Question from an outsider

[Keith Martin]

I'd like to see the scholarship behind that, if you suddenly remember where it came from and can put your hands on it easily (I'm not asking you to spend hours hunting for it). It's a major assertion that I'd need to see more justification for than just some-guy-I-read-once-said-this!

I have always looked at the 7th and 8th commandments as paralleling the 10th commandment. Don't take your neighbour's wife (7), or his stuff (8), - actually, don't even think about taking his wife or his stuff (10). When looked at with that parallelism it becomes a simple matter of theft.

However, that isn't the whole picture, because it leaves open the question of "what if you do X with his wife but don't steal her", or "what if he permits you to do X with his wife". It's far too limited. We know from scriptural examples that sex with another man's wife is sinful even if she is not taken away from him completely. So adultery is broader than this and does cover any sex with another man's wife - however we define sex.

There is also the parallel of idolatry, which also helps us to see that adultery is taking service that is due only to a woman's legitimate head, and giving it to someone who is not her head.

I don't see any way to shoehorn "humiliating or degrading" into that definition. It seems an entirely different matter. I can't find any suggestion of this in Brown-Driver-Briggs or Gesenius' lexicons either. So until I see some evidence of that I'm going to set aside the idea that it could refer to any "humiliating or degrading" sex, and stick with the concept that adultery is simply taking another man's wife in some way.

Incidentally, this is a great way to teach the concept to children! It lets you explain adultery even to kids who have no knowledge of sex, and without using the word "adultery" and confusing them. Too many kids are taught "husbands and wives should not commit adultery", which is simply a way of reading it to children while deliberately leaving them confused as to what it means because you don't want to talk about "icky" sex stuff with them, so use a word they don't know the meaning of. Far better to tell them "don't steal other men's wives", or even "don't break marriages" as that is an even clearer broad concept that they can understand. But I digress.

I like your approach of looking at the exceptions. My answers for them may be inadequate, but here are my thoughts:

Clearly the wife is not being stolen from the husband, so the first parallel is not helpful.
But if we parallel this with idolatry - would God be happy to allow us to offer worship to idols provided He could watch and enjoy seeing us dancing around and so forth? Obviously not.
So as marriage parallels our relationship with God, this has to be considered adultery.

Adultery, in every lexicon, is defined as sex with a married woman. In every scriptural example of adultery where the identity of the parties is given (I have listed them all before to check this), the woman is married or betrothed. And the above parallelisms also show adultery is with a married woman. Therefore I think it is entirely reasonable to say something is only "adultery" if the woman is married (or betrothed) to somebody else.

However, adultery is just one type of sexual sin, "fornication" being a catch-all term for more sins than this. Promiscuous sex with an unmarried woman is not "adultery" - but may be fornication. I'm not excusing it, just being precise with the terminology.

I would say that if someone has sex (ignoring the question of what "sex" is) with an available, unmarried woman, they have an obligation to take her as their wife. If they fail to do so, they are sinning. But the sex itself was not the sin - the sin is the failure to follow through on the obligation created by that sex. So I am not condoning that sort of behaviour in any way whatsoever.

The sex cannot be sin against a future spouse, because if they had followed through with their obligations there would not have been any future spouse that they were transgressing against - they themselves would be the spouse. So the sex is not committing adultery against a hypothetical future spouse, because at that point they themselves are the rightful future spouse and cannot be sinning against themselves by having sex with their own rightful future spouse! Yet abandoning that person is sinful - and having sex with the intent of abandoning the person afterwards is sinful for the same reason.

I promise to post here on Biblical Families where I learned about Exodus-era interpretation of adultery involving humiliation if you promise to post the scholarship behind your assertion that we are to interpret the commandment about adultery through the lens of idolatry.

 

[Keith Martin]

I was actually thinking about the same thing, but in this case I rightly or wrongly felt it was actually good to make such a comment, because I felt there was a risk of strongly heterosexual readers (whom I assume are the majority, because we all assume everyone is like us...) feeling that they would not fit in here after your comment!

If I had a magic wand, I would erase from all of our minds the needless worrying that goes on about how some person may possibly drop down into our world and land on one comment and conclude that they know everything there is to know about Biblical Families, react badly to it, and disappear together or tell other people that Biblical Families sucks.

First of all, I think it's debatable that that's ever even going to happen. Secondly, if it does, it has to be extremely rare and will likely have as much impact on us as it's already had (none). Thirdly, why on Earth would we even make as a major concern whether someone who behaves in such a snowflake fashion sticks around anyway?

