Regarding adultery

[RDKirk]

But that would permit polygamy which is explicitly outlawed in Romans 7:1-3

So both are prohibited by two separate scriptures. What is the problem?

 

[RDKirk]

Thanks.

Do you not find it rather bizarre that such polygamy was not rebuked? And don't scriptures like Deuterononmy 25:5 on Leverate marriage further muddy the water? The living brother is to marry his dead brothers wife - and no proviso is given in the case that he is already married.

How else was the widow going to be cared for in that brutal, Bronze Age society?

 

[janxharris]

If polygamy was adultery under the law, then you are saying that YHWH 1) allowed such adulterers to live when they both should have been stoned to death 2)that YHWH regulated adultery by commanding adulterers to not diminish the first wife's support and by not favoring the second wife or her illegitimate children and 3) that YHWH gave David more wives causing him to commit adultery.

Since you have already argued that with regard to Matthew 5:28:

"It was only a few sentences later that he nixed polygamy. If we don't isolate his words in verse 28, then I think he was being definitive."

and that you must accept that not one jot or title of the law would be done away with, then I can't see that your position is much different to mine. You argue that polygamy isn't adultery and yet affirm that v.28, where Jesus equates lust with adultery, nixes polygamy.

I hope I haven't misunderstood you.

Paul is saying she is not an adulteress if her husband dies and she remarries. The "other case" is if she has sex with another man who is not her husband. You are reading polygamy into the text when 1) Paul does not mention polygamy 2) There are no known cases of a woman having two or more husbands at the same time and 3) YHWH never gave any regulations upon women. Women having multiple husbands simply wasn't done in Israel, so why would Paul even be thinking along those lines?

Perhaps it's best if I deal with this after you respond to the above.

 

[janxharris]

How else was the widow going to be cared for in that brutal, Bronze Age society?

Is it necessary to marry someone in order to care for them?

 

[janxharris]

So both are prohibited by two separate scriptures. What is the problem?

If polygamy is adultery then King David should have been stoned to death multiple times.

 

[janxharris]

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

[RDKirk]

Is it necessary to marry someone in order to care for them?

Yes. The requirement is actually to get her pregnant. It would be the woman's sons who would care for her into her old age--the man would likely be dead.

 

[RDKirk]

If polygamy is adultery then King David should have been stoned to death multiple times.

I never said that OT polygamy was adultery, you said that.

And if you look again at God's own specific provisions and handling of polygamy, you'll see that He explicitly commands it in the cases of a women who had been widowed without having had sons to care for them into old age.

But God never said to anyone, "Go out and get yourself another wife" just for the sake of lust. God tells such men that their debt of faithfulness is to their first wives.

Men in the OT who had multiple wives for their own pleasure never ended well.

 

[gadar perets]

Since you have already argued that with regard to Matthew 5:28:

"It was only a few sentences later that he nixed polygamy. If we don't isolate his words in verse 28, then I think he was being definitive."

and that you must accept that not one jot or title of the law would be done away with, then I can't see that your position is much different to mine. You argue that polygamy isn't adultery and yet affirm that v.28, where Jesus equates lust with adultery, nixes polygamy.

I hope I haven't misunderstood you.

Yes, you have misunderstood. I did not say v.28 nixes polygamy. I said he nixed polygamy "a few sentences later" than v.28. I was referring to v.32. While polygamy is unacceptable under NT teaching, the laws governing polygamy must remain to regulate those that were polygamists prior to coming to faith in Yeshua. For example, if Timothy had two wives before receiving Yeshua, he was not expected to divorce one of them. He was expected, however, to abide by Torah in relation to both of them and their children.

 

[janxharris]

Yes, you have misunderstood. I did not say v.28 nixes polygamy. I said he nixed polygamy "a few sentences later" than v.28. I was referring to v.32. While polygamy is unacceptable under NT teaching, the laws governing polygamy must remain to regulate those that were polygamists prior to coming to faith in Yeshua. For example, if Timothy had two wives before receiving Yeshua, he was not expected to divorce one of them. He was expected, however, to abide by Torah in relation to both of them and their children.

