Matthew 19:9 Adultery in unjustified divorce and remarriage

[The Revolting Man]

And yet if a man sleeps with the rea ishshah it is adultery Lev 20:10

This is why I was going to stop talking about this topic with you. Leviticus 20:10 references adultery, which means in this case we are talking about a mastered woman. The adultery indicates that. The woman in Leviticus 20:10 is definitely married. No one disputes that. We're talking about how she got that way.

 

[The Revolting Man]

The covenant is a part of the betrothal process. And a betrothal means that she belongs to her betrothed. Any sexual violation after betrothal equals adultery per Leviticus 20:10and Deuteronomy 22

This is simply untrue sir. Leviticus 20:10 says nothing about betrothal and Deuteronomy 22 doesn't attach the charge of adultery to the betrothed woman. This is a dangerous statement to make.
We have definitely reached the point of entrenchment and I fear that there is no point in going on any further. I said this once and didn't stick to it. We just take a very different approach to the Bible and there is no point tempting each other to sin over these details when we don't agree on the majors. I leave this debate further convinced in my position (as I'm sure you do). You may have the last word.

 

[rockfox]

To the second point, I also agree with the assessment because if she thought she had a good husband she wouldn’t have left, however to categorize all woman initiated divorce under this heading is not accurate and indicates a bias that all husbands are good husbands, neither of which is accurate or reflect reality. There are good women who initiate divorce for IMO Scripturally justifiable reasons against bad husbands. IMO, it is their right to do so if he is a covenant breaker (adulterer) either by physical adultery with another mans wife or for the Exodus 21:11 covenant breaking. IMO the purpose of the Exodus 21 passage is not so that the woman can be “free” forever, as a woman without covering is an unenviable position, but so that she is free to covenant with someone who will perform those three duties and will provide covering.

It had nothing to do with bias or inaccuracy. I wasn't talking about covenant breaking but your idea she can leave if he is a 'bad shepherd'; something all divorcing women could justify. Your justification of "failing to or refusing to care for her as God intended" is a loophole wide enough to drive a truck through and women would find justification for divorce over many non-covenant breaking matters under that standard. Even an Exodus 21:11 standard would be subject to wide abuse over just what qualifies in her eyes as sufficient.

But the issue is deeper than that. Scripture never says she can leave if he breaks their covenant nor is what that would even entail ever defined. Nor does scripture ever authorize a woman to divorce if the husband commits adultery with another mans wife. And Ex 21:11 was written specifically about maidservants, not free women, and about the situation of him adding another. If He meant it to apply to all women there would have been no reason to specify maidservants. There is no scriptural justification for a free woman to divorce given anywhere. Only men were given that authority; not men & women but men only, thereby excluding women. Paul states his opinion that if a man abandon's her, she is free. But as God commands in 1 Cor 7:10, if it is up to her, she is not to leave him. Both Peter and Paul are clear that is true whether or not he is a believer.

I would remind anyone pondering this issue to think about it holistically. I find it really telling that these conversations are always about why a wife can leave and how bad it is she can't remarry. VV keeps bringing up how a woman needs covering and provision, as if that is his chief concern. This is not uncommon; the church in general is myopically focused on the woman's perspective and avoiding anything that causes women feelbads.

But that is not my chief concern. Most wives refuse covering authority and if push comes to shove are able to provide for themselves. My chief concern is the wreckage they leave behind when they destroy their home and children's lives by divorcing their husband. The damage they do therein, often over transient concerns, is far far worse and longer lasting than the degree of suffering endured by a wife with a philandering husband.

If anyone causes one of these little ones--those who believe in me--to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

Nor is the suffering of children the only perspective ignored. I've not once heard someone discuss whether a man can divorce his borderline wife. Now that's a situation to inspire "If that's how it is between a man and a woman, it's better not to get married."

 

[Verifyveritas76]

This is why I was going to stop talking about this topic with you. Leviticus 20:10 references adultery, which means in this case we are talking about a mastered woman. The adultery indicates that. The woman in Leviticus 20:10 is definitely married. No one disputes that. We're talking about how she got that way.

