The moral case for Polygamy - pt. 2 New Testament point-of-view

[AgnosticBoy]

The positive arguments for God approving of polygamy usually comes from the Old Testament, and I offered some of those arguments here and here (the first response about Genesis 29). When it comes to the New Testament, I mostly have negative arguments that I use to show that polygamy is morally good and that’s what I’ll go over and defend in this thread.

The main Christian argument against polygamy tends to be based on Matthew 19:3-6, 9.
There’s two separate points in their argument:
1. Marriage involves one man and one woman and the two become one flesh (Matthew 19:3-6).

**2. **Remarriage is not permitted (Matthew 19:9). This goes against polygamy since it involves remarrying (or a second marriage) while the first wife is still alive.

Here are my negative arguments against both points:
Against point #1: The Bible indicates that marriage is for two people, but while it restricts the number of people in a marriage it does not restrict the number of marriages and there’s the key difference. In other words, polygamy can be practiced as a two person marriage when the husband has each wife in a separate marriage, which would leave him with more than one marriage at one time but still with two people in each marriage.

So I already addressed here the “two” people part but lets also cover the “one flesh” part. Two becoming one flesh is a process that can be repeated multiple times. The Bible mentions that Christians are one flesh with God, one flesh with the Church, one flesh with their spouse, and even one flesh with another spouse if spouse #1 dies. So then it’s possible to become one flesh with more than one existing person, and this is compatible with polygamy.

Against point #2: Jesus did not refer to any and all remarriages as being adultery. The text clearly mentions that only remarriages that come after a “divorce” are considered adulterous. So here we have divorce + remarriage = adultery. This is the formula, and anything less or more added to it is not in keeping with Jesus’s formula. Therefore, a man can remarry if his first wife dies or if he stays married to his first wife while adding the second wife - no divorce involved in either of the two scenarios.

Conclusion: With these two points taken away, there’s no longer a sustainable case to deny polygamy as a morally good practice in God’s eyes.

I will limit myself to responding to posts that address my negative arguments and that’s just so I can focus on a specific topic. If you want to bring up jealousy, envy, etc then perhaps you’ll have better luck posting elsewhere.

Any comments for or against my position?

 

[spiderweb]

Conclusion: With these two points taken away, there’s no longer a sustainable case to deny polygamy as a morally good practice in God’s eyes.

The New Testament doesn’t seem to address polygamy directly. Therefore your conclusion that it is a morally good practice is not supported. I’ll have more to add when I have more time.

Other verses to consider:
1 Tim 3:2, 12
Titus 1:6

Also in numerous places it refers only to “wife” not “wives”
Matt 19:5, 29
Eph 5:31, 33

 

[ffg]

So the argument seems to be

‘if you erase what is written / taught, then you can conclude differently to what is written / taught’ and be aligned with God’.

Knowing something is written / taught is the only way to sustain that ‘different’ conclusion.

Arguing what you wish was, in that something that is, wasn’t - will not help come to any conclusion.

Simply - take them away and you can’t conclude, regardless of alignment with God.

You would have nothing from which to argue, which is necessary to conclude.

 

[Cathoholic]

I don’t think you’ve proved your point AgnosticBoy.

God bless.

Cathoholic

 

[Darryl_B]

By all means, try it, and tell me how it works. If you have 2 wives you will spend twice as long in the dog house. Have you ever been married? Theory and ideology are far removed from practice.

 

[sudy]

Regarding your points 1 and 2

Romans 7:2-3 indicates that marriage lasts until death, and it also indicates that to live with another while they live is adultery.

1 Corinthians 7:4 indicates that once the man is married his body is no longer his own to do what he wills.

Matthew 7:12 indicates that we can only do unto others what we would have them do unto us.

Matthew 5:28 indicates that you’d be committing adultery.

Romans 13:1-2 indicates that the law of the land is instituted by God, and in most countries polygamy is illegal.

