Does adultery really break the marriage bond?

User avatar
Ian
Posts: 489
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 2:26 am

Re: Does adultery really break the marriage bond?

Post by Ian » Fri Dec 18, 2009 4:48 am

For what?
I`m merely reacting to Homer`s explanation as he sees it. Namely that Jewish men could put it about as they wished, as long as the woman wasn`t married. A woman doing the same would be tagged an adulteress regardless of whether the man was married or not. So we could have the theoretical situation of a man and a woman having sex together, she so doing is committing adultery but he not. So she deserves to be stoned to death while he walks away scot free, "wam bam thank you m`am". Sorry to be crude, but such a phrasing might well fit the mentality of the man in such a case. And all those Midianites were slain so that men could behave like this?
Perhaps you could explain why you think all this was in order.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Does adultery really break the marriage bond?

Post by steve » Fri Dec 18, 2009 11:09 am

Hi Ian,

I was considering your suggestion above, and, thinking about it more carefully, it does not seem to me that there would be any case where one partner in a sexual relationship was committing adultery and the other was not. All of the possibilities for the pairing of men and women (not married to each other) are listed below. In each case, either both parties are committing adultery, or both are not (under primitive Jewish thinking):

Married man—unmarried woman........neither is committing adultery, since the man's wife does not have exclusive claim on him
Married man—married woman...........both are committing adultery
Unmarried man—unmarried woman.....neither is committing adultery
Unmarried man—married woman........both are committing adultery

Now where the disparity comes in would be between the first and the last of these instances. The married man might have additional wives and mistresses without the stigma of adultery. The married woman could not do the same thing.

I believe the reason for this double standard was due to the nature and purpose of polygamy. Marriage was viewed primarily as the means of building a family and producing progeny—for the man. His name and estate were to be perpetuated if at all possible. If his first wife was barren, he (and she!) might think it good for him to take an additional female partner, who could, hopefully, fulfill this purpose (e.g., Gen.16:2; 30:1-3, 9). This was, I think, the "official" reason that polygamy was justified, though there is no question that it often was also adopted to serve less noble ends (e.g., lust, desire to build the family at a faster rate, and political prestige) among men whose wives were all fertile—e.g., Lamech (Gen.4:19ff), Jacob, David and Solomon.

I think polygamy was sometimes also practiced for the protection of women, who often outnumbered the men in the population, due to heavy casualties of war (see Isaiah 3:25—4:1). A widow was much more vulnerable to poverty and exploitation than was a married woman. For this reason, a man might charitably take widows, to whom he was not even attracted sexually, as additional wives into his home (as in the case of the man whose married brother had died childless—Deut.25:5).

In a culture where women were not regarded as equals to men (either by themselves or by society), the idea of a woman having to share a husband with other women was not regarded as the anomaly that modern westerners would regard it.

This being the purpose of polygamy, it becomes clear why there was a sexual double standard, so that women could not practice the same level of promiscuity as could the men. A man might have children by several women, and there be no question of parentage. On the other hand, a woman can only be pregnant by one man at a time, regardless of the number of men she sleeps with—and the parentage of every child could easily be in question. Also, widowed women were far more vulnerable than were widowed men, making it more necessary for them to find a husband, even if all the available men in town were already taken.

Extending this principle of polygamy to sex in general was a fairly predictable next step. A man could bear children by slaves and concubines as readily as by free women, so the former were legally available to him as well.

This does not mean that the society condoned actual sexual promiscuity on the part of men or women. Adultery was not the only sexual sin defined in scripture. Adultery is simply a sexual sin committed against a marriage covenant. For example, a man who would visit a prostitute may not technically have been an "adulterer"—but he could not do this without becoming a "fornicator" (1 Cor.6:15,18). Prostitution was forbidden in the Jewish law (Lev.19:29). Also, if a man slept with a girl who was not a prostitute, nor yet betrothed or married, it was not really a situation of "wam bam thank you m`am". He had to marry her and make the arrangement honorable. In fact, such an arrangement represents the only marriage, according to the law, which could never end in divorce (Ex.22:16; Deut.22:28-29).

There is no doubt that these customs provided unequal opportunities for men to vent their lusts and restrained women from doing so. The law was "weak through the flesh." It legislated, but it could not transform human nature. The purpose for the law's allowance of polygamy was probably reasonable, according to the sentiments of the day, but the sinfulness of man certainly will have stretched the principles to include morally unjustifiable behavior.

User avatar
Ian
Posts: 489
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 2:26 am

Re: Does adultery really break the marriage bond?

Post by Ian » Fri Dec 18, 2009 2:01 pm

Hi Steve,

Your answer does deal well with the theoretical scenario I mentioned regarding two possibly offending parties.
But the first combination leaves me bemused as to the rightness of the situation before the offended party. I don`t understand why the wife of the extra-maritally behaving man had "no exclusive claim on him", at least as regards concubines and the like.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Does adultery really break the marriage bond?

Post by steve » Fri Dec 18, 2009 3:21 pm

I say "no exclusive claim" because it was not the understanding in any ancient culture (to my knowledge) that the woman would never be sharing her husband with another wife. I believe that there were many (perhaps the vast majority) of husbands in Israel who were monogamous by choice, so that their wives would become accustomed to thinking of having an exclusive claim on his affections, and her expectations might be honored by him. Not all men are driven by lust—especially in cultures where most men and women, being poor peasants, both work themselves to exhaustion six or seven days of every week. The expense of supporting more than one wife (and her children) would probably be so prohibitive to the average peasant that it was never even considered.

