I tend to agree with you on this point, but not based on that passage
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Matthew 19:9 Adultery in unjustified divorce and remarriage
- Thread starter Shadowjak's Dancer
- Start date
Oh? I am interested in what other passages your thinking of...
This is one of those instances where it is not wise to infer too much from silence or omission. There are many things not specifically dealt with within the Canon simply because the purpose of the Canon is to point to Christ rather than to discuss the minutia of family law.
The Babylonian Talmud, Ketubot circa 550-450 BC clearly define the cultural normal of the day and that the passage referenced was a protection for slave wives to ensure that the factor of slavery didnt alienate her from the same rights due a non slave wife.
From https://www.sefaria.org/Introductions_to_the_Babylonian_Talmud,_Ketubot,_Introduction_to_Ketubot?lang=bi
Based on Exodus 21:10, the obligations of a husband to his wife by Torah law are food, clothing, and conjugal rights. Food refers to the husband's obligation to provide sustenance to his wife according to her needs; clothing, his obligation to provide her with garments; and conjugal relations, his obligation to engage with her in sexual relations at regular intervals. Also by Torah law, the husband is entitled to nullify certain vows taken by his wife. After her death he inherits her property, although not everyone agrees that this is by Torah law. By rabbinic law, the husband is obligated to pay his wife's medical bills and to redeem her from captivity.
Though it is possible to take a very narrow view of the context of this passage and restrict it to slave wives based upon silence alone, the position of the writers of the Babylonian Talmud, Ketubot, was that these were unalienable rights (barring adultery) for any and every wife regardless of social status or origin, whether they were written in a ketubah or not or in the abscence of a ketubah as in the case of a slave wife. If an attempt was made to exclude them from the ketubah, it was denied because the ketubah must conform to Torah. Any clause that was contradictory to Torah was ruled null and void. Long and short of it was that a man who took any wife was responsible for these three conditions without exception.
1 Corinthians 7:10-17 KJV
[10] And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: [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.
^^^ This verse in context seems to be speaking of believing husbands and wives who are married to believers
[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. [13] And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. [14] For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. [15] But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases : but God hath called us to peace. [16] For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife? [17] But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches.
^^^ This passage it seems is speaking to believers who are married to unbelievers. Notice the believers are not being commanded to remain with unbelievers, but are being encouraged to do so, in order that they might be a witness to the unbelieving spouse. No command is given that they must stay with them.
1 Timothy 5:8 KJV
[8] But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
^^^ This passage seems to be saying that if a man is not providing for his family he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. Taking all these passages together, i would conclude that a woman may leave her husband if he refuses to provide for her basic needs.
[10] And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: [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.
^^^ This verse in context seems to be speaking of believing husbands and wives who are married to believers
[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. [13] And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. [14] For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. [15] But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases : but God hath called us to peace. [16] For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife? [17] But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches.
^^^ This passage it seems is speaking to believers who are married to unbelievers. Notice the believers are not being commanded to remain with unbelievers, but are being encouraged to do so, in order that they might be a witness to the unbelieving spouse. No command is given that they must stay with them.
1 Timothy 5:8 KJV
[8] But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
^^^ This passage seems to be saying that if a man is not providing for his family he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. Taking all these passages together, i would conclude that a woman may leave her husband if he refuses to provide for her basic needs.
The next logical step would be to conclude whether or not she is “eternally” bound to this worse than an infidel husband.
I’m not sure I understand what you mean.
I just posted this thought in this thread http://www.biblicalfamilies.org/forum/threads/independent-contractor-or-servant.14240/ I’m not certain that I have the answers, but I think when I do it will be somewhere down this train of thought.
Along the lines of that same Shepherd/Steward metaphor, what does a Shepherd/Steward do when the Master entrusts him with a wounded sheep? What if this wounded sheep was wounded by the neglect or abuse of another Shepherd/Steward that was in His service? Does the Master have the right or authority to entrust this sheep to another shepherd/steward? If he doesnt have that right, does that mean that the wounded or abused or neglected sheep is doomed to be alone for the rest of their life? No protection, no provision, no care, and exposed to the wolves and the wild until they are emaciated and dead with no possibility to be fruitful and fulfill their Master’s will for their lives.
It’s easy to determine what the Master would do if one of His Shepherd/Stewards were to die. He would appoint another Shepherd or merge that flock with another flock. What’s more difficult to determine is what happens when one of His Shepherd/Stewards is a poor leader or steward or just downright abusive or neglectful with those entrusted to him. I think the answers to these questions are indicated in passages like Ezekiel 34 and Jeremiah 23 among others.
Along the lines of that same Shepherd/Steward metaphor, what does a Shepherd/Steward do when the Master entrusts him with a wounded sheep? What if this wounded sheep was wounded by the neglect or abuse of another Shepherd/Steward that was in His service? Does the Master have the right or authority to entrust this sheep to another shepherd/steward? If he doesnt have that right, does that mean that the wounded or abused or neglected sheep is doomed to be alone for the rest of their life? No protection, no provision, no care, and exposed to the wolves and the wild until they are emaciated and dead with no possibility to be fruitful and fulfill their Master’s will for their lives.
