Mark 10:11 and Luke 16:18

[Anonymous]

Mark 10:11: “And He said to them, “Whoever puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery against her.”

Luke 16:18a: “Everyone putting away his wife and marrying another commits adultery.”

I've been working on a comprehensive study on adultery and I wanted to get some opinions on these two NT passages. (I specifically avoided the parallel Matt. 19:9 reference that essentially says the same thing because I didn’t want to get sidetracked into debating what the “whoring” might or might not be a reference to.) I wouldn't mind considering other verses as well, but I don't want to distort or ignore the clear words here with a forced interpretation. Both of these witnesses stand fine on their own and they are the very words of Jesus. My primary concern is to gain a better understanding on the form of adultery that Jesus is describing in these two passages. I'd like to get some varying opinions from other scholars who already recognize that “marrying another” WITHOUT “putting away his wife” does not lead to adultery here. Could anyone provide any additional insights into these passages?

Blessings in Him,
David

 

[Tlaloc]

Well, this ones a thinker. I wonder, in Mark which is the her? Is it the first wife or the second? Who is being sinned against may provide some insight. Strongs says that her is a reflexive pronoun of the third person, but I must be tired tonight, I cant identify the third person.

 

[sixth_heretic]

It seems pretty clear that the puting away or divorce of a wife will lead to sin if he finds him self a replacement wife. Here is every scripture I could find with the combination of these two words put and away. I am only showing the ones that have to do with marriage and divorce.

Matt.5
[31] It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
[32] But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Matt.19
[3] The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
[7] They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
[8] He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
[9] And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Mark.10
[2] And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.
[4] And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
[11] And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
[12] And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

Luke.16
[18] Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

1Cor.7
[11] But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
[12] But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

With these scriptures it appears that if you sleep with a woman that woman should be yours till death do you part and if you sleep with a woman that was put away you comit adultery. If you put a away a wife to find a new one then you comit adultery. It is very clear. The hardest part for most people is the fact that this means that basically they themselves are adulterers. And most would rather pervert scripture then admit to being a sinner and needing the grace that God sent us through his son Jesus Christ. How many of us have a wife or a husband that has transgressed in this area. I know I have. It is our humility that makes us righteous not our lack of sin. Admit to the sin and it will be washed away. Pervert scripture so that it doesnt seem like you are a sinner then it is off to hell with you. Every body just admit that we are carnal sinners and that our sin is paid for and we will do better in the future. If you had a wife or husband that has divorced and married again or married someone that was divorced then admit the sin. Repent and move forward with your lives as it is now. And from this point forward seek not to be loosed from your spouse.

 

[Anonymous]

With these scriptures it appears that if you sleep with a woman that woman should be yours till death do you part and if you sleep with a woman that was put away you comit adultery. If you put a away a wife to find a new one then you comit adultery. It is very clear.

With each of the passages you quoted, there seems to be no ambiguity. Leaving the "whoring" matter for the moment, it seems very clear that if a man puts away his wife and then marries another woman, he commits adultery. And a woman, whether she is put away by her husband or leaves on her own, if she remarries, both she and her new husband commit adultery. This is some scary stuff that everyone in the Body seems to keep dancing around.

The hardest part for most people is the fact that this means that basically they themselves are adulterers. And most would rather pervert scripture then admit to being a sinner and needing the grace that God sent us through his son Jesus Christ.

Unfortunately, that's the rub. If we are indeed talking about adultery, then we have a much greater problem. It's much easier to say, "No, no, it's not REEEEALY adultery because <insert favorite justification for ignoring Messiah's clear statements>" than to deal with the ramifications of recognizing that we've married into an adulterous situation. Let me try to explain why.

If two homosexual men get married according to the civil authorities and then they learn that sodomy is forbidden in God's Word, do they just continue to remain married after they ask for forgiveness, or do they truly need to repent and turn from their sin? If a thief steals a car or robs a bank, and then learns that theft is a sin according to God, is he permitted to just say he's sorry for his sin and keep his ill-gotten gains or is he expected to make restitution, as much as possible? David got to keep Bathsheba after his adultery, but then again, he did arrange for Uriah to be killed, so it ceased to be adultery. John got onto Herod for marrying his brother's wife, and the only way Herod could have married her in the eyes of the civil authorities would be that Herodias was recognized as legally divorced from Phillip. What did John say about this unlawful marriage? Did John tell Herod to simply be sorry for his wrongful actions but then continue on with his adultery?

