• 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.

Mark 10:11-12.. any definitive understanding here?

AgnosticBoy

New Member
Male
I searched the forum and the Q/A section but I've yet to come across any definitive understanding on what Jesus means in Mark 10 when he talks about adultery and it being "against her". I've read some of Dr. William Luck's commentary and he seems to view adultery in the passage as being used in a non-sexual sense. I thought adultery always relates to sex.

Two questions:
1. Is there a definitive or consensus on this forum on this issue?

2. Why can't there to be two coexisting standards for adultery? We can say that there's one that applies to those who unjustly divorce (NT added rule), and one (the preexisting OT definition) that applies to the rest of us?
 
1: I think there is a consensus about not trying to reach a consensus on this issue.

2: I'm not sure what you mean. Obviously there is only one standard of adultery and that is the standard that God holds us to as He understands it.

In what way should there be two standards? In the way that some hold themselves to one standard and others to another standard? That can't be it because there is a whole rainbow of standards for adultery in 'christendom' and we coexist about it fairly non-violently. We haven't burned anyone at the stake for it in like, hundreds of years...
 
Spiritual adultery

2 Corinthians 11:1-3

1 Would that ye could bear with me in a little foolishness: but indeed ye do bear with me.
2 For I am jealous over you with a godly jealousy: for I espoused you to one husband, that I might present you [as] a pure virgin to Christ.
3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve in his craftiness, your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity and the purity that is toward Christ.


Paul says that every person, who has become a Christian, has become the bride of Christ and warns that the bride of Christ can be led away and corrupted by unfaithfulness. This shows that there can be physical adultery, and spiritual adultery to Christ. None of us is perfect; none of us are totally faithful to our divine Bridegroom. We are all weak, and many times we are unfaithful in our thoughts or our actions but there is a clear distinction between the imperfection of all Christians and spiritual adultery. Spiritual adultery happens when those who claim to be G-d's people stop listening to what G-d has said and turn to other gods (this world has many) This is also known in the Bible as apostasy. There is a stigma in the use of the word adultery that the world wishes to avoid and often the word is avoided, and called something else, so that adultery never has to be named. The same is true with the word apostasy for many Christians. We like to tone down the meanings of these words, but G-d does not. Adultery is the word G-d applies like a knife to His people when they are unfaithful to Him. G-d uses the word adultery over and over again in Scripture, in regard to His people - Ex 34:12-15; Lev. 20:5-6 Judg 2:17; Isa 1:21; Jer 3:6-9; Ezek 16:30-32; Rev 17:1-5
 
Last edited:
I doubt you'll find much consensus on that one here. You really need to look at everything said about divorce in the Bible to reconcile it all. I think it does reconcile quite nicely but not in one verse.

There are two standards for adultery, one for men and one for women. Physical adultery for men includes desiring to commit adultery too.
 
Physical adultery for men includes desiring to commit adultery too.

Even that one has folks on more than one side about the full implications of that verse.

Safe to say @AgnosticBoy, you won't find neat little packages of answers here. Most of us have been searching the scriptures for years, and are still lacking agreement in many areas.

But,

We all pretty much agree that if you "Call on the name of the Lord Jesus, you will be saved." We're not very agnostic about those matters around here. Our gnosis of the Truth has set us free.
 
Last edited:
1: I think there is a consensus about not trying to reach a consensus on this issue.

2: I'm not sure what you mean. Obviously there is only one standard of adultery and that is the standard that God holds us to as He understands it.

In what way should there be two standards? In the way that some hold themselves to one standard and others to another standard? That can't be it because there is a whole rainbow of standards for adultery in 'christendom' and we coexist about it fairly non-violently. We haven't burned anyone at the stake for it in like, hundreds of years...
I meant standard as in "terms". The terms for adultery between the husband and wife were different in the OT. Any or all extra-marital sex by the wife was adultery, whereas, for the husband, it was only when the extramarital relation involved another man's wife. These are two different terms.

