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

[AgnosticBoy]

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”.

I have a response to this, but it’s off topic since it does not deal with my arguments about the “two” and “one flesh” as used in Matthew 19.

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.

I agree that Church members are not married to each other but they are still considered one flesh with other members as the NT indicates, so we still have multiple one flesh unions which is my point. Christians are one flesh with Jesus, one flesh with fellow believers, and one flesh with their wives.

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).

In the physical sense, 3 people do not become one flesh because two women can not have sexual intercourse, even if the guy slept with them all, he can’t link them together physically (enough said there!). Spiritually, it can happen which would mean that the husband and “wife” is one flesh with each other while also being one flesh with Jesus so that’s 3 people involved. However, the problem here is not 3 people becoming one flesh because that already happens with a regular marriage between two people with Jesus in the picture. The problem here is the prostitute which is represented by what they do for a living. If the man adds an additional sexual partner in a moral way, that is, by marrying her and taking on the marital responsibilities, then God would be okay with being in a union with the husband and his wives.

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.

In Matthew 19:9, there is an exception made for the man where he’s justified in divorcing and remarrying without it being adultery. The wife is not afforded any exceptions, because what’s sexually immoral for her is not the same for the man (the man can have additional partners, but she can’t) and that’s based on the definition of adultery stemming from the OT.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

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.

Agnostic Boy you are nuts!

 

[ATraveller]

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.

Not really. You may believe that to be the case but others won’t see that.

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?

If polygamy was intended, Adam would have had additional wives.

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.

It would be adultery. But we know God still loved and provided for those who sinned gravely including adultery.

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?

It can be both. They don’t contradict each other.

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.

‘One flesh’ as I’ve read or heard can have different meanings depending on the context. I can’t offer much on that from the top of my head.

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

But you can derive other doctrinal positions. You just don’t want to accept that this is applicable here. As long as you don’t, the discussion isn’t going anywhere.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

If polygamy was intended, Adam would have had additional wives.

I didn’t simply say t hat polygamy was intended. I said BOTH monogamy and polygamy was intended. Your standard of reasoning is that the first occurrence of things determines what God wanted. Lets play out your logic.

So for God to show that He wanted BOTH monogamy and polygamy, He would have to give Adam one wife and multiple wives at the same time in order for it to meet your standards right? Of course, that would be a logical impossibility, which is why the first occurrence of things don’t always stand for ‘all’ that God wants. He can reveal all that he wants in stages and at different times.

It would be adultery. But we know God still loved and provided for those who sinned gravely including adultery.

This is your response to my point about God helping Jacob and his two wives. So if the second wife would’ve been adultery, since God wanted monogamy and all, so then why did the all-good God want to sustain the adulterous relationship? I’m not sure if you’re realizing that in this case, God wanted one man to love TWO women and impregnate them, which means that God wanted adultery if your view is correct. But how could an all-good God want adultery? This is the problem with your view!

It can be both. They don’t contradict each other.
‘One flesh’ as I’ve read or heard can have different meanings depending on the context. I can’t offer much on that from the top of my head.

The two views, that one flesh is severed by death of one spouse or severed because of an adultery act do not necessarily contradict each other, but the latter does take away from the strength of the one flesh bond. Catholics talk about the one flesh bond as if the two are literally united in one body, sharing the same thoughts, feelings, spirit, etc. I would highly doubt that a mere physical sexual act would break such an integrated bond but here you are claiming to the contrary that it does so we can then discard the Catholic view.

I’ve already addressed how polygamy does not conflict with either scenario based on the definition of adultery and how there’s no divorce involved to start polygamy.

 

[ATraveller]

I didn’t simply say t hat polygamy was intended. I said BOTH monogamy and polygamy was intended. Your standard of reasoning is that the first occurrence of things determines what God wanted. Lets play out your logic.

