Definition: Adultery vs. Fornication

[Courting4Life]

To clarify further upon request, ask yourself the following question in regards to those grey areas:

If brother Bryan were to see me about to do what I'm about to do, and encouraged me to be righteous, would I continue in my action? Furthermore, if in continuing in my action brother Bryan said "Ephesians 5:11-13 says "Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them; for it is disgraceful even to speak of the things which are done by them in secret. But all things become visible when they are exposed by the light, for everything that becomes visible is light." So c'mon brother as I take you by the hand and we joyfully declare the deed you have done to your wife, daughters, sons, family, coworkers, and passersby."

Well, if you'd be ashamed of a thing it's not likely righteous.

 

[FollowingHim]

Steve and Courting4Life, thankyou for your posts here, they have given me plenty to think about. I must reiterate that I probably have exactly the same understanding of what is right and wrong as any of the other conservative men here, so I'm certainly not advocating anyone going off and sinning. Just want to make that completely clear.

I fully agree with your last post Courting4Life, that's a great application of Ephesians 5:11-13. We would be ashamed of such things because our conscience tells us they are sinful, and therefore according to Romans 14:23 they ARE sin for us. The possibility of exposure is a great way of clearly checking what your conscience really says about something, and therefore whether it would be sinful to do it.

However if we take our understanding of what is sinful from our conscience, and then apply it to others, we can slip up. I had a large debate about polygamy with a Christian brother last year, and his argument basically boiled down to "God has written His law on our hearts (Hebrews 10:16), so our conscience tells us what the law is, and MY conscience says that polygamy is wrong, therefore it is sinful". The problem here is that God is not the only influence on our conscience. Our perception of right and wrong is influenced by many factors in our past, and can be quite different to God's view. This man adamantly believes polygamy is wrong because he has always been taught that to be correct - but he believes that God has given him this feeling directly. I can't persuade him otherwise.

Now, if he believes polygamy to be sinful, then it would certainly be sin for him to do it (Romans 14:23), as God judges the heart. But the fact that he believes it is sin does not mean it would be sin for me do do it, because I understand scripture differently and my conscience tells me it is completely fine.

Looking from the outside, I see that this man's conscience is wrong because it has been influenced by non-biblical sources. But where has my conscience been influenced by non-biblical sources? No doubt I too have beliefs that are equally wrong, as I am certainly not perfect. If my conscience tells me something is sinful, I must not do it. However I cannot condemn others just because my conscience says that what they are doing is wrong, unless I can also find scripture to back that up. I need an external reference in scripture, otherwise we're just arguing from our own opinions.

If I do see that someone is doing something that my conscience condemns however, I must rebuke them in the way that Courting4Life suggests - in other words, point them back to their own conscience.

I therefore fully agree that we are to act upon what we perceive our brother to be doing, to "rebuke, reprove, exhort" (1 Tim 4:2). This certainly extends to a very wide range of areas:
- Things that are clearly sin must obviously be rebuked, and we are to also refrain from fellowship with unrepentent sinners (1 Co 5:11)
- Things that I believe are sin must also be pointed out, encouraging the brother to look to their own conscience and pray to determine whether what they are doing is right or wrong. They may know they are sinning but need someone else to point this out to give them the motivation and accountability to change.
- If we love our brothers, we will also rebuke them when they do things that may not be sin but are unwise - for instance a brother who spends his pay on maintaining a fancy car while his children's clothes are falling to bits would warrant rebuke. His misprioritisation of money isn't necessarily sin in itself, but is foolish and may betray a lack of love for his family. It could be an outward sign of inward sin.

I hope that helps to clarify my thinking, and is helpful for others to ponder also.

 

[FollowingHim]

To give a non-marriage example, check out this video on whether it is a sin to smoke cannabis:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EGAv8p5 ... e=youtu.be

Everyone on this video agrees it is sinful. They base this on the questionable application of a couple of verses, and a load of their own reasoning, which is even more questionable. But as far as I can see it isn't a sin to smoke cannabis, as there is no prohibition in scripture, and if it is sinful because it causes 'drunkenness' then loads of pharmaceutical medicines are even more sinful.

At the same time, smoking cannabis is a pretty stupid idea in my opinion unless it is being used to treat a specific medical condition. But something isn't a sin just because I think it's foolish.

These men illustrate the attitude of much of the church. Anything that is perceived to be a bad idea is labelled a sin, and verses then found to 'prove' it. Because calling it a sin is considered more likely to make people avoid it. But that's not a good reason to label something as a sin.

