Regarding adultery

[janxharris]

Yes, she is an adulteress. I do not believe polyandry is permitted for women based on the fact that YHWH did not regulate it as He did with men. I would also appeal to Genesis 3:16 in which the curse upon the woman is that her "husband" (singular) would rule over her. It would cause great turmoil and confusion in a marriage if the wife had two husbands that were giving her conflicting leadership.

That is two definitions of adultery - one for each sex.

 

[janxharris]

I agree with your statement if you remove "(whether you are married to this additional person or not)". In the case of polygamy, the husband can lust after both wives.

That the lusting for the other woman could ever be limited to the point after which they become united in marriage is, I would say, fanciful.

 

[gadar perets]

Perhaps these words of Jesus might assist in this debate:

Matthew 19:8-9
Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Why, exactly, does this constitute as adultery in your view?

Because such a person will be having sexual relations with someone who is not lawfully his wife. Since a divorce is only lawful on the grounds of sexual immorality, the man was not lawfully divorced and was not free to marry another.

 

[gadar perets]

That is two definitions of adultery - one for each sex.

Any man or woman that has sex with someone other than their spouse commits adultery. Now that Yeshua has come to set us straight concerning adultery, and now that YHWH will no longer permit polygamy, to do so would be adultery as well.

 

[gadar perets]

That the lusting for the other woman could ever be limited to the point after which they become united in marriage is, I would say, fanciful.

So, are you saying that a believer in Messiah Yeshua today is forbidden to lust after his wife?

 

[janxharris]

Because such a person will be having sexual relations with someone who is not lawfully his wife. Since a divorce is only lawful on the grounds of sexual immorality, the man was not lawfully divorced and was not free to marry another.

You mean that, in God's eyes, he is still considered to be married to his first wife?

 

[janxharris]

Any man or woman that has sex with someone other than their spouse commits adultery. Now that Yeshua has come to set us straight concerning adultery, and now that YHWH will no longer permit polygamy, to do so would be adultery as well.

So which is it (I quote you)?

1. "now that YHWH will no longer permit polygamy"

2. "I agree, polygamy laws have not disappeared. If a man chooses to be a polygamist, he must adhere to those laws."

 

[janxharris]

So, are you saying that a believer in Messiah Yeshua today is forbidden to lust after his wife?

Forbidden to lust after a woman who is not his wife.

 

[gadar perets]

So which is it (I quote you)?

1. "now that YHWH will no longer permit polygamy"

2. "I agree, polygamy laws have not disappeared. If a man chooses to be a polygamist, he must adhere to those laws."

Under the New Covenant, polygamy is not permitted. Some people choose to live their lives contrary to New Covenant teachings. In that case, they either abide by Old Covenant teachings (as should unbelieving Jews) or totally disregard all of YHWH's laws as would total heathens. In any case, Judgment day is coming and consequences will be rendered.

 

[janxharris]

Under the New Covenant, polygamy is not permitted. Some people choose to live their lives contrary to New Covenant teachings. In that case, they either abide by Old Covenant teachings (as should unbelieving Jews) or totally disregard all of YHWH's laws as would total heathens. In any case, Judgment day is coming and consequences will be rendered.

If God no longer permits polygamy then He's done away with laws that you say regulate it - laws that Jesus said not one jot nor title of which would disappear.

This appears to be a contradiction.

 

[gadar perets]

If God no longer permits polygamy then He's done away with laws that you say regulate it - laws than Jesus said not one jot nor title of which would disappear.

This appears to be a contradiction.

Can you explain the situation without any contradiction? Is polygamy permitted for believers today? If not, how does that harmonize with no jots or tittles passing?

 

[janxharris]

Can you explain the situation without any contradiction?

No.

Is polygamy permitted for believers today? If not, how does that harmonize with no jots or tittles passing?

I still maintain that scripture contradicts itself, so I can't answer...hence the thread.

 

[gadar perets]

If God no longer permits polygamy then He's done away with laws that you say regulate it - laws that Jesus said not one jot nor title of which would disappear.

