Polygamy is not sin

[AgnosticBoy]

One, I certainly did not suggest that the definition of adultery would accomodate polygyny.

Two, this is where you are begging the question, or engaging in circular reasoning. You are attempting to support your argument by stating a conclusion rather than proving it.

Your argument basically boils down to: “Because polygyny was moral, the definition of adultery cannot have included those who engaged in multiple marriages. Polygyny was therefore not immoral because it was not adultery.”

There is NO basis to conclude that simply because polygyny existed, it was moral. You cannot build a foundation on something which is not established fact.

Actually the supporting reasons I offer for my definition of adultery involved more than just referencing the mere existence of polygyny in the Bible. You are simply over-simplifying my points.

Summary of my supporting reasons on my view of adultery/polygamy:
1. Hebrew scholars and concordances that covers ‘adultery’ define it as sleeping with another man’s wife or the wife of another. (Are you against looking up words in their original languages?)
2. Every single example/explanation/judgement/punishment of adultery in the Law and throughout the OT shows that it involves a man sleeping with another man’s wife.
3. And by YOUR own standard in post #51:

your point on adultery is only valid if we accept your argument that polygyny was not morally objectionable, and therefore, society would not have understood adultery to be anything BUT what you’ve defined it as.

I clearly explained …God is ALL-good (all of His actions/decisions) + God supports polygamy (Genesis 29:29-33) = Polygamy is good. So independent of the definition of adultery, I have shown that the God that brought up adultery in the law, thought that polyGYNY was moral! God and the Jews would’ve been smart enough to understand that allowing polygyny would lead to an understanding of adultery that it restricts ONLY women from having multiple spouses!

Up till now, I have not received not one logical and/or evidenced explanation for why polygamy would’ve been allowed in the OT but not the NT. At best, I’ve received answers from some that would point to a contradiction but at that point neither the polygamy supporter nor monogamy-only crowd can claim their position is true.

 

[casslean]

I clearly explained …God is ALL-good (all of His actions/decisions) + God supports polygamy (Genesis 29:29-33) = Polygamy is good. So independent of the definition of adultery, I have shown that the God that brought up adultery in the law, thought that polyGYNY was moral! God and the Jews would’ve been smart enough to understand that allowing polygyny would lead to the understanding that it restricts ONLY women from having multiple spouses!

Where in Genesis 29:29-33 do you discern God’s support of polygyny? In fact, when The Lord saw that Jacob had taken Rachel as a second wife, and loved her but despised Leah, he punished both both Jacob and Rachel by making Rachel barren while Leah bore multiple sons.

In fact, I can’t think of a single polygamous relationship in the Bible that is presented in a positive light. In each, the writers highlight the troubles that these people faced as a direct result of their multiple marriages.

This is not support of polygamy; it is, at best, a tacit acknowledgement that it happened without having blatant condemnation. But silence is not support. Regulating something is not support (I’d point out that in Exodus, God regulates slavery - and no one is suggesting slavery is moral; we also know God regulated divorce, even though it is clear that He hated it).

God created Adam and gave him ONE wife - Eve. He did not offer him multiple wives. When God commanded Noah to build the ark, he was told to take his own wife, his three sons, and their wives - if polygamy was so common and supported by God, why wouldn’t he choose someone with a polygamous relationship with whom to establish His covenant? He was literally starting over at that point - with four men, each of whom had ONE wife.

Up till now, I have not received not one logical and/or evidenced explanation for why polygamy would’ve been allowed in the OT but not the NT. At best, I’ve received answers from some that would point to a contradiction but at that point neither the polygamy supporter nor monogamy-only crowd can claim their position is true.

You’ve received many. You don’t want to accept them.

Here’s my last - Jesus said to his followers that they should go forward and teach everything that He had shared with them. He did not say, “Here is this book - go forward and teach only what is contained in it.” We know that polygamy is not accepted by the time of the New Testament, and that the teachings of those who followed Jesus are not consistent with a polygynous or polygamous society (as a basic point, whenever a husband’s obligation to his wife is mentioned, wife is used as a definite singular noun, not an indefinite noun or a plural noun).

