• 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.

Does Matthew 19:9 speak against polygamy?

PolyPride

PolyPride

Member
Matthew 19:9 9 [Jesus speaking] "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

I couldn't find any topics devoted to just this verse which some have used to say that polygamy is adultery so I decided to start a topic on it. I have my views but I also wanted to know everyone else views. I asked myself why would a man remarrying another woman be an adulterer if polygamy which involves having a second marriage for the second wife is okay with God. Would this really mean that polygamy is a sin or does Matthew 19:9 show a contradiction in the Bible in which both pro and anti sides of polygamy have biblically supported reasons. On another forum I was reading, one person made this argument,

"I would have to base any arguments against polygamy on Matt 19. If a man divorced from one wife is an adulterer if he marries another, then surely the man who does not bother with the divorce before embarking on the second marriage is even more surely an adulterer."

http://forum.preachersfiles.com/viewtop ... =100&t=918 (the 3rd post down)



The person's argument that I cited clearly conflicts with all of the clear Godly instructions/prescriptions, blessings (God blessing Jacob's wives through childbearing so Jacob would love "both" of them), God using Himself in an example as being a polygamist, etc and my following explanation doesn't. Another thing I would question in this person's argument is that Matthew 19:9 also sets a condition to which monogamous marriages is not permitted (since the husband can't marry not even one woman), does that also mean that monogamous marriage is a sin? My view is that Matthew 19:9 at best is setting a condition for polygamy for how it should be practiced rather than prohibiting it entirely. The condition is that you can't marry a 2nd wife and of course another wife after that which is where polygamy comes in, if any of your divorces are for an unbiblical reason (reasons not involving sexual immorality). But you can of course remarry again and remarry however many women you want if you did divorce your first wife due to sexual immorality. The interesting pattern is that Matthew 19:9 would prohibit both a monogamous marriage and polygamy and not just polygamy and that is the case if a husband divorces his wife for the wrong reason, but if he divorces a wife for reasons involving sexual immorality, then a husband can start a monogamous marriages and then a polygamy if his remarriage(s) involves more than one woman.

Feel free to give input or any other views. Thanks.
 
Another way Matthew 19:9 may be used against polygamy by someone is if someone mentions that if a polygamists unlawfully divorces one wife, wouldn't him being with his other wife or wives lead him to adultery since those are the other women that he's married to.

Matthew 19:9 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.

My view on this is that the husband is not committing adultery by being married to other wives besides the one he unlawfully divorced. I say this because there can be a difference between being married and remarrying. Matthew 19:9 refers to remarriage since it's talking about a marriage taking place after the unlawful divorce. If a polygamous husband was married to all of his wives before he unlawfully divorced one of them, then the wife that he remains with is not a product of a remarriage because he was already married to her prior to the divorce of the other wife. The only thing that the husband would not be able to do is perhaps marry another woman (which would be a new 2nd wife) since he unlawfully divorced one wife UNLESS he takes back the woman that he unlawfully divorced, then he can remarry his divorced wife and even other women. Sorry if this is not clear or a bit long but I'm just simply trying to explain that there can be a difference between being married and remarriage when it comes to a divorce in a polygamous marriage.
 
"ADULTERY" --- na`aph (pronounced: naw-af') in the Hebrew means, "WOMAN that breaketh wedlock". This applies to the Matthew 19:9 verse. Namely, note that (in Matthew 19:9) it is because the first husband CAUSED his first wife to commit adultery (by violating Exodus 21:10, in putting her away so as to "replace her") that he is therefore guilty of CAUSING her adultery. That is HOW he is guilty. He had CAUSED his first wife to "break her wedlock contract". And of course, that first wife for "breaking her wedlock contract" with her first husband, and the "second husband" for participating in that act, are both guilty too. But notice, the SECOND WIFE is not guilty of anything. And if the first husband had not put away his first wife, but instead kept her as well as marrying the second wife, he would not have CAUSED his first wife to "break her wedlock contract". Hence, he would not have been guilty of any Adultery in any way. Indeed, Adultery simply and only means "WOMAN that breaketh wedlock".
 
I love biblicalpolygamy.com lol. They make me look smart,lol :lol:
 
All,

If you want to read in interesting discussion about polygyny, please follow the entire thread mentioned in the first post here from the preacherfiles. I had a running discussion with several preachers/leaders in the Church of Christ in the thread. I am still amazed that they continued to chastize me for not accepting their opinions while at the same time refusing to even consider my exegesis of Bible verses.

I'd appreciate your feedback on my posts on the preacherfiles.

