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

[minkymurph]

I’d like to add that does not mean God sees nothing wrong with taking lots of young, attractive women as wives just because you can.

There were reasons why men had more than one wife, such as Abraham. It served a purpose. In the past marriage was often the only means of survival for many women, and marriage was not viewed in the same romantic sense it is today.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

I’ll tell you what my take is on it.
…

Monogamous marriage was less usual than polygamy until Christianity. What Jesus taught was the ideal of marriage, that ideal being man and wife totally devoted to each other and each other alone. I stand to be corrected on this but I can’t think of anywhere in the bible were it is stated it is. But it is, for want of a better phrase, a ‘lesser love’ in that the love of man is divided, and less intimate. That is why monogamous marriage is, again for want of a better phrase, a ‘higher’ love which we should seek to attain.

…

I don’t believe that Jesus went into as much details as you so you may be attributing more to him than what he taught. Much of your point here is centered on romantic love and that’s where I have some disagreement. I don’t see anywhere in the Bible where God is concerned with “romantic” love, let alone defining what it would look like or how much to give. There are some men and women who actually prefer polygamy so I also question if the ideal marriage is one set standard from God or if we set that up ourselves based on our preference.

 

[minkymurph]

I don’t believe that Jesus went into as much details as you so you may be attributing more to him than what he taught. Much of your point here is centered on romantic love and that’s where I have some disagreement. I don’t see anywhere in the Bible where God is concerned with “romantic” love, let alone defining what it would look like or how much to give. There are some men and women who actually prefer polygamy so I also question if the ideal marriage is one set standard from God or if we set that up ourselves based on our preference.

I did say this in the post I wrote below this one - that people did not have the same romantic notions of marriage as they do today.

It’s a fair point there is little recorded in the bible in regard to what Jesus had to say on marriage. On the basis of what is written in the bible it could be argued Jesus did not go into as much detail I did. However, it cannot be assumed what is recorded in Scripture is all that Jesus had to say on marriage, or anything else for that matter. Of course it can be argued we don’t know for certain exactly what Jesus said, but I would say he had an opinion on the matter and I don’t think it’s likely he taught his followers marriage is anything one chooses it to be. I read a story recently of someone who married a Ferris Wheel - even changing her name by deed poll to ‘Mrs Ferris’ and I don’t think Jesus would have been of the opinion this marriage is valid.

There are passages in the NT that discuss the relationship between man and woman perhaps not in what could be described as a romantic sense, but certainly a more loving sense than the OT which is an indication views on the relationship of marriage were changing.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

I did say this in the post I wrote below this one - that people did not have the same romantic notions of marriage as they do today.

It’s a fair point there is little recorded in the bible in regard to what Jesus had to say on marriage. On the basis of what is written in the bible it could be argued Jesus did not go into as much detail I did. However, it cannot be assumed what is recorded in Scripture is all that Jesus had to say on marriage, or anything else for that matter. Of course it can be argued we don’t know for certain exactly what Jesus said, but I would say he had an opinion on the matter and I don’t think it’s likely he taught his followers marriage is anything one chooses it to be. I read a story recently of someone who married a Ferris Wheel - even changing her name by deed poll to ‘Mrs Ferris’ and I don’t think Jesus would have been of the opinion this marriage is valid.

There are passages in the NT that discuss the relationship between man and woman perhaps not in what could be described as a romantic sense, but certainly a more loving sense than the OT which is an indication views on the relationship of marriage were changing.

I never claimed that marriage meant whatever we wanted it to mean but that doesn’t mean that we should become overly or unnecessarily restrictive of it either. When comparing monogamy to polygamy, some people tend to reduce the matter to how much romantic love a person can get out of it (as if it’s always a constant Romeo and Juliet story play over and over again) when marriage involves more than romance. Marriage also involves creating a family, providing for the family, companionship (which has it’s own type of love, etc), other family relationships, etc. Each one of these matters requires its own devotion which can take away from romantic love. In some of these areas, polygamy can have an advantage since there’s more people to gather resources and help out.