Why? Because that was God’s will and what Jesus commanded to be taught.

 

[edwest2]

To me the rules on adultery are important because without it there’s no restriction on what a man can do after they get married. Marriage may as well be an open marriage, where you still have one wife or husband but have other non-marital partners, as well. That’s why just repeating to me what has been in place since Genesis 2:24 (one flesh) falls short w/out acknowledging what adultery meant.

As for iepuras’s (forum member) challenge to me in post #48, I don’t feel that it is necessary. I would have to get into psychology and other non-Christian areas, as well. But one thing I will say is that a woman’s ‘dignity’ is not a basis for biblical morality. Throughout the Bible, both monogamy and polygamy were practiced in bad ways - marriages were arranged, women were purchased, the husband ruled over his wife, so I doubt the writers were much concerned about respecting women compared to today’s standards.

Today’s standards regarding sexual morality generally fall outside the bounds of clear Church teaching. No multiple partners in any sexual sense. Respect for women has fallen drastically. Why aren’t there more men and women protesting outside of strip clubs or topless bars? I know some are.

The writers of the Bible were directly inspired by the Holy Spirit. The dignity of all women was guarded in two ways: (1). The command to not look at a woman with lust, and (2) by the modesty that protected the woman by her dress and speech. We were taught to have great respect for women.

Sadly, too many women are knowingly and unknowingly exploiting themselves. This has to change:

amazon.com/Extreme-Makeover-Transformed-Conformed-Culture/dp/1586175610

We need to understand the continuing efforts by the media and so-called “fashion industry” that encourage women to view themselves in a distorted way or as simply sex objects.

Peace,
Ed

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Where in Genesis 29:29-33 do you discern God’s support of polygyny? In fact, when The Lord saw that Jacob had taken Rachel as a second wife, and loved her but despised Leah, he punished both both Jacob and Rachel by making Rachel barren while Leah bore multiple sons.

Your interpretation is not objective and I’ll explain why. Genesis 29:29-33 shows God’s support for polygamy because God shows concern for that TWO women are not loved equally by the same man (Genesis 29:30-31). If God was against polygamy, He would not be concerned with that aspect but rather with why Rachel is committing adultery with a married man or why is Jacob lusting after a SECOND woman. IF the all-good and perfect God were to ACT Himself in such a situation He would’ve either broken up the polygamous marriage or ordered that the second so called wife be punished. Yet, God ACTS by helping these TWO women, Rachel and Leah, to be loved by ONE husband (Genesis 29:31-33 and Genesis 30:22-24).

In fact, I can’t think of a single polygamous relationship in the Bible that is presented in a positive light. In each, the writers highlight the troubles that these people faced as a direct result of their multiple marriages.

The problem was not polygamy but rather the problem was the form of patriarchy (women suppression, the man RULES the wife, arranged or NON-consensual marriages) that existed in that culture, much like the Middle East today. Under those conditions, BOTH monogamy and polygamy would be practiced in oppressive ways and that’s even if the Biblical writers were “silent” on the feelings and personal behavior of many of the women in monogamy. This oppression has existed cross-culturally and beyond the OT times as well so it’s not just an Old Testament problem.

This is not support of polygamy; it is, at best, a tacit acknowledgement that it happened without having blatant condemnation. But silence is not support. Regulating something is not support (I’d point out that in Exodus, God regulates slavery - and no one is suggesting slavery is moral; we also know God regulated divorce, even though it is clear that He hated it).

In Genesis passages I referred to earlier in this post we see that God was not silent on polygamy. God’s ACTIONS in that case speak louder than any words that you can come up with. A Holy/perfect God treatment of other UNREPENTANT adulterers (polygamists, by your logic) speaks volumes.

Also, slavery is not always a sin and I have Catholic sources I can present here as support. Also, the Bible does not say nor indicate that God hated polygamy. You don’t bless and make nations and have your only holy/begotten son (Jesus) come out of a line of UNREPENTANT polygamists.

