Mark 10:11-12.. any definitive understanding here?

[andrew]

Comparison, submitted for your consideration:

Paul is reported to have said an overseer should be the husband of 'one' wife in virtually all English translations. The underlying Greek word mia is often translated 'one', but is also translated 'a' and 'first' where context suggests it's appropriate, so to know if 'one' was the right translation, we need to know a bit more about the context of the passage, the mindsets of the translators, and what's at stake with the choices permitted.

There is never going to be a 'definitive view' on whether Paul really meant "there can be only one" or whether he might have meant to be understood differently. Each camp has its reasons for believing what it believes, but that has more to do with subjective values and priorities than logic per se, so the best we can do is enjoy the bits we agree on, note where we disagree, and move on.

The notion of a 'definitive view' is itself an artifact of something deep in human nature that insists that there is only one Right Answer to every question, and that notion has given us some interesting dust ups in religion, science, and politics. But that's a whole 'nother thread....

 

[AgnosticBoy]

@AgnosticBoy, what makes you think that there is a definitive view? Generally, each of us will have varying perspectives that color the way we understand certain passages. And generally, there are whole schools of thought and denominations of Christians coagulating around certain views based on the same logic: different perspectives, different values, produce different priorities when harmonizing different passages of scripture. Where do you get the idea that there is a definitive view to be found?

In a sense, you can say that I'm a polygamy-apologist (sorta like a Christian apologist). While you guys stick here with each other, I actually try to reach (convince) others on polygamy from a biblical and even secular standpoint. Knowing exactly what adultery means in Jesus's teachings is a big deal because the monogamy-only crowd start off with these passages as their strongpoint to support their side. Their interpretation seems natural to the text. Yeah, I can point out all of the OT examples, but then they'll just tell me that something changed, or Jesus restored marriage. This explanation is what even a majority of biblical scholars argue, even the ones that agree that OT adultery allowed polygyny. So if I'm going to go against their seemingly naturally-fitting explanation, I'm going to need a logical explanation of my own. A lot of the explanations I've gotten thus far aren't logical or seem speculative, which is why I assume is the reason why most don't accept them here - the reason why there's varying views to begin with.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

BTW- @AgnosticBoy , nobody is running you off from here. Please feel free to comment and post on here on other topics. We are a diverse group with myriad interests. You should be able to find something else of interest here.

I just personally think you came here under false pretenses. If you had been honest from the get go, you wouldn't have seen as firm a response as you are getting now.

But...


Maybe martyr was one of your objectives all along too.

Read my past debates on the main Catholic site here:
https://forums.catholic.com/t/anything-in-the-ot-that-bans-polygamy/466314

I am a member on many forums under the same screen name (unless someone just now starts using my name). If I didn't care about the issue, or it was just a joke, I would not spend so much time trying to convince others. Look up all my posts on the Catholic website that I linked to and you'll see I'm only interested in logic and evidence on this particular issue.

 

[Mojo]

In a sense, you can say that I'm a polygamy-apologist (sorta like a Christian apologist). While you guys stick here with each other, I actually try to reach (convince) others on polygamy from a biblical and even secular standpoint. Knowing exactly what adultery means in Jesus's teachings is a big deal because the monogamy-only crowd start off with these passages as their strongpoint to support their side. Their interpretation seems natural to the text. Yeah, I can point out all of the OT examples, but then they'll just tell me that something changed, or Jesus restored marriage. This explanation is what even a majority of biblical scholars argue, even the ones that agree that OT adultery allowed polygyny. So if I'm going to go against their seemingly naturally-fitting explanation, I'm going to need a logical explanation of my own. A lot of the explanations I've gotten thus far aren't logical or seem speculative, which is why I assume is the reason why most don't accept them here - the reason why there's varying views to begin with.

Hey, I liked one of your posts!

But, any Christian apologist will tell you that trying to convince a skeptic that a donkey talked, or a virgin gave birth, is a tall order that logic can't begin to address. It always boils down to faith.

If you are who you say you are, then you are not in the same business as most of us. Most of us don't go around proselytizing others into a belief of polygyny. For those who want to hear, we give an answer. For those who just want to go on endless hide and go seek hunts, it's not very profitable to our lives.

Circles are where you have led us and that's all any of us have experienced with those not wanting to be educated or convinced. You've received just about all you can get on this topic from us. If it's not satisfactory, then you're back to searching for polygyny nirvana.

 

[cnystrom]

In the NT, the husband's adultery was based on his divorce, but in the OT, the husband's adultery was based on the marital status of the woman, and not if the husband divorced or not. There's a clear difference.

It is clearer in Matthew than it is in Mark:

Matthew 5:32 - "But I say that a man who divorces his wife, unless she has been unfaithful, causes her to commit adultery. And anyone who marries a divorced woman also commits adultery."

Note: It is not the husband's adultery. His guilt comes from causing her adultery. She having been thrown into the hands of another man because of the "divorce". He is supposed to keep her.

Marrying a divorced woman would be direct adultery.

 

[Mojo]

I used to be a fundamentalist Christian until logic and evidence freed me from it. You start off assuming that all of it is true, and then expect that a deeper look will explain everything. You have nothing to say for all of the other religionists who expect the same of their religion. That leaves you prone to confirmation bias. I start out by looking at the Bible just like any other text, capable of errors, contradictions, I assume nothing.

Taken from the link you suggested I look at.

So, you are not a Catholic, but you didn't exactly reveal all about who you are. You are a reformed fundamentalist, but that just means you have your own "agnostic" confirmation bias. Everyone has biases. Don't get all high and mighty.

