Re: Matthew 19:9 and polygamy - Explain in 1 paragraph or le
I think the answer to this one can be even shorter than just one paragraph. You just need one sentence.
"This scripture is not at all about polygamy, it's about divorce."
If I were going to add a couple of more sentences to that, they would be:
"If Jesus did want to give the church some new teaching about polygamy, I can't think of a better opportunity for him to do so than during this exchange. The fact that he didn't should tell you something."
The only reason that a response would have to get more convoluted than that is if the person you're speaking with gives a convoluted argument of their own, which is what you have on the other website you're talking about. They're coming back with
"Ok, so it's not directly about polygamy, but it kindof implies something about polygamy if you think about it the right way. If this guy is committing adultery by marrying some other woman after he gets divorced from his first wife, then that must mean that in God's eyes he's still Biblicaly married to the first wife. Like God doesn't really recognize the divorce at all. And if being Biblicaly married to a first wife in God's eyes and then marrying a second wife is like adultery, then that would imply that when the same thing happens without a divorce but is called a plural marriage, it would also be adultery."
Firstly, I think the most obvious problem with their argument here is what UG said. They're ignoring the fundamental difference being discussed. Which is divorce. If the guy gets divorced AND THEN gets married to someone else, it's adultery. It doesn't say if he stays married and then gets married again. It's being intellectually dishonest to act as if the main topic of this scripture can be ignored or replaced with any other word, and the verses still mean the same thing.
But also, I think the argument shows a lack of understanding of what adultery is. They're using the modern American definition of the word, rather than the Bible-based one. In scripture, there are three different dispositions of sex. Marriage is one. Certain people qualify for marriage, and if they do it in a committed relationship, they are married (yes, a simplification). The modern definition is more about a license the state issues to whoever the law allows.
Fornication Is another one. When any two people have sex, but don't have a commitment to each other, or aren't eligible for marriage (think anybody described in Leviticus 18), that's fornication. The modern definition of fornication is pre-marital sex. But that's just something we added on to keep teenagers away from each other.
Adultery is the third one. Adultery is when a woman that is already taken has sex with anybody. Adultery always has to involve a spoken-for woman. Two men can't commit adultery. A man and an eligible-for-marriage woman can't commit adultery, even if that man is already married. Adultery is always in reference to a woman that is already taken. But the modern definition says that anyone, man or woman, who has sex outside of their one marriage is committing adultery. Like a lot of irreconcilable debates, the problem is usually in the definitions of the terms.
But I think that brings up a very interesting thought about this verse that has been on my mind since the thread about "first wife syndrome". In that thread, there was mention of the idea of the "Covenant Wife", or your first wife, or the wife of your youth, and how that relationship is different than subsequent ones (if at all). Verses like this one, and the ones about divorce in Malachi, seem to place special importance on that covenant marriage. It's led me to study all the passages in scripture that talk about God's relationship with His covenant wife (Israel), and how that bond effects and relates to His covenant with us, the Church. The middle chapters of Romans have a lot to say about that interaction. I'm not going to pretend I've come to any solid conclusions on it. But it is an interesting study. Paul says in Romans that the Gentiles have been given the opportunity to be grafted on because of the already established relationship of God to His people Israel. I would propose that if God had ever been proven to be unfaithful to Israel, there would be no basis for the marriage of the Church.
So back to Matthew. Christ says that a man who divorces his wife (unlawfully) cannot marry another without committing adultery. My thought is that he has made himself ineligible for marriage by breaking faith with the wife of his youth. He has proven to be unfaithful, so there is therefore no basis for a second marriage.
But there is still the issue of Jesus using the word "adultery" to describe this man getting a second wife after divorcing the first. If adultery is really about whether or not the woman is already taken, then the verse is confusing. It doesn't say that Jesus is necessarily talking about the guy marrying a woman who is also divorced. In fact, that is covered elsewhere. So where in this verse is the woman that is already spoken for? My second thought is this: if the man, by breaking his marriage covenant with God in being unfaithful to his first wife is ineligible for marriage, then any woman he takes in marriage after that is not meant to be his. She is meant to be someone else's wife. Someone who is eligible for marriage.
I just have two things to add to the end of all these thoughts. First, these are just thoughts being developed in the midst of study. I know some things are pretty solid, and others I'm making a leap to. I'm not saying this is definite in my mind. Second, nowhere did I mention the Grace of God that allows all of these past mistakes to be paid for and forgiven, and allows us all to live in freedom from the earned effects of our sins, but that's just because I figured it's a given. I'm not a legalistic person, I'm just very interested in the technical ins and outs of this topic.