God created Adam and gave him ONE wife - Eve. He did not offer him multiple wives. When God commanded Noah to build the ark, he was told to take his own wife, his three sons, and their wives - if polygamy was so common and supported by God, why wouldn’t he choose someone with a polygamous relationship with whom to establish His covenant? He was literally starting over at that point - with four men, each of whom had ONE wife.

It isn’t necessary that the first marriage be polygamy since polygamy was optional. And by your logic, had polygamy been the first or original marriage, all marriages would’ve had to been polygamous.

Here’s my last - Jesus said to his followers that they should go forward and teach everything that He had shared with them. He did not say, “Here is this book - go forward and teach only what is contained in it.” We know that polygamy is not accepted by the time of the New Testament, and that the teachings of those who followed Jesus are not consistent with a polygynous or polygamous society (as a basic point, whenever a husband’s obligation to his wife is mentioned, wife is used as a definite singular noun, not an indefinite noun or a plural noun).

Why? Because that was God’s will and what Jesus commanded to be taught.

First off, the NT does not contain all of the rules on marriage and sexuality so whatever it left out or whatever it’s silent on can be picked up from the OT. My next point will be in two parts. Giving instruction for a two person marriage does logically mean that the authors were AGAINST polygamy. It could be that they were only dealing with monogamy.or just a two person marriage in general and could’ve made rules later on or left it up to people to read the OT. The second part of that point is that some of those same obligations mentioned for the husband towards one wife can also be done towards two wives, as well so there was no need to mention “wife” or “marriage” in any plural form.

It really shouldn’t take going through all of this to show that polygamy is moral. Just the one example I gave you about Jacob and his wives proves my case. Anything beyond that you would have to show that my point on Jacob is wrong or at best you’re setting this up to turn into a contradiction (if we can’t logically refute each others points).

 

[casslean]

Your interpretation is not objective and I’ll explain why. Genesis 29:29-33 shows God’s support for polygamy because God shows concern for that TWO women are not loved equally by the same man (Genesis 29:30-31). If God was against polygamy, He would not be concerned with that aspect but rather with why Rachel is committing adultery with a married man or why is Jacob lusting after a SECOND woman. IF the all-good and perfect God were to ACT Himself in such a situation He would’ve either broken up the polygamous marriage or ordered that the second so called wife be punished.

Why? Who are you to decide how God should carry out His plan?

If you’re basing your argument on the fact that YOU feel God would have acted differently in the circumstances, then I think there’s a pretty big flaw in your position. That is certainly not objective.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Why? Who are you to decide how God should carry out His plan?

If you’re basing your argument on the fact that YOU feel God would have acted differently in the circumstances, then I think there’s a pretty big flaw in your position. That is certainly not objective.

Why wouldn’t God help two gay men love each other and have sex? If you can understand the reasoning behind that question then surely you can understand my point about an ALL-moral God helping a polygamist.

 

[BobCatholic]

Why wouldn’t God help two gay men love each other and have sex? If you can understand the reasoning behind that question then surely you can understand my point about an ALL-moral God helping a polygamist.

How do you know they love each other? People have sex all the time without being in love. According to your viewpoint, that is fine.

You want to know how to interpret the Bible correctly? Why not ask the one who wrote it: God Himself? Jesus Christ our God spoke on the matter and He disagrees with you.

 

[casslean]

Why wouldn’t God help two gay men love each other and have sex? If you can understand the reasoning behind that question then surely you can understand my point about an ALL-moral God helping a polygamist.

And again, you’re confusing allowing sin and forgiving sin with advocating or assisting it. God can (and does) allow sin to occur. He acknowledges that He granted us free will, and that we will soemtimes use that free will to sin. He does not like it and He does not assist in it.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

And again, you’re confusing allowing sin and forgiving sin with advocating or assisting it.

God does not forgive unrepentant adulterers (or any sin) which is what polygamists would be if we go by your logic. So here your view doesn’t add up.

From the story of Jacob, it is clear that God does not like it when a polygamist does not love both of his wives. If your logic was correct, God would have loved seeing that a married man did not love women that were not his first and only wife. So here your view doesn’t add up.

