The moral case for Polygamy

[PRmerger]

Sure, it can be used as empirical evidence if you can make the connection.

Then you shouldn’t be an agnostic if you have looked at the empirical evidence.

The connection between the Bible and God’s position on polygamy is clear because the Bible is said to be part of God’s message.

Again, because the Bible describes some events is not to be interpreted as saying God commands these events.

 

[SyroMalankara]

I’ve read the same view on other threads but I don’t find it convincing for 2 reasons (after rereading this thread your views are similar to those in Post #8, post #19, post #23, etc.
)…

• Besides “divorce”, there is no evidence that polygamy was a concession. It’s simply speculation, at best.
• God did not merely watch polygamy occur, he also acted to help it progress just as I demonstrated with Genesis 29:30-33.

You are forgetting the background here. Jacob wanted to marry Rachel, Rachel wanted to marry Jacob (consent) - of course this isn’t a “sacramental marriage”, but a natural one. To thwart Jacob’s action, his uncle forced labor and tricked Jacob into marrying Rachel’s sister – a marriage, yes because Jacob didn’t challenge it; however, he negotiated his first love Rachel back, fought for her, got her and fled - while still keeping the pledge to Leah, despite it’s flaws.

I’m not sure this event actually makes the case for polygamy - in fact, it suggest polygamy not be practiced, as it involves deceit, hardship, unhappiness – and even future generational infighting.

 

[Vonsalza]

Oh, no one ought deny that. God tolerated a lot of sins in the OT.

In fact, he clearly tolerates a lot of sins today–unless you think God has smote those fathers who kill their daughters in “honor killings” for having the audacity of being raped?

Or strikes dead the husband who sleeps with his wife’s sister?

No. God tolerates this, but this is not to be interpreted as saying, “God endorses and commands these things”.

Fair enough. But this is more a question of what God does and does not “endorse and command”. There seems to be some absence of any sort of fiat on the matter of polygamy until possibly the days of Christ, and perhaps nothing explicit until well-into the days of the Church.

If Agnosticboy displays any sort of error in his understanding, it’s not one of fiat or historicity. We wouldn’t really have anything to rebuke him with that is from that period in time. Especially since David (a man after God’s heart) and Solomon (the wisest mortal who ever lived) seem to have intimately known the “bodily geography” of more than one woman each .

His error would be the quintessentially protestant assumption that Christian truth is to flow exclusively from scripture. The problem with this assumption is that God has always spoken primarily through a living institution. First the Patriarchs and Prophets, then the Order of Melchizedek in the Levites and the Church.

Additionally, the Bible was not written as a systematic theology. It would look a lot more like the Catechism if it were.

The bible is not living. It is text. It is only “made alive” through the Church that assembled it, as created by the God that ordained them both.

Church > Bible, if a dichotomy must be made.

As he’s a non-Catholic, I understand AB’s perspective.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

What I see in Genesis is God showing mercy on Leah.

How is it that you conclude that God opening the womb of a woman is the same thing as God desiring Jacob to be married to multiple women?

God wanting a man to love TWO women and impregnate them is precisely what Genesis 29:30-33 shows. Loving TWO women and impregnating them is clearly something that goes with polygamy, and since that’s what God’s concern and actions led to, then God accepted approved of Jacob’s polygamy.

 

[Gorgias]

I value good evidence but I also value logic and logic counts towards truth. In other words, we can logically deduce a conclusion that God is okay with polygamy based on the EVIDENCE or facts!! The logic here is quite simple:

Your logic here is also flawed.

Premise 1: God is all-good.
Premise 2: God wanted and helped ONE man love and impregnate TWO women (Genesis 29:30-33)

Conclusion: Therefore, it’s morally good for men to love more than one woman and impregnate them

This is a classic example of the ‘hasty generalization’ logical fallacy. Showing that a particular result exists in a given situation does not mean that it holds for all situations. So…no; you haven’t demonstrated what you think you’ve demonstrated.

 

[PRmerger]

Fair enough. But this is more a question of what God does and does not “endorse and command”. There seems to be some absence of any sort of fiat on the matter of polygamy until possibly the days of Christ, and perhaps nothing explicit until well-into the days of the Church.

If Agnosticboy displays any sort of error in his understanding, it’s not one of fiat or historicity.

Where his error lies is in reading the Bible without the lens of the Church.

