Regarding adultery

[RDKirk]

Could you cite which scripture you are refering to please?

Matthew 19.

 

[janxharris]

Sorry, I thought you were a Christian. Surely it is not this issue alone that keeps you from faith in God. Is this just one of many reasons you have?

No need to apologise.

Yes, just one of many.

I agree the NT is not explicit. I believe it implicitly prohibits polygamy.

Why would it be wrong to infer that the NT implicitly permits polygamy to continue as before?

 

[janxharris]

Matthew 19.

And yet:
'...until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.'

If Jesus is stipulating 'one spouse and only with your spouse', then, presumably he is contradicting the OT laws you have mentioned that regulate polygamy...laws which shall never disappear.

 

[gadar perets]

Yes, just one of many.

So, in order for this issue to no longer be one of many keeping you from faith in God, you need to see what? That the NT allows polygamy so that Matthew 5:18 is true? If so, I already showed you twice that OT polygamy laws must continue under the New Covenant in order to regulate polygamists entering the NC. Now, if the Almighty specifically said in the OT, Thou shalt marry two or more wives, then Matthew 5:18 could be problematic.

Why would it be wrong to infer that the NT implicitly permits polygamy to continue as before?

Because it doesn't infer polygamy is permitted. For example, if a bishop can only have one wife (1 Timothy 3:2), then polygamy is being forbidden for bishops.

However, look at the other characteristics of an overseer/bishop and ask yourself if all believers are to have those characteristics. The answer is yes. Yeshua would have us all believers to be without spot or blemish (Eph 1:4; 5:27; Col 1:22; 1 Th 5:23); vigilant and sober (1 Pe 4:7); of good behavior (Ja 3:13); given to hospitality (Rom 12:13; 1 Pe 4:9); apt to teach (Col 3:16); etc. None should be given to much wine, be greedy, impatient, contentious, covetous, etc. All should all rule their house well and have their children in subjection. All should be spoken well of by outsiders. The same holds true for the characteristics of a deacon. All believers are expected to have those same characteristics.

Since all believers are to walk in all these things, it is obvious that they should also have the characteristic of having one wife. There are believers who may be greedy, covetous, etc., much to their shame. There were also believers with multiple wives in Paul’s day. The Spirit saw fit to exclude them from leadership. For a polygamist to be in leadership in an assembly would have been a hindrance to the preaching of the gospel and to caring for a congregation.

 

[janxharris]

So, in order for this issue to no longer be one of many keeping you from faith in God, you need to see what? That the NT allows polygamy so that Matthew 5:18 is true? If so, I already showed you twice that OT polygamy laws must continue under the New Covenant in order to regulate polygamists entering the NC. Now, if the Almighty specifically said in the OT, Thou shalt marry two or more wives, then Matthew 5:18 could be problematic.

For me, polygamy is adultery - why would I believe in a God that permitted it?

Because it doesn't infer polygamy is permitted. For example, if a bishop can only have one wife (1 Timothy 3:2), then polygamy is being forbidden for bishops.

Your interpretation renders polygamy as sinful - but you and others have suggested that it somehow isn't necessarily. Did Paul get it wrong about polygamy? Why isn't he allowing some polygamists to be beyond reproach because they may have been truly acting altruistically?

Without an explicit verse to proscribe polygamy, then it must still be lawful.

Isn't this the truth of Christianity?

 

[gadar perets]

For me, polygamy is adultery - why would I believe in a God that permitted it?

So, you are accusing God of being schizophrenic in that He permits it by permitting polygamy, but forbids it by forbidding adultery? Your definition of polygamy being adultery is wrong. One cannot commit adultery with one's own wife.

Your interpretation renders polygamy as sinful - but you and others have suggested that it somehow isn't necessarily. Did Paul get it wrong about polygamy?

Paul did not specifically address polygamy. You are reading that into the text.

Without an explicit verse to proscribe polygamy, then it must still be lawful.

Isn't this the truth of Christianity?

It was lawful within the bounds of its regulations under the OC. It is neither explicitly forbidden or commanded in the NT. It is simply something that a believer should not do. It is the low road whereas believers are to walk the high road in life.

 

[janxharris]

So, you are accusing God of being schizophrenic in that He permits it by permitting polygamy, but forbids it by forbidding adultery?

Yes - or perhaps it's the author's oversight.

Your definition of polygamy being adultery is wrong. One cannot commit adultery with one's own wife.

I disagree. If my wife was married to another man, then I'd call it adultery.

Perhaps you should explain what you think is sinful about polygamy. If you can't then it must be lawful under God.

Paul did not specifically address polygamy. You are reading that into the text.

Yet Paul permits polygamist non-deacons to be in the church - so it must be lawful.

It was lawful within the bounds of its regulations under the OC. It is neither explicitly forbidden or commanded in the NT. It is simply something that a believer should not do. It is the low road whereas believers are to walk the high road in life.

Without an explicit prohibition then it must still be lawful - Jesus did not come to abolish the law.

