What is adultery?

[Abiding in His Word]

This question is the result of this topic where an individual expressed fear of going to hell because of "living in adultery."

Since we know one of the 10 commandments is "you shall not commit adultery," we would naturally have to know what it is in order abide by that commandment.

Let's discuss in hopes of agreeing that adultery is committed only if one person has sexual relations with the spouse of another. In other words, adultery is committed with full knowledge that the other party is married. It's a boundary that's knowingly crossed.

Right?

Lev 20:10 'If there is a man who commits adultery with another man's wife, one who commits adultery with his friend's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

[drdos]

When 2 flesh are made one under God's eyes let no one separate. You are bound to that person for life in God's eyes.. Adultery is putting a wedge between that bond. God does not allow for more than one bonding except in death or infidelity on ones part. I don't agree with your premise based on what Jesus said. If you even look at a woman lustfully you have committed adultery in your mind.
Adultery
Matt 5:
27"You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY'; 28but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29"If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.…

[Abiding in His Word]

Forgot to request we abide by board rules in this respect:

6. No unnecessarily long posts that no one wants to read.

In other words, no need to post 200 bible verses ( 2-3 is ok) or long copy and paste paragraphs from another site. Scripture references can be looked up by members when used as the basis for one's beliefs.

Thanks! Sometimes very, very long posts gets very tedious and get off track easily.

[Abiding in His Word]

When 2 flesh are made one under God's eyes let no one separate. You are bound to that person for life in God's eyes..

This is your definition of marriage, drdos. I plan on discussing marriage later in another post. I'm asking how we define adultery.

Adultery is putting a wedge between that bond.

Are you defining a "wedge" as sexual intimacy with a married person?

God does not allow for more than one bonding except in death or infidelity on ones part.

So are you defining adultery as sexual infidelity?

I don't agree with your premise based on what Jesus said. If you even look at a woman lustfully you have committed adultery in your mind.

Jesus would have known the penalty for adultery was death when he said that. So was He implying there's a "secret" form of adultery for which there is no penalty since no one knows who is lusting in his heart?

How many times does the average Christian commit adultery (lusting in his/her heart)? And while the penalty is death in the OT, there is none in the NT? Jesus didn't mention one in that verse.

[drdos]

Jesus would have known the penalty for adultery was death when he said that. So was He implying there's a "secret" form of adultery for which there is no penalty since no one knows who is lusting in his heart? (God know's doesn't He?)

How many times does the average Christian commit adultery (lusting in his/her heart)? And while the penalty is death in the OT, there is none in the NT? Jesus didn't mention one in that verse.[/quote](I thought it was necessary to say what marriage is to God to explain what adultery is. It's not just the physical act but the spiritual bonding it creates between 2 people, and I don't think it takes intercourse to be considered adultery)

[Abiding in His Word]

I thought it was necessary to say what marriage is to God to explain what adultery is.

And yet, afterward you mentioned lusting as adultery. In that case, one doesn't have to be married to commit adultery, right?

It's not just the physical act but the spiritual bonding it creates between 2 people, and I don't think it takes intercourse to be considered adultery)[/b]

I'm hoping for a scripture that defines adultery. You've posted one that seems to define adultery as lusting.

[drdos]

I thought it was necessary to say what marriage is to God to explain what adultery is.

And yet, afterward you mentioned lusting as adultery. In that case, one doesn't have to be married to commit adultery, right?

It's not just the physical act but the spiritual bonding it creates between 2 people, and I don't think it takes intercourse to be considered adultery)[/b]

I'm hoping for a scripture that defines adultery. You've posted one that seems to define adultery as lusting.

Yes I believe lusting is adultery if you are married. If you are married and bound to someone and you lust for another then that is adultery. If you are not married and lust after a married person that is lusting, but if that married person lusts after you a single person they are committing adultery. They are bound to one flesh 2 people. The single person is not.. Israel committed adultery in their relationship to God when they lusted after other God's (Hosea)

[Abiding in His Word]

Yes I believe lusting is adultery if you are married. If you are married and bound to someone and you lust for another then that is adultery. If you are not married and lust after a married person that is lusting, but if that married person lusts after you a single person they are committing adultery. They are bound to one flesh 2 people. The single person is not..

But that isn't what Jesus said. He said "everyone".....

Mat 5:28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. NASB

He made no differentiation as to who was lusting; i.e. single or married. It does appear that the object of the lust is a married woman.

And again, it's actually a "secret" sin, isn't it? With no penalty for the adultery, right?

[Abiding in His Word]

I was reading Matt. chapters 5, 6, and 7. I noticed a pattern in Jesus' words. He relates sinful tendencies to the eyes, words, hands, body, face, mind, heart, etc.

After saying that looking (with the eyes) at a woman with lust is adultery, He advises plucking out the eyes if they are causing you to stumble. The hand, if it causes you to stumble, should be cut off. Don't put on a gloomy face when you fast. The eye is the lamp of the body. Don't worry about life. Don't look at the speck in another's eye. Swine will trample your pearls under their feet if you give them what is holy. When you give to the poor, don't let your left hand know what your right hand is doing.

What I'm seeing is Jesus' effort to make those listening change their perception of sin/crime as only those committed outwardly as the Pharisees claimed. Rather Jesus makes them see that it's the inward condition of the heart that leads to the outward sin.

Matt. 15:19 "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders.

2Pe 2:14 having eyes full of adultery that never cease from sin

Jas 4:4 You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God?