I’d submit that you are ignoring the obvious. Both passages are talking about the same status woman. They are both Rea ishshah. Obviously the “mastered”aspect makes no difference in her status. She’s the neighbors woman whether she’s “mastered” or still “maidened” as long as she’s betrothed

 

[The Revolting Man]

I’d submit that you are ignoring the obvious. Both passages are talking about the same status woman. They are both Rea ishshah. Obviously the “mastered”aspect makes no difference in her status. She’s the neighbors woman whether she’s “mastered” or still “maidened” as long as she’s betrothed

I swear VV76, one of us is way up on the autism spectrum. How are they talking about the same status woman? Leviticus specifically references adultery and Deuteronomy 22:23-24 specifically references the woman's sin as something other than adultery. Specifically. I don't know how else to tell you this without getting myself put on post approval. Deuteronomy 22 lists three different categories of woman, only one of which is accused of adultery, the one who has had sex with a second man.

The betrothed woman of Deuteronomy 22:23 who has had sex is not guilty of adultery therefore she was not married. Her betrothal was not a full marriage. If it was she would have been accused of adultery and there would have been no need to list her sex partner's sin as "humbling his neighbor's woman." It would have just been listed as adultery and they both would have been guilty of the same thing. The Leviticus 20:10 woman is specifically accused of adultery and so identified with the Deuteronomy 22:22 woman who is also guilty of adultery.

Remember that this is a legal code. It is literally legislation. All of the definitions and terms we need to apply this Law is in the body of the Law. If the legal code doesn't list the crime as adultery then we don't get to up the charges. And that's literally what these passages are. They list the charges to be levied for specific crimes. The betrothed woman is not accused of adultery therefore she's not married. I can't help but believe you're being a little intentionally obtuse. I know you're a smart man. This isn't difficult stuff. It would be one thing if you wanted to argue terms and definitions but you just want to keep pointing at passages I agree deal with adultery and say that means a woman who wasn't accused of adultery is guilty of adultery. It doesn't. You need to prove now that the Deuteronomy 22:23-24 woman is guilty of adultery for anything you've said to make sense. The proposition on the table is that Deuteronomy 22:23-24 does or does not deal with adultery. Nothing else matters in this debate until we clear that up. I won't respond to anymore Laban obfuscations.

The only way forward is for you to show why you believe the Deuteronomy 22:23-24 woman is guilty of adultery when she wasn't accused of adultery. Then we can figure out what this passage means vis-à-vis whatever the hell it is we're still arguing about.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

They are both categorized as a rea ishshah. If you sleep with a rea ishshah its adultery because its your neighbors woman whether its his mastered wife or not. Comparing Leviticus 20:10 with Deuteronomy 22:24

As to the assertion that is wasn’t adultery because Deuteronomy 22 doesnt say it was adultery, neither did it call the offense with the mastered woman adultery and yet both instances resulted in death that is proscribed for adultery. You cant take the adultery charge away from the rea ishshah and still apply it to the ishshah ba’al ba’al (the mastered woman)

 

[The Revolting Man]

They are both categorized as a rea ishshah. If you sleep with a rea ishshah its adultery because its your neighbors woman whether its his mastered wife or not.

How long is it going to take you clean the ear wax stains off of your fingers? The Deuteronomy 22:23-24 woman is not a rea ishshah. She's an ishshah. Repeating it over and over doesn't change the fact that her lying with a man other than her fiancée didn't result in a charge of adultery. So obviously her fiancée is not in the same kind of relationship with the verse 23-24 woman as the husband of the woman in verse 22 is in with the woman of verse 22.

Changing the Greek word to a Hebrew word doesn't change the description of what's going on. She had sex with a man other than the one she was supposed to and it didn't result in a charge of adultery. Why not? Why was her sin listed as not crying out? Why wasn't the man who laid with her not accused of adultery? I know, rea ishshah! You should tell us a little about this phrase. Is it the one used to describe the verse 23-24 woman in Hebrew translations?

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Check your interlinear, Zec. The neighbors wife is in both cases translated from the two Hebrew words rea ishshah

The man, because he hath humbled his (Rea) neighbors (ishshah) wife.

And the man that committeth adultery with another mans’s wife, (ishshah) even he that committeth adultery with his (rea) neighbors (ishshah) wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death


Even if she was only the ishshah in Deuteronomy 22:24, the Leviticus 20:10 passage still makes him an adulterer and her an adulteress, but she’s not! She’s the rea ishshah, the neighbors wife.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Check your interlinear, Zec. The neighbors wife is in both cases translated from the two Hebrew words rea ishshah

The man, because he hath humbled his (Rea) neighbors (ishshah) wife.

And the man that committeth adultery with another mans’s wife, (ishshah) even he that committeth adultery with his (rea) neighbors (ishshah) wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death


Even if she was only the ishshah in Deuteronomy 22:24, the Leviticus 20:10 passage still makes him an adulterer and her an adulteress, but she’s not! She’s the rea ishshah, the neighbors wife.