This appears to be a contradiction.

Here is a command that regulates polygamy:

Deuteronomy 21:15 If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated:
16 Then it shall be, when he makes his sons to inherit that which he has, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn:
17 But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he has: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.
​

If an unbelieving Jew or Gentile was in this situation and he became a believer, then this law would apply to him even under the New Covenant. If this law were to be abolished, then this man could mistreat one of his wives and one of his sons. Polygamy laws must remain in the books to regulate polygamists under either covenant.

​

 

[janxharris]

Here is a command that regulates polygamy:

Deuteronomy 21:15 If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated:
16 Then it shall be, when he makes his sons to inherit that which he has, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn:
17 But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he has: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.
​

If an unbelieving Jew or Gentile was in this situation and he became a believer, then this law would apply to him even under the New Covenant. If this law were to be abolished, then this man could mistreat one of his wives and one of his sons. Polygamy laws must remain in the books to regulate polygamists under either covenant.

​

Thanks gadar perets - I'm going to take a pause to review all that has been written so far and then respond.

 

[janxharris]

It seems to me that Yeshua was setting things right. Divorce for all sorts of reasons was not YHWH's perfect will, so Yeshua was revealing YHWH's perfect will; divorce is only permissible for sexual immorality. Similarly, polygamy was not YHWH's perfect will, so Yeshua set that right as well; a man should be married to one wife.

If it is the case that a man should be married to one wife then, presumably, a wife may divorce her husband if he marries another because it is sexual immorality, right?

However, you have already asserted that:

"When a person marries a second wife, for example, having sex with her is not adultery because she is now his wife. Had they had sex before marriage, it would be adultery." (#28)

Can a woman who's husband marries another divorce or not?

Where does Jesus say that 'a man should be married to one wife'?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Do we conclude that Christianity has no defence for this issue? That Jesus and Paul's views are at odds with Moses'?

Jesus' position was that Moses permitted divorce due to human stubbornness and weakness. It's also important to understand that in Jesus' time there were two major schools of rabbinic thought: Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai; according to Bet Hillel (supposedly) a husband could get a certificate of divorce for nearly any reason, thus even if his wife burned the afternoon meal he could divorce her; whereas Bet Shammai maintained that divorce should only be permissible in only in severe circumstances, such as infidelity. In this case Jesus comes down largely in agreement with Bet Shammai. Divorce shouldn't be something taken lightly, a husband ought to be devoted to his wife, and to love her. St. Paul goes so far as to say that a husband ought to submit to his wife in love, with the same love which Christ has for His Church.

The Christian perspective has by and large been, historically, that polygamy was tolerated in ancient times but that monogamy has always been preferable, and historically only monogamy has been accepted as valid in the eyes of the Church.

So, "legally", no, the patriarchs and kings of Israel who had multiple wives were not engaging in adultery; though an historic Christian perspective would be that this was merely tolerated and that, frequently we see in their example how polygamy was often detrimental. Solomon, for example, in spite of all his wisdom was brought down and led astray from the worship of God. Further, David's lust for Bathsheba led him to indirectly murder her husband Uriah. Augustine argues that polygamy was only acceptable in ancient times for the sake of procreation, but that such is no longer necessary; that lust is never an acceptable reason (to which we might point again to David).

If one wants to boil this all down to an easy byte of information: Polygamy was never ideal, and should never be seen as good even in those ancient times, but was merely tolerated; that monogamy is the ideal, and that in marriage there is to be fidelity toward one another.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[janxharris]

Jesus' position was that Moses permitted divorce due to human stubbornness and weakness. It's also important to understand that in Jesus' time there were two major schools of rabbinic thought: Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai; according to Bet Hillel (supposedly) a husband could get a certificate of divorce for nearly any reason, thus even if his wife burned the afternoon meal he could divorce her; whereas Bet Shammai maintained that divorce should only be permissible in only in severe circumstances, such as infidelity. In this case Jesus comes down largely in agreement with Bet Shammai. Divorce shouldn't be something taken lightly, a husband ought to be devoted to his wife, and to love her. St. Paul goes so far as to say that a husband ought to submit to his wife in love, with the same love which Christ has for His Church.

