How would you refute this argument?

[Otto]

I presume you don't follow OT law regarding food right? Was that not a change?

There are certain topics that are not exclusive to a single interpretation, but have other interpretations that resonate with the rest of Scripture. As Peter wrote - certain things Paul wrote can be easily twisted.

Food law is one such topic. I've studied it out, and believe in the interpretation that the food laws were not done away with. I believe the Creator gives us free will to choose the interpretation ourselves. He gives us a choice.

If we're faithful he's the Creator, then who better than the Architect to know what His creation should eat? Even science testifies against the eating of pig, because (before, during, and after) the cross they still carry parasites. The Creator did not create pigs for human consumption. Pigs will eat anything - even human flesh. So whatever that pig ate - in essence - humans are also eating (which could mean cannibalism):

Ohio Woman, 75, Killed and Partially Eaten by Neighbor's Pigs on Christmas Day, Say Police

Rebecca Westergaard Rigney, 75, was found dead on the front steps of her Ohio home by police after being attacked by two pigs near the residence on Dec. 25, 2024

people.com

Woman Eaten By Her Pigs After She Collapsed

The 56-year-old farmer received fatal injuries after suffering an epileptic fit and collapsing while feeding her pigs.

www.newsweek.com

I'm 34 years old. My household distinguishes between clean and unclean. My body is thankful for it, and I exalt YAH and his Word for the blessings.

His Word is a lamp to our feet. It doesn't matter if the topic is marriage, food, or even money. We can choose sanctification and blessings. We can choose to submit to His Ways (lean not in your own understanding), or we can choose to reject Wisdom and knowledge. He gives the choice, and His Word will not return void; which means at least some will choose sanctification/life/blessings. I like sanctification. You won't be popular among church men for choosing sanctification, but as Paul wrote - "If I'm trying to earn the approval of men, then I would not be a servant of Messiah."

 

[frederick]

I know how to refute virtually every argument against polygamy except the one he's making so that's the only thing to focus on in this discussion: For clarification, the argument is

"if Jesus considers second marriages after divorce adultery (Mk.10:11), How can the second marriage without even the divorce, be non-adulterous?".

Ah... OK. Thanks for the clarification. If drinking wine and getting drunk is a sin, how can drinking any wine be not a sin? Simple, getting drunk is a sin, drinking wine is not. Same thing here. How can a second (third, fourth...) marriage not be sin? Because marriage is not a sin. It's that simple. It is by the law we have the knowledge of sin (Rom. 3:20), and there is no law against taking a woman in marriage when she is free to marry. And, btw, I don't agree with your interpretation of divorce always being a sin. But that's another topic I'll stay away from here because it's been thrashed to death in other threads. Cheers

 

[frederick]

well no that doesn't follow. inheriting the kingdom does not mean one is sinless.

Did I say a person had to be sinless to enter the kingdom? If a person commits adultery once, e.g. David, and is repentant, there is forgiveness. If a man takes a woman married to another man and remains in a sexual relationship with her, he is an adulterer (and she an adulteress). Read 1 Cor. 6:9-10 again. Being an adulterer is a lifestyle sin and no adulterer will inherit the kingdom of God.

 

[Mark C]

We don't presume anything here, but this topic of observing Torah is off limits for discussion at Biblical Families. It has been debated Ad Nauseum. In order to keep the fellowship with like minds, we focus only on the Scriptural teaching on polygyny.

This issue will keep coming up, IMHO, because many of those debates have been deleted or hidden, and people who HAVE those questions, which are not only quite natural, but - I contend - UTTERLY unavoidable - will keep asking them.

And to make at what I consider THE most fundamental, and irrefutable argument for polygyny "off limits" is at the heart of it:

If YHVH "changes NOT," and is, in fact, "the same, yesterday, today, and tomorrow," and therefore began His earthly ministry with that famous speech where He made it clear He would NOT re-Write His Own Instruction (Matthew 5:17-19) and then followed that up with hammering of related example after example (i.e., the whole chapters of Matthew 23, Mark 7, etc) - then not being able to draw the obvious, irrefutable, conclusion is like arguing in a vacuum:

That He NEVER CHANGED His Instruction about marriage, either.

