Polygamy in the Old Testament

[AgnosticBoy]

Hey, everyone. This is something I have been struggling with for a little while. In the Old Testament, there are examples of polygamy such as King David having many concubines and Abraham also practiced polygamy. How does one reconcile this with the Church’s teaching that marriage is between one man and one woman only?

In my view, the examples you bring up are irreconcilable with the Church’s teachings. One common response that directly addresses your example is that polygamy was not God’s original plan, and that it was allowed for a particular time.

Of course, I disagree with this point on so many levels for the following reasons:

• There is no evidence, biblical or otherwise, that polygamy was only to be a temporary practice under God’s moral law.
• God NEVER changes his MORAL law. Adultery as part of the MORAL law, was described/enforced when men slept with women who were already married to a man. Otherwise, a man can have all the wives he liked just as long as the wives belonged to no other man. You can’t prescribe monogamy without adultery being EQUALLY applied to BOTH spouses.
• Even BEFORE Moses or the Law, God endorsed polygamy, like in Genesis 29:30-33 so allowing polygamy was not because of what Moses allowed.

 

[PJM]

We no longer live by the Old Testament as the Old Testament was fulfilled in the New Testament. God no longer permits polygamy as he said in the New Testament one is only to have one spouse. By the way, the only SIN God can NOT forgive is HARDNESS of HEART!

Nicely done, Thanks:thumbsup:

 

[AgnosticBoy]

We no longer live by the Old Testament as the Old Testament was fulfilled in the New Testament. God no longer permits polygamy as he said in the New Testament one is only to have one spouse. By the way, the only SIN God can NOT forgive is HARDNESS of HEART!

I don’t believe this explains Reuben J’s point. There are some assumptions and/or errors in your point.

Your claims:

1. Christians are no longer under the Old Testament.
2. New Testament says from now on to have ONE wife.
3. Hardness of heart is not forgivable.

---

Response to claim 1:
Your claim is only true when the OT is taken as a system, otherwise, individual aspects like the moral rules (e.g. not committing adultery, bestiality, murder, etc.) still apply.

Response to claim 2:
Matthew 19 simply repeats Genesis 2. Citing the NT fails to explain why polygamy was allowed in the first place seeing that Genesis 2 also mandates having one wife, assuming your viewpoint is correct. My take is that neither Genesis 2:24 nor Matthew 19 prohibit polygamy. In Matthew 19, Jesus was addressing REmarriage that comes after a divorce. This has nothing to do with polygamy but rather it has all to do with ‘serial monogamy’. Polygamy does not necessarily involve divorce.

Response to claim 3:
As stated, this point of yours is irrelevant. There was no hardness of hearts involved when it came to polygamy. Polygamy existed before Moses and the Law.

 

[fred_conty]

Hey, everyone. This is something I have been struggling with for a little while. In the Old Testament, there are examples of polygamy such as King David having many concubines and Abraham also practiced polygamy. How does one reconcile this with the Church’s teaching that marriage is between one man and one woman only?

It says in Mk 10 and in Mt 19 …

They are no longer two therefore, but one body.

And in Mt 19 in also says …

What God has united man must not divide.

Both “one body” and “not divide” would preclude manogamy.

A husband can only be one body with one woman since it is impossible for a husband to be one body with many women.

God did permit in some cases monagamy in the OT, but not in the NT, just as circumcision was performed in the OT but not in the NT. The idea of belonging to God’s people was thru circumcision in the OT. But in the NT is was baptism which incorporated a person into God’s people. Why? because now Christ’s blood was the instrument of cleansing/incorporation and not circumcision.

So too St Paul also says, that the Chruch, all the people of God, is the bride of Christ to form one body. Marriage is the symbol used of union between the Chruch and Christ to form one body. And a marriage between a man and woman has this symbolic relationship to the union of Christ and the Church. So this idea of St. Paul’s would again exclude manogamy in marriage. For Christ only instituted one church.

 

[Herculees]

Regarding my comment of “hardness of heart”, I put that because I THOUGHT I read in a post that a person can CHOOSE today to live in accordance to what the church teaches if one thinks it is okay to be in a polygamy relationship. I can’t find the comment now, however, just to explain where that comment came from.