The Christian perspective has by and large been, historically, that polygamy was tolerated in ancient times but that monogamy has always been preferable, and historically only monogamy has been accepted as valid in the eyes of the Church.

So, "legally", no, the patriarchs and kings of Israel who had multiple wives were not engaging in adultery; though an historic Christian perspective would be that this was merely tolerated and that, frequently we see in their example how polygamy was often detrimental. Solomon, for example, in spite of all his wisdom was brought down and led astray from the worship of God. Further, David's lust for Bathsheba led him to indirectly murder her husband Uriah. Augustine argues that polygamy was only acceptable in ancient times for the sake of procreation, but that such is no longer necessary; that lust is never an acceptable reason (to which we might point again to David).

If one wants to boil this all down to an easy byte of information: Polygamy was never ideal, and should never be seen as good even in those ancient times, but was merely tolerated; that monogamy is the ideal, and that in marriage there is to be fidelity toward one another.

-CryptoLutheran

If bigamy is infidelity and, therefore, adultery - then polygamy is forbidden. God permitted that which He forbid?

Perhaps this is why liberal Christians argue as they do?

And Jesus expects us to believe in Him? - expects us to believe despite such confusion?

So, "legally", no, the patriarchs and kings of Israel who had multiple wives were not engaging in adultery

Astonishing.

 

[ViaCrucis]

If bigamy is infidelity and, therefore, adultery - then polygamy is forbidden. God permitted that which He forbid?

You'll note that I argued that polygamy (and bigamy is just a form of polygamy) isn't necessarily adultery, as the definition for adultery is being unfaithful to one's spouse.

And Jesus expects us to believe in Him? - expects us to believe despite such confusion?

I'm not sure what you find particularly confusing here.

Astonishing.

How so?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[janxharris]

You'll note that I argued that polygamy (and bigamy is just a form of polygamy) isn't necessarily adultery, as the definition for adultery is being unfaithful to one's spouse.

So when Jesus said that divorce was permitted for marital infidelity, he wasn't including bigamy?

I'm not sure what you find particularly confusing here.

If adultery, the seventh commandment, isn't definable then it can't be believed in as an assertion from God. To believe in someone and what they stand for, one has to know clearly what that is.

How so?

If polygamy isn't the sin of adultery then what sin is it?

 

[gadar perets]

If it is the case that a man should be married to one wife then, presumably, a wife may divorce her husband if he marries another because it is sexual immorality, right?

However, you have already asserted that:

"When a person marries a second wife, for example, having sex with her is not adultery because she is now his wife. Had they had sex before marriage, it would be adultery." (#28)

Can a woman who's husband marries another divorce or not?

First, my comment in post #28 concerned adultery prior to the New Covenant when polygamy was "tolerated" as ViaCrucis puts it. Under the New Covenant and NT teaching, she may divorce. Prior to the NC, it seems she could not divorce since polygamy was tolerated and regulated. However, since we have no regulations concerning women divorcing their husbands and no examples of a woman doing so because of polygamy, we cannot say with certainty that it was forbidden for a woman to divorce her husband for polygamy. I doubt any woman would do so under that economy and risk being alone without financial support. Men preferred to marry virgins, so remarriage would be improbable. I would think a woman in that situation would hope and pray her husband continues to treat her well as per Torah rather than seek to divorce.

Where does Jesus say that 'a man should be married to one wife'?

In Matthew 19:4-6, Yeshua appeals to Genesis 2:24 to show how a man should cleave unto his "wife", not "wives". If we choose to believe that Paul's teachings in Romans 7:1-3 were inspired by the Holy Spirit, then Paul and Yeshua were in agreement since both were led by the same Spirit.