 

[gadar perets]

Yes - or perhaps it's the author's oversight.

It is neither. Any time there is confusion or supposed contradictions it is either a faulty translation or a lack of understanding by the reader.

If my wife was married to another man, then I'd call it adultery.

So would I unless it was permissible for her to marry another. The Almighty permitted men to marry more than one wife although that was not His ideal will. He never permitted women to marry two or more men.

Perhaps you should explain what you think is sinful about polygamy. If you can't then it must be lawful under God.

I didn't say it was sin. I said it was the low road.

Yet Paul permits polygamist non-deacons to be in the church - so it must be lawful.

It is permissible, but nowhere near ideal.

Without an explicit prohibition then it must still be lawful - Jesus did not come to abolish the law.

As I said several times, polygamy laws are still on the books. They have not been abolished.

 

[janxharris]

It is neither. Any time there is confusion or supposed contradictions it is either a faulty translation or a lack of understanding by the reader.


So would I unless it was permissible for her to marry another. The Almighty permitted men to marry more than one wife although that was not His ideal will. He never permitted women to marry two or more men.


I didn't say it was sin. I said it was the low road.


It is permissible, but nowhere near ideal.


As I said several times, polygamy laws are still on the books. They have not been abolished.

It seems that you are forced to admit that polygamy is still permissible - and yet all the while trying to reconcile that with Jesus's proscription on extra-marital lust.

I can't begin to imagine how that's remotely tenable.

 

[janxharris]

It is permissible, but nowhere near ideal.

#37
"While polygamy was permitted under the Old Covenant, it is not permitted under the New Covenant. It is similar to divorce. YHWH permitted it because of the hardness of their hearts, but it was not His perfect will."

That you have changed your mind surely proves scripture contradicts itself doesn't it?

 

[janxharris]

So would I unless it was permissible for her to marry another. The Almighty permitted men to marry more than one wife although that was not His ideal will. He never permitted women to marry two or more men.

Do you agree that David committed adultery when he took his concubines?

 

[gadar perets]

#37
"While polygamy was permitted under the Old Covenant, it is not permitted under the New Covenant. It is similar to divorce. YHWH permitted it because of the hardness of their hearts, but it was not His perfect will."

That you have changed your mind surely proves scripture contradicts itself doesn't it?

Not at all. I just didn't phrase it clearly. Perhaps I should rephrase that to say, "it is not permitted under the New Covenant for those that desire to walk in YHWH's perfect will. It is permitted for those that desire to merely walk in His permissive will. I have continually contended that polygamy laws are still on the books in the NT. Therefore, it is permitted, but if one wants to walk the higher road of holiness, it is not.

In a way, it is similar to Acts 15 concerning the Gentiles coming into the faith. Only four laws were imposed on new Gentile converts until they learned the rest of Torah/Moses (Acts 15:21). Afterwards, once they learned Moses by hearing him read every Sabbath, they were expected to obey all of Torah that applied to them. If a new Gentile convert came to faith with two wives, it was permitted, but as he grew in his faith and understanding of the Word, he would not desire a third wife knowing it does not gender to holiness.

 

[RDKirk]

Not at all. I just didn't phrase it clearly. Perhaps I should rephrase that to say, "it is not permitted under the New Covenant for those that desire to walk in YHWH's perfect will. It is permitted for those that desire to merely walk in His permissive will. I have continually contended that polygamy laws are still on the books in the NT. Therefore, it is permitted, but if one wants to walk the higher road of holiness, it is not.

In a way, it is similar to Acts 15 concerning the Gentiles coming into the faith. Only four laws were imposed on new Gentile converts until they learned the rest of Torah/Moses (Acts 15:21). Afterwards, once they learned Moses by hearing him read every Sabbath, they were expected to obey all of Torah that applied to them. If a new Gentile convert came to faith with two wives, it was permitted, but as he grew in his faith and understanding of the Word, he would not desire a third wife knowing it does not gender to holiness.

I'd point out, btw, that Paul was speaking to believers under the Roman government, which strictly prohibited polygamy...so that wasn't even a question that would have been raised by his audience.

Just as Jesus never spoke to anyone who wasn't under the OT, Paul never spoke to anyone who wasn't under Roman law.

 

[gadar perets]

Do you agree that David committed adultery when he took his concubines?

It depends on the circumstances and which definition it fits. In the case of #1 below, I don't know. #2 would not be adultery since she would be a lawful wife, but of a secondary rank to the first wife.

1. A woman who cohabits with a man, without the authority of a legal marriage; a woman kept for lewd purposes; a kept mistress.

2. A wife of inferior condition; a lawful wife, but not united to the man by the usual ceremonies, and of inferior condition. Such were Hagar and Keturah, the concubines of Abraham; and such concubines were allowed by the Roman laws.
​

I do not know David's reasoning for taking concubines, so I can't say if it was adultery. Also, I came across a definition for adultery that differs from mine. Adultery is having (or desiring) an intimate relationship with someone who's already married to someone else. I have not studied this definition in the light of Scripture and am not sure how it affects this discussion. However, if this definition is true and the women in definition #1 above was not married, then it would not be adultery.

