• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Men Committing Adultery

aineo

aineo

Moderator
Staff member
Real Person*
Male
I periodically read from Dr. William Luck's 'Systematic Biblical Ethics' (2013). On page 236 he makes the following statement:

And in doing so we have the final connotational element of the definition of adultery: breach of covenant, where the promise breached was an essential one to the covenant of marriage. The woman’s promise was to be exclusive, while the man’s was to provide. Either promise could be breached. Either was adultery.​

Unilateral divorce, that is, divorce without the other person having committed a covenant‐breaching act, constitutes the act of adultery, and anyone participating in such a divorce could be charged with that offense. This is underscored by the second saying of Jesus, where, again, the man is guilty of adultery by marrying a woman divorced.
​
There is considerable more to the text than this, but I thought this was enough to get the conversation started.

The passage of the Bible he is referring to is Matthew 5:31-32:

Matthew 5:31 (WEB) It was also said, 'Whoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorce,' 32 but I tell you that whoever puts away his wife, except for the cause of sexual immorality, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries her when she is put away commits adultery.​

In summary, Dr. Luck surmises that adultery is divorce without the other person committing a covenant-breaching act, which in the case of the man would be not providing for his wife (see underlined text in the verses above).

While I think the point about a man supporting is wife is morally good and can be supported with scripture, I am struggling to back up his statement that a man who does not support his wife is committing adultery.

I am curious to hear others thoughts, especially if there is someone who can provide more context to back up what Dr. Luck says with more from the Bible.
 
Yeah I think we're all likely to actually agree on this one. Not providing is bad, but different than "adultery".

It does for me bring up related questions/thoughts though. A covenant is at it's core a contract, so can the man though still be in "breach of contract" if you will, thereby breaking the covenant? It seems to me that when the descendants of Abraham were not keeping the covenant, then God was not bound to his side, specifically everlasting ownership of the land of Canaan. Yet when they returned to him he would again raise them up. Was coming back to the terms of the covenant because it still bound him, or because he was merciful?

Now here's one though, what about a husband that has sexual relations with another man? What does that mean for his marriage with his wife?
 
I think God coming back to the terms of the covenant was because of His mercy. If the terms of the agreement are broken by any party, the contract is void, and that seems to be the approach Dr. Luck is taking when he states it is adultery when a man doesn't provide for his wife. Perhaps his use of adultery as the descriptive word is not correct, but perhaps restating it as one who breaks their covenant is a better way to say it. As I think this out, perhaps he is defining adultery as breaking the covenant, which for a woman is relations with another man and for the man it is not caring/providing for the woman.

Dr. Luck states that "makes her commit adultery" in Matthew 5:32 is probably better translated as "causes her to be adulterized" or "causes her to experience adultery" because the Greek word, μοιχευθηναι "is the aorist, passive or middle infinitive of the word for “commits adultery.” This means that the action is definite, either done against her by someone else (passive voice) or by her against herself (middle‐intensive voice: “her herself to commit adultery” or reflexive‐middle voice: “causes her to commit adultery against herself”)." He goes on to explain that the passive seems to be the more logical translation, though traditionally it has been translated as active, which "never happens in the aorist tense".

Anyhow, back to your question UntoldGlory, I do think God coming back to the terms of the covenant was due to His mercy. And the second topic? I am not sure if that is covenant breaking or not, but it is a sin worthy of death (Lev 20:13). Does this release the woman from the covenant? I am not sure, though I tend to lean toward yes.
 
And the second topic? I am not sure if that is covenant breaking or not, but it is a sin worthy of death (Lev 20:13). Does this release the woman from the covenant? I am not sure, though I tend to lean toward yes.
Click to expand...

As far as i know adultery was sin worthy of death too. You could then argue that any sin worthy of death can release the other from the covenant. If the sinner was actually put to death it would also be over. Showing mercy by keeping him alive does not automaticaly have to result in that the spouse has to accept that sin and stay in the marriage. Because the sin was serious enough to erase that person from the whole community.
 
Last edited:
woman said:
As far as i know adultery was sin worthy of death too. You could then argue that any sin worthy of death can release the other from the covenant. If the sinner was actually put to death it would also be over. Showing mercy by keeping him alive does not automaticaly have to result in that the spouse has to accept that sin and stay in the marriage. Because the sin was serious enough to erase that person from the whole community.
Click to expand...

I can't completely argue against this but I don't think it would stand up to a vigorous debate though it is compelling logic.
 
ZecAustin said:
I can't completely argue against this but I don't think it would stand up to a vigorous debate though it is compelling logic.
Click to expand...

I think it is one of those situations you should look at case by case to see what line to follow, cause the bible is not very explicit on every single situation imaginable. But all to often we forget the seriousness of certain behaviours. We forget that there was a deathpenalty for some sins. And even if death penalty is lifted, the sin is still a very serious sin.
 