 

[YoreyC]

If a man takes a woman married to another man and remains in a sexual relationship with her, he is an adulterer (and she an adulteress). Read 1 Cor. 6:9-10 again. Being an adulterer is a lifestyle sin and no adulterer will inherit the kingdom of God.

thats a good point. i never thought of it that way.

perhaps anti-P would argue they repented at one point and stopped sleeping with their other wives.

but this is refuted by the law that says you have to.

interesting.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Polygamy is adultery based on Mark 10:11.

Scenario 1:

1. Man marries woman (creates obligation to be faithful)

2. Man divorces her (obligation still exists)

3. Man remarries (violates obligation, adultery)

Scenario 2:

1. Man marries woman (creates obligation to be faithful)

2. Man marries second woman (violates obligation, adultery)

In both scenarios, the first marriage is the necessary condition that makes the second marriage adultery. The first marriage creates the obligation that the second marriage violates. The divorce doesn't create the obligation. Therefore, a second marriage, with or without a divorce of the first marriage, is adultery.

Mark 10:11 ESV And he said to them, “And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.”

This person argues this constitutes a change between covenants, so I don't think any OT precedents will affect him, use NT only if possible or is there a fallacy within the argument itself?

Your second scenario is completely made up with a false assumption. The first marriage does not carry a requirement to “be faithful”.

It is not the first marriage that is determinative here, it is the putting away. Without the putting away a man could take a second wife and be in perfect compliance with this verse.

 

[The Revolting Man]

My position until now has been that there's no writs of divorce for Christians (Mt.19:9) for any reason. Augustine made the point that if adultery was the exception Jesus is speaking of, it follows all remarriages would be legitimate, because those married without cause would be adulterous, and those with cause of adultery, obviously, are also adulterous. I believe the exception is referring to engagements like Joseph putting Mary away, not marriage. Joseph's 'putting away' story is only mentioned in Matthew, the exception is only mentioned in Matthew. Luke and Mark say if you divorce remarry you're an adulterer for remarrying, no exceptions given.

So I'm trying to understand if polygamy (without divorce) is or isn't legitimate in the new covenant.

Augustine was very good on many issues but he got marriage completely wrong, to the extent that he sent away his wife unrighteously.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Quick reminder; WE WILL NOT BE DEBATING TORAH KEEPING.

I have deleted several posts from multiple people. What’s left is acceptable. It’s one thing to acknowledge the debate but we won’t be having it.

 

[Man_in_the_Middle]

Divorce is not a sin if it does not violate this scripture.

1Jn 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.


Polygny is not a sin if it does not violate this scripture.

1Jn 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Same is true for all other supposed "Sins".

1Jn 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

 

[YoreyC]

I don’t know why some men stopped issuing certificate of divorces. Perhaps someone in a position of authority came up with the idea of charging money for a “certificate of divorce.” So some men perhaps didn’t want to pay the fee, and simply decided not to get it.

i think its more efficient that its just run of the mill abuse of power.

say you have some trivial problem with your wife. good enough to bother you, but not good enough to be a rightful divorce.

so, put her away, instead of working it out like you should.

you could also be being petty and vindictive.

or, worse and more to jesus' words, trying to trap her in technical adultery so you can legally have her executed.

this is what jesus was talking about when they asked if it was lawful to divorce for any reason.

 

[Man_in_the_Middle]

i think its more efficient that its just run of the mill abuse of power.

say you have some trivial problem with your wife. good enough to bother you, but not good enough to be a rightful divorce.

so, put her away, instead of working it out like you should.

you could also be being petty and vindictive.

or, worse and more to jesus' words, trying to trap her in technical adultery so you can legally have her executed.

this is what jesus was talking about when they asked if it was lawful to divorce for any reason.

except, they did not ask him if it was lawful to divorce for any reason. They asked, if it was lawful to put away for any reason... Check the Greek word used if your translation states divorce instead....

