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

[AgnosticBoy]

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.

Okay, I did my part by presenting historical evidence in place of opinion.

Now lets stay on topic.

Do you have any logical rebuttal for my arguments in post 1 which deal with “one flesh” and “adultery”? You can also read my responses to others which may save you time from posting the same arguments that I’ve already addressed.

 

[ATraveller]

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.

This is the problem and as others have pointed out, you consistently want to reject the context involved because it doesn’t give the conclusion you want. The original design and intent of marriage does not change because it’s in the Gospel of Matthew instead of Genesis. ‘One flesh’ *can *occur multiple times but again the *original design and intent * of marriage is one man and one woman.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Thanks for the feedback.

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

I am quite familiar.

If we look at abortion, we find that Catholic hospitals are willing to perform procedures that save the mother while causing the death of the unborn, so long as that procedure is not designed to kill the unborn. The reason they are willing is that their procedure is not an “evil act” since it has a legitimate pro-mother design, and the death of the unborn is an unfortunate side effect that they might even try to prevent. Is that the case with polygamy? No, having sex with multiple women isn’t an unfortunate side-effect of wanting more children in the same sense as the medical procedure. Wanting more children is fine and good, but you can’t go and deliberately do something sinful in order to achieve that good. In the same way that wanting the mother to survive is fine and good, but you can’t just go and kill the unborn child; you can’t go and have sex with a number of different women just because you want more children.

Natural law is simply a way of saying “we can figure out what God intended by looking at how he made things.”

So, as far as I know, God didn’t make any physical changes to humanity between the old and new testaments. Therefore, people would draw the same natural law conclusions in the old testament as they would in the new testament.

But they didn’t. Instead, we see that as the ancient Israelite society became more and more pro-monogamy, so to did their god. So it would seem to me that either natural law doesn’t have anything to say about whether or not polygamy is good or Aquinas’s attempt at appealing to the need for more children is an attempt at making the ends justify the means.

 

[Lion_IRC]

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

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

Who said anything about doing an evil act?

The example used was a surgeon amputating a gangrenous leg to save a life.
An ignorant bystander might think the mutilation was a vicious assault on a helpless victim.
But the surgeon would explain their motive. Their good intention.

Without knowing the intended outcome (as God does) who apart from God can say whether the end justifies the means?

 

[frobert]

So it would seem to me that either natural law doesn’t have anything to say about whether or not polygamy is good

Again, thanks for the feedback.

It would seem that polygamy in of itself is morally neutral yet it does come with a lot of baggage. For Aquinas that baggage was tolerated for the greater good in OT times.

Aquinas provides a reasonable purpose for polygamy in OT times.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

This is the problem and as others have pointed out, you consistently want to reject the context involved because it doesn’t give the conclusion you want. The original design and intent of marriage does not change because it’s in the Gospel of Matthew instead of Genesis. ‘One flesh’ *can *occur multiple times but again the *original design and intent * of marriage is one man and one woman.

I dont reject anything because “it doesnt give me the conclusion I want” but rather i stick to a specific topic to make sure that a point is not skipped over or “dodged”. Points can get lost in the details and the more topics you have in a discussion then the more likely it will happen.

You claim that the original intent was one man and one woman but you have not addressed my view that it does not restrict the number of marriages someone can have. Says nothing about what can or cant happen after the first marriage until you continue reading the other info. about God’s rules and actions which go beyond Genesis 2:24. You do acknowledge that there are more rules that pertain to marriage that go beyond Gen 2:24, right?

 

[ATraveller]

I dont reject anything because “it doesnt give me the conclusion I want” but rather i stick to a specific topic to make sure that a point is not skipped over or “dodged”. Points can get lost in the details and the more topics you have in a discussion then the more likely it will happen.

All we need to know can’t be reduced to one single passage or even aspect. You have to take them together and make the proper connections. Many doctrinal positions are made by citing several verses that have strong links.

You claim that the original intent was one man and one woman but you have not addressed my view that it does not restrict the number of marriages someone can have. Says nothing about what can or cant happen after the first marriage until you continue reading the other info. about God’s rules and actions which go beyond Genesis 2:24.

