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

[AgnosticBoy]

Adultery still means adultery still means what it always meant to Hebrew speakers. Christ isn't giving a new definition of adultery but is making a similar point as in Matthew 5:21-22 - it is the heart that matters. An unjustly put away wife is tempted to adultery because of what the husband does and it was his hate (Malachi 2:16) that led him to it. He can't wash his hands of her guilt.

I agree with you here. I accept this as a valid explanation regarding how the husband causes the wife to commit adultery.

Those two verses aren't the only instance of this teaching of Christ's, it was part of his early message (Matthew 5:31-32)...
"It has also been said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce. But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, brings adultery upon her. And whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery."

See here the same core message as in Matthew 19/Mark 10. Notice the clear intent of this teaching. Notice a total lack of new definition of adultery or condemnation of polygamy. Notice the guilty husband need not remarry to be condemned. He wasn't redefining adultery, he was expanding the blame, he was clarifying valid grounds for divorce (a matter of longstanding debate).

So far this only speaks to Matthew 5:31-32 but my question is on other relevant passages that do bring up the husband being condemned for reasons that's in addition to causing his wife to commit adultery.

I want to know how or why that's adultery or really, how that adulterous act (divorce+remarriage) is identical to OT adultery ( a husband sleeping with another man's wife).

The act of adultery here is still the same as in the OT: a married woman having sex with someone not her husband. Nothing in this passage extends that to men. A never divorcing man adding a second or third wife is no where condemned for adultery.

Matthew 5 is clear a husband need not remarry to incur guilt, so why was it mentioned later in Matthew 19? The answer is as obvious to us as it likely was to them: men were divorcing to trade up. Serial monogamy.

There is a cultural context to this. Jesus taught during a time of conflict between traditionalist Jews and Hellenistic Jews who had taken on Greek culture. What we see here isn't a condemnation of polygamy but the very opposite, a condemnation of the Greek way of marriage. If you can add a second, you need not dispose of the first. But Greek culture only allowed 1 wife.

That is the true source of the rule of monogamy in the western church; the influence of the worldly ways of the Greeks and their false moralities. The modern church condemns polygamy while excusing divorce. They are taking the side of the Greeks against Christ and the Hebrews. God had the opposite concern:

I accept that Jesus was trying to prevent serial monogamy. Even Catholics agree with this although they take it a step further to say that all Godly marriages are for a lifetime.. only death can separate the two spouses.

Since you reference Matthew 19, I presume that you agree that the husband does incur guilt when a remarriage is involved, that guilty act is called "adultery". But then you claim this is compatible to OT adultery and this is where I begin to disagree. Where does the man sleep with another man's wife in Matthew 19:9 or Mark 10:11-12? If you can't point that out, then you can't claim that it's the same as OT adultery.

But you do agree a that the man is being called an "adulterer" for remarrying, right?

 

[IshChayil]

I think a lot of Yeshua's rationale when He seems to be making Torah commandments more difficult is that He is applying the "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you" principle (or as his Rabbi Hillel put it "Do not do to others what is hateful to you".
If we apply that to all of His teachings on "anger towards a brother is murder in your heart" or "drooling after another man's wife is adultery in your heart" etc. we can even predict what His response may be for certain situations regarding interpretation of legal issues.

In the case of divorce; if you were the wife, would you want to be "put away for any reason"?
If you were the wife and you slept with another man, would you see how such a decision is then fair and you would want the same in the reverse situation (if you were the husband and the wife slept around?).
I think the marriage of the "do unto others" principle seems to be the gist of Yeshua's teachings on legal interpretation in many scenarios.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Alright, I see what's going on. You are not recognizing that when Mark uses the word adultery he is referencing the OT definition. It is assumed that someone is having sex with someone else's wife because that's what adultery is.

Now there may or may not be any other changes (I don't think there is, except possibly a tightening of the standard) but adultery is having sex with another man's wife.

