Mark 10:11

[Children of God]

I searched the forums and didn't find a discussion on this topic though there has to be. It's interesting that here it puts the act of adultery on the man for taking another wife, after divorcing his previous wife. I can't find this stated anywhere else in the Bible so please help explain...

 

[steve]

“put away” is not a divorce.
If a man sends a wife away without putting a ghet in her hand, she is still married.
She couldn’t survive by herself, but if she took up with another man she was committing adultery.

 

[frederick]

The context of the answer Jesus gives in v:11 is stated in v:2; The Pharisees came... testing Him. They are asking about no-fault divorce, and demonstrate how corrupt and perverted their understanding of marriage and divorce is by saying, "take care of the paperwork and it's all good" (v:4). The answer Jesus gives in v:9 corrects that erroneous understanding; "Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." The outcome of serial monogamy with no-fault divorce is rampant adultery (v:11-12).

That's my short answer on the passage, however I'm open to correction. Cheers

 

[Mark C]

I can't find this stated anywhere else in the Bible so please help explain...

Whenever you see something which not only looks like an 'outlier,' but is a single witness, look deeper.

Steve is correct; most English translations simply get it WRONG. The original word He used would come from the Hebrew "shalach," which means to 'put away.'

Matthew 5:32, again - properly translated, and some don't - is still twisted, but at least more clear. If a man "puts away" a wife, but she is NOT already an adulteress, what does he 'cause her' to do? She may well go out and be put in a position to become one. If he gives her a 'get' - then "she may go be another man's [wife]."

When you see a place where it looks like the Messiah is breaking His own promise, and changing what He so clearly said He would not (Matthew 5:17-19) -- look for something MEN screwed up, usually in the name of their false dogma.

PS> It IS in the forums, probably more than once.

 

[Bartato]

Steve is correct; most English translations simply get it WRONG. The original word He used would come from the Hebrew "shalach," which means to 'put away.'

Matthew 5:32, again - properly translated,

You may well be correct, but this aspect seems a little speculative, delving into what Hebrew words the Lord may have had in mind.

When dealing with the Gospel of Matthew, we have a Greek text, and Christ would have likely made the statement originally in Aramaic, based on the Hebrew Torah, or even Greek language Septuagint.

 

[Mark C]

He would NOT, under any circumstances, have contradicted His Own Written Word. Especially if you believe, as I do, that He Wrote it to begin with.

Either the Greek word is a synonym (which is easy to verify, and note just as easily that the word "divorce" is NOT, and is not used) - or someone made a bad mistake. But it wasn't Him.

And, with Matthew, we do have both Aramaic and Hebrew texts. (Shem Tov's, arguably the best, but not the only.)

 

[Bartato]

He would NOT, under any circumstances, have contradicted His Own Written Word. Especially if you believe, as I do, that He Wrote it to begin with.

Either the Greek word is a synonym (which is easy to verify, and note just as easily that the word "divorce" is NOT, and is not used) - or someone made a bad mistake. But it wasn't Him.

And, with Matthew, we do have both Aramaic and Hebrew texts. (Shem Tov's, arguably the best, but not the only.)

Again, your overall point about putting away being different than divorce is likely correct.

But ...

Shem Tov's Hebrew text of Matthew

Shem Tov was a Renaissance era rabbi, liar, and antichrist (based on the 1 John 2:22 definition of antichrist). He taught that Yeshuah wasn't the the Messiah.

That's good enough for me. I don't think I will put a lot of stock in his translation of the Gospel of Matthew.

Moreover why should anyone seriously consider a Hebrew translation from the fourteenth century over Greek manuscripts of Matthew dating back to the third century.

 

[Bartato]

This discussion makes me wonder if I should perhaps study the Torah based off the Septuagint rather than the Masoretic text.

Our Hebrew language manuscripts of the Old Testament are generally not as old, and may well be less reliable than our Greek versions of the Old Testament.

The fact that the Dead Sea scroll Hebrew manuscripts line up better with the Septuagint than the Masoretic makes me wonder to what extent antichristian rabbi's may have changed the Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament because of their rejection of Yeshua.

I am a little conspiracy minded so ....

 

[FollowingHim]

This discussion makes me wonder if I should perhaps study the Torah based off the Septuagint rather than the Masoretic text.

Just use both whenever there is a question. It's sensible for all the reasons you cite.

Steve is correct; most English translations simply get it WRONG. The original word He used would come from the Hebrew "shalach," which means to 'put away.'

Your point is correct, but your linguistic argument to get there is speculative. There is absolutely no need to hypothesise about what he might have said originally if his words were said in a different language. Greek was a very common language at the time, and it's probable that some of what Jesus said was in Greek and some was in Aramaic, and we just don't know which he said in which language. Even when talking to Jews, because there were Jews from all over the world in his audience, he may sometimes have used Greek as a common tongue. This is an unnecessary complication.

The word in Greek is completely clear: "apolyo" means release / set free, send away, dismiss. It clearly makes the point that @Mark C, @frederick and @steve have all stated.