You do acknowledge that there are more rules that pertain to marriage that go beyond Gen 2:24, right?

I’m not ‘claiming’ the original intent was one man and one woman, it’s quite plain and explicit. Adam never had any other wives. On the number of wives and restrictions, polygamy was tolerated. That is hard to deny. However, Christianity is about restoring what was broken and aiming for restoration in our own lives.
I’m not sure as to what you mean by ‘rules’? Can you be a bit more specific?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

You can’t have several separate marriages to multiple women. (or vice versa) One a time. If a spouse dies, it is okay to take another spouse, but polygamy and bigamy are wrong. Marriage is a sacrament between two people, (a man and a woman, well at least it used to be that way before gay marriage).It is not a union of several people at once. Yes it was tolerated in the Old Testament, but not in the New Testament and not today (yet).

 

[AgnosticBoy]

All we need to know can’t be reduced to one single passage or even aspect. You have to take them together and make the proper connections. Many doctrinal positions are made by citing several verses that have strong links.

Well I’m only interested in addressing one particular argument against polygamy and not all of them. I have made some exceptions but I’m less willing to do so now because I’m finding that my counter argument for “one flesh” has not be refuted and the focus on it is decreasing into talks about Aquinas, why polygamy was allowed, when it ended, jealousy, etc. If someone brings up a point that does not address what “one flesh” means in the context of Matthew 19, then it is off topic. As I mentioned before, if you don’t like the narrow focus then feel free to start your own thread, and I will be more than willing to engage you or anyone else there as my schedule allows.

I’m not ‘claiming’ the original intent was one man and one woman, it’s quite plain and explicit. Adam never had any other wives. On the number of wives and restrictions, polygamy was tolerated. That is hard to deny. However, Christianity is about restoring what was broken and aiming for restoration in our own lives.
I’m not sure as to what you mean by ‘rules’? Can you be a bit more specific?

So your argument is that marriage was meant to be monogamous because that’s how God made it with Adam. God only created one woman for him to be with. Okay, point taken. Here are my objections:

• It is logically possible for God to reveal his intentions for marriage in stages and at different points of time as opposed to revealing them all at once (in Genesis 2:24?), and I say this because that is precisely what we find in the Bible. There are rules and actions from God that shed light on what God wanted and these are reported after Genesis 2:24.
• If God wanted BOTH monogamy and polygamy, he can approve of a marriage that involves monogamy and then LATER on approve of marriages involving polygamy and that’s precisely what we find. To go back to my first point, you’re arguing as if all of God’s intentions and plan had to be revealed at one time and that is not the case.

So my objections deal directly with your reasoning about the first marriage being a model for all other marriages. If you want to bring in points about “one flesh” then I’ve already addressed those in post #1 and throughout this thread.

I’m not sure as to what you mean by ‘rules’? Can you be a bit more specific?

Well not just rules but also divine actions that show that polygamy was part of God’s plan. You’d have to read my other thread to see my arguments… please read here and here (the first response about Genesis 29).

 

[ATraveller]

Well I’m only interested in addressing one particular argument against polygamy and not all of them. I have made some exceptions but I’m less willing to do so now because I’m finding that my counter argument for “one flesh” has not be refuted and the focus on it is decreasing into talks about Aquinas, why polygamy was allowed, when it ended, jealousy, etc. If someone brings up a point that does not address what “one flesh” means in the context of Matthew 19, then it is off topic. As I mentioned before, if you don’t like the narrow focus then feel free to start your own thread, and I will be more than willing to engage you or anyone else there as my schedule allows

So your argument is that marriage was meant to be monogamous because that’s how God made it with Adam. God only created one woman for him to be with. Okay, point taken. Here are my objections:

• It is logically possible for God to reveal his intentions for marriage in stages and at different points of time as opposed to revealing them all at once (in Genesis 2:24?), and I say this because that is precisely what we find in the Bible. There are rules and actions from God that shed light on what God wanted and these are reported after Genesis 2:24.
• If God wanted BOTH monogamy and polygamy, he can approve of a marriage that involves monogamy and then LATER on approve of marriages involving polygamy and that’s precisely what we find. To go back to my first point, you’re arguing as if all of God’s intentions and plan had to be revealed at one time and that is not the case.

