Monogamy

[Romanseight2005]

Mark 10:11
1 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
KJV
moichao

NT:3429 moichao (moy-khah'-o); from NT:3432; (middle voice) to commit adultery:


KJV - commit adultery.
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)
a·dul·ter·y

/əˈdʌl

tə

ri/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uh-duhl-tuh-ree] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun, plural -ter·ies. voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than his or her lawful spouse.
[Origin: 1325&#8211;75; ME adulterie < L adulterium, equiv. to adulter (see adulterer) + -ium -ium; r. ME a(d)vouterie < OF avoutrie < L, with ad- ad- r. a a-5

]


Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006. American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source a·dul·ter·y

(&#601;-d&#365;l't&#601;-r&#275;, -tr&#275 Pronunciation Key
n. pl. a·dul·ter·ies
Voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a partner other than the lawful spouse.


[Middle English, from Old French adultere, from Latin adulterium, from adulter, adulterer; see [FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1] adulterate[/SIZE][/FONT].]

(Download Now or Buy the Book) The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source
adultery
"voluntary violation of the marriage bed," c.1300, avoutrie, from O.Fr. avoutrie, aoulterie, noun of condition from avoutre/aoutre, from L. adulterare "to corrupt" (see adulteration). Modern spelling, with the re-inserted -d-, is from c.1415 (see ad-). Classified as single adultery (with an unmarried person) and double adultery (with a married person). O.E. word was æwbryce "breach of law(ful marriage)."

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper WordNet - Cite This Source adultery
nounextramarital sex that willfully and maliciously interferes with marriage relations; "adultery is often cited as grounds for divorce"
WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University. Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary (Beta Version) - Cite This Source
adultery [&#601;&#712;dalt&#601;ri] noun
sexual intercourse between a husband and a woman who is not his wife or between a wife and a man who is not her husband.

 

[ShermanN]

Moses allowed divorce an a liberal manner that Jesus changed as well. Also, Polygamy was allowed as part of the curse. It was the realization of ,"Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you."

Actually, Jesus did not change the Mosaic Law concerning divorce. Jesus repeatedly said that he did not intend to change any aspect of the Law of Moses. And considering that Luke records Jesus' endorsement of the Law 16.16-17 immediately preceeding Jesus' words concerning divorce in vs. 18 then to think that Jesus wished to change the Mosaic Law concerning divorce is an erroneous interpretation.

Jesus was actually explaining why Moses was inspired to legislate the bill of divorce - to stop the practice of a man putting away his wife and yet retaining rights over her. In the ancient near-east a man virtually owned his wives. He could even abandon or expell one and she still belonged to him. If she did marry someone else, it was not a fully legitimate marriage (it was adultery) and the first husband could actually bust up that second "marriage" and reclaim her as his own. So the purpose of the bill of divorce was to stop the satanic oppression of women, to legally free an expelled wife to marry again and remain married. - but that's all on another thread concerning divorce.

Back to the point concerning adultery and polygamy. You're reading into the text as opposed to drawing from it. The same Law that forbid adultery, regulated and thus allowed polygamy; therefore polygamy cannot equate adultery, else polygamy would have been outlawed and not regulated.

Concerning Paul's directions concerning the wife having power over the husband's body, Paul was speaking concerning husband and wife relationships and speaking about polygamy, so again you're reading into the text making it say more than it does. -- and please don't take that harshly, that's a very easy mistake to make that we all do.

Blessings,
Sherman

 

[Romanseight2005]

I'm afraid that it's a little trickier than that. The same law which tells us not to commit adultery also includes statutes involving the marriage to multiple wives.

Scripture please. Where is your New Testament back up? Like I said before, the only way that you can show that this was not for an appointed period of time, is if you can show some kind of similar passage in the NT. Also, saying that her marital duties must be provided for really isn't the same as her owning her husband's body.
1 Cor 7:3-5
4 The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife.
NIV

This is clear ownership. It is saying that she should be able to be with him when she chooses, and he with her when he chooses. This is not the same as him merely having to consumate the marriage which would be what you are implying of the OT passages.

