Matthew 19:9 and polygamy - Explain in 1 paragraph or less

[Gideon_70]

Re: Matthew 19:9 and polygamy - Explain in 1 paragraph or le

Their view is that the husband in Matthew 19:9 commits adultery because his first marriage is still in place. By implication it would also include polygamy since a man is engaged with other women while his first marriage is still in place.[/color][/b]

I have a lot of problems with this, and I've already posted the rebuttal. But here is my issue... why are you engaging ignorant people? I agree that we need to let the light shine, but when someone is not willing to take ten seconds out of their day to look at the definition of Adultery, and want to apply it to something that is not a sin, and so blatantly not a sin that it can never ever be reconciled to the Bible, then have your say and move on. They are NOT going to sway to your side of the fence, and if they did, they would be excommunicated and to them, go to hell. You can lay out the most reasoned, articulate, and carefully worded response - one that makes the Angels themselves weep, and chances are that they will still stand right where they are.

Why I worry about this, is that while you are arguing with people that will never come on board, who are steeped in a thousand years of killing people like us, people that need our council are not getting it.

 

[charles.pirkle]

Re: Matthew 19:9 and polygamy - Explain in 1 paragraph or le

I'm sorry if it's been covered already but Juses is talking about a man divorcing his wife for something other than adultry (the act of engaging in any form of intimacy outside of your marriage) and marries another woman commits adultery. It doesn't say anything about a second wife.

 

[Oreslag]

Re: Matthew 19:9 and polygamy - Explain in 1 paragraph or le

I'm sorry I missed this thread, for I would have loved to follow it but haven't the time since I've been away awhile and am trying to catch up. However, I would like to answer your questions specifically. My apologies if these answers have already been given on this thread.

Here's what I believe needs to be explained to answer the Catholic objection:
- The biblical polygamy advocates must explain what Jesus was calling adultery in Matthew 19.
- They must also explain how or why adultery in Matthew 19:9 does not conflict with adultery as explained in the OT. I'm assuming you would say that adultery has to mean the same throughout the OT Law and the New Testament.

Adultery is the adulteration of one thing with another. In one sense adultery is used to describe the adulteration of a womb with two differing kinds of seeds. This is the definition we most often think of; a married woman having a sexual relationship with a man who is not her husband. This is the way that the Word defines adultery.

However, in another sense it is the mixing of beliefs or allegiance as well. In particular, note that God uses adultery to describe what Israel and Judah engage in against Him in Jeremiah 3:6-10. Thus, this is the kind of adultery Jesus is referring to on the part of a husband.

To support my argument, refer to Mark 10:11-12. Note that the English translation declares that "he commits adultery against her." This is one of my serious complaints regarding English translations, because the translators also know that the Koine Greek word therein translated 'against' can just as easily (and should be) translated 'over'; it should read "he commits adultery over her." In other words, Jesus is saying the man is committing adultery against God in his capacity as authority over her by adopting the customs of men around him rather than obeying God by not dismissing her. It seems translators are often more interested in continuing to support bad doctrine rather than looking to make the scriptures agree with one-another.

One more thing to consider: we think of it differently because we confuse divorce and dismiss. In the bible, divorce is never used as a verb the way we use it. If a man was to dismiss his wife, he was to "write her a certificate of divorce" and dismiss her. However, it became very customary to dismiss her without the certificate of divorce. I believe that this is, at least in part, what Jesus is referring to in all these passages. If a man were to dismiss his wife without the certificate, then she would have no way to support herself and if she became another man's woman, her first husband obviously had an upper hand on her and her new relationship because he could, at any time, scream adultery and have them both stoned. In other words, it was a means of control and extortion. Thus, you must be careful to consider whether Jesus is talking about giving her a certificate of divorce or if He is talking about dismissing her without one.