How would you refute this argument?

[MiddleEastMissionary]

Polygamy is adultery based on Mark 10:11.

Scenario 1:

1. Man marries woman (creates obligation to be faithful)

2. Man divorces her (obligation still exists)

3. Man remarries (violates obligation, adultery)

Scenario 2:

1. Man marries woman (creates obligation to be faithful)

2. Man marries second woman (violates obligation, adultery)

In both scenarios, the first marriage is the necessary condition that makes the second marriage adultery. The first marriage creates the obligation that the second marriage violates. The divorce doesn't create the obligation. Therefore, a second marriage, with or without a divorce of the first marriage, is adultery.

Mark 10:11 ESV And he said to them, “And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.”

This person argues this constitutes a change between covenants, so I don't think any OT precedents will affect him, use NT only if possible or is there a fallacy within the argument itself?

 

[Fledgling]

Polygamy is adultery based on Mark 10:11.

Scenario 1:

1. Man marries woman (creates obligation to be faithful)

2. Man divorces her (obligation still exists)

3. Man remarries (violates obligation, adultery)

Scenario 2:

1. Man marries woman (creates obligation to be faithful)

2. Man marries second woman (violates obligation, adultery)

In both scenarios, the first marriage is the necessary condition that makes the second marriage adultery. The first marriage creates the obligation that the second marriage violates. The divorce doesn't create the obligation. Therefore, a second marriage, with or without a divorce of the first marriage, is adultery.

Mark 10:11 ESV And he said to them, “And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.”

This person argues this constitutes a change between covenants, so I don't think any OT precedents will affect him, use NT only if possible or is there a fallacy within the argument itself?

What does it mean to be "faithful"? The true answer to that, I think, is your answer.

 

[MiddleEastMissionary]

What does it mean to be "faithful"? The true answer to that, I think, is your answer.

Thank you. So if you didn't divorce the first wife you can have a second wife, but if you divorce and remarry, the remarriage is adultery and must be divorced (annulled), and if possible reconciled.

 

[MiddleEastMissionary]

Edit: and if possible the 1st marriage reconciled

 

[YoreyC]

the argument being made isnt clear to me.

verses on divorce inclusive of this one have translational/interpretive issues. one that is commonly inobvious is that puting away and divorcing are not identical, and translators either dont understand or misinterpret the text to be referring to one when it might be referring to the other, and do not know what either one is.

in this passage, jesus is saying that putting a woman away, without cause, and without divorcing her, forces her to commit adultery, by finding illegitimate coverage under another man.

jesus is saying not to do that.

just like any time you force someone else to commit a crime, the blame for the crime is "on your head," or at least shared.

 

[MiddleEastMissionary]

the argument being made isnt clear to me.

verses on divorce inclusive of this one have translational/interpretive issues. one that is commonly inobvious is that puting away and divorcing are not identical, and translators either dont understand or misinterpret the text to be referring to one when it might be referring to the other, and do not know what either one is.

in this passage, jesus is saying that putting a woman away, without cause, and without divorcing her, forces her to commit adultery, by finding illegitimate coverage under another man.

jesus is saying not to do that.

just like any time you force someone else to commit a crime, the blame for the crime is "on your head," or at least shared.

My position until now has been that there's no writs of divorce for Christians (Mt.19:9) for any reason. Augustine made the point that if adultery was the exception Jesus is speaking of, it follows all remarriages would be legitimate, because those married without cause would be adulterous, and those with cause of adultery, obviously, are also adulterous. I believe the exception is referring to engagements like Joseph putting Mary away, not marriage. Joseph's 'putting away' story is only mentioned in Matthew, the exception is only mentioned in Matthew. Luke and Mark say if you divorce remarry you're an adulterer for remarrying, no exceptions given.

So I'm trying to understand if polygamy (without divorce) is or isn't legitimate in the new covenant.

 

[YoreyC]

My position until now has been that there's no writs of divorce for Christians (Mt.19:9) for any reason.

ok. that's wrong.

 

[MiddleEastMissionary]

ok. that's wrong.

Why? Is you understanding of polygamy synonymous with Jesus divorce/remarriage teaching, and therefore if there's no exceptions there's no polygamy?

 

[Mark C]

This person argues this constitutes a change between covenants, so I don't think any OT precedents will affect him, use NT only if possible or is there a fallacy within the argument itself?

The argument is inherently INCONSISTENT and at odds with the Messiah Himself.

See Matthew 5:17-19. If He said He would NOT CHANGE so much as the TINIEST part of His own Word concerning marriage, and then allegedly DID - wholesale even! - somebody is lying.