Your statement also implies that Jesus didn't restore anything. That was clearly what He came to do. He clearly brought up God's intention in the beginning to show that He was restoring that which was lost , specifically in the area of marriage.

How could a just law command no adultery in one part and turn around and assume that it is acceptable in another? It can't. Our understanding of the Biblical definition of adultery must be inadequate.

Divorce was also given a green light for any reason at this time. Jesus clearly changes that back to God's original intent as well. He clearly answers this by saying that allowances were made for hardened hearts.

 

[Romanseight2005]

Actually, Jesus did not change the Mosaic Law concerning divorce. Jesus repeatedly said that he did not intend to change any aspect of the Law of Moses. And considering that Luke records Jesus' endorsement of the Law 16.16-17 immediately preceeding Jesus' words concerning divorce in vs. 18 then to think that Jesus wished to change the Mosaic Law concerning divorce is an erroneous interpretation.

Jesus was actually explaining why Moses was inspired to legislate the bill of divorce - to stop the practice of a man putting away his wife and yet retaining rights over her. In the ancient near-east a man virtually owned his wives. He could even abandon or expell one and she still belonged to him. If she did marry someone else, it was not a fully legitimate marriage (it was adultery) and the first husband could actually bust up that second "marriage" and reclaim her as his own. So the purpose of the bill of divorce was to stop the satanic oppression of women, to legally free an expelled wife to marry again and remain married. - but that's all on another thread concerning divorce.

Back to the point concerning adultery and polygamy. You're reading into the text as opposed to drawing from it. The same Law that forbid adultery, regulated and thus allowed polygamy; therefore polygamy cannot equate adultery, else polygamy would have been outlawed and not regulated.

Concerning Paul's directions concerning the wife having power over the husband's body, Paul was speaking concerning husband and wife relationships and speaking about polygamy, so again you're reading into the text making it say more than it does. -- and please don't take that harshly, that's a very easy mistake to make that we all do.

Blessings,
Sherman

You yourself brought up the fact that the Mosaic law didn't show that a man could commit adultery against his wife at all, or at least not clearly enough for the interpreters of the law to ascertain that he could from the scriptures. So then, the very fact that Jesus states that a man can commit adultery against his wife shows a complete paradigm shift in the way women were to be regarded in a marriage. There is nothing that I can find to indicate that the word used for adultery would have any other meaning than how we interpret it. If you want to say that we must not have translated correctly, then you are on very shaky ground. "Did God really say that?" Sounds a lot like a certain serpent.

 

[livingword26]

Actually, The Message translates it as "A man who divorces his wife so he can marry someone else commits adultery against her. And a woman who divorces her husband so she can marry someone else commits adultery."

You found one huh? Well, none the less, the vast majority of translations from both sets of texts translate it like this:

Mar 10:11
(11) And He said to them, Whoever shall put away his wife and marries another commits adultery against her.

 

[Romanseight2005]

In any Old Testament passages, you find ownership of women. Ex 21:8-11

8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.

9 And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.

10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.

11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.
KJV
Here are the passages that Sojourner brought up. What was made clear in the New Testament was that Jesus restored women to their rightful spot as partner. She is absolutely given rights and power that she did not previously have. This is why polygamy seized to be apart of the christian cultures.

 

[Sojourner<><]

You yourself brought up the fact that the Mosaic law didn't show that a man could commit adultery against his wife at all, or at least not clearly enough for the interpreters of the law to ascertain that he could from the scriptures. So then, the very fact that Jesus states that a man can commit adultery against his wife shows a complete paradigm shift in the way women were to be regarded in a marriage. There is nothing that I can find to indicate that the word used for adultery would have any other meaning than how we interpret it. If you want to say that we must not have translated correctly, then you are on very shaky ground. "Did God really say that?" Sounds a lot like a certain serpent.

Yeah, what about God saying that He not only gave David his wives but He would have given him more if he needed? Did God really say that too?

 

[Sojourner<><]

In any Old Testament passages, you find ownership of women. Ex 21:8-11

8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.

9 And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.

10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.

