The reason why I got into the subject of polygyny . . .

[DiscipleOfChrist]

. . . and the biggest reason why the discussion is so important.

Matthew 19:9: anyone who divorces his wife, not for porneia, and marries another woman commits adultery.

I'm not sure what the dominating theology is for this passage anymore, but the biggest reason why this subject is so important is because of how certain less-than-ideal situations must resolve. Most Christians (from what I gather) look at a man's wife as occupying a spot that only one woman can occupy. So what happens if a man DOES divorces his wife for "porneia" and marries another woman, and afterwards she repents? This is where the subject of polygyny becomes extremely important, because people's answers usually split between: she's still bound and must stay single, or she isn't bound and can marry someone else anyway, since that spot for only one is taken. And those answers have no support from Scripture, nothing provides a basis for either response.

What actually makes the most sense with all of Scripture is, she should rejoin with her husband along with the other woman he rightly married after the divorce. It's the last thing most believers would support, but it's the only resolution that makes any sense with the rest of Scripture; there's nothing to support that she doesn't remain bound such that she can marry someone else thanks to the fact that he did after a just divorce, and if she IS bound, then clearly she belongs WITH him. And that's where polygyny has to enter the discussion: there's no way to establish that she isn't bound anymore because he has another wife. If that were the case, then Jacob found fault with Reuben for no good reason.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Hmmmm, off the top of my head I believe if a man properly divorces a woman and she goes to another man then she’s not allowed to go back to the first.

If she separates of her own accord and her husband never properly divorces her then she can return.

 

[DiscipleOfChrist]

Hmmmm, off the top of my head I believe if a man properly divorces a woman and she goes to another man then she’s not allowed to go back to the first.

If she separates of her own accord and her husband never properly divorces her then she can return.

I just made a response with regards to Deuteronomy 24:1-4, as it happens: https://biblicalfamilies.org/forum/...y-a-reason-for-non-reunion.12321/#post-238631

That was before I realized how old that thread is, though.

 

[Mark C]

Hmmmm, off the top of my head I believe if a man properly divorces a woman and she goes to another man then she’s not allowed to go back to the first.

If she separates of her own accord and her husband never properly divorces her then she can return.

In fact, that situation (women who abandons her husband, but does NOT have a 'get' ultimately repents and returns) is one of THREE (that I can cite) cases in Scripture where a man can be REQUIRED to have two wives. That is, if he married another in the meantime, since he still has that wife, and she - like it or not - still has "a living husband". (Good ole 1 Cor. 7 again)

 

[DiscipleOfChrist]

In fact, that situation (women who abandons her husband, but does NOT have a 'get' ultimately repents and returns) is one of THREE (that I can cite) cases in Scripture where a man can be REQUIRED to have two wives. That is, if he married another in the meantime, since he still has that wife, and she - like it or not - still has "a living husband". (Good ole 1 Cor. 7 again)

I'll just go ahead and copy/paste what I had on the ancient thread about Deut 24:1-4

I struggled with this passage until I got a bigger picture of Scripture and connected it to Matthew 19:9 and 1 Corinthians 6:13-20.

"after that she is defiled" is the key point of the law: the second marriage defiled her as "he who marries she who is divorced commits adultery" (Matt 5:32). The concept of what happens to a woman who commits adultery is that she becomes "defiled."

The sin and abomination that is committed by the first husband if he takes her back is the same sin as joining with a prostitute (1 Corinthians 6:13-20), who is a defiled woman: he sins against his own body with a "defiled" woman. This is also the reason why God built in a biological indicator for women's virginity (Deut 22:13-21).

You can cross-reference the term "porneia" between 1 Cor 6:13-20 and Matthew 19:9's "exception clause," where Jesus indicates that "porneia" is the reason a man can divorce his wife -- it's actually because he MUST divorce his wife as staying married to her is the same as the sin of joining to a prostitute at this point ("porneia" is primarily the word for "prostitution", with "pornes" and "porne" meaning "prostitute" as pretty much all Bible translations agree). That's also why the "exception clause" isn't even necessary to include because "divorcing your wife" isn't even what's actually happening at this point: a man is ridding himself of a defiled woman who quite actually ISN'T really his wife upon becoming defiled.

The reason why the situation of Deut 24:1-4 should be obvious: there is no other scenario in which a woman defiled by adultery wouldn't be dead, so no other situation needs a warning not to return to a defiled "wife" as this isn't even possible under any other situation (a supernatural punishment is described in Numbers that doesn't kill the adulteress, but it ruins her ability to have sexual relations).

So that's why: it's an abomination to rejoin to this wife "after she has been defiled" because joining with a defiled woman in general is an abomination. The scenario is described in such detail because divorce was the last way a defiled wife would even be alive such that it could be possible for a husband to return to her under Israel's law.