In His service and yours,
Dave in Bulgaria
 
Read the timeline of events backward if it helps understanding. There is the women (who was put away) in bed with a new man. This is adultery. Whoever caused this adultery is guilty of adultery. It could be one person, two people, a group of 5 of the original man's friends that advised him to put her away. They may all share in the responsibility and share guilt of this adultery. So the man that put her away is guilty of adultery that occurs. It has nothing to do with him being in bed with a second lady. If anything it admonishes to not put away the first when starting a relationship with a second. His motive for putting away the first is a hard heart (verse 8) and the unwillingness to love and continue support for the first and a lazy lack of responsibility. The verse doesn't attempt to address poly morality and takes it as a given and rather is directed at the wrong action of the man who causes sin. Thats my take.
 
Don't you just HATE it when you talk about ONE thing, and someone else comes along and claims you were talking about SOMETHING ELSE entirely? I do.

So what was the topic here? Divorce!

Jesus is here addressing the DURABILITY of marriage. Read the preceding verses. "Can a man divorce his wife for (just) any reason?" He answers that God designed marriage to be durable, and that men violate this durability at their own spiritual peril.

So where do folks get off claiming he was making a statement about polygamy? QUITE a stretch.

Think of it this way ... Divorce is about DIVISION while Plural Marriage is about ADDITION. We learn the difference in third grade. Apparently theologians forget that small detail.
 
Ok so I used my "Thread Necromonger" card and raised it from the dead and put my input. Granted it is the same as I start off with all of the threads but if they try to argue it I got a whole lot more. So there ya go Mr Dave!

DavidinBulgaria said:
All,

If you want to read in interesting discussion about polygyny, please follow the entire thread mentioned in the first post here from the preacherfiles. I had a running discussion with several preachers/leaders in the Church of Christ in the thread. I am still amazed that they continued to chastize me for not accepting their opinions while at the same time refusing to even consider my exegesis of Bible verses.

I'd appreciate your feedback on my posts on the preacherfiles.

In His service and yours,
Dave in Bulgaria
Click to expand...
 
You are perfectly right Cecil. What Jesus was telling them about was divorce, that was the question that was asked of Him.
The other important thing to consider is the word woman. The Greek had a number of words for woman, each word states what status the woman was, whether she was single, married, or widowed. The word that was used in this case was the word used for a woman who is already married.

The scripture is consistent. Take the time to study carefully when something seems to be contradictory.

Lionking.
 
Lionking said:
You are perfectly right Cecil. What Jesus was telling them about was divorce, that was the question that was asked of Him.
The other important thing to consider is the word woman. The Greek had a number of words for woman, each word states what status the woman was, whether she was single, married, or widowed. The word that was used in this case was the word used for a woman who is already married.

The scripture is consistent. Take the time to study carefully when something seems to be contradictory.

Lionking.
Click to expand...

Thanks for referring to the Greek. Most of my English to Greek concordances/lexicons referenced words mostly from the King James Version, and the word "woman" was not used in Matthew 19:9 in the KJV and NKJV so my concordances didn't have "woman" listed for Matthew 19:9. The word "woman" is used in the NIV and NASB in Matthew 19:9 though.
 
Ha there it is,lol! :lol:
 
Yeah real Christian I had like 3 threats lol. I just wrote what I felt led to write and left it at that. Sad that people feel like they need to send you a private message threatening your life. Oh well just like I told them I am not trying to convince them just trying to tell them to quit hating people for being in a plural marriage. I know churches who let in gays and muslims tho most don't go due too hating the Christian church. I even seen churches trying to invite members of NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association), yet when a man comes in with more then one wife they are turned away. I mean really? They invite a group of pedofiles, but not plural families? That is why I thank God for groups like this. I really do!
 
Don't you just HATE it when you talk about ONE thing, and someone else comes along and claims you were talking about SOMETHING ELSE entirely? I do.

So what was the topic here? Divorce!

...So where do folks get off claiming he was making a statement about polygamy? QUITE a stretch.
Click to expand...


I share your frustration, Cecil. Sometimes people are SOOO anxious to cling to their Sacred Traditions that they are unwilling to even apply basic logic, and prefer instead to take verses not only out of context but out of the realm of reason.

I like to rephrase the quote on such occasions, to remove the issue of The Idol, and ask if they see the point then. Try this one, and note that the syntax is the same as the English (NKJV, in this case):

"And I say unto you, whoever kills his dog, except for rabies, and then gets another, commits dog abuse..."


Is everyone with more than one dog a "dog abuser"?

Or does the statement apply only to those persons that He said it does?


Blessings,
Mark

PS> The verse does actually say "put away", and NOT "divorced". The second clause stands alone for that reason.
 
DavidinBulgaria said:
All,

If you want to read in interesting discussion about polygyny, please follow the entire thread mentioned in the first post here from the preacherfiles. I had a running discussion with several preachers/leaders in the Church of Christ in the thread.
Click to expand...

Oh My! That IS funny. That is not just any Church of Christ preacher. I do not think I have met Don Gelles, but Hyde Park Church of Christ was the church my wife attended growing up, and we both attended when we first moved to Austin. My Mother in Law still goes there!
 