11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.
KJV
Here are the passages that Sojourner brought up. What was made clear in the New Testament was that Jesus restored women to their rightful spot as partner. She is absolutely given rights and power that she did not previously have. This is why polygamy seized to be apart of the christian cultures.

Well here's how I have it figured... In a polygamous household, the man would be head of the house just as Christ is head of the church. The wife can be singular or plural in this sense without compromising order. If you need NT support, here you go: Christ likened the kingdom of God to many virgins betrothed to a single bridegroom in Matthew 25.

 

[Sojourner<><]

Scripture please. Where is your New Testament back up? Like I said before, the only way that you can show that this was not for an appointed period of time, is if you can show some kind of similar passage in the NT. Also, saying that her marital duties must be provided for really isn't the same as her owning her husband's body.
1 Cor 7:3-5
4 The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife.
NIV

Hebrews 13:4 "Marriage [is] honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge."

Note that the verse does not say "monogamy is honourable...", it says "marriage is honourable", which includes polygamy. If not, then all those polygamists that were exalted in chapter 11 must have been whoremongers and adulterers. That is obviously not the case since polygamy is honourable, just like monogamy.

This is clear ownership. It is saying that she should be able to be with him when she chooses, and he with her when he chooses. This is not the same as him merely having to consumate the marriage which would be what you are implying of the OT passages.

Your statement also implies that Jesus didn't restore anything. That was clearly what He came to do. He clearly brought up God's intention in the beginning to show that He was restoring that which was lost , specifically in the area of marriage.

I'm not quite sure about what you're referring to as the restoration. Are you talking about the new heavens and new earth?

Divorce was also given a green light for any reason at this time. Jesus clearly changes that back to God's original intent as well. He clearly answers this by saying that allowances were made for hardened hearts.

Leviticus 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with [another] man's wife, [even he] that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Adultery was very serious. It seems clear that neither Moses nor God considered marrying multiple wives to be adultery. If this is wrong how could Jesus use a sinful polygamist marriage to illustrate the Kingdom of God in Matthew 25? He wouldn't. That's because marriage isn't sin.

I know it's so alien to us now days, but it's the truth!

 

[Romanseight2005]

Yeah, what about God saying that He not only gave David his wives but He would have given him more if he needed? Did God really say that too?

That's my point. A man couldn't commit adultery in the OT. Polygamy fulfilled the Genesis 3:16 curse. This is part of what Jesus came to restore.

 

[Romanseight2005]

Hebrews 13:4 "Marriage [is] honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge."

Note that the verse does not say "monogamy is honourable...", it says "marriage is honourable", which includes polygamy. If not, then all those polygamists that were exalted in chapter 11 must have been whoremongers and adulterers. That is obviously not the case since polygamy is honourable, just like monogamy.



I'm not quite sure about what you're referring to as the restoration. Are you talking about the new heavens and new earth?



Leviticus 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with [another] man's wife, [even he] that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Adultery was very serious. It seems clear that neither Moses nor God considered marrying multiple wives to be adultery. If this is wrong how could Jesus use a sinful polygamist marriage to illustrate the Kingdom of God in Matthew 25? He wouldn't. That's because marriage isn't sin.

I know it's so alien to us now days, but it's the truth!

What you are not getting, is that adultery was only considered something that could be done to a man. The only way a man could commit adultery was with another man's wife. Jesus first speaks of the ability for a man to commit adultery against his wife in the NT. What I am talking about when I say that Jesus came to restore that which was lost, was that He first restored the human's relationship to God. Next our relationships with eachother. Notice, men ruling over women didn't occur until sin entered and it was a specific punishment, not God's original design. When Jesus came, He specifically stated what God's true heart was on many matters, but specifically marriage. He brought them back to God's original design. The whole point of Jesus' birth was the restoration of relationships. Firstly God and human. Secondly man and woman.

 

[Sojourner<><]

What you are not getting, is that adultery was only considered something that could be done to a man. The only way a man could commit adultery was with another man's wife. Jesus first speaks of the ability for a man to commit adultery against his wife in the NT. What I am talking about when I say that Jesus came to restore that which was lost, was that He first restored the human's relationship to God. Next our relationships with eachother. Notice, men ruling over women didn't occur until sin entered and it was a specific punishment, not God's original design. When Jesus came, He specifically stated what God's true heart was on many matters, but specifically marriage. He brought them back to God's original design. The whole point of Jesus' birth was the restoration of relationships. Firstly God and human. Secondly man and woman.

