually” because God doesn’t accept that type of union.

 

[Gorgias]

Well keep in mind that we’re not talking about literal physical bodies. Even in monogamy, the husband and wife are not literally one body so objecting to my point as if it’s physically impossible is a useless point.

I’m not saying “physically impossible”.

In the case of a prostitute and her client, the reason why Christ is not a part of that is because it’s a “sin” and He does not honor the relation.

Re-read the passage from Paul again, please. He isn’t saying that there is no “one body union”, but rather, he’s asserting that there is. And, he says, it’s improper. Same thing here; multiple marriages lead to an improper union. But, I get it; for some reason, you want to characterize God as smiling on polygamy. We’ve rebutted your case sufficiently at this point, I’m afraid; you just can’t let it go.

It doesn’t have to be explicitly stated. It can be inferred from God’s actions and from other related rules.

Since you also seem to think that God likes incest – which is ludicrous – it doesn’t make any sense to continue this discussion.

God is 3 beings in one body.

You misunderstand trinitarian theology, then, as well. God doesn’t have a body.