The outward sins that the inward heart condition cause are anger, adultery, pride, unforgiveness, etc. I'm thinking that to isolate Matt. 5:28 from the chapters 5, 6, and 7 and use it as a definition of adultery is to miss the context and focus of the discourse.

[Mark F]

I hope this isn't too long.......I live this passage daily.

Romans 7:13-25
Law Cannot Save from Sin

13 Has then what is good become death to me? Certainly not! But sin, that it might appear sin, was producing death in me through what is good, so that sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful. 14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. 16 If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. 17 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. 19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. 20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.

21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. 22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!

So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.

I think the important thing here is that I must cling to Jesus with all my might because I ain't making it on good works. (Or good thoughts)

[Keeping Alert]

I was reading Matt. chapters 5, 6, and 7. I noticed a pattern in Jesus' words. He relates sinful tendencies to the eyes, words, hands, body, face, mind, heart, etc.

After saying that looking (with the eyes) at a woman with lust is adultery, He advises plucking out the eyes if they are causing you to stumble. The hand, if it causes you to stumble, should be cut off. Don't put on a gloomy face when you fast. The eye is the lamp of the body. Don't worry about life. Don't look at the speck in another's eye. Swine will trample your pearls under their feet if you give them what is holy. When you give to the poor, don't let your left hand know what your right hand is doing.

What I'm seeing is Jesus' effort to make those listening change their perception of sin/crime as only those committed outwardly as the Pharisees claimed. Rather Jesus makes them see that it's the inward condition of the heart that leads to the outward sin.

Matt. 15:19 "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders.

2Pe 2:14 having eyes full of adultery that never cease from sin

Jas 4:4 You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God?

The outward sins that the inward heart condition cause are anger, adultery, pride, unforgiveness, etc. I'm thinking that to isolate Matt. 5:28 from the chapters 5, 6, and 7 and use it as a definition of adultery is to miss the context and focus of the discourse.

Abiding, I may be reading you wrongly (as I might be apt to for which I will apologize beforehand) but I think the point Jesus is making to the Jews who are listening is that the inward thoughts and motives are considered sin. Jesus is not asking people to dig out their eyes or chop off their hands and feet. Woe to the man who digs out his eyes because of lustful thoughts and realise he is more lustful than ever because those lustful images are the only things he can see in his mind now!

That is how I see Jesus showing their hypocrisy... They thought they have not committed the physical act of adultery, and were self righteous about it... but Jesus knew their hearts were full of lusts... And Jesus put them in their places... They are all adulterers in the sight of God...

Go on to Matthew 9 and we see how Jesus is masterfully revealing that they are all sick who needs to see the doctor... Those who do not think they are sick as the Pharisees were, did not think they need a doctor... Obviously, they were sadly mistaken

[drdos]

Yes I believe lusting is adultery if you are married. If you are married and bound to someone and you lust for another then that is adultery. If you are not married and lust after a married person that is lusting, but if that married person lusts after you a single person they are committing adultery. They are bound to one flesh 2 people. The single person is not..

But that isn't what Jesus said. He said "everyone".....

Mat 5:28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. NASB

He made no differentiation as to who was lusting; i.e. single or married. It does appear that the object of the lust is a married woman.

And again, it's actually a "secret" sin, isn't it? With no penalty for the adultery, right?

You are right I missed that. Thanks Abiding.

[Keeping Alert]

Yes I believe lusting is adultery if you are married. If you are married and bound to someone and you lust for another then that is adultery. If you are not married and lust after a married person that is lusting, but if that married person lusts after you a single person they are committing adultery. They are bound to one flesh 2 people. The single person is not..

But that isn't what Jesus said. He said "everyone".....

Mat 5:28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. NASB

He made no differentiation as to who was lusting; i.e. single or married. It does appear that the object of the lust is a married woman.

And again, it's actually a "secret" sin, isn't it? With no penalty for the adultery, right?

You are right I missed that. Thanks Abiding.

I am not too sure... When Jesus said everyone and talks about adultery, I think by default of definition of adultery is one party must be married... And so everyone could mean all who are married...

But it still does not matter, just in case the singles out there say Hooray! If a single lusts after another single, I think in the spirit of things, that would be considered fornification...

and since such thoughts are a falling short of the glory of God, it is sin...

[Abiding in His Word]

but I think the point Jesus is making to the Jews who are listening is that the inward thoughts and motives are considered sin.

Exactly. I agree. As I said above, "The outward sins are caused by the inward heart condition."

Jesus is not asking people to dig out their eyes or chop off their hands and feet. Woe to the man who digs out his eyes because of lustful thoughts and realise he is more lustful than ever because those lustful images are the only things he can see in his mind now!

Exactly again. We are not to literally tear out our eyes. Not to literally cut off our right hands. Not to literally respond with merely a yes or no. Not to literally hand a coat to a /plaintiff/defendant in a court proceeding. Jesus is using (perhaps) hyperbole to make a point about the serious nature of sin.

So how then shall we interpret Matt. 5:32? Does a man who divorces his wife make her literally commit adultery? I suggest that that could only be literal if there was no "certificate of divorce" to prove she was no longer married. That certificate (implemented by Moses) was the safeguard against adultery for the woman who was "put away" for any reason. It provided proof that she was no longer married which allowed her to go on with her life without the stigma of adultery.

With that in mind, how then do we define adultery?