I don’t believe this explains Reuben J’s point. There are some assumptions and/or errors in your point.

Your claims:

1. Christians are no longer under the Old Testament.
2. New Testament says from now on to have ONE wife.
3. Hardness of heart is not forgivable.

---

Response to claim 1:
Your claim is only true when the OT is taken as a system, otherwise, individual aspects like the moral rules (e.g. not committing adultery, bestiality, murder, etc.) still apply.

Response to claim 2:
Matthew 19 simply repeats Genesis 2. Citing the NT fails to explain why polygamy was allowed in the first place seeing that Genesis 2 also mandates having one wife, assuming your viewpoint is correct. My take is that neither Genesis 2:24 nor Matthew 19 prohibit polygamy. In Matthew 19, Jesus was addressing REmarriage that comes after a divorce. This has nothing to do with polygamy but rather it has all to do with ‘serial monogamy’. Polygamy does not necessarily involve divorce.

Response to claim 3:
As stated, this point of yours is irrelevant. There was no hardness of hearts involved when it came to polygamy. Polygamy existed before Moses and the Law.

 

[Cathoholic]

Darryl B. You said:

Abraham was not a polygamist. . . .

Yet Abraham was not living within the bonds of monogamy either Darryl B.

The results of Abraham’s sexual sins were disastrous.

Dr. John Bergsman puts it this way . . . .

QUOTE:

. . . . Continuing to the story of Abraham (Gen. 12-22), we notice that initially he was monogamous, married just to Sarai. Only later, at Sarai’s foolish urging, does he agree to take Sarai’s maid Hagar as an additional wife (Gen. 16:1-2). This situation, however, causes nothing but strife and infighting between Sarai and Hagar (Gen. 16:5-13). Hagar ends up giving birth to Ishmael, the father of the Arabs. How well do Jews and Arabs get along? That’s right. The sacred author is showing that some of the most serious adversaries of the people of Israel arose because Abraham broke the bonds of monogamy. . . .

(From: Three’s a Crowd: The Bible and Polygamy. by Dr. John S. Bergsma. Lay Witness from CUF in 2014 – web link here)

The concession of Old Testament polygamy was just that—a CONCESSION as the people as a whole did not have the grace to rise above this sort of thing on account of their sins.

(I am not inferring you deny this Darryl B. I am just putting it our there for anyone “lurking” this thread)

MATTHEW 19:4-6, 8 4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one’? 6 So they are no longer two but one. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” . . . 8 He said to them, "For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.

If Matthew 19 was true for divorce and re-marriage, how much MORE true would it be for polygamy?

Below from the Catechism of the Council of Trent (Roman Catechism) with format changes mine.

QUOTE:

ROMAN CATECHISM Though some of the ancient Patriarchs are not to be blamed for having married several wives, since they did not act thus without divine dispensation, yet Christ our Lord has clearly shown that polygamy is not in keeping with the nature of Matrimony.

These are His words: For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh; and He adds: wherefore they are no more two but one flesh. In these words

He makes it clear that **God instituted marriage to be the union of two, and only two persons. **

The same truth He has taught very distinctly in another passage, wherein He says: Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her; and if the wife shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

For if it were lawful for a man to have several wives, there is no reason why he who takes to himself a second wife, along with the wife he already has, should be regarded as more guilty of adultery than if he had dismissed his first wife and taken a second.

Polygamy tolerance was a concession, as the world did not have the grace of Jesus’ work.

QUOTE:

CCC 1610 Moral conscience concerning the unity and indissolubility of marriage developed under the pedagogy of the old law. In the Old Testament the polygamy of patriarchs and kings is not yet explicitly rejected. Nevertheless, the law given to Moses aims at protecting the wife from arbitrary domination by the husband, even though according to the Lord’s words it still carries traces of man’s “hardness of heart” which was the reason Moses permitted men to divorce their wives.

As Steve Wood has brought out, this tolerance of polygamy was a concession, as wives even among God’s people, likely would have had many “accidents”.

