• 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.

Sex is why polygyny is wrong

MiniMinistries

MiniMinistries

New Member
That's what a dear sister emailed me recently. I couldn't believe what I was reading because of all the scriptural proof that polygyny was and is a blessed and holy marriage throughout the Bible.

I was ready to reply with the usual scriptural references of marital relations and holy one flesh versus fornication when my wife pointed out something I have missed entirely regarding polygyny and what Jesus said about lust.

Jesus said that if a man look at a woman with lust he has committed adultery in his heart already. That got me thinking about lust and desire.

When we seek a potential mate, there is undeniably a level of physical attraction. Maybe we notice certain physical features that are pleasing to our eyes. Some men are attracted to beautiful eyes, a bright smile, a well defined pair of legs, a buxom chest or derriere and so on. By acknowledging those features are pleasing to us physically, are we then in violation of adultery in our hearts?

By noticing a woman's attractive features while married to a first wife, is that lust in your opinion? I have seen synonyms for lust as also being desire, a less stringent definition.

Your thoughts brothers and sisters?

In Christ,
MM
 
Speaking from the original language of Greek epithume in its most root and basic form means to desire. If you look at the ESV version they do a good job of translating this word in James 1:14-15 where they wisely and correctly use the term "desire." Older scholars used the term lust but due to the connotations that term now carries it is not the best term to use.

In regard to Jesus Christ's statement the key to that verse is the Greek word gune as defined by context. To desire a woman who is bonded or already joined to another man would constitute adultery. To desire a woman who is not joined to another man is holy and pleasing to the Lord. Many fail to understand that verse you referenced and thus by saying any desire for any woman is lust, i.e. a sinful desire, they have just made the natural and innate biological heterosexual desire to be sinful and evil, which is the root of gnosticism that brings forth the sin of asceticism.
 
Expanding on what Dr Allen wrote, I read long ago, during my early days of studying PM (so circa '98 or '99) that this verse has been so badly misused to trash good folk and instill unearned guilt.

The key, I read, lies in the translators' interpretation of Hebrew and Greek usage. Just as we have a series of words for airborne water (fog, mist, drizzle, rain, downpour ...), so both Hebrews and Greeks refered to women by their marital status.

The Hebrew has 4 words that were translated in English as:
** Virgin -- never married. Should be as well, but the original word doesn't guarantee it.
** Woman -- currently married (with flavors of wife, concubine, betrothed)
** Divorced -- No longer married due to divorce
** Widow -- no longer married due to death

While the Greek used just 3:
** Virgin -- never married
** Woman -- currently married
** Widow -- no longer married, due to EITHER divorce or death

With this in mind, What Jesus was saying could be more clearly translated as, "If you continue looking (as opposed to a fleeting thought rapidly rejected) at a woman who you know to be married, with a strong (maybe overpowering) desire to have sex with her, you have already committed adultery with her in your heart."

That is obviously a whole 'nother animal than having a strong desire to unite in all ways with someone who is properly available, whether as a "virgin" or as a "widow".

Dr Allen, if any of this is in error, please let me know and I'll correct the post.
 
Cecil that Looks to be very much on target.

The only slight addition I would add is that we know the "woman" status by the case of it in the Greek or by a preceding possessive pronoun, or even by fuller context. For example in Ephesians 5:31 we find this phrase: ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα (heautou gunaika). The heautou signifies the type of gunaika, i.e. a taken woman or joined woman. The heautou is a genitive singular that modifies a singular noun, woman, and thus shows us the definite attached status.

There are times when a woman would not be either a virgin, widow, divorced, or joined. If she was a prostitute she would not have been considered "joined by covenant" or even in a concubinage estate and thus in those cases it could be just a "woman" that fits no other category. And if she was now in Christ she would no longer be classed as a prostitute either due to the new position in Christ as Paul said in 1 Cor. 6:11.

In the case of Matthew 5 we know Christ was speaking of a joined woman because he used the word from the root word moicheo (adultery) instead of the general term porneia (general sexual immorality/disorder), and thus by that contextual clue it shows this woman had to be a joined woman.
 