Mark 6:17-18: "For Herodes himself had sent and seized Yohanan, and bound him in prison because of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife, because he had married her, for Yohanan had said to Herodes, "It is not right for you to have your brother's wife."

I believe if none of us ever separated or remarried, we would be able to take Messiah's words here at face value. As it is, because of the sins of our past and our intention to avoid true repentance and walk away from known sin, the best we are willing to do is accept that we're sinning and unwilling to change (or worse, deny the sin altogether in full rebellion). I think we've hit a nerve in the Body that most of us would rather just ignore than face. God help us all!

In His love,
David

 

[Dairyfarmer]

Gods word seems like it is family based. Even Christ and the church are talked about as a family unit. This is how important marriage is in Gods eye. So to me it means what it says, no hidden meaning. Too many try to read into it like it has a hidden meaning and then distort the truth. Do what he says and no problems and no excuses. Thankfully adultery is one thing I don't have to worry about. As far as two men being married I don't think they are because God says man and woman, no man and man. So they need to come out of their sin and ask for forgiveness. The thief is to ask for forgiveness and to pay back three fold.

So to me when a man and a woman decide to get married it is a life long commitment no other options. Even if they hate each other and have to sleep in different houses. The man needs to take care of her until one of them dies.

Dairyfarmer

 

[Mark C]

...it seems very clear that if a man puts away his wife and then marries another woman, he commits adultery. And a woman, whether she is put away by her husband or leaves on her own, if she remarries, both she and her new husband commit adultery. This is some scary stuff that everyone in the Body seems to keep dancing around.

Some of us are hardly "dancing around" the issue, David! (And, since you and I have pretty well hashed these verses around, I stayed out of this thread up until this point.)

There are TWO very separate issues here, and they SHOULD NOT be CONFUSED.

1. The man is "not to put away" his wife. Whether he DID, or WAS JUSTIFIED, or had any old excuse is not the issue, for those that DESIRE to be obedient. I Cor. 7:11 says that he shouldn't.

And, yes - there may be mitigating circumstances (is she a "believer"?, and lots of others). But that is not the main point. In general, the husband should NOT "put away his wife". (And since "putting away" is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a full divorce, it goes without saying that I Cor. 7 says he shouldn't do that either.)

And if you never "put her away", guys, you needn't worry about causing her to commit adultery!

The woman, OTOH, is "NOT to depart" from her husband*. But what about those who - for WHATEVER reason! -- have a certificate of divorce from a former husband?

2. The certificate of divorce is PROOF that she is available for remarriage. Having been put away AND bearing proof that she is able to remarry, that woman may marry again and place herself under the headship of a God-fearing man. Neither commits adultery.

And if there IS any guilt to be borne (see Numbers 30 for the framework) - it is the former husband who put her away and divorced her who bears the burden.


Blessings,

Mark



----------------------------------
* PS - And, up until this point - I'm in agreement with dairyfarmer. But there are a lot of divorced women around, and Isaiah 4:1 seems to indicate this issue will need to be addressed at some point...

 

[Anonymous]

1. The man is "not to put away" his wife. Whether he DID, or WAS JUSTIFIED, or had any old excuse is not the issue, for those that DESIRE to be obedient. I Cor. 7:11 says that he shouldn't.

Agreed. He shouldn’t do it, and if he does, he cannot remarry without committing adultery.

And since "putting away" is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a full divorce

If you're going to use the English word "divorce", would you please reference the precise term in Scripture you are speaking of? I only ask because there has been a tendency to try to differentiate between "putting away" and "divorce" by making it seem like they are two distinct concepts, even though Biblically they are identical. There is no such thing as something called "divorce" being any different from "putting away" anywhere in Scripture. The exact same Hebrew and Greek words are used regarding marital separation whether there was a certificate of divorcement given or not.

