|
In presenting any subject for discussion, it is
essential that pertinent words be accurately defined. It has been said
that if one is allowed to define or redefine words he will be able to
"prove" anything. Thus, in the present discussion it is crucial that
the term adultery is accurately defined, and that it is comprehensible.
First, we must establish how are we going to arrive at a
definition. Are we going to allow men who purport to be scholars to
define the word adultery, or should be look to the scriptures? Not
every one agrees that using scripture, rather than scholars, to define
a word is a preferable method. Those disagreeing with this approach
will, no doubt, go with the "believe the scholars" philosophy when
seeking for a definition of the term adultery. However, those who seek
the truth soon realize that the influence tradition has had on scholars
has tainted the view of some as the attempt to define the term
adultery.
The Bible is not a dictionary, thus we should not expect
it to define a word in the same manner as would a dictionary. The Bible
is the word of God composed of various books and letters. In defining
the term adultery, we must study and compare various passages of
scripture. This is the only way to ensure an accurate, scriptural
definition.
As is often the case, a word may have more than one
definition. Some, for example, would say that adultery is nothing more
than, "The act of sex a married person has with the spouse of another."
To believe this one would have to be ignorant of or deliberately ignore
a number of scriptures that contradict such a definition. The
scriptures reveal that the word adultery is used to describe different
actions committed by an individual or group. But the result is always
an action contrary and detrimental to the covenant known as marriage.
The narrow definition of the word adultery that some espouse is merely
effort to defend traditional error.
In defining the term adultery, consider the following
Scriptures:
Jeremiah 3:9
"And it came to pass through the lightness of her whoredom, that she
defiled the land, and committed adultery with stones and with stocks."
(KJV)
This passage tells us that "she" (God's people)
committed adultery with stones and stocks. These things were party to
the sin. When we understand the sin, we will understand adultery as it
relates to the present marriage, divorce, and remarriage controversy.
A covenant was made between the nation of Israel and
God. Israel agreed to abide by the terms of the covenant and God
promised to bless them. The stones and stocks were the objects to which
God's wife (Israel) gave its affections. The foreign object that
adulterated the relationship served to replace God. God divorced Israel
and the relationship He had with them ceased to exist. There was no sex
involved yet adultery was committed! Therefore, if anyone tells you
that, "adultery is nothing but a sex act," you may want to refer him or
her to the scripture noted above.
Some, in an attempt to defend the traditional
definition, may argue that adultery in the passage under study is
spiritual adultery. But the sin in view here is marital adultery
(Jeremiah 3:14), a sin that was an act of unfaithfulness to the marital
vows; even though sex was not involved. Today, a person can commit
adultery against their spouse in exactly same way...without sex being
involved. Virtually all admit that adultery is committed by "putting
away" and remarrying (Matthew 19:9). Even those who are not capable of
having sex are able to commit adultery in various ways, namely by
simply being unfaithful to their spouse - acting as if the marriage
does not exist and taking up with another.
Mark 10:11
"And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry
another, committeth adultery against her."
This Scripture does not agree with the traditional
definition of adultery. Jesus says that adultery is committed against
the previous spouse and not with the second woman he marries! We are
compelled, therefore, to reject the traditional definition in favor of
the Biblical definition. This Scripture makes it clear that adultery
includes the idea of the breaking of a covenant. But do not confuse the
word breaking with the word destruction. One may break the terms of a
covenant; yet, if there is repentance and forgiveness, the covenant
remains intact. A marriage is destroyed, yet may be salvaged, when one
or both parties have legally declared the marriage to be OVER. A
marriage contract is terminated, and is likely not salvageable, when
one of the persons marries another.
Referring to the definition of the term adultery, Foy
Wallace Jr. wrote:
"The word adultery in New Testament usage does not necessarily refer to
the sinful physical [sexual] act, it is not restricted to the one way
of violating the bond. In the four passages in Matthew, Mark and Luke
the term adultery is given the sense of ignoring the bond, of which a
man is guilty who formally puts away his wife unjustifiably and regards
himself unhitched" (The Sermon on the
Mount and the Civil State; p. 42).
John 8:4
"They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the
very act."
For many, this passage confirms the traditional
definition of adultery. It appears that this woman was caught having
sex with a married man or, if not married, caught committing
fornication. This Scripture further defines adultery. The idea that sex
with someone not your spouse is an adulterous act has merit. Indeed,
when a married man cheats on his wife by joining himself with a harlot
he is committing adultery, i.e., he is breaking the vows he has made to
his wife.
