I have a question and maybe its already been answered here? My parents tell me that when Christ came He denounced a man having more than one wife, that marriage is supposed to be an exclusive thing between one man/one woman....where in the Bible would I find that? What gets me is in the old testament you do find polygamy and there are some passages I read that seem to support it. Two that I think of is, "Be fruitful...multiply!" And "Where two or three are gathered in my name...."
-
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.
questions
- Thread starter jasmine
- Start date
Hello Jasmine,
It is true that Christ fulfilled the OT Mosaic law Code and introduced the New Covenant Law Code with a new law code with it. One can read this in 2 Corinthians 3 where there is a clear contrast between the old covenant that faded away and the new covenant that came to replace the temporary Mosaic Covenant.In that some laws were adjusted because of Christ's fulfillment.
For example, we no longer are obligated under the law of Christ to go and make animal sacrifices. That came to an end with Christ. That is just one example of a change in the law code from Moses to Christ.
But many laws that Moses gave from God are also restated by God through Christ in the NC era. The sexual immorality laws that were of the Mosaic Code were re-stated and thus are obligatory for the NC believer in Christ today. Therefore, Christ's model actually endorses a multiple covenant union of a man to a woman or more than one woman in a covenant union. Christ's teaching on what is a covenant union, what is a divorce or putting away, and what constitutes adultery did not change. The laws on adultery are restated in the NT and thus there is no difference in the OT law on what constituted adultery and what constituted adultery in the NC era.
You can read more about that here in this detailed article that addresses your question in full detail.
viewtopic.php?f=57&t=2106
Also, you can read further into the law code issue with this other link below. Basically the 613 laws of Moses are fulfilled in Christ and thus when one now unites to Christ they are obligated to follow the Law of Christ. If the Law of Christ does not repeat the Mosaic Law explicitly then it is one of the laws that is no longer universally binding on all people at all times because once fulfilled by Christ he introduced a new covenant and new law code as Hebrews 7:12 (see 11-22), Romans 10:1-4, and all of Galatians 3 teaches us. Jews (or any person who so desires), are, however, free to practice their Jewish customs as the law code is holy (Romans 7:12). But they are not able or authorized by the Word of God to mandate or require anyone follow any OC law that is not re-stated by the NC. That was forever settled by the Apostles at the Jerusalem conference (see Acts 15, especially verse 19). Gentiles have no obligation to follow any Mosaic Law code that is not restated in the NC. Those who still seek to require all to follow the Mosaic code in all places at all times are guilty of legalism and in opposition Scripture as the Association of Messianic Congregations have pointed out so well. You can read fully about this here in this link:
viewtopic.php?f=57&t=1811
But, with all honest recognition of some adjustments of the requirements of the Mosaic law, even while recognizing that, that does not change the doctrine of a covenant union. This is a trans-covenant issue in that the doctrine for a covenant union is uniform in its essence throughout all portions of Scripture. The covenant union doctrine of a man uniting to a woman remains constant through all law codes. The law of God before Moses authorized this type of union, the law of Moses authorized this union, and the Law of Christ authorizes this type of covenant union. The laws in this area are not altered or changed or adjusted in the sense that a man may build his covenant family with multiple ladies in it.
I hope those links help you. If you have any other questions then let me know.
It is true that Christ fulfilled the OT Mosaic law Code and introduced the New Covenant Law Code with a new law code with it. One can read this in 2 Corinthians 3 where there is a clear contrast between the old covenant that faded away and the new covenant that came to replace the temporary Mosaic Covenant.In that some laws were adjusted because of Christ's fulfillment.
For example, we no longer are obligated under the law of Christ to go and make animal sacrifices. That came to an end with Christ. That is just one example of a change in the law code from Moses to Christ.
But many laws that Moses gave from God are also restated by God through Christ in the NC era. The sexual immorality laws that were of the Mosaic Code were re-stated and thus are obligatory for the NC believer in Christ today. Therefore, Christ's model actually endorses a multiple covenant union of a man to a woman or more than one woman in a covenant union. Christ's teaching on what is a covenant union, what is a divorce or putting away, and what constitutes adultery did not change. The laws on adultery are restated in the NT and thus there is no difference in the OT law on what constituted adultery and what constituted adultery in the NC era.