By specifying the exact Hebrew or Greek words you are referring to, we can easily clear up all of this confusion.

2. The certificate of divorce is PROOF that she is available for remarriage. Having been put away AND bearing proof that she is able to remarry, that woman may marry again and place herself under the headship of a God-fearing man. Neither commits adultery.

The certificate of divorcement is often seen as some kind of PROOF of eligibility for remarriage, but Scripture says no such thing. It only speaks of the certificate in terms that he has severed her ("cut her off") from himself. If anything, it is a pronouncement of judgment. She certainly was allowed to remarry (as shown in Deut. 24:2) but there is no Scriptural evidence that the certificate itself was meant as anything other than due notification. All that Scripture required is that he give it to her himself and send her away.

We tend to think of marital separation as an intermediary step between the husband and wife living together and them being "legally divorced", but there is no support for this idea anywhere in Scripture. The "ciphrah keriythuwth" was merely the formal declaration of marital separation, which was required PRIOR to the separation, not the other way around. It was not a different or additional stage from separation. Instead of the husband giving the "ciphrah keriythuwth" to his wife at the end of some period of separation like we have today, he was required to give his declaration of "cutting off" to her at the moment separation was initiated. As a result of this modern contrivance, many Believers today think marital separation is an acceptable, if unfortunate, alternative to divorce. Yet according to Scripture, they are the exact same thing – the state of a man putting away his wife.

In any event, your statement that "Neither commits adultery" is contradicting what Jesus Himself said in both Mark 10:11 and Luke 16:18. Even in the two Matthew references, the only exception to adultery was if she committed whoring, not if he gives her a certificate of divorcement. They already knew the certificate of divorcement was required before sending her away. Adultery still results if the man remarries after sending his wife away.

Love in Him,
David

 

[Mark C]

but there is no Scriptural evidence that the certificate itself was meant as anything other than due notification.

"Thus saith the LORD, Where [is] the bill of your mother's divorcement, whom I have put away?" - Isaiah 50:1

Even in the two Matthew references, the only exception to adultery was if she committed whoring, not if he gives her a certificate of divorcement. They already knew the certificate of divorcement was required before sending her away.

We're just not gonna agree here, David. I think it is beyond dispute that Yeshua was condemning the widespread practice of putting away women for 'any reason', leaving them in a state of uncovered "limbo", and essentially trading them for a younger model (just as post-Christian Amerika does today). Adultery was the exception because in that case the husband did not "cause her" to commit adultery - she already DID, and was not therefore entitled to a certificate of proof that she was NOT an adulteress.

What Scripture DOES say is that a woman who DEPARTS from her husband (as opposed to being put away, and given a kĕriythuwth, is to "remain unmarried, or be reconciled to [her] husband". And it ALSO says, in Deuteronomy 24, that IF a husband gives her that certificate and sends her away, she may become another man's wife. And he then may never take her back. Yeshua NEVER contradicted His own Word.

It seems pretty clear to me that a man whose wife "departs" from him, WITHOUT being put away, had better not give her a kĕriythuwth, should he ever expect her to return. And any man who is looking for a wife, if he cares about what the Bible says, should ask the same question in order to avoid adultery: "Where is the bill of her divorce?"

Blessings,

Mark

 

[Anonymous]

but there is no Scriptural evidence that the certificate itself was meant as anything other than due notification.

"Thus saith the LORD, Where [is] the bill of your mother's divorcement, whom I have put away?" - Isaiah 50:1

This was a rhetorical question. Do you suppose that God is asking for PROOF that Israel is entitled to remarry, or is He driving home the point that she has been separated from Himself? This same passage tells them that He did, in fact, give her a certificate of divorcement, once again demonstrating that the certificate was intended as notification of separation.

Adultery was the exception because in that case the husband did not "cause her" to commit adultery - she already DID, and was not therefore entitled to a certificate of proof that she was NOT an adulteress.

Please don’t get frustrated with what I’m saying. I want to be as clear as possible here so you don’t misunderstand me.