His error would be the quintessentially protestant assumption that Christian truth is to flow exclusively from scripture.

Indeed.

The problem with this assumption is that God has always spoken primarily through a living institution. First the Patriarchs and Prophets, then the Order of Melchizedek in the Levites and the Church.

Truth.

Additionally, the Bible was not written as a systematic theology. It would look a lot more like the Catechism if it were.

True story.

The bible is not living. It is text. It is only “made alive” through the Church that assembled it, as created by the God that ordained them both.

Yeah. What Vonsalza said.

 

[PRmerger]

As he’s a non-Catholic, I understand AB’s perspective.

This is a great example of what happens when one reads the Scriptures without the reflection of the NT, and without the Church.

 

[Gorgias]

Genesis 29:30-33 establishes that a man should love his wife, however, if you look at the details closely you’ll notice that it was a man’s second wife. Jacob should’ve only loved Rachel if your monogamy only position was correct, but we see God also wanting Jacob to love Leah, as well.

I disagree. Given that he had taken two wives, God wanted to insure that both wives were loved. It’s a question of acting charitably in a given situation, not an endorsement of the situation itself.

Well one topic at a time. Do you accept my arguments that God wanted ONE man to love TWO women and helped the ONE man impregnate them as mentioned in Genesis 29:30-33?

Not really. God saw that an injustice was being done to a wife and corrected the injustice within the societal constraints of the situation.

There can be some differences between legality and morality, but in the Bible and even in societies in general, the two overlap.

I agree; generally, there’s a basis in morality in legal codes.

At least in the Bible, the two concepts should not conflict.

On the contrary: in the Bible, in those contexts in which historical narratives are being told, these narratives report what was actually happening. That implies that, in those cases in which people were sinning, we would expect to see examples of immoral behavior (even if that behavior were legal in the context of the narratives).

This is why we find Christians trying to make laws based off of their moral teachings on marriage, etc.

No; Christians try to make laws that fit their understanding of moral behavior because that’s how you form laws: you ask “what is fitting and proper in this case?”.

Interestingly, you cited a definition for adultery which I happen to agree with, but then you failed to explain how polygamy can be a sin when it’s not adultery.

Gee, I guess I thought it was manifestly obvious, given that I quoted Jesus’ words (which demonstrate that polygamy is against God’s intent).

You seem to be asserting (without any substantiation) that it’s either polygamy or adultery or both. That doesn’t hold up. You need to demonstrate the linkage before you can rely on it in an argument.

Does it make sense to say that it’s not adultery for a woman to sleep with another woman’s husband but yet polygamy is still wrong?

That’s one way of expressing what adultery is; another would be “sleeping with someone who is not your spouse”. The “sleeping with another’s spouse” definition only works in a context of monogamy; so, you can’t really use it – expressed in that particular way – to analyze polygamy. In a polygamous society, this expression of a definition of adultery doesn’t work.

What would be the purpose of this one-sided definition of adultery (only when wife sleeps with another person but not when husband does it)

Ahh… I see what you’re thinking. No, it’s not “one-sided”. We were talking about polygamy – in particular, one man with multiple wives. You’re making the claim that it’s adultery, and therefore, in this context, I assume that you mean that the man is committing adultery when he sleeps with his second wife. But, if we were talking in general, you’re right: adultery can be committed by both men and women.

However, you’ve also brought it up in the context of the society of the time of Jacob. In those days, women were essentially chattel. Therefore, adultery was a property crime. A man who had relations with another’s wife was depriving her husband of his rights vis-a-vis her; a woman who had relations with someone who wasn’t her husband was violating her husband’s rights to her (or, if single, depriving her father of his rights to her value as a virgin). In this legal/societal context, polygamy isn’t adultery; it doesn’t deprive anyone of their property rights.

Whether it would be called adultery or not, the acts are so nearly identical

I’m confused, now. You’re calling ‘adultery’ and ‘polygamy’ “nearly identical acts”? I disagree. The acts are very different – and would have been looked at very differently in the societal contexts of the time of Jacob.

Or, are you talking about “woman committing adultery” vs “man committing adultery”? These, too, are different in the context of Jacob, as I’ve outlined above.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Don’t you have this backwards? Jacob should’ve only loved Leah. That’s his first wife.