You assert here (and previously) that 'polygamy is unacceptable under NT teaching,' and cite Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:4-6.

But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

This cannot be nixing polygamy because you would (I assume) say that a married man cannot marry another woman who is already married - which is the case here (since she is still considered married). So this scripture is merely underlining the consequences of unlawful divorce. It says nothing about polygamy since the woman would have to be unmarried.

“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

This verse is cited by Jesus to refute the Pharisees liberal interpretation of Deut. 24:1 regarding divorce. It does not explicitly proscribe polygamy.

 

[janxharris]

Yes. The requirement is actually to get her pregnant. It would be the woman's sons who would care for her into her old age--the man would likely be dead.

You can prove that there was no alternative?

 

[janxharris]

I never said that OT polygamy was adultery, you said that.

#99

You accepted here that polygamy was prohibited:
#101
"So both are prohibited by two separate scriptures. What is the problem?" (regarding Romans 7:1-3).

Since Romans 7 is with regard to the OT law then it (the law) is both prohibiting and permitting polygamy.

 

[RDKirk]

You can prove that there was no alternative?

There is enough scriptural context regarding family relationships to show that a woman without sons would be destitute. The story of Ruth, for instance.

 

[RDKirk]

#99

You accepted here that polygamy was prohibited:
#101
"So both are prohibited by two separate scriptures. What is the problem?" (regarding Romans 7:1-3).

Since Romans 7 is with regard to the OT law then it (the law) is both prohibiting and permitting polygamy.

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

 

[gadar perets]

This verse is cited by Jesus to refute the Pharisees liberal interpretation of Deut. 24:1 regarding divorce. It does not explicitly proscribe polygamy.

Does it implicitly proscribe polygamy?

It seems to me that you started this thread to understand the definition of adultery. Do you have a possible definition in your mind? I really don't understand why you don't accept the standard definition;

voluntary sexual intercourse between a married man and someone other than his wife or between a married woman and someone other than her husband.​

 

[RDKirk]

Does it implicitly proscribe polygamy?

It seems to me that you started this thread to understand the definition of adultery. Do you have a possible definition in your mind? I really don't understand why you don't accept the standard definition;

voluntary sexual intercourse between a married man and someone other than his wife or between a married woman and someone other than her husband.​

Well, the definition has changed. Under the OT law, sexual relations between a man (married or unmarried) and an "unowned" woman were legally undefined.

Under modern laws, if either the man or woman is married, their sexual relationship is legally defined as adultery.

In the New Testament, Jesus draws restraints on sexual relationships even more extreme than either OT or modern law: One spouse and only with your spouse.

 

[gadar perets]

Under modern laws, if either the man or woman is married, their sexual relationship is legally defined as adultery.

?? Are you saying when two people married to each other have sex it is adultery?

 

[janxharris]

Does it implicitly proscribe polygamy?

I would hope so.

It seems to me that you started this thread to understand the definition of adultery. Do you have a possible definition in your mind? I really don't understand why you don't accept the standard definition;

voluntary sexual intercourse between a married man and someone other than his wife or between a married woman and someone other than her husband.​

It would be problematic for me to have faith in a God who permitted polygamy - and so the difficulty with this definition of adultery.

Do you concede that your contention (that under the New Covenant polygamy is prohibited) is not tenable since you have not provided an explicit scripture to back it up? Your response was only to suggest that the Matthew 19 citation implicitly proscribed polygamy.

 

[janxharris]

In the New Testament, Jesus draws restraints on sexual relationships even more extreme than either OT or modern law: One spouse and only with your spouse.

Could you cite which scripture you are refering to please?

 

[gadar perets]

It would be problematic for me to have faith in a God who permitted polygamy - and so the difficulty with this definition of adultery.

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?

Do you concede that your contention (that under the New Covenant polygamy is prohibited) is not tenable since you have not provided an explicit scripture to back it up? Your response was only to suggest that the Matthew 19 citation implicitly proscribed polygamy.

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