Polygamy in Old Testament... why was it permitted then?

  • Thread starter Thread starter PinkClouds
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
manualman said:
St. Paul clearly states (in Ephesians?) that husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the Church. How did Christ do that? By sacrificing his own life for the salvation of the Church. What more CAN you give?

How does that apply in daily life? That’s the hard part, isn’t it? Christ doesn’t give his people everything thing we ask for, indulge our every whim. The same goes in marriage. As a husband, I’m called to love my wife more than my own life, but that includes making sure I can maintain that approach for a lifetime and it also includes calling her out sometimes when her own sinful failings pop up. I can’t write you a specific instruction book for every situation, you’ll need the Holy Spirit for that.

…
Click to expand...
In post #53, you mentioned,
“1. Marriage was intended by God to be an experience of husband and wife totally giving themselves to the beloved. (Matthew 19).”

I asked you what “totally giving yourself” meant or involved and you responded saying that a husband has to do that by giving up his own life. So a husband doens’t “totally give himself” to a wife unless he dies for her and if not then he’s not totally giving himself. You talked about totally giving yourself as a present action that occurred as soon as two people got married and persisted until the end, but now you’re explaining to me something that does not usually happen until OLD age. Also, a person can give his life for more than one person, like when Christ did that for ALL of mankind or when a soldier does that for his country. Interestingly you didn’t mention anything about the soul, which continues to exist AFTER a person’s natural life but of course marriage ends there. So that’s one area where a husband does NOT ‘totally’ give himself to his wife.

I’ll reiterate my question to you again because you only chose to cover ONE aspect of a person’s life that involves “totally giving yourself” (although that still doesn’t fit) but you didn’t touch on other aspects of life, like love, work, attention, etc. In other words, show me where God says to give all of your attention, love, work, devotion, etc to your spouse. I also want to know how does that square with God wanting people to give their all (mind, body, and soul) to Him. When Deuteronomy 6:5 says to love God with all of your heart, mind, and strength, that is NOT literally in an absolute sense, right? How could we fulfill other tasks of life? Where is there room here (although I’m starting to see contradictions) to ‘totally’ give yourself to your one spouse?

2 Kings 11:4
As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the Lord his God, as the heart of David his father had been.

I find this verse to be interesting because even an unrepentant polygamist, King David (known for repentance), was able to be devoted to God. This is the same polygamous man that Jesus wanted to be descended from.
 
manualman,

I asked you a question earlier and I’m not sure if you saw it (on this thread, pg. 4, post #49). Would you like to debate this matter on any forum that allows for a real debate, preferably a moderated one? We can even start it in the Summer, around July.
 
I’ve sourced exactly what Aquinas wrote on polygamy. I think it answers the OP’s question well.

To summarize, he writes that ‘pagans’ or Gentiles may have more than one wife if the law permits it for the good of community. Christians cannot because a Christian marriage is a sacramental marriage. Law can in this sense be defined with St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica I-II:90:4) as: A regulation in accordance with reason promulgated by the head of a community for the sake of the common welfare. However, he further writes there is greater equality in a monogamous marriage. A polygamous marriage does not possess the equivalent character of equality, but that does not mean it is sinful if it is permitted by law for the good of the community and the participants are not Christian.

From Summa Theologica

This union with a certain definite woman is called matrimony; which for the above reason is said to belong to the natural law. Since, however, the union of the sexes is directed to the common good of the whole human race, and common goods depend on the law for their determination, as stated above (I-II, 90, 2), it follows that this union of man and woman, which is called matrimony, is determined by some law. What this determination is for us will be stated in the Third Part of this work (Supplement,050, seqq.), where we shall treat of the sacrament of matrimony. Wherefore, since fornication is an indeterminate union of the sexes, as something incompatible with matrimony, it is opposed to the good of the child’s upbringing, and consequently it is a mortal sin.

Nor does it matter if a man having knowledge of a woman by fornication, make sufficient provision for the upbringing of the child: because a matter that comes under the determination of the law is judged according to what happens in general, and not according to what may happen in a particular case.