So my objections deal directly with your reasoning about the first marriage being a model for all other marriages. If you want to bring in points about “one flesh” then I’ve already addressed those in post #1 and throughout this thread.

Well not just rules but also divine actions that show that polygamy was part of God’s plan. You’d have to read my other thread to see my arguments… please read here and here (the first response about Genesis 29).

Matthew 19 addresses what God wanted originally not what was tolerated when Jesus spoke those words. The fact Jesus went to the very first passage mentioning marriage in the Jewish Bible is saying this is what one flesh in marriage is supposed to be.
Yes, God can provide later revelations but I’ll repeat this again, toleration is not necessarily approval. You may not like it but the comparison made with divorce is because God said He hated divorce yet He had procedures for it in the Old Testament.
Branching off, you may not like it, but it is inevitable because we need to see as much as possible God’s mind.
This is your point on ‘one flesh’:

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.

I and others have shown you have made an error. My first reply covers that. This wasn’t addressed I think so I’ll write when spouse #1 dies, that part of the flesh dies.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

So your argument is that marriage was meant to be monogamous because that’s how God made it with Adam. God only created one woman for him to be with. Okay, point taken. Here are my objections:

.

• If God wanted BOTH monogamy and polygamy, he can approve of a marriage that involves monogamy and then LATER on approve of marriages involving polygamy and that’s precisely what we find. To go back to my first point, you’re arguing as if all of God’s intentions and plan had to be revealed at one time and that is not the case.

Wrong. God wanted monogamy. He tolerated polygamy in the OT, like he tolerated a lot of what the Hebrews were doing back then. The NT clearly shows that monogamy was God’s intent.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Matthew 19 addresses what God wanted originally not what was tolerated when Jesus spoke those words. The fact Jesus went to the very first passage mentioning marriage in the Jewish Bible is saying this is what one flesh in marriage is supposed to be.

Yes, Jesus repeated Genesis 2:24 but your point presupposes that that passage refers to monogamy. If Genesis 2:24 does not refer to monogamy, as I demonstrated with my objections which you have yet to refute, then why would Jesus repeating Genesis 2:24 at a later time make it refer to monogamy? If the writer of Genesis states that Adam was the first man created, and in 2017, I state the same thing, would that in any way open the door to meaning that Adam was not the first man created according to the Bible? Of course not!

Yes, God can provide later revelations but I’ll repeat this again, toleration is not necessarily approval. You may not like it but the comparison made with divorce is because God said He hated divorce yet He had procedures for it in the Old Testament.
Branching off, you may not like it, but it is inevitable because we need to see as much as possible God’s mind.

The only difference is that the actions and rules I refer to came directly from God and not Moses. God did not write the rules for divorce, but He did for adultery. God did not want anyone to divorce or cause a divorce, but yet the OT shows that He wanted and caused a man to love and impregnate TWO women. I assume you read my arguments in my other thread but clearly you ignored my points, and somehow ignoring my points to many here means that they’re right. To PROVE that you are right, you need to address my arguments.

This is your point on ‘one flesh’:
I and others have shown you have made an error. My first reply covers that. This wasn’t addressed I think so I’ll write when spouse #1 dies, that part of the flesh dies.

Oh, nevermind that Jesus said that a man can remarry if the reason for the divorce was that the wife was sexually immoral. Doesn’t seem that Jesus was too concerned about the wife still being alive or “one flesh” at that point.

Let me breakdown Matthew 19. Jesus was asked about DIVORCE and not monogamy nor polygamy. More specifically, He was asked about the REASONS for divorce (Matthew 19:3). These are the key things that a lot of people neglect to factor in. Based on this, Jesus was trying to address serial monogamy (Kim Kardashian, Donald Trump, Newt Gingrich style monogamy) by showing that marriage was to be forever. He doesn’t want people ending a marriage for just any petty reason just like we have going on today.