 

[janxharris]

No. The Law prohibited polyandry, which is what Romans 7 discusses.

That's two definitions for adultery - one for men and one for women.

Jesus prohibits polygyny in Matthew 5:28 (if words are to be trusted to have meaning).

 

[janxharris]

Not at all. I just didn't phrase it clearly. Perhaps I should rephrase that to say, "it is not permitted under the New Covenant for those that desire to walk in YHWH's perfect will. It is permitted for those that desire to merely walk in His permissive will. I have continually contended that polygamy laws are still on the books in the NT. Therefore, it is permitted, but if one wants to walk the higher road of holiness, it is not.

In a way, it is similar to Acts 15 concerning the Gentiles coming into the faith. Only four laws were imposed on new Gentile converts until they learned the rest of Torah/Moses (Acts 15:21). Afterwards, once they learned Moses by hearing him read every Sabbath, they were expected to obey all of Torah that applied to them. If a new Gentile convert came to faith with two wives, it was permitted, but as he grew in his faith and understanding of the Word, he would not desire a third wife knowing it does not gender to holiness.

In what way is polygamy unholy? You wont say it's a sin - what is it then?

A woman who's husband marries another woman would feel no less aggrieved than if he had had sex with a woman without marrying her. You really think that a ceremony makes any difference?

 

[gadar perets]

In what way is polygamy unholy? You wont say it's a sin - what is it then?

I didn't say it was "unholy". It simply does not lead one to walk in holiness. You wouldn't understand since you are not a believer. Nor can I give you that understanding. It comes from living a spiritual life led by the Holy Spirit. 1 Corinthians 7:27-28 and 32-35 begin to touch on this.

A woman who's husband marries another woman would feel no less aggrieved than if he had had sex with a woman without marrying her. You really think that a ceremony makes any difference?

That may be true of "liberated" women today, but back in OT times women thought differently and knew that having a man take care of them for the rest of their lives could be very beneficial even if the man was already married. This was especially true if it was a king or other wealthy man taking her in. An unmarried woman did not have it easy in life unless she had relatives that could care for her daily.

 

[janxharris]

I didn't say it was "unholy". It simply does not lead one to walk in holiness.

You still have said what polygamy is - I asked you directly.

You wouldn't understand since you are not a believer. Nor can I give you that understanding. It comes from living a spiritual life led by the Holy Spirit. 1 Corinthians 7:27-28 and 32-35 begin to touch on this.

Equally - Matthew 7:21
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

Since you aren't a Trinitarian then scepticism might also come from other Christians.

That may be true of "liberated" women today, but back in OT times women thought differently and knew that having a man take care of them for the rest of their lives could be very beneficial even if the man was already married. This was especially true if it was a king or other wealthy man taking her in. An unmarried woman did not have it easy in life unless she had relatives that could care for her daily.

It's always possible. Can you provide a citation?

But what about the first wife?

 

[gadar perets]

You still have said what polygamy is - I asked you directly.

This is not proper English. I assume you meant that I have "not said what polygamy is". If so, polygamy in the OT is a man being married to more than one woman at the same time.

Equally - Matthew 7:21
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

Since you aren't a Trinitarian then scepticism might also come from other Christians.

What is your point? That because Christians are skeptical of non-trinitarians, that non-trinitarians will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven?

It's always possible. Can you provide a citation?

I made several points in that paragraph. What, exactly, do you want a citation for?

But what about the first wife?

Your replies are very vague and cause us to waste time having to clarify. Are you referring to a first wife in relation to a second wife or in relation to a concubine? If a second wife, then both are equal. If a concubine, then the first wife has a higher status.

 

[janxharris]

This is not proper English. I assume you meant that I have "not said what polygamy is". If so, polygamy in the OT is a man being married to more than one woman at the same time.

Apologies - yes, I meant 'not'.

I was asking 'what is polygamy' in terms of it's morality. This was made explicit when I said:
"In what way is polygamy unholy? You wont say it's a sin - what is it then?"
I wasn't asking for you to define it's meaning.

What is your point? That because Christians are skeptical of non-trinitarians, that non-trinitarians will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven?

You said I wouldn't understand because I am not a believer - I was merely pointing out that not all who claim belief are true believers.

I made several points in that paragraph. What, exactly, do you want a citation for?

That a polygamous marriage might be the only option for a woman.

Your replies are very vague and cause us to waste time having to clarify.

Apologies - but I have found that with you too (with regard to defining the morality of polygamy).

Are you referring to a first wife in relation to a second wife or in relation to a concubine? If a second wife, then both are equal. If a concubine, then the first wife has a higher status.

I was referring to how aggrieved the first wife might feel at the prospect of her husband marrying another woman and having sex with her.