Obviously that means it is a synonym for "shalach" as you say, so if he was originally speaking Hebrew the word he used would have most likely been "shalach" - but we don't have to assume that and translate it back into Hebrew to understand it, "shalach" doesn't need to come into this argument at all.

In fact, saying we have to speculate about what Jesus might actually have said takes a point which is completely clear appear weak and speculative @Mark C. This just makes it less likely that readers will accept the point, and makes it look like we're creating long chains of reasoning to justify polygamy.

There is a time and a place for such considerations - I'm not saying you're wrong - but bringing them into every discussion involving New Testament Greek like this does not actually help bring clarity or persuade anyone.

 

[ASyers41]

Put away is not the same as divorce. Bible Translators do a horrible job translating Hebrew and Greek terms into modern day English and then we think in Christendom that the English Word is the end all of the word and this is incorrect.

Put away is not the same as a divorce. For Example, a woman can literally put herself away if she is being beat while he is seeking help and they should be working towards reconciliation. Until she has a bill of divorce in her hand she is still married to that man and is guilty of adultery if she is with another man without the bill of divorce. If she has a bill of divorce then she is not committing adultery nor is the man she is now with of committing adultery. The Biblical definition of adultery is taking another man’s wife. A single woman cannot commit adultery because she is not married and a married man cannot commit adultery with a single woman because he is not taking another man’s wife.

We are often guilty of reading into the text what we want it to say rather than what is actually in the text.

 

[Bartato]

Put away is not the same as divorce. Bible Translators do a horrible job translating Hebrew and Greek terms into modern day English and then we think in Christendom that the English Word is the end all of the word and this is incorrect.

Put away is not the same as a divorce. For Example, a woman can literally put herself away if she is being beat while he is seeking help and they should be working towards reconciliation. Until she has a bill of divorce in her hand she is still married to that man and is guilty of adultery if she is with another man without the bill of divorce. If she has a bill of divorce then she is not committing adultery nor is the man she is now with of committing adultery. The Biblical definition of adultery is taking another man’s wife. A single woman cannot commit adultery because she is not married and a married man cannot commit adultery with a single woman because he is not taking another man’s wife.

We are often guilty of reading into the text what we want it to say rather than what is actually in the text.

Are you suggesting that Christ's instructions about lusting after married women doesn't equally apply to looking at single women with any degree of interest? Maybe noticing an attractive single woman isn't "adultery of the heart"!

 

[Mark C]

There is a time and a place for such considerations - I'm not saying you're wrong - but bringing them into every discussion involving New Testament Greek like this does not actually help bring clarity or persuade anyone.

I can in fact cite dozens, if not hundreds, of examples to the contrary.

You are correct in part. We cannot PROVE that Yahushua (the name He actually used, BTW, which CAN be proven, since Matthew 1:21 says so, at least in some renderings ) quoted His own Word in His original language. But we do know that it was NOT Written originally in any form of Greek.

He would, by definition, have known and taught as He originally intended. (Matthew 7:28-29)

This just makes it less likely that readers will accept the point, and makes it look like we're creating long chains of reasoning to justify polygamy.

And any mis-translations, or mistakes, are not His.

I myself was persuaded concerning the Truth of His Word by exactly such arguments. As you are hopefully aware.

This just makes it less likely that readers will accept the point, and makes it look like we're creating long chains of reasoning to justify polygamy.

Au contraire. The claim that He can't make up His mind, and changed His "law," is exactly the kind of "long chains of reasoning" ...obfuscation - that has been used to justify monogomania.

BF undermines its own case when it rejects or even censors arguments that might "offend" some who really aren't all that keen on "rightly dividing the Word" to begin with.

 

[Mark C]

Our Hebrew language manuscripts of the Old Testament are generally not as old, and may well be less reliable than our Greek versions of the Old Testament.

You confuse the Masoretic renderings with the Hebrew Torah scrolls; they are decidedly NOT the same. (The vowel pointers were added by the Masorites, for one.)

And the latter are the most reliable, and 'vetted,' texts in human history.

 

[OttoM]

This discussion makes me wonder if I should perhaps study the Torah based off the Septuagint rather than the Masoretic text.

You’ll find two instances in the New Testament that Jesus/Iesus’ name is Joshua from the Old Testament. If you go into the Greek Septuagint - and check the book of Joshua - it’s actually called the book of Iesus (Jesus) in the Greek Old Testament.

John 5:43
I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not accept me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him

So what is Joshua’s name in the original Hebrew, and what does that name even mean?

It’s YAHUshua.
YAH (shortened name of the Father - check the KJV verse below) is Salvation (shua)

Therefore, he indeed came in his Father’s name (YAH), and most of the world indeed rejects him. How so? Because he is the Word made flesh. The Word of YAH. This forum knows better than most how they not only reject the written Word of YAH, but in some cases vehemently hate it. But that same crowd loves Jesus/Iesus.

Psalm 68:4 KJV
“Sing unto God, sing praises to his name: extol him that rideth upon the heavens by his name YAH, and rejoice before him.”