You can read more about that here in this detailed article that addresses your question in full detail.
viewtopic.php?f=57&t=2106
Also, you can read further into the law code issue with this other link below. Basically the 613 laws of Moses are fulfilled in Christ and thus when one now unites to Christ they are obligated to follow the Law of Christ. If the Law of Christ does not repeat the Mosaic Law explicitly then it is one of the laws that is no longer universally binding on all people at all times because once fulfilled by Christ he introduced a new covenant and new law code as Hebrews 7:12 (see 11-22), Romans 10:1-4, and all of Galatians 3 teaches us. Jews (or any person who so desires), are, however, free to practice their Jewish customs as the law code is holy (Romans 7:12). But they are not able or authorized by the Word of God to mandate or require anyone follow any OC law that is not re-stated by the NC. That was forever settled by the Apostles at the Jerusalem conference (see Acts 15, especially verse 19). Gentiles have no obligation to follow any Mosaic Law code that is not restated in the NC. Those who still seek to require all to follow the Mosaic code in all places at all times are guilty of legalism and in opposition Scripture as the Association of Messianic Congregations have pointed out so well. You can read fully about this here in this link:
viewtopic.php?f=57&t=1811
But, with all honest recognition of some adjustments of the requirements of the Mosaic law, even while recognizing that, that does not change the doctrine of a covenant union. This is a trans-covenant issue in that the doctrine for a covenant union is uniform in its essence throughout all portions of Scripture. The covenant union doctrine of a man uniting to a woman remains constant through all law codes. The law of God before Moses authorized this type of union, the law of Moses authorized this union, and the Law of Christ authorizes this type of covenant union. The laws in this area are not altered or changed or adjusted in the sense that a man may build his covenant family with multiple ladies in it.
I hope those links help you. If you have any other questions then let me know.
This "myth" (my humble opinion shared by many others here) comes from Christ's pronouncements on divorce, in Matthew 19. It requires looking at the passage with the express understanding that marriage = monogamy only. The reasoning is essentially circular. Examine it for yourself:
Next, they rip Moses as a false prophet, which invalidates the whole foundation on which the Gospel is built. Jesus keeps the law and states it is God's law, not part of it being Moses editorializing and part being God's law, but all God's law. He does this most definitively in Matthew 5. We know that the obedience to DIVINE law is what spurs Joseph to seek a divorce, not his own sinful hard heartedness. Notice we're staying in Matthew for this whole explanation.
Lastly I'll deal with their most credible grounds for stating this passage deals with polygyny and Jesus denying it as marriage:
In my humble opinion, it is because this passage does not contradict Matthew 19, or confuse it. If the adultery only occurs in the organs of the woman, and the sin of heart is the imagining or desiring of such an act, then Christ is saying the same things in Matthew 19 and 5, both of which help us understand the other. Yes, the adultery occurs in the woman's body, but Matthew 5 tells us the faithless husband who divorced his wife, caused it. If you cause it, are you not responsible for it? Thus in Matthew 19 the husband essentially "adulteries" his ex wife that he divorced unjustly. By God's law given to and through Moses, a divorced woman was her own free agent. It was clear she COULD marry again. Let's lay aside for the moment whether she ought to or not, she clearly could.
Whose sin was it then if the man caused her adultery? The man's, per Matthew 5, for he caused her. So Matthew 19 then says:
It's in the understanding of what Jesus meant by committing adultery against a woman that those who claim this interpretation of their most valid argument. After all, classically, as a Jew, you would think that to be entirely impossible. I think Jesus just said that if you made it happen, you take responsibility for it. If we define adultery as the defilement of a wife's womb, then the passage says that the husband defiled his own wife's womb. We would assume this would be because she has no property, there were no jobs other than harlotry and she would then seek to become the wife of another man for survival. Don't even think she left the house with her own sons, she didn't. She just went out. She could go back to her father's house, but sometimes that too was impossible. She would most likely just go to be another man's wife, and that was the best and most righteous possibility for her. Jesus, in my view, places the responsibility of the sin which then occurs in her body, on her faithless former husband. The woman's womb then merely becomes the geographic area where the sin takes place, and she is not the sinner.
The interpretation you have been presented with assumes a word not used. We would read the portion of Matthew 19 that they refer to this way:
The two italicized "only" usages are not present, but are assumed to be there by the readers that tell you this is true. Their assertion also depends on the following:
This is also twisted. The phrase "hardness of heart" is generally the same as just saying "sinful condition." To paraphrase what they think this means it would be:
Yet this is in direct conflict with an earlier passage in Matthew, the very first Chapter as a matter of fact, and the first meaningful comment in the Gospel of Matthew after the Genealogies he gives.