 

[IshChayil]

Alright, I see what's going on. You are not recognizing that when Mark uses the word adultery he is referencing the OT definition. It is assumed that someone is having sex with someone else's wife because that's what adultery is.

Now there may or may not be any other changes (I don't think there is, except possibly a tightening of the standard) but adultery is having sex with another man's wife.

Zec I'm not sure if you're responding to what I just wrote or not. I absolutely agree it's actual sex being discussed here. I only meant that the woman isn't truly "free" to be with another man if the divorce was not a proper religious divorce. I think that's the actual focus of what Yeshua is discussing ... valid reasons for divorce and then the eventual consequences if the divorce is invalid (i.e. when she sleeps with someone else she's an adulteress b/c she's really not free) and as others mentioned if HE sleeps with a woman in the similar situation to his ex, he's now an adulterer (i.e. a lady who was divorced illegally).
I may have clouded the waters with the whole "do unto others" bit; let me clarify the application of that is in the act of divorcing. It seems Yeshua is making it HARDER to divorce NOT changing the definition of adultery in these verses.

I'm not 100% sure you're responding to what I wrote so there may be some cross talk here...

 

[Mojo]

Zec I'm not sure if you're responding to what I just wrote or not. I absolutely agree it's actual sex being discussed here. I only meant that the woman isn't truly "free" to be with another man if the divorce was not a proper religious divorce. I think that's the actual focus of what Yeshua is discussing ... valid reasons for divorce and then the eventual consequences if the divorce is invalid (i.e. when she sleeps with someone else she's an adulteress b/c she's really not free) and as others mentioned if HE sleeps with a woman in the similar situation to his ex, he's now an adulterer (i.e. a lady who was divorced illegally).
I may have clouded the waters with the whole "do unto others" bit; let me clarify the application of that is in the act of divorcing. It seems Yeshua is making it HARDER to divorce NOT changing the definition of adultery in these verses.

I'm not 100% sure you're responding to what I wrote so there may be some cross talk here...

I think cross talk:

Yes, harder to divorce. But that brings back a point I made before. It seems Yeshua is changing things and making them harder, but he's not. He's just reminding them of the original intent for marriage.

He would not be changing a definition for adultery, because he would not contradict God his Father. It had already been defined.

 

[Mojo]

Let me try to explain another way or narrow down my main disagreement. The way that adultery is used in Matthew 19 and Mark 10:11-12 is different from the way the OT uses "adultery". In the OT, physical adultery meant sex with another man's wife. This does not happen in Matthew 19 nor Mark 10:11-12. The Catholic will tell you that the definition is compatible with monogamy, because the man can not remarry (add a 2nd wife) because his FIRST marriage is still in place which is why husband commits adultery "against HER". That actually seems very logical, and natural, even.

To address this, the polygamy-believer should be clear/consistent about what ADULTERY means in Matthew 19 and Mark 10:11-12, how is it identical with OT adultery that accommodated polygyny. This is where the polygamy-believer runs into problems because some have said that "divorce" is adultery, that divorce+remarriage is adultery, or that adultery was used in a non-literal way. This is inconsistent to me and I'm a polygamy-believer in a sense. The explanation that stands out to me is what the text actually says, divorce PLUS remarriage is adultery. What I grapple with is that it is NOT the same as the definition in the OT because the man is not sleeping with another man's wife in that case.

Meanwhile, the polygamy-believer



My main area of disagreement here is on the meaning of adultery in the context of Matthew 19 and Mark 10:11-12.

You are setting your own terms and conditions for the discussion. You are using circular patterns. You are free to do so, but then the rest of us begin to cycle off into linear patterns and we get no closer. Like I've said, you started with a premise and conclusion and you continue to go in circles using the rationale of a corrupted system to define the terms. Paradigm shifts require a 180 degree shift in thinking patterns. It doesn't matter if someone is a Catholic, Charismatic, or Unitarian, the terms we use define the discussion. We's speaking different languages right now.