You’re missing the key point which is the number of women that God wanted Jacob to love. It’s TWO… doesn’t matter which of the two women came first.

No. There is no indication, at all, about what God “wants”.

In Genesis 29:30-33, there is an indication of what God wanted. He saw a polygamist that loved only one wife. God’s wants is clarified through His actions, since He acted to increase the satisfaction in the marriage rather than breaking it up. Clearly, God would only act on things that he wants.

Unless you have some Scripture verse that says that God wanted Jacob to marry 2 women?

You’re splitting hairs. What difference does it make for God to want a man to love TWO women vs. wanting a man to marry two women. Does not the former presuppose that the latter would be okay? In other words, if God wants Jacob to love TWO women then that would involve polygamy, so by implication God also wanted polygamy. You can’t have one without the other!

Why wouldn’t it conflict if the legal laws are declared by man and the moral laws are declared by God?

Based on your logic, all a person in support of gay marriage would’ve done is call gay marriage a “legal” marriage as opposed to “moral” marriage, and voila, God would’ve been okay with it. Of course, that’s illogical and it would lead to all types of inconsistencies and become unpractical. Either way, whether or not polygamy was legal or moral is a weak point because there is no evidence that it isn’t both or only one of the two. You assume that it was invented by man without any evidence.

You don’t know whether God did “not punish anyone for polygamy” in the afterlife

It would be inconsistent for a God to promote polygamy by helping one man, and perhaps many other polygamists, impregnate their wives and then to turn around and punish them for it.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

No, AB. God did not “act” to help it progress.

How do barren women conceive without fertility treatments, if not through a divine “act”? The passages clearly mention that it was God who took it upon himself to help these women become impregnated.

As a Catholic, the scriptures are best-read through the lens of the Church that assembled it. Additionally, the Church does have the God-given power to “bind and loose” as the Spirit leads its episcopate.

But in AB’s defense, it certainly seem that early in the story of our spiritual people, polygamy was at least tacitly tolerated by God. If it were a sin in those ancient, nigh mythical days, it must not have been a particularly “big” one, as David and his boy Solomon certainly “loved the ladies” (and David being described as “a man after God’s own heart”).

Again, irrelevant for the Catholic, as the Church has spoken authoritatively on the matter. Polygamy is out. But perhaps there has been some “binding” done on the matter in the last 6000 years?

It is not simply that God “tolerated” polygamy, but rather he actively facilitated it. The former would involve sitting around and watching, but the latter involves taking action to progress and sustain these relationships. This is completely contrary to a God who doesn’t want polygamy.

His error would be the quintessentially protestant assumption that Christian truth is to flow exclusively from scripture. The problem with this assumption is that God has always spoken primarily through a living institution. First the Patriarchs and Prophets, then the Order of Melchizedek in the Levites and the Church.
…

As he’s a non-Catholic, I understand AB’s perspective.

As for your point about the Catholic Church, I don’t really have an issue about interpreting writings that you helped compiled. However, I would hope that the Church is also bound by truth and accuracy, and that when one of its views do not square with LOGIC and EVIDENCE, then they’re willing to retract.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

You are forgetting the background here. Jacob wanted to marry Rachel, Rachel wanted to marry Jacob (consent) - of course this isn’t a “sacramental marriage”, but a natural one. To thwart Jacob’s action, his uncle forced labor and tricked Jacob into marrying Rachel’s sister – a marriage, yes because Jacob didn’t challenge it; however, he negotiated his first love Rachel back, fought for her, got her and fled - while still keeping the pledge to Leah, despite it’s flaws.

I’m not sure this event actually makes the case for polygamy - in fact, it suggest polygamy not be practiced, as it involves deceit, hardship, unhappiness – and even future generational infighting.

I don’t draw my conclusions based on how the marriage started. I base my points on God’s concerns and actions towards the relationship. My Genesis passages clearly show that God wanted and supported polygamous practices. And this was NOT a God that turned a blind eye to adultery as we can see in Genesis where he was calling out people for even thinking about touching a married woman.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Ok, lets pretend your premise is true, that God wanted polygamy in the OT, so what, its not allowed centuries prior to Christianity, according to the majority of Rabbinic authorities

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Your logic here is also flawed.

This is a classic example of the ‘hasty generalization’ logical fallacy. Showing that a particular result exists in a given situation does not mean that it holds for all situations. So…no; you haven’t demonstrated what you think you’ve demonstrated.

