• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Does Matthew 19:9 speak against polygamy?

CecilW said:
The adultery is towards the first wife.

No adultery is involved with the second.

The reason for this whole discussion is that Jesus was speaking AGAINST the Greek practice, adopted and excused by many Jews, of REPLACING instead of AUGMENTING their families.

If they wanted to marry someone new, they would first divorce the existing wife, then marry the new.

God's way was to simply marry the new, WHILE maintaining your relationship with the old.

For Greek scholars, there is some fancy stuff that can be seen in the tenses that make it clear. What Jesus is saying is purely that the first wife is being sinned against, and that it is all at the feet of the husband.

Once this is all clearly understood, suddenly we see that Matt 19:9 actually SUPPORTS PM.
Click to expand...

Thanks and good points, as well. The only issue I still have is if "replacing" is what's being called adultery, then that's a new definition or application of adultery that Jesus is adding. So biblical adultery is a man sleeping with a married woman, and it also means replacing a wife with a new wife for unjustified reasons. The latter definition would be one that applies to monogamous relationships and would not apply to poly since divorcing to replace is not necessary for poly. The only way that I see to explain this difference between how the OT defines adultery and how Matthew 19:9 defines adultery is that Jesus added a new meaning. Otherwise, I don't see how the husband is committing adultery against any wife, if all he's doing is replacing instead of sleeping with a woman who has a husband already as the OT has it defined.

If that's the case then the two definitions do not contradict and anti-polygamist already assert Jesus CHANGED what adultery means to discontinue polygamy practice. May as well show those folks that changes can occur in many ways (adding rules, taking away rules, combining rules, etc.) especially when there's no contradiction.
 
Oreslag said:
Perhaps an unconventional understanding, but I believe it is accurate: the man is committing adultery in his unfaithfulness to God by putting away a wife for something other than her unfaithfulness to him. Adultery is *very* commonly used by God to describe the way men turn from Him to their own ways. In consideration of the fact that men are the glory of God and woman the glory of man (e.g. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Corinthians 11:3-10&version=ESV), a man commits adultery against His head when he is unfaithful to God. Thus, a man very much commits adultery (against God - as all sins are committed) when he wrongly puts away a wife joined to him by God. I don't believe it has anything to do with the wife who was put away being forced into another marriage through circumstance at all. Indeed, Matthew 19 says nothing of what the woman who was wrongly put away does; she could remain chaste for the rest of her life and the man who wrongly put her away has still committed adultery, just as Matthew 19:9 actually specifies.

As has already been pointed out here and elsewhere on BF, it is also the case that the specific phrase used (i.e. ...and marries another) identifies that the subject of Jesus' discussion with the Pharisees and His disciples regards a particular kind of sin practiced by the Romans: that of serial monogamy.
Click to expand...

I see what you're saying and it's an interesting point and not just because it's a new one that I heard. But I don't think it can be reconciled to the parallel teachings in the other Gospels, like Mark 10:12, where Jesus refers to the adultery being "against her" (one of the wives).

Like you, I also believe that Matthew 19:9 is about preventing serial monogamy which is why the passages uses divorce and marriage as components to adultery instead of just any sleeping around by the wife. Divorce and REmarriage aren't necessary components of adultery, so you have to wonder if Jesus was just trying to ban the man and woman from having sex with women other than his ONE wife, then he would've used the common way that occurs, by sleeping with ANYONE outside the marriage just like how modern-day Western culture defines adultery. Yet, Jesus did not do this which suggest to me he had another point in mine, i.e. preventing serial monogamy.
 
Please don't get hung up on the word "replacing". That is NOT the point. It is merely the practice of the day which sparked the discussion.

The word adultery means, more or less, "breaking the marital covenant".

Biblically, the core of a woman's covenant with her man was and is exclusivity -- him and no other, so long as the marriage should last.

The core of a man's covenant was/is a bit different. This should not be too surprising, given the extent of the other Biblical and natural differences between men and women.

