Proper interpretation of scripture (Matthew 19:9)

[Pete]

Greetings brothers and sisters,

Can anyone here help me interpret Matthew 19:9 in the light of lawful polygyny, specifically "..and marries another woman.."

Why would that be mentioned if polygyny is lawful? Couldn't Yeshua just have said something like "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, commits adultery.”

Can the man not marry another wife, regardless of if he has divorced a previous one or not?


I thought adultery was dependent on the marital status of the woman anyway? Unless Yeshua was talking about another man's wife when he says "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery". But I don't think that's likely as it would be obvious adultery was being committed and would take away from the point Yeshua was making about not lightly divorcing a wife.


I feel as though I am lacking considerable understanding, as my interpretation of this verse doesn't seem to match with the rest of the scriptures, and I have come to learn that means I'm not understanding it properly.

I've listened to Mr Rambo's video on this verse (and two other verses), and while it was useful it didn't fully bring answers regarding these particular words "and marries another woman".


So I am asking for help interpreting this passage well. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.

 

[bfoster]

I don't understand that part either. I understand that adultery is by definition a "Man + Woman Married To Another Man". And the situation described in the verse is "Divorced Man + Woman" (just "woman", without any other specification). If it takes a married woman for adultery to occur, how does the second case fit in?

 

[Pete]

I had a think on my drive to work, and my current understanding is that if you abandon your first life for a reason other than sexual immorality and replace her with another woman, you have dealt treacherously with the first wife and it is considered adultery. You can support the first wife, and she has done nothing warranting divorce, yet you remove her and replace her with another, breaching the terms of your marriage contract?
This still begs the question of divorce and the marital status of the woman, why is it adultery and not some other word?

Any better explanations welcome, the more heavily scripture-based, the better.

 

[Pete]

I had a think on my drive to work, and my current understanding is that if you abandon your first life for a reason other than sexual immorality and replace her with another woman, you have dealt treacherously with the first wife and it is considered adultery. You can support the first wife, and she has done nothing warranting divorce, yet you remove her and replace her with another, breaching the terms of your marriage contract?
This still begs the question of divorce and the marital status of the woman, why is it adultery and not some other word?

Any better explanations welcome, the more heavily scripture-based, the better.

Abandon your first wife*, sorry.

 

[David D]

I have struggled there also but to me I interpret it as someone who abandons a woman to marry another or even divorces a woman for another . But maybe I am off. But it's hard for me to have a good understanding of that passage with a good understanding of marriage to interpret it by.

 

[JimC]

If you are to abandon your first wife and take another and she finds another man and has relations with him she is committing adultery. That sin is then on your head, not hers, or the man that she lays with because you put her away. Our modern feminist world today allows for easy divorce but Yeshua made it clear that this was not the plan of The Most High. In that time a woman would not leave her husband because it most likely would have been a death sentence as woman could not take that which belonged to the husband. And if a man were to divorce his wife and she did not find another man she would have been forced into prostitution. Any time she laid with another man she committed adultery but the sin was that of the husband for divorcing her. If the husband had just kept her as wife and found another there would be no adultery. Matt 19:9 does not refer to polygyny, it refers to divorce only and councils to not divorce because that is not the plan of The Most High.

 

[NickF]

He was saying if you send a wife away or marry a wife who has been sent away. Not divorced. They are two different words.

ἀπολύσῃ is send away
ἀποστάσιον is the writing of the bill of divorcement

Both are required for a divorce. Being sent away means she's been kicked out, or "on a break" but not divorced. She is still married.

Look at the words actually used in the Greek and it's abundantly clear

Matthew 5 :: King James Version (KJV)

Matthew 5 - It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:

www.blueletterbible.org

The two words are used in Matt 5:31-32 and it's clear.

 

[NickF]

I did a more thorough writeup if you're interested.

Matthew 19

As I feel more and more led to do. I'm staying out of arguments and debate. Instead I'm starting threads about the topic that sparks an interest in me. Publishing my thoughts and perspective on the matter and looking for commentary. Matthew 19 1 And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished...

biblicalfamilies.org

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

If you are to abandon your first wife and take another and she finds another man and has relations with him she is committing adultery. That sin is then on your head, not hers, or the man that she lays with because you put her away. Our modern feminist world today allows for easy divorce but Yeshua made it clear that this was not the plan of The Most High. In that time a woman would not leave her husband because it most likely would have been a death sentence as woman could not take that which belonged to the husband. And if a man were to divorce his wife and she did not find another man she would have been forced into prostitution. Any time she laid with another man she committed adultery but the sin was that of the husband for divorcing her. If the husband had just kept her as wife and found another there would be no adultery. Matt 19:9 does not refer to polygyny, it refers to divorce only and councils to not divorce because that is not the plan of The Most High.

This is supportedf by the Wycliffe translation of Mark 10:11, which properly interprets "ep" as "upon". Now the Tyndale translation translates Matt 19:9, Mark 10:11, and Luke 16:18 as "breaks wedlocke", which renders the argument against polygyny null. I like to challenge people that bring up Matt 19:9 and ask them if they want to question the scholarship or the integrity of William Tyndale. The interesting thing about Mark 10:11 is that verse 12 renders that word as "adultery", so perhaps Tyndale understood what constitutes adultery, as we have come to understand it.

 

[Pete]

Thanks legends for your replies so far, I'll work through them and keep studying.

 

[cnystrom]

Greetings brothers and sisters,

Can anyone here help me interpret Matthew 19:9 in the light of lawful polygyny, specifically "..and marries another woman.."

Why would that be mentioned if polygyny is lawful?

Because that is what they were doing. They already knew they could marry another woman. But they did not want to pay for two women. It is not like they had a bunch of guys getting divorced and going single, otherwise he might have stated it the way you suggested. They were trading up. You can not do that. You can have a second wife, but you have to keep the first wife.