If their conscience says it is sin, they shouldn't do it. But they can't apply their conscience to all other people, and claim it is sin for all, without solid scripture behind it.

Why can't we just avoid behavior we see as stupid, and rebuke brothers engaged in such behavior, simply because we believe it is stupid? Do we really need to put the fear of hell on something before we'll avoid it?

 

[pebble]

[quoter] but I personally believe the poly idea is bigger than that[/quote]

It definitely is, at least for me too. Fact, this thread on adultery and fornication are simply technicalities. Deep inside, we know we will not even dare to test the limits of the red line. Poly (the biblical form) is like a crash test if we either accept or disregard the will of God. We cannot claim to be capable stewards of multiple women based on the Bible if we will not follow all the commandments, guidelines, and rules set in the Bible. First we have to follow and then we can claim the rewards of obedience. IMHO only, no biblical reference.

 

[Courting4Life]

... Believers point their lives towards God, unbelievers don't, so that puts a stumbling block between what one sees as sin and another doesn't....

Very true:
Acts 4:5-12
Romans 9:30-33
1 Peter 2:1-8

 

[pebble]

Hello.

How does this thread on adultery and fornication relates to Matthew 5:28?

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

Does it mean that any man (married or single) already commits adultery with a woman (married or single) even just by looking at her with lust?

Thanks.

 

[Yaakov]

Yes - although with an unmarried woman it would not technically be adultery but rather fornication.

Key is, I think: When does "lust" occur. Since women are, well, just beautiful, is it lust when one merely sees a woman and realizes her beauty?

I think not. It is the looking for a length of time and allowing temptation to stay im your mind. That is where sin begins - when we take hold of the thought and let it linger in our mind.

 

[pebble]

Sir, how about if "fornication" or porneia is an umbrella term for sexually deviant behaviour not approved of in the scriptures and includes adultery?

IMHO, admiration of beauty is both natural and encourage, otherwise we won't be anticipating the time when all that is evil will be gone. Lust, on the other hand, is a very strong sexual desire for someone.

Anyway, lusting after someone is not the main issue I'm trying tackle with Matthew 5:28 but the implication that a married man can still commit adultery in his heart with an unmarried woman.

Of course, the lesson, as always, is to take control of all our lustful desires. Especially since I am slowly becoming aware that the NT is not a lax or easy extension of the OT but a stricter version of it

Thank you.

 

[FollowingHim2]

A married man cannot commit adultery with an unmarried woman, in his heart or in his bed. Adultery is when a man sleeps with a MARRIED woman. Probably when he looks at her lustfully too, but I'm just not quite sure where you draw the line on what is appreciation and what is lust if you know what I mean.

 

[pebble]

Probably when he looks at her lustfully too, but I'm just not quite sure where you draw the line on what is appreciation and what is lust if you know what I mean.

I've read somewhere, ma'am, that we can never hope to live perfectly sinless lives all on our own. Every second, there's gonna be things and temptations happening that will try to break down our resolves. So it's not about strictly toeing the line but believing and keeping in our hearts the word of God.

For instance, based on my experience, it's easy not to go beyond the admiration phase when an attractive and modest woman presents herself for perusal. Besides, there are a lot to admire other than physical attractiveness, confidence one of them.

However, if a woman who is intent on showing her wares to the world crosses my vision, then, naturally, there will be... fireworks! For an instant, admiration ramps up to lust, and this may last for a few moments (maybe just enough to check out the wares being displayed) and then I remember... ooopps, God has a law against that. So the lust goes limp.

But, the image of the wares may not leave at once (satan sure is persistent) and it is bound to crop up a number of times over the day. But the image becomes less distinct the longer away from the event, until it is totally forgotten. I cannot even remember I got some visual treat a few days ago.

Lust is, as defined, a very strong sexual desire for "someone." Not a total stranger and not just a simple attraction.

It's true there is no definite line between admiration and lust but, IMHO, there's a gap we need to jump over (thus, are aware of) before we find ourselves in a compromising situation with our faith.

Thank you.

 

[andrew]

Lust is, as defined, a very strong sexual desire for "someone." Not a total stranger and not just a simple attraction.

Not exactly. That's what it has come to mean, maybe, but back in the days of King Jim and for awhile thereafter it was just a word for desire. There are non-sexual uses of the word lust in the KJV that help illustrate that. It's just a desire to have something for yourself.