It’s easy to determine what the Master would do if one of His Shepherd/Stewards were to die. He would appoint another Shepherd or merge that flock with another flock. What’s more difficult to determine is what happens when one of His Shepherd/Stewards is a poor leader or steward or just downright abusive or neglectful with those entrusted to him. I think the answers to these questions are indicated in passages like Ezekiel 34 and Jeremiah 23 among others.
The big problem here is that the shepherd metaphor isn't the one that applies to "marriage". It's Christ and the church. And the Master will always follow His own guidelines. I know wounded sheep elicit a reflexively emotional desire to protect them but that doesn't mean we can take charge of another shepherd's flock.
There are many people who would disagree vociferously with this. The purpose is most definitely to discuss the minutia of every topic. If it's not in there then it's not foundational..
Then why is there so much of Christ’s life left blank?
No, saying only prostitution was fornication would make no sense, I completely agree. However, the word "porneia" is based on the root word "porn" which means "prostitute". So the two words are related, and it is helpful to consider this relationship when understanding the meaning of the word. However the word is not limited to prostitution.
For instance, a man taking his father's wife is referred to as fornication (1 Co 5:1). That's not prostitution, but it IS something that is banned in Torah. The simplest understanding of "porneia" is that it is "illicit", ie "unlawful", sexual intercourse. In other words, sexual intercourse that is prohibited in Torah (because if it were not prohibited in Torah, it would not be unlawful).
I definitely understand what you are saying. Let's leave the point about defrauding alone for a bit. At this point we will agree to disagree.
In your opinion is there any type of fornication that a wife could commit that would not also be adultery? Possibly lesbianism? Again this comes down to the practical and applicable definition of adultery and fornication...
I do not think I can follow you. It sounds to me like you are lawyering (and mixing verses written to different people as you acknowledge) to find a loophole. The verse you quoted "Let not the wife depart from her husband" means to me exactly what it says. It does not say "Let not the wife depart from her husband, unless things are really bad."
Are christians commanded to stay with unbelieving spouses? If so, why does Paul differentiate between the two and specifically state that it is not the commandment of the Lord for believers to stay with an unbelieving spouse?
If a man stops providing food, clothing, and sex to his wife, he has abandoned her. Is she supposed to chase after him until she dies of starvation? I don’t mean that in a snarky way, I’m seriously asking. What is she supposed to do?
How do the passages in question not work together?
Edit:
I think these passages do work together. All but one verse are from the same passage and all are penned by the same author. Yes they are written to different groups ( although technically speaking, they are written to one group, the church), but they are not written to address some unique issue in one particular place. Paul specifically states that what he’s talking about in Corinthians is what he ordains in all churches. The one verse from Timothy is not written to address something unique, but is an overlaying principle.
Last edited:
I agree with you and the passage I pointed out earlier is clear evidence for the position as well even if it was only speaking about a slave wife in that particular passage. I still think it's a moral principle applicable to all wives. The passages you pointed out are further evidence of this...
I'm pretty sure that lesbianism is never a sexual sin. Please see....
http://www.biblicalfamilies.org/forum/threads/to-avoid-derailing-another-thread.14175/#post-165268
http://www.biblicalfamilies.org/forum/threads/david-and-bathsheba.14138/page-12#post-165252
Example; if her father or her husband told her not to partake of another woman, and she does anyway, it would think it is the disobedience, not the "lesbianism" that was the sin.
Point taken and I tend to agree.
Because it's not relevant and God didn't want us manufacturing a Christian version of the Hadith where misguided people try to be like Christ by imitating the superficial aspects of life in first century Palestine. Why do you think it's important? And if it was why would God omit it?
I can't think of anything obvious, except for fornication committed jointly with her husband (sex during her period, as that's forbidden in Torah so is by definition also unlawful sexual conduct ie fornication). Hypothetically, doing something sexual that is forbidden by her husband (female-female sex or anything else he chooses to forbid for whatever reason). But you're right, outside that basically whatever she does wrong would be adultery.
For the same reason that there are so many blanks in family law in Scripture. Like the rest of Christ’s life, the only parts that were pertinent to the gospel or good news of the Messiah were the beginning and the ministry portions and even portions of that are not recorded. I’m certain that God has his own reasons for limiting the information contained in the canon and that’s His right as the Almighty. The why is not really important to me and is no doubt above my pay grade. What is important to me is to recognize that some issues are just not dealt with thoroughly within the canon and to figure out how to compensate for that lack of information. Fortunately He has also, by whatever means, preserved additional historical information about the cultures before and after the time of Christ about family law. Not that I believe that it has the same authority of Scripture, but it is a fairly reliable witness to the culture of the day and provides a much better perspective to understand Scripture than from those who refuse to approach Scripture from anything other than their own western cultural bias.