So for God to show that He wanted BOTH monogamy and polygamy, He would have to give Adam one wife and multiple wives at the same time in order for it to meet your standards right? Of course, that would be a logical impossibility, which is why the first occurrence of things don’t always stand for ‘all’ that God wants. He can reveal all that he wants in stages and at different times.

No. God could have added wives in addition to Eve over time or polygamy was done at the very start. The latter would also result in monogamy in addition to polygamy.

This is your response to my point about God helping Jacob and his two wives. So if the second wife would’ve been adultery, since God wanted monogamy and all, so then why did the all-good God want to sustain the adulterous relationship? I’m not sure if you’re realizing that in this case, God wanted one man to love TWO women and impregnate them, which means that God wanted adultery if your view is correct. But how could an all-good God want adultery? This is the problem with your view!

Would it have been better for Jacob to abandon or divorce Leah? And then we have to factor in Jacob wanting Rachel over Leah, which complicates things. The problem is we don’t know why God would have allowed this. We don’t know why plenty of terrible things happen. Maybe He saw this as a better option for their situation.

The two views, that one flesh is severed by death of one spouse or severed because of an adultery act do not necessarily contradict each other, but the latter does take away from the strength of the one flesh bond. Catholics talk about the one flesh bond as if the two are literally united in one body, sharing the same thoughts, feelings, spirit, etc. I would highly doubt that a mere physical sexual act would break such an integrated bond but here you are claiming to the contrary that it does so we can then discard the Catholic view.

It breaks the marriage covenant. One flesh in marriage involves a covenant component.

I’ve already addressed how polygamy does not conflict with either scenario based on the definition of adultery and how there’s no divorce involved to start polygamy.

Which scenarios?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

No. God could have added wives in addition to Eve over time or polygamy was done at the very start. The latter would also result in monogamy in addition to polygamy.

If polygamy was done at the very start, then you’d say that marriages were supposed to be polygamous since the very first marriage was. That is exactly your reasoning for monogamy. I already provided a logical alternative, which is that God could’ve explained or showed that he wanted polygamy at a later time. Afterall, the laws on adultery, remarriage, etc. came after Genesis 2:24.

Would it have been better for Jacob to abandon or divorce Leah? And then we have to factor in Jacob wanting Rachel over Leah, which complicates things. The problem is we don’t know why God would have allowed this. We don’t know why plenty of terrible things happen. Maybe He saw this as a better option for their situation.

I can’t speak for if it would’ve been better from an economic standpoint, but I do know that a sin is always bad. An all-good God should not want, cause, nor aid in sin. God did not simply “allow” but he caused the pregnancies of both women using the seed of ONE man, and He did this to FIX the problem of Jacob loving only one of TWO wives. Genesis 29:30-33 is actually clear on God’s concern, and how that prompted him to act. This is completely inconsistent with an all-good God who wants monogamy.

It breaks the marriage covenant. One flesh in marriage involves a covenant component.
Which scenarios?

The one flesh union being severed by death vs. being severed due to adultery.

 

[ATraveller]

If polygamy was done at the very start, then you’d say that marriages were supposed to be polygamous since the very first marriage was. That is exactly your reasoning for monogamy. I already provided a logical alternative, which is that God could’ve explained or showed that he wanted polygamy at a later time. Afterall, the laws on adultery, remarriage, etc. came after Genesis 2:24.

The others were *after *the Fall, which is a vital aspect that needs to be looked at. Had there been no Fall, would there be a need for the others? Adultery, remarriage, polygamy among others came after the Fall.

I can’t speak for if it would’ve been better from an economic standpoint, but I do know that a sin is always bad. An all-good God should not want, cause, nor aid in sin. God did not simply “allow” but he caused the pregnancies of both women using the seed of ONE man, and He did this to FIX the problem of Jacob loving only one of TWO wives. Genesis 29:30-33 is actually clear on God’s concern, and how that prompted him to act. This is completely inconsistent with an all-good God who wants monogamy.

