Matthew 19:9 Adultery in unjustified divorce and remarriage

[Shadowjak's Dancer]

"9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”

-NKJV

Recently had this verse brought back to me. Now, I have my ideas on what this means and why it says what it says, but I would like to hear from you all.

Why do you think it says he commits adultery?

 

[eye4them]

We know that the Law has not been done away with. Mat 5:18
So, with that in mind, I am not sure how the "and marries another" fits in, but as for how he commits adultery, my impression of how that happens stems from Numbers 30, concerning a woman's vows.
Num 30:15 "But if he shall any ways make them void after that he hath heard them; then he shall bear her iniquity."

My expectation is that the divorce is not legitimate if she did not commit sexual immorality, and so he sent her away, but she's still his wife, and if still his wife, then when she joins herself to another man (out of necessity?), any adultery that she ?commits? falls back to her husband, because he voided her vow by effectively forcing her to break it..... this are my expectation concerning these things.

 

[Richard]

In the KJV it is written "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." The phrase "put away" is 630 apoluo - to set free, release; which is not divorce. Had he given her a bill of divorcement, then they would be divorced. Therefore, she is not free to marry which would cause him to be guilty of adultery when she is forced to be with another man to survive. If another man marries her, then it is not a legitimate marriage because she is still married to the first man and all three are guilty of adultery. At least this is the way that I understand it. But I could be wrong.

 

[rockfox]

In the KJV it is written "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." The phrase "put away" is 630 apoluo - to set free, release; which is not divorce. Had he given her a bill of divorcement, then they would be divorced. Therefore, she is not free to marry which would cause him to be guilty of adultery when she is forced to be with another man to survive. If another man marries her, then it is not a legitimate marriage because she is still married to the first man and all three are guilty of adultery. At least this is the way that I understand it. But I could be wrong.

You have to take this in the context of 1 Cor 7; which adds a few wrinkles.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

We read in Matthew 5:17-19 KJV
[17] “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. [18] For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. [19] Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them , the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

Jesus isn’t changing the law. So what’s happening in Matthew 19?

Matthew 19:3-9 KJV
[3] “The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? [4] And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, [5] And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? [6] Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. [7] They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? [8] He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. [9] And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.”

The G-d of the Old Testament and the G-d of the New Testament are one and the same. Jesus said he wasn’t changing the law. G-d doesn’t misspeak. So how are these in harmony? I think the key is where Jesus didn’t say the Law he said “Moses”. That is important. Moses apparently gave them latitude with the Law of G-d that wasn’t what G-d was permitting. Look at Deuteronomy 24.

Deuteronomy 24:1 KJV
[1] “When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.”

It would seem that the “uncleanness” spoken of by G-d in Deuteronomy is sexual immorality. In the New Testament Jesus clarifies it. He doesn’t change the Law.

Adultery carried the death penalty under the law so no divorce necessary, right? But wait, there had to be witnesses for that to happen. This statute is to provide a husband with a remedy in the case that he found out his wife had committed adultery but he couldn’t prove it in a court of law, so to speak.

 

[Nikud]

Adultery carried the death penalty under the law so no divorce necessary, right?

Exodus 21:23–25

But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

And if any ason (harm, fatality) follow, then thou shalt take nefesh for nefesh,Ayin for ayin, shen for shen, yad for yad, regel for regel, Burn for burn, wound for wound, chaburah (stripe laceration) for chaburah.

Before this Mitzvot was given, G-d had already established a judicial system in Exodous to hear cases and determine penalties. A system that would be unnecessary if G-d had intended a literal “eye for an eye” penalty. It was mostly but not exclusively applied in civil cases.

It was to set the standard that when Torah was violated no more punishment could be extracted than the Mitzvot allowed but scripture shows time and time again G-ds mercy.

So even though Divorce carried the death penalty there was always room for a merciful vertic, that is until the time of the Pharisees who beleived that the Letter must be followed to the max penalty and that was their interpretation of Exodus 21:23-25.

Matthew 5:38-42

“You have heard that our fathers were told, ‘Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you not to stand up against someone who does you wrong. On the contrary, if someone hits you on the right cheek, let him hit you on the left cheek too! If someone wants to sue you for your shirt, let him have your coat as well! And if a soldier forces you to carry his pack for one mile, carry it for two! When someone asks you for something, give it to him; when someone wants to borrow something from you, lend it to him.

Because of this I don't believe that saying

This statute is to provide a husband with a remedy in the case that he found out his wife had committed adultery but he couldn’t prove it in a court of law, so to speak.

about Deuteronomy 24:1 is accurate. If you look at the language it's about his inability to consummate the marriage because of her being unwilling, spiritual uncleaness or physical deformity(?) and the right to divorce despite making a vow. Once again the line of thought of the Pharisees gave them the right to divorce if they grew bored or dissatisfied.

 

[LoveisaLion]

"9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”

-NKJV

Recently had this verse brought back to me. Now, I have my ideas on what this means and why it says what it says, but I would like to hear from you all.