 

[rockfox]

He is applying the "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you" principle

This is true in principle but one must be careful of application today as the modern church has gone so far as to call sinful anything that makes women 'feel bad'.

 

[Mojo]

This is true in principle but one must be careful of application today as the modern church has gone so far as to call sinful anything that makes women 'feel bad'.

I had a pastor of what I thought was a pretty conservative church tell me a woman had a right to divorce her husband if she wasn't happy.

 

[rockfox]

I had a pastor of what I thought was a pretty conservative church tell me a woman had a right to divorce her husband if she wasn't happy.

He is to be commended for his honesty. Few will admit that to be the standard, but most practice it. They can deny that all they want but if it wasn't true the divorce rate wouldn't be substantially the same as those outside the church.

Many churches hold to a standard of allowable divorce that more or less follows scripture, but then add the reasonable sounding exception that she can leave if abused. After-all, what church goer would say she has to stay in an abusive relationship.

But then they go and follow the world's standard of abuse: anything that makes her feel bad or is him exercising leadership in the marriage.

Back to the subject at hand, this all really puts the lie to their objections over polygamy. Too often they don't really follow the Bible's teachings on marriage and divorce, they just want to use it to condemn others who are different than them. You can't really debate that.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Zec I'm not sure if you're responding to what I just wrote or not. I absolutely agree it's actual sex being discussed here. I only meant that the woman isn't truly "free" to be with another man if the divorce was not a proper religious divorce. I think that's the actual focus of what Yeshua is discussing ... valid reasons for divorce and then the eventual consequences if the divorce is invalid (i.e. when she sleeps with someone else she's an adulteress b/c she's really not free) and as others mentioned if HE sleeps with a woman in the similar situation to his ex, he's now an adulterer (i.e. a lady who was divorced illegally).
I may have clouded the waters with the whole "do unto others" bit; let me clarify the application of that is in the act of divorcing. It seems Yeshua is making it HARDER to divorce NOT changing the definition of adultery in these verses.

I'm not 100% sure you're responding to what I wrote so there may be some cross talk here...

No, I was talking to agnostic.

 

[frederick]

Most people think they are following the Bible's teachings. That's the problem. I think the vast majority of church-goers would be just like I was before I was questioned about what is actually written in the Bible on marriage and adultery, etc. Until a couple of years ago, my understanding was very much mainstream; as a pastor I did the whole wedding/marriage thing, counselled using all the standard arguments for divorce, preached about being monogamous-only applying the same erroneous logic, etc. It takes a massive shakeup to make a person open their eyes and look to see what is actually written, and stop seeing what they are told to see - something other than the truth. While I'm disappointed with the unwillingness of others to open their eyes and look as I point out the truth to them, but hey, I was there in that same camp saying those same things they are saying and it wasn't very long ago. I'm so thankful to God for His patience and His grace in making me see the truth concerning biblical marriage now and pray He will also open the eyes of many others.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

I think a lot of Yeshua's rationale when He seems to be making Torah commandments more difficult is that He is applying the "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you" principle (or as his Rabbi Hillel put it "Do not do to others what is hateful to you".
If we apply that to all of His teachings on "anger towards a brother is murder in your heart" or "drooling after another man's wife is adultery in your heart" etc. we can even predict what His response may be for certain situations regarding interpretation of legal issues.

In the case of divorce; if you were the wife, would you want to be "put away for any reason"?
If you were the wife and you slept with another man, would you see how such a decision is then fair and you would want the same in the reverse situation (if you were the husband and the wife slept around?).
I think the marriage of the "do unto others" principle seems to be the gist of Yeshua's teachings on legal interpretation in many scenarios.

For now, I'm sorta agnostic on this view. I'll have to study it or see if anyone has developed it more and tested/applied it to Mark 10:11-12 and Jesus's use of adultery from the husband's perspective. This is not to say that your view is wrong, but I still like Tom Shipley and Andrew's view because its' fully developed, and the views have been tested to see if they can withstand objections.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Alright, I see what's going on. You are not recognizing that when Mark uses the word adultery he is referencing the OT definition. It is assumed that someone is having sex with someone else's wife because that's what adultery is.