Our definition of good and what we want may not be what God defines or wants. (‘Thy will be done’ as an example that comes to mind instantly). That’s a fact many if not all Christians have to deal with. God didn’t want Adam and Eve to eat the forbidden fruit but He didn’t stop it.

The one flesh union being severed by death vs. being severed due to adultery.

You’ll have to show me where those are as the thread is quite long now.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

The others were *after *the Fall, which is a vital aspect that needs to be looked at. Had there been no Fall, would there be a need for the others? Adultery, remarriage, polygamy among others came after the Fall.

God’s law is holy and just (Romans 7:12). The Law came after the Fall. God’s actions are always moral since he’s all-good and perfect. So I’d say yes, eventhough some of these rules came after the Fall, that doesn’t make them any less moral.

We could speculate and say that God would’ve never created those rules had there not been a Fall, but that’s pure speculation.

Our definition of good and what we want may not be what God defines or wants. (‘Thy will be done’ as an example that comes to mind instantly). That’s a fact many if not all Christians have to deal with. God didn’t want Adam and Eve to eat the forbidden fruit but He didn’t stop it.

God can not sin since he is an all-good God. This applies to his personal acts as well as the acts towards others or involving others. Again, for man to commit adultery is a sin. God wanted Jacob to love TWO women and impregnate them, something which if your view on monogamy were correct, would blatantly be adultery.

You also made a claim about God not stopping Adam and Eve from eating from the tree. I don’t see how that applies to my point about Jacob’s poly marriage since God is not doing anything nor wanting for Adam to eat from the Tree.

You’ll have to show me where those are as the thread is quite long now.

You can start with post #1, Against Point 2 section. My argument there covers both scenarios.

 

[ATraveller]

God’s law is holy and just (Romans 7:12). The Law came after the Fall. God’s actions are always moral since he’s all-good and perfect. So I’d say yes, eventhough some of these rules came after the Fall, that doesn’t make them any less moral.

We could speculate and say that God would’ve never created those rules had there not been a Fall, but that’s pure speculation.

Without sin, most rules would not need to exist as it would be the state of perfection.

God can not sin since he is an all-good God. This applies to his personal acts as well as the acts towards others or involving others. Again, for man to commit adultery is a sin. God wanted Jacob to love TWO women and impregnate them, something which if your view on monogamy were correct, would blatantly be adultery.

It is correct that God doesn’t sin. What Jacob had was not the design God wanted but He may have decided both women needed to be taken care of despite it being a sin. A comparison could be made with war and the ten commandments.

You also made a claim about God not stopping Adam and Eve from eating from the tree. I don’t see how that applies to my point about Jacob’s poly marriage since God is not doing anything nor wanting for Adam to eat from the Tree.

God told them not to eat of the fruit. The point was God doesn’t want certain things to happen but sometimes they still happen.

I’ve already addressed how polygamy does not conflict with either [The one flesh union being severed by death vs. being severed due to adultery] based on the definition of adultery and how there’s no divorce involved to start polygamy.

You can start with post #1, Against Point 2 section. My argument there covers both scenarios.

But you have to deal with the fact polygamy would pose a problem as it would go against the original design of marriage to be one man and one woman in one flesh.

 

[frobert]

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!

Thanks for your feedback.

Perhaps it was my fault that I wasn’t clear but you missed my point so allow me another approach. There is no doubt that you have an excellent grasp of the biblical passages and you argue your view of them eloquently. I was simply pointing out that there are other views and proceeded to list a few examples of the most accepted ones.

In an earlier post I said I was amused by the debate on this forum. Why? Christian belief is hermetically sealed and the non-Christians, except for curiosity, don’t care. I have no idea of what your motives are but I believe that, like myself, most people in the western countries who have given polygamy any thought view it as having a lot of baggage and no redeeming features so it is not likely to go far.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Without sin, most rules would not need to exist as it would be the state of perfection.