Even Kings were implicitly forewarned not to fall into polygamy (and did not heed this).

DEUTERONOMY 17:17a He shall not have many wives, that may allure his mind . . .

Which is at times translated . . . “He shall not multiply wives for himself, or else his heart will turn away” . . . which is exactly what occurred. Polygamist kings’ hearts were turned away from God.

If ANYONE would have had a “good” reason for polygamy, it would be “kings” and the “alliances” that could be and were formed.

Yet God implied to the people multiplying your wives should not be occurring, even among kings.

QUOTE:

**Other offenses against the dignity of marriage **

CCC 2387 The predicament of a man who, desiring to convert to the Gospel, is obliged to repudiate one or more wives with whom he has shared years of conjugal life, is understandable. However polygamy is not in accord with the moral law." [Conjugal] communion is radically contradicted by polygamy; this, in fact, directly negates the plan of God which was revealed from the beginning, because it is contrary to the equal personal dignity of men and women who in matrimony give themselves with a love that is total and therefore unique and exclusive."180 The Christian who has previously lived in polygamy has a grave duty in justice to honor the obligations contracted in regard to his former wives and his children.

CCC 2400 Adultery, divorce, polygamy, and free union are grave offenses against the dignity of marriage.

 

[Cathoholic]

AgnosticBoy. Your post 23 (here) seems to take issue with what the Bible rules were.

If I am correctly interpreting your statements . . . .

Polygamy wasn’t wrong in Old Testament times merely because of a Bible rule transgression.

Polygamy was wrong in Old Testament times and New Testament times due to a violation of natural law (sorry. I’m not going to be able to do the “philosophy” for you).

Polygamy was wrong for Lamech in Genesis 4 long before Moses ever wrote Genesis.

The teachings on Polygamy are now more clearly put forth . . . and . . . . due to the grace the whole world has from the work of Christ, expectations are raised.

Expectations would be raised, even for non-Christians who get graces from Christ’s work too (and to whom much is given, much will be required) and would have at least some gifts that many people in the Old Testament times did not have.

 

[Darryl_B]

Darryl B. You said:

Yet Abraham was not living within the bonds of monogamy either Darryl B.

The results of Abraham’s sexual sins were disastrous.

Dr. John Bergsman puts it this way . . . .

QUOTE:

. . . . Continuing to the story of Abraham (Gen. 12-22), we notice that initially he was monogamous, married just to Sarai. Only later, at Sarai’s foolish urging, does he agree to take Sarai’s maid Hagar as an additional wife (Gen. 16:1-2). This situation, however, causes nothing but strife and infighting between Sarai and Hagar (Gen. 16:5-13). Hagar ends up giving birth to Ishmael, the father of the Arabs. How well do Jews and Arabs get along? That’s right. The sacred author is showing that some of the most serious adversaries of the people of Israel arose because Abraham broke the bonds of monogamy. . . .

(From: Three’s a Crowd: The Bible and Polygamy. by Dr. John S. Bergsma. Lay Witness from CUF in 2014 – web link here)

The concession of Old Testament polygamy was just that—a CONCESSION as the people as a whole did not have the grace to rise above this sort of thing on account of their sins.

(I am not inferring you deny this Darryl B. I am just putting it our there for anyone “lurking” this thread)

MATTHEW 19:4-6, 8 4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one’? 6 So they are no longer two but one. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” . . . 8 He said to them, "For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.

If Matthew 19 was true for divorce and re-marriage, how much MORE true would it be for polygamy?

Below from the Catechism of the Council of Trent (Roman Catechism) with format changes mine.

QUOTE:

ROMAN CATECHISM Though some of the ancient Patriarchs are not to be blamed for having married several wives, since they did not act thus without divine dispensation, yet Christ our Lord has clearly shown that polygamy is not in keeping with the nature of Matrimony.

These are His words: For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh; and He adds: wherefore they are no more two but one flesh. In these words

He makes it clear that **God instituted marriage to be the union of two, and only two persons. **

The same truth He has taught very distinctly in another passage, wherein He says: Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her; and if the wife shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

For if it were lawful for a man to have several wives, there is no reason why he who takes to himself a second wife, along with the wife he already has, should be regarded as more guilty of adultery than if he had dismissed his first wife and taken a second.

