2 Wives? Since When

[allofgrace]

The ones who care about submitting to the government are those who want to obey the Lord's commands, render to Caesar that which is Caesar is a command just as having one wife or one husband and sexual relations outside of that is sin, so is not yielding to the authority of government. And the government does say it is against the law to have two wives at the same time. As does every church group in America. You may get a few to agree with you on here, but the two will be one cannot be true if there are three, four or more trying to be one and no scripture authorizes more than one wife no matter how you try to wiggle around it. Rom 13:1-7 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.

That goes out the window when the government violates God's laws. When the government sanctions homosexual marriage, and at the same time tells us polygamy is illegal, why should anyone take that serious? Are we to accept any definition of marriage the government comes up with? What if they tell us marriage between two people with the same hair color can't marry? Marriage is a religious institution, so I have come to the conclusion that I don't care about having a license from the government. Not to mention, they have already made fornication legal and adultery too for that matter, in nearly every state in the union, meaning that you could have 10 wives and not be breaking the law, so long as their is no government license involved. Nearly every church group in America does not say polygamy is a sin. I have been surprised how many admit that it is not a sin, when you actually ask the question to someone. Bottom line is that if it is legal to be in fornication, and it is legal to commit adultery, you can't be breaking the law to be in a common law marriage with more than one woman. The bigger question is whether it is a wise thing to have more than one wife at a time? From what I have seen in the Bible, the answer is probably not?

You were talking about not being subject to government in scriptural marriage not homosexuals or lesbians. Anything contrary to scripture, we obey God but that does not stop from obeying government otherwise. I guess you are going to tell me that Rome was not corrupt when Jesus said to obey government, or when the Holy Spirit inspired Romans 13. We must travel in different company, I have never heard anyone say that polygamy was not a sin, nor ever heard of anyone going to a church that taught it was not a sin. Even the Mormons have condemned it.

And no that scripture did not say that David ever took any of that Kings wives as his own. The kings did at that time do that, but it is never said that David took them as his wives. And God strictly said the Kings of Israel were not to multiply wives so it would have been a sin to do so. Solomon sinned in that manner. One looking for a reason will always convinced themselves that they are right.

Edited January 20, 2013 by allofgrace

[gdemoss]

Going back to Sevenseas question about is there some reason we should consider polygamy, the only reason I am discussing it is because someone asked about it when they started this thread. It is not just a question of whether or not God allows it, but whether or not he condones it? He does because it is written in the law. Kings were not to multiply wives, but that didn't mean they couldn't have more than one. It meant they weren't to do as Solomon did. This is rather easy to prove. Look at what the prophet told David after he sinned in 2 Samuel 12:8.

And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah: and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

God actually told David through the prophet he had given him more than one wife, and would have given him more wives if they had not been sufficient, but rebuked him for his adultery and murder. That led to his condition at the time of his death that you described, where he was cold and with one concubine.

Excellent insight. +1

Thanks. I remember a guy who used to post here at WB did all but come out and admit to being a Christian and a polygamist. He was living in Viriginia, and was defending the practice. I would have to assume this was done without a state sanctioned marriage license? There has been a lot of talk about how having the government sanction homosexual marriage would lead to a major change in marriage in general, and I believe there is a lot of truth to it. Since the government has been allowing gay marriage, it has made me question why we need the government's approval to marry in the first place? Who cares about a license from something as evil as this government, especially since marriage was created by God, and is a religious institution. I am not suggesting that shacking up is ok, as that is fornication, but why do we need the government to give us a license to do something God given? We could simply have a church ceremony, or some kind of lifelong commitment in the sight of God and be married.

As I read the scriptures, I am led to understand that marriage is a covenant relationship between a man and woman that begins with the simple agreement to be such and is consummated in the coming together of the two as one. No need for anyone other than the husband and the wife to be involved. Many seemingly love to build up the requirements and include all kinds of hoopla such as a marriage licence and judge or pastor etc. It is clear to me through the scriptures that none of these things are necessary but to him who believes they are, they are.