One act of God would hold in all situations in terms of morality, and that is because God is all-good so all of His actions (including one isolated incident) would count as being moral. I really believe you make a ‘hasty generalization’ when you use ONE rule that was allowed as a concession (ie divorce) and to say that many other practices were lawfully allowed in the same way, and you do this without any evidence.

I disagree. Given that he had taken two wives, God wanted to insure that both wives were loved. It’s a question of acting charitably in a given situation, not an endorsement of the situation itself.

Sure, God can act out of charity but He must also act out of moral goodness. Under your view, God commanded for a man to have ONE wife, and if that’s to mean anything, then you can’t have God being involved in breaking his own rules.

Not really. God saw that an injustice was being done to a wife and corrected the injustice within the societal constraints of the situation.

Here you have God carrying out man-made rules that directly conflict with His rules. This would be like God helping the Jews practice incest, idolatry, and divorce as opposed to just allowing it, and once you do that then you implicate God in the sin and that’s why your point fails.

On the contrary: in the Bible, in those contexts in which historical narratives are being told, these narratives report what was actually happening. That implies that, in those cases in which people were sinning, we would expect to see examples of immoral behavior (even if that behavior were legal in the context of the narratives).

Yes, but earlier you stated views that involve God committing some of those immoral acts.

You seem to be asserting (without any substantiation) that it’s either polygamy or adultery or both. That doesn’t hold up. You need to demonstrate the linkage before you can rely on it in an argument.

Under a monogamy-only worldview, which is your view, if a man already has one wife, then sleeping with another wife would be adultery. It doesn’t matter if the man calls the second woman a wife. This is no different than how it is now, … God and/or the Church would simply not recognize the second marriage.

That’s one way of expressing what adultery is; another would be “sleeping with someone who is not your spouse”. The “sleeping with another’s spouse” definition only works in a context of monogamy; so, you can’t really use it – expressed in that particular way – to analyze polygamy. In a polygamous society, this expression of a definition of adultery doesn’t work.

According to you, Jesus banned polygamy, but interestingly polygamy was still a custom in Israel even during his time (please read up on Josephus and Justin Martyr). Jesus had no problems going against that custom, so this alone shows that adultery that fits in with monogamy (as you claim Jesus taught) can be imposed on a polygamist society, just as God had no problems going against the custom of idolatry when it came to the Jews.

Keep in mind that adultery was not a man-made rule but rather came directly from God, i.e. the 10 commandments. I’m not aware of God making any compromises on the moral law, whether it be under the New Covenant or old one.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Ahh… I see what you’re thinking. No, it’s not “one-sided”. We were talking about polygamy – in particular, one man with multiple wives. You’re making the claim that it’s adultery, and therefore, in this context, I assume that you mean that the man is committing adultery when he sleeps with his second wife. But, if we were talking in general, you’re right: adultery can be committed by both men and women.

Saying that adultery meant sleeping with another man’s wife, as you claimed, and as OT scholars tend to agree, is indeed one-sided. This clearly leaves the door open for a married man to sleep with woman and it be okay just as long as the woman is not married to another guy. The Torah mentioned nothing more or less, so the concept of adultery as the Jews understood it was perfectly tailored to accommodate polyGYNY.

However, you’ve also brought it up in the context of the society of the time of Jacob. In those days, women were essentially chattel. Therefore, adultery was a property crime. A man who had relations with another’s wife was depriving her husband of his rights vis-a-vis her; a woman who had relations with someone who wasn’t her husband was violating her husband’s rights to her (or, if single, depriving her father of his rights to her value as a virgin). In this legal/societal context, polygamy isn’t adultery; it doesn’t deprive anyone of their property rights.

Adultery was never understood any other way, even by God since he was the one that made the rule and enforced it accordingly.

I’m confused, now. You’re calling ‘adultery’ and ‘polygamy’ “nearly identical acts”? I disagree. The acts are very different – and would have been looked at very differently in the societal contexts of the time of Jacob.

Well under a monogamy-only view like yours, polygamy would be adultery. Isn’t that how the Church would treat the matter now regardless of if the man calls the second woman a wife? What’s the point of bringing up Matthew 19:9 as many Catholics do in trying to refute polygamy?

