Polygamy in the Old Testament

[AgnosticBoy]

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.

I take this to mean that you agree with me that a man can become one flesh more than one time in a lifetime, but where we disagree is if the man can become one flesh with two ‘living’ women. I’d say you’re making an argument from ignorance (we don’t know how it can occur more than one time therefore it can’t happen). You should keep in mind that this is clearly not a literal physically process so I’m not sure why you’re questioning it as such. If there is any break from a literal physical process it would apply even in monogamy, like how are husband and wife, even in monogamy considered one “flesH” when they are still 2 separate bodies?

I provided other examples to support my case so lets get to them.

** 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.

Actually, to address our specific points we are discussing ‘one flesh’ which is not used exclusively in marriage as 1 Corinthians 6:15-16 and other passages show. You can also become “one flesh” with prostitutes, fellow believers, and with Jesus Christ (physically resurrected).

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.

The Church does not involve people becoming one with an organization. The people are the organization, with the organization (the Church) being made up of human beings forming one body or flesh with other human beings to be married to Christ, Christ being another physical being. You did not even address my point about prostitutes.

 

[fred_conty]

I take this to mean that you agree with me that a man can become one flesh more than one time in a lifetime, but where we disagree is if the man can become one flesh with two ‘living’ women. I’d say you’re making an argument from ignorance (we don’t know how it can occur more than one time therefore it can’t happen). You should keep in mind that this is clearly not a literal physically process so I’m not sure why you’re questioning it as such. If there is any break from a literal physical process it would apply even in monogamy, like how are husband and wife, even in monogamy considered one “flesH” when they are still 2 separate bodies?

I provided other examples to support my case so lets get to them.

Actually, to address our specific points we are discussing ‘one flesh’ which is not used exclusively in marriage as 1 Corinthians 6:15-16 and other passages show. You can also become “one flesh” with prostitutes, fellow believers, and with Jesus Christ (physically resurrected).

The Church does not involve people becoming one with an organization. The people are the organization, with the organization (the Church) being made up of human beings forming one body or flesh with other human beings to be married to Christ, Christ being another physical being. You did not even address my point about prostitutes.

I take this to mean that you agree with me that a man can become one flesh more than one time in a lifetime, but where we disagree is if the man can become one flesh with two ‘living’ women. I’d say you’re making an argument from ignorance (we don’t know how it can occur more than one time therefore it can’t happen). You should keep in mind that this is clearly not a literal physically process so I’m not sure why you’re questioning it as such. If there is any break from a literal physical process it would apply even in monogamy, like how are husband and wife, even in monogamy considered one “flesH” when they are still 2 separate bodies?

The last paragraph does not address what I said, namely:

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.

The next assertion I made was:

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

To which your reply was:
Actually, to address our specific points we are discussing ‘one flesh’ which is not used exclusively in marriage as 1 Corinthians 6:15-16 and other passages show. You can also become “one flesh” with prostitutes, fellow believers, and with Jesus Christ (physically resurrected).

In the last reply, no consideration was given to “which God sanctions”, as if any two becoming one flesh is all that was needed. St. Paul does not consider adultery as sanctioned by God. All the examples given where you said “you can also become ‘one flesh’” with anyone else or anything else is not a marriage in the christian sense.

A Christian idea of marriage contains the following:

1. A permanent union until death of one partner.
2. The intention of not taking measures of preventing children which may come of this union.
3. Fidelity to each other which excludes forication/adultery or any other union of the flesh with any other creature. This also excludes fornication/adultery from deliberate thought.

It seems that the above in not your understanding of what marriage is.
But this is the Catholic approach to a Godly marriage and any deviation from this is not acceptable.

To you other forms of unions may be acceptable and seen as a marriage.
It seems that we do not agree on the principles of what constitutes marriage.

 

[goout]

giant snip

You read scripture in a very fundamentalist way. Many (most?) Christians do not read the bible with fundamentalist eyes.
The Catholic Church specifically (that’s what we are) does not read the bible as fundamentalists and literalists do.

You are projecting something on to Christian morality which has never been a part of it. You are projecting polygamy onto Christianity orality simply because it is documented to have happened in the OT.