The core of the marital covenant for men was and is longevity -- regardless of whoever else should be added, she would not be either discarded or neglected, for life. (You may note that when Paul referred to Gen 2:24, his comments also refer to the indissoluble / permanent nature of the relationship, rather than an exclusivity!)

His divorce of her without really serious reason (covenant breakage on her part), constituted and constitutes covenant breakage on his own.

Why would he do so? If they merely didn't get along, he could more or less pursue his own life and she hers. Why would he feel a need to make it an actual divorce when there WASN'T a compelling reason according to Mosaic law? Answer: He wanted to marry someone else without "encumbrance", according to the Greek custom which the Romans of Jesus' day had adopted.

There were two different schools of thought on the topic, just as there are denominational differences in our day.

One group read the Mosaic law, and interpreted the laws of divorce rather narrowly and literally. The excuse for divorcing her had to be pretty bad -- either adultery or misrepresenting herself as virginal before marriage when she was, um, NOT.

The other read the same law and said that the man could divorce her for anything that he found displeasing. The common example given is "burning the toast". Made it real convenient for the men. Left women totally INsecure and at the mercy of the hairy, T-poisoned beasts panting after the newest model. It basically negated the man's responsibility to the marital covenant!

The issue was: Which school of thought is correct? PM wasn't even on the table! The whole issue was divorce! And by extension the status of women. Then by extension, the value God placed upon them, and the level of provision He intended! Jesus came down HARD on the first side. A woman marrying had a right before God to expect her husband to live up to his covenant responsibility just as much as he had a right to expect her to live up to hers. If he placed her in an untenable position through no fault of her own, he was guilty, she wasn't, and both God and man knew it!

That's all. The fact that he wanted to faithfully follow the custom of the day did not let him off! God and morality were bound by God's Word, not by Greek custom or any other tradition of man.

Trying to make it about PM is about like saying, the reason your engine quits working is because it is past time to get your tires rotated! At total head-scratching "Hunh?!!!"
 
CecilW said:
Please don't get hung up on the word "replacing". That is NOT the point. It is merely the practice of the day which sparked the discussion.

The word adultery means, more or less, "breaking the marital covenant".

Biblically, the core of a woman's covenant with her man was and is exclusivity -- him and no other, so long as the marriage should last.

The core of a man's covenant was/is a bit different. This should not be too surprising, given the extent of the other Biblical and natural differences between men and women.

The core of the marital covenant for men was and is longevity -- regardless of whoever else should be added, she would not be either discarded or neglected, for life. (You may note that when Paul referred to Gen 2:24, his comments also refer to the indissoluble / permanent nature of the relationship, rather than an exclusivity!)

His divorce of her without really serious reason (covenant breakage on her part), constituted and constitutes covenant breakage on his own.

Why would he do so? If they merely didn't get along, he could more or less pursue his own life and she hers. Why would he feel a need to make it an actual divorce when there WASN'T a compelling reason according to Mosaic law? Answer: He wanted to marry someone else without "encumbrance", according to the Greek custom which the Romans of Jesus' day had adopted.

There were two different schools of thought on the topic, just as there are denominational differences in our day.

One group read the Mosaic law, and interpreted the laws of divorce rather narrowly and literally. The excuse for divorcing her had to be pretty bad -- either adultery or misrepresenting herself as virginal before marriage when she was, um, NOT.

The other read the same law and said that the man could divorce her for anything that he found displeasing. The common example given is "burning the toast". Made it real convenient for the men. Left women totally INsecure and at the mercy of the hairy, T-poisoned beasts panting after the newest model. It basically negated the man's responsibility to the marital covenant!

The issue was: Which school of thought is correct? PM wasn't even on the table! The whole issue was divorce! And by extension the status of women. Then by extension, the value God placed upon them, and the level of provision He intended! Jesus came down HARD on the first side. A woman marrying had a right before God to expect her husband to live up to his covenant responsibility just as much as he had a right to expect her to live up to hers. If he placed her in an untenable position through no fault of her own, he was guilty, she wasn't, and both God and man knew it!

That's all. The fact that he wanted to faithfully follow the custom of the day did not let him off! God and morality were bound by God's Word, not by Greek custom or any other tradition of man.