[Abiding in His Word]

I am not too sure... When Jesus said everyone and talks about adultery, I think by default of definition of adultery is one party must be married... And so everyone could mean all who are married...

Could be. The focus imo that Jesus is making is not on the "everyone" but rather on lust. He is showing how lust can lead to sexual sin.

But it still does not matter, just in case the singles out there say Hooray! If a single lusts after another single, I think in the spirit of things, that would be considered fornification....

Oh yeah! Singles don't get off scott free!

It seems you've defined (correctly imo) that Jesus is talking about adultery and marriage. As many times as I've heard this topic discussed, the one very important aspect that is ignored is the certificate of divorce. Why is that?

[Exit40]

I think lust can be covered by another Commandment of the Law...

Exo 20:17
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ***, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

Deu 5:21
Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour's wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbour's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ***, or any thing that is thy neighbour's.

This Law addresses the inward desires of the heart, if acted on they becomes the more serious sin, as it involves another in the sinful act, as participant or victim. Also covers single folks as 'or anything' includes sons and daughters.

God Bless

David

[drdos]

Found this interesting article on this subject.

"So to sum it up, Matthew 5:27–28 is not a condemnation of lust or sexual desire, nor does it mean that every red-blooded male necessarily sins every time a beautiful woman walks into a room (or onto a movie screen or anywhere else she may appear). On the contrary, “lust” itself is not a sin but can lead to sin if it is not properly governed and put under the authority of the Spirit (cf. James 1). Instead of focusing on “lust,” if this passage is to be correctly taught, the emphasis should be placed squarely on the will: that is, “What is the proper response to sexual desire?” There are proper outlets for sexual desire, but it is the exercise of the sexual appetite outside these confines is the problem. Even prior to actually committing the act, once the will has turned towards illicit behavior, sin has already entered the heart and, once fully conceived, will bring forth death.

Part of the payoff for properly understanding these two verses is the understanding that the requirement they set forth is neither impossible nor unreasonable. There is no requirement to somehow lose the drives that we were born with, nor should there be any guilt for having them. On the contrary, it is a matter of the commitment of the will, the orientation of the heart, that Jesus is discussing. It is the covetous look that is forbidden, not lust or desire itself. That is, Jesus forbids fixing one’s desire upon a woman (or man) that is not rightfully one’s own. This requirement was not set forth to show how impossible it is to live up to God’s standard. The standards set forth here are intended to be lived".

http://www.jasonstaples.com/bible/most- ... ew-527-28/

[Ready1]

Wouldn't it be good to list the NT passages which speak to and define adultery? I will post these for discussion sake:
Please let us all remember that these are JESUS's words not words from the Law. The categories are mine.

HUSBAND divorces his wife and remarries:

Mat 19:9 And I say to you, Whoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery;

Mar 10:11 And He said to them, Whoever may dismiss his wife and marries another commits adultery against her.

Luk 16:18 Everyone putting away his wife, and marrying another, commits adultery.

WIFE is divorced by husband and then remarries:

Mat 5:32 But I say to you, Whoever puts away his wife, apart from a matter of fornication, causes her to commit adultery. And whoever shall marry the one put away commits adultery.

WIFE divorces her husband and remarries:

Mar 10:12 And if a woman puts away her husband and marries another, she commits adultery

NEW WIFE: marries a husband who has divorced his wife.

Mar 10:11 And He said to them, Whoever may dismiss his wife and marries another commits adultery against her.

Luk 16:18 Everyone putting away his wife, and marrying another, commits adultery.

NEW HUSBAND: marries a wife who was divorced by her husband.

Mat 5:32 But I say to you, Whoever puts away his wife, apart from a matter of fornication, causes her to commit adultery. And whoever shall marry the one put away commits adultery.

Mat 19:9 And I say to you, Whoever shall put away his wife, if not for fornication, and shall marry another, that one commits adultery. And the one who marries her who was put away commits adultery.

Luk 16:18 Everyone putting away his wife, and marrying another, commits adultery. And everyone marrying her who has been put away from a husband commits adultery.

Other Scriptures: Will work on this later.

[Abiding in His Word]

Wouldn't it be good to list the NT passages which speak to and define adultery? I will post these for discussion sake:
Please let us all remember that these are JESUS's words not words from the Law. The categories are mine.

Ready1, the reason I asked that we not list lots of scriptures is because by doing so, one can prove almost anything. For example, all the scriptures you listed with the exception of Luke 16:18 mention divorce, marriage, remarriage and adultery. BUT (and this is a major "but") they all mention the Certificate of Divorce as well. That's why the context is so important rather than simply isolating one or two verses to prove a point.

While I appreciate the list and the effort on your part, they still don't define adultery. They describe situations involving lust, marriage, divorce, remarriage, and adultery. And they all mention a Certificate of Divorce as well as the condition of the heart.

[Abiding in His Word]

Found this interesting article on this subject.

He makes some good points, drdos, but still changes the meaning of what Jesus clearly said. For example:

"So to sum it up, Matthew 5:27–28 is not a condemnation of lust or sexual desire, nor does it mean that every red-blooded male necessarily sins every time a beautiful woman walks into a room (or onto a movie screen or anywhere else she may appear). On the contrary, “lust” itself is not a sin but can lead to sin if it is not properly governed and put under the authority of the Spirit (cf. James 1).

Jesus says nothing in all 4 gospels about controlling, governing, or directing one's sexual appetite properly. He clearly says that looking with lust is adultery. Paul does mention a lack of self-control to the Corinthians, but the passage the author is interpreting does not.