I can be man enough to reverse my line of inquiry regarding your Catholic bias, but I wasn't wrong that you were hiding things that would give us a better perspective on where you are coming from.

Oh and if your job is to convince others of polygyny, going at it simply with logic will only get you so far. At some point it just becomes formulaic, perhaps disingenuous.

We often make a plea towards God's mercy, justice, and providence. That can be just as, if not more, effective.

 

[andrew]

While you guys stick here with each other, I actually try to reach (convince) others on polygamy from a biblical and even secular standpoint.

Well, go you, but don't assume that this is all we do all day.

Yeah, I can point out all of the OT examples, but then they'll just tell me that something changed, or Jesus restored marriage.

The problem here is they are reasoning from their priors and aren't going to be logic-ed out of their convictions. Drop the Mk 10 argument and work on why they think Jesus would in passing just flippantly backhand a major change in the law on one topic while appearing to address a different one. The issue is more "who is Jesus?" than "what about polygamy?".

 

[Shibboleth]

You want logic, I'll bite; but I'm dubious of the value of doing so...

The argument that this passage equates polygamy with adultery is a logical fallacy. Specifically, the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Consider:

P = "Polygamy is adultery" (provably false in the OT)

Q = "Divorce and remarriage is adultery" (what Jesus might be teaching here, unless epi is mistranslated as "against", as Ish and Andrew have suggested.)

P→Q = "If polygamy is adultery, it implies divorce and remarriage is also adultery." (this would be a consequence of the belief that all divorce is invalid, and the couple is still considered spiritually married until death. I believe Catholics do hold this view, but I think not all denominations do, and IIRC, Luck argues against it. But I probably need to re-read his book. I'm not sure I ever finished.)

The fallacy comes in believing:
P→Q, Q / ∴P

Laying aside the real possibility of either of these premises being false to begin with, the conclusion does not logically follow from them.

All of which is a fancy, high-fallutin' way of saying what the consistent consensus on this thread has been: that this passage is not about polygamy.

 

[James A]

First off we have to look at who he is talking to, which are the Pharisees which where extremely knowledge able in laws and the now Old testament. When he answered , the disciples curiosity increased and they asked the same question. In verse eleven wife and women which means more than one has the same Greek word, meaning correct me if I am I am wrong. So In my opinion I take away from the verse that it is saying that putting away women, or wife as in divorce and marry another committeth adultery. If God brings you another wife that is totally fine but don't discard anything for any reason. Meaning it is a contract between you and your wife or multiple wives. If you take away by making a decision that goes against God you are sinning and committing adultery I hope that makes sense

 

[rockfox]

It is clearer in Matthew than it is in Mark:

Matthew 5:32 - "But I say that a man who divorces his wife, unless she has been unfaithful, causes her to commit adultery. And anyone who marries a divorced woman also commits adultery."

Note: It is not the husband's adultery. His guilt comes from causing her adultery. She having been thrown into the hands of another man because of the "divorce". He is supposed to keep her.

Marrying a divorced woman would be direct adultery.

The Matthew 5 passage makes it clear that remarriage (of the man) is not necessary for adultery to be accorded to him. Only the woman's remarriage matters. This logically fits the passage and the OT standards. To the extent remarriage of the man is mentioned, it is due to the cultural context of trading up being the motive for divorce.

 

[PeteR]

It is clearer in Matthew than it is in Mark:

Matthew 5:32 - "But I say that a man who divorces his wife, unless she has been unfaithful, causes her to commit adultery. And anyone who marries a divorced woman also commits adultery.

There are two ways to read the last sentence. a) properly, the divorced woman us the same obe as the previous sentence, she has been put away for 'no fault.' b) Improperly as a stand alone statement meant to prevent a man from marrying any divorced woman.

We must be careful when reading this verse in the second manner not to use our current cultural lens. A divorced woman today may be the result of the man committing adultery (having relations with another married woman). In this case, while she is divorced in our culture, she would have been widowed in the time if Jesus/Yeshua due to the man having been stoned.

Therefore, in current culture, there are cases where this verse in this context simply does not apply because the definition of the woman's status is incorrect.

Hope that makes sense. Hard to 'splain that.

 

[rockfox]

We must be careful when reading this verse in the second manner not to use our current cultural lens. A divorced woman today may be the result of the man committing adultery (having relations with another married woman). In this case, while she is divorced in our culture, she would have been widowed in the time if Jesus/Yeshua due to the man having been stoned.

Therefore, in current culture, there are cases where this verse in this context simply does not apply because the definition of the woman's status is incorrect.

Firstly, if I understand the history correctly, in Jesus time the Hebrews had lost the power to convey death sentences. That was the Hebrew law, but it is not clear that adulterers were put to death. Though you are correct for earlier times during the reign of Hebrew kings.

Second, there is no indication in the NT that a woman whose husband commits scriptural adultery has any right to divorce him. A divorced woman may claim he committed adultery, but modern's have a different definition.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

there is no indication in the NT that a woman whose husband commits scriptural adultery has any right to divorce him. A divorced woman may claim he committed adultery, but modern's have a different definition.

While this is true (that there’s no indication in the NT), it is inaccurate to the historical period to infer that women could not demand a divorce and have it granted. There were several “justifiable” reasons by which a woman could be granted a divorce by the authorities of the day.

There’s a pretty good book on this topic I’ve got somewhere. I can find it if you’d like when I get a chance.