What I see from the prophets and Hosea's example is that rejoining IS possible, but the woman must be completely repentant of the relationship. Gomer and Hosea were required not to have sexual relations for "many days" because, in parallel to our relationship to God, we have to walk away from idolatries/adulteries BEFORE we presume to rejoin. Jeremiah 3:1 says the same kind of thing: They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man's, shall he return unto her again? But the rest of Jeremiah 3 basically says: repent of the adulteries and THEN return.

 

[The Revolting Man]

In fact, that situation (women who abandons her husband, but does NOT have a 'get' ultimately repents and returns) is one of THREE (that I can cite) cases in Scripture where a man can be REQUIRED to have two wives. That is, if he married another in the meantime, since he still has that wife, and she - like it or not - still has "a living husband". (Good ole 1 Cor. 7 again)

Excellent point!

 

[Mark C]

I struggled with this passage until I got a bigger picture of Scripture and connected it to Matthew 19:9 and 1 Corinthians 6:13-20.

"after that she is defiled" is the key point of the law: the second marriage defiled her as "he who marries she who is divorced commits adultery" (Matt 5:32)

Wow, sorry - but wrong in so many ways. The problem is multi-fold:
"marries she who is divorced" is a pitifully bad translation. The Hebrew word used in Deuteronomy 24, and by Yahushua, is the root "shalach" - which means to PUT AWAY. The process in Deuteronomy 24:1 (and repeated in 3) MUST include the 'get' - or she is STILL a wife.

He who sleeps with a wife who has been 'put away' but HAS no 'certificate of divorce' commits adultery.

The rest compounds the basic error. Yahushua didn't CHANGE "one yod or tiddle" of His instruction (Matthew 5:17-19) much less 'raise the bar' or contradict Himself. Start with His Truth, as Written - and the rest will follow.

Logically, and inexorably.



PS> He didn't kill the woman allegedly "caught in adultery," either. Same logic. He Wrote the Book.

 

[DiscipleOfChrist]

Wow, sorry - but wrong in so many ways. The problem is multi-fold:
"marries she who is divorced" is a pitifully bad translation. The Hebrew word used in Deuteronomy 24, and by Yahushua, is the root "shalach" - which means to PUT AWAY. The process in Deuteronomy 24:1 (and repeated in 3) MUST include the 'get' - or she is STILL a wife.

He who sleeps with a wife who has been 'put away' but HAS no 'certificate of divorce' commits adultery.

The rest compounds the basic error. Yahushua didn't CHANGE "one yod or tiddle" of His instruction (Matthew 5:17-19) much less 'raise the bar' or contradict Himself. Start with His Truth, as Written - and the rest will follow.

Logically, and inexorably.



PS> He didn't kill the woman allegedly "caught in adultery," either. Same logic. He Wrote the Book.

What do you feel is the significance of the phrase "after she has been defiled" in the law? How did the woman in Deut 24:1-4 get "defiled" unless adultery occurred?
Do we not agree that "defiled" is referring to an act of adultery here:

Ezekiel 18:6
If he has not eaten on the mountains, Nor lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, Nor defiled his neighbor’s wife, Nor approached a woman during her impurity;

Or here?

Genesis 49:3-4
3 “Reuben, you are my firstborn, my might, the first sign of my strength, excelling in honor, excelling in power.
4 Turbulent as the waters, you will no longer excel, for you went up onto your father’s bed, onto my couch and defiled it.

And likely a multitude of other places that reference adultery as something that "defiled" a man's wife.

 

[James Pease]

Revelation 14
4These are the ones who have not been defiled with women, for they have kept themselves chaste. These are the ones who follow the Lamb wherever He goes. These have been purchased from among men as first fruits to God and to the Lamb.

Were these 144,000 not gonna commit adultery?

 

[DiscipleOfChrist]

Revelation 14
4These are the ones who have not been defiled with women, for they have kept themselves chaste. These are the ones who follow the Lamb wherever He goes. These have been purchased from among men as first fruits to God and to the Lamb.

Did these 144,000 commit adultery?

You mean Not commit adultery, right? That very well could be the meaning.

For example:

Leviticus 18:20
Moreover you shall not lie carnally with your neighbor’s wife, to defile yourself with her.

Indeed this law indicates that the man who commits adultery also defiles himself.

Now what about my question: why is the woman of Deut 24:1-4 "defiled"?

 

[James Pease]

You mean Not commit adultery, right? That very well could be the meaning.

For example:

Leviticus 18:20
Moreover you shall not lie carnally with your neighbor’s wife, to defile yourself with her.

Indeed this law indicates that the man who commits adultery also defiles himself.