Trying to make it about PM is about like saying, the reason your engine quits working is because it is past time to get your tires rotated! At total head-scratching "Hunh?!!!"
Click to expand...

Thanks for explaining that esp. in a good way. I can understand that adultery would involve breaking the marital covenant but specifically it is defined as illicit sex. This is the part I have encountered the monogamy-ONLY crowd focusing on in relation to Matthew 19:9. Are you saying that the unjustified divorce by itself is what constitutes adultery? If not, then it would also include illicit sex and in Matthew 19:9 on the man's part when he marries (including having sex) with the new wife. Otherwise, where is the illicit sex taking place that the term "adultery" requires? That's why I believe based on comments here and other places that if we spell out adultery from the NT, it would be divorcing (unjustifiably) and remarrying (sex included when consummated) just to replace the first wife - serial monogamy.
 
PolyPride said:
I see what you're saying and it's an interesting point and not just because it's a new one that I heard. But I don't think it can be reconciled to the parallel teachings in the other Gospels, like Mark 10:12, where Jesus refers to the adultery being "against her" (one of the wives).
Click to expand...

As a point of clarification that I feel is extremely important to understanding this verse (Mark 10:11 actually), the word here translated as "against" can also be translated as "for" or "over"; thus, context is essential. Particularly, the Greek word herein translated (I use an interlinear Septuagint) is epi. Epi can mean: against, for, near, over, to, towards, or upon. Thus, my previous post is reconcilable with the parallel teachings in the other Gospels if you choose the right words in translating the Greek.

If the intent of the translator was to support the belief that polygyny was a sin, then choosing the word "against" would tend to support that belief, as is evident from the many folks you'll run across that make this very argument. However, choosing the word "against" also demands that the reader ignore the remaining witness of scripture regarding the definition of adultery as a sin involving a man and a married woman that is not his wife (i.e. the wife of another). If you don't have the truth on your side, create confusion and hope to lose them as you speed through the curves ;)

If, on the other hand, the intent of the translator was to choose a word consistent with the remaining witness of scripture, then "for" or "over" seem much better choices. Such choices do not demand that we accept contradiction within scripture regarding how adultery is defined. In addition, such choices are entirely consistent with the patriarchal character of scripture that the modern church so prevalently denies. Indeed, rendering the same verse as: "And he said to them, 'Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery (for|over) her'" makes much more sense in terms of patriarchy. My own personal belief is that "over" is the best choice, and for the reasons I stated in my previous post on this thread (i.e. a man commits adultery against his head - God - thus committing adultery "over" her).

A technique I commonly use in biblical exegesis is to write a line out and place all the alternate meanings of the various words on lines below this line so that I can read each combination to quickly explore the possibilities and determine which are consistent with the remaining scriptural witness and which are not. If you've not tried this, I highly recommend it because it will very quickly expose translational bias.
 
The original Greek does not say "another woman". It simply says "another". The word translated "marries" means "to lead into marriage". I contend that Jesus was merely reiterating what He said in Matt 5:32, that when you divorce your wife, except for porneia, you are causing her to commit adultery, by leading her into marriage to another.
 
Cecil,
Spot on in all your posts. Extrapolation is very dangerous in exigesis. Also, when asking questions about subjects, they answer a different question. :eek: Also, reading William F. Luck, Sr.’s book and others would help. Great reading and discussions.
 
I posted in this exact same thread 8 years ago!

Matthew 19:9

Basic logic:

1. "Anyone who divorces his wife"

AND

2. "marries another woman"

EQUALS

3. Adultery

This verse does not apply to polygamists because they do not do #1.

Note: Lots of monogamists do #1 (and then #2). Just saying.

Oddly, mongamists would say that to do #2, one MUST do #1. ?!?!?!

The Pharisees wanted to upgrade but not have to pay for two wives. This is not allowed.

Bottom line: You can have another wife, but you MUST keep the first one.

I agree that the first part of Matthew 5:32 does seem to be in sync with this verse.
 