It does not say "Joseph, being a sinful man, was minded to put her away" but "Joseph, being a JUST man." The Greek word translated to "Just" means "observing the DIVINE laws." So they are wrong on both counts. The word "only" is not used in the places I say they use it in assumed fashion, they just assume it based on their circular reasoning and cultural conditioning.
Next, they rip Moses as a false prophet, which invalidates the whole foundation on which the Gospel is built. Jesus keeps the law and states it is God's law, not part of it being Moses editorializing and part being God's law, but all God's law. He does this most definitively in Matthew 5. We know that the obedience to DIVINE law is what spurs Joseph to seek a divorce, not his own sinful hard heartedness. Notice we're staying in Matthew for this whole explanation.
Lastly I'll deal with their most credible grounds for stating this passage deals with polygyny and Jesus denying it as marriage:
This was a shocker to the Jews as they did not see men as "committing adultery" by doing anything to a wife of their own. Adultery by their definition occurred only in the body of a woman, in her sexual organs. Literally. The only other kind would be the imagining of or desire to commit that act, the sin of adultery of the heart. A concept they did understand through the law before Christ. Let's go to Jesus again, and Matthew's gospel, also in Chapter 5, where he talks about the law and, oh, adultery again:
The last part echoes entirely Matthew 19 (or more rightly, Matthew 19 echoes Matthew 5). But what of this first part? The part where the man "CAUSETH his wife to commit adultery?" This seems different and contradictory. How does a woman commit adultery unless she actually does it in heart or mind or body?
In my humble opinion, it is because this passage does not contradict Matthew 19, or confuse it. If the adultery only occurs in the organs of the woman, and the sin of heart is the imagining or desiring of such an act, then Christ is saying the same things in Matthew 19 and 5, both of which help us understand the other. Yes, the adultery occurs in the woman's body, but Matthew 5 tells us the faithless husband who divorced his wife, caused it. If you cause it, are you not responsible for it? Thus in Matthew 19 the husband essentially "adulteries" his ex wife that he divorced unjustly. By God's law given to and through Moses, a divorced woman was her own free agent. It was clear she COULD marry again. Let's lay aside for the moment whether she ought to or not, she clearly could.
Whose sin was it then if the man caused her adultery? The man's, per Matthew 5, for he caused her. So Matthew 19 then says:
We would also know from Exodus 21 that he had done much the same thing as turning her into a concubine (a woman who was a wife though not of marriage) and then replacing her (which Exodus 21 says frees her entirely).
It's in the understanding of what Jesus meant by committing adultery against a woman that those who claim this interpretation of their most valid argument. After all, classically, as a Jew, you would think that to be entirely impossible. I think Jesus just said that if you made it happen, you take responsibility for it. If we define adultery as the defilement of a wife's womb, then the passage says that the husband defiled his own wife's womb. We would assume this would be because she has no property, there were no jobs other than harlotry and she would then seek to become the wife of another man for survival. Don't even think she left the house with her own sons, she didn't. She just went out. She could go back to her father's house, but sometimes that too was impossible. She would most likely just go to be another man's wife, and that was the best and most righteous possibility for her. Jesus, in my view, places the responsibility of the sin which then occurs in her body, on her faithless former husband. The woman's womb then merely becomes the geographic area where the sin takes place, and she is not the sinner.
Another good passage, Jasmine, is found in Ecclesiastes 4:9-12, which starts and ends, "Two are better than one, ... and a threefold cord is not easily broken."
As to the assertion that there's a Biblical verse clearly announcing the one-man-one-woman doctrine. Offer a $1,000 or $1,000,000 reward for it. Don't worry. You won't have to pay. Doesn't exist!
Don't worry. You're on the right track. Let God's Word be right, and every man a liar.
As to the assertion that there's a Biblical verse clearly announcing the one-man-one-woman doctrine. Offer a $1,000 or $1,000,000 reward for it. Don't worry. You won't have to pay. Doesn't exist!
Don't worry. You're on the right track. Let God's Word be right, and every man a liar.
jasmine said:
That would be an excellent question to ask your parents.
jasmine said:
Actually I think the second quote is from the New Testament and you are the first one that I have read to apply it to polygamy, but I like it.