Now what about my question: why is the woman of Deut 24:1-4 "defiled"?

Yes edited for better understanding. Im saying that if they had sex at all they would be defiled.

 

[James Pease]

You mean Not commit adultery, right? That very well could be the meaning.

For example:

Leviticus 18:20
Moreover you shall not lie carnally with your neighbor’s wife, to defile yourself with her.

Indeed this law indicates that the man who commits adultery also defiles himself.

Now what about my question: why is the woman of Deut 24:1-4 "defiled"?

Defiled can be just unclean sexually too, or just unclean in general.

 

[James Pease]

Transliteration: ṭāmē'

Pronunciation: taw-may'

Part of Speech: verb

Root Word (Etymology): A primitive root

TWOT Reference: 809

Outline of Biblical Usage: to be unclean, become unclean, become impure (Qal) to be or become unclean sexually religiously ceremonially (Niphal) to defile oneself, be defiled sexually by idolatry ceremonially to be regarded as unclean (Piel) to defile sexually religiously ceremonially to pronounce unclean, declare unclean (ceremonially) to profane (God's name) (Pual) to be defiled (Hithpael) to be unclean (Hothpael) to be defiled

KJV Translation Count: 161x The KJV translates Strongs H2930 in the following manner: unclean (74x), defile (71x), pollute (14x), uncleanness (1x), utterly (1x).

Strong's Definitions: טָמֵא ṭâmêʼ, taw-may'; a primitive root; to be foul, especially in a ceremial or moral sense (contaminated):—defile (self), pollute (self), be (make, make self, pronounce) unclean, × utterly.

 

[DiscipleOfChrist]

Defiled can be just unclean sexually too

I think "Defiled by women" generally encompasses the concept of "porneia" or the sin against your own body. Paul teaches this in the context of using prostitutes in 1 Cor 6:13-20.

As mentioned, Leviticus 18:20 indicates that a man defiles himself as another effect of sexual relations with another man's wife (i.e. in addition to "adultery", the sin against one's own body for the "porneia" concept occurs also).

But once again, why is the woman of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 "defiled" by the end of the scenario described?

 

[James Pease]

I think "Defiled by women" generally encompasses the concept of "porneia" or the sin against your own body. Paul teaches this in the context of using prostitutes in 1 Cor 6:13-20.

As mentioned, Leviticus 18:20 indicates that a man defiles himself as another effect of sexual relations with another man's wife (i.e. in addition to "adultery", the sin against one's own body for the "porneia" concept occurs also).

But once again, why is the woman of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 "defiled" by the end of the scenario described?

Any evidence for your assumption of defiled by women meaning porneia?

Already answered your question.
Why is a woman defiled by childbirth?

 

[DiscipleOfChrist]

Any evidence for your assumption of defiled by women meaning porneia?

Not explicit evidence, but only citing the possibility. I don't know how you would distinctly assert that it means something else either, though.

I mean, what you're calling an "assumption" is based on teachings in Scripture that joining to a promiscuous woman has a "defiling" effect on a man and/or is described as sinning against a man's body (Leviticus 20:18 and 1 Cor 6:13-20). Do you see other teachings in Scripture that could establish "defiled by women" to likely mean something else in particular? I'll grant that this is a burden of proof issue on both sides as "defiled by women" isn't more explicit, like saying "defiled by porneia." But again, as far as looking through Scripture for how and when a woman CAN defile a man, we see teachings against a man joining to a promiscuous woman as having a defiling effect against himself. As far as being "chaste"/"pure," I don't know of any teaching involving a concept of celibacy making a man have a "virgin" status like a woman (as it happens polygyny is the reason why: a man's marriageability isn't affected by how/if he has a sexual history like a woman). So I think "pure" likely means undefiled by "pornous" women in particular -- granting that it doesn't explicitly say that.

Already answered your question.

I'm afraid I didn't really get your answer. I saw your copy/paste about the meaning but don't see how this answers what defiled the woman at the point stated in the law of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and why. Do you dispute that the second marriage defiled her? If so, why?

Why is a woman defiled by childbirth?

She is temporarily ceremonially unclean, something that happens in a large variety of laws related to bodily fluids (bleeding and such) and the law itself says that.

Note that the law of Deut 24:1-4 isn't said to be a ceremonial uncleanness, but "defiled" on the subject of being marriageable to her first husband again.

 

[FollowingHim]

The reason why the situation of Deut 24:1-4 should be obvious: there is no other scenario in which a woman defiled by adultery wouldn't be dead, so no other situation needs a warning not to return to a defiled "wife" as this isn't even possible under any other situation (a supernatural punishment is described in Numbers that doesn't kill the adulteress, but it ruins her ability to have sexual relations).