 

[ATraveller]

Yes, Jesus repeated Genesis 2:24 but your point presupposes that that passage refers to monogamy. If Genesis 2:24 does not refer to monogamy, as I demonstrated with my objections which you have yet to refute, then why would Jesus repeating Genesis 2:24 at a later time make it refer to monogamy? If the writer of Genesis states that Adam was the first man created, and in 2017, I state the same thing, would that in any way open the door to meaning that Adam was not the first man created according to the Bible? Of course not!

Does it have to say ‘Adam and Eve are married in a monogamous marriage’ word for word to mean it was monogamous?
You didn’t demonstrate that it did not support marriage was supposed to be one man and one woman. You wrote it’s possible for God to add further revelations. I responded by saying God tolerated polygamy, which is not approving it.

The only difference is that the actions and rules I refer to came directly from God and not Moses. God did not write the rules for divorce, but He did for adultery. God did not want anyone to divorce or cause a divorce, but yet the OT shows that He wanted and caused a man to love and impregnate TWO women. I assume you read my arguments in my other thread but clearly you ignored my points, and somehow ignoring my points to many here means that they’re right. To PROVE that you are right, you need to address my arguments.

Fair enough on Moses and God on divorce.
Jacob wanted to marry Rachel not Leah. But Laban made Jacob marry Leah and he then had to work for Laban another several years before marrying Rachel. This was not ideal for Jacob (wanted Rachel not Leah) nor to God (because it was polygamous). Despite what happened, God didn’t want any one of the wives to be abandoned.

Oh, nevermind that Jesus said that a man can remarry if the reason for the divorce was that the wife was sexually immoral. Doesn’t seem that Jesus was too concerned about the wife still being alive or “one flesh” at that point.

That marriage was destroyed through sexual immorality. One flesh has been split in two through that process.

Let me breakdown Matthew 19. Jesus was asked about DIVORCE and not monogamy nor polygamy. More specifically, He was asked about the REASONS for divorce (Matthew 19:3). These are the key things that a lot of people neglect to factor in. Based on this, Jesus was trying to address serial monogamy (Kim Kardashian, Donald Trump, Newt Gingrich style monogamy) by showing that marriage was to be forever. He doesn’t want people ending a marriage for just any petty reason just like we have going on today.

Even though divorce was the main focus you can still draw other important lessons from them. Teachings on the environment are drawn from verses and passages not directly related to pollution.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Does it have to say ‘Adam and Eve are married in a monogamous marriage’ word for word to mean it was monogamous?

This is not my argument so it’s irrelevant to my position.

You didn’t demonstrate that it did not support marriage was supposed to be one man and one woman. You wrote it’s possible for God to add further revelations. I responded by saying God tolerated polygamy, which is not approving it.

My argument was not only that God reveal rules in stages, but I also refuted the other reasons that Christians use to say that Gen. 2:24/Matthew 19:3-6 refers to monogamy. I did this by showing that “one flesh” can occur multiple times throughout a person’s lifetime.

Also, claiming that God “tolerated” polygamy presupposes that monogamy was all that God wanted. First show that monogamy was intended in the first place by addressing my points about “one flesh”. In other words, how does Genesis 2:24/Matthew 19:3-6 prove that God wanted monogamy?

Fair enough on Moses and God on divorce.
Jacob wanted to marry Rachel not Leah. But Laban made Jacob marry Leah and he then had to work for Laban another several years before marrying Rachel. This was not ideal for Jacob (wanted Rachel not Leah) nor to God (because it was polygamous). Despite what happened, God didn’t want any one of the wives to be abandoned.

It’s true that Jacob was tricked into being with Leah; but nonetheless, he still accepted her as his wife so that constituted a marriage. You say that God did not want any of his wives to be abandoned, but then you left out the fact that the act would be adultery if God wanted monogamy. You can’t have it both ways. Either God wants monogamy and he’s all-good, which means that He will not sin or use sin to bring about something or He approves of polygamy. Assuming your position is correct, God’s actions towards Jacob’s polygamous relationship would involved using sinful means to bring about another sinful end, that is, God wanting Jacob to love BOTH wives, so he helps these barren women become pregnant so Jacob would have more love for TWO wives.