Obviously not everything that happened in the OT is to be taken as statements of Christian morality. The Israelites also had wars and killed women and children. Does Christian morality condone murder? No.
If you insist on this viewpoint, then We’d expect you to accept literalist 6 day creationism.

Are you a 6 day creationist?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

…
The last paragraph does not address what I said, namely:
"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.

I don’t see that you explained how it’s impossible given that the phrase “one flesh” can not be taken literally even between 2 LIVING humans. Either way, I gave you examples involving 2 living humans which also happens to support my case.

your reply was:
"Actually, to address our specific points we are discussing ‘one flesh’ which is not used exclusively in marriage as 1 Corinthians 6:15-16 and other passages show. You can also become “one flesh” with prostitutes, fellow believers, and with Jesus Christ (physically resurrected)."
In the last reply, no consideration was given to “which God sanctions”, as if any two becoming one flesh is all that was needed. St. Paul does not consider adultery as sanctioned by God. All the examples given where you said “you can also become ‘one flesh’” with anyone else or anything else is not a marriage in the christian sense.

That “which God sanctions” is what we’re debating here. The point about “one flesh” was just one of your points which I already refuted. Adding on other points, points that don’t deal with “one flesh”, does not take away from the fact that your “one flesh” point was refuted (for example, talking about adultery does not explain or prove how “one flesh” occurs).

Secondly, you presume that polygamy is adultery without first taking into account what adultery is. Are you aware that adultery can have different meanings based on the marital practices that a culture allows? I doubt even early Christian apologists considered this while also being potentially biased by their own monogamy-only culture. In a polygynous culture, adultery only prohibits women from having sexual partners other than her ONE husband. The Jewish culture was polygynous, and their laws on adultery (moral or otherwise) was not defined to restrict both genders in the same way since men could have multiple sexual partners (wives). Therefore, polygamy is not necessarily adultery.

A Christian idea of marriage contains the following:

1. A permanent union until death of one partner.
2. The intention of not taking measures of preventing children which may come of this union.
3. Fidelity to each other which excludes forication/adultery or any other union of the flesh with any other creature. This also excludes fornication/adultery from deliberate thought.

It seems that the above in not your understanding of what marriage is.
But this is the Catholic approach to a Godly marriage and any deviation from this is not acceptable.

Catholic marriage should not conflict with biblical marriage and God’s rules. There is very good evidence that polygamy was a moral form of marriage and I’ve yet to come across a logical explanation that says otherwise.

 

[Reuben_J]

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!!

As a Catholic, I believe polygamy is wrong. It is difficult to argue its prohibition in the OT but easier in the NT, the former being the New Covenant, where the standard of morality is raised.

I have, in the past discussed the issue of polygamy, especially with Muslims, people whom I often encountered in the course of my life.

In all honesty I could only use the examples of bad consequence to the families as a result of polygamous marriage, … Abraham, Jacob, King David and Solomon.

Nothing good came out of them but only discord, hatred, curse and murder among family members.

The only reason that the promises of God still worked and thus came true through the descendants of the Patriarchs was because God kept His promises, not because of polygamy. Their families nevertheless suffered untold tragedies and dysfunctions of untold proportion.

In OT, there were certain things that reaped its consequence as a result of bad action. An example was the death of David first born as a result of his adultery. Similarly, I would see polygamy could only cause tragedies and dysfunctions in the families; and which they did.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

In all honesty I could only use the examples of bad consequence to the families as a result of polygamous marriage, … Abraham, Jacob, King David and Solomon.

Nothing good came out of them but only discord, hatred, curse and murder among family members.

Polygamy in the Bible involved some bad actions but to say that it always or only contained bad is an unreasonable conclusion. Some biblical polygamous relationships involved creating a family, raising kids, creating posterity and keeping up populations for civilizations, providing an option for widows, esp. during wartimes, receiving blessings and assistance from God, being put in high leadership roles, etc. Is this all bad? The first 2 things I brought up (creating family, raising kids/posterity) was probably the most important functions for marriages in the Bible. I doubt it’s even fair to attribute some of the negatives you do as being a result of polygamy as opposed to other factors.