Your thesis is based very heavily on the idea that all adulterers will end up dead. Bear in mind that in scripture there is not a single example of this punishment being actually carried out (that I can recall). On the contrary, each time the situation actually comes up, the people involved are forgiven.

David and Bathsheba were not stoned to death - they were forgiven, after a different punishment was applied (death of the child), even though this was an even more heinous situation that involved two crimes both worthy of death - adultery and murder.

The woman caught in adultery and brought to Jesus was not stoned to death either, she too was forgiven.

Tamar was almost killed on suspicion of adultery - but ultimately was not when the true facts came out. She still could have been killed but Judah chose to forgive her rather than be implicated himself.

Suzanna (in the apocrypha) was almost killed on a false accusation of adultery, but saved when she was revealed to be innocent. Her accusers were killed for making a false accusation against her, but not for adultery, as no adultery had actually occurred.

The fact that Tamar and Suzanna came so close to death show that the crime was serious and probably was actually punished with death on occasion - but Tamar, David and the woman brought to Jesus show that forgiveness was not only possible, but common.

I think your whole argument is based on a false premise.

 

[DiscipleOfChrist]

Your thesis is based very heavily on the idea that all adulterers will end up dead. Bear in mind that in scripture there is not a single example of this punishment being actually carried out (that I can recall). On the contrary, each time the situation actually comes up, the people involved are forgiven.

I'll even add to your list: Gomer didn't end up dead either even though she was a known adulteress.

But that's not at all relevant to the point: every other LAW that was written results in an adulteress being stoned to death or incapable of sexual relations.

The law is "what to do in 'x' situation." Every law involving a defiled wife results in her death or being incapable of sexual relations. The situation in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is the absolute only way that a defiled wife would still be alive according to all other protocol, and would leave a loophole for a defiled wife to return to her husband ONLY in that case under the law otherwise. So this law had to close the door that would otherwise be open ONLY in this case for a "defiled" woman to return to her first husband, as a matter of protocol, in the interest of keeping a man from returning to a defiled wife, which is the focal point of the entire law: it's an abomination to return to this woman "after she has been defiled."

 

[James Pease]

Your thesis is based very heavily on the idea that all adulterers will end up dead. Bear in mind that in scripture there is not a single example of this punishment being actually carried out (that I can recall). On the contrary, each time the situation actually comes up, the people involved are forgiven.

David and Bathsheba were not stoned to death - they were forgiven, after a different punishment was applied (death of the child), even though this was an even more heinous situation that involved two crimes both worthy of death - adultery and murder.

The woman caught in adultery and brought to Jesus was not stoned to death either, she too was forgiven.

Tamar was almost killed on suspicion of adultery - but ultimately was not when the true facts came out. She still could have been killed but Judah chose to forgive her rather than be implicated himself.

Suzanna (in the apocrypha) was almost killed on a false accusation of adultery, but saved when she was revealed to be innocent. Her accusers were killed for making a false accusation against her, but not for adultery, as no adultery had actually occurred.

The fact that Tamar and Suzanna came so close to death show that the crime was serious and probably was actually punished with death on occasion - but Tamar, David and the woman brought to Jesus show that forgiveness was not only possible, but common.

I think your whole argument is based on a false premise.

After she is divorced from the 2nd husband or he dies can she marry again, other than her 1st husband?

 

[FollowingHim]

However, your whole argument @DiscipleOfChrist is that things MUST happen as written.

Firstly, your argument only works if every single "defiled wife" is dead - stoning is mandatory:

The situation in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is the absolute only way that a defiled wife would still be alive according to all other protocol

Secondly, you argue that divorce is then mandatory as a substitute for mandatory stoning:

You can cross-reference the term "porneia" between 1 Cor 6:13-20 and Matthew 19:9's "exception clause," where Jesus indicates that "porneia" is the reason a man can divorce his wife -- it's actually because he MUST divorce his wife

If stoning were never mandatory in the first place, but rather given as the maximum punishment should the offended party choose not to forgive the offender - then divorce is also not mandatory. Rather, divorce is an application of the leniency that already existed - instead of stoning, you can validly divorce your wife as a lesser but valid punishment for that offence. But may still have the flexibility to give an even lesser punishment, or entirely forgive her with no punishment whatsoever.

This perspective aligns Torah and Jesus - Jesus is not changing the law (removing stoning and substituting divorce), rather he is working entirely within the existing bounds of the law and explaining how to apply it to real-world situations, with mercy.

This is the most natural and consistent reading I can see of all the passages on punishments for divorce. But if correct it completely undermines the entire premise for your argument regarding Deuteronomy 24:1-4 - as there are many ways a defiled wife could still be alive.