Last edited:
Hello. The Lord has shown me the truth about who may and who may not take another wife after divorce. Would anyone care to discuss that?
 
@Alisa, welcome to the forum!
We'd be glad to discuss that with you, either here or in a new thread dedicated to the topic. We'd also love to get to know you better, feel free to post an introduction in the "Introductions" section.
 
cnystrom said:
I posted in this exact same thread 8 years ago!

Matthew 19:9

Basic logic:

1. "Anyone who divorces his wife"

AND

2. "marries another woman"

EQUALS

3. Adultery

This verse does not apply to polygamists because they do not do #1.

Note: Lots of monogamists do #1 (and then #2). Just saying.

Oddly, mongamists would say that to do #2, one MUST do #1. ?!?!?!

The Pharisees wanted to upgrade but not have to pay for two wives. This is not allowed.

Bottom line: You can have another wife, but you MUST keep the first one.

I agree that the first part of Matthew 5:32 does seem to be in sync with this verse.
Click to expand...
I almost agree with this 100%. I'd amend it to include the "except" portion in scripture that was left out, "except it be for fornication".

You can divorce and marry/remarry/continue marrying IF you are divorcing for the cause of fornication. So this could apply to any man marrying. Polygny and Monogamy are not different things in practice. One is just having a single wife, the other is having more than one. They should both be simply called "Marriage", or "Having/Taking a woman/wife"

I'm glad you broke the logic down @cnystrom. It seemed like too many were getting lost in the weeds. We need not make this complicated. Read the words, do so in context, and let the Word stand as truth. We don't need to allegorize or interpret when the language is this plainly clear. It's allegorizing that often gets people into hot water with twisting scripture to conform to their ideas. We should find ourselves being conformed to the image of Christ, not conforming Him to us.
 
The response I get from a strict monogamist when I mention that this condemns serial monogamy is just an appeal to the stone "Do you really think that he would be condemning such a specific case?" then an assertion that "it is adultery because the marriage is still valid."
 
Since I don't know how to edit posts here, sorry.:

My response to this would be; "Well, we have a biblical precedent for serial monogamy being condemned in the Old Testament, (Exodus 21:10) while we do not have a biblical precedent for adultery being defined as a man taking on another wife while still taking care of his other wife/wives. Therefore, my explanation of this referring to serial monogamy (which would not have been irrelevant in that time period) should be taken over your explanation which would've had its scriptural debut in the Gospels.
 
The simplest, and UTTERLY Scripturally consistent explanation is that Matthew 19:9, in MOST English renderings, is a bad translation:

1) In His very FIRST public address, Yahushua made it clear that He would NOT - so long as 'heaven and earth' still exist - change so much as the TINIEST part of His own Word (Matthew 5:17-19). Had He done so, he'd have been not only a "liar, and the Truth not in Him," but disqualified by His own Word as Messiah. So - look for the bad translation.

2) The correct rendering for the Hebrew word used throughout Scripture for 'put away' is shalach. A quick search will show that Deuteronomy 24:1-3 uses the word to describe the process Yahushua (since He Wrote it!) is referencing. The wanna-be FORMER husband must give her a "sefer keretutah," or 'certificate of divorce.' Else she is STILL MARRIED. (This is consistent; for her to remarry, she needs "two witnesses" since she is no longer a virgin: Her own, and the WRITTEN witness of her then EX-husband.)

THEN, says the passage, "she may become another man's [wife]."

Note that if she was ALREADY an adulteress (because she 'did it') -- then the husband CAN put her away; the certificate is HIS witness that she is able to remarry.

3) And the man who marries her, when she is ONLY 'put away,' but does not have the witness/'get'/sefer keretutah "doth commit adultery".

This same irrefutable consistent pattern applies to ALL the places where there is such confusion, because the translator failed to recognize that He (the Author, Torah Made Flesh, Teacher with Authority, etc) KNOWS what He Wrote, and doesn't contradict Himself. (And the translator, too often, is more concerned with 'church doctrine' than getting things right.)

It applies to Shaul/Paul, too, for the obvious reason that he doesn't contradict his Master.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top