Question about adultery and divorce

[Mojo]

For the record, I'm not necessarily saying I agree with those textual critics. But there are some interesting points that they bring up about inconsistencies in that passage.

A similar concern has been brought up about (1 John?) "There are three that bare witness...." and trinitarian beliefs. Some things don't always add up.

I'm not a liberal, but I am open to textual criticism if it serves to strengthen the faith.

 

[Quartus]

A similar concern has been brought up about (1 John?) "There are three that bare witness...." and trinitarian beliefs.

1 John 5:7-8 is an interesting example to pick.
Let's make up a hypothetical example by way of illustration.

There are four friends: two are trinitarians and two are not. They all want to agree about whether they should be trinitarians. Wednesday night is their only free time to discuss, but they find they cannot agree on the best way to approach the subject. So they decide to have two separate debates and compare notes later.

The first two base their case on whether 1John 5:7-8 contains a disputed text or not. Experts do not agree, so each must find their own champions, and research is going to take a long time...

The second two decide they will work through the Bible from Genesis, and examine several individual Hebrew words which have precise meanings but have been squeezed into far fewer English words.
As an example, let's just take the three Hebrew words from Joshua 22:22 (which have been squeezed into two in English):

Jos 22:22 The L-RDH3068 G-dH410 of g-ds,H430 the L-RDH3068 G-dH410 of g-ds,H430 heH1931 knoweth,H3045

This of course raises some rather interesting questions, not least: Who are the g-ds the L-RD will be G-d of?​

H3068 6521 occurrences (e-sword search on KJV+)
H410 242 occurrences
H430 2601 occurrences​

These friends acknowledge there are a lot of references to get through (but even so they reckon they will finish before their other two friends!). Anyway, as they want to start getting some results they agree to start with references that use the specific Hebrew words that occur least frequently.

Which approach would be more likely to result in the more profitable discussion?

 

[Mojo]

@Quartus, I understand what you are saying, and again, I am not saying I don't hold to a trinitarian belief (I don't discount binitarianism, though) but single verses or single accounts that can be somewhat disputed by textual criticism must at least be given some looking into. Canon, by way of Holy Spirit guidance, had to be gathered at some point by human means. Various gospels were discounted and other Apocryphal books were downgraded from holy scripture to godly histories, and on down.

Taking out 1 John from an argument about the nature of God would not diminish the overwhelming body of scripture that testifies to the mystery of his nature.

The single story of the woman taken in adultery would not diminish the rest of the gospel message present in the rest of the book.

Jesus himself distilled it all:

Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thyheart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38This is the first and great commandment.
39And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

The Preacher (Solomom) also distilled it all in a slightly different manner:
"Fear God and keep his commandments"

I don't advocate adding or deleting. But I also don't advocate building up entire doctrines on single witnesses. I think three witnesses is safer ground.

 

[Quartus]

I am not saying I don't hold to a trinitarian belief

I'm not saying I do... What I am saying and I think agreeing with you about is that textual criticism may be interesting but takes time which is better utilised on establishing whether the disputed text is in line with scripture or not.

I really do think we are actually agreeing that textual criticism is not the best way forward.

We know there were forgeries in the time of the apostles and Paul contended about them:
2Th 2:2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
(Come to think of it, 2 Thess 2 may be an interesting context...)

Are those forged letters in our Bible? If God inspired scripture in the first place, why should he not have overseen the compilation of the scriptures that we have?

And if, of all references it doesn't matter if 1John 5 is actually inspired or not, (because we should be forming our understanding on the rest of scripture), then textual criticism is hardly going to be profitable regarding any other part of scripture.

(For the record, I do personally think that section in 1John 5 is most probably spurious and in a public reading I omit them. )

Should my belief about the divine nature rest on those few words? I don't think so. Should anybody else's? I don't think so. And that is something else I think we are agreeing about.