Joseph Rickaby, trans., Of God and His Creatures, by Aquinas, St. Thomas (Westminster, Maryland: The Carroll Press, 1950), 28

The reason why a wife is not allowed more than one husband at a time is because otherwise paternity would be uncertain. If then while the wife has one husband only, the husband has more than one wife; there will not be a friendship of equality on both sides, friendship consisting in acertain equality. There will not be the friendship of a free man with a free woman, but a sort of friendship of a slave with her master. The husband might well be allowed a plurality of wives, if the understanding were allowable, that the friendship of each with him was not to be that of a free woman with a free man but of a slave with her master.

Aquinas argues that once you introduce a plurality of spouses in the marriage, then there will be a significant reduction in the very things that make it right. ** ***In regards to his answer to polygamy, it is not the best pragmatic option to have the multiplicity of wives or husbands because in that moment the opposite party becomes a slave to the other. *****Finally, he mentions that establishing paternity would be difficult when a wife is allowed more than one husband at a time.
 
Bishop Augustine of Hippo seemed open-minded to polygamy and considered that it was illegal because of man’s custom and laws. I’ll quote some of his work from Contra Faustum Book 22, paragraph 47:
  1. Again, Jacob the son of Isaac is charged with having committed a great crime because he had four wives. But here there is no ground for a criminal accusation: for a plurality of wives was no crime when it was the custom; and it is a crime now, because it is no longer the custom. There are sins against nature, and sins against custom, and sins against the laws. In which, then, of these senses did Jacob sin in having a plurality of wives? As regards nature, he used the women not for sensual gratification, but for the procreation of children. For custom, this was the common practice at that time in those countries. And for the laws, no prohibition existed. The only reason of its being a crime now to do this, is because custom and the laws forbid it
From the same book, paragraph 37 here’s another interesting point:
“In this there would be no desertion of conjugal fidelity or rebellion against her husband’s authority; in the same way as Abraham was not an adulterer, when, in submission to the lawful authority of his wife, he consented to be made a father by his wife’s handmaid. But, from the nature of the relationship, for a wife to have two husbands, both in life, is not the same thing as for a man to have two wives: so that we regard the explanation already given of Abraham’s conduct as the most correct and unobjectionable;”

Customs and laws? hmmph. We all know those vary/change from time to time and from culture to culture
 
AgnosticBoy said:
Bishop Augustine of Hippo seemed open-minded to polygamy and considered that it was illegal because of man’s custom and laws. I’ll quote some of his work from Contra Faustum Book 22, paragraph 47:
  1. Again, Jacob the son of Isaac is charged with having committed a great crime because he had four wives. But here there is no ground for a criminal accusation: for a plurality of wives was no crime when it was the custom; and it is a crime now, because it is no longer the custom. There are sins against nature, and sins against custom, and sins against the laws. In which, then, of these senses did Jacob sin in having a plurality of wives? As regards nature, he used the women not for sensual gratification, but for the procreation of children. For custom, this was the common practice at that time in those countries. And for the laws, no prohibition existed. The only reason of its being a crime now to do this, is because custom and the laws forbid it
From the same book, paragraph 37 here’s another interesting point:
“In this there would be no desertion of conjugal fidelity or rebellion against her husband’s authority; in the same way as Abraham was not an adulterer, when, in submission to the lawful authority of his wife, he consented to be made a father by his wife’s handmaid. But, from the nature of the relationship, for a wife to have two husbands, both in life, is not the same thing as for a man to have two wives: so that we regard the explanation already given of Abraham’s conduct as the most correct and unobjectionable;”

Customs and laws? hmmph. We all know those vary/change from time to time and from culture to culture
Click to expand...
This is really interesting. When I read this first I thought Jacob had only two wives. Then I remembered he had children by the handmaiden’s of his wives. According to the custom the husband ‘owned’ the wives handmaiden’s and if he had children by them, they were considered wives as well and the children legitimate. I think Aquinas also eludes to this in relation to Hagar; that a form of marriage did exist.

