Question about adultery and divorce

[The Revolting Man]

Let me see if I understand this....my ex had sex with an unwed women then he should marry her also? And have two wives? I would have been ok with that had he told me that was what he wanted. He just couldn't keep it in his pants. He would have had a hundred women if he could.
I would have loved to have another women to talk to.

This is a topic that you will get some differing opinions on. There are old fogeys like me who believe that sex almost always forms or breaks a marriage, that if a man has sex with a woman he has married her or committed adultery with her. This can get very heated and no one is going to hijack this post to have the debate again because normally I'm the one who does that and I've resolved not to this time.

The point is that when you start down this rabbit hole of defining marriage from a biblical perspective it changes everything, all of your assumptions have to get left at the door because it doesn't just add poly into the mix, it changes monogamy and celibacy and especially divorce. And none of these things requires government involvement in God's eyes so you really have to start pulling on some strings to unravel all this stuff.

 

[Curtis Gerhart]

Hmm. Interesting opinions. It all starts with defining the word adultery. Not our opinion. Adultery by most is, sex outside of marriage. This is not true. In Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance (older version’s) it is defined as ONLY sex with another man’s wife. Now in the more modern versions, which are written by those that attempt to interject their opinions, adultery is a woman breaking wedlock. In Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary one can see this true Biblical meaning of adultery. I post this here because many do not have a Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.
ADUL'TERY, n. [L. adulterium. See Adulterate.]

1. Violation of the marriage bed; a crime, or a civil injury, which introduces, or may introduce, into a family, a spurious offspring.


By the laws of Connecticut, the sexual intercourse of any man, with a married woman, is the crime of adultery in both: such intercourse of a married man, with an unmarried woman, is fornication in both, and adultery of the man, within the meaning of the law respecting divorce; but not a felonious adultery in either, or the crime of adultery at common law, or by statute. This latter offense is, in England, proceeded with only in the ecclesiastical courts.

I would pray that all would reasearch this word for themselves. Then when the Scripture uses the true definition of God’s use of the word adultery it makes perfect sense. When a man has sex with a single/unmarried woman it is fornication, per the definition. Both are wrong. It is just that feminism has brought us to this incorrect definition. Finally, when we understand the word adultery, we find it supports the polygyny of one man and many woman. If a man can’t commit adultery with one wife, then how can he with a second. David had 500, but when David took another man’s wife God, through his prophet was upset.

 

[eye4them]

My understanding was that David had 8 named wives, though possibly more, and he also had at least 10 concubines, though possibly more.

Where does the number 500 come from?

 

[Curtis Gerhart]

Can’t remember where I read it. Many scholars 500, 50, 5; some scholars claim 70, some, 30; which is somewhat irrelevant. Sorry for any confusion. My point is/was: He had many wives, but when he took another man’s only one is when the adultery occurred and never until then.

 

[cnystrom]

She can leave no matter what but she must stay celibate.

Actually she is not supposed to leave, either. The celibate command is a fall back position, in the event she does leave (the only one I know of in the Bible).

 

[cnystrom]

But what I'm more concerned about is, if a husband committed adultery, according to the worldly view, the wife will be angry because her husband was not loyal to her. But from the biblical perspective, did this really has nothing to do with his wife? What should his wife react to the fact of his husband's sins?

If he commited adultery, that means she is married to a living husband, which means the husband may shoot you, especially if you are in Texas.

Fornication might be safer. But then you might have to worry about the Father shooting you.

How should his wife react to any of his other sins? How should she react if he is an alcoholic?

Are you trying to make a special case for adultery? Based on what?

 

[cnystrom]

• The woman caught in adultery and presented to Yeshua - not stoned.

This I think one of the greatest miracles of Jesus, a logic miracle. How does Jesus keep the law, and yet still bring life and not death? How does he save her when she is so clearly doomed?