In the NT, we find adultery being connected to divorce. Divorce had little to nothing to do with adultery in the OT, because the wife can sleep around without needing to divorce, and likewise for the husband.

So the multiple terms are as follows:
1. Wife is not allowed to sleep with anyone else
2. Husband can sleep with any other woman except another man's wife
3. No one is allowed to sleep with anyone else when an unjustly divorce is allowed.

For now, I see no logical conflict with all of these terms co-existing. It could mean Jesus added to the rules, but at least he left the pre-existing rule in place and it doesn't cause conflict with the new rules.
 
What wasn't covered much is how or why does a husband commit adultery.
That part in my opinion is speaking to spiritual adultery and abandoning the marriage covenant made with a wife and G-d. Breaking a vow to G-d.
 
IMHO Adultery is always about a broken covenant, and sometimes involves sex.
Your point seems reasonable when it comes to the NT standard of adultery since it connects it to "divorce" (breaking the covenant?) However, those NT passages also mentions "remarriage" so I think sex is involved or presumed when you marry someone else. Really, I haven't been able to find any charges of adultery that don't involve a sex act. I believe that the marriage can become broken as an effect of the sex act.
 
Spiritual adultery

2 Corinthians 11:1-3

1 Would that ye could bear with me in a little foolishness: but indeed ye do bear with me.
2 For I am jealous over you with a godly jealousy: for I espoused you to one husband, that I might present you [as] a pure virgin to Christ.
3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve in his craftiness, your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity and the purity that is toward Christ.
I accept that there is spiritual adultery, but I don't see it applying to Jesus's teaching on divorce and remarriage. Spiritual adultery involves idolatry. Based on the passage you posted, it seems to involve false doctrines (refer to vs. 4). I don't see the connection to passages like Mark 10:11-12.
 
I doubt you'll find much consensus on that one here. You really need to look at everything said about divorce in the Bible to reconcile it all. I think it does reconcile quite nicely but not in one verse.
Then this is a problem - it's a weak link in the fence so to speak. My thinking is that logic and evidence should be able to solve everything or lead to a coherent answer. We can certainly use it to narrow down to probable explanations or to weed out the unreasonable explanations. But the fact that there's a lack of consensus leads me to believe that there may be a lack of logic and evidence to support the explanations as it relates to Mark 10:11-12.

There are two standards for adultery, one for men and one for women. Physical adultery for men includes desiring to commit adultery too.
I agree.
 
@AgnosticBoy, try these on for size (fr a convo re Mt 19:9, the companion piece to Mk 10:11-12):

Our English word "adultery" is based on a Latin prefix and root that literally mean "to[ward] the other" (ad alter). It denotes a turning of the heart toward another. For the woman, that becomes manifest when she gives her body to another man, though there are obviously a lot of precursors in the run up to that event that would fit Jesus's teaching re committing adultery in one's heart.

For a man to want to add a second or third wife to his family is not adultery; I think we can stipulate that in this forum without developing it. And divorce is not adultery for the man by itself (notwithstanding your assertion above), when the man is divorcing a wife for her infidelity or even if he's divorcing her for a non-bible-sanctioned reason that is nevertheless grounded in some fault of hers or fault in the relationship. If it's just a divorce without a remarriage, it's just a divorce.

What makes it adultery for the husband according to Jesus is the divorce plus the remarriage—it takes both elements to constitute the crime. It is when I have allowed a woman to turn my head and heart in a way that causes me to forsake my responsibilities to my first wife (thus 'dealing treacherously' with her) that I commit adultery in the divorce + remarriage. Without the other woman turning me away from my existing wife and family, there is no adultery in the divorce.

As long as we're just comparing personal views, I've got one more thing to share in the way of clarification. And of course I'm open to anything else you've got.