Matthew 5:28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

This verse caused me to stop in my tracks some time ago. I was doing a study on adultery and realized that this verse didn't seem to fit in with all the other verses that I had found dealing with adultery so I looked at the verse a little closer and something came to me that may be my own little heresy...or maybe there is something to it...

I thought how can it be that "everyone who looks at a woman" can include a single man looking at a single woman and result in adultery?

First let's look at the action of the person...they are looking at a woman with lustful intent. This is covetousness, and we are told by the Apostle Paul that covetousness is idolatry.

Colossians 3:5 Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.

Then we need to go one step further and look closer at idolatry.

God frequently refers to the Israelites as adulterers because of their worship of (lusting after) other gods.

Ezekiel 23:37 For they have committed adultery, and blood is on their hands. With their idols they have committed adultery, and they have even offered up to them for food the children whom they had borne to me.

When anyone lusts after something it is covetousness, which is idolatry, which God considers to be adultery in our relationship with Him.
 
Scarecrow,

You're certainly right that lust and coveting and idolatry can all run concurrently together.

But would you say that lust is here more than to desire a joined woman?

I would be interested in your thoughts on do you think a man can sin by desiring a single woman? Or is it when the man desires to have a woman who God has not given to him that makes him in the sin of coveting?

I lean to the idea that the natural biological desire itself is not coveting unless that desire goes to a level where one seeks to actually have something that God does not desire for him to have, and thus then it would be the sin of coveting. But too does not covet mean wanting something that is not yours or cannot rightfully be yours?

Brainstorming here with ya
 
"But too does not covet mean wanting something that is not yours or cannot rightfully be yours?"

Those are two separate and distinct things. Wanting something that is not currently yours is not necessarily coveting. I can want a rare painting that is for sale in a gallery without coveting it. But if I want my neighbor's rare painting and he is unwilling to sell it to me then I might find myself coveting it.

If anyone lusts after a woman that is adultery...if there is a desire for her (she is attractive but lust is not present - also assuming that she is available) that seems perfectly normal and acceptable.

The key is the action in the sentence...lusting after. Had Jesus been more specific and stated that "If a man looks at a married woman with lustful intent he commits adultery in his heart" it would be easy and obvious what was being said and would be along the same lines as other scriptures. Instead the verse is very general in many aspects which is what caused me to dig into this particular verse deeper.
 
Matthew 5:28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Click to expand...

I believe the inclusion of the word adultery, rather than fornication narrows the scope of the lustful intent. Adultery by definition and example in the scripture is always a violation of the marital status of a married woman. Even lust itself is a neutral word, becoming sinful only when it is incorporated as lust (strong desire) that is covetous for someone or thing that is contrary to the revealed will of God.
 
Very good insights so far. In reading them, I got snagged again on the use of a man committing adultery in his heart. Isn't the qualifier for a man to be guilty of adultery, he has to cause the woman to break her wedlock?

If the woman in question is single, then how could the man be guilty of adultery, since she has no such wedlock to break?

Further still, if adultery is likened to covetness and idolatry but desire is "normal" in regards to finding physical attributes applealing, then how is Jesus' truthful characterization of adultery applied evenly as it pertains to plural marriage?

(and the brainstorming continues)

MM
 
If the woman in question is single, then how could the man be guilty of adultery, since she has no such wedlock to break?
Click to expand...

That seems to me to be a key to the proper interpretation. What other text would ever point to the idea that a joined man could commit adultery with a single woman? I don't think there are any verses that speak of it in that way.


Also, from my reading of this in the Greek again I noticed something too that might play into this. I forgot that the term for adultery can also fit within the referent of unfaithfulness. But numerous lexicons show the various referents or related senses of this term and this is often the 2nd or 3rd definition to the term itself.

Some might wonder how can a man commit adultery if there is no actual break up of a union.