For the ones who believe that all the rituals and extras are necessary before one can be married, they cannot themselves be married to Christ then, i suppose, as there was no formal paperwork or minister to preform the wedding etc. They simply chose to believe that Christ would marry them by faith and asked him to come in unto them. Their marriage is null and void according to their own mouths. Sorry about their luck.

[ayin jade]

Matthew 19

9 And I say to you, Whoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is put away commits adultery.

Why does Jesus say the sin is adultery in this case? If polygamy was acceptable, then a man should not be committing adultery if he marries another woman after a divorce.

[Fez]

Going back to Sevenseas question about is there some reason we should consider polygamy, the only reason I am discussing it is because someone asked about it when they started this thread. It is not just a question of whether or not God allows it, but whether or not he condones it? He does because it is written in the law. Kings were not to multiply wives, but that didn't mean they couldn't have more than one. It meant they weren't to do as Solomon did. This is rather easy to prove. Look at what the prophet told David after he sinned in 2 Samuel 12:8.

And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah: and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

God actually told David through the prophet he had given him more than one wife, and would have given him more wives if they had not been sufficient, but rebuked him for his adultery and murder. That led to his condition at the time of his death that you described, where he was cold and with one concubine.

Excellent insight. +1

Thanks. I remember a guy who used to post here at WB did all but come out and admit to being a Christian and a polygamist. He was living in Viriginia, and was defending the practice. I would have to assume this was done without a state sanctioned marriage license? There has been a lot of talk about how having the government sanction homosexual marriage would lead to a major change in marriage in general, and I believe there is a lot of truth to it. Since the government has been allowing gay marriage, it has made me question why we need the government's approval to marry in the first place? Who cares about a license from something as evil as this government, especially since marriage was created by God, and is a religious institution. I am not suggesting that shacking up is ok, as that is fornication, but why do we need the government to give us a license to do something God given? We could simply have a church ceremony, or some kind of lifelong commitment in the sight of God and be married.

As I read the scriptures, I am led to understand that marriage is a covenant relationship between a man and woman that begins with the simple agreement to be such and is consummated in the coming together of the two as one. No need for anyone other than the husband and the wife to be involved. Many seemingly love to build up the requirements and include all kinds of hoopla such as a marriage licence and judge or pastor etc. It is clear to me through the scriptures that none of these things are necessary but to him who believes they are, they are.

For the ones who believe that all the rituals and extras are necessary before one can be married, they cannot themselves be married to Christ then, i suppose, as there was no formal paperwork or minister to preform the wedding etc. They simply chose to believe that Christ would marry them by faith and asked him to come in unto them. Their marriage is null and void according to their own mouths. Sorry about their luck.

1. Polygamy is a sin. And the Worthy stance is one man one woman.

Matthew 19

9 And I say to you, Whoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is put away commits adultery.

2.

It is clear to me through the scriptures that none of these things are necessary but to him who believes they are, they are.

Fine gary, but please tell me what the practice of the day was? Tell me if one needed to grant a certificate of divorce? And if so, why?

[Fez]

For information of those that think marriage was not taken seriously in the time of Jesus. The marriage and the concentration of it, had far more meaning that it does today.

Marriage to the Jews of Jesus's day was a practical legal matter, established by contract and carried through by exacting procedure. The young man would come to the chosen girl's house with a covenant (a true legal agreement) giving the terms by which he would propose marriage. The most important being the price he was willing to pay for this bride.

If the terms were suitable, the prospective bride and groom would drink a cup of wine together to seal the bargain. This cup was most significant as it showed the bridegroom's willingness to sacrifice in order to have this bride and the bride's willingness to marry him. Then the groom would pay the price and he would pay dearly to marry the girl of his choice.