You’re straying from your own point. The point is that whether it came before the Fall, after the Fall, or during the beginning, does NOT prove all of what God wanted. He can choose to reveal what he wants in stages at different points of time. This is what I argue he did for polygamy and you’ve yet to refute it.

It is correct that God doesn’t sin. What Jacob had was not the design God wanted but He may have decided both women needed to be taken care of despite it being a sin. A comparison could be made with war and the ten commandments.
God told them not to eat of the fruit. The point was God doesn’t want certain things to happen but sometimes they still happen.

Well war is not always a sin, but adultery is always a sin. You should know this. Do you think Leah (the first and lawful wife according to your view) cared if the “OTHER” woman needed to be taken care of when adultery is wrong? Imagine explaining to your wife that you’ll stay with the other woman because she needs to be taken care of. Imagine her doing that to you!

But you have to deal with the fact polygamy would pose a problem as it would go against the original design of marriage to be one man and one woman in one flesh.

I’ve argued against your “claim”.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Thanks for your feedback.

Perhaps it was my fault that I wasn’t clear but you missed my point so allow me another approach. There is no doubt that you have an excellent grasp of the biblical passages and you argue your view of them eloquently. I was simply pointing out that there are other views and proceeded to list a few examples of the most accepted ones.

In an earlier post I said I was amused by the debate on this forum. Why? Christian belief is hermetically sealed and the non-Christians, except for curiosity, don’t care. I have no idea of what your motives are but I believe that, like myself, most people in the western countries who have given polygamy any thought view it as having a lot of baggage and no redeeming features so it is not likely to go far.

My motive is to examine beliefs through the lens of logic and evidence. That includes all of the atheist dogma that I’ve argued against, as well. You claim that Christian belief is hermetically sealed, but one thing that’s for sure is that it is not sealed from logic and evidence - it can not hold contradictions and still maintain that it’s true. Even God is bound by this logic.

Since I can’t find a solid rebuttal to my position on polygamy after 180 posts (between two threads), then I think it’s time I give it a break. I’ll come back to the topic another time.

 

[spiderweb]

In Matthew 19:9, there is an exception made for the man where he’s justified in divorcing and remarrying without it being adultery. The wife is not afforded any exceptions, because what’s sexually immoral for her is not the same for the man (the man can have additional partners, but she can’t) and that’s based on the definition of adultery stemming from the OT.

And therein lies the primary weakness of your argument. You are making an argument about marriage based on a definition of adultery. The reality is, it’s the other way around. It is the definition of marriage that defines what adultery is. If you seriously want to argue for the validity of polygamy, than you have to address the definition of marriage, not adultery. What is undeniable is that marriage and the marital rights and duties of the spouses are changed from the OT to the NT as I have previously demonstrated. Therefore what is considered moral and immoral for both spouses within marriage by necessity is changed also.

I agree that Church members are not married to each other but they are still considered on flesh with other members as the NT indicates, so we still have multiple one flesh unions which is my point. Christians are one flesh with Jesus, one flesh with fellow believers, and one flesh with their wives.

True, but again as I stated earlier, these are different types of one flesh unions. When I receive Jesus bodily in the Eucharist we are literally “one flesh”. But to say that this is the same as being one flesh with a spouse would be wrong, for although they can be compared analogously, neither the physical nor spiritual union is the same. The same can be said for the one flesh union between fellow believers. They can all be considered “one flesh unions”, but the unions are of a different type. And because they are a different type, an individual person can be faithful to a variety of “of one flesh unions” simultaneously without taking away or interfering with any one union.

In the physical sense, 3 people do not become one flesh because two women can not have sexual intercourse, even if the guy slept with them all, he can’t link them together physically (enough said there!). Spiritually, it can happen which would mean that the husband and “wife” is one flesh with each other while also being one flesh with Jesus so that’s 3 people involved. However, the problem here is not 3 people becoming one flesh because that already happens with a regular marriage between two people with Jesus in the picture. The problem here is the prostitute which is represented by what they do for a living. If the man adds an additional sexual partner in a moral way, that, by marrying her and taking on the marital responsibilities, then God would be okay with being in a union with the husband and his wives.