Instead of focusing on “lust,” if this passage is to be correctly taught, the emphasis should be placed squarely on the will: that is, “What is the proper response to sexual desire?” There are proper outlets for sexual desire, but it is the exercise of the sexual appetite outside these confines is the problem. Even prior to actually committing the act, once the will has turned towards illicit behavior, sin has already entered the heart and, once fully conceived, will bring forth death.

He seems to give a "pass" to those who can entertain a sexual desire without sinning providing their are not "committing the act." While that's contrary to what Jesus said, it also implies one can "think" about sex continually without worry as long as they're not actually "coveting" that particular person. Just go ahead and enjoy sexual thoughts because they are natural, God-given appetites.

Part of the payoff for properly understanding these two verses is the understanding that the requirement they set forth is neither impossible nor unreasonable. There is no requirement to somehow lose the drives that we were born with, nor should there be any guilt for having them. On the contrary, it is a matter of the commitment of the will, the orientation of the heart, that Jesus is discussing. It is the covetous look that is forbidden, not lust or desire itself. That is, Jesus forbids fixing one’s desire upon a woman (or man) that is not rightfully one’s own. This requirement was not set forth to show how impossible it is to live up to God’s standard. The standards set forth here are intended to be lived".

Again, his "line in the sand" seems to be coveting. So one can watch porn on a regular basis and just as long as he isn't coveting that person, he's just "doing what comes naturally?" Enjoying his/her God-given appetite?

I suggest that lust is a sense of entitlement on the part of those who excuse it lightly, and that the root cause is the learned conditioning that a woman is primarily a sexual being. If that is one's paradigm, lust will be present continually and on an abnormal scale and that's the condition of the heart that Jesus calls adultery.

In addition, his example of seeing a beautiful woman on the beach in a bikini would not be the type of situation Jesus addressed since there was no possibility of such a thing happening in the 1st century Christianity. Both women and men were fully covered but were uncovered in the mind/imagination only.

ETA: The NASB shows the word lust a total of 8 times in scripture and it is never in a good or positive manner. So the author again uses it inappropriately as normal/natural in the case of a husband lusting after his wife.

[Sonbeam]

I have a different perspective when I see discussions like this.

The way I see it is that what Jesus was doing when He preached on adultery, inward lust, etc., He was “upping the ante” or giving men “the law on steroids” (as someone once said) to show men the impossibility of trying to attain righteousness before God by keeping the law.

In other words, He was “plowing the fallow ground” to prepare men to come to Him on the basis of His gospel of grace. Those who heard Him condemn even the hidden evil desires of men’s hearts were supposed to ask themselves the same question the apostles did in Matthew 19:24-26.

This is the passage where the rich young man claimed he had kept all the commandments, yet Jesus told him he still needed to do more.

24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?”
26 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” NIV


Christians are under His grace not law, so “forgetting what lies behind,” we start each day keeping our eyes on Jesus Christ asking Him to empower us to live in accordance with His will.



sonbeam

[Abiding in His Word]

I have a different perspective when I see discussions like this.

The way I see it is that what Jesus was doing when He preached on adultery, inward lust, etc., He was “upping the ante” or giving men “the law on steroids” (as someone once said) to show men the impossibility of trying to attain righteousness before God by keeping the law.

Sonbeam, I know that's a popular view, but I don't think we should view the NT as "the law on steroids." Nor do I think Jesus was presenting it that way. He was, in fact, refuting the way the Pharisees had put the law on steroids. They continually added to it and "weighed men down with burdens hard to bear." Jesus wasn't trying to make it harder or stricter. He was refuting what they had made the law.

Jesus came to offer salvation, love, grace, and mercy to those who would come to Him. That's a far different purpose than "upping the ante" and making the law harder than it already was. I respect your right to see it that way, however.

ETA: I think that "upping the ante" and the "law on steroids" view of the divorce/adultery verses are those who are adamant against divorce and/or remarriage and I see it as more of a fear tactic. Again, they rarely mention the hyperbolic examples that follow about gauging one's eyes out or cutting one's hands off.

[Abiding in His Word]

So what is adultery?

[readyornot]

broadly speaking, unfaithfulness to God.

[Mrs. B]

What is adultery?

Unfaithfulness......Physically and Spiritually....

Spiritually Adultery is unfaithfulness to Jesus the Christ...
Physically is unfaithfulnee to your husband or wife....

Mrs. B

[Mark F]

So what is adultery?

Adultery is as simple as a thought.

God has chosen marriage to demonstrate to man our relationship with Him and He told us that He is a jealous God. Paul said in Ephesians 5:31-32 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”
32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

To be joined in marriage and look at another is treacherous in the eyes of God, we have wounded Him.

I believe Jesus did intend show the people that there was no hope they would have eternal life unless they saw themselves as totally helpless sinners.

To say all we must do is look at a woman/man and have a thought of an act with her/him and we have sinned just as if we had done it actually is to say there is no righteousness in us at all.

Yes I agree with you that He came to bring hope to the hopeless, carry the burdens of the laborers, comfort the broken hearted, heal the sick, raise the dead, be the friend of sinners etc., but unless any of those come to Him broken and in humility they will not see life.

The sacrifices of the law didn't forgive sin, all the offerings and tithes didn't appease God, it was the attitude and humility of the heart by faith that God accepted and held it in trust until Jesus death and resurrection. I believe Jesus was pointing out that our condition is hopeless to cause sinners to beg for mercy, they had to be at the end of themselves.