Or, are you talking about “woman committing adultery” vs “man committing adultery”? These, too, are different in the context of Jacob, as I’ve outlined above.

You’re claiming that adultery restricted both the husband and wife equally, but I’m claiming otherwise. Your understanding of adultery is in conflict with the Torah as I explained in my first response to you in this post.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Of course the reason is that, under natural marriage, God tolerated polygamy. SACRAMENTAL marriage is the ideal, without this tolerance.
There are multiple examples of where the SACRAMENTAL supercedes the natural.

 

[StJoseph8]

Maybe an example will help. Say a person goes into a doctor’s office who smokes 20 packs of cigarettes a day and wants to quit. The doctor says instead of smoking 20 packs a day, smoke 15 a day. Should that doctor be reprimanded?

 

[Bradski]

Maybe an example will help. Say a person goes into a doctor’s office who smokes 20 packs of cigarettes a day and wants to quit. The doctor says instead of smoking 20 packs a day, smoke 15 a day. Should that doctor be reprimanded?

Smokng is allowed. Yeah, it’ll do you harm, but it’s not immoral.

If I told you I wanted to kidnap and assault two women, would you think it might be acceptable to suggest I limit it to one?

 

[Bradski]

Of course the reason is that, under natural marriage, God tolerated polygamy. SACRAMENTAL marriage is the ideal, without this tolerance.
There are multiple examples of where the SACRAMENTAL supercedes the natural.

Do you think that baptism makes any diffference? I’m not sure if any of the examples that have been given include people who had been baptised or not.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Smokng is allowed.

Good news for all those smokers who can start smoking on planes and in restaurants again.
Cinemas can start advertising Marlboro again.
Pregnant moms can smoke to their hearts content.
WAIT - have you informed the government of this yet?

…Yeah, it’ll do you harm, but it’s not immoral.

Self harm is moral?
Passive smoke is a victimless crime?

…If I told you I wanted to kidnap and assault two women, would you think it might be acceptable to suggest I limit it to one?

WUT?
Do they teach you what non-sequiturs are in The Rational Rat Pack?

 

[Lion_IRC]

…I’ll present two lines of evidence, the first involves God facilitating polygamous relationships and the second explaining that God never punished polygamists for adultery.

Evidence #1:
Genesis 29:30-33 shows God being concerned about ONE man not loving TWO wives. God acts on this concern by helping the two wives become impregnated by the ONE and same man.

Whoah…Not so fast pal.
This is Catholic Answers.
You don’t get to make hit-and-run, unsupported exegetical claims at a forum full of people who study The Word and debate scripture as their lifetime passion. There are folks around here who are practically walking Concordances. These folks expect you to quote not only the Chapter & Verse but also cite which translation you’re using and which Commentaries support your hermeneutics.

Jacob was already ‘entangled’ with the two women before The Lord alleviated Leah’s distress. Her distress was the direct result of the jealousy and competitiveness that comes from such love triangles

…Now remember, all that God does is morally good so His concerns and actions not only show what he wants or accepts, but also counts towards what’s morally good. The logical implications of Genesis 29:30-33 is that it’s moral for ONE man to love and impregnate TWO women.

No - that does NOT follow logically.

it is NOT a logical implication that just because person ‘X’ did such and such in the bible therefore it must be morally OK for me to do so.
Saul of Tarsus persecuted Christians. Peter denied Christ. Judas betrayed Him.
How about you read Psalms and learn all the regrets David had.
Seriously!

I contend that every polygamous scenario in the bible is an example of the PROBLEMS with polygamy. A cautionary tale.

…
Evidence #2:
The 10 commandments clearly list ‘adultery’ is being a sin, something which man is not to do.

Correct. Nuff said!
You’re not helping your own case here.

…The rules on adultery were enforced before (in Genesis) and after the law was given to Moses (Exodus and beyond). So there was never a concession for adultery.

Preach it bro!
God warns against adultery because He wants us to have happy marriages.

…If polygamy was wrong it would be the sin of adultery.

So? What’s your point? We all sin.

And only God can judge sinners.
…and forgive them as His Grace and Mercy allows.

…Yet not one man who married multiple unmarried woman was judged to be an adulterer.

This is called an argument from silence.
Neither you nor I know what judgment anyone deserves or gets.

…Therefore, polygamy was not a sin.

I recommend you read up on casuistic and apodictic law.