Now there may or may not be any other changes (I don't think there is, except possibly a tightening of the standard) but adultery is having sex with another man's wife.

I disagree for two reasons:
1. If Jesus's goal was to prevent serial monogamy, then wouldn't he need to prohibit remarriage to any or all women ( unmarried ones included) be necessary to meet his goal? What you seem to be saying is that it would be okay to unjustly divorce your wife and marry another woman just as long as the new woman is undivorced/unmarried. That's not prohibiting serial monogamy.

2. I see no evidence in Matthew 19:9 or Mark 10:11-12 that Jesus was referring to the husband remarrying an already married woman or a divorced woman as opposed to remarrying ANY woman. In fact, as per my previous point, I would've thought Jesus was prohibitting remarriage to any or all women which is what the immediate context surrounding Matthew 19 shows.

3. Too many conditionals in one statement making divorce extraneous or even negating it as Jesus's main point. Why even bring up divorce in the same statement as "adultery" if Jesus was referring to remarriage to other divorced/married women?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

You are setting your own terms and conditions for the discussion. You are using circular patterns. You are free to do so, but then the rest of us begin to cycle off into linear patterns and we get no closer. Like I've said, you started with a premise and conclusion and you continue to go in circles using the rationale of a corrupted system to define the terms. Paradigm shifts require a 180 degree shift in thinking patterns. It doesn't matter if someone is a Catholic, Charismatic, or Unitarian, the terms we use define the discussion. We's speaking different languages right now.

I don't see any patterns of consistency here which is what I'm after. I see views that refer to divorce as being the point of adultery, others say divorce+remarriage, and others say adultery is non-literal, or others say the husband's remarriage was to another divorced woman thereby making the remarriage by itself as being adultery and practically negating divorce out of the picture.

Yes, these do constitute as responses, but they do not constitute as being 'logical' responses. One obvious reasons is because they all conflict with each other at some point, and the truth must be consistent. I have my own personal view (which is just one inference derived from the divorce+remarriage view), but I don't simply disagree with others because of my own view. Each view has their own internal problems and I've been addressing them.

 

[IshChayil]

I don't see any patterns of consistency here which is what I'm after. I see views that refer to divorce as being the point of adultery, others say divorce+remarriage, and others say adultery is non-literal, or others say the husband's remarriage was to another divorced woman thereby making the remarriage by itself as being adultery and practically negating divorce out of the picture.

Yes, these do constitute as responses, but they do not constitute as being 'logical' responses. One obvious reasons is because they all conflict with each other at some point, and the truth must be consistent. I have my own personal view (which is just one inference derived from the divorce+remarriage view), but I don't simply disagree with others because of my own view. Each view has their own internal problems and I've been addressing them.

Perhaps you would like to list the views which others have put forward and state *exactly* what are your perceived inconsistencies in those views? Then we can address it. It's hard for me to see what issue(s) you're having when I read what you wrote.
Maybe a nice outline format like
View I
points: A,B,C
C doesn't seem to reconcile with scripture because of i,ii,ii
That way we can clearly see what's the problem(s).
shalom

 

[rockfox]

It takes a massive shakeup to make a person open their eyes and look to see what is actually written, and stop seeing what they are told to see - something other than the truth.

This is the power of paradigm. A false paradigm literally puts us in the position of 'seeing they do not see'. It takes something dramatic to break us out of it.

For example, the traditional teachings on marriage and divorce all made perfect sense to me; excepting a few conundrums on the edges. But once I realized that the scriptures weren't equalist, that commands given to man or woman were to them specifically, not both, my interpretation of scripture dramatically changed. Not only that, but the conundrums disappeared and whole new avenues of understanding for study opened up which I was previously blind to.

