Bible Question:
From what I can see, the biblical definition of “Adultery” is the destruction of an existing marriage relationship to create a new one. This includes: 1.) A Man divorcing one wife to marry another woman. 2.) A Woman divorcing her husband to marry another man. 3.) A Married woman who has intercourse with another man (Not her husband) These things have to do with one head, “Husband” being the center of the family unit, regardless of how many wives and children he has. Once a wife is added to that unit, binding her to another head, or destroying the existing family relationship to form another, results in adultery. This is clarified, from what I read, in the discussions on adultery in the New Testament. Some things that are not “Adultery”: 1.) A Man taking a second, third, … wife from women who are single. This is polygamy, not adultery. It is a sin in this country because it is a violation of the law. In other countries, where it is legal, it is not a sin. That said, according to scripture, God’s “best” is to remain single, and unencumbered to serve the Lord. Marriage is for those that cannot avoid fornication. It goes without saying that remaining as unencumbered as is possible, by limiting yourself to one wife, even in areas where polygamy is acceptable, is better than taking multiple wives. Yet, in areas where it is allowed, it is still not sin. It does cut down on ministry options though, … the requirement of “Husband of one wife”, prevents those who have multiple wives from fulfilling the roles of Elder or deacon. 2.) A Married man sleeping with an unmarried woman who is not his wife. This, from what I read in scripture, is fornication, or “illicit sexual intercourse”. While adultery is a form of fornication, it is a subcategory that does not apply in this case. Old Testament law would state that with this form of fornication, the man gained a new wife, and the woman bound herself to a new head, and that neither one was allowed to divorce the other. First, are there any issues with my conclusions so far? Are there any passages I left out, misinterpreted, …? Depending on how the first part goes, my question is on the following passage: Mat 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: 28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. First, in order for any Jew to have an understanding of what is being said, the definitions they always used for words and terms should be left intact, UNLESS, there is a redefinition of those words and terms being made in the text. Since the word “Fornication” was not used, but rather “Adultery”, and 1 Cor. 7, which goes through the details of “Needing” to get married, and that being out of control is the only real reason to seek to get married, (That is, if you believe that Paul had the Spirit of the Lord), to be consistent, the word used in this passage, “woman”, means married woman. Otherwise, if “all” women would have been meant, the word would have been fornication, not adultery. Plus, if it is single women as well, 1 Cor. 7 doesn’t make much sense. Ok, so, “If” my conclusions are correct so far, In order for this passage to occur, a man (Married or single) had to be in the presence of a married woman (Married to someone else), and be looking at her dwelling on her in lust. This limits the distance to good viewing distance, … the closer the better, and requires living people to be in close proximity to each other. The problem with these conclusions is, that almost every sermon I have ever heard has nothing at all to do with what this passage seems to say and mean. If I am right, unless I am willing to twist, distort, and otherwise rewrite the meaning of the words used completely, (Like many of the belief groups we often speak out against, like the Mormon’s Jehovah’s Witnesses, … and others do to make up reasons to believe doctrines the word of God doesn’t really teach), I am left with the conclusion that most of the sermons I have heard on this passage, maybe all of them, are completely made up out of whole cloth, and have nothing at all to do with the real meaning. I assume that those on this site are not shy, and that my errors will be brought to my attention. Thanks in advance. |
Bible Answer: EmethAlethia, I admire your post very much. First, I admire it because I can see you are very much first and foremost trying to understand scripture, and fewer question than we would like have this starting point. Second, I love your post because you clearly are willing to follow wherever scripture takes you on this question despite it seeming to lead you towards an answer you no doubt realize will be unpopular. Finally, I admire your post because in addition to your search for scripture you at least seem to display the humility to realize that while we must completely submit to scripture, yet we ourselves are not infallible interpreters of scripture and need others to help show where we misread. In short I can see why your name is truth truth. That being said, let me tell you why I come to a different conclusion than you in three headings. 1.) First, I think we need to recognize the difficulty of the data we are handling. I call your attention to the section of your post at the beginning where you explain how you see the biblical definition of adultery and its centering on the husband. I want to point out that you have including exactly zero scriptures in support of your view. Now one might wonder how I can praise your pursuit of scripture and at the same time point this out. The reason is that I can see how your view is shapped by biblical passages. Because the truth is we don't, to my knowledge have an explicit biblical teaching answering this question concerning polygamy. Nowhere is it explicitly forbidden in scripture in a simply prohibitive statement such as "Though shall not steal" prohibits theft. And yet I can easily see how the biblical data could press you to your conclusion. But for my first point, I just would like you to recognize that what you are doing is simply trying to reconstruct the ethics from examples of what God did not judge rather than from actual intentional teaching from scripture. Now this is out of necessity, not your fault. 2.) Is this presented in scripture as something where singleness is what we "ought" to press towards, then failing that we "ought" to strive for a single wife, and then failing that we find ourselves at polygamy? My conclusion is no, because though Paul does suggest that singleness is supperior due to its singleness of focus on the things of God, this superiority is expressed in the sense of ranking of various spiritual gifts similiar to how he does so in 1 Corinthians 12 where he desires the excellency of prophecy over speaking of tongues and states that he wishes all spoke in tongues. Now is their an oughtness in prophecy and speaking in tongues? I mean that am I falling short as if I was not living up to God's will for my life if I fall short of the gift of prophecy? No, the spirit gives what gifts he will to whom he will. I recognize its superiority and goodness, but I do not fall short of God's perscriptive will for my life by not having that gift. In the same way singleness, the ability to not burn with lust while single, is presented specifically as a gift. Paul says in discussing it, "but each has their own gift." So what I mean that in my marriage, though I recognize the greatness of singleness in its ability to solely focus upon God, yet I myself am in exactly God's prescriptive will for me as I lead my wife and daughter in holy devotion to the lord. Singleness is not my gift. 3.) I am out of time, forgive the shortness of perhaps the most important section. As we look at the New Testament where we finally see marriage's purpose unfolded, we do see that there is actually an "oughtness" to only having one wife rather than more than one. I mean to say that it is different than the "gift" of singleness in that I take only one wife to be perscriptive of all men, other than single men ofcourse. I take this from Ephesians 5 showing marriage to reflect the sinular devotion between Christ and his bride and 1 Timothy 3 showing that it is a qualification for being an elder. And I do not think God was meaning to put a character qualification upon the elders other than them being an exmplar of what every chrsitian man should be. I hope this helps. In Christ, Beja |