Anyone with two brain cells cannot possibly conclude that 100% straight men are unwelcome or wouldn't fit in around here (it's far, far more likely that a man who mainly wants guys but chooses to live his life restricted to a devoted permanent commitment to a woman or women according to Biblical principles would feel unwelcome). Reading my information about percentages of impulses is, one simply has to admit, surrounded by and swims within a sea of comments that represent fully straight male patriarchy.

It brings to mind polygamists who have to incessantly remind the world that they're not Warren Jeffs. We're never going to persuade the folks who have Warren Jeffs on the brain, anyway, and the same thing goes for winning over anyone who needs for us to entirely fit into a Piety-Proving Condemnation-Christianity mold.

The bottom line is that YHWH knows what it in our hearts, minds and souls, so we don't have to pronounce it out loud for the purpose of ensuring that no one in the world thinks we're one of those. Our approval focus should be entirely directed toward Him and His Son. Period.

 

[Tesfalcon]

I know that's not hypothetical, and I had it in mind when writing my last post.

My gut feel on this is that it is obviously sinful for a wife to be fondled by other men. However, if someone were to challenge me to back that from scripture, I realise I would be unable to. Scripture does not define the line.

While there is much grey area here, I think
Deu 25:11,12 might help w some things.

“When men fight with one another and the wife of the one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him and puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts, then you shall cut off her hand. Your eye shall have no pity."

The context is not even sexual. While manual genital contact of her isn't mentioned, even non-sexual manual genital contact of him by her is obviously forbidden to the point of losing a hand.

As stated in another post of mine here, the problem is one of respect. Like the aforementioned sex-ed teacher knew, too many want to play w fire and ride the razor's edge. There are husbandly prerogatives, and there are God's prerogatives. Better to stay far away from God's domain and be confident I am fully within my own.

My wife flirting and played w by other men: too much fire.
My wife flirting and playing w women. I'm not seeing any fire.

 

[Tesfalcon]

I know that's not hypothetical, and I had it in mind when writing my last post.

My gut feel on this is that it is obviously sinful for a wife to be fondled by other men. However, if someone were to challenge me to back that from scripture, I realise I would be unable to. Scripture does not define the line. So I cannot prove from the text that my emotive reaction that this is sin is necessarily correct. I can assert that penetration constitutes sex, so that is the firm undeniable line where sin is clearly occurring.

After a bit of thought, another, more obvious verse has come to mind which blows this whole "hotwife" business out of any so-called Christian's water.

Mat 5:27-28
“You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a (married) woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

There are 3+ people involved here.

1) Husband.
The intent in the husband of a hotwife is to desire her more when he sees that is desirable by others.


2) Wife
The intent in a hotwife is to feel desirable and that her husband isn't "just saying that".


3) Other men
Get whatever she is willing to give esp. full sex w married woman. Feeling of power as a dominant man over him. Feeling of virility as another man cares for your baby if she conceives while avoiding fatherly responsibility yourself.

All 3 are adulterers from the get-go. Jesus said the "lustful intent / desire for the married woman" is adultery, not just the literal penis & vagina act.


* When she dresses to attract sexual attention toward herself from other men: adultery.


* When he desires other men to desire his wife: adultery.


* Every other man who desires her, even those who don't act: adultery.


* The men who do act to increase their mutual arousal: adultery.



Can a husband be an adulterer of his wife through fantasy and desire without his wife supporting it? Yes.

Can a wife be an adulteress through fantasy and desire without advertising? Yes.

Can a man desire a married woman through no fault on her part? Yes.

Thought starts the train. Sex is merely the culmination of the thought set in motion.

James 1:14,15

"But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death."

Way too many want to conceive sin in their heart then try to commit a late-term spiritual abortion. It doesn't work any more than living like the devil w the plan to make a deathbed confession.

---

Further, Paul indicates in Eph 5 that our human relationships are designed to be analogous of Christ and His Church (God and Israel for the Jewshishly inclined). I don't recall any verses where God talks about Israel flirting w other gods or other protectors in a positive way.

"Oh, Israel, watching you flirt w Egypt to protect you arouses a desire in me for you that had dulled over time. Seeing you prostrate yourself before Ba'al made me realize how much I took you for granted. When your cute mouth said those blasphemous words, I loved you all the more."

No, instead, we read passages like Jer 3 w its increasing shock at the whore of a wife both Judah and Israel had become.

