Or, adultery as we understand it in modern times, isn't what he was talking about.
-
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.
Mark 10:11-12.. any definitive understanding here?
- Thread starter AgnosticBoy
- Start date
Exodus 20 does not prohibit remarriage for wife #1 after the marriage ends. Jesus prohibited remarriages in the NT for women even if a divorce occurred.
Edit to my last post...
Sorry, I meant Exodus 21:7-9 in the context of Tom Shipley's argument. It does not forbid remarriage for the wronged wife. But in the NT, there is no remarriage for the wife.
Sorry, I meant Exodus 21:7-9 in the context of Tom Shipley's argument. It does not forbid remarriage for the wronged wife. But in the NT, there is no remarriage for the wife.
Unless you take the route that the divorce itself was illegitimate, thereby prohibiting her to marry because she was still technically married to the first husband. Remarriage wouldn't be remarriage, only...adultery.
Or
We could discuss this until Clarabelle cow comes home and you can remain unconvinced of the conclusions given to you.
I'm not saying your position is meritless. It just seems like you came in with a conclusion, asked others their positions, and you are back exactly where you were at the beginning, unconvinced. Greek scholarship won't convince anyone. None of us were convinced that way entirely. We are Biblical Families and we rely on Spirit led conclusions, not logic-only based arguments.
I really asked for a "definitive" view because I noticed that the question was not addressed in the Q/A for this website. Just going by the fact that there are different views answered that question for me.
... that there is no definitive view. My only conclusion is that it's a weak link... not to say that polygamy is unbiblical.
I do not believe Paul allows it. It is a fall back position. Clearly the right thing to do is to stay together. IF separation occurs the next right thing to do is to remain unmarried or be reconciled and clearly reconciliation is the better alternative.
And I do not see anywhere where it is equivalent to divorce. Divorce would be license to remarry which I do not see anywhere.
It should be emphasized as Christians we do not try to get away with things and do what we think we are "allowed to do". We are to follow God with all of our heart, all of our soul, and all of our mind. Anything less is sin.
1. No
2. Another non-consensus, just the opinion of some: God doesn't contradict himself or lie. All have sinned and fallen short.
I don't agree it's a weak link, but there's no harm in disagreeing.
Apologize, but wasn't deliberately trying to be rude or terse.
Let me give you some background on why I call it a weak link. I've debated Catholics on this issue, so I speak from experience when I call it a weak link. Catholics usually use passages like Matthew 19 and Mark 10 as a strongpoint to support their monogamy-only view of marriage. So then polygamy-believer goes on their turf (and monogamy only is the majority view) having no clear/consistent answer for their strongpoint, then you will most certainly appear to weak or unconvincing.
I searched for answers all over the internet and there are man - most times conflicting with each other at some or many points so they can't all be true.
If you feel that this isn't a weak point or that you would have no problem convincing most polygamy-believers here that your explanation is a strong one, then I recommend posting it in the main Q/A section for the site. Provide a real clear/simple explanation as to what it means to commit adultery "against her", and how that act of adultery is consistent with the OT definition for adultery.
People who have the whole of the NT and OT witness of how God defines adultery and approves or promotes polygyny, yet question it, or reject it, are wise to focus on one verse. It's their ONLY link.
When all of the Law, the Prophets, and the Poetry books (TNK) is pretty much in agreement on the matter, and then Jesus addresses frivolous divorce, not a redefinition of terms, in the NT, and finally Paul never touches it (except one instance that is ambiguous) then it seems like a "gotcha".
One narrative is not enough to build or tear down a doctrine.
And as far as debate, I, and others, don't promote debates with those who have made up their minds, and are antagonistic towards this understanding. If someone wants to hear viewpoints for understanding, then dialogue is preferred.
I agree with you that one lack of clarity would not mean the entire view is in jeopardy. I like to be prepared to handle all major objections. Mark 10 being only one is still considered major or at least something that many biblical scholars, Christians even, see as being incompatible with polygamy. So its not just me being difficult. I started my first thread to look for this specific answer, an answer that would hold up to objections. So far i am unconvinced on this issue but i will continue to wait and look for more answers
That's a good approach to have when it comes to understanding biblical matters so hang in there. But I want to address something that seems to have been missed and it is this; polygyny is about a man being united in a permanent relationship with a woman, and another woman, and another, etc. It's not about divorce and what constitutes adultery after a divorce! Polygyny is about committed relationships between a man and his women and polygyny is just as right biblically as is being un-married or monogamous. Please keep that in mind as you look for answers. Blessings.
Sorry you lost me here. How is Mark 10 on divorce incompatible with polygamy?
“Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”
Polygamists keep their wives. They do not divorce them. I do not see any incompatiblity. In fact, it seems very compatible.
This verse is just saying you can't trade up. You can have another wife, but you have to keep the first one. And a wife can't trade up either. She can't divorce her husband and get another husband. That is adultery.
This is all just practical application of Malachi 2:16 and perfectly compatible with polygamy.
What is not compatible is the modern teaching of the church that views divorce as unfortunate instead of sin. It was not that long ago when it literally took an act of parliament to get a divorce in Western Civilization. Now modern churches are filled with divorced people. That is what is incompatible with Mark 10.