But if phrase by Christ in regard to adultery is a referent to unfaithfulness then in Christ's mind he could have been saying "any of you who desire for yourself a joined woman you are in your heart being unfaithful." In other words, a man could be guilty, or any person (Sacrecrow?), if the person is wanting to take another person's woman. The goal or desire to take that which does not belong to you would reveal a corruption, or unfaithful attitude or thought process, in the person. It would be the seed of the heart like hate is the seed of murder.
 
You know, that kind of sheds light on the commandment "Thou shalt not commit adultery". By that I mean to take the literal definition of adultery, then that commandment becomes intrinsic in it's meaning in perpetuity (a woman that breaks her wedlock, and that seems to be a gender specific commandment, yet the ten commandments of the Torah applies to both genders).

However by applying that logic, it appears that Jesus would have conflicted that commandment in regards to a single woman.

Of course "God is not the author of confusion" and Jesus would never have conflicted God in any manner whatsoever.
 
However by applying that logic, it appears that Jesus would have conflicted that commandment in regards to a single woman.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand that sentence. Can you explain further on that.
 
If we apply the definition of adultery as a woman that breaks her wedlock, or if a man causes her to commit adultery as in the ten commandments is guilty of "adultery", then Jesus' statement of if a man lusts after a single woman has committed adultery in his heart already doesnt mean the same kind if adultery.

Wow...after re reading that it really is kind of confusing. Could it be there is a duel meaning of adultery? If so, where can a scriptural reference be found?

What if there is some interpretation issue with the correct application of the word adultery that shows we may be incorrect with our understanding of that meaning? Would those of us that live plural marriage be guilty of adultery when courting another wife that has caught our interest both emotionally and physically?
 
Oh I see. Theologians call this issue continuity and discontinuity. How much carries over from the OC to the NC in the exact form. All Judeo-Christian theologians admit to some degree things changed. For example, we no longer make sacrifices for sin this side of the Cross. But from there many differ as to how much carries over exactly and to what degree. You have some more along the lines of discontinuity (like Dr. Darby, Dr. Scofield, Dr. Chafer, Dr. Walvoord, Dr. Ryrie, etc). Then you have some more towards the middle (Dr. Bruce Ware, Dr. Walter Kaiser, Dr. Darrell Bock, Dr. Robert Saucy, Dr. J. Oliver Buswell). Then others on the other side of much more continuity (Dr. Robert Reymond, Dr. R.C. Sproul, Dr. Charles Hodge, Dr. Bruce Waltke, and others).

I think the idea of adultery is consistent and constant. However, I would agree with the one principle that all of the theologians above agree with, which is that Christ amplified the law to the internal heart matter. Some say it this way: "he brought out the true intentions of the law." Others say, "he brought in a higher law." Others says, "the law was amplified to a stronger sense under Christ's teaching." Each reflects the ideology they have on the continuity and discontinuity debate issue but even so they all agree that Christ's teaching went to the essence or the highest point of principle in the law code.

Thus, to me it seems like Christ was teaching that adultery is more than just the physical act. Adultery is connected to the root seed of being unfaithful. It is not just when the actual sexual intercourse takes place with a man's woman that reveals the sin. The sin started in the heat before in the seed of an ungodly, or unfaithful, desire. Adultery is then defined by a continuum line, not just in the physical act. In other words, when God says: "do not commit adultery," he was also saying in that: "do not desire to take a woman who belongs to another as that is a form of adultery, unfaithfulness, in the heart."

Too this would coalesce with the idea Christ taught that a man can also be guilty of adultery by putting a woman away unjustly. SO to that is adultery as well. A man who puts a woman away when she has not broken the union is adulterous in himself in his act even though it was not him stealing a woman.

TO this would fit with Christ's teaching that what comes from the heart is what defiles a man.

So it looks like the definition for adultery is with a range or continuum sense to it which would include the following:
-the inner heart drive to take a joined woman
-the unjust act of putting a woman away without justification
-the act of taking a joined woman emotionally and sexually

All of those fall under the one sense of unfaithfulness while allowing for a range of meaning within that one single sense meaning.

Thus it seems to me there is a range of meaning (not multiple senses but a range of referents within one sense, as Dr. Eliot Johnson would say in his work on language analysis).