Well researched.

All in all and in answer to the OP’s question, I think it can be concluded a polygamous marriage is legitimate if it is the custom, permitted by law and the parties are not Christian. As a Christian marriage is sacramental is it monogamous.
 
You guys clearly have more time on your hands than I do for arcane discussions on theological nuances that don’t change actual outcomes.

I have no doubt that there are nuances. I also have no doubt that catholic teaching on polygamy is rooted in the same reality as all other catholic teaching: Sin causes harm. Things that are sinful are things that do harm. Polygamy isn’t prohibited the way eating meat on Fridays was prohibited as a means of cultivating discipline. It is prohibited because it innately degrades the dignity of the marriage relationship.

Manualman out.
 
manualman said:
You guys clearly have more time on your hands than I do for arcane discussions on theological nuances that don’t change actual outcomes.

I have no doubt that there are nuances. I also have no doubt that catholic teaching on polygamy is rooted in the same reality as all other catholic teaching: Sin causes harm. Things that are sinful are things that do harm. Polygamy isn’t prohibited the way eating meat on Fridays was prohibited as a means of cultivating discipline. It is prohibited because it innately degrades the dignity of the marriage relationship.

Manualman out.
Click to expand...
Bye.

I will take it the comment, ‘you guys clearly have more time on your hands than I do’ is not directed at me - given that manualman has posted 17 2004 times and I have posted 2 102 times. But then maybe all my posts are arcane discussions on theological nuances and none of manulaman’s are.
 
manualman said:
You guys clearly have more time on your hands than I do for arcane discussions on theological nuances that don’t change actual outcomes.

I have no doubt that there are nuances. I also have no doubt that catholic teaching on polygamy is rooted in the same reality as all other catholic teaching: Sin causes harm. Things that are sinful are things that do harm. Polygamy isn’t prohibited the way eating meat on Fridays was prohibited as a means of cultivating discipline. It is prohibited because it innately degrades the dignity of the marriage relationship.

Manualman out.
Click to expand...
My reason for pressing you for a more detailed point is because people usually have this Romeo/Juliet fantasy worldview of what monogamy has to be. Monogamy has to be all-loving/romantic, it has to make you always think about the person, it has to make you always want to be around the person, etc. The only thing missing now is worshipping the person. If you studied psychology, you’d realize that this infatuation or obsession usually starts and lasts in the initial phases of a loving relationship, and then it dies down. The rest of the love phase usually shifts to a more general romantic love (perhaps with sporadic moments of intensity) and companionate love. Interestingly, a third of our life is given to SLEEP and not totally giving yourself to anyone but your own body. So as far as I can tell, your view of “totally giving yourself” in marriage is just an act of aggrandizing monogamy.

Conclusion:
While polygamy may not reach the potential levels of romantic intimacy/focus in monogamy, but that doesn’t mean there’s no involvement of love at all. And most importantly, God did not MANDATE that all marriages reach any particular level of romantic intimacy. There are afterall couples who may not be good with chemistry and who stay together just for the kids and other utilitarian reasons. I doubt that’s a sin or that they have to break up because of that.

Here’s one early Christian author Tertullian take - On Monogamy - chapter 4:
“Even in the very animals monogamy is recognised, for fear that even beasts should be born of adultery.”

This is a prime example of aggrandizing monogamy.

Here’s science:
SOME animals are monogamous, others including the MAJORITY of mammals are not.

Source: Monogamy.
 
AgnosticBoy said:
My reason for pressing you for a more detailed point is because people usually have this Romeo/Juliet fantasy worldview of what monogamy has to be. Monogamy has to be all-loving/romantic, it has to make you always think about the person, it has to make you always want to be around the person, etc. The only thing missing now is worshipping the person. If you studied psychology, you’d realize that this infatuation or obsession usually starts and lasts in the initial phases of a loving relationship, and then it dies down. The rest of the love phase usually shifts to a more general romantic love (perhaps with sporadic moments of intensity) and companionate love. Interestingly, a third of our life is given to SLEEP and not totally giving yourself to anyone but your own body. So as far as I can tell, your view of “totally giving yourself” in marriage is just an act of aggrandizing monogamy.