I agree with you that the NT does not record all of Jesus’ teachings but I also won’t assume that Jesus had a prescription for every life matter or that he has to. Besides that, much of what God wanted, even if Jesus didn’t cover it, was already laid out in the Law (Romans 3:20 and Romans 7:7). Other than that, I don’t see anything changing in the NT that covers polygamy, let alone to ban it.

 

[minkymurph]

I never claimed that marriage meant whatever we wanted it to mean.

It was not my intention to infer that you did. It was a general comment not specifically directed at any one poster.

In some of these areas, polygamy can have an advantage since there’s more people to gather resources and help out.

Agreed. Particularly in cultures where men are warriors and often killed in battle.

Other than that, I don’t see anything changing in the NT that covers polygamy, let alone to ban it.

Agreed. There is nowhere in Scripture to my knowledge that bans polygamy or suggests it is sinful or wrong. Attitudes to marriage do appear to undergo a change in the NT. This should not surprise us as attitudes and expectations do undergo change from generation to generation even within the same culture. For instance, I was 24 when I got married and then, that was considered ‘old.’ If you weren’t going steady by the time you were 15 or 16 you feared being ‘left on the shelf.’ I remember a woman coming to my house selling double glazing and she asked me if my mum was in. Wish someone would ask me that now.

 

[minkymurph]

Just want to add that Paul says a bishop should be the husband of one wife. This would suggest some men in the early Church had more than one. Paul does not go into any great detail on why this should be the case. It may simply have been because of practicalities, in that the more wives they had the less time they would have to devote themselves to the Church.

 

[manualman]

Zombie thread alert! (Racks shotgun…) I always wonder how threads come to life again after being buried in months and months of newer posts. Did you go searching for polygamy threads?

I encourage people to do more reading from reputable sources on the topic rather than just read their bibles and fill in the blanks with imagination (or more likely - rationalizations). There is a consistent history behind the catholic moral teaching on monogamy. Judaism had largely already learned the painful lesson of polygamy by the time of Christ. Polygamy was alive and well in the Greco-Roman world, but not so much among observant Jews. They had learned the hard lessons of the OT patriarchs.

In Matthew 19, Jesus lays out the fullness of what marriage is intended to be. He doesn’t discuss polygamy for the simple reason that the issue didn’t exist for Jews. They already understood its harmful nature, it didn’t need discussing. What Jesus DID explain was the way in which man and woman join together and become one flesh. That union images God himself in that it is able to produce new life. The idea of the man subsequently heading for the OTHER wing of his house the next night for his OTHER “one flesh” experience simply makes a mockery of Jesus’ point.

Salvation history is a process that took millenia. I’m a father myself. I have a 5 year old who has gone from a helpless infant to an amazing tiny personality with impressive abilities. As a parent, I’ve helped her grow and learn in many ways. She learns from mistakes and achievements. But as a parent, you take it as a process. You don’t nitpick to the point of being destructive, you build up and correct constructively. My 5 year old has always used “amen’t” verbally. (i.e. I amen’t hungry). It’s incorrect, but we haven’t corrected it yet. As she’s learning to read, that time has come. So it is in revelation. God revealed and made explicit truths as humanity became ready for them. Jesus gave us the fullness of what marriage is in Matthew 19. It’s not compatible with multiple wives.

Jesus elsewhere tells us that human marriage is foreshadowing of heavenly union with God and that our earthly marriages are for this world alone. This is why widows can remarry.

Contrary to a poster above, Jesus does not give permission to divorce and remarry. What he did was allow a “divorce” for those in a “marriage” which was really never any such thing due to a fundamental defect that prevented it from being a true marriage (porneia).

I must admit that I’ve heard the argument before that fornication was OK since the 10 commandements only prohibited “adultery.” Until now, I thought only teenage boys made that argument though…

As to Paul and the bishop “man of one wife” thing, it’s again a context issue. St. Paul is the guy who brought the gospel to the Gentiles. The Gentiles were the ones still practicing polygamy. Converts had some sticky issues to deal with. St. Paul decided that prudence required that converts that had previously been polygamists just shouldn’t be bishops. That prevented people from getting the wrong idea about the compatibility of christianity and polygamy (until fairly recent times, anyways!)

