You won't find a consistent view on the monogamous side about polygamy either. 'Consistent' and 'consensus' are not realistic goals. Why does it matter? Why do you care?
-
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.
Mark 10:11-12.. any definitive understanding here?
- Thread starter AgnosticBoy
- Start date
You won't find a consistent view on the monogamous side about polygamy either. 'Consistent' and 'consensus' are not realistic goals. Why does it matter? Why do you care?
My goal is to try to get to a consistent view by using logic to determine which of the common 4 or 5 polygamy-friendly interpretations are correct. They can't all be true when they conflict with each other. The reason I'm big on this is because Jesus's teachings on divorce and remarriage (like in Mark 10:11-12) tend to be the monogamist strongest arguments. They are fairly consistent on pointing out that the reason REMARRIAGE is banned is because the first marriage is still in place. To address their view, it not only takes going over what OT adultery was but also how that concept carried over into the NT (it did not change to fit the monogamy view), and it is here that polygamists have a weak spot because they lack CONSISTENCY in explaining just how the husband in Mark 10 commits adultery.
So it would be nice to have a consistent answer to supply them with to help eliminate their doubt or help them change their position altogether. If you don't care about consistency, then you don't have to participate here because it seems some might be taking this way too personal.
@ZecAustin is right Scripture never contradicts Scripture. It man's interterpitaion, whether from cultural bias or lack of understanding or willfull twisting of scripture to fullfill a personal need to remake G-d in our own image, that contradicts Scripture. Scripture builds upon the understanding and Jesus explains it.
Leviticus 20:10
If there is a man who commits adultery with another man's wife, one who commits adultery with his friend's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
Deuteronomy 5:18
'You shall not commit adultery.
Malachi 2:15
"But not one has done so who has a remnant of the Spirit. And what did that one do while he was seeking a godly offspring? Take heed then to your spirit, and let no one deal treacherously against the wife of your youth.
Mark 10:11-12
11 He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against his wife; 12 and if a wife divorces her husband and marries another man, she too commits adultery.”
Matthew 19:9
9 Now what I say to you is that whoever divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery!”
Luke 16:18
18 Every man who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and a man who marries a woman divorced by her husband commits adultery.
When it comes to interpretation of scripture Jesus is the stop all. He's the authority.
Mathew 23:8
But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth your father, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Christ. The greatest among you shall be your servant. For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
The reason he is the authority is because they are his commandments in the first place. All understanding come from the teacher (Holy Spirit), the father (G-d), or the instructor (Jesus).
Just because there's no consensus on understanding is not a weak point, in looking at it in a spirtual sense . It is seen as a weak point from the outside the blood of Christ, because of disbelief. It's the absence of faith that makes it possible to declare part of scripture as a weak point because it's meaning isn't gift wrapped with a pretty bow. Part of spiritual growth is dedicating time for study and prayer to attempt to gain a better understanding of scripture. Sometimes it's fruitful sometimes it's a lesson in patience or obedience. In the case of this peice of scripture I see it as a lesson in obedience. A way to prevent adultery. Like @ZecAustin said don't divorce and follow the definition of adultery and your less likely to commit adultery.
Edit: I included the previous statement because of the reference to there being a weakness in scripture. It's easy to over look the fact that your speaking about trying to counter arguements with a purely logical use of scripture without the relavent scriptural support and shared faith that we have on this forum. A lot of us have the understand that scripture is a sword to be wielded with skill (faith) and honed with practice (understanding). As some one who forges knives and swords I pride myself on not handing over blades with stress points (weak points). I have seen people abuse and miss handle a blade then turn around and blame stress points when it breaks. Any of the sharp responses you are receiving is coming from the way your handling the sword or at least the way your preicieved as handling it.
When using this in an arguement of pure logic, first you need to recognize this is talking about divorce not marriage. So it is not scripture that can be wielded against polygamy which is about adding wives and not divorcing them. The Monogamy only camp likes to obfuscate that fact in their need to twist scripture to fit their arguement.
The discussion, for some, is still open to debate who is available to be remarried, but there is no logical anti polygamist marriage arguement here.
Last edited:
AB, you're hammering certain points you seem to be stuck on, which is your prerogative, but this is getting a little old, and the bottom line is we don't care what hard-liner monogamists are stuck on or see as inconsistent. The mainstream church culture can't figure out marriage, divorce, or adultery from the bible, so why should we care what they see as "inconsistent" in our understanding of scripture?