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Does adultery really break the marriage bond?

Post by darinhouston » Fri Dec 18, 2009 9:53 pm

Steve, I'm not sure you've considered the "transgendered?" :o :shock:

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Does adultery really break the marriage bond?

Post by steve » Fri Dec 18, 2009 10:20 pm

Those were very rare in Old Testament times. The surgery was pretty expensive. It cost more than an arm and a leg.

User avatar
Ian
Posts: 489
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 2:26 am

Re: Does adultery really break the marriage bond?

Post by Ian » Sat Dec 19, 2009 9:06 am

Steve, you wrote:
Also, if a man slept with a girl who was not a prostitute, nor yet betrothed or married, it was not really a situation of "wam bam thank you m`am". He had to marry her and make the arrangement honorable. In fact, such an arrangement represents the only marriage, according to the law, which could never end in divorce
My NIV says "rape" not "sleep with".
Someone else has written elsewhere (http://www.wordwiz72.com/bible.html):
In no way is the rape victim given a choice. The marriage MUST HAPPEN. Perhaps she had refused his proposal! All he has to do is RAPE her and she's TRAPPED for the rest of her poor, miserable life, with the person who violated her, no matter how righteous and virtuous she had tried to live. She is a double victim.

User avatar
Ian
Posts: 489
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 2:26 am

Re: Does adultery really break the marriage bond?

Post by Ian » Sat Dec 19, 2009 3:17 pm

I found this in relation to earlier verses 16,17:

"The unbetrothed daughter was part of her father`s property, and her value would be diminished by the loss of her virginity. Compensation had to be paid and the man had to marry her. Should the father refuse, the marriage price was still to be paid".

One would hope in the rape case mentioned above that the daughter would indirectly have a say through her father, ie the father would say no to the marriage to the rapist on her behalf!

User avatar
Suzana
Posts: 503
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 3:09 am
Location: Australia

Re: Does adultery really break the marriage bond?

Post by Suzana » Sat Dec 19, 2009 6:07 pm

In no way is the rape victim given a choice. The marriage MUST HAPPEN. Perhaps she had refused his proposal! All he has to do is RAPE her and she's TRAPPED for the rest of her poor, miserable life, with the person who violated her, no matter how righteous and virtuous she had tried to live. She is a double victim.
Deu 22:28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
Deu 22:29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

Exo 22:16-17
(16) And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.
(17) If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.

I was looking at this topic yesterday, and thought that although the Deut. verse sounds fairly absolute, it must be one of those instances where one needs to take note of all the available scriptures on a subject to understand the meaning accurately (yet again)!

So I too hope the girl's wishes would have had some sway with her father. In that culture, she may have preferred to be married anyway (unless the guy was utterly beyond acceptable) - I think it might have been difficult to find another suitor now she was no longer a virgin, even if it wasn't her fault?
For the guys, I imagine the law would have been a deterrant to just sleeping around without consequences.
Suzana
_________________________
If a man cannot be a Christian in the place he is, he cannot be a Christian anywhere. - Henry Ward Beecher

User avatar
kaufmannphillips
Posts: 585
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:00 pm

Re: Does adultery really break the marriage bond?

Post by kaufmannphillips » Sat Dec 19, 2009 10:24 pm

Ian wrote:
I looked this verse up in the IVP New Bible Commentary, which didn`t really answer the question here, but what it did say is this:
""the Jews thought of adultery as a sin by a woman against her husband or by one man against another; Jesus taught that a man may commit adultery against a woman".
Is this accurate? Were the Jews so out of their tree as to have taken such a sexist view as the above?

Homer wrote:
The view you inquire about was the way the Law of Moses was understood and practiced, to the best of my knowledge. Thus, a married man could have multiple wives, numerous concubines, and other sexual encounters without it being adultery as long as he did not get involved with another mans wife. In fact it was his duty, according to the LOM, to father children by a widowed sister-in-law. The married woman commited adultry if she had relations with any man other than her husband.

Ian wrote:
I never really knew all this (perhaps because it never mattered to me before).
No wonder God was so indignant with them.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
For what?

Ian wrote:
I`m merely reacting to Homer`s explanation as he sees it. Namely that Jewish men could put it about as they wished, as long as the woman wasn`t married. A woman doing the same would be tagged an adulteress regardless of whether the man was married or not. So we could have the theoretical situation of a man and a woman having sex together, she so doing is committing adultery but he not. So she deserves to be stoned to death while he walks away scot free, "wam bam thank you m`am". Sorry to be crude, but such a phrasing might well fit the mentality of the man in such a case. And all those Midianites were slain so that men could behave like this?
Perhaps you could explain why you think all this was in order.
(a) As Steve has pointed out, when a man and woman are partners in sexual activity, either both are adulterers or both are not.

(b) Regarding the Midianites, if you are referring to Numbers 25, it seems clear from the passage that the essential issue is religious activity with Baal-Peor; the sexual aspect is incidental.

(c) The ancient Israelites may have had less restrictive paradigms for sexual ethics than modern Christians do. But if stricter paradigms had not been revealed to the Israelites, why would G-d be “so indignant" with them?

(d) As for Jews being “out of their tree” with “such a sexist view” – well, the sexes are not always treated equitably in the Torah. A modern view can find much in the Torah to be objectionable. But so what?
========================
"The more something is repeated, the more it becomes an unexamined truth...." (Nicholas Thompson)
========================

Post Reply

Return to “Marriage & Divorce”