Matthew 16:19 indicates that whatever the Church has bound on earth is bound in heaven, and the Church says polygamy is wrong.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

God ALLOWS polygamy in the OLD Testament, but this was not his intent. God created Adam and Eve - One man and one woman to be partners in life. He did not create Adam and Eve and Susan and Kathy and Melissa and Gertrude!

 

[spiderweb]

Against point #1: The Bible indicates that marriage is for two people, but while it restricts the number of people in a marriage it does not restrict the number of marriages and there’s the key difference. In other words, polygamy can be practiced as a two person marriage when the husband has each wife in a separate marriage, which would leave him with more than one marriage at one time but still with two people in each marriage.

”You have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shall not commit adultery: But I say unto you, that whosoever looks on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Matt 5:27-28).

The basic premise of your argument is that polygamy was permitted in the Old Testament and is still permitted in the New Testament. But from the above quote, Jesus is increasing the expectations of God, upping the ante so to speak, from the Old to the New. Jesus doesn’t say that this man needs to marry this other woman to avoid committing adultery, he says that he “has committed adultery with her already in his heart”.

There is no polygamous relationship in which the man does not desire another woman otherwise why would they get married in the first place?

And to address one obvious objection to this argument, namely that “lust” is not the same as “desire”. The same Greek word epithumeo is translated as both lust and desire.

Examples translated as lust: Mat 5:28, 1 Cor 10:6, Gal 5:17
Examples translated as desire: Mat 13:17, Luke 22:15, 1 Tim 3:1

Therefore, a man who even desires to have another woman, either in place of his spouse or in addition to his spouse in polygamy, is considered by Jesus to be an adulterer.

So I already addressed here the “two” people part but lets also cover the “one flesh” part. Two becoming one flesh is a process that can be repeated multiple times. The Bible mentions that Christians are one flesh with God, one flesh with the Church, one flesh with their spouse, and even one flesh with another spouse if spouse #1 dies. So then it’s possible to become one flesh with more than one existing person, and this is compatible with polygamy.

The Bible does not state that Christians are “one flesh with God” or “one flesh with the Church”, although you could certainly arrive at that conclusion in a sense. But these are all “one flesh” in a different type of relationship. A Christian is not “one flesh” with God in the same sense that they would be with a spouse, or even with the Church. It could be said that a person is “one flesh” with siblings or their parents, but that is a completely different type of “one flesh” relationship than with a spouse.

So to answer your point #2, what does Jesus say about having two relationships of the same type and at the same time? ”No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon” (Mat 6:24). In the Old Testament, worship of another god was compared with harlotry and adultery (Jer 3:6-9). Therefore, having two spouses in the same type of intimate “one flesh” relationship is consistent with being considered adultery. In an analogous way, the acceptance of a polygamous marriage would essentially be God condoning as “morally good” a “one flesh with God” relationship with other gods, or being “one flesh with the Church” as a Catholic, Hindu, Muslim, Jew, and Buddhist all at the same time. These types of intimate “one flesh” relationships are clearly presented by God as strictly monogamous. Christ founded one Church which is his one bride, and it is only within that context that the analogy with marriage in Jeremiah Chapter 3 and Ephesians Chapter 5 works. A husband and wife submit themselves one to another. In a monogamous relationship with God, the Church, and one spouse, a person can submit to all three at the same time because it is not in the same manner, nor is it the same type of relationship. But in a polygamous relationship a man or woman cannot submit themselves to multiple spouses in the same manner, in the same type of relationship, and at the same time for they “cannot serve two masters”.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

The New Testament doesn’t seem to address polygamy directly. Therefore your conclusion that it is a morally good practice is not supported. I’ll have more to add when I have more time.

Well I feel that I’ve already established that polygamy was moral under the OT. I only bring up the NT because that’s where the main arguments against polygamy tends to come from. So refuting the arguments against polygamy, would leave only the positive arguments, and with no proven prohibition in the NT, polygamy would still be allowed just as any other moral rule from the OT is allowed.