But in that sense there would not be a violation of a man desiring a single woman who was available so long as he was in control of his desires and was walking in the Spirit.
 
"Could it be there is a duel (dual?) meaning of adultery?"

I believe that a covenant is a covenant, but covenants are used in more than one way which can give the appearance of a dual meaning. A covenant is a contract, and adultery is the breaking of a covenant. We see covenants being used for different things between God and men, between God and nations, between nations and other nations, and between men and women to mention a few.

To separate adultery into two basic categories there is spiritual adultery and physical adultery. When we covet we commit adultery spiritually by being idolatrous (worship God and Him alone), when a man sleeps with another man's wife he and the woman are both committing physical adultery. This is where my understanding of divorce developed from. God states that for a time He divorced Israel because of her adultery (idolatry) but then He renewed His covenant later; in a marriage where the covenant is broken there is sufficient grounds for divorcement as well.
 
Yeshua was a Jew and was speaking to the Jewish people. His immediate audience would have been very familiar with the 10 suggestions. ( :lol: er, uh, commandments...)

The 10th is:
Exodus 20:17 NKJV "You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's."
Click to expand...
That phrase, "anything that is your neighbor's," is the key. We are not to covet ANYTHING that belongs to another man. And note that the second example is "your neighbor's wife."

If a man wants to sell his month-old Hummer, then (in a sense) it is not his, but it belongs to the first person with whom he agrees on a sale price and who subsequently follows through with the agreed-upon payment(s). Thus, to desire something that your neighbor owns but might be willing to sell (and you might not know that he's willing to sell it until you ask him) is not the same as coveting something "that is your neighbor's." But, as was pointed out, if he says it's not for sale, continued desire to own that particular Hummer is (or can quickly become) coveting as forbidden by the 10th commandment. And it's not wrong to desire that YHWH will bless you with a Hummer similar to your neighbor's, until such time that He might tell you, "No." (If He does say "no," then continued desire for whatever He said "no" to can become sin.)

(Which brings up a side question: is it ever right to sell a wife? Before giving a "gut-reaction" answer, read Exodus 21:1-6. It appears that, after being granted your freedom at the end of six years of being a servant [slave], it is OK to "sell" a wife that your master might have given to you, in order to keep your just-granted freedom...but is there any practical application of that OT law for 21st-century true Christians who believe and live by what the Bible teaches? Can we draw some general principle from that passage, or is it intended to cover only a very specific situation?)

When Jesus said not to "epithumeō" a woman, He probably actually used the Hebrew word "châmad." But the writers of the Gospels (or possibly translators - one or more of the Gospels may have been written in Hebrew) used the nearest Greek equivalent, "epithumeō." And likewise, when He said "moicheuō," He probably actually used the Hebrew word, "nâ'aph." Thus, his immediate audience would have interpreted His words in light of the 7th and 10th commandments.

Were it wrong for a man to desire an available woman, then it would also follow logically that marriage is wrong. For how can marriage take place if a man does not desire some particular available woman?

Were it wrong for a man to desire an available woman, then a husband sins every time he looks upon his wife and fails to suppress his hormonal urges. (She is available to HIM! :D )

Were it wrong for a man to desire an available woman, then YHWH's command to be fruitful and multiply (given to both Adam and Noah) would be a cruel mockery.

If it is wrong for a man to desire an available woman, then maybe those idiots who say that sex was the forbidden fruit might be right...? :o
 
MiniMinistries said:
Further still, if adultery is likened to covetness and idolatry but desire is "normal" in regards to finding physical attributes applealing, then how is Jesus' truthful characterization of adultery applied evenly as it pertains to plural marriage?
Click to expand...

It isn't. Hang that objection up for the absolute ridiculous nonsense it is, and move on, my friend.

Remember Nehemiah? "I am doing a good work and cannot come down"?

Some objections make a degree of initial sense, and need to be reasoned through to a logical conclusion to reveal the error in their underlying premise. This one just doesn't take much.