Couldn't Yeshua just have said something like "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, commits adultery.”

Can the man not marry another wife, regardless of if he has divorced a previous one or not?

No. I think from this verse, clearly not, unless the reason for the divorce is sexual immorality on her part.

Interestingly, I believe Matthew is the only book with the exception clause in it, and it is also the only book that describes how Joseph was going to put away Mary, until God intervened.

Adultery, according to Jesus, appears to be "treachery against marriage", in this case an unjust divorce, or sleeping with another man's wife, or marriage to a divorced woman (another not popular teaching).

Of course, there are other verses that prevent women from trading up.

Marriage for life seems to be a major principle. Mark 10:9.

 

[Pete]

This is supportedf by the Wycliffe translation of Mark 10:11, which properly interprets "ep" as "upon". Now the Tyndale translation translates Matt 19:9, Mark 10:11, and Luke 16:18 as "breaks wedlocke", which renders the argument against polygyny null. I like to challenge people that bring up Matt 19:9 and ask them if they want to question the scholarship or the integrity of William Tyndale. The interesting thing about Mark 10:11 is that verse 12 renders that word as "adultery", so perhaps Tyndale understood what constitutes adultery, as we have come to understand it.

So you are saying that "commits adultery" is translated as "breaks wedlocke" in the Tyndale translation? Just asking for confirmation. If so that does make lots of sense when put that way.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Greetings brothers and sisters,

Can anyone here help me interpret Matthew 19:9 in the light of lawful polygyny, specifically "..and marries another woman.."

Why would that be mentioned if polygyny is lawful? Couldn't Yeshua just have said something like "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, commits adultery.”

Can the man not marry another wife, regardless of if he has divorced a previous one or not?


I thought adultery was dependent on the marital status of the woman anyway? Unless Yeshua was talking about another man's wife when he says "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery". But I don't think that's likely as it would be obvious adultery was being committed and would take away from the point Yeshua was making about not lightly divorcing a wife.


I feel as though I am lacking considerable understanding, as my interpretation of this verse doesn't seem to match with the rest of the scriptures, and I have come to learn that means I'm not understanding it properly.

I've listened to Mr Rambo's video on this verse (and two other verses), and while it was useful it didn't fully bring answers regarding these particular words "and marries another woman".


So I am asking for help interpreting this passage well. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.

I’m in a strong minority here but I believe this verse tepidly (taken in isolation) supports polygyny because it implies that there are only limited times where a man with a wife can not take another wife. Learned men dispute this vigorously though. Of course we all know what book learning does to testosterone levels…..

 

[MeganC]

"I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, commits adultery.”

This is why your high school English teacher tried to teach you how to diagram a sentence.

The part of the sentence in between the commas interrupts the sentence but adds context to the sentence.

The sentence could also be expressed this way: "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife commits adultery, except if he divorces his wife for sexual immorality"

The dominant clause (or idea) is that anyone who divorces his wife commits adultery.

 

[Mark C]

Oh, boy...

 

[NickF]

The dominant clause (or idea) is that anyone who divorces his wife commits adultery.

Except it’s not divorce. The Greek word there is “send away” not “divorce”.

If you kick your wife out and she marries someone else, you caused her to commit adultery.

 

[MeganC]

Except it’s not divorce. The Greek word there is “send away” not “divorce”.

I agree. But the modern analogue here would be divorce.

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

So you are saying that "commits adultery" is translated as "breaks wedlocke" in the Tyndale translation? Just asking for confirmation. If so that does make lots of sense when put that way.

Yup! That is precisely what it says.

 

[Mark C]

I agree. But the modern analogue here would be divorce.

No, and therein lies the rub. ("reasoning by analogy" is a logical error.) Because the difference is key, and is outlined first by Deuteronomy 24:1 through 3 (and the process is repeated TWICE), and is clearly referenced by Yahushua.

What should be emphasized in this regard (and indeed, in general, on the topic) is that Matthew 5:31-32 (and the context!) does a better job of addressing the exact same issue. And it is easy to spot the HORRIBLE mis-translations there:

both by simply comparing different English renderings, and noting that the Hebrew word "shalach," which DOES mean to "put away," is rendered into the Greek 'apuolo,' MULTIPLE times. But, in at least some English versions (notably the KJV) also by noting that the very same word is translated into DIFFERENT English words (i.e., 'divorce') in error - even in the same verse!

A woman who has been 'put away' but does NOT have a 'sefer keretutah,' or 'certificate of divorce' (written witness) is STILL MARRIED. The implications of the rest of the verse then become obvious.

 

[MeganC]

No, and therein lies the rub. ("reasoning by analogy" is a logical error.) Because the difference is key, and is outlined first by Deuteronomy 24:1 through 3 (and the process is repeated TWICE), and is clearly referenced by Yahushua.

What should be emphasized in this regard (and indeed, in general, on the topic) is that Matthew 5:31-32 (and the context!) does a better job of addressing the exact same issue. And it is easy to spot the HORRIBLE mis-translations there:

both by simply comparing different English renderings, and noting that the Hebrew word "shalach," which DOES mean to "put away," is rendered into the Greek 'apuolo,' MULTIPLE times. But, in at least some English versions (notably the KJV) also by noting that the very same word is translated into DIFFERENT English words (i.e., 'divorce') in error - even in the same verse!

A woman who has been 'put away' but does NOT have a 'sefer keretutah,' or 'certificate of divorce' (written witness) is STILL MARRIED. The implications of the rest of the verse then become obvious.

Okay. Then an example of where wives these days are commonly 'put away' is....?

Seriously, if this does not have a modern analogy then it is an anachronism and it is irrelevant to our time.