Other verses to consider:
1 Tim 3:2, 12
Titus 1:6

Also in numerous places it refers only to “wife” not “wives”
Matt 19:5, 29
Eph 5:31, 33

I will wait for you to make your case using these passages. However, keep in mind that if these passages have nothing to do with shedding light on what Jesus meant by adultery or “one flesh” then it’s a separate point. Skipping around to a separate point does not answer the point that I brought up and at best just points to a contradiction.

Now to get on to everyone else posts…

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Regarding your points 1 and 2

Romans 7:2-3 indicates that marriage lasts until death, and it also indicates that to live with another while they live is adultery.

Two points:

• Polygamy can last until death.
• Notice also that the text mentions that the wife can not have sex with any other man while her husband is alive. It does NOT say the same thing for the husband, which means the husband is not prohibited. This is the same unequal terms that we find in the OT for adultery.

1 Corinthians 7:4 indicates that once the man is married his body is no longer his own to do what he wills.

I disagree. The context of 1 Corinthians 7:1-6 is about “sexual relations” which is only one aspect of marriage and not the entirety of what marriage involves. So the wife would only own the husband’s body in terms of being able to have him sexually. If you’re using this to say that the wife is in charge of the husband in an absolute sense, even just in the context of marriage, then that would contradict all of the other passages where it mentions that the woman/wife has to submit to the husband like in Ephesians 5. Both also have to submit to God anyways. Remember, the Jews had a patriarchal society. I should also say that this may also be one of Paul’s concessions and not one of God’s commands because Paul expressed both types of advice throughout the whole chapter (e.g. 1 Corinthians 7:6).

Matthew 7:12 indicates that we can only do unto others what we would have them do unto us.

This does not address my arguments.

Matthew 5:28 indicates that you’d be committing adultery.

A prior understanding of adultery is needed here. This clearly would not be referring to any woman, because the man lusting after his wife would not be adultery. An unmarried man lusting after an unmarried woman would not be adultery. Factoring in the definition of adultery (within the cultural context), the verse is best understood as meaning if any man lusts after a married woman, then he commits adultery.

Romans 13:1-2 indicates that the law of the land is instituted by God, and in most countries polygamy is illegal.

Again, this point of yours do not address my argument in post 1.

Matthew 16:19 indicates that whatever the Church has bound on earth is bound in heaven, and the Church says polygamy is wrong.

Lets examine the reasoning behind their doctrine. I’m not a fan of Sola Scriptura, but neither should Catholic doctrine conflict with Scripture. This is what we have when it comes to polygamy.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

God ALLOWS polygamy in the OLD Testament, but this was not his intent. God created Adam and Eve - One man and one woman to be partners in life. He did not create Adam and Eve and Susan and Kathy and Melissa and Gertrude!

I have a response to this but I won’t offer it now because it does not address my argument in post 1. What do you think about my responses to other posters here? Good stuff, right?!

I will be back later on to get to spiderweb’s response.

 

[frobert]

Here are my negative arguments against both points:
Against point #1: The Bible indicates that marriage is for two people, but while it restricts the number of people in a marriage it does not restrict the number of marriages and there’s the key difference. In other words, polygamy can be practiced as a two person marriage when the husband has each wife in a separate marriage, which would leave him with more than one marriage at one time but still with two people in each marriage.

So I already addressed here the “two” people part but lets also cover the “one flesh” part. Two becoming one flesh is a process that can be repeated multiple times. The Bible mentions that Christians are one flesh with God, one flesh with the Church, one flesh with their spouse, and even one flesh with another spouse if spouse #1 dies. So then it’s possible to become one flesh with more than one existing person, and this is compatible with polygamy.

If we assume your arguments are correct then we can also assume that God had a purpose for polygamy and indeed polygamy did serve a purpose in OT times.