I think I understand your point. So you're saying that one of the purposes of Jesus' death on the cross was reconciliation right? Well I'll definately agree with you that scripture teaches God is in favor of reconciliation between man and wife as He is against divorce.

You do seem to be touching on an important point that hasn't really been addressed in this thread yet, and that is that polygamy is often associated with other less desireable practices such as the mistreatment of women. Is this a symptom of polygamy though? Correlation does not imply causation: I would expect monogamous families in the same environments that support polygamous marriages to suffer from some of the same unfortunate symptoms. If Christianity at large could fully accept polygamous families as they are, I think it would be like opening the doors to the reformation of their relationships.

 

[ShermanN]

You found one huh? Well, none the less, the vast majority of translations from both sets of texts translate it like this:

Mar 10:11
(11) And He said to them, Whoever shall put away his wife and marries another commits adultery against her.

Yes almost all translations translate it in the traditional manner, but if you'll study the Greek then the non-traditional interpretation makes more sence. If both translations are viable, which makes most sense?

1) "Whoever shall put away his wife and marries another commits adultery" or 2) "Whoever puts away his wife so that he can marry another commits adultery". #2 makes the most sense to me and sounds like something Jesus would say. #1 doesn't make much sense, sounding like the divorce wasn't the problem, but remarriage was the problem.

But this is really for another thread.

 

[ShermanN]

You yourself brought up the fact that the Mosaic law didn't show that a man could commit adultery against his wife at all, or at least not clearly enough for the interpreters of the law to ascertain that he could from the scriptures. So then, the very fact that Jesus states that a man can commit adultery against his wife shows a complete paradigm shift in the way women were to be regarded in a marriage. There is nothing that I can find to indicate that the word used for adultery would have any other meaning than how we interpret it. If you want to say that we must not have translated correctly, then you are on very shaky ground. "Did God really say that?" Sounds a lot like a certain serpent.

I think you misunderstood my post, what I'm trying to communicate.

The Law forbid adultery which was sin against God and your spouse. The Pharisees purposefully twisted the Word so that they could commit the sin. They did this by interpreting the Law in such a way as to nullify it. Concerning adultery they "errantly and hypocritically interpreted" adultery to mean that a man could only commit adultery if he had sex with another Jewish man's wife, and then he only committed adultery against the Jewish man. Women on the other hand were held to a high standard of fidelity. Jesus opposed this and other such demonic teachings of the Pharisees that nullified the Word of God.

The question is, did the word adultery and the commandment against it mean that God forbad polygamy? No, because polygamy was regulated by other commandments that were as inspired as the one against adultery. These other commandments assumed polygamy would continue and did not forbid polygamy. So it is erroneous to say that in a polygamous culture like in the Middle East, if a man married a second wife he was committing adultery against his first wife.

Of course, in a monogomous culture, taking a second wife would be adulterous. Not only that, but even in OT times, if a woman wished for her husband to not have other wives, she could make that part of the marriage covenant; if her husband then did take another wife, he was committing adultery and she had a morally acceptable reason for divorce.

I'll write more later as I can.

Blessings,
Sherman

 

[Sojourner<><]

Of course, in a monogomous culture, taking a second wife would be adulterous. Not only that, but even in OT times, if a woman wished for her husband to not have other wives, she could make that part of the marriage covenant; if her husband then did take another wife, he was committing adultery and she had a morally acceptable reason for divorce.

So do you really think that cultural standard should be the basis for definition of marriage? Sorry, it just seems that that line of logic conflicts with our liberties. You know, we're not to let our good be evil spoken of.

That is a good point though about covenants. To me, it seems that marriage should be defined by scriptural standards and covenants.

 

[ShermanN]

So do you really think that cultural standard should be the basis for definition of marriage? Sorry, it just seems that that line of logic conflicts with our liberties. You know, we're not to let our good be evil spoken of.