Do not accept the conditioning that says that any appreciation or recognition of feminine beauty is the same as sexual desire is the same as sin. I can appreciate the fine lines of a Lamborghini without a shred of desire to own one; covetousness is not the issue. I can appreciate the fine lines of sexually attractive woman without any desire to have her for myself; lust is not the issue, neither is adultery. It's an issue when you want it for yourself.

I think the church and the culture generally have shamed men for a long time for their natural responsiveness to feminine beauty. Makes them easy to manipulate. I'm not saying anyone's doing that here. Just putting in my two cents on the definition of lust.

 

[tship67]

Hi, Cecil:

Thought I'd respond to your post with an article of mine for your consideration.

The Biblical Definition of Adultery
By Tom Shipley
Copyright 2013, All Rights Reserved

What is the BIBLICAL definition of adultery?

As Christians, we believe that the Bible is the inerrant, all-sufficient Word of God. God’s Word is the arbiter of all truth. It is the ultimate DEFINER of all things. We should not be deriving our definitions of biblical subjects from popular dictionaries. I once was discussing this topic (as it relates to polygyny) with a Christian lady who actually pulled out a Webster’s dictionary trying to prove to me that the definition of adultery I was explaining to her from the Bible was erroneous. She actually threw her grandmother’s heirloom Bible at me in frustration because she could not abide hearing the Biblical passages I was quoting to her proving the legitimacy of polygyny and the biblical definition of adultery. Biblical exposition does not begin with Webster’s dictionary--to say nothing of finishing with it. When you throw in Webster’s dictionary as the arbiter of biblical truth, you throw out the Bible—or at least throw it.

The biblical answer to the question is: adultery is the violation of the one flesh bond between a man and his woman. You will not find a more accurate and succinct definition than this. I have enunciated this definition with a view both to the content of Scripture, the context of Scripture, and the specific wording of Scripture in the original languages.

Those of you who have read and absorbed both of my books, Man and Woman in Biblical Law and They Shall Be One Flesh should have no problem here.

A couple basic considerations have gone into this definition.

The first is the one flesh teaching of the Bible as constitutive of what we in English call “marriage.” This is our foundation. As many of you on this list are aware, there is no counterpart in the Hebrew of the Old Testament to our English word “marriage.” The act of becoming what we call “married” in English is denoted in Scripture in the Old Testament by the verb “to take.” In Scriptural terminology a man “takes” a woman and she becomes “his woman.” As those of you who have carefully studied your Bibles know, a man “takes” a woman by becoming one flesh with her; he “takes” her by “knowing” her through sexual intercourse. A one flesh relationship is thereby created and this one flesh is constitutive of a Divinely ordained covenant. In other places in the Old Testament the word we translate as “married” or “to marry” is “baal” (lord). A man “baals” a woman; he lords her, clearly denoting a patriarchal understanding of marriage.

In Scripture, both in the Old and New Testaments, the words we translate as “husband” and “wife,” are simply the generic words “man” and “woman.” The one flesh relationship constitutive of a covenant before God is denoted by the possessive, i.e., his woman and her man. This is the actual language, the raw data of Scripture.

Christians who want to truly understand their Bibles are urged to meditate upon these facts at length.

A second biblical consideration that defines the boundaries of adultery is that the man-woman relationship is a hierarchical relationship. We Christians, especially in the West, have a profoundly horizontal and egalitarian perspective regarding the man-woman relation. This is culturally induced. This is also alien to Scripture. Scripture views all of life in a profoundly vertical perspective in which there is God at the zenith of the hierarchy who is the head of all things. In the words of I Corinthians 5, “the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God…neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.”

These hierarchical facts have necessary implications concerning what specifically constitutes adultery on the part of the man and on the part of the woman. What specifically violates the one flesh bond between a man and his woman is not necessarily the same for the man as it is for the woman because of this hierarchy. We see this most profoundly regarding polygyny in the Bible where men may have more than one woman but a woman may not have more than one man. This direct connection between hierarchy and polygyny is difficult to perceive if one is mired down in culturally induced horizontal, egalitarian delusions about the nature of reality. I run across this effect of our culturally ingrained horizontal perspective commonly even among those who accept the validity of polygyny. I am told often that there is no necessary connection between the man’s headship over the woman and the lawfulness of polygyny in the Law of God. They are wrong. The connection is direct and immediate.

