Meat Adultery redefined in Mt. 19:9?

[The Revolting Man]

There are a number of Matthew 19:9 threads and I almost resurrected one of those for this discussion but it’s a new enough issue that I figured it deserved its own thread.

I am involved in an ongoing discussion loosely centered around this verse with a skeptic. He has pointed out to me that we claim that adultery is ALWAYS involving a married woman and a man other than her husband.

Our Skeptical Friend has pointed out that in Matthew 19:9 we have adultery occurring with no outside man. There is only the man and his wife. It’s a valid point although I don’t know junk if effects the polygyny debate.

So what say you scholars? So we need to change the verbiage to reflect this? Or is there some aspect of this I’m missing?

 

[MeganC]

There is only the man and his wife.

...and yet another woman as well.

I think the point here for us is that a first wife is not 'put away' in favor of a subsequent wife.

 

[NVIII]

Read it in light of Matt 5:32 with the understanding we may have from other passages that the husband/lord is the covering of the ones subjugated to him, having complete authority and responsibility for them regardless of his own condition of righteousness or that of his commands to them. He is their indemnification so long as they remain under his covering (that is, being in complete submission to him, obeying his word even when they think his word is unrighteous). Therefore, to divorce his wife, when she submits to him and obeys him even in this, he causes her to become an adulteress. However, because God is just and sees all things, and because she did not rebel but remained under her husband's covering, he receives her guilt, just as a husband does anytime his wife faithfully obeys an unrighteous command he gives her. He is the one guilty of the adultery he causes her to commit, and that's how we arrive at that sentencing.

When we refuse to accept that the husband has such complete authority over his wives, or fail to understand what it means to have such authority, and when we in our fear or ignorance attempt to make exceptions and allowances for rebellion in the case of perceived or real unrighteousness, then we lose the ability to understand many things, including how this could be his adultery. Seeing an apparent dichotomy, we seek alternate definitions of words in order to make the ends meet in our heads. Along the way, or as a result further down the way, we have to twist or ignore other things because the puzzle only fits one way.

So, that's what I say. Not that we need to change any verbiage, but only that we need to go back to the foundation of marriage and have faith and accept what is already written, that the husband has absolute authority and responsibility over his wives, and that the gravity of the meaning of this is that he may order her to do something unrighteous and she will be guiltless through her obedience to him because he will receive the guilt for what he has made her do in his name. If, however, she strays from under his covering, rebelling against him in any way, including committing adultery of her own free will, then the guilt is hers alone. That is why Jesus provided the distinction.

 

[The Revolting Man]

...and yet another woman as well.

I think the point here for us is that a first wife is not 'put away' in favor of a subsequent wife.

I wonder if that’s why our skeptic is using this verse, there are one man and two women. Hmmmmmm.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Read it in light of Matt 5:32 with the understanding we may have from other passages that the husband/lord is the covering of the ones subjugated to him, having complete authority and responsibility for them regardless of his own condition of righteousness or that of his commands to them. He is their indemnification so long as they remain under his covering (that is, being in complete submission to him, obeying his word even when they think his word is unrighteous). Therefore, to divorce his wife, when she submits to him and obeys him even in this, he causes her to become an adulteress. However, because God is just and sees all things, and because she did not rebel but remained under her husband's covering, he receives her guilt, just as a husband does anytime his wife faithfully obeys an unrighteous command he gives her. He is the one guilty of the adultery he causes her to commit, and that's how we arrive at that sentencing.

When we refuse to accept that the husband has such complete authority over his wives, or fail to understand what it means to have such authority, and when we in our fear or ignorance attempt to make exceptions and allowances for rebellion in the case of perceived or real unrighteousness, then we lose the ability to understand many things, including how this could be his adultery. Seeing an apparent dichotomy, we seek alternate definitions of words in order to make the ends meet in our heads. Along the way, or as a result further down the way, we have to twist or ignore other things because the puzzle only fits one way.