The husband and wife are not just spiritually one flesh, but also physically one flesh. Adding the 3rd person of Jesus into this relationship is not a problem because it is a different type of relationship as explained above. Even though the example is a prostitute, the principal is the same. By joining to another person physically the man is uniting that relationship to the already existing relationship (of a different type) within the members of the body of Christ. It is why personal sins committed physically have a spiritual affect on the entire body of Christ, but that is another topic.

But in the case of a second wife, the man enters into the same type of already existing physical and spiritual relationship, and thus not two, but three have become one flesh; not through the wives, but through the man who unites them together as one flesh. The man cannot add an additional sexual partner in a moral way whether as prostitute or spouse. One of the reasons is precisely because he cannot take on the marital responsibilities to both wives simultaneously and in the same manner as depicted in the NT. This “one flesh” relationship of the same type cannot be considered morally good because the relationship with one wife interferes with the relationship with the other wife. What should be the two becoming one flesh is in reality the three becoming one or possibly an incompleteness or fracturing of the original two becoming one. Regardless, the fact that there is interference between the two marriages nullifies the position of having two separate marriages.

To demonstrate this, out of necessity the wives are actually submitting to each other what is rightfully theirs by marriage, with conjugal rights of the wife being the most obvious but certainly not the only thing. When the married man enters into another marriage, he is trying to give to her what rightfully belongs to his first wife and is no longer his to give. The original wife has to submit her rights, not to the husband, but to the other woman. So it is either the three becoming one, or it is an incompleteness or fracturing of the original two becoming one. No matter how you look at it, the polygamous concept is completely foreign to the understanding of marriage in the New Testament.

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.

The three components of the formula in your point #2 consisting of divorce + remarriage = adultery all depend upon a foundational understanding of marriage first. If you want to eliminate the contextual understanding of marriage depicted in the NT as being off topic or requiring another thread; than your own assertions of point #2 are completely irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[ATraveller]

You’re straying from your own point. The point is that whether it came before the Fall, after the Fall, or during the beginning, does NOT prove all of what God wanted. He can choose to reveal what he wants in stages at different points of time. This is what I argue he did for polygamy and you’ve yet to refute it.

If polygamy was intended Adam would have other wives but he didn’t even after the Fall.

Well war is not always a sin, but adultery is always a sin. You should know this. Do you think Leah (the first and lawful wife according to your view) cared if the “OTHER” woman needed to be taken care of when adultery is wrong? Imagine explaining to your wife that you’ll stay with the other woman because she needs to be taken care of. Imagine her doing that to you!

Leah was clearly upset hence the rivalry. Out of this we learn of the problems of polygamy and why monogamy was intended.
I may be a male or I could be a female. A bit presumptuous.

I’ve argued against your “claim”.

And so have I and others.

 

[ATraveller]

-]And so have I and others./-]

Others and I have argued against your ‘claim’.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

And therein lies the primary weakness of your argument. You are making an argument about marriage based on a definition of adultery. The reality is, it’s the other way around. It is the definition of marriage that defines what adultery is. If you seriously want to argue for the validity of polygamy, than you have to address the definition of marriage, not adultery.

Yes, the definition of marriage determines what adultery is. However, that would still leave both marriage and adultery with having a definition. When you compare the definitions between the two, the one for adultery doesn’t go with monogamous marriages in that it allows for a man to have multiple wives. I’ve reconciled this conflict by pointing out how “two becoming one flesh” is compatible to polygamy, and not to mention all of God’s perfect and morally good actions towards polygamists. Christians have done a poor job reconciling this conflict, not to mention the that many Christians are ignorant of what adultery meant in the OT law.

