I now know why people cling to Matthew 19 as some sort of proof against polygyny. This material is found at this site;
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/polygame.html
Glenn Miller said:
NIV Matt 19.8-9, pp. Mark 10.1-12
Jesus replied, 'Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.'
The key thing to note here is that this argument fails if polygamy is acceptable! Jesus' point is that improper divorce does not nullify a marriage, and if the first marriage still stands, then a "second" marriage is adultery--and NOT simply 'polygamy'! This is very clear.
Actually the point is that the obligations of marriage do not dissolve. To understand that we have to know first how Jesus views the law, and then go back and look at the law. For Jesus view we have Matthew 5:17-19(NASB)
Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Jesus view on the law is that it is still in place, in fact he proceeds from this statement to make his famous remark about lusting in your heart being equivalent in severity to adultery in your heart. If anything Jesus is prone to making the condemnations of the law more far reaching, touching on more of our activities, than we would. Thus, at least for the Jewish audience he speaks to, during his life on this earth, Jesus is more severe about the application of the law that most of his Jewish bretheren. The law then, is in place, so what does it say? Remember, that in stating that Moses gives the law, Jesus does not downgrade it, he and Moses are prophets in the same mold. He says this about Moses, Moses foretells Christ's coming as a prophet like himself. Now to the law of divorce, given to Moses, by God. Deuteronomy 24:1(NASB)
When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
Since we know that Jesus does not (at least in this time frame) take away from the law, he has to be abiding by it. The Pharisees that asked about this question of law were seeking more liberty in it than it gave. They had made vague the "uncleanness" of the passage so that it allowed them a righteous divorce for virtually any reason. Christ does not, going back to Matthew 19 (NIV), Jesus says "except for marital unfaithfulness" and defines what uncleanness is. It's adultery. Jesus again defines the law as not permitting what we would like it to, instead being more restrictive and far reaching than we would prefer. Lusting after a woman is adultery. Divorce is not sanctioned for just any reason or displeasure of a husband, but only for her adultery which is the "uncleanness" of Deuteronomy.
Miller then makes the argument that the first marriage "Still stands." This does not reflect the structure of the Law Jesus honors. Deuteronomy 24:2(NASB)
...and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man's wife..
Is this a Polyandry then? No, becauses verses 3 & 4 say;
..and if the latter husband turns against her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her to be his wife, then her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance.
The marriage ceased at the point of the writ of divorcement, but not until. The woman
could go out and become another man's wife. It is clearly wrong for her to do so per Christ's comments, but she
could do it. It's not a polyandrous marriage to two men, because if the
second husband was to send her away or if he were to die, "her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled." This is likened to a defilement of God's land, which he gave to Israel. Remember, the argument of Glenn Miller is that the marriage "still stands." If it did, she
might return to her former husband, and could. The following quote is thus disproved:
Glenn Miller said:
God does not accept divorce as valid, any man who divorces his wife is not really divorced, and if he marries someone else, he commits adultery.
Obviously, God does accept divorce as valid. I would remind Mr. Miller that God does it himself in Jeremiah 3. His supposition that marriage cannot be disolved is disproved by the given example in Deuteronomy 24, and the permanent ratification of that disolving if the woman were to go on to become the wife of another man. The pollution is so severe that even if her next husband were to die, she could not return to the first. That second man must divorce her for her to go away from him, and how is it that a divorce from the second husband is necessary, if she were still in a marriage with the first? The argument disintigrates entirely with Jesus own words. John 4:16-18(NASB)
He said to her, 'Go, call your husband and come here.' The woman answered and said, 'I have no husband.' Jesus said to her, 'You have correctly said, "I have no husband"; for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; this you have said truly'.
How could the woman have had five husbands? Is Miller proposing
the first four died? Why is she not the wife of the last man? Could it be number 5 has not divorced her?
Jesus upholds the double standard of divorce, again reiterating the permission as being only given to men. He clarifies the structure of the law to countenance remarriage by the man, only in the even of his wife's adultery. The verse clearly states there is an exception for all men whose wives have committed adultery against them and clears the path for them to marry again, provided their cause of action was adultery on the part of their wives. "Double standard" is used by Miller to endear himself to his audience. Why, who would endorse a double standard? Frankly, scripture has a number of double standards, repeated, reinforced, named as Godly and all throughout the New and Old Testaments. Miller goes on to cite numerous scholars, "early church fathers" and theologians of the early church. None are scripture. We all know that errors regularly creep into the church. Paul was already stamping them out before he even got the chance to write all his letters. He'd visit, teach, leave, and have to write a letter to crush already budding heresies and bad doctrines. The ancient writer is no more free from error than the new. The veneration of a "early church father" does not improve the nature of his work.