Against point #2: Jesus did not refer to any and all remarriages as being adultery. The text clearly mentions that only remarriages that come after a “divorce” are considered adulterous. So here we have divorce + remarriage = adultery. This is the formula, and anything less or more added to it is not in keeping with Jesus’s formula. Therefore, a man can remarry if his first wife dies or if he stays married to his first wife while adding the second wife - no divorce involved in either of the two scenarios.

Conclusion: With these two points taken away, there’s no longer a sustainable case to deny polygamy as a morally good practice in God’s eyes.

I will limit myself to responding to posts that address my negative arguments and that’s just so I can focus on a specific topic. If you want to bring up jealousy, envy, etc then perhaps you’ll have better luck posting elsewhere.

Any comments for or against my position?

Perhaps Jesus did not address polygamy because he had no reason to do so. By the time of the NT the purpose for polygamy had been fulfilled, and polygamy was fading out for a myriad of reasons…

 

[AgnosticBoy]

”You have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shall not commit adultery: But I say unto you, that whosoever looks on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Matt 5:27-28).

I responded to this passage in post 10, refer to my 4th response to sudy.

The basic premise of your argument is that polygamy was permitted in the Old Testament and is still permitted in the New Testament. But from the above quote, Jesus is increasing the expectations of God, upping the ante so to speak, from the Old to the New. Jesus doesn’t say that this man needs to marry this other woman to avoid committing adultery, he says that he “has committed adultery with her already in his heart”.

First thing to consider is that the passage does not mention the marital status of the man nor woman so your point has some assumptions. In post 10, I already showed the logical problems of not factoring in the marital status.

Secondly, you have to factor in the definition of adultery, which in the OT was anyone having sexual relations with a man’s wife. So factoring in theology (adultery as a moral Law, and these laws staying intact and transfer to the New covenant) cultural context (how the Jews understood adultery), and even linguistically (the word “woman” in the Greek can be synonymous to “wife”), what Jesus would’ve meant here is that any man who lusts after a married woman commits adultery.

There is no polygamous relationship in which the man does not desire another woman otherwise why would they get married in the first place?

The passage does not mention the word “another”. It just says anyone who lust after a woman. In fact the passage does not restrict the man to being a married man since it uses the word “anyone”, so the man can be unmarried or married. Besides the logical problems of not factoring in these points, your view would also conflict with Christian moral theology and the cultural context of the Jews. Refer to the previous two responses in this post.

The Bible does not state that Christians are “one flesh with God” or “one flesh with the Church”, although you could certainly arrive at that conclusion in a sense.

The Bible clearly says otherwise. Ephesians 5:31-32 mentions that the Church are one flesh with Jesus (God). And of course, the Church is made up of the Christian population who form one body (or flesh). Then we are also one flesh with our spouses. Then we’re also one flesh with everyone that we have sexual intercourse with (1 Corinthians 6:16).

But these are all “one flesh” in a different type of relationship. A Christian is not “one flesh” with God in the same sense that they would be with a spouse, or even with the Church. It could be said that a person is “one flesh” with siblings or their parents, but that is a completely different type of “one flesh” relationship than with a spouse.

So you then accept that there are more than one “one flesh” relationships besides the one with a spouse. As far as your point about different types of one flesh, I can agree with you however I still see no limitations for polygamy. One flesh in a spiritual sense can happen between two, three, or more people (e.g. the Trinity, the Church made up of billions, etc). Polygamy would only involve at least 3 people being one flesh in a spiritual sense. In a physical sense, one flesh refers to sexual union (1 Corinthians 6:16) and of course a man can have sex with multiple women. It’s only called adultery when the woman has sex with multiple men (Romans 7:2-3).