Polygamy tolerance was a concession, as the world did not have the grace of Jesus’ work.

QUOTE:

CCC 1610 Moral conscience concerning the unity and indissolubility of marriage developed under the pedagogy of the old law. In the Old Testament the polygamy of patriarchs and kings is not yet explicitly rejected. Nevertheless, the law given to Moses aims at protecting the wife from arbitrary domination by the husband, even though according to the Lord’s words it still carries traces of man’s “hardness of heart” which was the reason Moses permitted men to divorce their wives.

As Steve Wood has brought out, this tolerance of polygamy was a concession, as wives even among God’s people, likely would have had many “accidents”.

Even Kings were implicitly forewarned not to fall into polygamy (and did not heed this).

DEUTERONOMY 17:17a He shall not have many wives, that may allure his mind . . .

Which is at times translated . . . “He shall not multiply wives for himself, or else his heart will turn away” . . . which is exactly what occurred. Polygamist kings’ hearts were turned away from God.

If ANYONE would have had a “good” reason for polygamy, it would be “kings” and the “alliances” that could be and were formed.

Yet God implied to the people multiplying your wives should not be occurring, even among kings.

QUOTE:

**Other offenses against the dignity of marriage **

CCC 2387 The predicament of a man who, desiring to convert to the Gospel, is obliged to repudiate one or more wives with whom he has shared years of conjugal life, is understandable. However polygamy is not in accord with the moral law." [Conjugal] communion is radically contradicted by polygamy; this, in fact, directly negates the plan of God which was revealed from the beginning, because it is contrary to the equal personal dignity of men and women who in matrimony give themselves with a love that is total and therefore unique and exclusive."180 The Christian who has previously lived in polygamy has a grave duty in justice to honor the obligations contracted in regard to his former wives and his children.

CCC 2400 Adultery, divorce, polygamy, and free union are grave offenses against the dignity of marriage.

I agree with you my friend. In all you say.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

AgnosticBoy. Your post 23 (here) seems to take issue with what the Bible rules were.

If I am correctly interpreting your statements . . . .

Polygamy wasn’t wrong in Old Testament times merely because of a Bible rule transgression.

Polygamy was wrong in Old Testament times and New Testament times due to a violation of natural law (sorry. I’m not going to be able to do the “philosophy” for you).

Polygamy was wrong for Lamech in Genesis 4 long before Moses ever wrote Genesis.

The teachings on Polygamy are now more clearly put forth . . . and . . . . due to the grace the whole world has from the work of Christ, expectations are raised.

Expectations would be raised, even for non-Christians who get graces from Christ’s work too (and to whom much is given, much will be required) and would have at least some gifts that many people in the Old Testament times did not have.

My view is that polygamy is a moral practice in God’s eyes. Christ went over some of the OT rules but that did not involve prohibiting polygamy as far as I can tell. So far you’ve brought up points that do not address my points. At best, this leaves both of our points unrefuted, although I will take the initiative and refute other’s points here. If we get into too many different topics, then we can start a new thread.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

It says in Mk 10 and in Mt 19 …

And in Mt 19 in also says …

Both “one body” and “not divide” would preclude manogamy.

You probably meant to say that the quoted phrases preclude polygamy.

A husband can only be one body with one woman since it is impossible for a husband to be one body with many women.

Your claim is unproven. When a wife dies, and the husband marries again, that makes him one with the old and new wife. When a married man (or any man) sleeps with a prostitute, that makes him one body with the prostitute. A husband is one with his wife and one with the Church. I can go on and on but these examples should suffice to show that your claim is false and therefore does not show a problem with polygamy on biblical terms.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Darryl B. You said:

Even Kings were implicitly forewarned not to fall into polygamy (and did not heed this).

DEUTERONOMY 17:17a He shall not have many wives, that may allure his mind . . .

