Do you have more of an explanation posted in another thread that I can read somewhere by any chance?
-
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.
The inconsistencies in arguing polygyny is adultery.
- Thread starter frederick
- Start date
Matthew 5:18 (and Luke 16:17)
The Creator affirms he’s not changing his instructions.
Which btw are already perfect (Psalm 19:7).
God is not a liar, and he doesn’t change. He’s the same yesterday today and tomorrow.
The biblical definition of adultery:
Leviticus 19:29
It’s a married woman (another husband’s property) sleeping with a man that’s not her husband.
My English Bible re-affirms this:
Matthew 5:28 (William Tyndale)
But I say vnto you that whosoeuer looketh on a wyfe lustynge after her hathe comitted advoutrie with hir alredy in his hert.
William Tyndale is the first English translation of the Bible. The KJV is heavily based off of Mr. Tyndale’s work.
The Creator affirms he’s not changing his instructions.
Which btw are already perfect (Psalm 19:7).
God is not a liar, and he doesn’t change. He’s the same yesterday today and tomorrow.
The biblical definition of adultery:
Leviticus 19:29
It’s a married woman (another husband’s property) sleeping with a man that’s not her husband.
My English Bible re-affirms this:
Matthew 5:28 (William Tyndale)
But I say vnto you that whosoeuer looketh on a wyfe lustynge after her hathe comitted advoutrie with hir alredy in his hert.
William Tyndale is the first English translation of the Bible. The KJV is heavily based off of Mr. Tyndale’s work.
Last edited:
It is fairly simple once you grasp it. There were 3 steps required by YHWH for a divorce that leaves the woman free to be another man's. The husband has to write her a get/divorce certificate. He has to put it in her hand. Then he must send her out of his house. After she has left his house she is free to be another man's.
Putting away or sending away is only one part. YHWH says He hates putting away. Jesus said that if a man "put away" his wife for a cause other than pornia (that would be an unlawful marriage like incest or prohibited act like adultery) AND marries another that it is adultery against his wife. The blame for what she will be forced to do is on HIM for not divorcing her properly. This is why the man who marries the "put away" woman is committing adultery too. She is still bound.
Hopefully @Joleneakamama ’s explanation is clearer than mine?
I admit to being too much of a minimalist when it comes to writing concepts, verbally I bore people to tears running my mouth.
Thank you for posting Tyndale’s translation, it is helpful. There may be a few ways of understanding what the Lord means in the very first verses you’ve quoted, but I can see how your interpretation is at the very least seemingly consistent with the interpretive lens being used to expose the other texts!
I was mostly thinking of where the Lord speaks along the lines of “ye have heard it said … but I say unto you,” in Matthew 5 as an example. This sort of clarification afforded by the Lawgiver.
In context, Jesus exposed the wickedness of the Pharisees who were twisting the Scriptures to justify their sin. Adultery begins in the heart with lusting/coveting (same Greek word) after a married woman. A man sending his wife away without a divorce causes her to commit adultery when she becomes the wife of another man. The man who sends away one wife and then takes another woman of this sort commits adultery. Shalom
This is one interpretation, and is certainly the most popular one on this website.
But there are other more prevailing interpretations that see a radical clarification, expansion, or fulfilling/completion of the Law (pick your favorite word) presented in the Sermon on the Mount, as well as other passages such as Acts 15.
Leniences and stringencies were very common in the Old Testament contingent on who was King.
Now that Christ is King, it is really His prerogative to interpret the Law in the context of the newness of the New Covenant.
Jeremiah 31:31-34
God’s instructions/laws will be written in our hearts…not rewritten.
But Jesus wasn’t changing laws necessarily. His sermons readjusted thinking about those laws back to original intents and prevention of abuse.
I think we're probably saying the same thing here, but we may presently land in slightly different places. The 613 Mitzvot didn't have much to say about turning the other cheek, or examining one's thought life in the context of the Decalogue, proselytism (something the Jews today still pride themselves on not doing), etc. Similarly, not to open the whole can of Torah Keeping, but Acts 15 also seems to steer Gentiles toward something that more closely resembles a Noahide or stranger in the land sort of agreement rather than insist upon Mosaic scruples.
We can certainly see that as God reveals Himself over time, things do shift a bit, such as when what Jacob did with Rachel and Leah is later outlawed. It's ultimately His Creation, His Timeline, His People and His Prerogative.
But verse 21 assumes that the new brethren will receive further instruction on Gods eternal law as they spend time in the local synagogues (it was a movement still very centered on the Israelite origins). The council of Jerusalem set the starting point, not the end goal.
Not necessarily, but Jesus pointed them all back to the two foundational laws. That’s the point of a sermon. It distills large areas of scripture into themes or major points.
Love God
Love neighbor
Eye for eye wasn’t about retribution or anger. It was about justice and love. Scripture condones corporal punishment. A parent who administers it for pain and retribution has violated the intent. It shows love to the one receiving the corporal punishment as a means to prevent further transgression. It shows love to society (neighbors) in that it intends to prevent that child from becoming a menace to law and order in the future.
Oh, and by the way, David was very introspective on Gods laws. He understood the deeper connections.
Interesting, thank you both
For some reason I was relating what Steve initially said to the Sermon on the Mount, lolIs this really so? I’m not so sure this can be demonstrated from v21, or argued exegetically, nor do I think we ever see a synagogue constituted with a plurality of elders and deacons. Acts 15:5 and 15:10 would appear to militate against such a reading.
I’m also not sure what purpose churches would serve with a mixture of Jews and Gentiles if Messianic Jews were to abide in synagogues with non-Messianic teaching.
Nevertheless, I rejoice that we have a variety of perspectives on this forum, and that a great number of them are not only earnest, but also orthodox.
I appreciate you Sir!
Exegetically, you can see that the believers still went to the temple to worship. They honored the Sabbath on Saturday and the Lords day on Sunday.
Historically speaking, the early church was very much a sect of Judaism. It wasn’t a clean break like some would think.
@Kojent
The path this thread has gone is one that can sometimes get heated. We’ve been pretty tame around here for a while so I won’t stoke that fire any further. I will just say that many of us have found that the only consistent way to interpret scripture is to be more open to a pronominan mindset, even if we don’t become full on Torah keepers (feasts, etc).
The camp that teaches the new covenant is really a break from God’s law cannot fully support polygyny. That’s why the church at large rejects it. They pick and choose their morality in the law rather than accepting all of it as legitimate, even if they willingly choose to not keep all of it in a profession of Grace.
The path this thread has gone is one that can sometimes get heated. We’ve been pretty tame around here for a while so I won’t stoke that fire any further. I will just say that many of us have found that the only consistent way to interpret scripture is to be more open to a pronominan mindset, even if we don’t become full on Torah keepers (feasts, etc).
The camp that teaches the new covenant is really a break from God’s law cannot fully support polygyny. That’s why the church at large rejects it. They pick and choose their morality in the law rather than accepting all of it as legitimate, even if they willingly choose to not keep all of it in a profession of Grace.
I’m grateful for the grace you’ve shown me in our interactions, friend.
In response I would just say in meekness that New Covenant folks that are pro-polygyny, as well as folks who identify as Reformed and Creedal do, in fact, exist. As do pronomian folk who may appeal more to the Law of Christ than the Law of Moses.
May the LORD bless you.