Some people can't stomach that, but that's how I see it.

[Abiding in His Word]

Adultery is as simple as a thought.

Hi Mark,

Then, if I am understanding you, you believe that Jesus literally meant that even looking on a woman with lust is adultery?

[Mark F]

Yes I do.

[Abiding in His Word]

Yes I do.

Thank you, Mark. Then lusting = adultery regardless of whether the lust-er is married or single but must be a male lusting after a female?

We must remember the Jews came out of a very idolatrous nation and were surrounded by nations where divorce, incest, child sacrifice, etc. were practiced. The purpose of the Mosaic law was a progressive cleansing (so to speak) of those practices and to limit and discourage those things by applying regulations and boundaries. Hence Paul speaks of the law as a tutor; i.e. a system of learning how to live, proper values, how to resolve disputes, etc. and above all, how to know the one true God and serve Him alone.

I think the Hebrews cleverly avoided the sin of adultery by simply sending their wives away and taking another as wife. Or took two or more wives as did Jacob, Gideon, Saul, David and Solomon. The early prevalence of polygamy and divorce as well as the prevalence of taking women as spoils of war and as slaves, led Moses to implement the Writ of Divorce. It was imo a benefit to the women as they were free to marry again with proof that they were no longer married. In those circumstances women had been removed from their tribes and being sent away meant they were without familial support and must remarry to survive. Therefore, the Certificate of Divorcement provided legal protection against a bad reputation and legal proof of her freedom to remarry. In that sense it was (as I believe it is today) a good thing.

In the scriptures that speak of divorce, the inclusion of that legal document is most often avoided. But it shouldn't be. It makes the dissolution "official." Even God spoke of the Writ of Divorce. (Jer. 3:8 and Isaiah 50:1) It's obviously a legal document meant to convey the dissolution of a union.

[Mark F]

Yes I do.

Thank you, Mark. Then lusting = adultery regardless of whether the lust-er is married or single but must be a male lusting after a female?

We must remember the Jews came out of a very idolatrous nation and were surrounded by nations where divorce, incest, child sacrifice, etc. were practiced. The purpose of the Mosaic law was a progressive cleansing (so to speak) of those practices and to limit and discourage those things by applying regulations and boundaries. Hence Paul speaks of the law as a tutor; i.e. a system of learning how to live, proper values, how to resolve disputes, etc. and above all, how to know the one true God and serve Him alone.

I think the Hebrews cleverly avoided the sin of adultery by simply sending their wives away and taking another as wife. Or took two or more wives as did Jacob, Gideon, Saul, David and Solomon. The early prevalence of polygamy and divorce as well as the prevalence of taking women as spoils of war and as slaves, led Moses to implement the Writ of Divorce. It was imo a benefit to the women as they were free to marry again with proof that they were no longer married. In those circumstances women had been removed from their tribes and being sent away meant they were without familial support and must remarry to survive. Therefore, the Certificate of Divorcement provided legal protection against a bad reputation and legal proof of her freedom to remarry. In that sense it was (as I believe it is today) a good thing.

In the scriptures that speak of divorce, the inclusion of that legal document is most often avoided. But it shouldn't be. It makes the dissolution "official." Even God spoke of the Writ of Divorce. (Jer. 3:8 and Isaiah 50:1) It's obviously a legal document meant to convey the dissolution of a union.

No it isn't just male lusting after female this afflicts both genders.

The passage in Jeremiah and Isaiah clearly have sin being the reason for the writ of divorce. Deuteronomy 24:1 stated that the reason the wife no longer found favor in his eyes is from uncleanness, sin caused it, Jesus in Matt 19 isn't condoning divorce, He said it was because of the hardness of the peoples heart that Moses did it.

The man in the other thread where this originated from is forgiven because he repented, but no where in Scripture or in Jesus words do you find Him sympathetic to divorce except for unfaithfulness.

Matthew 19:6 "So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."

8-9 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”

This is crystal clear, and as with any other sin we are forgiven if we confess our sins and repent.

[Abiding in His Word]

Deuteronomy 24:1 stated that the reason the wife no longer found favor in his eyes is from uncleanness, sin caused it,

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary:

It appears that the practice of divorces was at this early period very prevalent amongst the Israelites, who had in all probability become familiar with it in Egypt [Lane]. The usage, being too deep-rooted to be soon or easily abolished, was tolerated by Moses (Mat_19:8). But it was accompanied under the law with two conditions, which were calculated greatly to prevent the evils incident to the permitted system; namely: (1) The act of divorcement was to be certified on a written document, the preparation of which, with legal formality, would afford time for reflection and repentance; and (2) In the event of the divorced wife being married to another husband, she could not, on the termination of that second marriage, be restored to her first husband, however desirous he might be to receive her.

Adam Clarke's Commentary:

Some uncleanness - Any cause of dislike, for this great latitude of meaning the fact itself authorizes us to adopt, for it is certain that a Jew might put away his wife for any cause that seemed good to himself; and so hard were their hearts, that Moses suffered this; and we find they continued this practice even to the time of our Lord, who strongly reprehended them on the account, and showed that such license was wholly inconsistent with the original design of marriage;

John Gill's Exposition of the Bible:

and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes; is not agreeable to him, he takes no delight in her person, nor pleasure in her company and conversation; but, on the contrary, his affections are alienated from her, and he cannot bear the sight of her.