Which is at times translated . . . “He shall not multiply wives for himself, or else his heart will turn away” . . . which is exactly what occurred. Polygamist kings’ hearts were turned away from God.

If ANYONE would have had a “good” reason for polygamy, it would be “kings” and the “alliances” that could be and were formed.

Yet God implied to the people multiplying your wives should not be occurring, even among kings.

One of your points focuses on Deuteronomy 17:17. If you look up the word “multiply” in that passage, you will see that it refers to a numerous increase. How did you figure out that having 2 wives is a numerous increase from having 1 wife? Reasonably-speaking, a numerous increase would be something much more than just an increase by a quantity of 1 (polygamy only requires 2 wives, at the least.)

When King Solomon turned away from God, did he have 2 wives or hundreds? I think the evidence is clear there.

So it would be more reasonable to say that this passage is talking about an excess of wives AND money since the passage mentions to not multiply in “silver and gold”, as well.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Darryl B. You said:

Yet Abraham was not living within the bonds of monogamy either Darryl B.

The results of Abraham’s sexual sins were disastrous.

Dr. John Bergsman puts it this way . . . .

QUOTE:

. . . . Continuing to the story of Abraham (Gen. 12-22), we notice that initially he was monogamous, married just to Sarai. Only later, at Sarai’s foolish urging, does he agree to take Sarai’s maid Hagar as an additional wife (Gen. 16:1-2). This situation, however, causes nothing but strife and infighting between Sarai and Hagar (Gen. 16:5-13). Hagar ends up giving birth to Ishmael, the father of the Arabs. How well do Jews and Arabs get along? That’s right. The sacred author is showing that some of the most serious adversaries of the people of Israel arose because Abraham broke the bonds of monogamy. . . .

(From: Three’s a Crowd: The Bible and Polygamy. by Dr. John S. Bergsma. Lay Witness from CUF in 2014 – web link here)

Some polygamous relationships in the Bible involved infighting, like that between Sarah and Hagar, but relationship problems are not on the level of sin anymore than fights that occur in monogamous marriages. While your source attributes consequences (fighting between Arabs and Jews) to polygamy, I don’t believe that this is a necessary consequence any more than Adam and Eve, a monogamous couple, leading to the fallen nature of mankind. Despite the infighting between Jacob’s wives, they were still used to build the 12 tribes of Israel. Decisions from both monogamous and polygamous couples can cause bad consequences.

I encourage your source, Dr. John S. Bergsma, to actually study polygamous relationships, including those beyond the Bible, before making such sweeping conclusions about polygamous relationships. I also assume that you used his points as he intended them to be used.

Eventhough, the Bible writers did not mention the negatives of monogamous relationships in the Bible, but then who were all these people that wanted to divorce which prompted Moses to append to God’s laws?! Think about it!!

 

[Cathoholic]

AgnosticBoy.

You are appealing to explicit rules in the Bible.

I am not.

I am appealing to natural law (although admittedly I can’t do an adequate philosophic unpacking, I can still see it and I can still get some of the philosophic insight from the teachings of the Church).

This natural law is then implicitly reaffirmed in the Old Testament.

I thought I pointed this out earlier.

QUOTE:

Polygamy wasn’t wrong in Old Testament times merely because of a Bible rule transgression.

Polygamy was wrong in Old Testament times and New Testament times due to a violation of natural law (sorry. I’m not going to be able to do the “philosophy” for you).

You said . . .

QUOTE:

Some polygamous relationships in the Bible involved infighting . . .Decisions from both monogamous and polygamous couples can cause bad consequences.

The problem is these “bad consequences” you speak of, are the result of directly deviating from monogamy, not FROM monogamy.

This is almost certainly WHY for example, that Isaac is the child of “the promise” and NOT Ishmael. It is NOT merely because you think relationships have gone sour.

With your motif, Ishmael should be the child of the promise.

My source, Dr. Bergsma (and the Church for that matter) is just fine.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

AgnosticBoy.

You are appealing to explicit rules in the Bible.

I am not.

I am appealing to natural law (although admittedly I can’t do an adequate philosophic unpacking, I can still see it and I can still get some of the philosophic insight from the teachings of the Church).