He tells them to follow the law and stone her, but he tells them to do it in a way that no one can do it. He tells them to stone her in a way that just makes them drop the stones instead.

Amazing. Stories like that say God, not man. God is so different than man.

Love it. Praise Jesus.

 

[cnystrom]

The point is that when you start down this rabbit hole of defining marriage from a biblical perspective it changes everything, all of your assumptions have to get left at the door because it doesn't just add poly into the mix, it changes monogamy and celibacy and especially divorce. And none of these things requires government involvement in God's eyes so you really have to start pulling on some strings to unravel all this stuff.

Agree 100%. Have only had one wife, but studying polygamy opens the door to a whole new understanding of marriage and male, female relations, etc. Basically what the modern church tells you and what the Bible actually says is very different, but the growth and the knowledge learned in the walk have been a great blessing to my monogamous marriage. The blessing of knowing what God really wants and how things really work.

 

[cnystrom]

Can’t remember where I read it. Many scholars 500, 50, 5; some scholars claim 70, some, 30; which is somewhat irrelevant. Sorry for any confusion. My point is/was: He had many wives, but when he took another man’s only one is when the adultery occurred and never until then.

I think Solomon was the one that had hundreds of wives. I believe David had a more modest number.

The point still stands and is an excellent one: God had no problem with Abigail even though David was already married. The Bible even conveniently lists David's other wives right after the Abigail story.

Now Bathsheba was a problem, because SHE was already married. God hated that and sent a prophet.

 

[Quartus]

This I think one of the greatest miracles of Jesus, a logic miracle.

I've formed the strong impression that when people argued with Christ, they often ended up one step away from checkmate.
Jesus made it plain to the woman's accusers they were in no position to pursue their witness - or else. (John 8:4-11). And with no witnesses, there could be no conviction.

Jer 17:13 O LORD, the hope of Israel, all that forsake thee shall be ashamed, and they that depart from me shall be written in the earth, because they have forsaken the LORD, the fountain of living waters.

 

[Quartus]

Now Bathsheba was a problem, because SHE was already married. God hated that and sent a prophet.

And David solved the problem simply by getting rid of Bathsheba's ONE husband. That solved it completely. Getting rid of his MANY wives would not have solved a thing. It was totally unnecessary.

 

[Curtis Gerhart]

If he commited adultery, that means she is married to a living husband, which means the husband may shoot you, especially if you are in Texas.

Fornication might be safer. But then you might have to worry about the Father shooting you.

How should his wife react to any of his other sins? How should she react if he is an alcoholic?

Are you trying to make a special case for adultery? Based on what?

Great point! And funny too.

 

[rockfox]

This I think one of the greatest miracles of Jesus, a logic miracle. How does Jesus keep the law, and yet still bring life and not death? How does he save her when she is so clearly doomed?

He tells them to follow the law and stone her, but he tells them to do it in a way that no one can not do it. He tells them to stone her in a way that just makes them drop the stones instead.

I have seen preachers twist this story every which way to justify all sorts of positions. The problem is that wasn't the point of the story. It wasn't a parable. It was Jesus getting himself out of a sticky situation with the OT on one side and the Romans on the other. They were trying to entrap him because the Romans had sole authority to execute/kill.

 

[eye4them]

Unless I am missing something, I think there is also a detail that is not included in typical analysis of that incident. If she was taken in adultery, then the man must have been there also. Why wasn't he taken also?

In Leviticus 20:10 we read
"And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death."

So why did they only bring the woman? Where was the man?

Also, I recall reading somewhere that there was some other irregularity regarding how they brought the case before Him, and that He (according to who I read) refused to hear a case that was not brought before Him in accordance with the Law (of Moses). The irregularity might be that we don't, apparently, hear of any actual witnesses directly accusing her. Also, "The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death...". Deuteronomy 17:6-7

 

[Mojo]

Unless I am missing something, I think there is also a detail that is not included in typical analysis of that incident. If she was taken in adultery, then the man must have been there also. Why wasn't he taken also?