So to answer your point #2, what does Jesus say about having two relationships of the same type and at the same time? ”No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon” (Mat 6:24). In the Old Testament, worship of another god was compared with harlotry and adultery (Jer 3:6-9). Therefore, having two spouses in the same type of intimate “one flesh” relationship is consistent with being considered adultery. In an analogous way, the acceptance of a polygamous marriage would essentially be God condoning as “morally good” a “one flesh with God” relationship with other gods, or being “one flesh with the Church” as a Catholic, Hindu, Muslim, Jew, and Buddhist all at the same time. These types of intimate “one flesh” relationships are clearly presented by God as strictly monogamous. Christ founded one Church which is his one bride, and it is only within that context that the analogy with marriage in Jeremiah Chapter 3 and Ephesians Chapter 5 works. A husband and wife submit themselves one to another. In a monogamous relationship with God, the Church, and one spouse, a person can submit to all three at the same time because it is not in the same manner, nor is it the same type of relationship. But in a polygamous relationship a man or woman cannot submit themselves to multiple spouses in the same manner, in the same type of relationship, and at the same time for they “cannot serve two masters”.

Ephesians 5:24 states, “Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything” The problem with your reasoning is that the issue is not about having two relationships of the same type but having two different masters. Jesus said you can not serve two masters. In polygamy there is only ONE master, and that’s the husband. And as Ephesians 5:24 clearly states, “wives” submit to your husbands in everything"

 

[AgnosticBoy]

If we assume your arguments are correct then we can also assume that God had a purpose for polygamy and indeed polygamy did serve a purpose in OT times.

Perhaps Jesus did not address polygamy because he had no reason to do so. By the time of the NT the purpose for polygamy had been fulfilled, and polygamy was fading out for a myriad of reasons…

I don’t see why polygamy needs to have a special purpose any more than monogamy does. Both are just marriage. Both are about love and having children. Polygamy can bring unique challenges, but I also believe it can bring unique benefits that can compensate for those challenges.

I can go more into this but it doesn’t address my arguments in this thread so I’ll leave it at that.

 

[Sarcelle]

The positive arguments for God approving of polygamy usually comes from the Old Testament, and I offered some of those arguments here and here (the first response about Genesis 29). When it comes to the New Testament, I mostly have negative arguments that I use to show that polygamy is morally good and that’s what I’ll go over and defend in this thread.

The main Christian argument against polygamy tends to be based on Matthew 19:3-6, 9.
There’s two separate points in their argument:
1. Marriage involves one man and one woman and the two become one flesh (Matthew 19:3-6).

**2. **Remarriage is not permitted (Matthew 19:9). This goes against polygamy since it involves remarrying (or a second marriage) while the first wife is still alive.

Here are my negative arguments against both points:
Against point #1: The Bible indicates that marriage is for two people, but while it restricts the number of people in a marriage it does not restrict the number of marriages and there’s the key difference. In other words, polygamy can be practiced as a two person marriage when the husband has each wife in a separate marriage, which would leave him with more than one marriage at one time but still with two people in each marriage.

So I already addressed here the “two” people part but lets also cover the “one flesh” part. Two becoming one flesh is a process that can be repeated multiple times. The Bible mentions that Christians are one flesh with God, one flesh with the Church, one flesh with their spouse, and even one flesh with another spouse if spouse #1 dies. So then it’s possible to become one flesh with more than one existing person, and this is compatible with polygamy.

Against point #2: Jesus did not refer to any and all remarriages as being adultery. The text clearly mentions that only remarriages that come after a “divorce” are considered adulterous. So here we have divorce + remarriage = adultery. This is the formula, and anything less or more added to it is not in keeping with Jesus’s formula. Therefore, a man can remarry if his first wife dies or if he stays married to his first wife while adding the second wife - no divorce involved in either of the two scenarios.

Conclusion: With these two points taken away, there’s no longer a sustainable case to deny polygamy as a morally good practice in God’s eyes.

I will limit myself to responding to posts that address my negative arguments and that’s just so I can focus on a specific topic. If you want to bring up jealousy, envy, etc then perhaps you’ll have better luck posting elsewhere.

Any comments for or against my position?

Let me address your points about two becoming one flesh and about the man being married simultaneously to two wives, with the first wife being dead and him marrying the second wife after the death of the first wife.