On the flip side do you think that monogamous marriages in the Bible were perfect? I see that the very first monogamous family in the Bible brought curses to mankind (the Fall), involved murder/hatred (Cain and Abel), etc. How could have these marriages been so ideal when the people pressured Moses into allowing divorce? Is it even fair to compare biblical polygamy with monogamy seeing that the feelings of women in monogamous relationships were hardly, if ever, discussed? Should we expect to find these women satisfied knowing that they were often sold or arranged into marriages to men that they did not have a choice on? I don’t know of any type of relationship in the world, marital or otherwise, monogamous or polygamous, that is free of discord.

The only reason that the promises of God still worked and thus came true through the descendants of the Patriarchs was because God kept His promises, not because of polygamy. Their families nevertheless suffered untold tragedies and dysfunctions of untold proportion.

I don’t recall God promising anything to anyone based on marital status or their form of marriage. Nevertheless, polygamists receiving blessings from God goes against your conclusion that polygamy only involved “curses”.

In OT, there were certain things that reaped its consequence as a result of bad action. An example was the death of David first born as a result of his adultery. Similarly, I would see polygamy could only cause tragedies and dysfunctions in the families; and which they did.

Interestingly, king David was already in polygamy when he took Bathsheeba (a woman already married to another man). King David had multiple wives as mentioned in 2 Samuel 2:2 and 5:13 and this was before he committed adultery with Bathsheeba which happened in 2 Samuel 11:2-5. If polygamy was adultery then king David been charged with adultery when he took his second wife, which was before the time before Bathsheeba! Your claim about king David is one reason that I’m convinced that many in the monogamy only crowd do NOT understand what biblical adultery means which can only be known by studying how the culture defined or understood it.

 

[goout]

Polygamy in the Bible involved some bad actions but to say that it always or only contained bad is an unreasonable conclusion. Some biblical polygamous relationships involved creating a family, raising kids, creating posterity and keeping up populations for civilizations, providing an option for widows, esp. during wartimes, receiving blessings and assistance from God, being put in high leadership roles, etc. Is this all bad? The first 2 things I brought up (creating family, raising kids/posterity) was probably the most important functions for marriages in the Bible. I doubt it’s even fair to attribute some of the negatives you do as being a result of polygamy as opposed to other factors.

On the flip side do you think that monogamous marriages in the Bible were perfect? I see that the very first monogamous family in the Bible brought curses to mankind (the Fall), involved murder/hatred (Cain and Abel), etc. How could have these marriages been so ideal when the people pressured Moses into allowing divorce? Is it even fair to compare biblical polygamy with monogamy seeing that the feelings of women in monogamous relationships were hardly, if ever, discussed? Should we expect to find these women satisfied knowing that they were often sold or arranged into marriages to men that they did not have a choice on? I don’t know of any type of relationship in the world, marital or otherwise, monogamous or polygamous, that is free of discord.

I don’t recall God promising anything to anyone based on marital status or their form of marriage. Nevertheless, polygamists receiving blessings from God goes against your conclusion that polygamy only involved “curses”.

Interestingly, king David was already in polygamy when he took Bathsheeba (a woman already married to another man). King David had multiple wives as mentioned in 2 Samuel 2:2 and 5:13 and this was before he committed adultery with Bathsheeba which happened in 2 Samuel 11:2-5. If polygamy was adultery then king David been charged with adultery when he took his second wife, which was before the time before Bathsheeba! Your claim about king David is one reason that I’m convinced that many in the monogamy only crowd do NOT understand what biblical adultery means which can only be known by studying how the culture defined or understood it.

The Old testament is not the source of Christian morality. Jesus Christ is.
There are many happenings in the OT that are not consistent with Christian morality. The slaying of innocents is another.

Catholics do not read the bible in a fundamentalist way. So as you repeatedly point to the OT as the source of morality we are simply saying: “Hey… we’re over here”. If you want to address Christian morality, let’s address Christian morality, not fundamentalist OT morality.