We’ll have to continue this particular point about Jacob on my other thread.

That marriage was destroyed through sexual immorality. One flesh has been split in two through that process.

In post 50, the last sentence, you said that the one flesh is broken when the wife #1 dies, but now you’re saying that it can be broken when sexual immorality is involved? Which is it?

I can understand the thinking behind being one flesh between two living people and how death could sever that, but I find your current claim to be easier to deal with because then it puts more emphasis on sex. If just sex can sever the connection, then it stands to reason that sex could be enough to start the connection, as well, no different than what Paul mentioned in 1 Corinthians 6:16. And of course, a man can have sex with multiple women giving him multiple one flesh unions.

Even though divorce was the main focus you can still draw other important lessons from them. Teachings on the environment are drawn from verses and passages not directly related to pollution.

True, but the context is not about monogamy nor polygamy, but about divorce vs. God’s original plan for marriage with no divorce.

 

[frobert]

You claim that the original intent was one man and one woman but you have not addressed my view that it does not restrict the number of marriages someone can have. Says nothing about what can or cant happen after the first marriage until you continue reading the other info. about God’s rules and actions which go beyond Genesis 2:24. You do acknowledge that there are more rules that pertain to marriage that go beyond Gen 2:24, right?

emphasis added

Here is another view on Gen 2:24.

Jesus’ Old Testament basis for Monogamy

When Jesus was questioned about divorce (in Matt.19:2 -; Mk.10:2 -), he tried to steer the debate to the subject of monogamy. He used very similar exegetical arguments to those found in the Damascus Document and used a variant found in non -Massoretic texts of Gen.2.24. Although most modern treatments of these passages concentrate on the subject of divorce, the early church responded equally to his teaching on monogamy.

…Matt. 19:4-6 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, [Gen.1:27] (5) and said, ‘For this reason a man shall le ave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh? [Gen.2:24] (6) So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

…Jesus does not appear at first to be interested in answering the question about the interpretation of Deut.24:1. He is more concerned to remind the Pharisees that marriage was meant to be monogamous and lifelong. He used two exegetical arguments to prove that the Old Testament taught monogamy. He then combined them to produce the new conclusion, that married partners are joined together by God.

…Jesus combined these two standard proofs for monogamy and produced an argument for lifelong marriage. He linked the two texts, Gen.1:27 and 2:24, by gezerah shahvah so that a single conclusion can be drawn from them. The two text are linked by the phrases “male and female” in 1:27 and “the man and his wife” in 2:25 (immediately after the quoted text).

Emphasis added

Commentaries on Genesis 2-24

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

…the relation of the man to his wife is proclaimed to be closer than that to his father and mother. By the words, “shall cleave unto his wife … one flesh,” is asserted the sanctity of marriage. Polygamy is not definitely excluded; but the principle of monogamy seems to be implied in the words “cleave” and “shall be one flesh”: and this principle is upheld by the prophets as the ideal of marriage, in their representation of the relation of Jehovah and Israel under the metaphor of the married state.

Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament

…They are the words of Moses, written to bring out the truth embodied in the fact recorded as a divinely appointed result, to exhibit marriage as the deepest corporeal and spiritual unity of man and woman, and to hold up monogamy before the eyes of the people of Israel as the form of marriage ordained by God. But as the words of Moses, they are the utterance of divine revelation; and Christ could quote them, therefore, as the word of God (Matthew 19:5).

 

[CHRISTINE77]

This is not my argument so it’s irrelevant to my position.

My argument was not only that God reveal rules in stages, but I also refuted the other reasons that Christians use to say that Gen. 2:24/Matthew 19:3-6 refers to monogamy. I did this by showing that “one flesh” can occur multiple times throughout a person’s lifetime.

Also, claiming that God “tolerated” polygamy presupposes that monogamy was all that God wanted. First show that monogamy was intended in the first place by addressing my points about “one flesh”. In other words, how does Genesis 2:24/Matthew 19:3-6 prove that God wanted monogamy?