What is undeniable is that marriage and the marital rights and duties of the spouses are changed from the OT to the NT as I have previously demonstrated. Therefore what is considered moral and immoral for both spouses within marriage by necessity is changed also.

I’ve touched on this point of yours earlier in the thread but I won’t go into more detail because it does not address what “two becoming one flesh” means nor what “adultery” meant in Matthew 19:9.

True, but again as I stated earlier, these are different types of one flesh unions. When I receive Jesus bodily in the Eucharist we are literally “one flesh”. But to say that this is the same as being one flesh with a spouse would be wrong, for although they can be compared analogously, neither the physical nor spiritual union is the same. The same can be said for the one flesh union between fellow believers. They can all be considered “one flesh unions”, but the unions are of a different type.

I agree with you that the way you become one flesh with Jesus and other fellow believers is different, but as I mentioned before that’s only in terms of the physical aspect. The spiritual aspect is still the same - you are in a spiritual union and it’s not limited by number since billions of fellow Christians are involved.

The husband and wife are not just spiritually one flesh, but also physically one flesh. Adding the 3rd person of Jesus into this relationship is not a problem because it is a different type of relationship as explained above. Even though the example is a prostitute, the principal is the same. By joining to another person physically the man is uniting that relationship to the already existing relationship (of a different type) within the members of the body of Christ. It is why personal sins committed physically have a spiritual affect on the entire body of Christ, but that is another topic.

When it comes to sleeping with prostitutes, the one flesh union is similar to that of marriage in terms of the physical component according to what the Apostle Paul explains in 1 Corinthians 6:16. The only difference is that God doesn’t accept it because of the “prostitute” (sex without marriage) being involved. In that passage, Paul pretty much explains the physical component of “one flesh” as being sexual intercourse. And the point is that sexual intercourse can happen between ONE man and multiple women, at separate times of course, giving him multiple one flesh unions, physically-speaking. If those multiple women are his wives as opposed to prostitute(s), then God would accept that, spiritually.

The man cannot add an additional sexual partner in a moral way whether as prostitute or spouse. One of the reasons is precisely because he cannot take on the marital responsibilities to both wives simultaneously and in the same manner as depicted in the NT.

If you start your reasoning with the husband being in control of the marriage to where wives are to submit to him in everything (Ephesians 5:24), then I think you will find that the issues you bring up can be managed in a polygamous marriage. I won’t go into this more because it’s off-topic.

One more post coming up…

 

[AgnosticBoy]

If polygamy was intended Adam would have other wives but he didn’t even after the Fall.

If remarriage after the death of one spouse was permitted, then God would’ve made it so that Eve dies and Adam remarries. Do you see the fallacy in the statement that I just gave… just in case you didn’t notice, it’s your own logic being played out. Like I argued before, not everything God wants has to be done or made known to us all at one time. To prove this, just as yourself when do you find out that it’s okay to marry after one spouse dies? (hint: certainly not in Genesis 2:24). If that’s true for one rule then I fail to see why that wouldn’t be true for polygamy.

Leah was clearly upset hence the rivalry. Out of this we learn of the problems of polygamy and why monogamy was intended.

Hmmm, so now you’ve switched from the point about an all-good God direct actions to how Leah felt. How does one explain the other? How does it answer why an all-GOOD God that wanted monogamy, failed to charge Jacob with adultery, but instead he’s wanting for this man to love and impregnate TWO women?

I may be a male or I could be a female. A bit presumptuous.

Either way, your response was extremely weak and unconvincing. If you offer it to a husband or wife then I’m sure they’d agree that your points are unreasonable IF monogamy was expected. However, if polygamy was a moral option, then what an all-GOOD God did in Genesis 29:30-33 for Jacob and his two wives would make perfect sense!

And so have I and others.

A logical rebuttal means that your response is logical and it disproves or shows logical problems in my point. Your responses are lacking in logic. In fact, I’ll go as far as saying that you and many others here have dodged many of my points. And by dodging I mean addressing a different issue from the one I brought up, and this is usually done as an attempt cover up the fact that you have no good arguments against my position.