Ezekiel 16:38
Those who are reluctant to put their trust entirely in a dictionary,
commentary or lexicon might find what I'm about to say to be
convincing. The only human authority that one could consider as being
more credible than a dictionary, lexicon or commentary would be not one
person but a group of men who have put together a version of the Bible.
Admittedly, all versions are not credible. Some, such as New World
Translation, put out by Jehovah's Witnesses, are designed to promote
their own denominational faith. But many translations are credible.
Now, what if some credible translators translate a word as adultery
while others translate the same word as "break wedlock" and yet others
translate the same word as "unfaithfulness" and "untrue to"? Such would
indicate they saw more in the word they were translating than mere sex,
wouldn't it?
Note the following versions:
[American Standard Version] (Ezekiel 16:38)
And I will judge thee, as women that break wedlock and shed blood are
judged; and I will bring upon thee the blood of wrath and jealousy.
[Bible in Basic English] (Ezekiel 16:38)
And you will be judged by me as women are judged who have been untrue
to their husbands and have taken life; and I will let loose against you
passion and bitter feeling.
(CEV) (Ezekiel 16:38)
I will find you guilty of being an unfaithful wife and a murderer, and
in my fierce anger I will sentence you to death!
Adultery is:
1) A sexual act committed outside of a marriage
relationship and against the marriage (John 8:4).
2) The act of "putting away" and marrying another
(Matthew 19:9).
3) A sin against one's spouse, which is contrary to the
marital vows (Mark 10:11).
4) Within the scope of marriage - the display of
improper affection for another (Jeremiah 3:9).
5) Ignoring the bond and considering oneself unmarried
(1 Corinthians 7:15).
Scholars who define adultery as, "sexual relations
outside of marriage," are not in error. However, if or when a "scholar"
limits "adultery" to a sexual matter or say sex is ALWAYS
involved...they are mistaken.
Those who reject the Biblical definition of adultery
(whether ignorantly or defiantly) and engage in the practice of
breaking up marriages and "forbidding to marry" (1 Timothy 4:1-4; 1
Corinthians 7:2; 8,9) are on dangerous ground. This ungodly and
destructive practice is based on the assumption that adultery is
nothing but sex in a second marriage, which really does not exist, and
that it is continuous or takes place with each act of sexual
intercourse. This is not true because a state of adultery exists even
if the physical act is never committed.
If you have been faithful to your spouse but he/she
suddenly decided to leave you for another, or just wanted to be free of
you to enjoy the world, he/she would be committing adultery against you
if they did it. A sin would be committed against God and you, but what
sin would you have committed? None! Any conclusion that has God
punishing innocent people for the sins of another cannot be scriptural.
God has never established a decree that calls for the innocent to be
punished.
Many passages warn against punishing innocent people.
Consider the following examples:
"Thus saith the LORD; Execute ye judgment and
righteousness, and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the
oppressor: and do no wrong, do no violence to the stranger, the
fatherless, nor the widow, neither shed innocent blood in this place."
(Jeremiah 22:3).
"Remember, I pray thee, who ever perished, being
innocent? or where were the righteous cut off?" (Job 4:7).
"Judge not according to the appearance, but judge
righteous judgment" (John 7:24).
It is not righteous judgment to punish a person not
charged with sin. Don't cut off the righteous by insisting they must
remain celibate because of something their spouse has done.
When there is desertion, separation, or a "putting
away", and at least one person marries another without first completing
a legal divorce (composed of 3 parts according to Deut. 24:1-4),
adultery has been committed by at least one of the parties in the
original marriage. Innocent individuals who are divorced by their
spouse do not sin by marrying, provided they are legally divorced when
they marry (1 Corinthians 7:8-9; 36; Romans 7:1-4).
Conclusion:
We have no scriptural support for breaking up legal
marriages between men and women or for the idea that certain people
have no right to marry? It is against justice to suggest that innocent
persons must be punished for the sins of another. It is against reason
to conclude that someone is still married and obligated to a person who
has legally divorced and married another. It is against scripture to
argue that one is not eligible to marry in cases where he obviously is
not married (1 Cor. 7:2; 8,9). It is against a direct command of God to
forbid marriage (1 Tim. 4:1-3) for those who are "unmarried" or have no
marriage, because the apostle Paul said, "Let them marry". It is
against proper hermeneutics to construe what Jesus taught to mean
something that is against what is elsewhere taught in various ways and
in numerous passages throughout the Bible.
|