 

[YoreyC]

thats fine.

 

[Mark C]

AND men were 'putting away' their wives (and putting them on the street, where - guess what would end up happening?) so He said, properly translated, that those men - who put away wives they were STILL MARRIED TO - had CAUSED THEM to commit adultery.

A whole different deal...

 

[Man_in_the_Middle]

thats fine.

Many people think it is a distinction without a difference. That is incorrect.

1. A woman that has been given a certificate of divorce and put away is free to go and be another man's woman.

2. A woman who has not been given a certificate of divorce is committing adultery even if she has been put away.

In the second case, her sin of adultery is committed DUE TO her still current husband and he BEARS that sin, making him guilty of adultery.

If he had granted the cert of divorce as well as put her away, there would be no adultery for either of them to bear.

 

[Mark C]

I agree the burden of proof is on him to show the new covenant prohibits polygamy going forward, I was just addressing the argument that Jesus not changing a jot of the law doesn't necessitate marriage can't be redefined IF it can be proven prohibited in NT.

Would you like to play poker with "living rules?"

Where a straight flush, for example, can be 'redefined' even if a 'jot' of the rules isn't changed?

What the heck does that even mean???

 

[YoreyC]

he didnt say the rules would never change, he said they would always be there.

 

[Otto]

except, they did not ask him if it was lawful to divorce for any reason. They asked, if it was lawful to put away for any reason... Check the Greek word used if your translation states divorce instead....

Yep, and His answer is for the case of sexual immorality. So if she has already done the deed herself, then putting her away brings no guilt upon the husband. Why? Because she has already committed adultery. If it's anything it's being gracious towards her.

One clear example is Jospeh when he presumed that Mary committed adultery against him:

Matthew 1:19
And her husband Joseph, since he was a righteous man and did not want to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly.

The KJV says "Put Away." Some newer translations use "divorce", which is a major mis-translation. The Greek says "apolysai." which is the same Greek word that shows up when Yahoshua "apolysai" the crowds. No - he didn't "divorce" the crowds. He sent away the crowds. Big difference.

 

[Shadowjak's Dancer]

His argument revolves around New and Old covenant law differences, so while he agrees their in heaven, like Abraham (despite his incest with Sarah) things are legitimate until they are prohibited. So he'd agree David didn't sin with multiple wives, just that the new covenant prohibts us from it via Jesus change from Moses law in Mt.19:8 and Mk.10:10.

I know how to refute virtually every argument against polygamy except the one he's making so that's the only thing to focus on in this discussion: For clarification, the argument is

"if Jesus considers second marriages after divorce adultery (Mk.10:11), How can the second marriage without even the divorce, be non-adulterous?".

At least as far as divorce is concerned Jesus is definitely changing what was expected under Moses law,
and If divorce and remarriage is cheating on the first wife (in NT), why is remarriage without divorce (i.e. polygamy) not also cheating (in NT)?

To me, this is very simple: if Jesus wanted to prohibit all forms of taking a second wife, to include post-unjust divorce as well as if a man is already married, He could have easily said so. The argument assumes that one must be single to be eligible for marriage, but then He could simply have said: anyone who marries/haves sex with another woman after he takes a wife is an adulterer.

So, what we are really looking at here is a scenario of a "COMPOUND-CONDITION"

Condition 1: a man can fire his gun at a wall.
Condition 2: another man stands between the gun and the wall.

If these things happen at separate times: no deadly outcomes occur.

However
If conditions 1 and 2 compound into a singe scenario, you have a problem.


Thus, the problem is that the man is breaking one covenant unjustly AND ALSO re-assigning the covenant rights to someone else entire rather than maintaining covenant rights of woman 1 and offering covenant rights to woman 2 also.

There are many elements inbthis world which alone aren't a problem. Some, like ingredients mixed into a cake, can be awesome... and some, when compounded, are highly volatile.

Flour alone does not a cake make.