First, adultery is never given as any exception related to marital separation anywhere in Scripture. The Old Testament says “matter of uncoveredness” and the New Testament says “whoring”. Please show me any passage that uses the Hebrew word na’aph or Greek word moichao in relation to an exception that CAUSES adultery (na’aph/moichao) to occur.

Second, the certificate proved nothing other than her husband has cut her off. Deut. 24 says she was to be given a certificate of divorcement PRIOR to being sent away in every case. Without first giving her a certificate of divorcement, he is not allowed to put a wife away under ANY circumstances. Whether you believe she is ENTITLED to a certificate is irrelevant. Scripture REQUIRED it in every case of separation, including when God Himself sent away Israel. It was never optional when putting away one’s wife. There was never any exception to giving it when putting away one’s wife. It is required in every single case of marital separation according to God’s Word.

What Scripture DOES say is that a woman who DEPARTS from her husband (as opposed to being put away, and given a kĕriythuwth, is to "remain unmarried, or be reconciled to [her] husband".

Agreed. But it also says that a woman who IS put away and remarries commits adultery. That's the point I was making. In both cases, she commits adultery. So whether she departs from her husband or is put away by him, whether she is or is not given a certificate of divorcement, the end result is that she is to remain unmarried or reconciled to her husband. If she remarries, she commits adultery. Scripture NEVER speaks of a woman put away WITHOUT a certificate of divorcement. These passages are very clear and beyond dispute:

Matt. 5:32: “And whoever marries a woman who has been put away commits adultery.”

Matt. 19:9: “And whoever marries her who has been put away commits adultery.”

Luke 16:18: “And everyone marrying her who is put away from her husband commits adultery.”

There is only one method of "putting away" in Scripture and that is precisely what is being referred to here.

And it ALSO says, in Deuteronomy 24, that IF a husband gives her that certificate and sends her away, she may become another man's wife. And he then may never take her back.

Deut. 24 never actually says that she MAY become another man's wife, so much as it says IF she becomes another man's wife. Jesus even said that Moses allowed, whereas He does not. He made that point quite clear with the Pharisees. He clarified very specifically, numerous times, that IF she remarries (just as mentioned in Deut. 24), she commits adultery.

It seems pretty clear to me that a man whose wife "departs" from him, WITHOUT being put away, had better not give her a kĕriythuwth, should he ever expect her to return.

Agreed. He hasn’t put her away, she herself has abandoned him. The certificate was only to be given when the man was putting her away himself. He could only give it to her prior to putting her away.

And any man who is looking for a wife, if he cares about what the Bible says, should ask the same question in order to avoid adultery: "Where is the bill of her divorce?"

Since a “certificate of divorcement” is never mentioned anywhere in Scripture as an exception against the adultery Jesus says will occur if she remarries after being put away from her husband, with or without any certificate, adultery will always occur if she remarries. Worse still, the man she marries will also be committing adultery with her. Of course, all of this assumes her husband is still alive.

So again, back to the original question. What is the form of adultery mentioned in Mark 10:11 and Luke 16:18 that says a man marrying another woman after having put away his wife (yes, with the already understood prerequisite certificate) commits adultery?

Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

Blessings In Him,
David

 

[Dairyfarmer]

If I understand what you're looking for and have the understanding the Bible is family based. To me if a man wants to marry another woman, but can't afford to take care of two wives or they hate each other so he divorces the first to take the second, then he is commiting adultry because he broke the first family up. God wants his people to stay a family that is why he speaks of the sin to go on for generations. It is all about family and he wants no woman to have to take care of herself. God dislikes a broken family so much that he made it a sin to get out of it (divorce).

As for the matter of whoring. If the woman is not a virgin on the wedding night she is a whore. Therefore a man can put her away, but he doesn't have to it is up to him. I really don't think he should wait a week, he should do it right away.

Hopefully this is what you wanted.

Dairyfarmer

 

[Mark C]

Second, the certificate proved nothing other than her husband has cut her off. Deut. 24 says she was to be given a certificate of divorcement PRIOR to being sent away in every case. Without first giving her a certificate of divorcement, he is not allowed to put a wife away under ANY circumstances. Whether you believe she is ENTITLED to a certificate is irrelevant. Scripture REQUIRED it in every case of separation, including when God Himself sent away Israel. It was never optional when putting away one’s wife. There was never any exception to giving it when putting away one’s wife. It is required in every single case of marital separation according to God’s Word.