In Leviticus 20:10 we read
"And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death."

So why did they only bring the woman? Where was the man?

Also, I recall reading somewhere that there was some other irregularity regarding how they brought the case before Him, and that He (according to who I read) refused to hear a case that was not brought before Him in accordance with the Law (of Moses). The irregularity might be that we don't, apparently, hear of any actual witnesses directly accusing her. Also, "The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death...". Deuteronomy 17:6-7

On the other hand, there are some textual critics that claim this was an extra biblical account woven in years after the book was written.

 

[Quartus]

It was Jesus getting himself out of a sticky situation with the OT on one side and the Romans on the other. They were trying to entrap him because the Romans had sole authority to execute/kill.

Agreed, but Jesus often did more than one thing at a time, so even if it can be proved to be one thing, it doesn't necessarily mean it isn't something else as well.

In Leviticus 20:10 we read
"And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death."

So why did they only bring the woman? Where was the man?

Agreed, it sounds like the whole thing could have been a staged trap, but I don't think we can be dogmatic either way.

On the other hand, there are some textual critics that claim this was an extra biblical account woven in years after the book was written.

I think an important approach to textual criticism is whether the disputed text is in accordance with other scriptures or not. I don't think any translation is 100% accurate, but if we believe that if God inspired scripture in the first place it is reasonable to believe that he would also oversee the scriptures we have now to the point that we have sufficient witness to sort it out.
So - is what this passage teaches in accordance with other scriptures or not?

1) In modern parlance, the NT Jews were a trigger-happy lot. Jesus countered this with compassion and expected it in others, e.g. healing on the sabbath. This passage agrees with the compassion we see taught elsewhere.
2) Yes the law would have dealt with the problem by stoning. There was no forgiveness under the law for David's sin with Bathsheba but he obtained grace. Jesus used his power to convince the witnesses that they were in the wrong place, and they went away. No witnesses, no conviction, and so grace was also extended to this woman.
3) Joseph would not have been the guardian of Jesus if he had tried to apply the full force of the law to Mary's pregnancy.

The record of this incident is then simply one more instance of the teaching that the strictness of the law in enforcing the death penalty should be postponed (we all still die anyway). Postponement provides an opportunity to respond to Christ's teaching "Go and sin no more".
God "is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." 2Pe 3:9

 

[rockfox]

I just reject out of hand any textual criticism attempts to discount passages as 'not scripture'. It is a pandora's box used by people to discount anything that contradicts their pet theology or worldview.

They get it exactly backwards. Our opinion should bend to scripture, not the other way around. But most people can't stomach that as it brings them into conflict with church tradition and the opinions of the world.

 

[Quartus]

I just reject out of hand any textual criticism attempts to discount passages as 'not scripture'.

I would entirely agree that's an excellent starting point. But
- if I say "It definitely should be there" I may be asked to prove it, and then have to defend some secular "expert" and hope I can convince someone else about that.
- if I say "Actually I don't care whether it's there or not because it doesn't add anything to, or it is in line with these other references...." then the discussion has a better chance of staying scriptural.

 

[frederick]

This might be going off topic a little but in regard to holy scripture, it is written; Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him.
Do not add to His words, Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar (Proverbs 30:5-6) See also Deut. 4:2 and Rev. 22:18-19. We are discussing the very word of God; the word of truth (John 17:17), so let's be careful, reverent, circumspect in how we regard and deal with all that is written. Blessings :bible:

 

[The Revolting Man]

This might be going off topic a little but in regard to holy scripture, it is written; Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him.
Do not add to His words, Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar (Proverbs 30:5-6) See also Deut. 4:2 and Rev. 22:18-19. We are discussing the very word of God; the word of truth (John 17:17), so let's be careful, reverent, circumspect in how we regard and deal with all that is written. Blessings :bible:

Homerun! Yes and amen.