I think if you're divorcing your wife not because of your turning away from her to another woman, and not because of any infidelity on her part, but just because y'all are both sick and tired of each other, then technically the problem is that you're putting her in the position of committing adultery with some future mate (cf. Mt 5:32). She hasn't cheated on you yet, so your kicking her out instead of solving the problem means that the first time she sleeps with another guy will be the first time she has truly broken your spiritual bond. And it's your fault. Something like that. I do not think that a non-adulterous, non-turning-away divorce where the man puts his wife away because of problems in the marriage means that sometime down the road when he tries again then he is committing adultery. He would not have been committing adultery if he had stayed married, he is not committing adultery now.

FWIW, that is consistent with Paul's word to women in his letter to the Corinthians (if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband) and Moses's word to men in Deuteronomy (that a woman that has remarried cannot return to her first husband if something happens to the remarriage relationship). We of all people ought to understand that there is something about a woman's being with another man that is not equivalent to a man's being with another woman, so we ought to be very careful about these word choices and how they apply differently to the different genders.

[NB - Those outtakes are from this thread from back in 2014, wherein Tom Shipley and I bang on each other pretty hard for several rounds. Good times!...]
 
I searched the forum and the Q/A section but I've yet to come across any definitive understanding on what Jesus means in Mark 10 when he talks about adultery and it being "against her". I've read some of Dr. William Luck's commentary and he seems to view adultery in the passage as being used in a non-sexual sense. I thought adultery always relates to sex.

Two questions:
1. Is there a definitive or consensus on this forum on this issue?

2. Why can't there to be two coexisting standards for adultery? We can say that there's one that applies to those who unjustly divorce (NT added rule), and one (the preexisting OT definition) that applies to the rest of us?

OK here, I feel the translators are imposing their world view onto the text instead of allowing the text to speak freely for itself in the context of Jewish Law. I'll present my translation, then present justifications for my variance from the standard English translations, then follow with my selected definitions of words from BDAG (Scholarly Greek lexicon). I won't delve into the other passages which the English translations here contradict as you obviously have a handle on those to be bothered by this in the first place.

Greek critical edition text used by modern bible translations today:
11 καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς· ⸂ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην μοιχᾶται ἐπʼ αὐτήν· 12 καὶ ἐὰν ⸀αὐτὴ ⸄ἀπολύσασα τὸν ἄνδρα αὐτῆς γαμήσῃ ἄλλον⸅ μοιχᾶται⸃.
Aland, K., Aland, B., Karavidopoulos, J., Martini, C. M., & Metzger, B. M. (2012). Novum Testamentum Graece (28th Edition, Mk 10:11–12). Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.

What I think it means...
11 And He said to them, "he who sends away his woman; if she marries another, he himself causes her to commit adultery.
12 And if she releases her man, and if she marries another, she herself commits adultery.



justifications: if she marries another-this verb is in the Greek subjunctive mood which is used to express a possibility, in this case the possibility is that she may marry another man. The translations which say "he commits adultery against her" are taking liberty to 1) chose the shade of meaning to be "commit adultery" instead of 1b. cause to commit adultery and they are choosing to translate ἐπʼ αὐτήν· "against her" when there is a range of meanings for epi (upon, against, etc.). From a Hebraic perspective if one causes another to sin we would absolutely use the word "'al" which is a semantic equivalent to epi here meaning "on, upon, against" (think epi-pen). So it seems clear to me this can be translated either way but to a first century Jew, there is a very real danger of being the cause of another's transgressions. To this day a rabbi will refuse to convert a person to Judaism if he does not believe the person is capable of commitment because the belief is that after the conversion the proselyte will be required to perform laws x,y,z and if he doesn't its new sin introduced into the world and who's fault is it? The blame is shared with the rabbi and the convert.
Why "he himself"? This verb is either in middle / passive voice (the forms are identical for this one). When a verb is in the "middle" voice it can be translated as "he himself". There are other ranges of meanings but the middle voice in Greek is a bit complex and I don't wanna get into that unless someone asks. It is, however, I believe the crux of the matter here...Yeshua is warning that she may be a real pain in the neck but if the guy puts her away for unbiblical reasons, he himself is the one responsible for her later adultery. That's the only new thing I see in these verses. He's curtailing what in context seems to be the prevalent flippant view towards marriage and he's leaning in on the thread of caring and concern which may be there in such relationships. It's one thing to divorce for a real reason; it's quite another to be flippant and end up being the cause of another person's soul who you promised to cherish to end up with a lingering death penalty from heaven hovering over.
There was also a common 1st century belief that if one escaped punishment from the san hedrin for a crime, heaven would still execute judgement in this life. In this sense, the wayward husband can be seen as a murderer by proxy. He forced his woman into adultery, then she has a death penalty lingering from "heaven" which means G-d.