Hint: Not Yahushua.

 

[MiddleEastMissionary]

The argument is inherently INCONSISTENT and at odds with the Messiah Himself.

See Matthew 5:17-19. If He said He would NOT CHANGE so much as the TINIEST part of His own Word concerning marriage, and then allegedly DID - wholesale even! - somebody is lying.

Hint: Not Yahushua.

He'd argue there were nevertheless lots of changes in the law between covenants, food requirements, holy days, etc. I have to demonstrate Jesus teaching on divorce remarriage, wasn't a change in the law for polygamy, which is tricky, Jesus explicitly undoes Moses divorce permission going forward (Mt.19:8). I have to demonstrate his argument is only a condemnation of second marriages with divorce, not second marriages without divorce.

 

[Mark C]

Luke and Mark say if you divorce remarry you're an adulterer for remarrying, no exceptions given.

If you don't understand the words, in the original language, and why the translations are HORRIBLY WRONG, it won't make any sense. But, that is what the mistranslations were perhaps trying to accomplish.

There is no inconsistency in the actual Word as Written. And as taught, "with authority" (Matthew 7:29) by the real Messiah Who did not change so much as "one yod or tiddle". If you call Him a liar - guess who is ultimately at fault?

 

[YoreyC]

many torah keepers follow all of the law.

but you dont need to presume total torah law to prove jesus wasnt outlawing divorce per se.

it solves for y if presumed, but is a burden to prove.

more mere pronomianism, i.e. general equity theonomy, also gets you there, but more arguably depending on if the pronomian thinks god's law changes, which it arguably does.

i think its more efficient to a general audience to point to erroneous translation and interpretation, which it seems you've bought into.

 

[MiddleEastMissionary]

many torah keepers follow all of the law.

but you dont need to presume total torah law to prove jesus wasnt outlawing divorce per se.

it solves for y if presumed, but is a burden to prove.

more mere pronomianism, i.e. general equity theonomy, also gets you there, but more arguably depending on if the pronomian thinks god's law changes, which it arguably does.

i think its more efficient to a general audience to point to erroneous translation and interpretation, which it seems you've bought into.

I agree the burden of proof is on him to show the new covenant prohibits polygamy going forward, I was just addressing the argument that Jesus not changing a jot of the law doesn't necessitate marriage can't be redefined IF it can be proven prohibited in NT.

 

[Heavens Declare]

I presume you don't follow OT law regarding food right? Was that not a change?

We don't presume anything here, but this topic of observing Torah is off limits for discussion at Biblical Families. It has been debated Ad Nauseum. In order to keep the fellowship with like minds, we focus only on the Scriptural teaching on polygyny. Look for threads on Matt 19:9, because we have discussed the topic there. Also, I recommend readin Mark 10:11-12 in the Tyndale and Wycliffe translations. Also read Luke 16:18 and Matt 19:9 in the Tyndale translation. You do well to challenge people as to whether they would question the integrity or the intellect of Tyndale. Obviously Catholics don't think too highly of Tyndale, but they have so many other flaws that you can focus on, that you don't have to worry too much what they think about the great Reformers.

 

[YoreyC]

Jesus not changing a jot of the law doesn't necessitate marriage can't be redefined IF it can be proven prohibited in NT.

right, well. that sounds like hardline antinomianism which is its own silly error. but its quite common.

such a stance is not entirely stillborn but keep in mind how strongly it seems to go against what jesus seems to mean when he speaks positively of the law.

was he really just saying technically it will still be there but with no presumption it should be followed?

was his insistence on obedience to the law really just ephemeral and it's abrogated upon his death?

to answer these, one must reach into the NT for things which sound antinomian, and it is true there is no shortage of prooftexts which seem to say as much.

however, paul is known to be confusing and peter cautioned to read him carefully that one not be lead into error.

what "error?" what is peter presuming the standard for right to be, that paul might be leading people away from?

 

[frederick]

Scenario 2:

1. Man marries woman (creates obligation to be faithful)

2. Man marries second woman (violates obligation, adultery)

A man has a God-given right to marry a woman. She has a duty to be exclusively his. He has a God-given right to marry another woman, a right which has never changed, therefore he is not committing adultery. Read 1 Cor. 6:9-10 and consider all the faithful men of God named in Hebrews 11 who will be in the kingdom. Read also Matt. 8:11 and note that Jesus says known polygynists will be in the kingdom. Polygyny therefore CANNOT be any sexual sin.

 

[YoreyC]

He has a God-given right to marry another woman, a right which has never changed, therefore he is not committing adultery

even this is an error, though. a man having sex with an unmarried woman is never adultery (barring gentility concerns), even if he is married.