Alright, so help me out here because what you wrote has the rea as applying to the neighbor of the man who had sex with the woman which leaves the woman a regular old ishshah and the neighbor the rea. And from what little I could tell rea could be used like this. Obviously I'm not even remotely literate in this stuff and it doesn't even begin to climb the mountain of everything else I've thrown in your path (How's that Matthew 5:27-28 coming for you?) but it is interesting. Remember I don't claim that there isn't a status change that comes with betrothal. I claim that having sex always equals marriage. Even if it turned out that Deuteronomy 22:23-24 turns out to be a complete marriage (which I don't think it will) that doesn't negate my original claim that having sex makes you one flesh. It just means that there are some steps you shouldn't skip over on the way to it. A point I completely agree with. You should intend to keep her for life. You should covenant with her. You should get her father's blessing. But just because you don't doesn't mean you get to have sex with her consequence free. Sex equals marriage. And Deuteronomy 22:23-24 highlight the differences between a woman who has had sex and one who hasn't.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Alright, so help me out here because what you wrote has the rea as applying to the neighbor of the man who had sex with the woman which leaves the woman a regular old ishshah and the neighbor the rea. And from what little I could tell rea could be used like this. Obviously I'm not even remotely literate in this stuff and it doesn't even begin to climb the mountain of everything else I've thrown in your path (How's that Matthew 5:27-28 coming for you?) but it is interesting. Remember I don't claim that there isn't a status change that comes with betrothal. I claim that having sex always equals marriage. Even if it turned out that Deuteronomy 22:23-24 turns out to be a complete marriage (which I don't think it will) that doesn't negate my original claim that having sex makes you one flesh. It just means that there are some steps you shouldn't skip over on the way to it. A point I completely agree with. You should intend to keep her for life. You should covenant with her. You should get her father's blessing. But just because you don't doesn't mean you get to have sex with her consequence free. Sex equals marriage. And Deuteronomy 22:23-24 highlight the differences between a woman who has had sex and one who hasn't.

Zec, its not just a word, its two words that identify who’s ishshah it is. She is the neighbors ishshah, not just any regular old ishshah. In this passage, you cant separate the two. The neighbor is the rea, and the ishshah belongs to the neighbor.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Zec, its not just a word, its two words that identify who’s ishshah it is. She is the neighbors ishshah, not just any regular old ishshah. In this passage, you cant separate the two. The neighbor is the rea, and the ishshah belongs to the neighbor.

Fine but it doesn't add anything. We already new that she was his female. That's clear in the text. There was a status change, but it wasn't marriage because she wasn't guilty of adultery. All the back and forth on the verse is foolish because we haven't dealt with why she wasn't charged with adultery yet.

So why wasn't she charged with adultery?

 

[Verifyveritas76]

So why wasn't she charged with adultery?

IDK why this instance isn’t listed as adultery. Probably the same reason why the mastered woman isn’t charged with adultery in the preceding verse.
If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

Neither instance results in anyone being charged with adultery, and yet other passages clearly define both instances as adultery.

This is a great example of why you should be careful not to base theology on silence. All it takes is one example elsewhere in scripture and your theory is toast.

 

[Nikud]

This is a great example of why you should be careful not to base theology on silence. All it takes is one example elsewhere in scripture and your theory is toast.

You mean scripture witnesses to scripture, that's preposterous.

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

I was discussing this earlier in regards to adultry and divorce. It's pretty clear in scripture, but now we live in a Godless society that justifies our desires by adjusting scripture and or who God is as his character to be able to do as we please. Remember when God gives Israel a certificate of divorce? He didn't do that because he was pleased with her. When you divorce your wife out of any reason but adultry your breaking your bond with her, one flesh, this makes the man an adulter, if she already broke it than your not committing adultry she has.

In regards to re marriage:
No where in the bible does it give permission for a divorced woman to re marry, it discusses a woman who is divorced and marries another, but it does not permit it. There is no allowance in the Word for a woman to divorce her husband, it doesn't matter what her reasons are, a "wife shall not separate from her husband" 1 Corinthians 7:10.

Simply divorce isn't permitted Except in what jesus said. " If a woman has an believing husband, and he is willing to live with her, she MUST NOT divorce him" 1 Corinthians 7:13.

Wives, in the same way submit your selves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see your pure and reverent demeanor" 1 Peter 3:1-2

Matthew 5.32. "But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and ANYONE who marries the divorced woman commits adultery".