Summary:
either way SHE is the adulterer, but in one scenario HE is the cause of it so he shares in her sin.

μοιχᾶται -
① be caused to commit adultery, be an adulterer/adulteress, commit adultery
ⓐ of a woman (Ezk 16:32) ποιεῖ αὐτὴν μοιχᾶσθαι (the man who divorces his wife) causes her to commit adultery (if she contracts a new marriage) Mt 5:32a v.l. αὐτὴ μοιχᾶται she commits adultery Mk 10:12....
② be guilty of infidelity in a transcendent relationship, be unfaithful

ἀπολύω -
① As legal term, to grant acquittal, set free, release, pardon
② to release from a painful condition, free
③ to permit or cause someone to leave a particular location let go, send away, dismiss
④ to grant a request and so be rid of a pers., satisfy
⑤ to dissolve a marriage relationship, to divorce
Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., pp. 656,117–118). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

I don't have time to look at any variant manuscript now but that may be something interesting for one of you guys to do if you like that sort of thing...
One more note for those who care about Aramaic, the peshitta (Ancient Aramaic New Testament) translates the last clause with the 2nd man "commits adultery with her"...

shalom (colors are for @Shibboleth ;)
 
Last edited:
OK here, I feel the translators are imposing their world view onto the text instead of allowing the text to speak freely for itself in the context of Jewish Law....

...He's curtailing what in context seems to be the prevalent flippant view towards marriage and he's leaning in on the thread of caring and concern which may be there in such relationships. It's one thing to divorce for a real reason; it's quite another to be flippant and end up being the cause of another person's soul who you promised to cherish to end up with a lingering death penalty from heaven hovering over....


;)
Thanks @IshChayil . Great response.

@AgnosticBoy, Ish, some others and I believe that OT and NT are essentially one document. Apparent contradictions or "changes" from Yeshua (Jesus) are often the products of Western Christian culture inserting ideas far out of context to the Jewish Torah mindset and/or 1st century mindset it was written to. If there ever are contradictions it's often from poor translations or poor hermaneutics.

Thanks for bringing up the context part Ish. In another thread, we were discussing historical context in relation to understanding scripture. The context of these two verses begins in the beginning of the chapter and is fully understood by the 1 century Jewish dilemma about easy divorce and Roman influence. The Jews were allowing. a permitted act (but not God encouraged) to become an excuse for no fault divorce and remarriage ala Rome.
 
OK here, I feel the translators are imposing their world view onto the text instead of allowing the text to speak freely for itself in the context of Jewish Law. I'll present my translation, then present justifications for my variance from the standard English translations, then follow with my selected definitions of words from BDAG (Scholarly Greek lexicon). I won't delve into the other passages which the English translations here contradict as you obviously have a handle on those to be bothered by this in the first place.

Greek critical edition text used by modern bible translations today:
11 καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς· ⸂ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην μοιχᾶται ἐπʼ αὐτήν· 12 καὶ ἐὰν ⸀αὐτὴ ⸄ἀπολύσασα τὸν ἄνδρα αὐτῆς γαμήσῃ ἄλλον⸅ μοιχᾶται⸃.
Aland, K., Aland, B., Karavidopoulos, J., Martini, C. M., & Metzger, B. M. (2012). Novum Testamentum Graece (28th Edition, Mk 10:11–12). Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.