First you mentioned that a man can become one flesh with one woman and then later on one flesh with another woman when the first wife dies. ** Your assumption is that this man is one flesh with the first wife and the second wife simultaneously because he is still married to his first wife even if she is dead. ** This is erroneous.

When death interrupts the marriage, the marriage is over. This is why the man is free to marry another woman since he is no longer one flesh with his first wife. He can be only one flesh with one woman and this means a live woman not a dead one.

This is why the Church allows for marriage in the case of widowhood but not in the case of divorcees, unless there is an annulment obtained. An annulment means there was never any marriage in the first place.

Now you might say, where in the Bible does it say that? The Bible never exactly says what it thinks of polygamy only that it happened. People always fill in the blanks with their biases.

The points you put forward seem to be very Mormon with their eternal marriages. In mainline Christianity, death is the end of marriage.

 

[frobert]

I don’t see why polygamy needs to have a special purpose any more than monogamy does…

That is your opinion which has no support. You are dismissing that polygamy has a purpose, yet Aquinas provides the best support for your argument that polygamy is moral as well as God had a purpose for polygamy, namely, a multiplicity of offspring to worship God. As the ancient population stabilized there was no longer a need for polygamy as supported by the fact that it faded out.

Both are just marriage. Both are about love and having children.

Marriage is much more that JUST love and children. marriage is about commitment and mutual flourishing (from virtue ethics).

Polygamy can bring unique challenges, but I also believe it can bring unique benefits that can compensate for those challenges.

That it can compensate for those challenges is your belief that others do not share it. Please note I did not address those challenges.

I can go more into this but it doesn’t address my arguments in this thread so I’ll leave it at that.

There is no need for another thread,I addressed your arguments with simple facts bringing together both your interpretation of certain biblical passages and why Jesus did not say anything about polygamy.

You dismissed my explanation with only your own opinions and interpretation of several bible passages including what Jesus didn’t address. Think Occam’s razor.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

First you mentioned that a man can become one flesh with one woman and then later on one flesh with another woman when the first wife dies. ** Your assumption is that this man is one flesh with the first wife and the second wife simultaneously because he is still married to his first wife even if she is dead. ** This is erroneous.

You’re equating two separate points as being the same. I gave one scenario involving a man becoming one flesh with wife #2 after wife #1 dies, and then another scenario involving a man becoming one flesh with both wives while both are still alive. You addressed the first scenario as if that was the only scenario I gave, but of course I offered multiple scenarios, so your objections fall short.

When death interrupts the marriage, the marriage is over. This is why the man is free to marry another woman since he is no longer one flesh with his first wife. He can be only one flesh with one woman and this means a live woman not a dead one.

The second sentence presupposes that the one flesh process can only occur one time between living people. I can grant you the that it occurs between living people, but I disagree that the process can’t happen again. I clearly demonstrated my case by offering examples of a man having multiple one flesh unions all at the same time, and of course between living people. Please refer to post #13 (the 4th and 5th responses to spiderweb).

Now you might say, where in the Bible does it say that? The Bible never exactly says what it thinks of polygamy only that it happened. People always fill in the blanks with their biases.

I disagree. In another thread, I used the Bible to make the case for polygamy being approved by God. There were objections but none of them made a dent in my argument because my evidence (biblical references) was strong. It’s hard to argue against strong evidence, which is why I believe all of the objections against my view fell short or were completely unconvincing!

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Let me address your points about two becoming one flesh and about the man being married simultaneously to two wives, with the first wife being dead and him marrying the second wife after the death of the first wife.

First you mentioned that a man can become one flesh with one woman and then later on one flesh with another woman when the first wife dies. ** Your assumption is that this man is one flesh with the first wife and the second wife simultaneously because he is still married to his first wife even if she is dead. ** This is erroneous.

When death interrupts the marriage, the marriage is over. This is why the man is free to marry another woman since he is no longer one flesh with his first wife. He can be only one flesh with one woman and this means a live woman not a dead one.