In the end, it’s not hard to understand why polygamy, fornication or divorce/remarriage are immoral once you understand what marriage was invented to be. It’s a lifelong union of a man and woman that involves so great a gift of self to the other that it’s very nature is ordered towards creating and nurturing new life. No behavior incompatible with that purpose of marriage can be tolerated.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Zombie thread alert! (Racks shotgun…) I always wonder how threads come to life again after being buried in months and months of newer posts. Did you go searching for polygamy threads?

I encourage people to do more reading from reputable sources on the topic rather than just read their bibles and fill in the blanks with imagination (or more likely - rationalizations). There is a consistent history behind the catholic moral teaching on monogamy. Judaism had largely already learned the painful lesson of polygamy by the time of Christ. Polygamy was alive and well in the Greco-Roman world, but not so much among observant Jews. They had learned the hard lessons of the OT patriarchs.

…

I realize that this is probably not the best site for me to debate on but seems to be more of a support site for Catholics and perhaps those interested in learning about the faith. I’ll just mention that I don’t agree with much of your claims but if you’d like to debate one on one then email me or post it here and we can set it up on another site.

 

[minkymurph]

As to Paul and the bishop “man of one wife” thing, it’s again a context issue. St. Paul is the guy who brought the gospel to the Gentiles. The Gentiles were the ones still practicing polygamy. Converts had some sticky issues to deal with. St. Paul decided that prudence required that converts that had previously been polygamists just shouldn’t be bishops. That prevented people from getting the wrong idea about the compatibility of christianity and polygamy (until fairly recent times, anyways!)

In the end, it’s not hard to understand why polygamy, fornication or divorce/remarriage are immoral once you understand what marriage was invented to be. It’s a lifelong union of a man and woman that involves so great a gift of self to the other that it’s very nature is ordered towards creating and nurturing new life. No behavior incompatible with that purpose of marriage can be tolerated.

If this is the case, can you explain why Aquinas states in Summa Theologica the union between Abraham and Hagar was not immoral?

 

[manualman]

You mean this Aquinas? earlychurchfathers.org/fullcircle/index.php?m=05&y=08&entry=entry080528-112459

The link fairly effectively debunks attempts to twist that Aquinas citation into an apologia for polygamy.

Theologians in general often make narrow arguments which can be badly misunderstood when taken out of context.

If you have other particular evidence that Aquinas explicitly condoned polygamy, please share. Personally, I rather doubt it. I suspect that the best you could do would be to find that he made an opinion about reduced culpability. That would be my suspicion about a reference to Hagar, but I’m open to you pointing out the citation.

 

[minkymurph]

You mean this Aquinas? earlychurchfathers.org/fullcircle/index.php?m=05&y=08&entry=entry080528-112459

The link fairly effectively debunks attempts to twist that Aquinas citation into an apologia for polygamy.

Theologians in general often make narrow arguments which can be badly misunderstood when taken out of context.

If you have other particular evidence that Aquinas explicitly condoned polygamy, please share. Personally, I rather doubt it. I suspect that the best you could do would be to find that he made an opinion about reduced culpability. That would be my suspicion about a reference to Hagar, but I’m open to you pointing out the citation.

This is not an attempt to debunk what Aquinas said. It is a quote of what he actually did say, in that he said Abraham’s relationship with Hagar was not an adulterous one and explains the reasons why. Here is the link.

newadvent.org/summa/3154.htm#article6

In relation to this thread, the point Aquinas makes in Summa Theologica is Abraham went to his handmaiden Hagar for the purpose of childbearing, not lust. It’s under ‘simple fornication and mortal sin.’