From the story of Jacob, it is clear that God took actions that would increase the love that a husband has for TWO different women. The blessings down the road for Jacob didn’t hurt him or his marriages either. If your logic was correct, God would simply be watching, waiting to forgive, or ready to stop or punish Jacob and Rachel, but instead God chooses to support Jacob and polygamy.

God can (and does) allow sin to occur. He acknowledges that He granted us free will, and that we will soemtimes use that free will to sin. He does not like it and He does not assist in it.

From the story of Jacob, I see that God does not like it when a polygamist doesn’t love all of his wives.

You may also want to read the Levirate law found in Deuteronomy 25:5-6 because there we find that a brother has to marry his deceased brother’s wife regardless of if the non-deceased brother is married.

 

[casslean]

God does not forgive unrepentant adulterers (or any sin) which is what polygamists would be if we go by your logic. So here your view doesn’t add up.

Neither you nor I have any way of knowing whether or not any of the polygamists repented, or indeed whether God forgave them. We don’t know that he didn’t punish them. We only know that he does not appear to have rained fire and brimstone on them while on Earth.

From the story of Jacob, it is clear that God does not like it when a polygamist does not love both of his wives. If your logic was correct, God would have loved seeing that a married man did not love women that were not his first and only wife. So here your view doesn’t add up.

From the story of Jacob, it is clear that God took actions that would increase the love that a husband has for TWO different women. The blessings down the road for Jacob didn’t hurt him or his marriages either. If your logic was correct, God would simply be watching, waiting to forgive, or ready to stop or punish Jacob and Rachel, but instead God chooses to support Jacob and polygamy.

No, you’re importing motive to God’s actions. Your imported motive is no more valid than the motive I import (and mine is at least consistent with church teachings). And again, you cannot say what God would have done to carry out His plan. Only He knows how his plan would be carried out, and what He was going to do.

I’m sorry, but if you want to persuade me that polygamy is moral and that adultery only applies as against a married man sleeping with a married woman, then you’re the one who has to convince us that two thousand years of church teachings, by clearly brilliant thinkers, is wrong. And what is clear to me is that you don’t have the evidence to do that.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Neither you nor I have any way of knowing whether or not any of the polygamists repented, or indeed whether God forgave them. We don’t know that he didn’t punish them. We only know that he does not appear to have rained fire and brimstone on them while on Earth.

We do know that polygamists had no reason to repent since part of God’s perfectly moral acts involved helping two women to be loved by a married man. Then He enables the wives of Jacob to have children when He knows it would involve having sex with TWO women. God clearly supported BOTH Leah and Rachel. It would be a contradiction for God to both support and punish polygamy. Since you have NO evidence that God ever punished or required forgiveness from anyone for polygamy while there’s evidence that he SUPPORTED polygamy, I would say we can dismiss your ‘speculation’ or put the probability of it near zero.

No, you’re importing motive to God’s actions. Your imported motive is no more valid than the motive I import (and mine is at least consistent with church teachings). And again, you cannot say what God would have done to carry out His plan. Only He knows how his plan would be carried out, and what He was going to do.

Motives and thoughts usually lead to action and that is how the story explains it. God’s concern prompted his action to help both wives instead of just helping the first wife (Genesis 30:31).

Also, my views are consistent with logic and evidence since God is all-good and he supported polygamy which makes polygamy good.

I’m sorry, but if you want to persuade me that polygamy is moral and that adultery only applies as against a married man sleeping with a married woman, then you’re the one who has to convince us that two thousand years of church teachings, by clearly brilliant thinkers, is wrong. And what is clear to me is that you don’t have the evidence to do that.

I was hoping that you could defend the reason and evidence behind those Church teachings right here. Logic and evidence also leads to truth, and you can’t expect me to accept something that goes contrary to evidence and logic as being truth. And there are some notable Catholics, like Saint Augustine, who would disagree with your view on polygamy. Who knows how many more.

 

[BobCatholic]

We do know that polygamists had no reason to repent since part of God’s perfectly moral acts involved helping two women to be loved by a married man.

How did God “help”? Was he there in the bedroom, helping out by providing small Viagra pills?