Simply put: it's a If x+y, then: z proposition.

x+y=z
DOES NOT NECESSARILY EQUAL
w+y=z
or
v+y=z

X= unjust divorce
Y=marrying additional woman
Z= adutery
V=death of first wife
W=faithfully providing marital duties to wife #1

Why? Because these are all different conditions in different compounds.

Its circular to assume polygyny as being adultery and then use it as a premise to prove polygyny is adultery.

Perhaps not what is being done here, per se, but when you strip away the vast majority of the arguments, it all comes down to the original assumption chasing its own tail.

The unspoken assumption is that, somehow, a man moving from the taken category to the single category is the natural progression towards being able to righteously marry - so long as its not unjust progression. Why must that be the supposed natural progression? Well, because polygyny is adultery, and one must be righteously single in order to be eligible for marriage, or course.

If you take away that assumption, and ask for that to be demonstrated without circular reasoning, the entire M-O argument structure falls apart. Every time.

Never seen a single argument that can stand past the terminus of the circular reasoning flaw.

 

[YoreyC]

if she has already done the deed herself, then putting her away brings no guilt upon the husband. Why? Because she has already committed adultery. If it's anything it's being gracious towards her.

it might be to hope for reconciliation, but i don't think it's always gracious. it might also be punitive to her, or gracious to whatever man might be duped into marrying a betrayer.

Matthew 1:19
And her husband Joseph, since he was a righteous man and did not want to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly.

The KJV says "Put Away." Some newer translations use "divorce", which is a major mis-translation. The Greek says "apolysai." which is the same Greek word that shows up when Yahoshua "apolysai" the crowds. No - he didn't "divorce" the crowds. He sent away the crowds. Big difference.

from what i understand apoluo and aphiemi can be translated either. its apostasion which seems to necessarily be divorce.

 

[MiddleEastMissionary]

To me, this is very simple: if Jesus wanted to prohibit all forms of taking a second wife, to include post-unjust divorce as well as if a man is already married, He could have easily said so. The argument assumes that one must be single to be eligible for marriage, but then He could simply have said: anyone who marries/haves sex with another woman after he takes a wife is an adulterer.

So, what we are really looking at here is a scenario of a "COMPOUND-CONDITION"

Condition 1: a man can fire his gun at a wall.
Condition 2: another man stands between the gun and the wall.

If these things happen at separate times: no deadly outcomes occur.

However
If conditions 1 and 2 compound into a singe scenario, you have a problem.


Thus, the problem is that the man is breaking one covenant unjustly AND ALSO re-assigning the covenant rights to someone else entire rather than maintaining covenant rights of woman 1 and offering covenant rights to woman 2 also.

There are many elements inbthis world which alone aren't a problem. Some, like ingredients mixed into a cake, can be awesome... and some, when compounded, are highly volatile.

Flour alone does not a cake make.

Simply put: it's a If x+y, then: z proposition.

x+y=z
DOES NOT NECESSARILY EQUAL
w+y=z
or
v+y=z

X= unjust divorce
Y=marrying additional woman
Z= adutery
V=death of first wife
W=faithfully providing marital duties to wife #1

Why? Because these are all different conditions in different compounds.

Its circular to assume polygyny as being adultery and then use it as a premise to prove polygyny is adultery.

Perhaps not what is being done here, per se, but when you strip away the vast majority of the arguments, it all comes down to the original assumption chasing its own tail.

The unspoken assumption is that, somehow, a man moving from the taken category to the single category is the natural progression towards being able to righteously marry - so long as its not unjust progression. Why must that be the supposed natural progression? Well, because polygyny is adultery, and one must be righteously single in order to be eligible for marriage, or course.

If you take away that assumption, and ask for that to be demonstrated without circular reasoning, the entire M-O argument structure falls apart. Every time.

Never seen a single argument that can stand past the terminus of the circular reasoning flaw.

This is the thinking I was after. Say the man marries 3 wives, afterwards he divorces one of them, so he stays with the other 2 but may not take any future wives until reconciled with the divorced one?