 

[Reuben_J]

Polygamy in the Bible involved some bad actions but to say that it always or only contained bad is an unreasonable conclusion. Some biblical polygamous relationships involved creating a family, raising kids, creating posterity and keeping up populations for civilizations, providing an option for widows, esp. during wartimes, receiving blessings and assistance from God, being put in high leadership roles, etc. Is this all bad? The first 2 things I brought up (creating family, raising kids/posterity) was probably the most important functions for marriages in the Bible. I doubt it’s even fair to attribute some of the negatives you do as being a result of polygamy as opposed to other factors.

On the flip side do you think that monogamous marriages in the Bible were perfect? I see that the very first monogamous family in the Bible brought curses to mankind (the Fall), involved murder/hatred (Cain and Abel), etc. How could have these marriages been so ideal when the people pressured Moses into allowing divorce? Is it even fair to compare biblical polygamy with monogamy seeing that the feelings of women in monogamous relationships were hardly, if ever, discussed? Should we expect to find these women satisfied knowing that they were often sold or arranged into marriages to men that they did not have a choice on? I don’t know of any type of relationship in the world, marital or otherwise, monogamous or polygamous, that is free of discord.

I don’t recall God promising anything to anyone based on marital status or their form of marriage. Nevertheless, polygamists receiving blessings from God goes against your conclusion that polygamy only involved “curses”.

Interestingly, king David was already in polygamy when he took Bathsheeba (a woman already married to another man). King David had multiple wives as mentioned in 2 Samuel 2:2 and 5:13 and this was before he committed adultery with Bathsheeba which happened in 2 Samuel 11:2-5. If polygamy was adultery then king David been charged with adultery when he took his second wife, which was before the time before Bathsheeba! Your claim about king David is one reason that I’m convinced that many in the monogamy only crowd do NOT understand what biblical adultery means which can only be known by studying how the culture defined or understood it.

Hi. I have read your post and I think I understand what you are trying to say. You are probably right to support polygamy in your line of thinking.

I did not mean it that way but see it from another angle, if you may.

The bad effect of polygamy is on the family. I mentioned about broken family – dysfunctional, hatred and even murder.

God obviously did not base his promises that the Patriarchs must be monogamous nor did I say it was.

God’s promises were implemented regardless whether they were monogamous or not. God made a covenant. It was God’s nature to be faithful to His covenant, regardless of whether the other party was faithful or not. Sure the unfaithfulness on the part of the people would cause them to suffer some form of temporal punishment, but it did not stop God from implementing His promises as in the Covenant. That was the nature of the Covenant too.

Now, the curses on the family of polygamous fathers. Well, you can see for yourselves – their families were definitely not happy families but instead were filled with untold tragedies (in the families).

The children of Jacob – it was one of intrigue, jealousy and murder, continued long after his death.

The family of King David. You can read for yourself – how David was such a broken old man that he had to kill his rebellious son. Any father would be broken if he has to live what David had gone through with his children.

Even Abraham himself was not spared the brokenness of what happened to his sons.

This does not mean a monogamous marriage is without any family problem. However, there were exemplary monogamous marriages in the Bible.

As for Adam and Eve, yes, I would agree with you, theirs was a sad family as well, considering that their son killed the other brother.

Polygamy was definitely not considered adultery in OT. You seem to mix Christianity view of polygamy with the OT practice, which was allowed.

 

[fred_conty]

I don’t see that you explained how it’s impossible given that the phrase “one flesh” can not be taken literally even between 2 LIVING humans. Either way, I gave you examples involving 2 living humans which also happens to support my case.

That “which God sanctions” is what we’re debating here. The point about “one flesh” was just one of your points which I already refuted. Adding on other points, points that don’t deal with “one flesh”, does not take away from the fact that your “one flesh” point was refuted (for example, talking about adultery does not explain or prove how “one flesh” occurs).

Secondly, you presume that polygamy is adultery without first taking into account what adultery is. Are you aware that adultery can have different meanings based on the marital practices that a culture allows? I doubt even early Christian apologists considered this while also being potentially biased by their own monogamy-only culture. In a polygynous culture, adultery only prohibits women from having sexual partners other than her ONE husband. The Jewish culture was polygynous, and their laws on adultery (moral or otherwise) was not defined to restrict both genders in the same way since men could have multiple sexual partners (wives). Therefore, polygamy is not necessarily adultery.