I asked some questions before, and didn’t get any answer, guess expecting answers is too much to ask.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

How did God “help”? Was he there in the bedroom, helping out by providing small Viagra pills?

I explained to casslean (forum member) how God helped but I’ll go into it more just to be clear. God supported polygamy by helping Rachel and Leah become fertile just as He did for Sarah (Abraham’s wife) in old age. This divine intervention was prompted by God’s concern that Jacob did not love two women. This helps or supports polygamy because a married man loving two women and having children with two women is how polygamy works (i.e. multiple love partners and kids w/ all partners). So God was helping a polygamous relationship function, or function better, I should say since enabling fertility increased the satisfaction of the wives and husband. Then later on we find God blessing not only the polygamist Jacob but a lot of other polygamists throughout the OT, even choosing to have Jesus be descended from a well-known polygamist.

I asked some questions before, and didn’t get any answer, guess expecting answers is too much to ask.

You asked me a question in post #63, and the reason I didn’t answer it is because I thought you were referring to me accepting two gay men who love each other. I’m neutral on that issue so I didn’t want to go down that route too much.

 

[casslean]

I was hoping that you could defend the reason and evidence behind those Church teachings right here. ** Logic and evidence also leads to truth, and you can’t expect me to accept something that goes contrary to evidence and logic as being truth.** And there are some notable Catholics, like Saint Augustine, who would disagree with your view on polygamy. Who knows how many more.

If, in your mind, it is logically consistent that God would condemn multiple successive marriages but still be perfectly fine with mutiple concurrent marriages, then there is really no arguing logic on this point.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

If, in your mind, it is logically consistent that God would condemn multiple successive marriages but still be perfectly fine with mutiple concurrent marriages, then there is really no arguing logic on this point.

Jesus condemned multiple successive marriages because he wanted marriages to be lifelong. The reason that he wouldn’t condemn multiple concurrent marriages is because those can happen without ending a marriage. This was the point of Jesus’s teaching in Matthew 19 if you look at the context.

In another post you also said that God allowed polygamy because he allowed sin. God allowing sin just means that he does not always punish someone immediately for their sin. But one thing He always does is call them out for it using prophets, his word, or speaking to the person directly. God dealt DIRECTLY with polygamists and never called not one of them out for polygamy. He took the time to call out king David for adultery after David lusted after a married woman, Bathsheeba. Interestingly, king David already had multiple wives at that time but yet God chooses to call him out only when there’s another man’s wife involved. That should tell you something.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church

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." 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.

I’ve already read about the sacrament of marriage from the Catholic Catechism. The explanation on ‘conjugal love’ is more of an ideal and in some cases it is impractical (Catholc Catechism). It certainly can’t be a mandatory criteria for marriage because two separated spouses are still married in God’s eyes (1 Corinthians 7:10-11, 39). Two separated spouses would have little to no union, love or otherwise, so I fail to see why would any love that’s less than the Catholic Church’s description would cause a marriage to be void. And I’m saying this assuming that polygamy could cause a decrease in the depth of romantic love but not necessarily companionship love.

 

[cena]

I was reluctant to post about polygamy but seeing there’s so much an issue about gay marriage, then I asked myself why not. In this thread I will try to explain how the biblical definition/description of ‘adultery’ supports or proves that God is okay with polygamy. And if anyone disagrees, feel free to jump in and explain why and I’ll explain why I agree or don’t agree.

In short form, my view is basically that God never intended for marriage to be restricted to just monogamy because the law(s) on adultery restricted ONLY women from sleeping with someone other than their spouse. This leads to the logical implication or point of why would God want marriages to be monogamous but yet He defines adultery on such unequal terms.

In biblical terms, adultery is defined as having sex with a woman who is already married. My source for this are passages like Leviticus 20:10, the Hebrew definition of adultery, and the fact that no where is a MARRIED man called an adulterer for simply sleeping with or marrying multiple woman.