 

[Mojo]

Perhaps you would like to list the views which others have put forward and state *exactly* what are your perceived inconsistencies in those views? Then we can address it. It's hard for me to see what issue(s) you're having when I read what you wrote.
Maybe a nice outline format like
View I
points: A,B,C
C doesn't seem to reconcile with scripture because of i,ii,ii
That way we can clearly see what's the problem(s).
shalom

Bravo!

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Perhaps you would like to list the views which others have put forward and state *exactly* what are your perceived inconsistencies in those views? Then we can address it. It's hard for me to see what issue(s) you're having when I read what you wrote.
Maybe a nice outline format like
View I
points: A,B,C
C doesn't seem to reconcile with scripture because of i,ii,ii
That way we can clearly see what's the problem(s).
shalom

Ive already done so on another thread in list form. Although ive covered the internal problems in this thread.

Do you agree that there is a difference between calling divorce adultery and calling divorce +remarriage adultery? I can post links to past debates on this site highlighting the differences.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I disagree for two reasons:
1. If Jesus's goal was to prevent serial monogamy, then wouldn't he need to prohibit remarriage to any or all women ( unmarried ones included) be necessary to meet his goal? What you seem to be saying is that it would be okay to unjustly divorce your wife and marry another woman just as long as the new woman is undivorced/unmarried. That's not prohibiting serial monogamy.

2. I see no evidence in Matthew 19:9 or Mark 10:11-12 that Jesus was referring to the husband remarrying an already married woman or a divorced woman as opposed to remarrying ANY woman. In fact, as per my previous point, I would've thought Jesus was prohibitting remarriage to any or all women which is what the immediate context surrounding Matthew 19 shows.

3. Too many conditionals in one statement making divorce extraneous or even negating it as Jesus's main point. Why even bring up divorce in the same statement as "adultery" if Jesus was referring to remarriage to other divorced/married women?

Not one word of that had anything to do with what I said. I said that this passage does not stand on it's own as a complete statement on the topic. It's an illumination of one aspect of it but it is predicated on an understanding of the terms and definitions already established.

Scripture never contradicts scripture. All of this about serial monogamy and shifting definitions of adultery is a smoke screen. God hates divorce. Divorce can lead to adultery. Don't get divorced. Don't commit adultery.

If your understanding of a verse is that it contradicts other scripture then what you need to change is your understanding of the verse. I'm a relatively intelligent man. I can usually tell when I'm missing something legitimate that I just can't grasp but for the life of me I'm not sure what you're going on about.

Maybe someone else can fill me in. What is it I'm missing? Is this all about some idea that the definition of adultery has to be changed so that his passage squares with the rest of scripture?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Not one word of that had anything to do with what I said. I said that this passage does not stand on it's own as a complete statement on the topic. It's an illumination of one aspect of it but it is predicated on an understanding of the terms and definitions already established.

Scripture never contradicts scripture. All of this about serial monogamy and shifting definitions of adultery is a smoke screen. God hates divorce. Divorce can lead to adultery. Don't get divorced. Don't commit adultery.

If your understanding of a verse is that it contradicts other scripture then what you need to change is your understanding of the verse. I'm a relatively intelligent man. I can usually tell when I'm missing something legitimate that I just can't grasp but for the life of me I'm not sure what you're going on about.

Maybe someone else can fill me in. What is it I'm missing? Is this all about some idea that the definition of adultery has to be changed so that his passage squares with the rest of scripture?

I was only referring to this comment of yours:

You are not recognizing that when Mark uses the word adultery he is referencing the OT definition. It is assumed that someone is having sex with someone else's wife because that's what adultery is.

Mark was not referring to the OT definition because the OT definition does not involve "divorce".

My point here is the following:
1. There is no consistent view on the polygamist side when it comes to Mark 10:11-12. Some say that only divorce is adultery and others say divorce+remarriage is adultery. This is a weak link.