What I think it means...
11 And He said to them, "he who sends away his woman; if she marries another, he himself causes her to commit adultery.
12 And if she releases her man, and if she marries another, she herself commits adultery.



justifications: if she marries another-this verb is in the Greek subjunctive mood which is used to express a possibility, in this case the possibility is that she may marry another man. The translations which say "he commits adultery against her" are taking liberty to 1) chose the shade of meaning to be "commit adultery" instead of 1b. cause to commit adultery and they are choosing to translate ἐπʼ αὐτήν· "against her" when there is a range of meanings for epi (upon, against, etc.). From a Hebraic perspective if one causes another to sin we would absolutely use the word "'al" which is a semantic equivalent to epi here meaning "on, upon, against" (think epi-pen). So it seems clear to me this can be translated either way but to a first century Jew, there is a very real danger of being the cause of another's transgressions. To this day a rabbi will refuse to convert a person to Judaism if he does not believe the person is capable of commitment because the belief is that after the conversion the proselyte will be required to perform laws x,y,z and if he doesn't its new sin introduced into the world and who's fault is it? The blame is shared with the rabbi and the convert.
Why "he himself"? This verb is either in middle / passive voice (the forms are identical for this one). When a verb is in the "middle" voice it can be translated as "he himself". There are other ranges of meanings but the middle voice in Greek is a bit complex and I don't wanna get into that unless someone asks. It is, however, I believe the crux of the matter here...Yeshua is warning that she may be a real pain in the neck but if the guy puts her away for unbiblical reasons, he himself is the one responsible for her later adultery. That's the only new thing I see in these verses. He's curtailing what in context seems to be the prevalent flippant view towards marriage and he's leaning in on the thread of caring and concern which may be there in such relationships. It's one thing to divorce for a real reason; it's quite another to be flippant and end up being the cause of another person's soul who you promised to cherish to end up with a lingering death penalty from heaven hovering over.
There was also a common 1st century belief that if one escaped punishment from the san hedrin for a crime, heaven would still execute judgement in this life. In this sense, the wayward husband can be seen as a murderer by proxy. He forced his woman into adultery, then she has a death penalty lingering from "heaven" which means G-d.

Summary:
either way SHE is the adulterer, but in one scenario HE is the cause of it so he shares in her sin.

μοιχᾶται -
① be caused to commit adultery, be an adulterer/adulteress, commit adultery
ⓐ of a woman (Ezk 16:32) ποιεῖ αὐτὴν μοιχᾶσθαι (the man who divorces his wife) causes her to commit adultery (if she contracts a new marriage) Mt 5:32a v.l. αὐτὴ μοιχᾶται she commits adultery Mk 10:12....
② be guilty of infidelity in a transcendent relationship, be unfaithful

ἀπολύω -
① As legal term, to grant acquittal, set free, release, pardon
② to release from a painful condition, free
③ to permit or cause someone to leave a particular location let go, send away, dismiss
④ to grant a request and so be rid of a pers., satisfy
⑤ to dissolve a marriage relationship, to divorce
Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., pp. 656,117–118). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

I don't have time to look at any variant manuscript now but that may be something interesting for one of you guys to do if you like that sort of thing...
One more note for those who care about Aramaic, the peshitta (Ancient Aramaic New Testament) translates the last clause with the 2nd man "commits adultery with her"...

shalom (colors are for @Shibboleth ;)

So this is when extra-Biblical study is useful and helpful.
 
@IshChayil, I get lost in the whole deponent voice thing, but I think the preposition alone seals the deal.

That root epi appears 885x in the NT (AV, per e-sword), of which about 35 are translated 'against' (so something less than 5%). Most of those are in the teachings of Jesus, and all of them have to do with conflict (nations rise against nations, children rise against parents, God's judgment against them, etc). But every one of them could be translated using one of the more ordinary, normal understandings of epi (the other 850 or so occurrences, which include the by, at, with, toward family and the on, upon, over, thereon family). So for example, "children rise over their parents" to me actually makes more sense than "rise against", and is consistent with what we see around us. Children aren't battling their parents as much as they are simply taking over (our having given 18 year olds the vote, etc). And "shook the dust off their feet toward them" (or even "in their general direction", for the Monty Python fans) makes more sense than "against them". It seems to me that the translators are trying to 'help' us understand the narrative action in a way that maybe isn't so helpful.