I went away for a day in hopes that it would draw people to bring up some good last minute rebuttals to my position, but clearly I was wrong. Now I really know that there aren’t any good rebuttals for my position. Now I’ll really take a break from the forum.

 

[ATraveller]

If remarriage after the death of one spouse was permitted, then God would’ve made it so that Eve dies and Adam remarries. Do you see the fallacy in the statement that I just gave… just in case you didn’t notice, it’s your own logic being played out. Like I argued before, not everything God wants has to be done or made known to us all at one time. To prove this, just as yourself when do you find out that it’s okay to marry after one spouse dies? (hint: certainly not in Genesis 2:24). If that’s true for one rule then I fail to see why that wouldn’t be true for polygamy.

Death came after the Fall. I never said more rules couldn’t come after but the Fall altered the course of things.

Hmmm, so now you’ve switched from the point about an all-good God direct actions to how Leah felt. How does one explain the other? How does it answer why an all-GOOD God that wanted monogamy, failed to charge Jacob with adultery, but instead he’s wanting for this man to love and impregnate TWO women?

Either way, your response was extremely weak and unconvincing. If you offer it to a husband or wife then I’m sure they’d agree that your points are unreasonable IF monogamy was expected. However, if polygamy was a moral option, then what an all-GOOD God did in Genesis 29:30-33 for Jacob and his two wives would make perfect sense!

Polygamy would make perfect sense but God, who can do whatever He sees fit, can still make it possible with monogamy.

A logical rebuttal means that your response is logical and it disproves or shows logical problems in my point. Your responses are lacking in logic. In fact, I’ll go as far as saying that you and many others here have dodged many of my points. And by dodging I mean addressing a different issue from the one I brought up, and this is usually done as an attempt cover up the fact that you have no good arguments against my position.

It’s not dodging when there’s a need to expand for a wider perspective. The case against polygamy isn’t built on this one passage. A few posts were addressing how one flesh had different meanings in different contexts.

Now I really know that there aren’t any good rebuttals for my position.

No good rebuttals in your opinion.

 

[spiderweb]

Originally Posted by AgnosticBoy
Yes, the definition of marriage determines what adultery is. However, that would still leave both marriage and adultery with having a definition. When you compare the definitions between the two, the one for adultery doesn’t go with monogamous marriages in that it allows for a man to have multiple wives. I’ve reconciled this conflict by pointing out how “two becoming one flesh” is compatible to polygamy, and not to mention all of God’s perfect and morally good actions towards polygamists. Christians have done a poor job reconciling this conflict, not to mention that many Christians are ignorant of what adultery meant in the OT law.

You have not pointed out how “two becoming one flesh” is compatible to polygamy. What you have pointed out is that by accepting polygamy, “two” actually means any number of hundreds of people as long as they are all women with one exception. And that “one flesh” only applies to the women and not the man. Unless of course “one flesh” is understood spiritually and then it applies to billions of people (not even close to two), which also makes “two becoming one flesh” an absolutely meaningless phrase when it is applied to marriage except in an extremely loose and abstract way.

I agree with you that the way you become one flesh with Jesus and other fellow believers is different, but as I mentioned before that’s only in terms of the physical aspect. The spiritual aspect is still the same – you are in a spiritual union and it’s not limited by number since billions of fellow Christians are involved.

You are very wrong in that “the spiritual aspect is still the same”. The Bible is very clear that the Christian relationship with God is as adopted children and not spouses (Romans 8:15, Galatians 4:5, Ephesians 1:5). The Christian relationship with Jesus is as brother and sister, also by adoption (Galatians 3:26-27). All Christians are in a one flesh relationship with God as children and with each other as brothers and sisters, not as spouses. Christ has one bride, which is the Church. The offspring of that marriage are the Christians who receive life from God, but who are “born” through the Church physically with water and spiritually with the Holy Spirit in baptism (1 Corinthians 12:12, Galatians 3:26-27). This comparison you keep making between marriage and Christians in a polygamous sense is just flat out wrong.

