Mark 10:11 - the interpretation, please (Jesus Christ, translation, church, eternal)

[Big_TJ]

I recently saw on a discussion topic an interpretation of Mark 10:11 that I want to get feedback on.


Mark 10:11 (NJV)And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.

Since I don't have a Doctorate in Linguistics, my reading of this scripture has always being that the act of divorcing is not a problem; however, if you remarry, then you commit adultery. However, the seemingly other interpretation is as stated in the post:

It should be interpreted thusly:

"Whoever puts away his wife commits adultery against her"

and

"Whoever marries another commits adultery against her"

Surprising, this interpretation seem to be a popular interpretation. I know that the meaning of words changes over time, but a definition of the word Adultery at dictionary.com is

voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than his or her lawful spouse.

My question to you is: What is your interpretation of Mark 10:11? Is it that the act of "put away is wife" an act of adultery or is it that it is the "marries another" that is the act of adultery.

[angellous_evangellous]

IMHO, it is like the teaching that "looking at a woman" is the same as adultery...

EDIT: The discussion in the OP is here:

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

No - divorce is forbidden in Mark, and qualified in Matt. I think that you're reading it wrong...

It should be interpreted thusly:

"Whoever puts away his wife commits adultery against her"

and

"Whoever marries another commits adultery against her"

EDIT: For genocide, see post 141 and 143...

[Mr. Peanut]

Either/or and both. At the time, a Jewish man would divorce his wife and marry another for no reason but that he was bored and wanted another wife. This was like a death sentence to the wife as she had depended on him to provide for her. Except for fornication, Jesus condemned this practice as hard-hearted. He also said that if a man looks at a woman to lust after her, he has already committed adultery in his heart. Just as John said if we hate our brother without cause we are a murderer at heart. Jeremiah said that the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked. As we examine our own heart in light of the ten commandments, we will quickly see we have broken all ten numerous times "at heart", from which Jesus said all manner of sin arises. (not what goes in a man, but what proceeds forth from the heart: adulteries, murders, etc.) Therefore the Bible concludes ALL under sin, that there is none righteous, no, not one.

This is why Jesus died, to pay for all our sins, all the sins of the world, past, present and future. He also gave us his righteousness in place of our own which is as filthy rags to a holy God. Therefore any and all who trust alone in Christ alone to have accomplished this are freely saved. This is the Great Swap, we gave Jesus our sins and he gave us his righteousness, saving us to the uttermost forevermore seeing it is all what Christ has done, no merit to us whatsoever, so that all the glory and honour belongs to Christ who freely saves all who have simply trusted him and accepted this free gift of eternal life.

[ChristineES]

It could be either or both. It may mean divorce or it may mean adultery.

But if you read another translation it says divorce as in ESV-

Mar 10:11 And he said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her,
Mar 10:12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."

[Big_TJ]

Originally Posted by ChristineES

It could be either or both. It may mean divorce or it may mean adultery.

But if you read another translation it says divorce as in ESV-

Mar 10:11 And he said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her,
Mar 10:12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."

I am not sure, but I don't think I get it. While we have our own religious take on the topic, I am still trying to read the writing as being both or either. Is it not like as follows:

Whoever (divorces his wife and marries another) (commits adultery) against her,
IF (this is true) and (this is true) then (this is true)

So, if only one section of the sentence is true, then the statement then become false?

[Dunemeister]

Originally Posted by Big_TJ

I am not sure, but I don't think I get it. While we have our own religious take on the topic, I am still trying to read the writing as being both or either. Is it not like as follows:

Whoever (divorces his wife and marries another) (commits adultery) against her,
IF (this is true) and (this is true) then (this is true)

So, if only one section of the sentence is true, then the statement then become false?

I think you've got it. Divorce does not constitute adultery. Divorce is frowned upon, no doubt, but it's not equivalent to adultery. If a man divorces and then remarries, he commits adultery against his first wife. That's probably behind the prohibition on divorce, viz., it leads to adultery.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by Dunemeister

I think you've got it. Divorce does not constitute adultery. Divorce is frowned upon, no doubt, but it's not equivalent to adultery. If a man divorces and then remarries, he commits adultery against his first wife. That's probably behind the prohibition on divorce, viz., it leads to adultery.

No.. it's just a higher standard, like looking at a woman. Lust may cause adultery, but Jesus taught that in itself is adultery. It's a higher standard than the actual event. Divorce is obviously more extreme, and that is adultery too, because it flies in the face of the unification that God is bringing about through Jesus Christ. Paul later applies this unification to Christ and the Church.

All sorts of sins were compared to adultery in the OT. In the end, worshipping another god, being allies with the wrong country, all of these things were adultery. It's a metaphor for sin.

[Dunemeister]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

No.. it's just a higher standard, like looking at a woman. Lust may cause adultery, but Jesus taught that in itself is adultery. It's a higher standard than the actual event. Divorce is obviously more extreme, and that is adultery too, because it flies in the face of the unification that God is bringing about through Jesus Christ. Paul later applies this unification to Christ and the Church.

All sorts of sins were compared to adultery in the OT. In the end, worshipping another god, being allies with the wrong country, all of these things were adultery. It's a metaphor for sin.

I think you're mixing metaphors here in a way Jesus isn't. In the Old Testament, adultery is not a metaphor for sin writ large, it's a metaphor for idolatry. And I don't see how Jesus' use of the word "adultery" expands on Old Testament usage in that connection. If it does, please demonstrate where and how.

Divorce simply isn't adultery. It's the breaking of a marriage bond, but if a person divorces and doesn't remarry (and doesn't look at women lustfully), he hasn't committed adultery. We might still charge the person with a sin because he has broken a marriage vow to remain married until death, but that's a different sin from adultery (which is not to say that I'm ranking sins).

I agree with you that in another passage, Jesus says that to look on a woman lustfully means that you've committed adultery in your heart. That's not a higher standard. Jesus wasn't teaching something new but reminding his audience of the original intent of the Old Testament text. Specifically, he reminds them here that they can't excuse their lust simply because they remain physically faithful to their wives. But even if it were a higher standard, I don't see how it bears on the passage at issue in this thread.