It’s true that Jacob was tricked into being with Leah; but nonetheless, he still accepted her as his wife so that constituted a marriage. You say that God did not want any of his wives to be abandoned, but then you left out the fact that the act would be adultery if God wanted monogamy. You can’t have it both ways. Either God wants monogamy and he’s all-good, which means that He will not sin or use sin to bring about something or He approves of polygamy. Assuming your position is correct, God’s actions towards Jacob’s polygamous relationship would involved using sinful means to bring about another sinful end, that is, God wanting Jacob to love BOTH wives, so he helps these barren women become pregnant so Jacob would have more love for TWO wives.

We’ll have to continue this particular point about Jacob on my other thread.

In post 50, the last sentence, you said that the one flesh is broken when the wife #1 dies, but now you’re saying that it can be broken when sexual immorality is involved? Which is it?

I can understand the thinking behind being one flesh between two living people and how death could sever that, but I find your current claim to be easier to deal with because then it puts more emphasis on sex. If just sex can sever the connection, then it stands to reason that sex could be enough to start the connection, as well, no different than what Paul mentioned in 1 Corinthians 6:16. And of course, a man can have sex with multiple women giving him multiple one flesh unions.

True, but the context is not about monogamy nor polygamy, but about divorce vs. God’s original plan for marriage with no divorce.

God doesn’t like divorce any more than he likes polygamy! You act like God found divorce good! It isn’t unless there is a good reason for it, and even then, it is too bad. In a way humans do become one flesh with their spouses, especially if there are children. So it is too bad when divorce occurs, but sometimes there is no alternative, such as cases of abuse or drug addiction.

God also does not like polygamy. In the old Testament you can see how bad polygamy turned out for people such as Sarah and her wrongly- treated slave Hagar - what a tragedy! Also poor Leah, Jacob did not love her at all. Gideon had many wives and many sons. This resulted in civil war and wholesale slaughter in Israel. David had a seemingly insatiable appetite for women. He had many wives, and in the end, stole another man’s wife and murdered him . The resulting, big family was not a happy one: they ended up committing incestuous rape and rebellion which almost destroyed David’s kingdom .Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. They led his heart away from the Lord, and led to the break-up of his kingdom. The stories show how wrong polygamy is, not how good it is!

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Here is another view on Gen 2:24.
Jesus’ Old Testament basis for Monogamy

When Jesus was questioned about divorce (in Matt.19:2 -; Mk.10:2 -), he tried to steer the debate to the subject of monogamy. He used very similar exegetical arguments to those found in the Damascus Document and used a variant found in non -Massoretic texts of Gen.2.24. Although most modern treatments of these passages concentrate on the subject of divorce, the early church responded equally to his teaching on monogamy.

…Jesus combined these two standard proofs for monogamy and produced an argument for lifelong marriage. He linked the two texts, Gen.1:27 and 2:24, by gezerah shahvah so that a single conclusion can be drawn from them. The two text are linked by the phrases “male and female” in 1:27 and “the man and his wife” in 2:25 (immediately after the quoted text).

Emphasis added

I read most of the article, and I found that pgs. 1-12 cover all of the points that you brought up. Dr. Instone-Brewer mentions that there were different teachings on polygamy, so what the Essenes taught was just one view, and this group tended to isolate themselves, both in teaching and even physically, from the more common groups in Judaism. Interestingly, on pg. 2, 2nd to last paragraph, the author actually state that “one flesh” was not understood to go against polygamy according to some interpretations. On pg. 1, Polygamy in Judaism section and Pg. 2, last paragraph, the author even states that polygamy was practiced in the 1st century during Jesus’s times which is something that Christine777 would benefit from knowing since she dismissed my historical evidence!