Back at his father's house, he would build her a "chuppah" (bridal chamber, small mansion) in which they would have their future honeymoon. This was a separate building on his father's property and it had to be very beautiful yet simple since it would only be used for seven days. This construction would usually take the better part of a year and the father of the groom would decide when it was finished. If anyone asked the bridegroom when the wedding was, he would answer, "Only my father knows that."

The bride was obliged to do a lot of waiting. Custom declared she had to be ready to go and have an oil lamp ready in case the groom came late at night for her, which would be at a moment's notice. During this long period of waiting, she was referred to as "consecrated," "set apart," and "bought with a price."

Finally, when the groom's father decided the bridal chamber was ready, the groom and his friends would start off to claim his bride. All Jewish brides were "stolen." It was thrilling for her to be "abducted" and carried off into the night, not by a stranger, but by one who loved her so much he had paid a high price for her.

However, decorum declared that the bride had to receive at least a brief warning, so one of the groom's friends would give a shout as they neared the house. The bride only had time to light her lamp, grab her honeymoon clothing and go.

When they reached the house of the groom's father, the couple would go into the bridal chamber which the groom had prepared and shut the door. The wedding guests would be assembled in the father's house to celebrate the marriage. The wedding was actually going to take seven days (until the appearance of the bride and groom from the chamber). But the celebrating could not start until the marriage had been consummated. The groom's "best man" would stand outside the door and when the groom told him (through the door) the marriage had been consummated, the celebration of the wedding guests would begin and continue for a week!

At the end of the week, the bride and groom would appear and join the guests for the wedding supper. After the marriage supper, the bride and groom would leave the house of the groom's father and go to their own home.

http://www.gindorf.us/coolstuff/writings/articles/wedding.html

[enoob57]

Matthew 19

9 And I say to you, Whoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is put away commits adultery.

Why does Jesus say the sin is adultery in this case? If polygamy was acceptable, then a man should not be committing adultery if he marries another woman after a divorce.

Divorce and re-marriage is a sin, but polygamy is not. A man could have multiple wives at one time, and as long as they remain married, there is no sin. If he puts one of them away, and someone else marries that woman, that is sin. They are two separate issues.

Do you see The Scriptures leaning to one man and one woman as God's Ideal?

[Sevenseas]

REGARDING THE FOLLOWING PASSAGE OF SCRIPTURE THAT WAS BROUGHT UP BY BUTERO:

Then Nathan said to David, “You are the man! This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. 8I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more. 9Why did you despise the word of the Lord by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. 10Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own.’

I was in error when I agreed with his comment in response to my previous post:

BUTERO:

And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah: and if that had been too little,

I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

God actually told David through the prophet he had given him more than one wife, and would have given him more wives if they had not been sufficient,

but rebuked him for his adultery and murder. That led to his condition at the time of his death that you described, where he was cold and with one concubine.

Read the text again. As I was familiar with this passage of scripture and the words of Nathan the prophet to David, I was too quick to agree to Butero’s comment in which he states that Nathan told David that God would have given him more wives.

Upon reflection, study, prayer and a closer inspection, that is NOT what Nathan is telling David at all.

As has been said many times in these forums, to help in understanding the text, one should make themselves familiar with the customs of the day and not take verses out of context or read into them what they do not actually say AND one should NOT look for text to support what they already believe.

This, is what Nathan was actually saying to David and this is what was understood:

I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives-The phraseology means nothing more than that God in His providence had given David, as

king of Israel, everything that was Saul's. The history furnishes conclusive evidence that he never actually married any of the wives of Saul.

But the harem of the preceding king belongs, according to Oriental notions, as a part of the regalia to his successor.

God was not saying SPECIFICALLY he would have given David more wives as been wrongly noted. He was actually saying…you had

everything you could have wanted. Everyone knows you are king and that all that was Saul’s is now yours.