Bottom line: The husband doesn't "commit" adultery "against" his wife. He doesn't commit adultery divorcing his wife, and he doesn't commit adultery marrying more than one wife, so he can't "commit adultery" by divorcing his wife and marrying another. What he can do, stated most clearly in Mt 5, is "cause his wife to commit adultery" by divorcing her for any cause other than her own fooling around. He could also "put adultery on her" or "perpetrate an adultery" (some of the other ways to understand the Greek text) by divorcing her, which seems to be what Jesus had in his mind when he added that otherwise mysterious "and marries another" clause in Mt 19 and Mk 10. And that is easily relatable to the common practice in monogamous cultures (and prevalent in polygamous cultures when a man simply doesn't want to support two wives) of trading in your used wife for a newer model (aka serial polygamy or pseudo-monogamy).
Remember, as pointed out several times already in this thread, Jesus was responding to a question about divorce. Not polygamy. It wasn't about polygamy. Polygamy wasn't an issue for Jews at the time of Christ. Get over it. People who try to make it about polygamy are mistaken at best, if not duplicitous. Not our problem.
So a consistent, defensible position is that in Mt 5 Jesus sua sponte addressed the issue of easy divorce in a list of several things the religious police were doing wrong. Any divorce other than for fornication puts the wife in at least the metaphorical position of committing adultery. Then, when questioned later (Mt19/Mk10), instead of just repeating himself, Jesus actually went to the heart issue, the motive typically underlying divorce 'for every cause'—trading up. But the core message remains the same: Stop winking at easy divorce. Period.
Bottom line: The husband doesn't "commit" adultery "against" his wife. He doesn't commit adultery divorcing his wife, and he doesn't commit adultery marrying more than one wife, so he can't "commit adultery" by divorcing his wife and marrying another. What he can do, stated most clearly in Mt 5, is "cause his wife to commit adultery" by divorcing her for any cause other than her own fooling around. He could also "put adultery on her" or "perpetrate an adultery" (some of the other ways to understand the Greek text) by divorcing her, which seems to be what Jesus had in his mind when he added that otherwise mysterious "and marries another" clause in Mt 19 and Mk 10. And that is easily relatable to the common practice in monogamous cultures (and prevalent in polygamous cultures when a man simply doesn't want to support two wives) of trading in your used wife for a newer model (aka serial polygamy or pseudo-monogamy).
Remember, as pointed out several times already in this thread, Jesus was responding to a question about divorce. Not polygamy. It wasn't about polygamy. Polygamy wasn't an issue for Jews at the time of Christ. Get over it. People who try to make it about polygamy are mistaken at best, if not duplicitous. Not our problem.
So a consistent, defensible position is that in Mt 5 Jesus sua sponte addressed the issue of easy divorce in a list of several things the religious police were doing wrong. Any divorce other than for fornication puts the wife in at least the metaphorical position of committing adultery. Then, when questioned later (Mt19/Mk10), instead of just repeating himself, Jesus actually went to the heart issue, the motive typically underlying divorce 'for every cause'—trading up. But the core message remains the same: Stop winking at easy divorce. Period.
I gather two points from this discussion:
- Very few here care about consistency as in having ONE accurate view on Mark 10 just as we have ONE accurate view on adultery in the OT that no educated person would disagree on. The view you've given me is yet ANOTHER view, not the same that most others have been telling me about here. That is not consistency which is why you ended up in a debate yourself not too long ago with Tim Shipley.
- The administrator has spoken so despite my being respectful the conversation can't continue... I only joined to get this ONE specific response or a push towards it but I'm left more confused and unconvinced than before. I'll try outside sources and only rely on this one for what's good.
Take care all and thanks for the ideas.
Suit yourself, but neither of those takeaways is accurate, especially the second one. Meanwhile, you're continuing a pattern of simply ignoring the ideas that are being presented here and repeating a formula, so you come off as insincere and agenda-driven. Now, your conclusion looks pre-arranged and forced.
If you ever change your mind and want to actually engage with the men here, we'll welcome you back. If not, I hope you find what you're looking for.
If you ever change your mind and want to actually engage with the men here, we'll welcome you back. If not, I hope you find what you're looking for.
No, remarriage is banned when the other woman is "another" of the same sort. Just because the majority of monogamy-only legalists misuse the Matthew and Mark texts to "prove" their wrong belief doesn't make it the right interpretation. If a man takes a woman who has never before been married and divorced, and makes her his own, that is not adultery. It doesn't make any difference whether or not he is already married. Polygyny is always right just like monogamy is always right when divorce or adultery isn't involved. Divorce and adultery complicate monogamy just as much as they complicate polygyny.
If you divorce your wife (which is against God's will) and then she has sexual relations with another man (even if she thinks she is marrying him because she thinks she is clear to re-marry) she is committing adultery.
The definition of adultery is consistent which is sex with a woman that is married to another man. This is not a new definition.
Then this human thinking, that she is free to marry is wrong. She is not free to marry. In fact, she is commiting adultery according to Jesus.
The tie to the original husband must still be in effect despite the human divorce.
Despite the "divorce" she is apparently still bound, thus adultery.