So, that's what I say. Not that we need to change any verbiage, but only that we need to go back to the foundation of marriage and have faith and accept what is already written, that the husband has absolute authority and responsibility over his wives, and that the gravity of the meaning of this is that he may order her to do something unrighteous and she will be guiltless through her obedience to him because he will receive the guilt for what he has made her do in his name. If, however, she strays from under his covering, rebelling against him in any way, including committing adultery of her own free will, then the guilt is hers alone. That is why Jesus provided the distinction.

The point is that we a situation where adultery occurs without there being a second man to one woman. That does challenge the orthodoxy we have around adultery.

 

[NVIII]

The point is that we a situation where adultery occurs without there being a second man to one woman. That does challenge the orthodoxy we have around adultery.

Is there not a second man? Maybe I read Matt 5:32 too closely together with 19:9.

 

[NickF]

Matthew 5:31-32
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 (put away, not divorced) committeth adultery.

Matthew 19:3-9
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?
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
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 10:2-12
And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.
3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?
4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
10 And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.
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.

I don't have my Matt 19 stuff finished yet but look up these three portions using BLB and look into the Greek words used there.

Put away is apolyo, it just means sent away. Jesus did not divorce a crowd of people, he told em to scram. You give a woman her divorce papers AND tell her to scram. Marrying a woman who's estranged is adultery because she is still married.
Kicking your wife out without a proper divorce forces most women to seek the protection and providence of a man, causing her to commit adultery. The sin is on the head of the man. He commited adultery against her. The greek is literally "adultery upon her".

Below is an excerpt of my short paper on the matter. Like I said, not polished at all, just my jumbled thoughts as they go from my head to keyboard. But since time is of the essence, I'll copy and paste for your ammo pouch.

------------------------------------------
11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away (apolyō G630) his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against (epi G1909) her.

12 And if a woman shall put away (apolyō G630) her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.


Notice how the man commits adultery epi/against her. I may be incorrect about the word usage. But it seems to me that the word epi means:

ἐπί epí, ep-ee'; a primary preposition; properly, meaning superimposition (of time, place, order, etc.), as a relation of distribution (with the genitive case), i.e. over, upon, etc.; of rest (with the dative case)

Superimposes adultery onto her. Puts it upon her, distributes the sin upon her. He is responsible for her adultery if he simply sends her away without a writing of divorcement.

Verse 11 actually in Greek simply says μοιχᾶται ἐπ᾽ αὐτήν, Or transliterated “Adultery upon her”. It doesn’t say the man commits adultery. It literally just says adultery (placed) upon her. He is guilty of her adultery because he causes adultery to be put on her. Presumably because by sending her away without the legal right to remarry, she has two options. Starve and die, marry another man and commit adultery because she is only sent away, or prostitute herself. Either way she has no protection or providence from a man because her husband sent her away without the bill of divorcement that enables her to legally marry again. The contrast is that if the woman estranges herself from her husband and marries another, she commits the sin of adultery, (not upon the husband but herself).

When we understand what that word adultery even means in english, the confusion is cleared up. If a ketchup company recalls a batch of ketchup because it was adulterated with a cleaning solution. They recall the batch of ketchup because something was put in the ketchup that didn’t belong there. When a married woman has sexual intercourse with a man who is not her husband, something is being placed inside her that does not belong there. She has been adulterated with a foreign thing. She belongs to the husband, the husband cannot adulterate himself according to the definition of the word adultery in God’s word. The husband can adulterate another man’s wife by putting himself into something that does not belong to him. The married woman can adulterate herself by allowing something to be put in her that does not belong there.

 

[NVIII]

I don't have my Matt 19 stuff finished yet but look up these three portions using BLB and look into the Greek words used there.

Put away is apolyo, it just means sent away. Jesus did not divorce a crowd of people, he told em to scram. You give a woman her divorce papers AND tell her to scram. Marrying a woman who's estranged is adultery because she is still married.
Kicking your wife out without a proper divorce forces most women to seek the protection and providence of a man, causing her to commit adultery. The sin is on the head of the man. He commited adultery against her. The greek is literally "adultery upon her".