"because he hath found some uncleanness in her"; something that he disliked, and was disagreeable to him, and which made their continuance together in the marriage state very uncomfortable; which led him on to be very ill-natured, severe, and cruel to her; so that her life was exposed to danger, or at least become very uneasy; in which case a divorce was permitted, both for the badness of the man's heart, and in favour of the woman, that she might be freed from such rigorous usage. This word "uncleanness" does not signify adultery, or any of the uncleannesses forbidden in Lev_18:6; because that was punishable with death...

Alfred Edersheim's "Sketches of Jewish Life"

The fatal ease with which divorce could be obtained, and its frequency, appear from the question addressed to Christ by the Pharisees: "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?" (Mat_19:3), and still more from the astonishment with which the disciples had listened to the reply of the Saviour (v 10). That answer was much wider in its range than our Lord's initial teaching in the Sermon on the Mount (Mat_5:32). To the latter no Jew could have had any objection, even though its morality would have seemed elevated beyond their highest standard, represented in this case by the school of Shammai, while that of Hillel, and still more Rabbi Akiba, presented the lowest opposite extreme. But in reply to the Pharisees, our Lord placed the whole question on grounds which even the strictest Shammaite would have refused to adopt. For the farthest limit to which he would have gone would have been to restrict the cause of divorce to "a matter of uncleanness" (Deu_24:1), by which he would probably have understood not only a breach of the marriage vow, but of the laws and customs of the land. In fact, we know that it included every kind of impropriety, such as going about with loose hair, spinning in the street, familiarly talking with men, ill-treating her husband's parents in his presence, brawling, that is, "speaking to her husband so loudly that the neighbours could hear her in the adjoining house" (Chethub. vii. 6), a general bad reputation, or the discovery of fraud before marriage.

When Jesus was confronted by the Pharisees, He refuted their "any cause" reason for divorce and said Moses allowed divorce because of the hardness of their hearts. If the divorces were legitimate (because of uncleanness), Jesus would not attribute them to hard hearts as they would be justifiable according to the law in Deut. 24. If it were adultery, it would require the death of both parties.

Adultery was avoided by the Jews by putting away their wives and taking another. The Certificate of Divorcement was implemented to curb the prevalent practice and provide the woman proof of divorcement in order that she could remarry. And yes, it was implemented because of the hard heartednness of those who practiced "any cause" divorce.

The passage in Jeremiah and Isaiah clearly have sin being the reason for the writ of divorce.

The cause in both passages was unfaithfulness or adultery on the part of the Israelites. My point was specifically to focus on the "Writ of Divorce" which has been overlooked as the legal document that proved one was free from marital union and responsibilities. That's what we use today as well. Without it, one would be committing adultery should they remarry.

[drdos]

The cause in both passages was unfaithfulness or adultery on the part of the Israelites. My point was specifically to focus on the "Writ of Divorce" which has been overlooked as the legal document that proved one was free from marital union and responsibilities. That's what we use today as well. Without it, one would be committing adultery should they remarry.

With or Without a piece of paper it is still adultery in God's eyes if the divorce was not due to infidelity.

[Exit40]

For the farthest limit to which he would have gone would have been to restrict the cause of divorce to "a matter of uncleanness" (Deu_24:1), by which he would probably have understood not only a breach of the marriage vow, but of the laws and customs of the land.

Thanks for those definitions Abiding. Nowadays that is condensed to irreconcilable differences, and works for a woman also, saves all that bickering in Court. However, Mark F brought to our attention the mystery, of marriage, in Ephesians 5. While this all appears to be man-centric I believe it is meant for women also, explained further by Paul. Plus, as Christians if we denounce Christ, and try to come back to Him we are putting Him back on the Cross, and to further shame. He does not allow that, we seem to be stuck with our first bad decision, and that is covered in the divorce law too I believe.

I agree with Mark F in his assessments regarding lust, married or not, and covered by the covet Commandment. In that, we are all without excuse, but are forgiven if we humbly ask.

The question becomes, how do we know 'what' God has joined together ?

God Bless

David

[Abiding in His Word]

Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness

Interesting that these four works of the flesh have slightly different meanings. When I search for the meaning of adultery in Strong's, Thayers, and the NASB Concordances, the only word provided is "adultery."

G3430
moicheia
moy-khi'-ah
From G3431; adultery: - adultery.

G3431
moicheuō
moy-khyoo'-o
From G3432; to commit adultery: - commit adultery.

[keithareilly]

I agree with Sonbeam and Mark.

Jesus is showing Sin for what it is. And He is showing it is not just actions but attitudes in the heart.

The only reason divorcing an unfaithful spouse does not cause him/her to commit adultery is because he/she already has. So the one putting away the other is innocent of causing adultery and is not under the woe of those who bring temptation and cause another to sin.

Jesus did not say that if you do not divorce the unfaithful spouse you are committing adultery by remaining joined.

Furthermore, Jesus did not say the wife who was put away ever had sexual relations again. She was forced to commit adultery and did so even if she remained faithful to the one who put her away. Therefore, adultery is also failing to keep the marriage bond even if it is not your fault and not within your power to do so regardless of the attitudes in your own heart.

Having said that...

For practical purposes, and by that I mean purpose that are to be acted upon in this world, adultery is sexual relations with someone other than your spouse or with another's spouse. I say this because one can be joyful that a spouse remained faithful when tempted. This can strengthen the bond not destroy it. Recognizing the weakness of the person or marriage bond by acknowledging the temptation is not changing the state of the bond. Overcoming temptation to commit adultery can make it stronger. Forgiveness for not overcoming the temptation may, I repeat only may, strengthen the bond.