This natural law is then implicitly reaffirmed in the Old Testament.

I am appealing to God’s moral/eternal law which should not be in conflict with natural law. Since you are the one that brought up natural law, something which I do not advocate for various reasons, then please feel free to reconcile any conflict between the moral and natural law by addressing my points.

QUOTE:

Polygamy wasn’t wrong in Old Testament times merely because of a Bible rule transgression.

Polygamy was wrong in Old Testament times and New Testament times due to a violation of natural law (sorry. I’m not going to be able to do the “philosophy” for you).

How could it be moral based on God’s moral/eternal law but be immoral based on natural law? This is why it would help if you could address my points regarding God’s moral law and polygamy.

You said . . .

QUOTE:

Some polygamous relationships in the Bible involved infighting . . .Decisions from both monogamous and polygamous couples can cause bad consequences.

The problem is these “bad consequences” you speak of, are the result of directly deviating from monogamy, not FROM monogamy.

I’m not quite sure I understand you completely. Are you basically saying that the consequences that I brought up in my last post were a direct result of polygamy? If this is your point then I disagree and I offered counterexamples. One problem with your claim is that it presumes that rivalry is an inherent part (a necessary consequence) of polygamy when that is not the case at all. Besides that, you assume that rivalry is not fixable and that the only alternative would be to stay out of polygamy completely. This is why I question if you’ve studied or participated in any non-monogamous relationships beyond what you find in the Bible.

This is almost certainly WHY for example, that Isaac is the child of “the promise” and NOT Ishmael. It is NOT merely because you think relationships have gone sour.

With your motif, Ishmael should be the child of the promise.

My source, Dr. Bergsma (and the Church for that matter) is just fine.

This was not done with the children of Jacob, as all of them had an inheritance to be part of God’s people so this counterexample disproves your point if you intend to apply it to all polygamous relationships. Focusing on just one example, with different levels of actions that can be attributed to the Hagar and Sarah rivalry, like Sarah being barren, is faulty reasoning.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Catho,

I will explain more about my view on the morality of polygamy.

In Genesis 29:30-33, polygamy is shown to be moral when God acts to help a polygamous marriage function. All that God does is morally good.

In Leviticus 20:10, the descriptive meaning for adultery is given and it only involves a man sleeping with a woman who belongs to another man. This means that a married man can marry all of the woman that he wants and it wouldn’t be adultery just as long as the women are single. The rules on adultery impacts the type of marriage allowed. No rules would mean open marriage/swinging. Equal prohibition on extra-marital affairs would mean monogamy. Unequal prohibition on extra-marital affairs can mean polyandry or polygyny, and the latter is the case for the Bible.

If you don’t accept my points then lets have a rational conversation on that. If you do accept my points on the moral aspect of polygamy then please reconcile that with your natural law viewpoints.

 

[goout]

My view is that polygamy is a moral practice in God’s eyes. Christ went over some of the OT rules but that did not involve prohibiting polygamy as far as I can tell. So far you’ve brought up points that do not address my points. At best, this leaves both of our points unrefuted, although I will take the initiative and refute other’s points here. If we get into too many different topics, then we can start a new thread.

Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of morality. Christ is God. Therefore polygamy is immoral in God’s eyes.

 

[Cathoholic]

AgnosticBoy. You said . . . .

I am appealing to God’s moral/eternal law which should not be in conflict with natural law.

I am not going to abide by your false premise AgnosticBoy.

I have already told you polygamy is NOT part of the moral/eternal law.

I have already said that the allowance of polygamy was a “concession”.

CCC 1982 The Old Law is a preparation for the Gospel.

CCC 1985 The New Law is a law of love, a law of grace, a law of freedom.

You also said:

I will explain more about my view on the morality of polygamy.

In Genesis 29:30-33, polygamy is shown to be moral when God acts to help a polygamous marriage function. All that God does is morally good.

Looking at Genesis 29 and seeing God “opening the womb”, and jumping to the conclusion that God is “facilitating” polygamy is a mirage AgnosticBoy.

God “opening the womb” is an expression of fertility.