There is a logical disconnect here, David. What is the POINT of a bill of divorcement at all if your reading is correct? A non-virgin woman, with or without any paperwork, is simply untouchable. The Bible clearly says "if she remarries", not "if she commits adultery with another man she THINKS is her husband". Note that OTHERWISE, even if she DID commit adultery - her husband could take her back and the land is NOT "defiled"! (This is at least part of the point of the "test for jealousy".)

The whole point of the kĕriythuwth is to clarify her status, to provide protection and provision for the woman. A woman who "departed", in violation of her Covenant (and I Cor. 7:11) HAD no such proof of status; the same is true of an adulteress (and I'm not hung up on "whoring", or -- pick an uncleanness. I have no doubt that witchcraft would qualify as idolatry and uncleanness as well).

Men going to war gave their wives a "get" before departure for the same reason! In the even that they became MIA, she was not left uncovered, in limbo, for an indefinite period, and unable to remarry.

The point was to clarify her status (presumably a death certificate would suffice similarly). There would be no need for it otherwise.

Scripture NEVER speaks of a woman put away WITHOUT a certificate of divorcement.

Not true. But we've disagreed about Matthew 5 before.

So, having said all that, we may not disagree as much as it might appear, so far as "BELIEVERS" are concerned:

There is only one method of "putting away" in Scripture and that is precisely what is being referred to here.

Agreed. Yeshua clarifies that in Matthew 5. And He was clear enough about it that some of His disciples wondered if "maybe it is better not to marry." The bottom line, whether it is a marriage Covenant, or any oath - is simply DON'T DO IT, if you don't intend to honor it!

Now for the punchline...

So again, back to the original question. What is the form of adultery mentioned in Mark 10:11 and Luke 16:18 that says a man marrying another woman after having put away his wife (yes, with the already understood prerequisite certificate) commits adultery?

He broke covenant.

 

[Anonymous]

To me if a man wants to marry another woman, but can't afford to take care of two wives or they hate each other so he divorces the first to take the second, then he is commiting adultry because he broke the first family up...God dislikes a broken family so much that he made it a sin to get out of it (divorce).

I can see the unlawful separation being sinful, so that would make sense. But the problem I have with this understanding is that would make the act of unlawful marital separation the causality of adultery, independent of the man's remarriage. Yet in each of the three passages that Jesus discusses this subject of adulterous remarriage, He states that the man who puts her away AND remarries commits adultery. We also know physical adultery is a sexual act, so adultery based simply on putting her away without his remarriage seems to redefine adultery beyond any recognizable understanding. Then there's also the question about a man with three wives and only putting away one of them. It's almost like Jesus is stating that once a man sends away a wife, he is no longer eligible to marry another?

As for the matter of whoring. If the woman is not a virgin on the wedding night she is a whore. Therefore a man can put her away, but he doesn't have to it is up to him. I really don't think he should wait a week, he should do it right away.

Agreed. My unrelated studies into the subject suggest that he was expected to discover this matter of uncoveredness immediately upon marriage. If he was going to act on it, he was to do so at the time of discovery, not hold it over her head for years. I apprecate your response!

Blessings,
David

 

[Anonymous]

Mark,

First, I love you brother. You have a passion for Scripture that is very rare these days! I really enjoy your posts because you give me a lot to chew on and force me to refine my terms and clarify my thoughts. I just wanted you to know that you've been a blessing in my endeavors to work out many of these difficult passages. Okay, on to the subject at hand...

What is the POINT of a bill of divorcement at all if your reading is correct? A non-virgin woman, with or without any paperwork, is simply untouchable.

Not a non-virgin woman, but rather, a married woman, is untouchable, even if she is put away. A defiled woman, a whore or a widow can be married without any problems at all, since they do not have a husband. Yeshua was quite specific when he specified that anyone who married a PUT AWAY woman commits adultery, not simply a non-virgin woman. For adultery to occur, she had to have a husband that was still alive.