Btw, adultery and coveteousness are two different commandments and words because they ARE two different things. They can be tied together in the same situation, but they are not the same thing. So can coveteousness and murder. (David / Uriah) Not the same thing either.

God included some poly supportive language in the 10th commandment, if you stop to think about it. It does NOT say "thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's spouse", else a woman could not desire to marry her neighbor's husband. It does NOT say "thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's unwed daughter", or young ladies would have a hard time getting married in the first place. Doesn't even say "thou shalt not covet they neighbor's widow," else she'd be stuck. Nope! Just "thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's WIFE!", as a separate and thus emphasized clause.

This ties directly to what Jesus said. It is a MARRIED woman with whom you commit the male half of adultery in your heart if you look and keep on looking with sexual desire.

God does not impute iniquity to us for having a thought cross our minds. You can't help it if birds fly over your head. You can keep them from nesting in your hair. In the same way, the problem comes when you choose to snag the passing thought and give it its own furnished suite in your head. "If I regard iniquity in my heart, YHWH will not hear me." I'll just bet that that word, in the original, does not imply "seeing it pass by", but rather "look, and keep on looking with desire and respect or whatever, that holds onto it."

But desiring a woman who is not "a WIFE" to be added to your family in appropriate fashion is not sin. Best answer to that objection is "Ri-i-i-i-ight!", and keep on truckin'!
 
"Further still, if adultery is likened to covetness and idolatry but desire is "normal" in regards to finding physical attributes applealing..."

This statement seems to indicate that it is impossible for a man to look at a woman without having lustful thoughts. I happen to enjoy looking at a woman with nice legs, or a nice butt, or other attributes that are appealing. Somehow I manage to enjoy it for what it is...a nice looking woman...without undressing her in my mind. I often have thoughts like "she takes good care of herself" or "wow what a beautiful smile" and many others without the need to handcuff myself to the nearest street light to prevent myself from launching upon her.

A distinction between "lustful intent" and desire needs to be understood. This is clearly an act of covetousness due to the "lustful intent". Your mouth can be dry and you desire to get a glass of water to quench your thirst - hardly a covetous sinful act which would cause someone to be guilty of adultery. To want something (desire), even an unmarried woman is perfectly normal and acceptable. Lust is an inappropriate (often sexual) desire for something that is not yours (hmmm...sounds almost like covetousness). In this case it is sexual lust because a woman and a man are involved. It is sinful because sex (or sexual thoughts) outside of marriage is either fornication or adultery.

Linking this action of "lustful intent" with covetousness should be obvious to anyone. Understanding that covetousness is idolatry and that idolatry is adultery is seen in the scriptures and requires no special gift of discernment.
 
Would not lust/desire be determined by the object it is after and the content of how that object is desired?

For example, if a man looks as a gorgeous woman but does not want to have relations with her outside of continual union would that not be a righteous and properly governed desire?

But lets say he wants to just have relations with her with no ongoing union, i.e. outside of a covenant bond, would that then not be a sinful desire? Or let's say the woman he notices as gorgeous is a joined women yet he still desires to actually have her for himself then would that not be too a case where natural desire has crossed the boundaries over into the sinful realm?

And if the above is so on both cases would it not be accurate to then say: "what determines if it is holy or sinful desire is rather or not the desire is properly governed within the boundaries God sets for our desires"?
 
Most of the time those passages refer to ANOTHER MANS WIFE. That is actually what adultery used to mean before the meaning was changed.

"Adultery (also called philandery) is a form of extramarital sex. It is sexual infidelity to one's spouse. It originally referred only to sex between a woman who was married and a person other than her spouse.[1] Even in cases of separation from one's spouse, an extramarital affair is still considered adultery..... "

Now people use the word adultery to say if you look at or love anyone other than your own wife it is adultery but that was not the original idea. If you look at another mans wife- more precisely- a woman whom you know to be married and you look at her with lust in your heart and mind, then you have committed adultery.

In today's "new" meaning of the world adultery- everyone has committed it because we are only human, however, in the old meaning of the word adultery- it was more obvious to know when you were committing adultery because you had to literately covet after another mans wife.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top