Further elaboration on my points above:

• Leviticus 20:10 prohibits a married man from sleeping with another man’s wife which means that he can sleep with non-married women besides his wife.
• The Hebrew word for adultery is ‘naaph’ (strong’s #5003) and the basis for adultery is based on the marital status of the woman and not the man. So in other words, adultery only comes in play if a married woman is involved but that is not the case with men.
• No polygamist is called an adulterer. In fact, King David had MULTIPLE wives before he lusted for Bathsheeba (she was married to another man). He was not called an adulterer until AFTER he slept with Bathsheeba. Why then and not at the point in which he took his second wife?

Jesus said getting a divorce and remarrying is adultery. In fact he said that looking at a woman with lust is committing adultery with her in their heart. He was talking to men. Have you read the New Testament? You might want to look at Jesus’ teachings on Sermon on the Mount

 

[cena]

I’ve already read about the sacrament of marriage from the Catholic Catechism. The explanation on ‘conjugal love’ is more of an ideal and in some cases it is impractical (Catholc Catechism). It certainly can’t be a mandatory criteria for marriage because two separated spouses are still married in God’s eyes (1 Corinthians 7:10-11, 39). Two separated spouses would have little to no union, love or otherwise, so I fail to see why would any love that’s less than the Catholic Church’s description would cause a marriage to be void. And I’m saying this assuming that polygamy could cause a decrease in the depth of romantic love but not necessarily companionship love.

If the marriage is not consummated it can be annulled. The vows are not manifest until the marriage is consummated. People who can not engage in intercourse can not get married in the Church.
They are still married because the vow involves staying with that person “until death due us part” not “when I stop loving you”
How it impractical? Obviously they can not be unified every single second of every day. So if a husband goes on a trip without the wife are they no longer married? I’m sorry I probably misinterpreted what you said about separated spouses so can you clarify?

 

[thistle]

If the marriage is not consummated it can be annulled. The vows are not manifest until the marriage is consummated. People who can not engage in intercourse can not get married in the Church.
They are still married because the vow involves staying with that person “until death due us part” not “when I stop loving you”
How it impractical? Obviously they can not be unified every single second of every day. So if a husband goes on a trip without the wife are they no longer married? I’m sorry I probably misinterpreted what you said about separated spouses so can you clarify?

Actually that is not correct. Non consummation has nothing to do with the validity of a marriage.

A valid marriage can be non consummated. Such a marriage can be dissolved but not annulled.
A valid marriage which is consummated cannot be dissolved or annulled.

Anulment is a declaration that the marriage was never valid and grounds for annulment apply to matters prior to the marriage.

 

[cena]

A definition does not have to be comprehensive just as long as it explains what something is, even if its just in one instance. With that said, i can agree with you that the Bible does not offer a definition for adultery but you can use the examples and description/usages to form a definition and rule some things out. Thats part of what scholars do. The Hebrew concordances that Ive researched go more into detail about ‘naaph’ (Hebrew word for adultery) and they never refer to adultery as being about a married man with an unmarried woman so that was never included as adultery. Given that Israel was a polygynous nation then i doubt we can say that this scholarly definition is based on an excuse to sin as you suggested in your previous post to me.

I wouldnt say that they considered other things to be adultery but rather they had a preexisting understanding of it, like sleeping with married woman being the ONLY thing that adultery involved. There are multiple definitions of adultery depending on the types of marriages allowed. I would say that Moses pointing to just that one rule on adultery could just as easily been all there was to it because the culture was a polygynous one. Also, when every mention of adultery in the OT in relation to MARRIED males is always about another man’s wife or neighbor’s wife as opposed to ALL women not his spouse - single or married, then you have to wonder about the correlation to polygyny.

My understanding of BiBLiCAL polygamy is that it also invovlves one man and one woman but it also involves having more than one marriage. Jesus did not say you can only have one marriage at a time. A polygamous man w/ 2 wives fir instance would have 2 separate marriages with one wife in each. That leaves each marriage with 2 people.

Again Jesus literally said if you divorc your wife (“ending” your first marriage) and remarry (“beginning” your second marriage) you are committing adultery. That implies you can only have one marriage.

Jesus complained about how the Jews were divorcing and remarrying and he said that was adultery. Jesus is God therefore God is not okay with polygamy