That is a good point though about covenants. To me, it seems that marriage should be defined by scriptural standards and covenants.

Sojourner, Happy Birthday!

I don't think that it's a matter of whether or not marriage "should be" defined by culture, as much as the reality that marriage "is" defined by culture. Thankfully, God works with people in whichever wicked culture he finds us a part of. Of course, the more the Church influences (like salt) a culture, the more the culture will conform to God's will. As I noted before, the divine/biblical ideal for marriage is a life-long monogomous mutually loving respectful fulfilling covenant relationship of a man and woman. Sadly, few people ever experience this. Such a marriage is a little heaven on earth!

One question few Christians are willing to wrestle with is, "If an Arabic man with 4 wives is saved, what should he do, if anything?" If he puts away wives #2-4, they will likely be relegated to a terrible life of prostitution and killing them would be kinder. Should he keep them and care for them as wives except sexually? Or should he continue to be a good husband to all four?

 

[Romanseight2005]

So do you really think that cultural standard should be the basis for definition of marriage? Sorry, it just seems that that line of logic conflicts with our liberties. You know, we're not to let our good be evil spoken of.

That is a good point though about covenants. To me, it seems that marriage should be defined by scriptural standards and covenants.

Did you vow to forsake all others in your wedding vows to your wife? If you did, then regardless of whether or not you can find forbidding of polygamy in scripture, you would be committing a sin. Also, in Arabic and Mormon cultures, polygamy is very hurtful to women, Honestly polygamy was always hurtful to women, and God allowed that as part of the curse. He specifically stated that her desire shall be for her husband, and he shall rule over her. It is not a natural set up. Deep inside of a woman lies the need to be captivating to her husband. The very idea that he could be captivated by another is hurtful to her. Read excerpts from Brigam Young's wives, and other such women who have lived in polygamy. They were raised in cultures where they were taught that it was good and right. The fact of the matter is that whenever a new wife came along, the bond between the man and the previous wife was broken. It is clearly not how men and women were set up to function. In the case of those already in that situation, it would have to be dealt with prayerfully. As I said before, when you see how a man is to die for his wife, etc. it would be a very difficult task to actually live out the christian walk in that scenario.

 

[livingword26]

One question few Christians are willing to wrestle with is, "If an Arabic man with 4 wives is saved, what should he do, if anything?" If he puts away wives #2-4, they will likely be relegated to a terrible life of prostitution and killing them would be kinder. Should he keep them and care for them as wives except sexually? Or should he continue to be a good husband to all four?

Using oddball scenarios to try to make polygamy acceptable doesn't really work very well. Certainly God hasn't joined the 5 Muslims together in the first place, so if any of the women left, it would no more be prostitution than the relationship was in the first place. More than likely most of the women would leave the relationship if they had the opportunity anyway, although the culture may cause them problems. But culture doesn't change God or His desire to make 2 into one flesh, not 5 into one flesh. (that is the way it was meant to be from the beginning) The right thing to do is the right thing to do no matter what the scenario. All that having been said, how it should be dealt with is prayerfully.

 

[dayhiker]

Hi Sherman,
I just got your book. Read the 2nd chapter this morning.
I see culture a little differantly than most here I guess. I don't see culture as sinful. Its the acts people do that I see as sinful. If people love one another then their changed behavior will change the culture, true. But in general I don't see culture as sinful.
So bring this to monogamy or plural marraige, its not the marraige(s) that are sinful in my mind, but its how people act in those marraige(s) towards the others that would make them sinful.

Thanks Sherman for writting your book.
dayhiker

 

[dayhiker]

Hi Romans8,
I can't agree with your blanket statements. I can say that that the vast majority of women want monogamy. But I've read quite a few stories of woman who prefered poly relationships and in no way wanted to just be in a monogamy relationship.

I've also read stories of how people in African poly marriages found that missionaries caused them personally pain and their family relationships damages by the Christians that came to evangelized them and taught them to sperate in some fashion from the poly relationships they were in.

So to me each person needs to seek to know who they are in Christ and then live that in a loving way.

that's my view( I know I'm in the minority)
dayhiker