 

[NBTX11]

Are you suggesting that Christ's instructions about lusting after married women doesn't equally apply to looking at single women with any degree of interest? Maybe noticing an attractive single woman isn't "adultery of the heart"!

Correct. You can "lust" (strongly desire) things that are available to you and are not sinful. Every man alive "lusted" after his future wife, before they were married. Including every pastor and bible teacher who preaches against lust, the very thing they teach against.

Is she available to you? If yes, you can desire her. If no, then you can't desire her.

What is being commanded against is not to lust after a married woman. She is off limits to you.

 

[Mark C]

Shem Tov's Hebrew text of Matthew

So what? It is merely among the oldest of quite a few Hebrew texts, all of which are in closer agreement than many other Greek manuscripts. It's notable because of Matthew 23:2, which is different in only one LETTER from others, but arguably more correct.

Shem Tov was a Renaissance era rabbi, liar, and antichrist...

That's good enough for me. I don't think I will put a lot of stock in his translation of the Gospel of Matthew.

King James was a liar, and a pervert...
...and a lot of his 'theology' was undoubtedly suspect.

We wouldn't be having this thread if his 'translation' (which wasn't, really - it was just a re-packaging of the Geneva Bible, sans things he found objectionable) wasn't clearly in error.

In more than one place.

 

[FollowingHim]

This discussion is beginning to turn in a direction that will take it sharply away from the original topic of Mark 10:11, and I'd like to point this out before it gets too far away from the point. As that is a marriage-related question of direct relevance to the forum, please steer back to that topic so this thread has value to anyone seeking answers about that specific question. We don't need to re-cover other pet topics that we have frequently discussed elsewhere.

 

[Mark C]

So, to the point of the thread, and the fact that some translations do a far better job than others:

Yes, the understanding that the word used there, originally for sure, and in any other language properly rendered, is "put away," or "sent away," and that is NOT the same as 'divorce' in English - is fundamental. You won't get it otherwise.

But the description in Matthew 5 (vv 31-32) -- while also mis-translated FAR too often -- is arguably more 'complete.' (And, sadly, for some it introduces the "adultery-ONLY" falsehood. Read the commas there. Truthfully, if she is ALREADY an adulterer, then the husband doesn't MAKE her one by sending her away! YHVH did, to Judah, after all, in Jeremiah 3 and Ezekiel 23!)

And SOME of that explanation is "extra-Biblical," but no less important to context:

A man should be able to support when he "takes another wife." (Exodus 21:10) There has been a problem throughout history - we see it today! - where a man trades in one wife for "this year's shiny new model." It was said to be an issue in Yahushua's time as well; I have no doubt that is true.

The context of His warning (which applies to Mark and the verse in this thread as well) is thus clear: If a man "puts away" his wife just so he can get a new one, then he very well "causes her" (the one he put away) "to commit adultery."

And - guess what? - Numbers 30 tells us, as does Yahushua here - "he bears her guilt."

 

[Bartato]

Let's say a man sends away his lawful wife without a bill of divorce, so he can take a different woman (let's say younger, prettier, and more pleasant one).

This man is guilty of putting his wife in a position where she will likely commit adultery with another man. This husband is doing evil in the sight of God.

Let's now say that a man decides to "no fault divorce" his wife under our current legal system, so that he can take a different woman (younger, prettier, more pleasant).

His divorce is not legitimate in the sight of God. He is putting his wife in a position where she will likely go to another man, becoming an adultress. The husband is acting wickedly. The moral guilt of the adultery seems to fall on him.

Let's now say that the husband sends away his wife with a supposedly "Biblical bill of divorce", so that he can take this new younger, prettier, more pleasant woman. He is just "no fault divorcing" his wife using Biblical terminology.

It is still the same thing. He is still sinning against God. The divorce is not legitimate. He is putting his faithful wife into a position where she will likely commit adultery with another man.

Of course the man was always actually free to marry this additional woman, as a second wife, while continuing to faithfully love, lead, protect, and provide for his first wife.

That's just Biblical polygyny.

Divorcing an already adulterous wife, and then marrying a different woman is also clearly acceptable.

 

[Mark C]

Close, @Bartato, but no cigar. Not that what you wrote was wrong, except as noted next, just a bit conflated, and thus confusing to those who don't understand the details:

Let's now say that the husband sends away his wife with a supposedly "Biblical bill of divorce", so that he can take this new younger, prettier, more pleasant woman. He is just "no fault divorcing" his wife using Biblical terminology.

This is the infamous Matthew 19, "hardness of your hearts," case. (Likewise too often mis-rendered.)

And here's the problem:

It is still the same thing.

No, it is different.

He is still sinning against God.

He is the guilty party, for disobedience to Yahushua, and dishonoring his covenant, BUT:

The divorce is not legitimate. He is putting his faithful wife into a position where she will likely commit adultery with another man.

She, as Deuteronomy 24:1-3, and Paul, too, makes clear is NOT at fault.

"She may become another man's [isha/wife]."

She is "not under bondage," SHE HAS A GET (certificate of divorce).

She does NOT 'commit adultery,' she just no longer has a living [first] husband who is arguably a scumbag.