A Writ of Divorce, therefore divorce, even for adultery, is an example of hardness of heart and is not what God intended.

Disclosure: I am 6 years divorced, not my choice and I did not have extramarital sexual relations. Yes, I believe that every day that goes by is a day that I fail to uphold my marriage vows to my wife and to my God and therefore, I commit adultery every day.

Keith

[Abiding in His Word]

Furthermore, Jesus did not say the wife who was put away ever had sexual relations again. She was forced to commit adultery and did so even if she remained faithful to the one who put her away. Therefore, adultery is also failing to keep the marriage bond even if it is not your fault and not within your power to do so regardless of the attitudes in your own heart.

Yes, I believe that every day that goes by is a day that I fail to uphold my marriage vows to my wife and to my God and therefore, I commit adultery every day.

Keith, help me understand what you're saying here. Are you saying you are guilty of committing adultery even though you have not committed adultery?

[keithareilly]

Abiding,

No, I am saying I commit adultery every day by not keeping my promise to my wife and my God.
The fact that I have no choice in the matter is irrelevant.

Keith

[Abiding in His Word]

No, I am saying I commit adultery every day by not keeping my promise to my wife and my God.
The fact that I have no choice in the matter is irrelevant.

Why Do We Keep Remembering What God Forgets?

[keithareilly]

Abiding,

I understand.
The fact that I am stuck in adultery daily matters not.
I live under grace not the Law.

You wanted a definition of adultery and I gave you a scriptural example and for the benefit of the reader I wanted them to know this applies to me and that I am not putting burdens on others backs.
It is probably one of the most extreme examples found in the scriptures but it is there.

If Christs' own words are to be believed, I commit adultery every day though I have no choice.
Again, it matters not. I am not saved by my ability to keep the law but by Christ's sacrifice.
Daily, I live by God's grace as do we all.
I am simply pointing out one example of how that grace is applied to me every day.
Others who Satan tries to trick into believing they are sinning every day and need to repent by putting asunder what God as joined can use my example and apply it to themselves.

I live under God's grace everyday. I worry about it not as there is no other way to live.

Keith

[keithareilly]

Abiding,

Sometimes, I think there is the temptation to call something other than what it is; for example: adultery.

A lot of what the writ of divorce did was to redefine adultery so that we could re-label "adultery" to "not adultery". Christ argued against this.

Living under grace means we do not have to justify ourselves by redefining Sin to something men can live up to.
We can accept who we are and our circumstances and know that we live under grace and not condemn ourselves for failing to live up to the Law.

Grace allows each of us to face the worst of who we are and our circumstances because we are neither saved nor condemned by either.

So, I can look at what Christ said and take it literally without having to pretty it up before applying it to my own life.
What I have done here is to give you a tough definition of adultery and point out I cannot escape it under any circumstances. But I don't need to escape it. I am not justified by living up to the Law.

Keith

[Abiding in His Word]

The fact that I am stuck in adultery daily matters not.
I live under grace not the Law.

I'm on my way out the door, but want to say it certainly does matter imo. You are acknowledging grace but confessing adultery. There's a big difference.

[keithareilly]

Abiding,

Your argument is with what Christ said about a person who is put away for reasons other than adultery.
Christ said that person is forced to commit adultery. He did not say that person is forced to have sexual relations with someone other than the person they married. He said they are forced to commit adultery.

I accept this truth about my circumstances. I don't try to redefine adultery so that it does not apply to me.
If I were to remarry, my status with regards to my first wife would not change; it would still be adultery per Christ's words, only, it would also involve another person participating in adultery.


Am I condemned for this? No. Would a potential second wife be condemned for this? No.
We are not saved by our ability to live up to the Law, we are saved by Christ's sacrifice.
Am I using my freedom as a license to sin? No!
Instead, I am using my freedom in Christ, from the Law, as it was intended to be used.

In my life, God's grace abounds because of the adultery that has been forced upon me.
In my life, sin has increased, but so has God's grace.
Am I sinning so that grace may abound? No, nevertheless, the circumstances of my life are that sin has increased therefore grace abounds greater.

We all live in a sinful world, within sinful flesh.
We are all saved by God's grace from our circumstances.
Thus has he save me from mine.

Keith

[keithareilly]

Abiding,

Let us assume for the moment that my interpretation is correct:
1) A person who is divorced for reasons other than adultery is forced to commit adultery (per Christ) even if the person divorced does not have sexual relations with another anytime after divorce.

How would you describe that persons standing before God under these circumstances?


Keith

[Abiding in His Word]

Keith, it's your prerogative if you wish to assume guilt for something you are not guilty for.

I'll stand by this definition of adultery:

Willful sexual intercourse with someone other than one's husband or wife.

[Abiding in His Word]

Let us assume for the moment that my interpretation is correct:

I can't assume your interpretation is correct, Keith, not even for a minute. Just so contrary to scripture.

A person who is divorced for reasons other than adultery is forced to commit adultery (per Christ)

No one can force anyone else to commit adultery. If someone forces another person sexually, it's called rape.

[keithareilly]

Matthew 5:32
But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

The woman in this example is forced to commit adultery, hence the words "makes her commit adultery".

Notice the statement does not say she commits adultery only if she marries another.
Instead, she commits adultery as a consequence of being divorced not as a consequence of remarrying.
If she remarries, whoever marries her also commits adultery.