Catholic marriage should not conflict with biblical marriage and God’s rules. There is very good evidence that polygamy was a moral form of marriage and I’ve yet to come across a logical explanation that says otherwise.

In Genesis 1, God created one man and one woman, and from those two they should be fruitful and multiply.

In Genesis 2 it says

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 shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

The man shall hold fast to his wife, not wives, just one. Notice too that it says the he is to leave his “father”, not fathers, and “mother”, not his mothers.

While it may be true that polygny was done in rare cases, the OT doesn’t say that God wanted this to be done. He allowed David and the 2 or 3 others to do it, but it was not at God’s direct wish that David did it.

As I see it, Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 from the OT, establishes one man and one woman in marriage, and not mutiples of either.

In Mt 19 in the NT says,

Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

This phrase, “and shall marry another”, says that multiple women in a marriage is forbidden. For why would it be forbidden to marry “another” woman for any reason if polygny was ok. This is saying that there is to be only one woman in marriage.

So while in the OT is was allowed in a few cases, in the NT Christ did not allow it. And Genesis original idea was one man and one woman.

As far as the parable in the NT of the 10 virgins waiting for the bridegroom, the point of the story is given at the end of the parable … “be ready for you do not know the day or the hour.” The parable saw the 10 virgins as christians who were pure and worthy of heaven being virgins. A parable is used to teach something, and in this case, it taught to be ready for Christ when he comes again at the final hour, which Christ stated at the very end of the story. So the point was not about Christ marrying 10 virgins.

We find in parables a central point, which may be couched in rather strange ideas. Like the workers who were hired. Some in the morning, some at noon and some in the afternoon, yet all paid the same wage. This parable seemed to be defrauding laborers of their just wages. The point was as Christ said at the end, “the first will be last and the last will be first.” Meaning the Jews were chosen first while others, the gentiles, were last as the parable is pointing out. And there should be no jealousy over this fact of God’s generosity to everyone. But it wasn’t about labor laws.

So too, the parable of the 10 virgins isn’t about proving that polygny is lawful, but it is about being ready for Christ coming at any hour as Christ stated at the end.

The Catholic church has already said that this union between man and woman is sacred and a sacrament. That a man may not divorce and remarry for this would be in the church’s eyes polygny. That there is a permanent bond of a marriage. We do not see the Church as a separate teaching entity from Christ, but rather when the church speaks, then Christ speaks. The Church speaks in behalf of Christ and there is no confrontation between the two.

As far as what others outside of the church may believe or be doing, that’s another story. But as far as the Catholic church is concerned it only has one teaching on this subject…the OT in Genesis 1 & 2 states one man and one woman, which denies the right to polygamy, and polygny.

And from this we would have to say that polygamy and polygny is not acceptable to God in the OT, but that God did make it the exception for a very few.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

The bad effect of polygamy is on the family. I mentioned about broken family – dysfunctional, hatred and even murder.

When I put your point about murder to the test, I find it to be a stretch because not all polygamous families in the Bible murdered. Polygamy in the Bible contained a lot of dysfunction due to inheritance disputes, but most of that was resolved when all wives were able to have children so that they can pass on their inheritance to them.

We should also keep in mind that my main point is that polygamy was a moral form of marriage and this does not require that all involved remain perfect. The same goes for monogamous marriages.

This does not mean a monogamous marriage is without any family problem. However, there were exemplary monogamous marriages in the Bible.

I don’t see much of an example in action seeing that little to nothing is mentioned about the dynamics of monogamous marriages in the Bible. There’s little to no talk of romance, marital satisfaction, and other relationship dynamics of actual couples. I know that treating women like property and the overall suppression of women during biblical times is not a good start for any form of marriage.

If you want good examples of polygamous marriages then I can point you to examples of living couples now.

Polygamy was definitely not considered adultery in OT. You seem to mix Christianity view of polygamy with the OT practice, which was allowed.

I’ll address some of the Christian view as I respond to Reuben J’s post later on.