As for his point about Jesus teaching on monogamy, he states that the Essenes linked Genesis 1:27 and 7:9 to argue against polygamy in the Damascus Document. The text actually states that polygamy was prohibited. The author then claims that Jesus made the same connection which you quoted in your post. The first problem that I find with the author’s view is that polygamy is not mentioned nor is it part of the context in Matthew 19 unlike the text from the Damascus Document. Jesus was clearly addressing something about divorce and the reasons for it. The second problem is that th author makes a leap of logic because while Jesus may’ve utilized ‘gezerah shavah’ (which is a method and not a conclusion or view), but using the same method does not mean he came up with the same conclusion or view. In fact, Jesus used the same method to reach other conclusions that the Essenes did not hold, like marriage lasting a lifetime with no divorce. I also doubt that Jesus would’ve failed to notice all of God’s rules and actions towards polygamists that go beyond Genesis 2:24. The fallacy of relying on only Genesis 2:24 is that you miss out on all the rules and actions that also shed light on God’s plans for marriage.

We can evaluate that Essenes view based on its own merit because their reasoning is simply that whatever God created in the beginning serves as a model for everything else. I’ve already refuted that view, and I suppose the Essenes ignored all of the Godly examples involving polygamy which is another method that was used to establish validity according to your article (Pg.10, last sent. going into pg. 11). We’re not arguing about the Essenes, which again they offered ONE of many interpretations, but the topic here is what Jesus meant in Matthew 19 or if he used their view, and of course I disagree that he did based on the reasons that I cited in the previous paragraph.

Commentaries on Genesis 2-24

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

…the relation of the man to his wife is proclaimed to be closer than that to his father and mother. By the words, “shall cleave unto his wife … one flesh,” is asserted the sanctity of marriage. Polygamy is not definitely excluded; but the principle of monogamy seems to be implied in the words “cleave” and “shall be one flesh”: and this principle is upheld by the prophets as the ideal of marriage, in their representation of the relation of Jehovah and Israel under the metaphor of the married state.

If the authors factored in New Testament data, they’d realize that one flesh can occur multiple times. I don’t see where they addressed this data. Also, your first article mentions that the early Jews would’ve interpreted “one flesh” to not go against polygamy (pg. 2).

Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament

…They are the words of Moses, written to bring out the truth embodied in the fact recorded as a divinely appointed result, to exhibit marriage as the deepest corporeal and spiritual unity of man and woman, and to hold up monogamy before the eyes of the people of Israel as the form of marriage ordained by God. But as the words of Moses, they are the utterance of divine revelation; and Christ could quote them, therefore, as the word of God (Matthew 19:5).

This does not address what “one flesh” means nor is there any reasoning for their conclusion.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Wrong. God wanted monogamy. He tolerated polygamy in the OT, like he tolerated a lot of what the Hebrews were doing back then. The NT clearly shows that monogamy was God’s intent.

Christine77 you have not addressed my objection to your claim that God “tolerated” polygamy. When you “tolerate” something, you don’t get your hands dirty by helping or wanting for others to engage in it, and that’s especially true when you are an all-GOOD and perfect being. On my other thread, I offered examples of God getting his hands dirty with polygamy, while also making up terms for adultery that would allow for polygyny. Ignoring these points of mine does not prove your case.

If you want to preach rather than debate, then please acknowledge that doing the former proves nothing.

 

[spiderweb]

*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).

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). *

Ephesians 5:31-32, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one. This is a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and the church.”

If the man were already married he would not be “leaving his father and mother”. And while the Church is made up of many individuals (both male and female), there is only one Church which Christ gave his life for (Eph 5:25). Therefore this analogy depicts a singular marriage between Christ (groom) and the Church (bride). Regardless of how many individuals are within the Church, there is still only one church and one bride and thus only one “one flesh” marriage.

You seem to be making a distinction between a spiritual and physical “one flesh” relationship and of course this is true. However a marriage consists of both a physical and spiritual “one flesh” relationship in a unique manner. "…they are no longer two but one, what God has joined together, let no man put asunder” (Mark 10:7-9). Since you claim that a man can have sex with multiple women, and this is joining in a “one flesh” union according to 1 Corinthians 6:15 (although it is here speaking of a prostitute), nevertheless this makes his original wife a member of this “one flesh” union. *”Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I therefore take the members of Christ (original wife) and make them members (make her a member) of a prostitute? Never!” * In other words, it is no longer the “two becoming one” in separate multiple instances; rather it is the three or more becoming one. This nullifies your argument of “more than one marriage at one time but still with two people in each marriage” (Post #1).