The reason divorce causes her to become an adulteress is because it's making her break wedlock, which is the Hebrew original meaning of the word "adultery" in the Old Testament. So, that's pretty clear teaching that marrying a divorced woman is not permitted, that was Jesus speaking. These are not my opinions, it is scripture. I've thought about it myself, marrying a divorced woman, but I can not do it with a clear blessing from God. Following his lead means following his Word, we can not follow the spirit if we won't follow the scriptures.

When I look at the context of Matt 19:9, I go back to verse 7 where the Pharisees asked him about the Bill of Divorce. The Holy Spirit reminded me of Matt 5:32, where Jesus said that whoever puts away his wife, except for fornication causes her to commit adultery, and then went on to say that whoever marries her that is divorced commits adultery with her. For a while, I wondered if Jesus was not simply reiterating here, when speaking to the Pharisees, what He had said in the Sermon on the Mount, and I think the context here justifies that. Why when they asked him about divorce, does He suddenly transition to remarriage, when they hadn't even brought that up, or so it may seem. It turns out, when they asked Him about the Bill of Divorce, in fact they WERE asking about remarriage. That is what that Bill of Divorce allowed their wives to do! Even today, Orthodox Jews do not allow a woman to remarry without obtaining a "Get" from her husband. Modern Day translations were all translated by people who wore the "monogamy only" glasses, and assumed that Jesus was talking about the husband getting remarried, but the original Greek doesn't specify which spouse is getting remarried. It is implied by the context.

The beauty of looking at that verse in light of verse 7, is that the original understanding of what actually constitutes adultery, that is taking another man's wife, remains in tact. We don't have Jesus expanding that definition outside that realm, but rather, pointing out that as Rom 7:2 tells us, the wife is bound to her husband as long as he shall live, so that if while he is alive, she is married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress.

 

[Mojo]

Context is king.

 

[frederick]

Context is king.

Amen.
There are three rules to accurate Bible interpretation: 1. Context, 2. Context, and 3. Context.
Any text out of context leaves you with a con!
This should be drilled into Christians and Bible students with fervour and never minimised.

 

[Keith Martin]

When I look at the context of Matt 19:9, I go back to verse 7 where the Pharisees asked him about the Bill of Divorce. The Holy Spirit reminded me of Matt 5:32, where Jesus said that whoever puts away his wife, except for fornication causes her to commit adultery, and then went on to say that whoever marries her that is divorced commits adultery with her. For a while, I wondered if Jesus was not simply reiterating here, when speaking to the Pharisees, what He had said in the Sermon on the Mount, and I think the context here justifies that. Why when they asked him about divorce, does He suddenly transition to remarriage, when they hadn't even brought that up, or so it may seem. It turns out, when they asked Him about the Bill of Divorce, in fact they WERE asking about remarriage. That is what that Bill of Divorce allowed their wives to do! Even today, Orthodox Jews do not allow a woman to remarry without obtaining a "Get" from her husband. Modern Day translations were all translated by people who wore the "monogamy only" glasses, and assumed that Jesus was talking about the husband getting remarried, but the original Greek doesn't specify which spouse is getting remarried. It is implied by the context.

The beauty of looking at that verse in light of verse 7, is that the original understanding of what actually constitutes adultery, that is taking another man's wife, remains in tact. We don't have Jesus expanding that definition outside that realm, but rather, pointing out that as Rom 7:2 tells us, the wife is bound to her husband as long as he shall live, so that if while he is alive, she is married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress.

Ah, yes, but within the contexts of Matthew 19 and the parallel contexts in Mark and Luke (refer to William Luck's book, Divorce and Remarriage), Jesus was also asserting that the woman would not be called an adulteress if she had been treacherously divorced by her husband.

 

[rockfox]

Jesus was also asserting that the woman would not be called an adulteress if she had been treacherously divorced by her husband.

Where does he say that?

 

[Jim an Apostle]

Well it's pretty easy to have the mind of Christ. He told us exactly what He thought.

Joh_16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

 

[Keith Martin]

Where does he say that?

I left my full knowledge about this back at home, so I may have to provide a full response to your excellent question until after I return home from the retreat. I have to admit that I can't quote chapter and verse at the moment, but it comes down to Christ pointing out to the Pharisees that, if husbands were only justified in casting aside their responsibilities to their wives if the wives committed adultery, wives would be justified in remarrying if their husbands dumped them without justification just to get rid of them -- and in those circumstances they would not be adulteresses; they would just be victims.