As to the point of the certificate, since it was a requirement before sending her away, I believe it serves the purpose of his notification of separation, exactly as stated in His Word. Scripture calls it a certificate of "cutting off", not a certificate of "remarriage proof". She could just as easily have burned the certificate once receiving it and she would still be eligible for remarriage. Nowhere does Scripture even SUGGEST that a put away woman had to produce evidence of a certificate of divorcement when getting remarried. It may very well have ended up being used that way, but that's not what it was intended for in any of the passages we've seen. All that Scripture states is that, prior to sending her away, he had to give it to her himself and then send her out of his house.

The Bible clearly says "if she remarries", not "if she commits adultery with another man she THINKS is her husband".

Mark 6:17-18: "For Herodes himself had sent and seized Yohanan, and bound him in prison because of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife, because he had married her, for Yohanan had said to Herodes, "It is not right for you to have your brother's wife."

Did Herod marry Herodias (Phillip’s wife), or didn’t he? Did Herod commit adultery with Herodias, or didn’t he? It is perfectly possible for a woman to be married to a second husband while committing adultery against the first, and the man who marries her also commits adultery. John thought adulterous remarriage important enough to lose his life over. This falls into the same category as all other illicit marriages, at least so long as her first husband lives.

The whole point of the kĕriythuwth is to clarify her status, to provide protection and provision for the woman.

Hmmm...where does Scripture state or even demonstrate anything like this?

Men going to war gave their wives a "get" before departure for the same reason!

Not in Scripture they didn’t. Men also put away first and give a certificate of divorce later, but that’s not what Scripture says to do either. They were not to give her a certificate of divorcement unless they were sending the wife out of their house. A classic example of replacing the clear commands of God (Deut. 24:1) with the traditions of men, all for a good cause that I'm sure made perfect sense to them.

The point was to clarify her status (presumably a death certificate would suffice similarly). There would be no need for it otherwise.

Again, Scripture doesn’t state anything like this. Nowhere is there even a suggestion that a put way woman needed to provide evidence of anything when remarrying. I’m not saying it could not be used in such a way, only that Scripture doesn’t state that. Same thing with a “death certificate”.

Agreed. Yeshua clarifies that in Matthew 5. And He was clear enough about it that some of His disciples wondered if "maybe it is better not to marry." The bottom line, whether it is a marriage Covenant, or any oath - is simply DON'T DO IT, if you don't intend to honor it!

Amen! But the point I was making was regarding Yeshua’s statements against marrying a put away woman. A man who has no intention of ever putting away his wife may still end up committing adultery with a put away woman if he doesn’t obey Yeshua's words in Matt. 5:32, Matt. 19:9 and Luke 16:18. Three different times, He specifically states a man who marries a put away woman commits adultery. It makes no difference if he himself never intends to put a wife away.

Romans 7:3a: “So then, while her husband lives, she shall be called an adulteress is she becomes another man’s.”

So again, back to the original question. What is the form of adultery mentioned in Mark 10:11 and Luke 16:18 that says a man marrying another woman after having put away his wife (yes, with the already understood prerequisite certificate) commits adultery?

He broke covenant.

When? When he put his wife away, or when he remarried? I bet you’re starting to see the problem here.

Love in Him,
David

 

[Dairyfarmer]

But the problem I have with this understanding is that would make the act of unlawful marital separation the causality of adultery, independent of the man's remarriage. Yet in each of the three passages that Jesus discusses this subject of adulterous remarriage, He states that the man who puts her away AND remarries commits adultery. We also know physical adultery is a sexual act, so adultery based simply on putting her away without his remarriage seems to redefine adultery beyond any recognizable understanding.

I guess I didn't write what was in my mind, to many things going on at once, sorry. It is not the unlawful marital seperation that causes adultery. Once he remarries then the adultery starts. God has made it so the man can't be with any new women unless he sins whether it be fornication or adultery. Because he didn't fulfill his obligations to the divorced woman, meaning keeping her as family.

Then there's also the question about a man with three wives and only putting away one of them. It's almost like Jesus is stating that once a man sends away a wife, he is no longer eligible to marry another?