But you can’t conclude form that situation ALONE, that God is affirming the relationships involved.

In that sense, God opens “up the womb” of many women who are in illicit relationships.

If an unfortunate girl is victimized by her own father or grandfather and her womb is “opened” does it mean that God is affirming incest? By no means!

**But even if your Genesis 29 example is correctly interpreted, it is irrelevant. **

Why?

I already told you why, but you will not read/hear of it.

I told you due to sin and the fall, polygamy was a concession due to the hardness of heart that developed in the wake of sin.

Have you not read Genesis 2?

Here is God’s original intention for marriage.

GENESIS 2:18, 22-24 18 Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” . . . 22 and the rib which the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” 24 Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.

Here is what your way of thinking concocts . . . . .

**NOT GENESIS 2:18, 22-24 (but a phantom verse) ** 18 Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make helpers fit for him.” . . . 22 and the rib which the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” 24 Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wives, and they become one flesh.

What to you AgnosticBoy, do you think the ends of “marriage” are?

What is the purpose of marriage?

RE: Deuteronomy 17, You said:

How did you figure out that having 2 wives is a numerous increase from having 1 wife?

How many for you is “numerous” AgnosticBoy?

You also said:

So it would be more reasonable to say that this passage is talking about an excess of wives AND money since the passage mentions to not multiply in “silver and gold”

People who do not have a Catholic Church-formed vision of marriage often inappropriately toss together “wives” and “goods”.

I think that’s what you are doing here.

I will argue too against “multiplying silver and gold”.

But YOU want to be arbitrary in numbers when it comes to a wife, yet absolute when it comes to “silver and gold”.

And I am saying AgnosticBoy, you got it backwards.

Genesis 2. One man. One wife.

The Ten Commandments imply the same thing. Not, “You shall not covet your neighbor’s wives” but “You shall not covet your neighbor’s WIFE.”

You also said:

Focusing on just one example, with different levels of actions that can be attributed to the Hagar and Sarah rivalry, like Sarah being barren, is faulty reasoning.

What is “faulty reasoning” here AgnosticBoy, is you saying something and attributing it to me that I didn’t say.

(I think the “issues” with Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar, go way beyond mere “rivalry”).

 

[fred_conty]

You probably meant to say that the quoted phrases preclude polygamy.

Your claim is unproven. When a wife dies, and the husband marries again, that makes him one with the old and new wife. When a married man (or any man) sleeps with a prostitute, that makes him one body with the prostitute. A husband is one with his wife and one with the Church. I can go on and on but these examples should suffice to show that your claim is false and therefore does not show a problem with polygamy on biblical terms.

Your claim is unproven. When a wife dies, and the husband marries again, that makes him one with the old and new wife.

How can a man be one body with a ghost or a spirit whose body is dead?The dead do not have human bodies. So the husband is not one in body with his dead wife because it is impossible. He is only one body with his new living bride.

** When a married man (or any man) sleeps with a prostitute, that makes him one body with the prostitute.**

We are discussing marriage which God sanctions.
Prostitution is not marriage and is condemned in both both testaments.

A husband is one with his wife and one with the Church.

There are a lot of things that a husband can become one with any organization, which includes the church also. But one thing he does not do and that is become one body in body with the church which is what we are looking at.

I can go on and on but these examples should suffice to show that your claim is false and therefore does not show a problem with polygamy on biblical terms.

The examples given have misunderstood marriage being one body.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

I’ll have to respond to you between 2 posts:

Post 1 of 2

AgnosticBoy. You said . . . .
I have already told you polygamy is NOT part of the moral/eternal law.

I have already said that the allowance of polygamy was a “concession”.

Please provide me with a rational (based on logic and/or evidence) response that takes into account MY objections to your views. Here are my objections to your claim that polygamy was a “concession”:

1. There is no biblical reference that shows that polygamy was a “concession”.
2. Adultery as defined and enforced in the OT only restricted women to monogamy but not men. This shows that monogamy for both spouses was NEVER intended because it makes no sense to say you can only have one wife but then define adultery (the moral rule that would cover extramarital affairs) to restrict only women from having multiple spouses. The restrictions on additional spouses should’ve applied to BOTH partners if monogamy was expected.