Eph 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
Eph 5:27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

It is the word of God that achieves that, and I believe the word we have is sufficient to achieve all of that by itself. In which case, it is textual criticism that is spurious and we simply don't need to worry about any particular part of the scriptures that we have detracting from the overall message.

 

[Quartus]

The question is: how about the husband committed adultery with other man's wife.

Just remembered a conversation from years back:

Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Others as well as me might be caught out by our thoughts . As far as adultery is concerned then I feel that if Christ was prepared to forgive adultery, then perhaps we should be as well.

But as has been pointed out above, the rest of the OP is not as simple as this part.

 

[Mojo]

I'm not saying I do... What I am saying and I think agreeing with you about is that textual criticism may be interesting but takes time which is better utilised on establishing whether the disputed text is in line with scripture or not.

I really do think we are actually agreeing that textual criticism is not the best way forward.

We know there were forgeries in the time of the apostles and Paul contended about them:
2Th 2:2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
(Come to think of it, 2 Thess 2 may be an interesting context...)

Are those forged letters in our Bible? If God inspired scripture in the first place, why should he not have overseen the compilation of the scriptures that we have?

And if, of all references it doesn't matter if 1John 5 is actually inspired or not, (because we should be forming our understanding on the rest of scripture), then textual criticism is hardly going to be profitable regarding any other part of scripture.

(For the record, I do personally think that section in 1John 5 is most probably spurious and in a public reading I omit them. )

Should my belief about the divine nature rest on those few words? I don't think so. Should anybody else's? I don't think so. And that is something else I think we are agreeing about.

Eph 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
Eph 5:27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

It is the word of God that achieves that, and I believe the word we have is sufficient to achieve all of that by itself. In which case, it is textual criticism that is spurious and we simply don't need to worry about any particular part of the scriptures that we have detracting from the overall message.

Ok. I'm thinking we mostly agree, but it's sometimes hard to distinguish that just by the written words we use. Clarifications are always easier for me in person.

 

[Mojo]

Just remembered a conversation from years back:

Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Others as well as me might be caught out by our thoughts . As far as adultery is concerned then I feel that if Christ was prepared to forgive adultery, then perhaps we should be as well.

But as has been pointed out above, the rest of the OP is not as simple as this part.

Yeah, but, I've struggled with this portion of scripture too. Is this a judgment call by Jesus, or a commentary on the sin nature (none righteous). If thinking is the same as doing, then you may as well go out and get the physical satisfaction of doing it. You thought it, so go through with it. I don't think Jesus would advocate that.

 

[Quartus]

commentary on the sin nature (none righteous).

that I take to be the most important aspect. Rom_3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Is this a judgment call by Jesus

Jas 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. So none of us are fit to judge anyone else (woman taken in adultery...)

If thinking is the same as doing, then you may as well go out and get the physical satisfaction of doing it. You thought it, so go through with it. I don't think Jesus would advocate that.

Jas_1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
Jas_1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

So lust can't the same as sin. If lust is dealt with, rather than dwelt on, sin is avoided.

I think we can take is a warning to be careful about judging others
Rom 2:1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.


Luk 18:11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.

 

[Mojo]

that I take to be the most important aspect. Rom_3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;



Jas 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. So none of us are fit to judge anyone else (woman taken in adultery...)



Jas_1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
Jas_1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

So lust can't the same as sin. If lust is dealt with, rather than dwelt on, sin is avoided.

I think we can take is a warning to be careful about judging others
Rom 2:1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.


Luk 18:11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.

Except lust (covet) of another man's wife IS sin. See the 10.

I see Jesus and James essentially providing commentary on the Law.... a warning.

But, Jesus seems to suggest that looking and lusting=adultery in this verse. That's breaking two Laws with one "act". I'm on record as believing that OT and NT cannot contradict, so that's why I lean more towards this verse being more of some sort of exaggerated commentary to prove a bigger point.

I've seen some people (mostly newer believers) beat themselves up and go on the guilt train thinking they are some sort of perverted loser because they can't stop looking and lusting. It sometimes ends with them throwing up their hands in frustration and thinking of going back into a lifestyle that they left because..."I've been thinking it...may as well go do it..."