This is why the Church allows for marriage in the case of widowhood but not in the case of divorcees, unless there is an annulment obtained. An annulment means there was never any marriage in the first place.

Now you might say, where in the Bible does it say that? The Bible never exactly says what it thinks of polygamy only that it happened. People always fill in the blanks with their biases.

The points you put forward seem to be very Mormon with their eternal marriages. In mainline Christianity, death is the end of marriage.

I don’t see how Mormons can believe in marriage after death when the New Testament clearly declares otherwise:

**Matthew 22:23-33 **

That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. 24 “Teacher,” they said, “Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and have children for him. 25 Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. 26 The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. 27 Finally, the woman died. 28 Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?” 29** Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. 30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.**

This passage also clearly shows that marriage was monogamous, and after each husband died, the marriage was over.

 

[frobert]

I disagree. In another thread, I used the Bible to make the case for polygamy being approved by God. There were objections but none of them made a dent in my argument because my evidence (biblical references) was strong. It’s hard to argue against strong evidence, which is why I believe all of the objections against my view fell short or were completely unconvincing!

Your opinion of biblical is not evidence, let alone strong evidence, especially when you fail to give any reasons of why God “approved” of polygamy in the OT.

Here is how Aquinas addresses the issue:
First: God approves of polygamy in OT times
Quote
…the Old Law mentions plurality of wives without any prohibition thereof, as appears from Deuteronomy 21:15, “If a man have two wives,” etc. Therefore they were not transgressors through having two wives; and so it was lawful.

Further, this is confirmed by the example of the holy patriarchs, who are stated to have had several wives, and yet were most pleasing to God, for instance Jacob, David, and several others. Therefore at one time it was lawful.

Second: Polygamy was allowed for the offspring to be multiplied.
Quote
…Now the law prescribing the one wife was framed not by man but by God, nor was it ever given by word or in writing, but was imprinted on the heart, like other things belonging in any way to the natural law. Consequently a dispensation in this matter could be granted by God alone through an inward inspiration, vouchsafed originally to the holy patriarchs, and by their example continued to others, at a time when it behooved the aforesaid precept not to be observed, in order to ensure the multiplication of the offspring to be brought up in the worship of God. For the principal end is ever to be borne in mind before the secondary end. Wherefore, since the good of the offspring is the principal end of marriage, it behooved to disregard for a time the impediment that might arise to the secondary ends, when it was necessary for the offspring to be multiplied…

Source…

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Your opinion of biblical is not evidence, let alone strong evidence, especially when you fail to give any reasons of why God “approved” of polygamy in the OT.

Here is how Aquinas addresses the issue:
First: God approves of polygamy in OT times
Quote
…the Old Law mentions plurality of wives without any prohibition thereof, as appears from Deuteronomy 21:15, “If a man have two wives,” etc. Therefore they were not transgressors through having two wives; and so it was lawful.

Further, this is confirmed by the example of the holy patriarchs, who are stated to have had several wives, and yet were most pleasing to God, for instance Jacob, David, and several others. Therefore at one time it was lawful.

Second: Polygamy was allowed for the offspring to be multiplied.
Quote
…Now the law prescribing the one wife was framed not by man but by God, nor was it ever given by word or in writing, but was imprinted on the heart, like other things belonging in any way to the natural law. Consequently a dispensation in this matter could be granted by God alone through an inward inspiration, vouchsafed originally to the holy patriarchs, and by their example continued to others, at a time when it behooved the aforesaid precept not to be observed, in order to ensure the multiplication of the offspring to be brought up in the worship of God. For the principal end is ever to be borne in mind before the secondary end. Wherefore, since the good of the offspring is the principal end of marriage, it behooved to disregard for a time the impediment that might arise to the secondary ends, when it was necessary for the offspring to be multiplied…

Source…

Perhaps if you start another thread, then I can address your reference there.

On this thread, I will only deal with Matthew 19 or whatever passage sheds light on “one flesh” and “adultery” arguments. I clearly stated this in post 1.