Women were property in those days, and even the women in Saul’s court became David’s…just like all the animals, the servants, the house ALL.

and thy master's wives into thy bosom; though we read of no more than one that belonged to Saul, if he is meant by his master, excepting Rizpah his concubine, nor ever of David taking them into his bosom and bed; wherefore this can be understood only of his having them at his disposal, to give them to whom he pleased; the word may be rendered his "women", as well as his "wives", and may design his daughters, Merab and Michal, who were both given to David, though taken again and given to others: the Jews say, that Eglah, David's sixth wife, was the wife of Saul

The emphasis is not on God giving David more wives as Butero and someone else would like to believe. The emphasis is actually on David ALREADY HAVING ALL OF SAUL’S KINGDOM, given to him by God.

It is the kingdom that God handed over...the women were a part of it in much the same way as the donkeys. Yeah, that does sound bad.

It was the CUSTOM of the day for a King victorious over another, to inherit ALL of that defeated King’s material goods, INCLUDING women.

It simply boils down to this: the harem of the preceding king belongs, according to Oriental notions, as a part of the regalia to his successor.

It was NOT God’s directive that David or anyone else should have multiple wives.

It is one thing to state that polygamy existed because it did. It is another thing entirely to state that God said it was good…it was never a part of creation.

To attempt to build a case for polygamy FROM scripture, would indicate an improper understanding of WHY it was allowed.

[OneLight]

Man was told not to eat from the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, but he did anyway. God then stepped in and gave man a different direction in life, as found in Genesis 3. God also said that a man shall leave his mother and cleave to his wife and the two shall become one, but man was not satisfied and took onto himself more than one wife, so God stepped in again and gave more direction. The list can go on, but the point is, man disobeyed God and God, through his mercy, tried to guide man back to Him. God is love and love never forces itself on anyone, but finds a way to work through the issues.

Some people spend a lot of time trying to find where God has OKed something so they can partake in it, or stand behind someone else partaking in it. In doing so, they ignore His first precepts, also ignoring that it was not God who changed them, but the sinful nature of man and God replied trying to work with the sinful man.

Jesus came and tried to correct mans ways by pointing back to the original precept, one man and one woman makes a marriage. Yet, man still wanting to set himself higher then he actually is, continues to find ways to ignore the basics to fulfill his own pride.

There was an argument a while back that God allowed multiple wives to populate the earth. I considered this for awhile and the conclusion I came back with is that the population would mean more of the same rebellion. I do not believe God has given His stamp of approval to have multiple spouses, but has instead decided to work with man and his sin to draw him back to Himself. Even Jesus went to where the sinners were to work with them in the condition they are in.

[Sevenseas]

THE CASE AGAINST POLYGAMY

ISAIAH 54:

In this chapter, God refers to the entire nation of Israel as His WIFE. One wife, consisting of the entire nation.

There is a parallel in the NT, with believers being called the Bride of Christ. Believers are united as ONE body in Christ and

collectively make up the bride. It is absolutely wrong to believe that each person is a bride. You are not.

The Body is also described as having many parts but only one head...that head is Christ. The parts of the body are the believers,

each fitted together and working as one in Christ through the Holy Spirit

We do not EVER see a multiplicity or any sort of parallel that can be drawn to assume that God approves of polygamy. He simply

put up with it.

There is no example in Scripture from which it can be concluded that more than one wife is God's plan

It has been pointed out that scripture states that David was a man after God's heart. Are we going to be so obstinate and unashamed

as to believe that was because he was an adulterer, a polygamist and a murderer by proxy? Scripture also contains the record of other

of David's sins ...such as numbering the fighting men of Israel, with disasterous consequences...something he was forbidden to do.

Stating that David was a man after God's own heart, even though he was a practicing polygamist (against God's directives which cannot

be denied as King's were told NOT to multiply wives to themselves) misses entirely the actual REASONS why David was, in fact, a man

after God's own heart.