8 "She saw that for all the adulteries of that faithless one, Israel, I had sent her away with a decree of divorce. Yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but she too went and played the whore. 9 Because she took her whoredom lightly, she polluted the land, committing adultery with stone and tree. 10 Yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah did not return to me with her whole heart, but in pretense," declares the Lord.
...
13 "Only acknowledge your guilt, that you rebelled against the Lord your God and scattered your favors among foreigners under every green tree, and that you have not obeyed my voice," declares the Lord.

Sadly, it's not the sex that makes it desirable. The anklet is just jewelry. It's the combination of anklet AND wedding ring that makes it desirable: the forbidden, the very fact that God said don't. This situation isn't just adultery by a smooth-tongued flatterer in her time on need. It's pre-planned, intentional, and with deep contempt for God and His law. It's sinning BECAUSE it's sin. It's open rebellion.

 

[Tesfalcon]

I really should further clarify that particular comment in my earlier message: I was intending to be very literal when I asserted that it was relatively rare for a male to have never had any kind of impulse, desire, momentary fantasy, etc. involving another male.

Agreed.
Thought must precede action.
I reject the thought.

However . . . what's most important about this discussion of definitions of 'homosexual,' 'bisexual' and 'heterosexual' is that, when the accurately-assessed categories of those men who are heterosexual and predominantly heterosexually-oriented bisexual are combined, that combination accounts for the vast number of men, period. If I'm remembering the percentages perfectly, approximately 20 times as many men are heterosexual as those who are homosexual in orientation. (STATISTICS)

These statistics point in 2 directions:
1) Male homosexual temptation is very common.
2) God doesn't punish homosexuals for being "homosexuals" any more than he punishes black people for being black.

Rom 1:27 "and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error."

The ACTS themselves are punishable. Yes, even preteen "gay play" is still sinful homosexual behavior and must be repented of.

If you have ever had a close friend who is truly gay, you will know exactly what I'm talking about: a homosexual man looks at a woman's vagina and might as well be looking at a concrete block.

I knew a man who told his sad tale.
At 21, he was pure heterosexual, newly married and trying to be a good husband. He was curious what sex was like for his new bride. It's impossible to describe.

By 25, she had a dildo and used it on him.

By 30, they had frequent MMF threesomes.

By 40, he was cross-dressing, was repulsed by his wife's vagina and was leaving his wife for his boyfriend.

At 50, he was diagnosed w AIDS, had repented, was attempting reconciliation w his wife, and was a living warning to how far a good thought can take you down a bad path.

 

[FollowingHim]

While there is much grey area here, I think
Deu 25:11,12 might help w some things.

“When men fight with one another and the wife of the one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him and puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts, then you shall cut off her hand. Your eye shall have no pity."

The context is not even sexual. While manual genital contact of her isn't mentioned, even non-sexual manual genital contact of him by her is obviously forbidden to the point of losing a hand.

That is a good point, I hadn't considered that reference.

And your analysis of wife-sharing in light of Jesus' statements on adultery is good also.

 

[FollowingHim]

I promise to post here on Biblical Families where I learned about Exodus-era interpretation of adultery involving humiliation if you promise to post the scholarship behind your assertion that we are to interpret the commandment about adultery through the lens of idolatry.

God repeatedly describes idolatry using the figure of adultery. Ezekiel 16 describes Jerusalem's idolatry as "adultery" and "whoredom". Ezekiel 23 describes both Jerusalem and Samaria as adulterous wives. Ezekiel 23:37 states this parallel very clearly: "...and with their idols have they committed adultery...".

Also, there is a general principle throughout the New Testament that our human relationships parallel our relationship with Christ. Earthly marriage parallels the relationship between Christ and the Church (Ephesians 5). And "one flesh" parallels "one spirit":
1 Cor 6:16-17: "What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit."

This parallel is clear and appears all through scripture:
- Man is subject to God, and if he worships / serves another master instead of God this is idolatry.
- Woman is subject to her man, and if she sexually serves another master instead of her man this is adultery.

Usually the parallel is used to explain God in human terms - the relationship of God to man is described using the language of human relationships - marriage, adultery etc - to clarify what service to God vs idolatry is. Ezekiel is a clear example of this, also Paul's instructions in Ephesians 5.

I am taking the same parallel and looking at it from the opposite angle, using idolatry to clarify adultery. Although I'm looking at it from a different angle, the basic principle is very well established in scripture.

That's the scholarship behind my assertion.

 

[Tesfalcon]

Torah does not condemn the thoughts, only the actions.

Are you sure about that?

Ex 20:17
“You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's.”