Jesus says known polygynists will be in the kingdom. Polygyny therefore CANOT be any sexual sin.

well no that doesn't follow. inheriting the kingdom does not mean one is sinless.

 

[Otto]

Mark 10:11 is terribly mistranslated. There’s a massive difference between “send away” and “certificate of divorce.” The audience Yahoshua was speaking to would have known the difference, because they recently experienced it. Their brethren - the Northern Kingdom of Israel - were given a certificate of divorce and exiled out of the land. They never came back. The Jews, however, were only “sent away” to Babylon, and returned back in a single generation. They would have known first hand the difference between a “certificate of divorce” and being “sent away.”


Mark 10:11 when it’s properly translated:

11 He told them, “Whoever “sends away” his wife and marries someone likewise else commits adultery against her.

Study thyself approved, and look at the Greek rendering. That word in the Greek is clearly “send away” and it’s used elsewhere. For example, when Yahoshua “sent away” the crowds after feeding them. No - he didn’t “divorce” the crowd.

So if a man simply “sends away” his wife - that man still has a wife. He would cause his wife to commit adultery if she sleeps with another man. Likewise, if that man marries a woman that was simply “put away” by her husband - but not given a certificate of divorce - that man also commits adultery if he sleeps with her; because he’s sleeping with another man’s wife.

I do believe that men were way too easily divorcing their wives, and some weren’t even going through the right procedure. That Samaritan woman had 5 previous husbands, and it would not surprise me if she was more “wife material” than the majority of western women. So men were doing violence to their wives of youth; echoing the words of Malachi 2:16.

I don’t know why some men stopped issuing certificate of divorces. Perhaps someone in a position of authority came up with the idea of charging money for a “certificate of divorce.” So some men perhaps didn’t want to pay the fee, and simply decided not to get it.

 

[MiddleEastMissionary]

A man has a God-given right to marry a woman. She has a duty to be exclusively his. He has a God-given right to marry another woman, a right which has never changed, therefore he is not committing adultery. Read 1 Cor. 6:9-10 and consider all the faithful men of God named in Hebrews 11 who will be in the kingdom. Read also Matt. 8:11 and note that Jesus says known polygynists will be in the kingdom. Polygyny therefore CANNOT be any sexual sin.

His argument revolves around New and Old covenant law differences, so while he agrees their in heaven, like Abraham (despite his incest with Sarah) things are legitimate until they are prohibited. So he'd agree David didn't sin with multiple wives, just that the new covenant prohibts us from it via Jesus change from Moses law in Mt.19:8 and Mk.10:10.

I know how to refute virtually every argument against polygamy except the one he's making so that's the only thing to focus on in this discussion: For clarification, the argument is

"if Jesus considers second marriages after divorce adultery (Mk.10:11), How can the second marriage without even the divorce, be non-adulterous?".

At least as far as divorce is concerned Jesus is definitely changing what was expected under Moses law,
and If divorce and remarriage is cheating on the first wife (in NT), why is remarriage without divorce (i.e. polygamy) not also cheating (in NT)?

 

[Mojo]

things are legitimate until they are prohibited.

Correct. And you might do well to challenge your friend to find any place, other than the verses in question, where there is a condemnation or prohibition. It’s not wise to build an entire doctrine on one verse (or repetition of the same thought in two gospels).

At least as far as divorce is concerned Jesus is definitely changing what was expected under Moses law

But it wasn’t Moses’ law, it was given by God himself. Jesus said he came to do the will of his Father. Was Jesus here to change things, or fulfill things? Did he come to rework all that was given before, or fulfill all the prophecies given about him and his redemptive mission?

As has been said earlier in this thread, I believe the approach to scripture is going to be the biggest hurdle, not even necessarily looking at alternatives in translation.

The Torah vs non Torah following is not a topic for renewal, but one doesn’t need to be a full Torah follower to appreciate a pronomian approach to scripture.

I personally view the OT and NT as one document, unveiling the plan of God in harmony, not in opposition. Peter, James , and yes, even Paul did not set out to create a whole new faith. They saw Jesus as the messiah and the fulfillment of God’s love and commitment to his eternal words. It wasn’t a reset. Their morality and code of living came from one place, Gods law.

So, if your friend views Christianity as somehow new and divorced from anything OT related, especially because of the teachings of certain elders or early “fathers” in the faith, then arguing individual verses will mean nothing.

However, if he’s willing to consider “put away” vs “writ of divorce”, without too much protest, you may have something to hope for, even if he keeps his “New Covenant changed everything” mindset.