St. Augustine grasped this:

“For by a secret law of nature, things that stand chief love to be singular; but things that are subject are set under, not only one under one, but, if the system of nature or society allow, even several under one, not without becoming beauty. For neither hath one slave so several masters, in the way that several slaves have one master. Thus we read not that any of the holy women served two or more living husbands; but we read that many females served one husband, when the social state of the nation allowed it, and the purpose of the time persuaded it: for neither is it contrary to the nature of marriage. For several females can conceive from one man: but one female cannot from several men (such is the power of things principal) as many souls are rightly made subject to one God.” —from “A Selected Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church,” Ed. by Philip Schaff, Vol. III, pg. 407-408

Patriarchy, the headship of the man, logically infers polygyny.

This is why the biblical definition of adultery cannot be simply the act of either spouse having sexual relations with someone else, the man having sexual relations with another woman or the woman having sexual relations with another man. The biblical definition of adultery focuses on the violation of the actual bond between the man and the woman, the one flesh bond. For a woman to have sexual relations with another man violates the hierarchy of the one flesh bond and hence violates the bond itself. The reverse is not true. When a man has sexual relations with another (unmarried) woman, there is no violation of the hierarchy of the one flesh bond, and a second one flesh bond is created.

The passage of Scripture which exemplifies this most clearly is Exodus 21:10-11, “If he take him another wife, her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage he shall not diminish. And if he do not these three unto her, then she shall go out free without money.” That is, adultery is committed IF the husband here ceases cohabitation with the first wife, but there is no adultery if he continues her cohabitation. The first wife, the concubine, may “go out free” from the marriage (divorce him) if he ceases cohabitation, but she does not have this right merely on the basis of the man taking a second wife. This forces us to refine our definition of adultery more generally to: “Adultery is the violation of the one flesh bond.” It is NOT precisely having sexual relations with another man’s wife. Having sexual relations with another man’s wife is, indeed, an act of adultery, or an example of adultery, but it does not DEFINE adultery. The essence of adultery is the violation of the one flesh bond. Therefore, capricious divorce, by itself, constitutes adultery (e.g., Matthew 19:8-9). Ceasing to have having sexual relations with one of multiple wives is adultery (e.g., Exo. 21:10-11). In both of these cases, adultery is not the commission of behavior but the omission of behavior. I would go so far as to say that serious abuse of the wife so that the marital relation becomes untenable also constitutes adultery—because it violates the one flesh bond.

This definition of adultery obviously does not comport well with the common more narrow definition ascribed to it, but it conforms to the biblical text. More precisely this definition is framed by the biblical text and incorporates the relevant biblical passages and also explains passages that otherwise remain inscrutable without resorting to explanations that propose radical contradictions in the biblical text. In most instances, explaining adultery as sexual relations with another man’s wife is sufficient for the immediate cause at hand, but it will not do as a definition that explains ALL the biblical data. I believe ALL the biblical data is best accounted for by defining adultery as “the violation of the one flesh bond between a man and his woman.”

 

[FollowingHim]

Thankyou Tom. Anyone who is interested in studying this issue further would be very wise to read Tom's two books that he mentions in his last post (links to them are available in the "Resources" menu at the top of this page, under "Links of interest").

Pebble, I must reiterate what others have said, that lust is NOT sexual desire. It is the desire to take something to be your own. This is illustrated in the 10 commandments - it is sin to steal anything from your neighbour (8), including his wife (7), or to desire to take (ie lust after) his property or wife (10). Matthew 5:28 is not talking about sexual desire for any woman, but the desire to take the wife of another man - the word translated 'woman' there can equally be rendered 'wife', and that makes more sense in the context as you can only commit adultery with a wife.

Looking at a woman, even someone else's wife, and seeing that she is hot is not lust, and therefore is not sin - you can't help it anyway, it's how you're wired. Would God really make all men so that they naturally sinned and could not stop themselves from sinning? Certainly not. It becomes lust, and sin, if you decide "she's so hot I wish she were MY wife, not his", and start fantasising about that idea. That you can stop yourself from doing.

 

[pebble]

back in the days of King Jim and for awhile thereafter it was just a word for desire. There are non-sexual uses of the word lust in the KJV that help illustrate that. It's just a desire to have something for yourself.

Thanks for clearing that up. Apologies to Following Him2.

Do not accept the conditioning that says that any appreciation or recognition of feminine beauty is the same as sexual desire is the same as sin. I can appreciate the fine lines of a Lamborghini without a shred of desire to own one; covetousness is not the issue. I can appreciate the fine lines of sexually attractive woman without any desire to have her for myself; lust is not the issue, neither is adultery. It's an issue when you want it for yourself.