Hi, Adultery, adulteration does break the marriage covenant. However the scriptural definition for adultery is not what you find in the dictionary or many churches. Adulteration is a mixing. Statutes in scripture include mixing of farm seed, animals, people and in marriage. In marriage a married woman must always be involved. A man must mix his seed (intercourse) in the wife of another man. This is adulteration. If a married man has intercourse with a single woman he may have violated a trust and he may be guilty of fornication, but not adultery.

Tim
 
Zec, he specifically said "may be guilty of fornication", not "is", so I think Tim's probably well aware of that and worded his statement carefully because of it! :-)
 
ZecAustin said:
And all the old timers groaned and covered their eyes but I have to point out that fornication is not having sex with an "unmarried" woman.
Click to expand...

Then how do you define the difference between fornication and adultery (in a nutshell)?
 
Mojo said:
Then how do you define the difference between fornication and adultery (in a nutshell)?
Click to expand...

Usually when you see the word "fornication" in the Bible it is a translation of the Greek word "porneia." This word means prohibited sexual acts. Which sexual acts it is that are being prohibited is not clearly defined inside the passages where the word is used, at least not normally and never fully.

So you have to pick the list you want to use to define those acts. I, and many others, maintain that the only comprehensive list we have is that which occurs in Leviticus. Others say others things but I'm not the best one to explain those because none of those explanations make sense to me.

So the short answer is that fornication is those sexual acts that are prohibited anywhere in Scripture, but they all show up in the Mosaic Law. Sex outside of marriage is a very hard concept to find in Scripture, so much so that most people who you will read on this site who say that there can be such a thing have to say that it is not prohibited in Scripture. If you're interested in the best explanation of this idea then search for Eristophanes' posts. He's wrong on this particular issue but he makes the best case.

The caveat here is that everyone agrees that sex with a virgin results in a marriage no matter what, unless her father refuses to give her to the prospective husband.

I, and I'm in the minority on this I think, maintain that sex always results in either a marriage or adultery. Therefore sex outside of marriage is an impossibility and can not be the definition of fornication.
 
Last edited:
Interesting thoughts. Thanks.

A couple of questions again, but no statement:

What of the man who engages in a sexual act with an unmarried non-virgin?
Since she is "married" to someone in her past due to sexual history, are they worthy to be stoned?
 
Do you really mean an "unmarried" non-virgin, or a "married" non-virgin? You state both terms regarding her.
If she is truly unmarried, she is most likely a widow, or a divorcee who has been divorced legally as outlined in Deuteronomy. In either case she is completely available to marry (whether that means having sex with her and therefore being married, or getting married and therefore being able to have sex).
If she is a married non-virgin, then it would be adultery.
If her situation is "complex" we could get into a really long hypothetical debate about whether or not her past makes her married. But if all we're considering is stoning, if no man considers her to be his wife, then nobody would accuse her of adultery, without an accuser there is no case (we even have Yeshua's example on that) - and they wouldn't be stoned.
 
Eligibility is a simple issue on the surface that can get really complicated in individual cases. A few quick iron clad truths though are that if a woman leaves her husband the she is not eligible for remarriage. And anything that happened before salvation is wiped clean. It doesn't exist.
 
I meant a formerly promiscuous woman, not united or involved with any man currently. Any number of them could lay claim to her, even if she doesn't recognize their claim. Is she married? Does the next in line commit adultery with her? Did all the others after the first commit adultery?
 
This is where it gets complicated. Draw a line and start from her salvation experience. Any man she had sex with has a claim on her. Any of those men who put her away unlawfully , i.e. without a certificate of divorce, has revoked his claim, taken the sin of adultery on himself and I believe disqualified himself from taking anymore wives. If any of these men have sent her away with a certificate of divorce or were unbelievers then she is free to remarry. The only real restriction on her is if she initiated the split. Then she is to remain single or be reconciled.

This is a difficult teaching and I know some wonderful women who are bound by it from remarriage. This is why the question of constitutes a marriage is so important.
 
This is interesting. I will ask more questions just for the sake of you fleshing out your argument via The Socratic method...and me either embracing your POV or rejecting it based on the merits of the answers...if you don't mind.

What if after salvation, this woman engaged in sexual activities with only one man, but this man proved himself unworthy and unable to provide safety and security financially or emotionally due to debauched living. He claims the name of Christ, but provides none of the evidences of a husband as described by Peter and Paul? Some divorce advocates cite "abandonment" or "harm" as a breaking of the covenant.

What is your view under these circumstances? Is she free to leave citing a break in covenant?

What if said woman has no father to refuse or accept a claim by one of her partners (past or present) and no older male next of kin to advocate for her? Is she allowed to accept or reject such claims and move on?
 
There is no provision for a Christian woman to leave her husband and remarry. If his behavior is so egregious that she can't live with him then she is to remain single during his lifetime or be reconciled to him. Not read that carefully, a Christian wife can leave an abusive husband but she can't remarry. It's a hard thing to hear but you have to invent a lot of scripture to directly controvert some very simple and direct Scripture to come up with any other conclusion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top