I agree with this. Again back to the family thing.

Dairyfarmer

 

[Mark C]

[re: men going to war giving wives a get] ...Not in Scripture they didn’t. Men also put away first and give a certificate of divorce later, but that’s not what Scripture says to do either. They were not to give her a certificate of divorcement unless they were sending the wife out of their house.

Woah, David! A Contradiction in the same paragraph...

(I put the smiley in here, because I didn't think it was necessary about my "death certificate" comment, and perhaps regretted that. )

"were not to give...unless..." is NOT what it says, of course!

As for the war comment, there's nothing wrong with looking to history and culture to give some insight into what is being taught. I have no objection, for the same reason, to looking at the Chumash, the traditional midrash, or even the "oral torah" for understanding -- so long as one understands that we are not to "replace His commandments" with tradition in the process!

While I'm on that tack...

Mark C wrote:The whole point of the kĕriythuwth is to clarify her status, to provide protection and provision for the woman.

Hmmm...where does Scripture state or even demonstrate anything like this?

This one I'll just have to submit as an exercise for the reader. I'll start by apologizing for the "whole point" terminology - because I don't know God's intent, obviously - but then go on and contend that at least PART of God's demonstrable concern is for the "weaker vessel"; just as feminists who rail against "patriarchy" don't get it because it's counter intuitive in their worldview that being under authority could POSSIBLY be for protection, or for good. And His Word is consistent on this point - from Genesis 3:16 onward.

Nowhere does Scripture even SUGGEST that a put away woman had to produce evidence of a certificate of divorcement when getting remarried.

It certainly "suggests" that any of us men here, who know and care what He says, should not consider remarriage to a potential wife without one! You might say "don't do it anyway". Perhaps. But I would suggest that such an extrapolation may be akin to demanding that there be no healing on His Sabbath, or any other additions that "increased burdens". If we are to "take away reproach", and to "choose life" it is important that we NEITHER get too hung up on the paperwork, or ignore the fact that He has "all things" worked out for our good.

Finally...

He broke covenant...
When? When he put his wife away, or when he remarried? I

God DOES know our hearts.

When he broke covenant, due to the lust in his heart, which caused him to deal treacherously.

Blessings,

Mark

 

[Anonymous]

It is not the unlawful marital seperation that causes adultery. Once he remarries then the adultery starts. God has made it so the man can't be with any new women unless he sins whether it be fornication or adultery. Because he didn't fulfill his obligations to the divorced woman, meaning keeping her as family.

I tend to agree. My understanding is that the marital separation makes them ineligible for remarriage, because of their treacherous dealings. Obviously, having only one wife is easier and less expensive than having multiple wives, so if men were separating and remarrying to avoid having to provide for more than one wife at a time, as others here have suggested, then it makes sense that He would forbid them taking another wife. Basically, if this is how you deal with the one you already have, you’re not permitted another.

Rather than disallow marital separation itself, which was always understood to be permitted under Mosaic law, Jesus simply made it so that marital separation would prevent remarriage without committing adultery. Ironically, this makes His statement agree with preexisting Scripture while raising the bar against marital treachery.

Love in Him,
David

 

[Mark C]

There's nothing "ironic" about the Word Made Flesh agreeing with His own Written Word, David. He changes not.

But in so far as breaking of vows carrying consequences, I think we are all in agreement.

After all, He made that point clear, too, in Matthew 25 and elsewhere:
"Well done, [thou] good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things...
[but]...from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath."

 

[Anonymous]

Men also put away first and give a certificate of divorce later, but that’s not what Scripture says to do either. They were not to give her a certificate of divorcement unless they were sending the wife out of their house.

Woah, David! A Contradiction in the same paragraph...

"were not to give...unless..." is NOT what it says, of course!

Deut. 24:1: “When a man takes a wife and shall marry her, then it shall be, if she finds no favour in his eyes because he has found a matter of uncoveredness in her, and he shall write her a certificate of divorce, and put it in her hand, and send her out of his house”

The sequence of events:

1. The man takes a wife and marries her.
2. She finds no favor in his eyes because he finds a matter of uncoveredness in her.
3. He writes her a certificate of divorce.
4. He puts the certificate of divorce in her hand.
5. He sends her out of his house.