The "action" of coveting is entirely in the mind. It's the precursor to thefts, murders, and adultery.

Prov 6:16-19
"There are six things that the Lord hates, ... a heart that devises wicked plans,"

Plans aren't actions. Some would even argue that those who execute the plan are wicked while the planners are righteous.

Balaam, certainly, believed this. Thus he felt justified in giving prophetic blessings orally keeping w the warning God gave earlier while devising wicked plans to get the Israelites to curse themselves w immorality to get the rewards from Balak. His treachery was known, and Moses paid him w the death he deserved.

1 Sam 12:20
"And Samuel said to the people, 'Do not be afraid; you have done all this evil. Yet do not turn aside from following the Lord, but serve the Lord with all your heart.'"

Repeatedly, the Patriarchs explain their actions (good & bad, wise and foolish) w phrases like ...

Gen 20:11
"Abraham said, 'I did it because I thought, ' "

By example, they show that thoughts precede actions. By example, they demonstrate that non-corporeal imagination is directly tied to actions.

God said that our heart is ONLY evil, continually.
Gen 8:21
"And when the Lord smelled the pleasing aroma, the Lord said in his heart, 'I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of man's heart is evil from his youth.' "

Thus Psalm 51:10: "Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me."

A divided heart isn't an action, but it's frequently condemned.
Psalm 119:113
"I hate the double-minded, but I love your law."
Jer 3:10
"Yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah did not return to me with her whole heart, but in pretense, declares the Lord.”

Amos 5:10
"They hate him who reproves in the gate,
and they abhor him who speaks the truth."

Is hate a sin? Depends on what you hate. The beginning of righteousness is to hate sin. In the descent of Israel, they hate the truth. (Sound familiar?)
The remedy is a heart change:
Vs 14 "Seek good, and not evil,...
Vs 15 "Hate evil, and love good,..."

Righteous actions from the HEART, the intangible nature, is preferred, not just the actions:
Vs 23&24
"Take away from me the noise of your songs;
to the melody of your harps I will not listen.
But let justice roll down like waters,
and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream."

Legalism fails because it's an outside-in view of a person. The inner man, the soul/spirit drives him to his actions. Thus while Torah "seems" to focus on actions, very few of the prophets condemned them for single actions. "Because you did not kill your rebellious son..." Instead, the prophets warn of God's judgement because of these intangibles the Torah never blatantly mentioned. David understood it. Those who drew close to God talked about it. Those who didn't care, still didn't.

 

[Keith Martin]

God repeatedly describes idolatry using the figure of adultery. Ezekiel 16 describes Jerusalem's idolatry as "adultery" and "whoredom". Ezekiel 23 describes both Jerusalem and Samaria as adulterous wives. Ezekiel 23:37 states this parallel very clearly: "...and with their idols have they committed adultery...".

Also, there is a general principle throughout the New Testament that our human relationships parallel our relationship with Christ. Earthly marriage parallels the relationship between Christ and the Church (Ephesians 5). And "one flesh" parallels "one spirit":
1 Cor 6:16-17: "What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit."

This parallel is clear and appears all through scripture:
- Man is subject to God, and if he worships / serves another master instead of God this is idolatry.
- Woman is subject to her man, and if she sexually serves another master instead of her man this is adultery.

Usually the parallel is used to explain God in human terms - the relationship of God to man is described using the language of human relationships - marriage, adultery etc - to clarify what service to God vs idolatry is. Ezekiel is a clear example of this, also Paul's instructions in Ephesians 5.

I am taking the same parallel and looking at it from the opposite angle, using idolatry to clarify adultery. Although I'm looking at it from a different angle, the basic principle is very well established in scripture.

That's the scholarship behind my assertion.

I stand corrected, and thank you for refreshing my memory, @FollowingHim.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I promise to post here on Biblical Families where I learned about Exodus-era interpretation of adultery involving humiliation if you promise to post the scholarship behind your assertion that we are to interpret the commandment about adultery through the lens of idolatry.

Idolatry and adultery have the same root word, might be close to the exact same word but I don’t remember that for sure.

 

[Mojo]

God repeatedly describes idolatry using the figure of adultery. Ezekiel 16 describes Jerusalem's idolatry as "adultery" and "whoredom". Ezekiel 23 describes both Jerusalem and Samaria as adulterous wives. Ezekiel 23:37 states this parallel very clearly: "...and with their idols have they committed adultery...".