Note further that all the other cases of epi => against at least actually involve a sense of conflict or judgment between the parties in view (trying to give the translators a break, but I still think other translation choices would be better). If the man had actually "committed" an adultery (back to the verb voice for a sec), as opposed to putting adultery 'on' or 'over' her, or 'adulterating' her, then he would have committed a crime "against" the husband, right? Not "against" the woman.

There may be some Olde English way in which "against" had a more neutral connotation. The closest I can come up with for today would be something like "put those boxes over there against the wall", where I just as easily could have said "by the wall". We don't usually even say that, though, and would only use 'against' as in "lean those boards against that wall", where there's a force exerted toward (or 'against') the wall. So this may be an English evolution thing. The choices they made 500 years ago might have sounded better to their ears then than they sound to our ears now.

Either way, the man doesn't "commit" adultery "against" the woman in today's English.
 
To throw another fly in the translational ointment... Aside from the meaning of epi here (upon, at, with, or against), one must ask who is the antecedent of the her, upon/against whom the adultery is commited/caused? The man's first woman who is put away, or the second, other woman whom he marries. I've heard there is a linguistic argument for the later, though I'm not in a position to judge it's merits.

If this were the case, the passage could mean "whoever puts away his woman (the woman belonging to him), and marries another woman (i.e. a woman belonging to someone else), commits/causes adultery upon the other married woman."

Again, I can't judge the merit of this translation.
 
What I think it means...
11 And He said to them, "he who sends away his woman; if she marries another, he himself causes her to commit adultery.
12 And if she releases her man, and if she marries another, she herself commits adultery.

I agree, but actually from the English 'against'! A man doesn't commit adultery against a woman, but with a woman. So I think even the English points to this referring to (conditional) adultery of the first wife. Checking out "against her" in a marriage context takes us back primarily to

Mal 2:14 Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.
Mal 2:15 And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.
Mal 2:16 For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.

I feel Malachi is a good candidate to be the background for Christ's argument to the Pharisees' question earlier in Mark 10 because people who argued with Jesus were generally put in a position where they were one move away from checkmate. The argument from Malachi would have been:
You guys think you are special because you are the sons of Abraham who you respect
so how do you dare to think you can treat the daughters of your father Abraham in that way?

I have been completely stuck because 'against' was an unusual translation of the Greek 'epi' which is usually 'upon'. So from the Greek-English comparison in isolation, the Mal2-Mark10 link fails. But now @IshChayil has explained the NT background of how the Pharisees would have handled this it all starts to make sense. The Jews could connect with the end of Malachi 2 after v10
Mal 2:10 Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?
Mal 2:11 Judah ... hath married the daughter of a strange god.
Mal 2:12 The LORD will cut off the man that doeth this,

And once they made that connection they would not dare pursue the argument. (I think a comparison between Ezek 16 and Mal 2 might be profitable - there is an 'against thee' referring to adulterous woman v44)

But a husband couldn't cause his wife to commit adultery if she already was an adulteress! So I believe that just as we have to assemble the full inscription of the words on the cross from the different gospels, so we also have to put together Matt 19:9 and Mark 10:11
Mat 19:9 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.
If @IshChayil will lend me his translation, that could be
11 And He said to them, "he who sends away his woman; (except it be for fornication), if she marries another, he himself causes her to commit adultery.

I think this fits together with vows: if the man allows the woman's marriage vow to stand by accepting her purity or forgiving any impurity, then subsequently he has to make sure he is not responsible for her breaking that vow.
Num 30:14 But if her husband altogether hold his peace at her from day to day; then he establisheth all her vows, or all her bonds, which are upon her: he confirmeth them, because he held his peace at her in the day that he heard them.
Num 30:15 But if he shall any ways make them void after that he hath heard them; then he shall bear her iniquity.
 
Back
Top