So in sumamry Mark 10:9: "Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate." - You can try, but it is sin.
There are few verses all Christians can agree on. Trying to find consistency is impossible. That's why there are so many flavors of our faith.
It's funny, but the "agnostic" who, by definition, says we can't know for certain if God exists, is trying to nail down a neat, consistent interpretation to three verses in a Bible that supposedly is not reliable enough to prove God exists. So, I am just going to presume you are not agnostic about God, just agnostic about this set of verses.
Or
You've been posting under false pretenses all along. No true agnostic would spend this much time on these verses without a predetermined mindset prior to coming here.
Yes Mark was referring to the OT definition because he didn't redefine it for us. And since where there is no Law no sin can be imputed, if the Law changed and wasn't publicized it's a null and void law and the whole debate is pointless. It's either the OT definition or its a moot point.
But again, this passage is not about adultery. It's about divorce and it states that divorce can lead to adultery. You would need to look up the Laws concerning adultery to further illuminate that topic. You're looking for a pie in a cake box.
BTW- @AgnosticBoy , nobody is running you off from here. Please feel free to comment and post on here on other topics. We are a diverse group with myriad interests. You should be able to find something else of interest here.
I just personally think you came here under false pretenses. If you had been honest from the get go, you wouldn't have seen as firm a response as you are getting now.
But...
Maybe martyr was one of your objectives all along too.
I just personally think you came here under false pretenses. If you had been honest from the get go, you wouldn't have seen as firm a response as you are getting now.
But...
Maybe martyr was one of your objectives all along too.
I respectfully disagree. Mark 10 actually mentions the word "adultery" so it has to do with adultery. In the NT, the husband's adultery was based on his divorce, but in the OT, the husband's adultery was based on the marital status of the woman, and not if the husband divorced or not. There's a clear difference.
I suppose I could keep responding if I have a genuine disagreement but the administration has said this is "getting old". If you're willing, lets discuss/debate this issue one-on-one on another site, preferably a debate site.
Last edited:
If a man doesn't divorce his wife and doesn't marry a divorced wife as a second wife, you have to admit, it would never exclude polygyny...ever. So, we go back to this set of verses being about divorce. Stay away from it and all is good.
You keep mentioning the Catholic position. Why is their position so important? Is their position somehow infallible or the benchmark position? Why are we measuring against their standard? Are you an agnostic Catholic? You keep avoiding my proposition that you are here under false pretenses.
Are you really a lost agnostic soul, or do you have allegiances you forgot to mention?
Sorry to hurt your feelings, AB, but this was old two pages ago (as you've been told in several different ways by several different members here). If you want to take your ball and glove and go home because you don't like the way the game is going, fine. But (a) all I said was this is getting old, as in tedious, as in boring, and (b) if I'm ever speaking in any official capacity here I'll let you know, but otherwise I'm just one of the guys—just another mature male who enjoys kicking ideas around with his friends. Don't blame me if you're throwing in the towel.
Meanwhile, in case you surprise us and stick around, being the 'admin' here means I get to handle certain technical responsibilities necessary to keep the website and discussion forum running. Decisions about how to handle individual discussions and members are made by the 'moderators'.
I will edit my last post because I copied/pasted the wrong point. I meant to address Zec's claim about the OT adultery being the same as NT adultery.
I won't answer these questions they are not respectful.
Shocker....
AB, there's nothing disrespectful about trying to find out more about you. The SOP around here is we ask people to tell us something about themselves over on the Introductions forum, and if your intention is to be a productive and respected member of this community, then you should probably take a shot at that. If that's not your intention, we'll figure it out soon enough whether you answer specific questions or not.
The "false pretense" part is not necessary in the post I quoted. I'm a non-Christian agnostic. I came here to look for a "definitive" view just as post #1 says. I also offered a view that's actually consistently with your view in part, that is, divorce+remarriage is adultery. I go one step further though to say that the view is a new term (an added one, not necessarily one that conflicts) added on to the old terms of adultery.
If I offer an alternative view to the Catholic monogamy view, then I don't want to run into logical problems like trying to maintain that NT adultery is identical to OT adultery. I don't want the problems that tend to come with the other views either.
Not respectful to whom, or what?
Seems to me that lying is not something approved by the Catholic Church. We don't like it here either. I'm specifically calling you out as a deceiver. You came under false pretenses. If you had posted in the Introductions as a Catholic with questions for us, you would have been welcomed with open arms.
You chose another route.
@AgnosticBoy, what makes you think that there is a definitive view? Generally, each of us will have varying perspectives that color the way we understand certain passages. And generally, there are whole schools of thought and denominations of Christians coagulating around certain views based on the same logic: different perspectives, different values, produce different priorities when harmonizing different passages of scripture. Where do you get the idea that there is a definitive view to be found?