I was thinking of the beauty of God's creation (Genesis), specifically in Eden, of which woman is probably the zenith (in beauty) in the previous post. But this (your post) puts things in a new light although it would be difficult to be sexually attracted to a woman and not want to have her. Or even to love a woman and not want her to be by your side.

I think the church and the culture generally have shamed men for a long time for their natural responsiveness to feminine beauty.

Actually, this seems to be aimed only at married men.

Thank you.

 

[andrew]

It would be difficult to be sexually attracted to a woman and not want to have her. Or even to love a woman and not want her to be by your side.

That little word "attracted" (attract, attraction, attractive) can be deceptive. Put another way, it can mean different things in different contexts, and is therefore sometimes confusing.

If I walk into a business function and look around the room for someone to talk with, and I notice a personable, bright-looking woman and head in that direction, am I 'attracted' to her? Well, yes, you could say that. Did I do anything wrong? Doubtful. I don't want to have sex with her, I just want to find out what she does and who she works for, see if we can do business together. I can even enjoy the conversation and trade business cards (with phone numbers on them!) without wanting her for my own or coming between her and her husband. But I was 'attracted' to her initially, or I would have gone and talked with someone else.

And remember, if all this polygamy talk is true, then there's nothing wrong with being 'attracted' to her in the sense of wanting to spend more time together to see if you'd be compatible as lifetime partners. The only thing that would make that wrong is if she's already married to someone else.

And that's the point of the whole thing. I don't think the prohibition against adultery is even about our relationships with women. It's about our relationships with other men. I don't hit on your women; you don't hit on mine. Works better for everybody (including especially the women).

Got one other thought. This is R-rated; sensitive eyes can skip this part.

I don't know how many males make it through adolescence in this culture without some kind of acquaintance, however minimal, with pornography and/or masturbation. We have created a culture in which we mature biologically ten or more years before we're ready to take on the responsibilities of getting married and having children. That leaves our sex drive—our fundamental, primal, limbic, "I feel funny and I don't know why" sex drive—with a whole lot of nothing to do for a decade or more. You have to have either very low testosterone or a very low IQ or an iron will to make it through your extended adolescence without some kind of curiosity getting the best of you. Maybe more than once.... :shock:

The point here is that a guy in that predicament learns to fantasize. In some cases, he gets very good at it. This is not a healthy situation.

I wonder how much of our Sunday school angst over Mt 5:28 is just adolescence gone wrong. (Note: I'm not talking about men with a sincere desire to live a holy, separated life with sincere questions about where the line is. I'm talking about the youth leaders and Sunday school teachers that have just beat this to death in a misguided effort to 'do something' about teenaged fornication, or about all those married men that are just ticking time bombs waiting to bang their secretary on her desk the minute no one is looking.) If you are sexually content, then you aren't going to spend a lot of time desiring other women, let alone other guy's wives, in the first place. Ideally, none. No itch that needs scratching.

So to wrap this up: A beautiful woman is like a beautiful sunset. Enjoy, appreciate, give thanks to the Creator for those little moments when something extraordinary happens, and move on. If you find yourself wishing you could be with her or fantasizing about what it would be like, apologize to the Creator for being an ungrateful, selfish idiot, and move on. Under no circumstances spend the rest of your life with one hand over your eyes peeking through your fingers in case you see an attractive woman and have to avert your eyes so you won't 'sin' by noticing that she's attractive. That can't be what Jesus meant.

 

[andrew]

Now that you bring this up, wouldn't King Solomon be guilty of adultery just as his father? How in the world could he have followed the commandment in Ex 21:10-11? It seems odd to me that God specifically condemns David for his sin, but the sin of Solomon was that he followed after other gods. It wasn't even about the commandment about multiplying wives. His specific failure was that he followed after other gods because he loved his wives.

Wow, I've never disagreed with Tom before, so this is new territory, but I'm just not following the argument that Ex 21 abandonment is adultery. It certainly doesn't say that in the text, and it seems forced to me to impose that revised definition of adultery on the text. So my responses to the above would be: No, Solomon was not guilty of adultery. It's not odd that God specifically condemned David because he slept with another man's wife (textbook definition of adultery) and then had the husband murdered after the woman conceived a child (also a no-no, also specifically condemned for David). Solomon is specifically condemned for following after his foreign wives' gods, which makes sense, since God specifically said not to marry foreign women and warned what it would lead to. And Solomon is not specifically condemned for anything else with respect to his wives so I don't see the utility in speculating about what other things he may or may not have done wrong. I certainly don't see the utility of expanding the definition of adultery (a capital crime in God's economy) to include 'not providing for your wife' (the penalty for which is supposed to be that she can leave you).