 

[Reuben_J]

When I put your point about murder to the test, I find it to be a stretch because not all polygamous families in the Bible murdered. Polygamy in the Bible contained a lot of dysfunction due to inheritance disputes, but most of that was resolved when all wives were able to have children so that they can pass on their inheritance to them.

We should also keep in mind that my main point is that polygamy was a moral form of marriage and this does not require that all involved remain perfect. The same goes for monogamous marriages.

I don’t see much of an example in action seeing that little to nothing is mentioned about the dynamics of monogamous marriages in the Bible. There’s little to no talk of romance, marital satisfaction, and other relationship dynamics of actual couples. I know that treating women like property and the overall suppression of women during biblical times is not a good start for any form of marriage.

If you want good examples of polygamous marriages then I can point you to examples of living couples now.

I’ll address some of the Christian view as I respond to Reuben J’s post later on.

I am about done on what I want to say about polygamy.

I believe it is wrong from Christianity point of view and the OT Bible did not support it too, albeit indirectly. In the NT the opposition to polygamy is clearer and I thought one of the posters earlier on made good point when he said that Jesus had raised the moral standard.

I just like to address your point that most of the problem in polygamy is about inheritance dispute. I agree with that but then again that also happened in monogamy.

In polygamy it is made worse because of the children of different mothers - the differences, enmity and being partisan. In King David’s case, it as the cause of the breakage of his kingdom though it happened later on.

Of course, it is easier to bring up family in monogamous marriages. Jesus himself came from one (his human family).

You mentioned from the moral point of view. It is clearly a negative in NT but more neutral in OT.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

In Genesis 1, God created one man and one woman, and from those two they should be fruitful and multiply.

In Genesis 2 it says

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.”

Genesis 2:24 talks about the number of people in a marriage, but that alone does not mean monogamy. This passage does not say you can only have one marriage, nor does it define what adultery is, and this is key and I’ll explain just why. Polygamy can be practiced as a 2 person marriage if the husband has 2 separate marriages (one wife in each marriage) and in later biblical stories we find just that along with adultery being defined and enforced to suit the lifestyle.

Other points I can address about Genesis 2:24… Singular word forms, like “wife”, “husband”, “mother” are used because there is only one marriage being discussed, in general. The authors of Genesis often referred to Jacob’s “wife” (singular)when only talking about one of his marriages as opposed to all wives collectively. If the author wanted to factor in polygamy into Genesis 2:24, then he could’ve said “cling to your wife OR wives” since you can unite to more than one person at a time (to the Church, to Christ, to wife 1, to wife 2, etc) but he was only talking about one marriage, in general. Otherwise, as I already mentioned, the author chose to bring up polygamy by talking about it later on and revealing God’s rules and actions towards, which most importantly, included the rule on adultery which allowed for polyGYNY. This is why you can’t stop at Genesis 2:24, but instead must read up on ALL of the relevant rules/regulations/acts when trying to understand biblical marriage.

While it may be true that polygny was done in rare cases, the OT doesn’t say that God wanted this to be done. He allowed David and the 2 or 3 others to do it, but it was not at God’s direct wish that David did it.

There are passages that mention God actually helping to bring about marital functions that are unique to polygamy, like helping two women be impregnated by ONE man or when He’s concerned that a man does NOT love 2 wives (Genesis 29:30-33). This is certainly more than just God sitting around and watching.

As I see it, Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 from the OT, establishes one man and one woman in marriage, and not mutiples of either.

One man and one woman, but not one marriage nor that it’s adultery to start additional marriages (refer to my 1st response in this post).

In Mt 19 in the NT says,

Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Matthew 19 only covers one aspect of adultery and it’s only in the context of a divorce, or a remarriage following a divorce. Have you considered why it doesn’t talk about adultery not involving a divorce, like if a married woman doesn’t divorce but sleeps with another man? Clearly, you have to reference other places in the Bible that cover such scenarios, like God’s moral law in the OT, which I’ve explained plenty of times here that it only prohibits women from having multiple spouses. Remarriages (or second marriages) not involving divorce, like for widows and polygamists, are not prohibited nor considered adultery.