Below is an excerpt of my short paper on the matter. Like I said, not polished at all, just my jumbled thoughts as they go from my head to keyboard. But since time is of the essence, I'll copy and paste for your ammo pouch.

------------------------------------------
11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away (apolyō G630) his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against (epi G1909) her.

12 And if a woman shall put away (apolyō G630) her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.


Notice how the man commits adultery epi/against her. I may be incorrect about the word usage. But it seems to me that the word epi means:

ἐπί epí, ep-ee'; a primary preposition; properly, meaning superimposition (of time, place, order, etc.), as a relation of distribution (with the genitive case), i.e. over, upon, etc.; of rest (with the dative case)

Superimposes adultery onto her. Puts it upon her, distributes the sin upon her. He is responsible for her adultery if he simply sends her away without a writing of divorcement.

Verse 11 actually in Greek simply says μοιχᾶται ἐπ᾽ αὐτήν, Or transliterated “Adultery upon her”. It doesn’t say the man commits adultery. It literally just says adultery (placed) upon her. He is guilty of her adultery because he causes adultery to be put on her. Presumably because by sending her away without the legal right to remarry, she has two options. Starve and die, marry another man and commit adultery because she is only sent away, or prostitute herself. Either way she has no protection or providence from a man because her husband sent her away without the bill of divorcement that enables her to legally marry again. The contrast is that if the woman estranges herself from her husband and marries another, she commits the sin of adultery, (not upon the husband but herself).

When we understand what that word adultery even means in english, the confusion is cleared up. If a ketchup company recalls a batch of ketchup because it was adulterated with a cleaning solution. They recall the batch of ketchup because something was put in the ketchup that didn’t belong there. When a married woman has sexual intercourse with a man who is not her husband, something is being placed inside her that does not belong there. She has been adulterated with a foreign thing. She belongs to the husband, the husband cannot adulterate himself according to the definition of the word adultery in God’s word. The husband can adulterate another man’s wife by putting himself into something that does not belong to him. The married woman can adulterate herself by allowing something to be put in her that does not belong there.

It's good to read such thorough confirmation of my understanding. But, @The Revolting Man pointed out to me that Matt 19:9 doesn't actually include a second man. He seemed to think it was a stretch to associate 5:32 that closely to 19:9 or to assume the progression of the woman in 19:9 from putting away to remarriage. Do you think, for the skeptic he's talking to, there is a way to show that these to passages may be used together like this?

 

[NickF]

Do you think, for the skeptic he's talking to, there is a way to show that these to passages may be used together like this?

Matthew 5:31-32
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 (put away, not divorced) committeth adultery.

This is the first teaching on the matter I know of from Jesus. He said very clearly if you send away a wife you cause her to commit adultery. And if you marry one of those women who are sent away you commit adultery.

Then later the pharisees came to try and trap him, and ask tricky questions. Let us be careful to not fall into the same traps laid thousands of years ago by answering their question according to their trickery.

I'll try and get back to this later this weekend or next. Too much to do today and tomorrow still.

 

[Keith Martin]

It's good to read such thorough confirmation of my understanding. But, @The Revolting Man pointed out to me that Matt 19:9 doesn't actually include a second man. He seemed to think it was a stretch to associate 5:32 that closely to 19:9 or to assume the progression of the woman in 19:9 from putting away to remarriage. Do you think, for the skeptic he's talking to, there is a way to show that these to passages may be used together like this?

Sound Bite Version:

Hillel/Righteous Polygyny/Common Sense.

TLDR:CAMERA Version:

At the risk of inspiring the ire of the VSP and an accusation of adding to Scripture, I believe a couple more things tie all this together. @NickF's analyses have been spot on. Matthew 5 precedes Matthew 19 not only prosaically but chronologically. @NickF points toward one crucial aspect of Yeshua's words as he deftly navigated the Pharisees' attempted trap, but that trap was indeed, as you've mentioned, purposefully laid to trip up Yeshua in the context of the historically-confirmable greatest raging debate within Judaism of the moment, Shammai vs Hillel: the Jewish community was in the midst of polarization between two prominent rabbinical schools of thought on a great many life approaches but specifically on divorce: (a) it should be highly restricted if not almost prohibited; versus (b) a man should have the right to get rid of a woman any time he pleases, even if, in the well-known example of the day, he just didn't like the sound of the way she chewed her food.