Since Jesus and his bride consists of a purely monogamous relationship, than what that analogy is based upon, namely marriage, is best understood to be monogamous and not a polygamous abstraction. And since you seem to believe that polygamy is a perfection of marriage, than Jesus being the perfect man should have many wives, but he has only one. Therefore, by the example of God and the perfect man, Jesus Christ, the perfection of marriage is monogamous for life. Marriage was not perfected in the OT, but like all aspects of the OT, it was only “a shadow of the good things to come” (Hebrews 1:10).

I could be wrong on the following, but I believe it is correct; when Jesus states in Matthew 19:6, “What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder”, he is adding something additional that was not there in the Old Testament. Marriage was instituted by God from the beginning, and natural marriage is/was good. But Jesus is instituting sacramental marriage by adding the spiritual element of “what God has joined together”. Since men and woman are both physical and spiritual beings, natural marriage unites bodily. But sacramental marriage unites man and woman uniquely bodily and spiritually. As someone else said earlier in this thread, the only time the “two become one flesh” appears in the OT is in the Garden of Eden before the fall. The spiritual element of marriage was lost in the fall, but reinstituted and perfected by Christ in the New Testament which just so happens to be where the “two become one flesh” reappears again several times. To hold an Old Testament view of marriage is to hold imperfection equal to or above what has been perfected by Christ. It would be similar to saying that sacrificing a lamb today is just as good as Christ’s sacrifice.

Continued……

 

[spiderweb]

Continuing…

Originally Posted by AgnosticBoy (Post #1)
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 wife dies or if he stays married to his first wife while add the second wife – no divorce involved in either of the two scenarios.

(Post #52)
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….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.

”And I say unto you, whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery: and whoever marries her which is put away commits adultery” (Matt 19:9). “Whoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, commits adultery against her. And if a woman puts away her husband, and is married to another, she commits adultery” (Mark 10:11-12)

So according to the words of Jesus, how is the man committing adultery? I will agree with you that Jesus was showing that marriage was to be a lifelong commitment. According to you, the only way a man commits adultery is that he has sex with a married woman. So the only way that the man who marries a divorced woman can commit adultery is if she is still married to the first man. In other words, the divorce did NOT separate what had been joined together, and in the eyes of God, the woman is still married to her first husband.

Therefore, if the woman is still married to her first husband despite the legal divorce, than the man marrying a second wife would not be “serial monogamy”, it would in fact be polygamy in the eyes of God. Yet Jesus says that the man who divorces his wife and marries another “commits adultery”. It is also clear from the text that the woman whom he is remarrying must be eligible to marry; otherwise it would be adultery regardless if the man was single or divorced.

Post #76
Yes, the definition of marriage determines what adultery is. However, that would still leave both marriage and adultery with having a definition. When you compare the definitions between the two, the one for adultery doesn’t go with monogamous marriages in that it allows for a man to have multiple wives.

Perhaps answering these scenarios will help clarify how you define polygamous marriage and adultery according to the Bible.

Consider a man that divorces his wife but still loves her and continues to take care of any financial needs, strives to fulfill his obligations to her, and continues to have sexual relations with her; if he marries another woman and still upholds his obligations, is that adultery or polygamy?

If a man just leaves his wife and rejects obligations to her without getting a divorce and marries another woman, is that adultery or polygamy?

If a man has two wives living with him, but favors the one and neglects the other; adultery or polygamy?

If a man has three wives and after being married to them all for 20 years, he divorces the first wife, but continues in his marriages with the second and third wives; adultery or polygamy?

And to restate my main question; According to the words of Jesus, how can it be said that the man is committing adultery against his first wife? And how would a divorce make another marriage adulterous for a man who can be married as many times as he wants?