THE ACTUAL REASONS WHY DAVID WAS CALLED A MAN AFTER GODS OWN HEART:

1. He had absolute faith in God

2. David loved God's law.....(and like every single one of us, he also broke that law)

3. David always expressed a heart of thankfulness and praise to God...read the Psalms that were written by David and get a glimpse of his heart

4. David was repentant when he sinned. He did not deny his sin.

Have mercy on me, O God, according to your steadfast love; according to your abundant mercy blot out my transgressions. Wash me thoroughly from

my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin. Psalm 51:1-2

You will see two words regarding the true state of David....iniquity and sin...these are two words that apply to each of us and the reason God had to send

His Son to die in our place. Only innocent blood can relieve the state of our sinful blood and it was no different for David.

The word iniquity means more than just sin. This word, means a state that causes sin in the first place.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

INIQUITY

in-ik'-wi-ti (`awon; anomia): In the Old Testament of the 11 words translated "iniquity," by far the most common and important is `awon (about 215 times). Etymologically, it is customary to explain it as meaning literally "crookedness," "perverseness," i.e. evil regarded as that which is not straight or upright, moral distortion (from `iwwah, "to bend," "make crooked," "pervert"). Driver, however (following Lagarde), maintains that two roots, distinct in Arabic, have been confused in Hebrew, one equals "to bend," "pervert" (as above), and the other equals "to err," "go astray"; that `awon is derived from the latter, and consequently expresses the idea of error, deviation from the right path, rather than that of perversion (Driver, Notes on Sam, 135 note) Whichever etymology is adopted, in actual usage it has three meanings which almost imperceptibly pass into each other:

(1) iniquity,

(2) guilt of iniquity,

(3) punishment of iniquity.

Primarily, it denotes "not an action, but the character of an action" (Oehler), and is so distinguished from "sin" (chaTTa'th). Hence, we have the expression "the iniquity of my sin" (Psalm 32:5). Thus the meaning glides into that of "guilt," which might often take the place of "iniquity" as the translation of `awon (Genesis 15:16 Exodus 34:7 Jeremiah 2:22, etc.). From "guilt" it again passes into the meaning of "punishment of guilt," just as Latin piaculum may denote both guilt and its punishment. The transition is all the easier in Hebrew because of the Hebrew sense of the intimate relation of sin and suffering, e.g. Genesis 4:13, "My punishment is greater than I can bear"; which is obviously to be preferred to King James Version margin, the Revised Version, margin "Mine iniquity is greater than can be forgiven," for Cain is not so much expressing sorrow for his sin, as complaining of the severity of his punishment; compare 2 Kings 7:9 (the Revised Version (British and American) "punishment," the Revised Version margin "iniquity"); Isaiah 5:18 (where for "iniquity" we might have "punishment of iniquity," as in Leviticus 26:41, 43, etc.); Isaiah 40:2 ("iniquity," the Revised Version margin "punishment"). The phrase "bear iniquity" is a standing expression for bearing its consequences, i.e. its penalty; generally of the sinner bearing the results of his own iniquity (Leviticus 17:16; Leviticus 20:17, 19 Numbers 14:34 Ezekiel 44:10, etc.), but sometimes of one bearing the iniquity of another vicariously, and so taking it away (e.g. Ezekiel 4:4; 18:19). Of special interest in the latter sense are the sufferings of the Servant of Yahweh, who shall "bear the iniquities" of the people (Isaiah 53:11; compare Isaiah 53:6).

Other words frequently translated "iniquity" are: 'awen, literally, "worthlessness," "vanity," hence, "naughtiness," "mischief" (47 times in the King James Version, especially in the phrase "workers of iniquity," Job 4:8 Psalm 5:5; Psalm 6:8 Proverbs 10:29, etc.); `awel and `awlah, literally, "perverseness" (Deuteronomy 32:4 Job 6:29 the King James Version, etc.).

In the New Testament "iniquity" stands for anomia equals properly, "the condition of one without law," "lawlessness" (so translated in 1 John 3:4, elsewhere "iniquity," e.g.Matthew 7:23), a word which frequently stood for `awon in the Septuagint; and adikia, literally, "unrighteousness" (e.g. Luke 13:27).