 

[NetWatchR]

Let me think out-loud here for a second:

Throughout the Bible, adultery is compared to idolatry. This makes sense as marriage is the physical representation of the spiritual: The relationship between God/Christ and his people.

Ok. So, we agree that adultery in the traditional sense (having sex with another's wife) would be the same as committing idolatry (holding something higher than God).

Now, if a husband, or wife for that matter, were to refrain from sex with their spouse, this would parallel not praying or communing with God. So, the question then becomes, if we are not praying or communing with God, would we be committing idolatry?

If so, then the answer is, yes, withholding marital rights is a form of adultery. If the answer is no, then it is still defiance of the law, but not adultery.

 

[andrew]

Let me think out-loud here for a second:

Throughout the Bible, adultery is compared to idolatry. This makes sense as marriage is the physical representation of the spiritual: The relationship between God/Christ and his people.

Ok. So, we agree that adultery in the traditional sense (having sex with another's wife) would be the same as committing idolatry (holding something higher than God).

Now, if a husband, or wife for that matter, were to refrain from sex with their spouse, this would parallel not praying or communing with God. So, the question then becomes, if we are not praying or communing with God, would we be committing idolatry?

If so, then the answer is, yes, withholding marital rights is a form of adultery. If the answer is no, then it is still defiance of the law, but not adultery.

Mixing apples and oranges, friend. Our spiritual adultery does not compare to the man's withholding of provision or to a man's having sex with another man's wife, it compares to the woman's going after another lover/provider. We are to Christ as a bride to her husband.

When we turn from the one true God to some other source, we are committing adultery in the same way a married woman would. If a woman withholds her affection, let alone her sex, from her husband, it is not adultery. (It is according to Tom, but not according to the classic definition, and not according to any bible text.) It may exhibit a Jezebel spirit of control (whose name, btw, means 'to not lie with'...), but it is not adultery.

 

[NetWatchR]

To andrew: I agree. I am having a hard time following Tom on this one and was trying to put it in another light. Like I said, thinking out-loud. I can follow how he got there, but it's like a GPS that says to cross a bridge that isn't there.

To the general populace: I am a firm believer that God made things simple (never confuse simple with easy, btw). I think it's very straight forward that a concubine (remember, that's who we are talking about in Ex 21:7-11) can leave if the husband does not provide 1, 2, and 3.

cwcsmc brings up a good point, in his own unique way , that there is no way that Solomon met #3 for all 1000 of his women. #1? Not a problem, he's the king. #2? He's the king! #3? Ehhhh, that's one busy dude. Simple math: 2 per day = 730; 270 left to go (or 3/day for 270 days and 2/day for 95 days). "Thank you so much for stopping by. Same time next year?" Even I would get tired of that after the first year or ten. So, why didn't they leave if they wanted more of #3? He's the king! I'm sure they were willing to wait.

 

[andrew]

It's like a GPS that says to cross a bridge that isn't there.

What a great analogy! That's not a comment either way on Tom's argument, I just love a good mental picture.

I am a firm believer that God made things simple (never confuse simple with easy, btw). I think it's very straight forward that a concubine (remember, that's who we are talking about in Ex 21:7-11) can leave if the husband does not provide 1, 2, and 3.

Ditto. Main and plain.

cwcsmc brings up a good point, in his own unique way , that there is no way that Solomon met #3 for all 1000 of his women.

Or did he?...

Here's what we have:

a verse that says concubines can leave if they don't get food, clothing, and "duties of marriage",
an understanding that "duties of marriage" is a euphemism for sex and children, and
a king with 700 concubines and no record that he had any trouble with their bailing on him because he wasn't taking care of them.

So what we have is either:

a king with a Herculean sexual capacity (respect!), or
a king that stiffed (ouch) his concubines on their legitimate provision and got away with it (no record of any rebuke or problem), or
a faulty understanding of what "duties of marriage" are.

I don't have a big investment in this, but I'm noticing that:

the word translated "duties of marriage" literally means to dwell together or cohabit, and
"food, clothing, and shelter" is the classic formulation of the basic needs of life.

So what if it's not a euphemism, but it really just means exactly what it says? Food, clothing, and a place to crash.

Like I said, not a big deal for me, and I'm fine to leave it at "I don't have any idea how he took care of all of those women; he must be quite a guy". But before we start assuming that he did something unlawful or immoral, maybe we should at least recognize that maybe he didn't.