I know this topic was discussed a year or so ago but I still had some questions about it and maybe there's some new insight to be added. Just to reiterate the topic, it was regarding Matthew 19:9 and if that was in conflict with polygamy.

From the 1st post:
Matthew 19:9 "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

Quoted from another member in another forum..
"I would have to base any arguments against polygamy on Matt 19. If a man divorced from one wife is an adulterer if he marries another, then surely the man who does not bother with the divorce before embarking on the second marriage is even more surely an adulterer."

http://forum.preachersfiles.com/viewtop ... =100&t=918 (the 3rd post down)
Click to expand...

Some of the responses I received so far were:
Revgill87123 said:
"ADULTERY" --- na`aph (pronounced: naw-af') in the Hebrew means, "WOMAN that breaketh wedlock". This applies to the Matthew 19:9 verse. Namely, note that (in Matthew 19:9) it is because the first husband CAUSED his first wife to commit adultery (by violating Exodus 21:10, in putting her away so as to "replace her") that he is therefore guilty of CAUSING her adultery. That is HOW he is guilty.
Click to expand...
The above response was posted here.

There's also these responses:
djanakes said:
Dairyfarmer said:
It is not the unlawful marital seperation that causes adultery. Once he remarries then the adultery starts. God has made it so the man can't be with any new women unless he sins whether it be fornication or adultery. Because he didn't fulfill his obligations to the divorced woman, meaning keeping her as family.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree. My understanding is that the marital separation makes them ineligible for remarriage, because of their treacherous dealings. Obviously, having only one wife is easier and less expensive than having multiple wives, so if men were separating and remarrying to avoid having to provide for more than one wife at a time, as others here have suggested, then it makes sense that He would forbid them taking another wife. Basically, if this is how you deal with the one you already have, you’re not permitted another.

Rather than disallow marital separation itself, which was always understood to be permitted under Mosaic law, Jesus simply made it so that marital separation would prevent remarriage without committing adultery. Ironically, this makes His statement agree with preexisting Scripture while raising the bar against marital treachery.

Love in Him,
David
Click to expand...
The above response was posted here. Here's another helpful post, as well here- the last post on the page.

I still have questions. Regarding the first quoted response, I can agree that the husband is responsible for causing his wife to be an adulterer and that's also mentioned in another passage, Matthew 5:32. But this doesn't fully explain the way Matthew 19:9 puts it. Matthew 19:9 (also Mark 10:11 and Luke 16:18) also mentions a separate issue which is the husband taking another wife and then it mentions adultery again for that matter it seems.

In regards to the 2nd quoted post, I can raise the same issue. I understand the husband is putting away the wife for unjustified reasons, but there's still that point about him taking another wife. While the 2nd response calls an unjustified divorce (by a man) combined with a remarriage as being adultery, but that's not what biblical adultery means. How is this man sleeping with another man's wife if the new woman is UNmarried?

Can anyone explain how the above explanations quoted from other members answer my points or is there another explanation. My main objection is that adultery as defined does not fit what the quoted explanations are calling adultery by the man. Don't get me wrong.. those are good explanations but I still see some loopholes that a person may use against polygamy.
 
The adultery is towards the first wife.

No adultery is involved with the second.

The reason for this whole discussion is that Jesus was speaking AGAINST the Greek practice, adopted and excused by many Jews, of REPLACING instead of AUGMENTING their families.

If they wanted to marry someone new, they would first divorce the existing wife, then marry the new.

God's way was to simply marry the new, WHILE maintaining your relationship with the old.

For Greek scholars, there is some fancy stuff that can be seen in the tenses that make it clear. What Jesus is saying is purely that the first wife is being sinned against, and that it is all at the feet of the husband.

Once this is all clearly understood, suddenly we see that Matt 19:9 actually SUPPORTS PM.
 
Perhaps an unconventional understanding, but I believe it is accurate: the man is committing adultery in his unfaithfulness to God by putting away a wife for something other than her unfaithfulness to him. Adultery is *very* commonly used by God to describe the way men turn from Him to their own ways. In consideration of the fact that men are the glory of God and woman the glory of man (e.g. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Corinthians 11:3-10&version=ESV), a man commits adultery against His head when he is unfaithful to God. Thus, a man very much commits adultery (against God - as all sins are committed) when he wrongly puts away a wife joined to him by God. I don't believe it has anything to do with the wife who was put away being forced into another marriage through circumstance at all. Indeed, Matthew 19 says nothing of what the woman who was wrongly put away does; she could remain chaste for the rest of her life and the man who wrongly put her away has still committed adultery, just as Matthew 19:9 actually specifies.

As has already been pointed out here and elsewhere on BF, it is also the case that the specific phrase used (i.e. ...and marries another) identifies that the subject of Jesus' discussion with the Pharisees and His disciples regards a particular kind of sin practiced by the Romans: that of serial monogamy.
 
Love it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top