 

[manualman]

Uh, I may be a bit illiterate here, but that entire section discusses whether fornication is a mortal sin or not (Aquinas vs the teenage libido I referenced earlier). He choses not to take a tangent in elaborating on the legitimacy of Abram’s attempt to take Hagar as a wife because that’s off topic in the context of the issue.

Thomistic theology is pretty hard on us beginners. You always have to pay attention to the topic at hand and realize that tangents aren’t going to get a complete discussion.

The other thing to recognize is that even Thomas isn’t God. Just because Aquinas does an incomplete job on a topic doesn’t mean it’s the final word. Here’s why the over-arching teaching of the Church makes polygamy impossible:

1. Marriage was intended by God to be an experience of husband and wife totally giving themselves to the beloved. (Matthew 19).
2. Marriage is permanent while both spouses live. (ref Jesus in the gospels evading the Pharisee’s trap attempt).
3. You can’t totally give yourself to more than one woman, by definition. You only have one of yourself to give!
4. Ergo, no polygamy.
5. Moral principles are not relative to culture, they are absolute. Thus they apply to me, Adam and everybody in between.
6. The above is easy for me to say, since others discerned it and the Church vouched for it. Rather a lot of those between Adam and me didn’t have that benefit, so may not be entirely culpable for getting it wrong.

 

[minkymurph]

Uh, I may be a bit illiterate here, but that entire section discusses whether fornication is a mortal sin or not (Aquinas vs the teenage libido I referenced earlier). He choses not to take a tangent in elaborating on the legitimacy of Abram’s attempt to take Hagar as a wife because that’s off topic in the context of the issue.

Thomistic theology is pretty hard on us beginners. You always have to pay attention to the topic at hand and realize that tangents aren’t going to get a complete discussion.

The other thing to recognize is that even Thomas isn’t God. Just because Aquinas does an incomplete job on a topic doesn’t mean it’s the final word. Here’s why the over-arching teaching of the Church makes polygamy impossible:

1. Marriage was intended by God to be an experience of husband and wife totally giving themselves to the beloved. (Matthew 19).
2. Marriage is permanent while both spouses live. (ref Jesus in the gospels evading the Pharisee’s trap attempt).
3. You can’t totally give yourself to more than one woman, by definition. You only have one of yourself to give!
4. Ergo, no polygamy.
5. Moral principles are not relative to culture, they are absolute. Thus they apply to me, Adam and everybody in between.
6. The above is easy for me to say, since others discerned it and the Church vouched for it. Rather a lot of those between Adam and me didn’t have that benefit, so may not be entirely culpable for getting it wrong.

Being culpable was not something in my mind when I posted. The link I gave you above, I can’t point you to the exact line but if you read the whole thing you will read Aquinas reasons that Abraham did not go to his handmaiden out of lust. Having multiple wives for the purpose of satisfying lust is sinful.

I don’t think quoting directly what Aquinas says is going off into a tangent. It is true Aquinas was not God, but then neither are we. It is not off the topic of the thread because the OP asked if God changed his mind which is the very issue Aquinas addresses.

God did not change his mind in terms of the most fulfilling marital relationship which is monogamy. However, that does not mean God considers polygamy in certain circumstances immoral or sinful, which is what Aquinas is saying. He is not saying we don’t have to monogamous and he is not saying it is not what God intended.

However, if God gives us direction He gives it to us for a reason, and that reason is not purely and simply to avoid sin, doing anything wrong, and doing things that displease God. He gives us that direction in order for us to live and have fulfilling lives and fulfilling relationships, with each other and with God. The ultimate fulfillment of the marital relationship is a life-long monogamous relationship where both parties are devoted to each other and each other alone, and any children they have. Anything else falls short of the fulfillment of marriage, but that does not in itself mean it is a sinful or immoral relationship.

The other problem is if polygamy is impossible under any circumstances then one would have to conclude Abraham’s relationship with Hagar was sinful, yet Aquinas says it was not. It is true Aquinas could be wrong, and you and I are free to disagree with his reasoning. However, to my knowledge the Church does not think he was wrong on this issue. If you are saying the Church now thinks he was wrong on this issue, fair enough, but to my knowledge the Church does not teach Abraham’s relationship with Hagar constituted fornication/adultery and was sinful. If you are saying it does I stand corrected and the Church has now concluded Aquinas was wrong on this issue.

