Polygamy was immoral according to a Catholic author. My response to this.

From the above article:

For one, though the Bible doesn’t say the Patriarchs’ polygamy is wrong, it shows it. Read about Abraham and Hagar, or David and Bathsheba, or Jacob and Leah. Again and again, kings and Patriarchs take multiple wives with disastrous consequences. We can read between the lines. Polygamy is shown to be a bad idea, even if it’s not said to be such.

Click to expand...

Sure, every instance of polygamy practice in the Bible had problems. But does that make all polygamous marriages immoral or is the issue just the way it is practiced (which means it can be practiced different ways, good and bad)? The author doesn't consider this point. He points to bad examples and reasons from that while failing to show a logical reason as to why every polygamous marriage would end up the same way.

I'll illustrate this point with two scenarios to show that polygamy is not inherently bad. Scenario 1 is a married man that takes another wife without first telling his first wife. He then starts to neglect his first wife for his new squeeze. Scenario 2 is a married man talks with his first wife about adding another wife. He then doesn't do so unless his wife is onboard. The BIG difference between the two scenarios is CONSENT which was totally lacking in biblical marriages, both monogamous and polygamous.

Responding to another aspect, the author says that the Bible doesn't "say" that polygamy is wrong but shows it. I think it shows that polygamy is moral based on God's actions which are morality in effect since He is perfectly moral. In Genesis 29:30 to Gen. 30 , God's concern is that Jacob doesn't love TWO wives (Gen. 29:31, Jacob was already in love with Rachel) . I would think God's actions, desires, concern, thinking would all be moral. But even if that's in doubt, God's actions in those passages further support that He was okay with polygamy because he helped TWO wives become impregnated by ONE man (Gen. 30:22; Gen. 29:31).

So in conclusion, even if the Bible doesn't explicitly say that polygamous marriages are moral, but they show it through God's actions. I could also bring up other points that indicate that polygamy was moral, like going on the definition of adultery itself in the OT, but my points above are sufficient enough.

Second, the prophets started using marital imagery to describe God and Israel. God is Israel’s husband. And he has only one chosen people. If God is not polygamous in such analogies, why should Israelites be?

Click to expand...

To the contrary, Ezekiel 23:1-6 and Jeremiah 3:6-10 God portrays himself as having two wives. At that time, Israel was divided into TWO kingdoms, the northern kingdom - Israel and the southern kingdom which was Judah.

We can go farther. Even if the Old Testament supports polygamy (as we’ve just shown, it doesn’t), the New Testament is what matters most for if its still allowable for us Christians. And plainly, the New Testament doesn’t allow it. Jesus says a man should be joined to his wife, and they will become one flesh (Matt. 19:3-6). Jesus defines adultery as even looking at another woman lustfully (5:27-28). And Paul commands that “each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband” (1 Cor. 7:2).

Click to expand...

In Matthew 5:27-28, Jesus does not specify the marital status of the man that's lusting nor of the woman that's being lusted after. I think that is important, otherwise having a single man lusting after a single woman would also be called adultery, and we know that doesn't make sense. That would be fornication, and not adultery since none of the two are married.

In Matthew 19:3-6, a man and woman becomes one flesh, but this does not answer what this involves and if it can occur more than once in a lifetime. Obviously, if a wife dies, can't the man then become one flesh with another woman? Is that bond irreversible that that couldn't happen? If not, then why assume that it's so irreversible that it can't happen as at two different times between two living women, as in husband becomes one flesh with wife #1, and one flesh with wife #2? Indeed, biblical polygamy was not practiced as one big marriage involving 3 or more people, but rather as multiple marriages with two people in each marriage. I like that the Mormons call it "plural" marriage.

And lastly, in 1 Corinthians 7:2. Paul was acknowledged that some of his advice was his own and not a command from God. He was also giving one way to avoid sexual immorality. That didn't require giving a comprehensive list of allowable marriages.

@Scooter

If this was the only thing God said about marriage in the Bible, then I'd agree with you. It would mean that there's only one male and female in a marriage and if you really want to follow what it says, then we could even say that the man can only have one marriage in his lifetime since the passage only talks about one marriage. But we do know that God had plenty of other things to say about marriages, including when you can marry again (which includes widows, polygamy, etc). In those other passages, we find out that marrying after a partner dies is allowed. We also know that a man can start additional marriages while still being married to his 2nd wife.

Scooter said:

Nowhere in Scripture do we read of God encouraging multiple wives.

Click to expand...

Not exactly encouraging in the sense of telling someone to take two wives, but the Bible shows that God was okay with it in other ways.

I explained this by referencing the story about Jacob and his wives and how God intervened.

AgnosticBoy said:

Responding to another aspect, the author says that the Bible doesn't "say" that polygamy is wrong but shows it. I think it shows that polygamy is moral based on God's actions which are morality in effect since He is perfectly moral. In Genesis 29:30 to Gen. 30 , God's concern is that Jacob doesn't love TWO wives (Gen. 29:31, Jacob was already in love with Rachel) . I would think God's actions, desires, concern, thinking would all be moral. But even if that's in doubt, God's actions in those passages further support that He was okay with polygamy because he helped TWO wives become impregnated by ONE man (Gen. 30:22; Gen. 29:31).

Click to expand...

Scooter said:

Divorce and remarriage was allowed under Jewish law but that was not God’s plan.

Click to expand...

You're forgetting that exception clause for divorce (except for sexual immorality) found in Matthew. That was part of Jesus's teaching.

Matthew 19:8-9
8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Scooter said:

Just because God allows something does not mean He’s ok with it. Do you believe God is ok with abortion? Do you believe He is ok with genocide?

Click to expand...

For your point to be right, God would've had to play a passive role or show a type of concern that was negative towards polygamy. My Genesis reference doesn't say God just watched or He was bothered by a woman trying to get the affection of a guy that's already married. Instead, we see that God took action and his action involved facilitating the polygamous marriage as opposed to breaking it up. His concern was consistent with that in that he was concerned that Jacob did not love BOTH wives.

Btw, when I was a Christian, I was debating on biblical marriage for years. So I've pretty much heard all of the objections for polygamy, divorce, etc.

Scooter said:

No, I didn’t forget. But look at your own response: Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.

God’s plan from the beginning was for one man to be married to one woman.

Click to expand...

I agree, Jesus said that, but then he also states the exception clause as a current standard. He says Moses said that, but I say this... "except for sexual immorality" (exception clause!). Some scholars think that Jesus reference to Moses was probably meant to address a debate on divorce that was going on between the Pharisees and the Sadducees. One group argued you could divorce for any reason while the other group was more strict. Because of Jesus stating an exception, he was only against the view that you could divorce for any reason.

This shouldn't be surprising though unless you're okay with people cheating and then still expecting the guy or woman to stay in the marriage against their will. Adultery was a capital crime in the OT, punishable by death, so you could look at that as a permanent divorce (end of the marriage).