 

[andrew]

I've seen some people (mostly newer believers) beat themselves up and go on the guilt train thinking they are some sort of perverted loser because they can't stop looking and lusting.

So we want to avoid something like this?

And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.

We should be helping men deal with their desires, not condemning them for having them.

 

[Mojo]

So we want to avoid something like this?


We should be helping men deal with their desires, not condemning them for having them.

I agree, but the overwhelming message being telegraphed to these men (and women) from pulpits is that Jesus is condemning them as adulterers.....really bad people!

Understanding that God gave each of them a sexual drive to be used in the appropriate manner is the goal, not self flagellation.

 

[andrew]

An interesting study 10-15 years ago compared testosterone levels in US Special Forces soldiers with their domestic status. Lowest T was married once. The monogamy-only crowd is self-selecting for low-T leadership....

 

[rockfox]

An interesting study 10-15 years ago compared testosterone levels in US Special Forces soldiers with their domestic status. Lowest T was married once. The monogamy-only crowd is self-selecting for low-T leadership....

It gets worse. Raising someones testosterone levels makes them more honest. I suspect that every time the church drives away someone who won't go along with their tradition, which he justly finds to be unbiblical, they reduce the populations testosterone levels as a side effect. From a sociological standpoint such people are also more disagreeable, which is a key masculine trait in the Big 5 personality analysis. So the men who are left have, and pass on to their children, more generally feminine personality traits.

I agree, but the overwhelming message being telegraphed to these men (and women) from pulpits is that Jesus is condemning them as adulterers.....really bad people!

Since it is almost always translated lust, rather than the clearer and accurate covet, it makes men sinners every time they notice a woman is attractive (be she available, another's wife or even his own wife). This is a big part of how the American church has made normal masculinity sinful.

 

[Shibboleth]

Since it is almost always translated lust, rather than the clearer and accurate covet, it makes men sinners every time they notice a woman is attractive (be she available, another's wife or even his own wife). This is a big part of how the American church has made normal masculinity sinful.

Thought: Instead of shaming men for having a strong sex drive, the church should be teaching men that it is a physical symbol of God's infinite love for mankind. Possessing one's vessel in honor does not mean sticking it on the back shelf and wishing it didn't exist.

 

[mystic]

Raising someones testosterone levels makes them more honest.

"We are men of action, lies do not become us."
— Westley in William Goldman's The Princess Bride

 

[frederick]

Raising someones testosterone levels makes them more honest.

That article makes very interesting reading and perhaps gives an insight into why many leaders were polygamous in the past! Way off topic but this also offers a possible explanation into the propensity of effeminate men (e.g. homosexuals) to be such prolific liars.

 

[Mojo]

That article makes very interesting reading and perhaps gives an insight into why many leaders were polygamous in the past! Way off topic but this also offers a possible explanation into the propensity of effeminate men (e.g. homosexuals) to be such prolific liars.

Does that make women natural liars?

 

[rockfox]

Does that make women natural liars?

Don't think too hard about that or you'll open theological boxes you'd rather left closed.

 

[rockfox]

That article makes very interesting reading and perhaps gives an insight into why many leaders were polygamous in the past! Way off topic but this also offers a possible explanation into the propensity of effeminate men (e.g. homosexuals) to be such prolific liars.

If polygamy is allowed, leaders will often have multiple women as women are attracted to power and leaders also are more likely to have the surplus wealth. But charisma, attractiveness, and testosterone do all seem to go together. Really, it should not surprise us that so many leaders get caught up in extra-marital shenanigans. How much controversy and damaged reputations would have been avoided had the church just allowed polygamy so higher status and higher sex drive men had a sanctioned outlet for their desires? How many marriages needlessly destroyed? People turned away from the kingdom due to black marks?

As for homosexuals, that may be. Their history of underground culture also lends itself to deception.