Also, there is a general principle throughout the New Testament that our human relationships parallel our relationship with Christ. Earthly marriage parallels the relationship between Christ and the Church (Ephesians 5). And "one flesh" parallels "one spirit":
1 Cor 6:16-17: "What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit."

This parallel is clear and appears all through scripture:
- Man is subject to God, and if he worships / serves another master instead of God this is idolatry.
- Woman is subject to her man, and if she sexually serves another master instead of her man this is adultery.

Usually the parallel is used to explain God in human terms - the relationship of God to man is described using the language of human relationships - marriage, adultery etc - to clarify what service to God vs idolatry is. Ezekiel is a clear example of this, also Paul's instructions in Ephesians 5.

I am taking the same parallel and looking at it from the opposite angle, using idolatry to clarify adultery. Although I'm looking at it from a different angle, the basic principle is very well established in scripture.

That's the scholarship behind my assertion.

This is how I've generally interpreted it and used it to help explain the passages in Corinthians regarding the definition of fornication being different from biblical definitions of adultery. I'm not a scholar in that definition but I tried to show someone that it's very possible that Paul was not describing just ordinary, random sex, or even generic prostitution. It's likely he was describing religious prostitution (temple/pagan ritual sexual practices) that would have been well known to that generation and Hellenistic culture. A born again believer has no place aligning himself with a pagan diety via a sexual relationship intended to unite him to that deity. The sexual act is not adulterous, but is idolatrous, and therefore spiritually adulterous to your Creator and Savior.

 

[The Revolting Man]

This is how I've generally interpreted it and used it to help explain the passages in Corinthians regarding the definition of fornication being different from biblical definitions of adultery. I'm not a scholar in that definition but I tried to show someone that it's very possible that Paul was not describing just ordinary, random sex, or even generic prostitution. It's likely he was describing religious prostitution (temple/pagan ritual sexual practices) that would have been well known to that generation and Hellenistic culture. A born again believer has no place aligning himself with a pagan diety via a sexual relationship intended to unite him to that deity. The sexual act is not adulterous, but is idolatrous, and therefore spiritually adulterous to your Creator and Savior.

Every use of the word “fornication” THAT I HAVE RESEARCHED in the New Testament has been the word “porneia” and is best interpreted as “the Old Testament sexual laws”.

 

[Mojo]

Every use of the word “fornication” THAT I HAVE RESEARCHED in the New Testament has been the word “porneia” and is best interpreted as “the Old Testament sexual laws”.

In general, I don't disagree. I don't think Paul ever contradicted Torah. Other than telling a man not to give his daughter over to whoredom, there doesn't seem to be a direct prohibition against certain women earning a living however they might need to. Remember, Judah was never condemned for visiting his daughter in law as a prostitute. He was condemned for not fulfilling his promise of levirate marriage to his youngest son and thereby denying her an heir.

My contention for that particular passage is that Paul may have been having to do double duty.

*To a Hebrew, who saw that there was no specific law prohibiting the profession of prostitution, only red light warnings about engaging in it (similar to abuses of alcohol bring frowned upon) he had to help them see how this was different than dialing up Rahab while on the battlefield to relieve stress.

*To a Hellenist, he had to help them see that there wasn't necessarily a duality between their physical self and their spiritual self. It wasn't just using their body for sex, it was idolatry and a vestige of paganism that needed to be purged.

 

[Keith Martin]

Idolatry and adultery have the same root word, might be close to the exact same word but I don’t remember that for sure.

Maybe adultery is when my woman commits it, and idolatry is when I do.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Maybe adultery is when my woman commits it, and idolatry is when I do.

You can commit adultery against another man’s woman.

 

[Sons of Issachar]

You can commit adultery against another man’s woman.

Slight correction: You can commit adultery against another man, by taking his woman.

 

[Keith Martin]

Idolatry and adultery have the same root word, might be close to the exact same word but I don’t remember that for sure.

Maybe adultery is when my woman commits it, and idolatry is when I do.

You can commit adultery against another man’s woman.

Sometimes I'm just a legend in my own mind. I could HEAR what I was thinking and somehow thought everyone else would as well. Duh! Here's how I should have written what I meant to be a play-on-words joke:

"Maybe adultery is when my woman commits it, and I-dolatry is when I do."

Cringing is now in order.

 

[Mojo]

Sometimes I'm just a legend in my own mind. I could HEAR what I was thinking and somehow thought everyone else would as well. Duh! Here's how I should have written what I meant to be a play-on-words joke:

"Maybe adultery is when my woman commits it, and I-dolatry is when I do."

Cringing is now in order.

A saying about day jobs comes to mind.