Who is charged with adultery here?

[alexiarose]

Ok, we all know that scripture says that if you covet, lust after, have sex with, whatever terminology you choose to use, another while you are married, you commit adultery. My question is if there is anything in scripture that would clarify the following:

John marries Tina. 10 years later, John gets bored. John travels a lot. So it becomes easy for him to strike up a relationship with Julie.

John marries Julie as well. Now, Julie isn't aware of Tina. But Julie is still committing adultery in the eyes of God and I can find no passage that would ease the guilt from Julie as well.

My inspiration for this comes from "While You Were Sleeping" The so best time romance movie ever with Sandra Bullock.. This guy she fantasizes about gets hit and is in a coma and she is the one who saved him so when she got to the hospital, she might have suggested she was the mans fiance. During the time the man is in a coma, she falls in love with his brother. Now, she knows the man and her have never even met, but the brother doesn't and he clearly falls in love with her as well. Talk about so sweet!!!!!

Anyways, by scripture, lusting after his brothers fiance isn't condoned.

Taking it a step further, as I have with the above scenario, John and Julie are both guilty of adultery in the eyes of God based on scripture, right?

[micatala]

(I edited -- please let me know if I misrepresent you)

So, to be consistent, you should be able to say, "well an overseer shouldn't be addicted to wine but for a regular believer it's okay", or, "a regular believer doesn't have to be respectable or prudent". Paul is just giving the minimum requirements here -- he doesn't say "an excellent teacher", although this is clearly desirable; he simply says "able" to teach.

Yes, Paul is giving a requirement for teachers. I don't see how this equates to a requirement for all believers. It says it is instructions for leaders. If he had meant this to apply to all believers, why is it only directed to teachers?

In context, this is spoken to Timothy, a young church leader, about how to run a church. He is being instructed how to appoint overseers, deacons, and so on, in order that the church would be well-governed. Weren't the church leaders there to provide an example to the laity? To say that it is ONLY applied to teachers is quite a logical leap. As I said before, apply that logic to any other quality Paul mentions and it doesn't make any sense.

Do church leaders serve as an example to laity? In general yes, but this does not necessarily mean we are all expected to meet the same standards the leadership does. Leaders are usually expected to meet higher standards.

Now, I would agree that it would be good if believers in general follow Paul's advice for leaders. I am just saying it is not required.

Part of our disagreement probably stems from my use of the word 'required'. I guess what I mean is that, according to scripture, a person could engage in polygamy and not be in violation of Biblical teaching or in violation of God's will. It is a matter between him (or her) and God. Just as Paul allows in Romans 14 that some might follow certain dietary or sabbath practices and others different practices and all could be OK with God, if they are acting in faith and in such a way as to not harm their brothers.

He also says that "anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." This statement doesn't make any sense at ALL unless we are talking about one man and one woman.

Why not? It seems to me you are reading the assumption of one wife into this. He might have meant one wife and I would accept that one wife would be the norm in the vast majority of cases. However, this is still not a prohibition against polygamy that I see.

This statement clearly assumes, "Anyone who marries another woman commits adultery", and then puts another condition onto it: "even if you get divorced and get remarried, it's still adultery".

Anyone who marries another woman after she is divorced is committing adultery. IF the woman has never been married, this verse does not seem to apply.

The passage doesn't say that SHE is divorced...
[/quote]

How could he divorce her and she not be considered divorced?

Now I'm confused. I thought that you said Paul DOESN'T address it and thus is never explicitly forbidden? Now you are saying Paul does address polygamy? In that case, would you say he is favorable or not favorable toward it?

What I was saying is that Paul does mention polygamy, but only in the context of church leaders. I would say he considers it unfavorably. However, this is not a blanket condemnation of the practice. Paul considers celibacy as preferrable to marriage, but certainly does not suggest no one should get married.


I should say more now, but am short on time!

[micatala]

To add to my previous post.

The passage doesn't say that SHE is divorced... remember it says that "whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery". Clearly the husband is intended here. Mark is even more explicit: "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her." That's why I said this is even stronger and more restrictive than saying simply "Whoever marries another woman commits adultery". In other words, Jesus says, "You're divorcing your wife? Unless she cheated on you, it's not divorce before God. If you marry someone else, you will have 2 wives. That is adultery."

31"It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.'[f] 32But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

Matthew certainly does not imply the husband is committing adultery by divorcing the woman. She and her future husbands, should she have any, would be.

5"It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. 6"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'[a] 7'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8and the two will become one flesh.'[c] So they are no longer two, but one. 9Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

10When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. 11He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."

I can see how the second passage in Mark at least suggests that people should be monogamous. However, I don't see that it is clearcut or unambiguous. The main lesson Jesus seems to be teaching here is that one should not divorce once one is married. In divorcing, the couple or at least the person initiating the divorce is abrogating a relationship that has been joined by God, one might say a covenant. Clearly the abrogation of that covenant is being forbidden by Jesus, except in the case of marital infidelity if one combines this with the statement in Matthew.

I know you are thinking I am picking nits, but I still don't see that these verses imply that one cannot form such a covenant with two different people, as long as one honors the covenant(s) that one has made.


One thing that these verses and the other verses from Timothy and the OT clearly indicate is that Biblical teachings on marriage and divorce are not consistent. The teaching on divorce in the OT is clearly at odds with Jesus' teaching, and Jesus even highlights this inconsistency.

The other lesson, I think, is that it is not always easy to unambiguously determine what language is saying, whether that language is in the Bible or elsewhere. Ambiguity is a difficult thing to eliminate. Context can help, but I don't think eliminates the problem.



At this point, I would suggest we just go on. The thread OP more or less assumes adultery is happening, and if we want to get back onto the topic under that assumption, I am fine with that.