The trap was multifaceted, but Yeshua dispatched it deftly. He certainly knew that giving a clear answer either way would alienate one side or the other, but what he also knew was that the Pharisees had orchestrated their query to bring multiple wives into the discussion. It would have been unthinkable at that time -- you know, before Condemnation Christianity had demonized polygyny -- to claim that a man had to stay with the 1st wife because having 2 was forbidden. But to ignore the dynamic in the question would have been almost equally as foolish. So Yeshua's answer grounded itself not only in the concept of not putting asunder but also in Exodus 21:10, because putting away one wife while taking on another trespassed the man's ongoing responsibility to provide equal provision, protection and due benevolence to wife 1.

Lastly, many great thoughts have been expressed about why this would cause the man to be responsible for his wife's adultery, most notably,

He is guilty of her adultery because he causes adultery to be put on her. Presumably because by sending her away without the legal right to remarry, she has two options. Starve and die, marry another man and commit adultery because she is only sent away, or prostitute herself.

However, this leaves an important consideration 'between the lines,' which is in alignment with modern squeamishness about sexuality; however, antisexuality was far from mainstream back in Yeshua's day. There were rules (think Leviticus 18, etc.), but the fairy tale of nonexistent female libido wouldn't have a chance to be adopted en masse given that it would be another few centuries before Constantine even kick-started the Roman Catholic Church. Much rabbinical writing from the period indicates that, in an example such as the one which the Pharisees presented, it wasn't just a matter of a woman being put in a position of choosing between (a) getting placed under the protection of another man, or (b) poverty and starvation. It would have just been assumed that such a woman, who had been in a position to have developed a regular sex life, would not just casually accept a fate in which she became a lifelong celibate. This would have been acknowledged by everyone, that one man sending her away would most likely lead to her ending up in the arms of another man in order to meet her own sexual needs -- but the only reason in the example that she was presented with such a dilemma was the unrighteous sending away by her 1st husband, and thus, in this particular type of scenario -- man unrighteously putting away his wife -- he would bear all the responsibility for her adultery.

The brilliance of Yeshua's response is that he managed to indirectly cut Hillel's divorce position off at the knees while failing to endorse the inflexible rigidity of Shammai, simultaneously managing to avoid directly taking either Hillel's side or Shammai's.

 

[NVIII]

thus he would share with her the responsibility for her adultery.

Shares with her, or owns it all? I think he owns it all.

 

[cnystrom]

we claim that adultery is ALWAYS involving a married woman and a man other than her husband.

So we need to change the verbiage to reflect this? Or is there some aspect of this I’m missing?

Maybe the claim should be that "adultery ALWAYS involves a married woman and a man", or more simply "adultery ALWAYS involves a married woman".

The main point is that it does NOT involve a single (and thus available) woman. It is always about covenant keeping and single women have not made a covenant, yet.

The guilty party is whoever breaks the covenant. If she has relations with another man then she is guilty of adultery. If he breaks the covenant (by divorcing her and leaving her vulnerable) then he is guilty of adultery.

The important point of Matthew 19:9 that a man that does not divorce his wife and marries another woman is not guilty of adultery still stands, because he has not broken the covenant.

The point of Matthew 19:9 is that God is opposed to male hypergamy. You can have as many wives as you can afford, but you have to keep them. You can not trade up. There are other verses that deal with (and oppose) female hypergamy.

Mark 10:9 "...Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."

 

[The Revolting Man]

Just

The main point is that it does NOT involve a single (and thus available) woman.

I agree wholeheartedly. That’s the truth we’re trying to convey. The statement as it exists on the website currently isn’t reflective of that.

 

[Keith Martin]

Shares with her, or owns it all? I think he owns it all.

I really can't argue with that, either, in the hypothetical case of which we're speaking.

I'll edit my post.

[Done; thank you, NVIII.]