This passage demonstrates that he is to give her the certificate and then send her out of his house. He is not told to give her the certificate and then go off to war. Misusing it in that manner only perverts the declaration of “cutting off”. I stand by my statement. He was not to send her out of his home without first giving her the certificate, and he was not to give her the certificate without then sending her out of his home. The certificate and sending away went hand-in-hand.

When? When he put his wife away, or when he remarried?

God DOES know our hearts.
When he broke covenant, due to the lust in his heart, which caused him to deal treacherously.

Actually, I agree completely. Although both conditions (putting her away AND marrying another) were required for him to commit adultery in this case, the treachery occurred when he put her away in order to marry another.

For the most part, I think we're saying the same thing. The husband shouldn't put away his wife in this manner, but since it wasn't unlawful (according to Mosaic law) to put away one's wife, He simply forbid remarriage to those who would act treacherously against their wives. While it is certainly an addition to the Mosaic law, it doesn't have to be a contradiction. It fits the character of God, it lines up with both Covenants, and it doesn't do serious injustice to Jesus' words against adulterous remarriage. I just wanted to see if anyone else had an alternative understanding of the form of adultery in these verses.

Love in Him,
David

 

[Mark C]

They were not to give her a certificate of divorcement unless they were sending the wife out of their house.

The above statement is not the logical equivalent of saying "he is to give her a certificate of divorce if he sends the wife away"; it is an example of the fallacy of the negative. In some cases it matters a lot (such as some of the "difficult sayings" that Yeshua was clarifying) - in this case, given that none of us evidently WANT to send a wife away - I won't belabor the point further.

But I'm thankful here, David, that we all seem to be in agreement on the primary issue in this thread:

Some men, in most cases, who could have honored their wife and even taken another, chose otherwise:

"He simply forbade remarriage to those who would act treacherously against their wives."

Note, similarly, that He also forbade remarriage to those who acted treacherously against their HUSBAND, as well. (by "departing"; I Cor. 7 again)

To whom much is given, much is expected. It is indeed consistent with His character, and teachings.

 

[Anonymous]

Okay, so it seems like there's a general consensus regarding the adultery in Mark 10:11 and Luke 16:18. (If there are other ideas out there, please feel free to offer any other views). Based exclusively on these passages and the corresponding passages in Matthew (again, side-stepping the whoring exception clause for the moment), here's what I'm seeing as causing adultery here (please let me know if I'm missing any)...

Adultery in marriage for the MAN:
#1. A man may not marry a wife who separated from her living husband. (Mark 10:12)
#2. A man may not marry a put away wife while her husband still lives. (Matt. 5:32, Matt. 19:9, Luke 16:18)
#3. A man may not marry any woman after having put away his wife (while she still lives?). (Matt. 19:9, Mark 10:11, Luke 16:18)

Adultery in marriage for the WOMAN:
#4. A wife who separated from her husband may not marry anyone else while her husband still lives. (Mark 10:12)
#5. A put away wife may not marry anyone else while her husband still lives. (Matt. 5:32, Matt. 19:9, Luke 16:18)

The issue I've been working on specifically is with #3, where the adultery is the result of putting away the wife and remarrying. It appears that we're in agreement that putting away the wife, in and of itself, is not the cause of adultery (especially as physical adultery in Scripture is always illicit sexual conduct), but the taking of another wife after having put one away that results in adultery. The assumption here is that the act of putting away one's wife makes the man ineligible for remarriage, in much the same way the wife is ineligible for remarriage if she leaves her husband. We know from the Greek present tense that the "commits adultery" here effectively means "keeps on committing adultery", so this cannot refer to the separation itself, but rather an ongoing adulterous sexual union.

Unless anyone has a better understanding here, it seems that this spousal replacement (consisting of putting away and remarriage) runs in both directions, according to these passages. Jesus is not redefining adultery here, but rather, applying the sin of adultery in cases of treacherous spousal replacement. Is that the general understanding of this community as well?

Blessings,
David