In the resources section of this site are some links to deeper discussions of polygamy and the Bible. One I like is this one:
http://www.blainerobison.com/concerns/polygamy.htm
Chris
blitziod
New Member
Jasmine, what you have to ask yourself is "Is God forever , eternal and unchanging?" or "Does God change all the time?". If something is evil it is always evil and if it is good it is always good.
Even the dietary laws which many claim where done away with by the messiah where not claims that pork or shrimp where evil, just "unclean" for jews to eat ( rightous gentiles where still able to go to heaven). Being unclean was not a sin, in fact the messiah himself would have been unclean after touching a dead person, a lepper or a woman on her menses. However he did not sin.
Even the dietary laws which many claim where done away with by the messiah where not claims that pork or shrimp where evil, just "unclean" for jews to eat ( rightous gentiles where still able to go to heaven). Being unclean was not a sin, in fact the messiah himself would have been unclean after touching a dead person, a lepper or a woman on her menses. However he did not sin.
Hey Jasmine,
Jesus never once denounced plural marriage. Neither did Peter (according to catholic tradition, the first pope), or James (the brother of Jesus). Mary, the mother of Jesus, never denounced it. The Apostle Paul never denounced it. NO FIRST OR SECOND CENTURY "SAINT" (as defined by the Catholic Church) ever denounced plural marriage. As a matter of fact, it WAS NEVER AN ISSUE until the third century, when the church became 'romanized', and then suddenly plural marriage became a crime.
However, even though plural marriage was criminalized, having a mistress was not. This hypocritical sentiment continued for centuries.
There is not one single instance in the Scriptures that plural marriage is denounced. On the contrary, God set up very specific rules in the Old Testament Law REGULATING marriage, including plural marriage. It seems to me that God had plenty of opportunity to say, "THOU SHALT NOT", but chose not to.
Jesus never once denounced plural marriage. Neither did Peter (according to catholic tradition, the first pope), or James (the brother of Jesus). Mary, the mother of Jesus, never denounced it. The Apostle Paul never denounced it. NO FIRST OR SECOND CENTURY "SAINT" (as defined by the Catholic Church) ever denounced plural marriage. As a matter of fact, it WAS NEVER AN ISSUE until the third century, when the church became 'romanized', and then suddenly plural marriage became a crime.
However, even though plural marriage was criminalized, having a mistress was not. This hypocritical sentiment continued for centuries.
There is not one single instance in the Scriptures that plural marriage is denounced. On the contrary, God set up very specific rules in the Old Testament Law REGULATING marriage, including plural marriage. It seems to me that God had plenty of opportunity to say, "THOU SHALT NOT", but chose not to.
DocInMO said:
Tertullian makes some of the same arguments that anti-polygnists make today. Ironically he argues that people are not supposed to have lots of children today like in the past, therefor polygamy is no longer ok, this creates severe problems for Roman Catholics who claim to have successfully handed down the original deposit of faith unchanged because they now forbid birth control, in spite of Tertullian saying people do not need to have so many children today therefor it is OK to forbid polygyny. This is good reason to suspect that the Roman Catholic Church is a false religion.
Anti-polygynists argue that Genesis 2 forbids a man from having more than one wife but you will not read that ANYWHERE in Genesis 2 and if you do please show me where.
They then argue Jesus interpretation of Genesis 2 in Mark 10 and Mathew 19 forbid polygyny but it does not it forbids the COMBINATION of BOTH divorce and an additional marriage in SOME cases not all cases because there are listed exceptions.
He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.
Mark 10:11 NIV 2011
I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
Mathew 19:9 NIV 2011
These only forbid the combination of both and are silent on divorce or marrying another woman individually
But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
Mathew 5:32 NIV 2011
Divorce individually can be adultery. Therefor divorce + marrying another can be adultery also. But it does not clarify that marrying another and not divorcing is adultery.
Needless to say there are specific cases where marrying an additional woman is adultery but the general rule is that it is permitted. See exodus 21 and Deuteronomy 21, 22, 24, and 25. The word man refers to a man who is either married or unmarried. Indicating that a married man may marry an additional women.
Needless to say a woman is forbidden from being married to more than one man at the same time Romans 7:3 and Deuteronomy 22.