 

[minkymurph]

Here is the exact quote from Summa Theologica -

Objection 3. Further, no mortal sin is mentioned in Holy Writ without disapprobation. Yet simple fornication is mentioned without disapprobation by Holy Writ in connection with the patriarchs. Thus we read (Genesis 16:4) that Abraham went in to his handmaid Agar; and further on (Genesis 30:5-9) that Jacob went in to Bala and Zelpha the handmaids of his wives; and again (Genesis 38:18) thatJuda was with Thamar whom he thought to be a harlot. Therefore simple fornication is not a mortal sin.

Reply to Objection 3. Abraham and Jacob went in to their handmaidens with no purpose of fornication, as we shall show further on when we treat of matrimony (Supplement,065, 5, ad 2). As to Juda there is no need to excuse him, for he also caused Joseph to be sold.

 

[manualman]

…The other problem is if polygamy is impossible under any circumstances then one would have to conclude Abraham’s relationship with Hagar was sinful, yet Aquinas says it was not…

Assertion not in evidence. The link you provided shows that Aquinas believes that Abram did not commit a sin of lust. It is silent on whether or not the polygamous “marriage” was inherently sinful or not.

In fact, the quote shown seems to me to demonstrate the opposite of what you imply. Abram and Hagar’s relationship and offspring resulted in problems for Abram and his offspring later on. Illustrating negative consequences is arguably an example of the “disapprobation of Holy Writ” called for in the quote. Sins are things that cause damage to the human soul, after all. Showing the damage caused is one way of labeling it sinful. I must admit to being a bit rusty on my Genesis though. Time for a refresher!

 

[minkymurph]

Assertion not in evidence. The link you provided shows that Aquinas believes that Abram did not commit a sin of lust. It is silent on whether or not the polygamous “marriage” was inherently sinful or not.

In fact, the quote shown seems to me to demonstrate the opposite of what you imply. Abram and Hagar’s relationship and offspring resulted in problems for Abram and his offspring later on. Illustrating negative consequences is arguably an example of the “disapprobation of Holy Writ” called for in the quote. Sins are things that cause damage to the human soul, after all. Showing the damage caused is one way of labeling it sinful. I must admit to being a bit rusty on my Genesis though. Time for a refresher!

It was not my intention to imply anything. It was simply my intention to demonstrate that based on Aquinas’ reasoning, it cannot concluded that in God’s view every polygamous relationship is sinful, and every polygamous relationship in every circumstance causes damage to the soul. The fact the quote is silent on polygamy may be an indication of that. If there was no doubt every polygamous relationship in every circumstance was sinful, one would have to wonder why the quote is silent on the matter.

It could also be argued the cause of the problems in relation to Abraham’s offspring was not directly related to the fact Abraham had a son by Hagar as God chose to bless Ishmael, and it could be argued God would have preferred they live in harmony and Sarah needed to have faith God would not forsake her son. The biblical account of Abraham is an incredibly interesting one.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Uh, I may be a bit illiterate here, but that entire section discusses whether fornication is a mortal sin or not (Aquinas vs the teenage libido I referenced earlier). He choses not to take a tangent in elaborating on the legitimacy of Abram’s attempt to take Hagar as a wife because that’s off topic in the context of the issue.

Thomistic theology is pretty hard on us beginners. You always have to pay attention to the topic at hand and realize that tangents aren’t going to get a complete discussion.

The other thing to recognize is that even Thomas isn’t God. Just because Aquinas does an incomplete job on a topic doesn’t mean it’s the final word. Here’s why the over-arching teaching of the Church makes polygamy impossible:

1. Marriage was intended by God to be an experience of husband and wife totally giving themselves to the beloved. (Matthew 19).

