-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
The inconsistencies in arguing polygyny is adultery.
- Thread starter frederick
- Start date
I'll begin... I heard a guy say David was in adultery for having more than one wife. The guy had just pointed out David's sin of adultery with Bathsheba, and quite correctly shown this was the sin of adultery because she was the wife of Uriah. He then went on to say David continued in adultery because he had more than one wife. The inconsistency was noting these women were all David's wives - he used those very words. The sin of adultery necessitates the woman being the wife of another man, which the guy proved none of these women were because they were David's own wives. David only had sexual relations with his own wives before and after his sin with Bathsheba.
1 Kings 15:5 ESV: because David did what was right in the eyes of the Lord and did not turn aside from anything that he commanded him all the days of his life, except in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.
It cites the specific instance of Bathsheba being adultury, but no others. Makes it easy to address the specific instance you mentioned
It cites the specific instance of Bathsheba being adultury, but no others. Makes it easy to address the specific instance you mentioned
Many will say Jacob (among others) was in adultery for having more than one wife; Leah first, then Rachel, then the two maids. However, in Matthew 8:11 Jesus said Abraham, Isaac and Jacob would be in the kingdom of heaven. Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 saying, neither fornicators nor adulterers will inherit the kingdom of God.
Obviously, Jesus isn't wrong and Paul isn't wrong, so having multiple wives can be neither fornication nor adultery.
Obviously, Jesus isn't wrong and Paul isn't wrong, so having multiple wives can be neither fornication nor adultery.
When describing what coveting is, we also find a nugget about the definitions of what appears to be adultery as well.
David was also guilty of coveting first, then adultery by…
“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.”
Jesus followed it up with this.
“But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
Lust and covet are synonyms from different languages.
David was also guilty of coveting first, then adultery by…
“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.”
Jesus followed it up with this.
“But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
Lust and covet are synonyms from different languages.
Define what is adultery first:
Adultery is sexual contact between a married man and a woman who is married to someone else.
If the man and woman are married to each other then that's not adultery.
Legally, in the West, only one man and one woman can be married to each other. Unless they're Muslim and that's okay for some odd reason.
But what of a man with one legal wife and three or four women who are not legally married but instead cohabitating with a religious marriage commitment?
Last I checked there is no court in the US that will say anything about this because if they do then they have to deal with the Muslim question, too.
Excellent point, thanks Megan, and I should have been more precise in my request. We should first settle this issue with those who accuse us of adultery. Ask the one making the accusation to show you from the Bible the biblical definition of adultery.
Biblically, adultery involves a woman married to a man having sexual relations with another man. This is defined in passages such as Leviticus 18:20; 20:10; Deut. 22:22; Romans 7:2-3; etc. Both the married woman and the man, whether married or single, commit the sin of adultery.
Perhaps an editing error?
Must the man be married? Any man engaging with a married woman not his own seems more precise.
True.
Well God claimed that His two wives were adulterous, when He was the One who had two of them!!!!
Oh and why would Solomon be warning his son about the adulterous woman, while simultaneously having 999 of them?
If having more than one wife is adultery, why did God send Nathan to confront David only after David committed adultery with Bathsheba? David already had multiple wives and concubines when he lay with Bathsheba; Nathan's parable highlights this fact, yet God was silent regarding these multiple women in David's life.
One of the verses I’ve been most challenged by in my prayerful research on the subject of adultery is Mark 10:11. While I agree that it is plain to see adultery can not be committed against a woman in the Old Testament, the wording of Mark 10:11 is very interesting. I also noticed that Mark 10:11 is one of the verses that isn’t addressed in BibFam’s scripture index. Perhaps one of the resident pro-polygyny theologians here would be open to expositing this passage for my benefit.
I’ll look to see which threads have addressed this in the past. It’s out there.
I’ll start by saying that many of us have become much more pronomian over the years and start with the premise that if there seems to be a contradiction in any OT and NT topic, then we need to dig deeper, not assume a contradiction, or that the NT automatically wins out.
Here’s a good read in the meantime by a friend of the ministry, Dr. Luck.
We have to keep in mind that the context was divorce, and not directly polygyny. I do see the wording as problematic, however, with the biblical definition of Adultery in mind.
For me, Mark 10:11 and Matthew 19:9 are clarified by the preiminent Matthew 5:32. My interpretation is that Jesus is saying: "If you divorce your wife, for her to remarry would be adultery. Because of this cruelty that you would inflict on her, you will be held accountable to the same fate if you were to divorce her."
That's the conclusion I've come to anway. I'd be curious if anyone has any other thoughts on it.
There’s also the concept of “divorce” and “putting away” which seems to be two different things in scripture.
I see it as problematic, too. In conjunction with 1 Corinthians 7:4 and a woman potentially having some sort of property rights over her husband’s body, these two verses together may be used by some to contend for a more egalitarian reading, as well as an expansion (or at least clarification) of the Law.
Expansion? That’s dangerous territory.
Clarification? Which law needed clarification?
The verse is about putting away a wife without giving her a bill of divorcement.
If she doesn’t have a bill of divorcement, she can’t remarry without committing adultery and he is the one guilty of causing the adultery.
It’s been hashed out multiple times over the years. I’m on my phone and am not going looking for it.
If she doesn’t have a bill of divorcement, she can’t remarry without committing adultery and he is the one guilty of causing the adultery.
It’s been hashed out multiple times over the years. I’m on my phone and am not going looking for it.