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

[frobert]

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.

You want to discuss opinion, not evidence, so I’ll pass. There is no reason for another thread.

As an aside, I find it amusing that you are in effect saying Christians should be consistent and accept polygamy along with monogamy.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

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:

You do realize that Aquinas here is asserting that the ends justified the means, right? If I know anything about Catholic morality, it is that the ends do not justify the means.

So it is fine for you to cite Aquinas, but realize that Aquinas isn’t the steward of official church positions, nor is he infallible. In essence, it seems to me that you are criticizing AgnosticBoy for having his own opinion, while you yourself have only borrowed opinions. For some reason you are unwilling to hold and defend the position that the ends justify the means as it were your own.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

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?

Jesus never talked about polygamy. He did talk about remarriage in the context of no one will have a spouse in heaven, no matter how many spouses they had in life.

I have never heard of Jesus saying anything about polygamy, and the reason is it was not practiced in the time he was alive. There was no reason for it, just like there is no reason for it today.

 

[Sarcelle]

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.

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).

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!

A one flesh union means a cleaving between husband and wife. They become one whole cohesive unit. He no longer is of himself just as his wife is no longer of herself. They become one body.

Since he is no longer himself, he cannot be one flesh with another.

 

[Sarcelle]

Jesus never talked about polygamy. He did talk about remarriage in the context of no one will have a spouse in heaven, no matter how many spouses they had in life.

I have never heard of Jesus saying anything about polygamy, and the reason is it was not practiced in the time he was alive. There was no reason for it, just like there is no reason for it today.

True.

If it were still Biblically valid, the Jewish people would still be practicing polygamy. Now, even ultra-orthodox Jews do not practice polygamy.

In the ancient days, the Kings of Israel used polygamy mainly as a way to forge alliances.

Practically speaking, it would take a lot of resources to support several wives and the resulting children. I do not see a majority of working class or even middle class men being able to support several wives.

I am assuming that by polygamy, the OP means polygyny.

 

[Lion_IRC]

…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.

No, you don’t get to define or limit the scope of the debate to exclude things your opponents might raise as biblical objections to polygamy.

Frankly, I find it a bit disingenuous to split the marriage debate into New Testament and Old Testament threads. Good exegesis is cannonical exegesis. The whole bible supports the morality of monogamy - irrespective of whether we can read about infidelity and polygamy IN the bible.

Your whole (atheology) case depends on the flawed logic that because a bad thing "X’ happens in the bible and God didn’t prevent it therefore He must be OK with it.

One of the best biblical arguments in the case against polygamy is the horrible story of Penninah.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

You do realize that Aquinas here is asserting that the ends justified the means, right? If I know anything about Catholic morality, it is that the ends do not justify the means.

I agree with your assessment. Very good points !!

A one flesh union means a cleaving between husband and wife. They become one whole cohesive unit. He no longer is of himself just as his wife is no longer of herself. They become one body.

Since he is no longer himself, he cannot be one flesh with another.

With the exception of sexual intercourse, becoming “one flesh” is not a literal physical process so I’m not sure why you’re arguing for it as such. The husband and wife, while being one flesh, still have two separate bodies, two separate minds, two separate souls, two separate identities, etc. All of this can be divided amongst other people just as the Bible clearly indicates when it also calls other relationships as being “one flesh”. You ignored that evidence before and continue to do so.

No, you don’t get to define or limit the scope of the debate to exclude things your opponents might raise as biblical objections to polygamy.

There are many different arguments for or against polygamy and from past experience the quality of the debate becomes diminished because no one issue is ever covered in a good way. Instead, debaters jump around to different issues, especially when they can’t handle one issue. Focusing on one specific argument is more reader friendly, less complex, and makes it more apparent when someone is not addressing very specific points about a specific argument!

For instance, you might bring up a polygamous relationship that ended bad. But how does that prove or disprove my points about what adultery is and the one flesh point? It doesn’t, and continuing to bring up OFF-topic comments tends to be a tactic (i.e. dodging) used to cover up the fact that you have no good arguments against my position, so you avoid answering it by skipping to other topics.