Conclusion:
While polygamy may not reach the potential levels of romantic intimacy/focus in monogamy, but that doesn’t mean there’s no involvement of love at all. And most importantly, God did not MANDATE that all marriages reach any particular level of romantic intimacy. There are afterall couples who may not be good with chemistry and who stay together just for the kids and other utilitarian reasons. I doubt that’s a sin or that they have to break up because of that.

Here’s one early Christian author Tertullian take - On Monogamy - chapter 4:
“Even in the very animals monogamy is recognised, for fear that even beasts should be born of adultery.”

This is a prime example of aggrandizing monogamy.

Here’s science:
SOME animals are monogamous, others including the MAJORITY of mammals are not.

Source: Monogamy.
Click to expand...
In my view, loyalty is one thing that becomes more significant in a long term relationship than romantic love. It’s like siblings. They argue, sometimes they can’t stand each other, but at the end of the day they usually stand by each other.
 
DaddyGirl said:
Wait, that doesn’t make sense:
The law of the Old Testament didn’t forbid polygamy because…man didn’t understand/forgot the meaning of the law? (Is that what you are saying?)
Click to expand...
What does not make sense?

The law of the OT was a law of compromise. Moses was a man and the laws of Moses were laws of compromise. Men came to Moses and Moses judged what was proper and right. As I recall Moses allowed divorce because if not the husband would kill the wife and then go their merry way. The people of old if you may recall were not as civilized as today and since Jesus. We are getting better. Look back in time and see if some practices of old are gone by the way side while some remain. Animal sacrifices are a thing of the past as you know but happened for centuries. I do understand that there are civilizations in the world that do that but for the most part they are a thing of the past.
 
Wanted to add this quote to this thread. It’s from Pope Leo XIII, speaking of how polygamy in the Old Testament was a corruption from the original marriage bond at Creation between one man and one woman:We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion… [Christ] bore witness to the Jews and to His Apostles that marriage, from its institution, should exist between two only, that is, between one man and one woman; that of two they are made, so to say, one flesh; and that the marriage bond is by the will of God so closely and strongly made fast that no man may dissolve it or render it asunder. … This form of marriage, however, so excellent and so pre-eminent, began to be corrupted by degrees, and to disappear among the heathen; and became even among the Jewish race clouded in a measure and obscured. For in their midst a common custom was gradually introduced, by which it was accounted as lawful for a man to have more than one wife; and eventually when “by reason of the hardness of their heart,” Moses indulgently permitted them to put away their wives, the way was open to divorce. (Pope Leo XIII, Arcanum, 1880)
 
MarcoPolo said:
Wanted to add this quote to this thread. It’s from Pope Leo XIII, speaking of how polygamy in the Old Testament was a corruption from the original marriage bond at Creation between one man and one woman:We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion… [Christ] bore witness to the Jews and to His Apostles that marriage, from its institution, should exist between two only, that is, between one man and one woman; that of two they are made, so to say, one flesh; and that the marriage bond is by the will of God so closely and strongly made fast that no man may dissolve it or render it asunder. … This form of marriage, however, so excellent and so pre-eminent, began to be corrupted by degrees, and to disappear among the heathen; and became even among the Jewish race clouded in a measure and obscured. For in their midst a common custom was gradually introduced, by which it was accounted as lawful for a man to have more than one wife; and eventually when “by reason of the hardness of their heart,” Moses indulgently permitted them to put away their wives, the way was open to divorce. (Pope Leo XIII, Arcanum, 1880)
Click to expand...
and we routinely hear of hardness of heart and the Jews were a stiff necked people. Jews of today, descendants of the Jews of yesterday, can be valued as much as any human is valued but in my opinion more so for if they were chosen to produce the Messiah, in the process they, with their hard hearts and with their stiff neck…produced a belief in one God and unfortunately there are some that deny that God or invent many gods…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top