…

Please define what you mean by “totally” giving yourself to your wife. What does that involve having to do. How is that possible in an absolute sense? Do you give your soul to your wife, etc? I’ll also reference Scripture just to see if your view corroborates or exaggerates what God requires in marriage. Also explain if Christians are to give their all to God (e.g. 1 Corinthians 15:58).

 

[minkymurph]

Assertion not in evidence. The link you provided shows that Aquinas believes that Abram did not commit a sin of lust. It is silent on whether or not the polygamous “marriage” was inherently sinful or not.

In fact, the quote shown seems to me to demonstrate the opposite of what you imply. Abram and Hagar’s relationship and offspring resulted in problems for Abram and his offspring later on. Illustrating negative consequences is arguably an example of the “disapprobation of Holy Writ” called for in the quote. Sins are things that cause damage to the human soul, after all. Showing the damage caused is one way of labeling it sinful. I must admit to being a bit rusty on my Genesis though. Time for a refresher!

Just wanted to add to this. As you say ‘assertion not in evidence,’ the evidence should be given consideration.

The evidence is you write polygamy is not acceptable under any circumstance meaning. Is that correct? Your position is polygamy is always sinful and never not? Is that correct? I wrote that in that case, if polygamy is never acceptable and always sinful one would have to conclude Abraham sinned. What further evidence do you feel I would need to include to support this assertion?

Aquinas quite clearly writes - exact quote from Summa Theologica, Abraham did not sin in going to his wife’s handmaiden, Hagar. So, the question is, in going to his wife’s handmaiden Hagar, did Abraham sin or did he not? Yes or no? My position is he did not. Is your position he did?

Aquinas refers only to Abraham and not Hagar. However, her actions cannot exactly be discounted. Did she sin? My position is she did not. What is yours?

Negative consequences directly related to a certain do not in themselves make that act sinful. In the case of Abraham, Aquinas appears to be of the opinion the negative consequences for him and his offspring do not mean his act was sinful because he states quite clearly Abraham did not sin.

 

[manualman]

Please define what you mean by “totally” giving yourself to your wife. What does that involve having to do. How is that possible in an absolute sense? Do you give your soul to your wife, etc? I’ll also reference Scripture just to see if your view corroborates or exaggerates what God requires in marriage. Also explain if Christians are to give their all to God (e.g. 1 Corinthians 15:58).

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.

Minkymurph, we’re not getting anywhere. The citation you provide asserts that Abram wasn’t guilty of lustful fornication in his relationship with Hagar. That’s simply not the same as an outright endorsement of polygamy, much as you seem to want it to be. The citation is simply silent on the liceity of polygamy.

 

[minkymurph]

Minkymurph, we’re not getting anywhere. The citation you provide asserts that Abram wasn’t guilty of lustful fornication in his relationship with Hagar. That’s simply not the same as an outright endorsement of polygamy, much as you seem to want it to be. The citation is simply silent on the liceity of polygamy.

I would be surprised if we did get anywhere.

At no time did I say this quote from Summa Theologica was an outright endorsement of polygamy. What I said was we cannot conclude God views polygamy in every circumstance and in every situation as sinful. I don’t see how that could be interpreted as a desire on my part for an outright endorsement of polygamy. A desire for outright endorsement of polygamy in my view would mean a desire for polygamy to be acceptable and legitimate in every circumstance and situation, which I did not say. Of course if you want to make the assumption I desire an outright endorsement of polygamy, that is your prerogative.

Aquinas clearly states Abraham did not sin in having relations with his wife Sarah’s handmaiden Hagar; not just he did not commit lustful fornication, but did not sin. From what you have written it would appear you are talking around what Aquinas wrote in relation to Abraham rather than answer it. The reason I say this is I posed a straight ‘yes or no’ question - did Abraham sin or did he not? Why does Aquinas write it was not sin? As you’re response does not include a definitive answer on this point, it may be the case you don’t want to commit yourself.

If you don’t want to address this point fair enough; but you can’t change the fact this is what he wrote irrespective of the context and subject matter of the text in which it was written.