So, I think Christ's definition of marriage is not conventional.

Keith

[keithareilly]

Matthew 5:32
But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.


Let me try to explain this way.

The wording "makes her commit adultery" means she has no options but to commit adultery. Her circumstances are such that she has no choice in the matter. She will commit adultery and she cannot stop that from happening.

What are her choices?
1) Stay celibate the rest of her life, living alone, with family, friends etc.
2) Marry again
3) Live with someone in a sexual relationship.

Since she has no choice in the matter but to commit adultery, then all three choices must therefore be one form of adultery or another. If option number 1 is not adultery, then the phrase, "makes her commit adultery" is false making Christ a liar. Christ is not a liar, therefore option 1 must also be a form of adultery.

Why is it important to understand that option 1 is adultery?
Because the attack Satan is using on our brothers and sisters is that they have to divorce and remain celibate to keep from committing adultery. But Christ says that too is adultery. So Satan's lie and his trap are exposed.

What does that say about the definition of adultery?
Adultery is failing to keep the marital commitment regardless of how or by whom that commitment is broken.

Keith

[Abiding in His Word]

A person who is divorced for reasons other than adultery is forced to commit adultery (per Christ) even if the person divorced does not have sexual relations with another anytime after divorce

I'll say this and then I'll stop.

You are misunderstanding Jesus' words. If you are using a "face value" hermeneutic to interpret His words, then you must also apply "face value" or "plain meaning" to His words in Matt: 5:29-30 and approve of plucking eyes out and cutting hands off. In order to apply face value or plain meaning to a word or phrase, the meaning must be the same in every occurance in the Bible. Literal interpretation does not mean we can ignore the grammatical, historical and contextual aspects. In fact, it's a dangerous practice to build a doctrine around a single word or even a single verse that contradicts others or where the meaning (due to language/culture differences) is obscure.

Using a proper hermeneutic, we will see Jesus speaking to and refuting the Pharisees. They were constantly trying to challenge Him and accuse Him of disregarding the Law. Jesus, in response, was constantly refuting their understanding and additions to the Mosaic Law to suit their needs. They dressed for attention; insisted on tithing, ritual purity, fasting and Sabbath traditions and even circumcision. Jesus spent much time refuting and correcting their traditions, did so in public and minced no words in labeling their white-washed tombs, hypocrites, and broods of vipers.

In that setting; in that context, we find the Pharisees once again challenging Jesus about marriage, divorce (for any reason) and the Certificate of Divorcement allowed by Moses. In all three discourses where this is discussed in the gospels, (Mat. 5:31; 19:7; Mark 10:4;) that Certificate is mentioned. They loved that certificate as it was a small price to pay for being allowed to put away their wives for any reason they deemed "a good cause."

Jesus never criticized the need for the Certificate. He knew it was a legal, binding document that was necessary for the wives who were being discarded. It was legal proof that they were no longer bound to a husband and would not be condemned or stoned for adultery should they marry again. What Jesus did criticize was the NEED for the Certificate of Divorce. And that was the hard, callous hearts that sent their wives away in the first place to satisfy their fleshly desires for another wife more to their liking (for now.) Jesus knows what they are doing and wisely reminds them that marriage was not that way from the beginning. He reminds them of Genesis 2 which they knew only too well and had refused to "cleave" to their wives but chose rather to discard them for any reason.

In Matt. 23, we see another discourse about the Pharisees and how Jesus exposes them for their hypocrisy and lawlessness.

This is the context that we must understand when interpreting the words of Jesus to that group who historically laid burdens on others that they were unwilling to bear themselves.

Finally then, we should be able to see that Jesus is confronting their hard-hearted practice and treatment of their wives but not condemning the effort of Moses to implement a solution that at least safeguarded the future of those callously sent away from their homes. Without that document, they were causing a situation where the woman would remarry and still be legally married to the one who sent her away. She would then be in a position of having no resources or means of support and seek to remarry. But remarriage without proof of divorce would be adultery. Moses recognized the prevalence of "divorcing for any reason" and since it was not likely to go away in the immediate future, implemented a safe-guard which would benefit the woman and at least give pause to the man to consider that he could never take her back even if he wanted to. That's what Jesus was confronting them with. That Moses resolved a bad situation so it would not have worse consequences and he did that by insisting the husband sign a Certificate of Divorce making the dissolution of the marriage legal and binding.

Evaluating the passage in this manner, takes into consideration, the context, the historical background, and the intended meaning directed to the Pharisees.

Again, I see adultery commonly accepted today as well as throughout the Bible as sexual relations with someone other than your spouse.

I won't continue to debate your conviction although I hope you will at least consider mine.

[keithareilly]

Abiding,

I understand the context of the writ of divorce and it is as necessary today as it was then.
I get it. And if someone asks me if they are free to marry after being divorced then my answer is "yes".
This includes myself.

Nevertheless, I still believe what I have written.


Frequently, I hold two conflicting views as both true.
Let us accept that this is one of those situations.


Thanks for your time,

Keith

[Ready1]

I'll stand by this definition of adultery:

Willful sexual intercourse with someone other than one's husband or wife.

From Jesus' words, it seems to me that his definition would be:

Willful sexual intercourse with someone other than one's original living husband or wife. If a husband or wife dies, then remarriage for their spouse is certainly permissible (to someone who has never been married or whose spouse has passed away as well.)

(1 Cor 7)

I think I read the word more literally than many...