D. Miall Edwards

That, is how David saw himself.

So teach us to number our days, That we may present to You a heart of wisdom. Psalm 90:12

Do I expect some will still insist that polygamy is ok ? Yes, I absolutely do.

[gdemoss]

Going back to Sevenseas question about is there some reason we should consider polygamy, the only reason I am discussing it is because someone asked about it when they started this thread. It is not just a question of whether or not God allows it, but whether or not he condones it? He does because it is written in the law. Kings were not to multiply wives, but that didn't mean they couldn't have more than one. It meant they weren't to do as Solomon did. This is rather easy to prove. Look at what the prophet told David after he sinned in 2 Samuel 12:8.

And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah: and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

God actually told David through the prophet he had given him more than one wife, and would have given him more wives if they had not been sufficient, but rebuked him for his adultery and murder. That led to his condition at the time of his death that you described, where he was cold and with one concubine.

Excellent insight. +1

Thanks. I remember a guy who used to post here at WB did all but come out and admit to being a Christian and a polygamist. He was living in Viriginia, and was defending the practice. I would have to assume this was done without a state sanctioned marriage license? There has been a lot of talk about how having the government sanction homosexual marriage would lead to a major change in marriage in general, and I believe there is a lot of truth to it. Since the government has been allowing gay marriage, it has made me question why we need the government's approval to marry in the first place? Who cares about a license from something as evil as this government, especially since marriage was created by God, and is a religious institution. I am not suggesting that shacking up is ok, as that is fornication, but why do we need the government to give us a license to do something God given? We could simply have a church ceremony, or some kind of lifelong commitment in the sight of God and be married.

As I read the scriptures, I am led to understand that marriage is a covenant relationship between a man and woman that begins with the simple agreement to be such and is consummated in the coming together of the two as one. No need for anyone other than the husband and the wife to be involved. Many seemingly love to build up the requirements and include all kinds of hoopla such as a marriage licence and judge or pastor etc. It is clear to me through the scriptures that none of these things are necessary but to him who believes they are, they are.

For the ones who believe that all the rituals and extras are necessary before one can be married, they cannot themselves be married to Christ then, i suppose, as there was no formal paperwork or minister to preform the wedding etc. They simply chose to believe that Christ would marry them by faith and asked him to come in unto them. Their marriage is null and void according to their own mouths. Sorry about their luck.

1. Polygamy is a sin. And the Worthy stance is one man one woman.

Matthew 19

9 And I say to you, Whoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is put away commits adultery.

2.

It is clear to me through the scriptures that none of these things are necessary but to him who believes they are, they are.

Fine gary, but please tell me what the practice of the day was? Tell me if one needed to grant a certificate of divorce? And if so, why?

2Ti 2:24-25 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all [men], apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

Your first comment is to directly address me by saying that I am in opposition to Worthy's stance. That may be true, and as Butero pointed out, I would like to see where that is noted so that I can understand when I have agreed not to speak against such.

Your second comment suggests that we, as Christians, are expected to rely upon sources outside the bible to interpret the bible. I do not agree with doing that as the bible is what interprets the world and all history for me. History books. Written customs. None of which has God promised to keep pure. His Word he has. It is his Spirit that guides into all truth and interprets his Word.

I find the topic of polygamy a good topic to discuss in order to teach the difference between that which is righteous and that which is unrighteous. The problem is when people disagree with one another but cannot peaceably continue, ungodly debate arises and those who have the power, such as yourself, seemingly win any argument. This ought not be so but even the Jews were able to get Pilot to crucify Jesus after he declared him innocent. I would be happy to either quit discussing the topic or be allowed continue to show that texts like Matthew 19 must be interpreted according to Gods definition of righteousness and applied unto those whom Jesus is addressing.

Either way we are commanded to seek peace with one another. Can we peaceably discuss or shall we stop and avoid unnecessary strife since we are not truly addressing any one that is a polygamist in our midst?

Peace in Christ.