The Catholic church has already said that this union between man and woman is sacred and a sacrament. That a man may not divorce and remarry for this would be in the church’s eyes polygny. That there is a permanent bond of a marriage. We do not see the Church as a separate teaching entity from Christ, but rather when the church speaks, then Christ speaks. The Church speaks in behalf of Christ and there is no confrontation between the two.

I understand the Catholic Church’s position, but I question it because there is good evidence from the Bible that polygamy is moral. The two should not be in conflict. Perhaps to you, only the Catholic Church leads to truth, but as an agnostic, I also came to realize that LOGIC and EVIDENCE (preferably empirically testable evidence) can also lead to truth!!

To many in the Church (not just Catholic Church), polygamy was a “concession” that was temporarily allowed. This is the common explanation lacking in empirical evidence and in direct conflict with God’s moral law because if polygamy was wrong, then it would’ve been adultery. And God has NEVER made a concession for adultery, even when polygamy was in practice. I can only conclude that many in the Church did not understand what adultery meant and this error started with early Christian apologists and has been perpetuated ever since!

 

[goout]

I understand the Catholic Church’s position, but I question it because there is good evidence from the Bible that polygamy is moral. The two should not be in conflict. Perhaps to you, only the Catholic Church leads to truth, but as an agnostic, I also came to realize that LOGIC and EVIDENCE (preferably empirically testable evidence) can also lead to truth!!

To many in the Church (not just Catholic Church), polygamy was a “concession” that was temporarily allowed. This is the common explanation lacking in empirical evidence and in direct conflict with God’s moral law because if polygamy was wrong, then it would’ve been adultery. And God has NEVER made a concession for adultery, even when polygamy was in practice. I can only conclude that many in the Church did not understand what adultery meant and this error started with early Christian apologists and has been perpetuated ever since!

Christ explicitly tells us that marriage is between a man and a woman. End of story.
What do you find difficult about that? The OT is not the fulfillment of morality.

If you read the bible as a fundamentalist, you will have all the problems caused by fundamentalism. Which brings me back to a question you never answered:

Do you believe the world was created in 6 literal days?
It says so in the OT, and since you are strict bible believing person, you should be consistent.

How do you answer?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

I am about done on what I want to say about polygamy.

I appreciate you explaining your point of view. Please keep in mind that I respectfully disagree with a lot of your points and it’s not because I want to be anti-Christian or to be difficult. I have a genuine disagreement that’s based on logic and evidence. Perhaps my last post (post #52) will help explain polygamy factoring in the Christian perspective.

The best position on this matter should be what best explains all of the relevant data. While the Catholic Church’s position addresses some key passages, but it completely falls flat when it comes to other passages that I’ve used to support my points. If this was a court of law, which some polygamists are already cooking up to bring about, then the case for only monogamy would seem very weak. Unlike gay marriage, polygamy was inescapably a big part of the Bible and the culture that produced it!

 

[Darryl_B]

I understand the Catholic Church’s position, but I question it because there is good evidence from the Bible that polygamy is moral. The two should not be in conflict. Perhaps to you, only the Catholic Church leads to truth, but as an agnostic, I also came to realize that LOGIC and EVIDENCE (preferably empirically testable evidence) can also lead to truth!!

Agnosticism does not imply two things

It does not imply agnostic is logical and adhering to evidence to establish “truth”.
It does not imply the Catholic Church is illogical and ignoring evidence.

Agnosticism has no rule of moral definition other than opinion, which as one gets older maturer and wiser will probably change, which means it is not based on logic and evidence, but on developed wisdom thus far.

 

[Darryl_B]

Reason I consider polygamy doesn’t work

No servant (man) can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or he will hold to the one, and despise the other.

The context is difference, the principle is the same.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Christ explicitly tells us that marriage is between a man and a woman. End of story.
What do you find difficult about that? The OT is not the fulfillment of morality.

If you read the bible as a fundamentalist, you will have all the problems caused by fundamentalism. Which brings me back to a question you never answered:

Do you believe the world was created in 6 literal days?
It says so in the OT, and since you are strict bible believing person, you should be consistent.

How do you answer?

I do not believe in any 6 day creation story. I’m just a simple agnostic that tries to approach all intellectual matters without any preconceived/unproven beliefs/ideologies (metaphysical naturalism, religion, etc.)

