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: First, thank you for your post. While it is true that I intentionally did not list all of the scriptures, my primary reason for doing so was to have those with an interest in this question actually dig up all of the passages, that really do pertain, for themselves. To summarize that the final Christian view of adultery should be the destruction of a marriage relationship that is existing to form another, "might" be accurate. And that, from a scriptural standpoint, there is not any command not to take multiple wives might also be accurate, even though there are some obscure passages that do discuss the issue: If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT) One might also say that from a "Head of the Family" perspective, or "Headship" position, Christ is not the head of one wife, but, from that perspective, the church, all of us men He is Head over, is far more representative of a polygamous family. From the perspective of individual relationships with those He loves, and their interactions with each other. The figurative language of the church being the bride (singular) is different than the literal language, "Christ is the head of every man, ...". While people sometimes want to make more of passages than they actually present is universally true for everyone, myself included, at times. Although I believe the urge to create meaning is something I should try and resist, when core issues integral to "who I am" are under attack, sometimes by the word of God itself, Resisting the "need" to read meaning into passages I could "use" to support my beliefs if I was more liberal in my interpretations, is often very hard indeed. That said, taking passages like: Gen 2:24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. to mean that God only meant for marriage to b between one man and one woman, does allow for me to fit in with most conservative Christian belief groups, and, concluding that it is merely stating that from now on, men will leave their existing households, to have sex, and that this pattern was established for all time, at this point, with no additional meaning, might preclude me from being accepted as a teacher at many churches. For this reason, the temptation to add the meaning that God intended marriage to always be one woman, and one man, and to ignore the later view, is quite appealing. Appealing as it is, to "fit in" with my peers by saying Ephesians 5 and Gen 2:24 support only one man and one woman, to do so seems to require stretching the meaning out of the bounds of what the rest of the scriptures, and what Godly men and women practiced in biblical times. If God only intended for it to be this way, why doesn't He say so, and why give commands like the one in Ex. 21: 7-11 mentioned earlier. I do understand the desire to fit in, and the cost of appearing rebellious. That said, my desire is to accept scripture as it is, not lop off edges and solder on meanings to make my beliefs more acceptable to others. The personal cost to my integrity would be far greater than the cost of persecution by the more “conservative” church leaders. I must live with myself, first and foremost, after all. If, without the need to make the scriptures seem to support an idea they do not support, you have scriptures that DO support a need for me to alter my beliefs from what I see taught, and done, throughout the scriptures, I am all for altering what is now my personal view. All the negatives go away if I am in agreement with all conservative Christian leaders, after all. It would be a “painless” conversion, with little cost, and tremendous gain. |