 

[Lion_IRC]

LOL
Arguments which dispute your position are off topic.

 

[Lion_IRC]

You do realize that Aquinas here is asserting that the ends justified the means, right?

Aquinas was spot on.

…If I know anything about Catholic morality, it is that the ends do not justify the means.

WUT?
The end is the only thing which can be used to justify the means.
Since when is motive irrelevant?
The means and the end are inextricably related. Think of a surgeon who amputates the leg of a patient to save their life.

By the way, Catholic (objective) morality entails God’s omniscience. If you can know the end then the means are perfectly reasonable and justified.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

LOL
Arguments which dispute your position are off topic.

Lion,

I made it clear in post 1 that I only wanted to discuss the arguments I presented, yet you insist on bringing up other topics and even questioning my wanting to open my thread to discuss my own topic. Please start your own thread and make your case for or against polygamy.

Here is one clear forum rule:

Messages posted to threads should be on-topic. If you wish to discuss another topic, start a new thread.

(Read here - Discussion section)

 

[Lion_IRC]

Lion,
I made it clear in post 1 that I only wanted to discuss the arguments I presented, yet you insist on bringing up other topics and even questioning my wanting to open my thread to discuss my own topic.

You said ANY comments.

Any comments for or against my position?

You can’t change the rules. You can’t invite argument and then selectively preclude your opponents’ arguments. Asymmetric rules of engagement won’t cut it here my friend.

…Please start your own thread and make your case for or against polygamy.

No, you should start a new thread and make it clear in the Op that you only want arguments in favour of polygamy. THEN I would be off topic if I posted arguments against polygamy.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

You said ANY comments.

You can’t change the rules. Asymmetric rules of engagement won’t cut it here my friend.

No, you should start a new thread and make it clear in the Op that you only want arguments in favour of polygamy. THEN I would be off topic if I posted arguments against polygamy.

I said any comments for or against “MY POSITION”. I created this thread to address the topics that I brought up from Matthew 19, which are what Jesus meant by “one flesh” and “adultery” and that’s precisely what my position deals with.

Bringing up why polygamy was allowed, when it was allowed, or examples of bad polygamous relationships does not address my arguments and is off-topic. Clearly, you’re unwilling to address my arguments and I’ll use your last few posts as evidence of that.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Jesus never talked about polygamy. He did talk about remarriage in the context of no one will have a spouse in heaven, no matter how many spouses they had in life.

I have never heard of Jesus saying anything about polygamy, and the reason is it was not practiced in the time he was alive. There was no reason for it, just like there is no reason for it today.

You keep bringing up this issue but it does not address the points of my argument which involve “one flesh” and “adultery” as used in Matthew 19. I’m not trying to be nit-picky and always harp on people getting off topic, but when it keeps happening a lot and by the same person, then it becomes a pain…

If I respond to your claim here then will you address my specific arguments, assuming that you have a logical rebuttal to my arguments? I’ll address your point.

You made a factually incorrect claim that polygamy was not practiced during Jesus’s time. This claim has been made by many others despite the fact that I pointed to evidence that says otherwise. Here’s the clear historical evidence:

-2nd century Christian apologist Justin Martyr mentioning polygamy being permitted among the Jews (Justin Martyr disapproved of the practice) -
Dialogue with Trypho - chapter 134:

If, then, the teaching of the prophets and of Himself moves you, it is better for you to follow God than your imprudent and blind masters, who even till this time permit each man to have four or five wives; and if any one see a beautiful woman and desire to have her, they quote the doings of Jacob [called] Israel

-1st century historian Josephus mentions polygamy in his day and even says it was a practice among the Jews that dated back since ancient time -
The Jewish Wars, Book 1, chapter 24:

She also frequently reproached Herod’s sister and wives with the ignobility of their descent; and that they were every one chosen by him for their beauty, but not for their family. Now those wives of his were not a few;** it being of old permitted to the Jews to marry many wives**.