I approach the Bible by studying it within its theological, historical/cultural, grammatical, and linguistic context. I know plenty of Christians that agree with my position, including Catholics (e.g. Saint Augustine), so it’s not as if only non-believers argue my position. I’m open to changing my mind if I encounter a logically consistent explanation for why polygamy was allowed. I also have secular arguments for polygamy but I usually don’t mix those with my biblically-based arguments. I hope that helps to explain my point-of-view.

 

[Darryl_B]

I know plenty of Christians that agree with my position, including Catholics (e.g. Saint Augustine)

If your point of view is that God never intended polygamy in the first place, but permitted it for a season for the express purpose of populating the earth, and that within the NT the purpose no longer exists, and therefore the imperfect state was brought back to the perfect expectation of monogamy, then you can include Augustine in that.

If on the other-hand you are only reading commentaries which only present the first half of Augustine, but ignore his conclusion then you cannot really in good conscience bring Augustine on board to your point of view.

If the plenty of Christians to which you refer are protestants, then, I consider them as agnostic as well because they tend to formulate opinions rather than have a central defined authority as the Catholic Church has to provide a moral compass.

 

[goout]

I do not believe in any 6 day creation story. I’m just a simple agnostic that tries to approach all intellectual matters without any preconceived/unproven beliefs/ideologies (metaphysical naturalism, religion, etc.)

6 day creation is right in the bible. It says in the Old Testament that the world was created in 6 days and on the 7 day God rested. It’s right there.
If you are to be consistent, your point of view must accept 6 day creation. It’s right there in the OT. It’s the accepted point of view.

I approach the Bible by studying it within its theological, historical/cultural, grammatical, and linguistic context.

No, You don’t. You are latching on to OT practices and projecting them on to Christianity. That’s what fundamentalists do. Catholics are not fundamentalists. The context of Scripture for Christians is Jesus Christ.

I know plenty of Christians that agree with my position,

I find this very hard to believe.

including Catholics (e.g. Saint Augustine), so it’s not as if only non-believers argue my position. I’m open to changing my mind if I encounter a logically consistent explanation for why polygamy was allowed.

You’ve been given a very simply explanation. You refuse to accept it.
Since you are not Christian, why don’t you learn from Christians what Christians believe? If you don’t accept it, no one will be offended, but it seems a little silly for you to tell us what is moral or immoral.

I also have secular arguments for polygamy but I usually don’t mix those with my biblically-based arguments.

You might have an argument, but you don’t have a well reasoned position that counters the flourishing of families/children.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

If your point of view is that God never intended polygamy in the first place, but permitted it for a season for the express purpose of populating the earth, and that within the NT the purpose no longer exists, and therefore the imperfect state was brought back to the perfect expectation of monogamy, then you can include Augustine in that.

My view is that polygamy is not a sin. The Catholic view, which you’ve just explained, is not a logically consistent view which is why I’m unconvinced, and I’ll explain precisely why.

Logical inconsistences:

1. Lots of Catholics claim that polygamy was allowed because of hard-heartedness, but then you have other Catholics that say it was allowed repopulate the Earth. Which is it? You can’t have it both ways.
2. Regarding the point about population…Incest was also used to populate the Earth (per the Bible), yet it was strictly prohibited by the time of the Law was given. So it seems that increasing the population was no longer a goal so why was polygamy allowed to continue even after giving of the Law (the same law that banned incest)?!
3. Regarding the point about hard-heartedness…If polygamy was wrong then it would be adultery. We know that God never made a concession for adultery since people were charged with it before (Genesis) and after (Moses and later times) the Law was given. Therefore, the reason for a “concession”, hard-heartedness, is an invalid point because there was no concession to begin with. So then why was polygamy allowed? I’ll answer below!

I’ve raised these points on two different forums and I’ve yet to receive a logically consistent explanation as to why polygamy was allowed. The simple answer is that adultery was defined to allow polygyny, and therefore polygyny was not prohibited. If I argued my case before a court of law, I’d probably win just by exposing the logical flaws in your monogamy-only position, and that’s not even counting all of the POSITIVE evidence that I have in support of my view.