CCC 1982 The Old Law is a preparation for the Gospel.

CCC 1985 The New Law is a law of love, a law of grace, a law of freedom.

It is true that polygamy was part of the Old Law, but then again so was incest, bestiality, fornication, same-sex sexual acts, etc. I fail to see your reasoning that explains why all of these moral rules carried over to the NEW law but not polygamy.

You also said:
Looking at Genesis 29 and seeing God “opening the womb”, and jumping to the conclusion that God is “facilitating” polygamy is a mirage AgnosticBoy.

God “opening the womb” is an expression of fertility.

However, it is not an expression of fertility by ‘natural’ means but rather it happens via divine intervention. Divine acts from an ALL-good God should all be morally good.

But you can’t conclude form that situation ALONE, that God is affirming the relationships involved.

In that sense, God opens “up the womb” of many women who are in illicit relationships.

The situation you’re referring to is Genesis 29:30-33 which I used to show that God supports polygamy.

Let me get this right…
According to you, God is an all-good and perfect being that wants and expects marriages to be monogamous. Afterall, this was the same God from the book of Genesis that prevented a king from touching Abraham’s wife Sarah because she was already married and that would be adultery?! From that I can see why God would show concern for Jacob showing a lack of love for his first (and supposed rightful) wife but then why didn’t God show concern for Rachel (Jacob’s 2nd wife) who would be committing adultery? Instead God acts on this concern very differently than he did with the king in that He doesn’t tell Jacob to not touch Rachel.

Genesis 29:30 to 30:24 clearly shows that God is concerned when a man does NOT love TWO women. God is also okay with ONE man impregnating TWO women so much so that HE is willing to help the two bare children so that all involved will be satisfied through childbearing.

Conclusion: ONE man loving TWO women and impregnating TWO women is a unique function of polygamous relationships. For God to be okay with aspects that are uniquely found in polygamy presumes that polygamy was moral to begin with. Otherwise, God is guilty of having immoral desires and acts that would facilitate and/or support ADULTEROUS affairs. I also have another example from 1 Samuel chapter 1 but this example and my detailed explanation should suffice.

If an unfortunate girl is victimized by her own father or grandfather and her womb is “opened” does it mean that God is affirming incest? By no means!

Yes it does if God directly intervenes rather than letting natural processes take place. Child bearing is one of the expectations for MARRIAGE, so for God to directly intervene in the way that you described creates a conflict with your view. After this girl gets pregnant who will take care of this baby?

**But even if your Genesis 29 example is correctly interpreted, it is irrelevant. ** Why?

I already told you why, but you will not read/hear of it.

If my interpretation of Genesis 29 is correct, and it is correct, then it creates a conflict with your monogamy-only view. To claim that God’s word advocates for monogamy-only would logically require that there to be non-contradictory information that supports your case.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Post 2 of 2

I told you due to sin and the fall, polygamy was a concession due to the hardness of heart that developed in the wake of sin.

I know that is the case for divorce since the Bible covers it. Please show that this is the case for polygamy and I request this because there is good evidence that suggests otherwise.

Have you not read Genesis 2?

Yes, I’ve read it and responded to the “one flesh” point. Refer to post #30.

RE: Deuteronomy 17, You said:

How many for you is “numerous” AgnosticBoy?

A large number would certainly be something more than single digits.

What is “faulty reasoning” here AgnosticBoy, is you saying something and attributing it to me that I didn’t say.

(I think the “issues” with Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar, go way beyond mere “rivalry”).

You wanted me to believe that the same outcome that occurred in Abraham’s polygamous marriage would occur in all others. I showed you examples, like with Jacob. Unlike Abraham’s relationship, Jacob’s wives stayed together (in Abraham’s case, Sarah sent Hagar away). All of Jacob’s sons were blessed and God used them to be the leaders of Israel. Also, are you aware that most or all marriages in the Bible involved women being paid for or arranged into marriages? How is not having a choice and being sold to a man to be in a monogamous marriage an “ideal”?