If you want to discuss this evidence further then we can start another thread.

 

[Lion_IRC]

…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.

Read this -]word salad/-] claim by AgnosticBoy very closely.
Marriage is for two people. The number of people in a marriage is restricted to two.
…now read what comes next.
You can have “more than one marriage at one time” and that’s a “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.

One marriage over here. Another marriage over there. Both seperate and both individually having just two people. 1 husband and 1 wife.

“…the husband has each wife in a separate marriage”

Can you imagine an adulterous husband pleading as a defense that he was never in bed with both women at the same time? He was sleeping with them separately.

…Two becoming one flesh is a process that can be repeated multiple times.

Divorce, remarry, divorce, remarry, divorce, remarry…
Yeah, I’m sure that’s just exactly what God meant when He said what God has joned, let no man put asunder.

…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.

You aren’t even the slightest bit embarassed by such blatant special pleading.
The bible mentions “X” therefore you should believe my claim that “Y” is compatible.
It just “is compatible” so there. Checkmate!

I’m sorry, your ad hoc claims don’t support your attempted conclusion that;

…therefore, a man can remarry if he stays married to his first wife while adding the second wife and polygamy is a morally good practice in God’s eyes.

Your premisses haven’t been supported by any recognised or mainstream scriptural exegesis.
I’ve seen no hermenuetics. Your position is clearly not widely accepted by folks who aren’t agnostics/atheists. And your conclusion isn’t a necessary inference from your premisses in any case - even if your interpretation of scripture on which those premisses is based WAS correct.

Your logic reminds me of the opponents of SSM who say gay people aren’t discriminated against because they CAN in fact get married.

Elton John is gay and he got married in Australia in 1984

 

[ATraveller]

Other verses are relevant and they do relate to each other.

You may want to isolate the discussion to Matthew 19 but Jesus was quoting verses in Genesis word for word. You would have to go back to those verses. Studying some verses in isolation can be useful and even the correct way but in this case no because there’s a word for word quotation. An allusion to something else is also reason to look beyond a single passage. In Genesis, God intended one man and one woman as one flesh. If God’s ideal was more than one woman, God would have made Adam more wives but he didn’t.​

As an extra consider Luke 14:26 ‘if anyone does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters - yes, even their own life’.
Why not ‘wives’ since polygamy among Jewish people at the time was present? Consider siblings are plural even though some may possibly have no other siblings or just one. Maybe all other siblings are only brothers or only sisters. This shows again the ideal design for marriage is one man and one woman.​

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.

Just to be clear, according to you, if a man divorces one of the wives, he can never remarry?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Aquinas was spot on.

The end is the only thing which can be used to justify the means.
Since when is motive irrelevant?
The means and the end are inextricably related. Think of a surgeon who amputates the leg of a patient to save their life.

By the way, Catholic (objective) morality entails God’s omniscience. If you can know the end then the means are perfectly reasonable and justified.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a4.htm

“An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention”

Now, to defend this point will require that you concede that polygamy is not an evil action. If it is an evil action, then there is no possible intention (including Aquinas’s) that can justify it.

Now perhaps you might say that God changed his mind about polygamy, and explicitly commanded polygamy in one era, then explicitly condemned it in another. If that is the case, then Aquinas’ post hoc justification for God’s decision is irrelevant, and you need to actually show that God did change his mind (i.e. by showing he explicitly commanded polygamy in Thread #1, and showing that he explicitly forbade it in Thread #2.)

 

[AgnosticBoy]

One marriage over here. Another marriage over there. Both seperate and both individually having just two people. 1 husband and 1 wife.

“…the husband has each wife in a separate marriage”

Can you imagine an adulterous husband pleading as a defense that he was never in bed with both women at the same time? He was sleeping with them separately.

The definition of adultery varies based on the type of marriage that is allowed. The Jews practiced polygyny so they would’ve understood adultery as being something different than a monogamous culture.