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, that’s the husband. And as Ephesians 5:24 clearly states, “wives” submit to your husbands in everything”

You are forgetting Ephesians 5:21 “Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.” And 5:25 ”Husbands love your wives, as Christ loved the church, and gave himself up for her”. Even as the head, the husband has a duty to serve (Luke 22:26) his wife and to nourish and cherish her (Eph 5:28-29). In a polygamous marriage, which wife will the husband give himself up for? Which wife will the husband submit to? Which wife has conjugal rights according to 1 Cor 7:3-5? From 1 Corinthians 6:15 to the end of chapter 7, it implicitly assumes a monogamous husband and wife relationship. Even though the husband may try his best to serve multiple wives, he is unable to give himself to them all at the same time and in the same way in the manner which is described. Thus, it is the man who is serving two masters in polygamy.

As I stated in my first post, the Bible does not explicitly teach against polygamy in the New Testament. However, what it does teach is that men and woman are equal in Christ (Galatians 3:27-29), and there is no respect of persons with God (Romans 2:11). And because of that equality, the moral law must apply to them both so that if it is wrong for the woman to do, it is also wrong for the man to do. Notice that in Matthew 19:9 and Luke 16:18 it only refers to the man divorcing his wife. However, in Mark 10:11-12 it states that the same applies to the woman who divorces her husband. The same equality is stated in 1 Corinthians 7:3-4 regarding conjugal rights and in 7:12-14, in regards to believing or unbelieving spouses, and again in Ephesians 5:21 with the mutual submission of spouses. Therefore, in Romans 7:2-3, even though it only directly talks about the woman being bound to her husband while he lives, the same implicitly applies to the man.

What you see in the New Testament is a transitional phase where the old is passing away to make way for the new (Hebrews 8:13). The fundamental understanding of marriage is changed drastically. Divorce is no longer permitted and there is an equality in what God has joined together that was non-existent in the Old Testament. Polygamous relations for a time are “grandfathered in”, and therefore not outright condemned, but the fundamental understanding of marriage has been changed to the point that it will not be continued starting with the elders in the Church (1 Timothy 3:2, 12). Similar to divorce, it was permitted for a time without moral culpability, but from the beginning it was not so.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

You are forgetting Ephesians 5:21 “Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.” And 5:25 ”Husbands love your wives, as Christ loved the church, and gave himself up for her”. Even as the head, the husband has a duty to serve (Luke 22:26) his wife and to nourish and cherish her (Eph 5:28-29). In a polygamous marriage, which wife will the husband give himself up for? Which wife will the husband submit to? Which wife has conjugal rights according to 1 Cor 7:3-5? From 1 Corinthians 6:15 to the end of chapter 7, it implicitly assumes a monogamous husband and wife relationship. Even though the husband may try his best to serve multiple wives, he is unable to give himself to them all at the same time and in the same way in the manner which is described. Thus, it is the man who is serving two masters in polygamy.

These are all separate points that I’ve touched on earlier in the thread (post #10, but I will not continue to do so because it strays from the topic about “two becoming one flesh” as used in Matthew 19. And of course, even if I did engage you on these arguments on another thread, it would be one topic at a time.

What you see in the New Testament is a transitional phase where the old is passing away to make way for the new (Hebrews 8:13). The fundamental understanding of marriage is changed drastically. Divorce is no longer permitted and there is an equality in what God has joined together that was non-existent in the Old Testament. Polygamous relations for a time are “grandfathered in”, and therefore not outright condemned, but the fundamental understanding of marriage has been changed to the point that it will not be continued starting with the elders in the Church (1 Timothy 3:2, 12). Similar to divorce, it was permitted for a time without moral culpability, but from the beginning it was not so.

Well you can prove your case by addressing my points about “two becoming one flesh”. I’m not here to argue against every single argument. Let us focus on “two becoming one flesh”.