Last edited:
Yeah, I have to admit that I didn't even realize that this wasn't settled. If you send away a wife unlawfully then you're responsible for the adultery that will result if she lays with another man. Also, if I remember correctly, and I don't have the references but someone will (please excuse my laziness) if a man sends away a wife for invalid reasons then he's not permitted to remarry at all. That is probably the critical piece of information to remember here. I shouldn't bring it up without verifying it first. Something is tickling the back of my mind about it that I can't quite put my finger on but I'm pretty sure it's in the OT Law somewhere.
Let me try to explain another way or narrow down my main disagreement. The way that adultery is used in Matthew 19 and Mark 10:11-12 is different from the way the OT uses "adultery". In the OT, physical adultery meant sex with another man's wife. This does not happen in Matthew 19 nor Mark 10:11-12. The Catholic will tell you that the definition is compatible with monogamy, because the man can not remarry (add a 2nd wife) because his FIRST marriage is still in place which is why husband commits adultery "against HER". That actually seems very logical, and natural, even.
To address this, the polygamy-believer should be clear/consistent about what ADULTERY means in Matthew 19 and Mark 10:11-12, how is it identical with OT adultery that accommodated polygyny. This is where the polygamy-believer runs into problems because some have said that "divorce" is adultery, that divorce+remarriage is adultery, or that adultery was used in a non-literal way. This is inconsistent to me and I'm a polygamy-believer in a sense. The explanation that stands out to me is what the text actually says, divorce PLUS remarriage is adultery. What I grapple with is that it is NOT the same as the definition in the OT because the man is not sleeping with another man's wife in that case.
Meanwhile, the polygamy-believer
My main area of disagreement here is on the meaning of adultery in the context of Matthew 19 and Mark 10:11-12.
Literally, this verse is condemning the very serial monogamy our society now legislates and Catholics and various other Christians frequently excuse and practice. The situation talked about here isn't about polygamy at all. To claim such is to yank it out of its context in service to a theology which the early catholic theologians themselves admitted neither Christ nor the apostles taught.
Monogamy was a Greek virtue, never a Hebrew one.
Monogamy was a Greek virtue, never a Hebrew one.
Adultery still means adultery still means what it always meant to Hebrew speakers. Christ isn't giving a new definition of adultery but is making a similar point as in Matthew 5:21-22 - it is the heart that matters. An unjustly put away wife is tempted to adultery because of what the husband does and it was his hate (Malachi 2:16) that led him to it. He can't wash his hands of her guilt.
Those two verses aren't the only instance of this teaching of Christ's, it was part of his early message (Matthew 5:31-32)...
See here the same core message as in Matthew 19/Mark 10. Notice the clear intent of this teaching. Notice a total lack of new definition of adultery or condemnation of polygamy. Notice the guilty husband need not remarry to be condemned. He wasn't redefining adultery, he was expanding the blame, he was clarifying valid grounds for divorce (a matter of longstanding debate).
The act of adultery here is still the same as in the OT: a married woman having sex with someone not her husband. Nothing in this passage extends that to men. A never divorcing man adding a second or third wife is no where condemned for adultery.
Matthew 5 is clear a husband need not remarry to incur guilt, so why was it mentioned later in Matthew 19? The answer is as obvious to us as it likely was to them: men were divorcing to trade up. Serial monogamy.
There is a cultural context to this. Jesus taught during a time of conflict between traditionalist Jews and Hellenistic Jews who had taken on Greek culture. What we see here isn't a condemnation of polygamy but the very opposite, a condemnation of the Greek way of marriage. If you can add a second, you need not dispose of the first. But Greek culture only allowed 1 wife.
That is the true source of the rule of monogamy in the western church; the influence of the worldly ways of the Greeks and their false moralities. The modern church condemns polygamy while excusing divorce. They are taking the side of the Greeks against Christ and the Hebrews. God had the opposite concern:
We are told in 1 Corinthians 6:9 that adulterers will not enter the kingdom of God. If you are saying those with more than one wife are adulterous you have just condemned Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David and many others God Himself says are men of exemplary faith (cf. Hebrews Chapter 11).
Proverbs 17:15 warns; He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the just, Both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD. For those who condemn men like Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David and others for taking more than one wife, calling such action “sin” and speaking evil of them, James admonishes; Do not speak evil of one another, brethren. He who speaks evil of a brother and judges his brother, speaks evil of the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is one Lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy. Who are you to judge another? (James 4:11-12). The God of the Bible is the one Lawgiver; He is the only Legislator, the only one who gives the law and is able to save and to destroy sinners. By means of His law we can know what is sinful and what is not, and God never refers to a man who has more than one wife as being an adulterer, sinful, or unrighteous. To speak against His law is to speak against Him - an act of high treason against Almighty God.
Proverbs 17:15 warns; He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the just, Both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD. For those who condemn men like Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David and others for taking more than one wife, calling such action “sin” and speaking evil of them, James admonishes; Do not speak evil of one another, brethren. He who speaks evil of a brother and judges his brother, speaks evil of the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is one Lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy. Who are you to judge another? (James 4:11-12). The God of the Bible is the one Lawgiver; He is the only Legislator, the only one who gives the law and is able to save and to destroy sinners. By means of His law we can know what is sinful and what is not, and God never refers to a man who has more than one wife as being an adulterer, sinful, or unrighteous. To speak against His law is to speak against Him - an act of high treason against Almighty God.