Why do you think it says he commits adultery?

The answer is in: (Mat 5:32) "but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery."

By divorcing her just to replace her, he is causing her to commit adultery and therefore becomes guilty of it himself.

I have been reading and re-reading the gospels for some time, and each author adds or omits certain information. You could be reading one rendition of the same story in one of the gospels and find further or less information in another...

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

Because of this I don't believe that saying
about Deuteronomy 24:1 is accurate. If you look at the language it's about his inability to consummate the marriage because of her being unwilling, spiritual uncleaness or physical deformity(?) and the right to divorce despite making a vow. Once again the line of thought of the Pharisees gave them the right to divorce if they grew bored or dissatisfied.

The word ‘ervah” seems to have to do with sexual uncleanness not unwillingness or physical deformities.

 

[Nikud]

The word ‘ervah” seems to have to do with sexual uncleanness not unwillingness or physical deformities.

Ervah actually means figuratively blemish, disgrace or literally nakeness, nudity. Since nakeness and nudity don't make sense. That leaves only blemish, which can mean physical deformity and makes perfect sense or disgrace which is spiritual in nature.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

So Jesus changed the Law? I think not.

 

[Nikud]

So Jesus changed the Law? I think not.

How do you get from the possibility that you were using scripture that didn't support your statement to Yeshua changed the law? All it shows is the the versus that were being used earlier to explain Torah were incorrectly used. You were trying to apply a scripture that not about adultery to adultery. When it comes to Torah there's no pulled punches when it comes to adultery. Torah dosen't mince words, adultery Is always called adultery.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

Were the Pharisees not using this portion of Torah in their question to Jesus?

 

[Nikud]

Were the Pharisees not using this portion of Torah in their question to Jesus?

Probably but that doesn't mean the Torah portion was about Adultery in the carnal sense. If it was, the way Yeshua answered it changes Torah. If Deuteronomy 24:1 was speaking of spiritual disgrace or a spiritual blemish and Yeshua was speaking of Spiritual Adultery the breaking of vows, refusal of a woman to obey the Adonai and submit to her husband, to live in a way that glorifies the Father that explains all aspects of his statement in Matthew 19:9.

I apologize if I got confusing with my statement earlier.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

It was confusing, but I take full responsibility for misreading it lol

Ok so that kinda makes sense. You are saying that Deuteronomy 24:1 is referencing a lack of submission on the part of the wife and by so doing she is committing spiritual adultery?

 

[Nikud]

That Deuteronomy 24:1 is talking about spiritual blemishes like the lack of submission to outright spiritual adultery like apostasy.
This is my personal beleif. I could be wrong just like everyone can be, but the more times I study this out. The language used and the fact that scripture doesn't contradict scripture only our interpitation bias does makes me beleive this is the correct way To interpret it. To me it's the only way I can see without making Yeshuas statements in Matthew 19:9 change Torah.

I gave other possible meanings because I don't want you to take my word for it just diffrent avenues to look at and study through.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I think you're all missing something important, this is simply a restating of a Torah teaching.

If a husband suspected his wife of sexual impurity there was a process in place to test her and if her husband was wrong then he was never allowed to divorce her and believe also barred from future marriages. I'm sorry that I'm too lazy too look this up but thus jives perfectly with what Christ says about divorce and makes the passage pretty simple to understand. It's not new or changing Torah. Like many things it had to be adjusted a little since Christ knew there wouldn't be access to Levites soon but It's straight out of Torah.

 

[cnystrom]

"9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”

Just posted something very similar on Facebook in reference to the royal wedding. Many people waded in with many views. Divorce used to be a clear sin, but in the last 100 years or so as feminism has gained ground, and divorce has gained acceptance, Christians are very split on the issue.

One epiphany I had was that the first part of the verse prevents male hypergamy, and the second part of the verse prevents female hypergamy.

 

[andrew]

One epiphany I had was that the first part of the verse prevents male hypergamy, and the second part of the verse prevents female hypergamy.

Very interesting!

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

I think you're all missing something important, this is simply a restating of a Torah teaching.

If a husband suspected his wife of sexual impurity there was a process in place to test her and if her husband was wrong then he was never allowed to divorce her and believe also barred from future marriages. I'm sorry that I'm too lazy too look this up but thus jives perfectly with what Christ says about divorce and makes the passage pretty simple to understand. It's not new or changing Torah. Like many things it had to be adjusted a little since Christ knew there wouldn't be access to Levites soon but It's straight out of Torah.

We’re gonna need a chapter and verse

 

[Shibboleth]

We’re gonna need a chapter and verse

I'm pretty sure he's referring to the Law of Jealousy: Numbers 5, starting in verse 11 to the end of the chapter. The woman swears an oath and drinks some holy muddy water, then if she's guilty, her belly swells and her thigh rots.

But I'm not sure it says everything he thinks it says.