Divorce, remarry, divorce, remarry, divorce, remarry…
Yeah, I’m sure that’s just exactly what God meant when He said what God has joned, let no man put asunder.

Of course, I’m not arguing that someone should divorce. I’m simply arguing that the only remarriage that Jesus was prohibiting in Matthew 19 were those that involved divorce. Polygamy does not involve any husband or wife separating.

You aren’t even the slightest bit embarassed by such blatant special pleading.
The bible mentions “X” therefore you should believe my claim that “Y” is compatible.
It just “is compatible” so there. Checkmate!

My purpose was to show that Matthew 19 does not apply to polygamy. That alone does not prove that polygamy is right but it does prove that the NT does not prohibit polygamy which was the point of my ‘negative arguments’. You already know about my positive arguments since you participated in my other thread!

…therefore, a man can remarry if he stays married to his first wife while adding the second wife and polygamy is a morally good practice in God’s eyes.

Your premisses haven’t been supported by any recognised or mainstream scriptural exegesis.

I’ve seen no hermenuetics. Your position is clearly not widely accepted by folks who aren’t agnostics/atheists. And your conclusion isn’t a necessary inference from your premisses in any case - even if your interpretation of scripture on which those premisses is based WAS correct.

I don’t think the issue is so much hermeneutics because Jesus was quite clear, DIVORCE + remarriage = adultery. The problem tends to be people’s reasoning based on this passage and for whatever reason they tend to want to add to it more than what’s there.

How about this, can you give me your own argument for how Matthew 19 prohibits polygamy? And please, don’t just tell me that the mainstream (your Church?) accepts it, and therefore I should. Give me your logic and evidence.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Other verses are relevant and they do relate to each other.

You may want to isolate the discussion to Matthew 19 but Jesus was quoting verses in Genesis word for word. You would have to go back to those verses. Studying some verses in isolation can be useful and even the correct way but in this case no because there’s a word for word quotation. An allusion to something else is also reason to look beyond a single passage. In Genesis, God intended one man and one woman as one flesh. If God’s ideal was more than one woman, God would have made Adam more wives but he didn’t.

Jesus was quoting Genesis 2:24, but I’ve only focused on “one flesh” and “adultery” as used in Matthew 19. I posted an objection to your interpretation which involves showing that becoming “one flesh” can occur multiple times throughout a person’s lifetime.

Just to be clear, according to you, if a man divorces one of the wives, he can never remarry?

Correct. The rule applies to both monogamists and polygamists.

 

[frobert]

You do realize that Aquinas here is asserting that the ends justified the means, right? If I know anything about Catholic morality, it is that the ends do not justify the means.

Thanks for the feedback.

It may be helpful for you to read up on Thomistic natural law especially the parts pertaining sexual relations.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

You keep bringing up this issue but it does not address the points of my argument which involve “one flesh” and “adultery” as used in Matthew 19. I’m not trying to be nit-picky and always harp on people getting off topic, but when it keeps happening a lot and by the same person, then it becomes a pain…

If I respond to your claim here then will you address my specific arguments, assuming that you have a logical rebuttal to my arguments? I’ll address your point.

You made a factually incorrect claim that polygamy was not practiced during Jesus’s time. This claim has been made by many others despite the fact that I pointed to evidence that says otherwise. Here’s the clear historical evidence:

-2nd century Christian apologist Justin Martyr mentioning polygamy being permitted among the Jews (Justin Martyr disapproved of the practice) -
Dialogue with Trypho - chapter 134:

-1st century historian Josephus mentions polygamy in his day and even says it was a practice among the Jews that dated back since ancient time -
The Jewish Wars, Book 1, chapter 24:

If you want to discuss this evidence further then we can start another thread.

Josephus is not a reliable source!! He reads like the National Enquirer! In any case, these are pretty scanty sources to base you idea that the Jews practiced polygamy at this time in history. Obviously most Jews practiced monogamy at this time and your exceptions do not prove the rule.