Does Romans 7:1-3 affirm different rules for women and men regarding adultery?

[Crucible]

To do what the Law said about the certificate for women divorced was a huge advancement for women for that time (the 2nd mill BC). Nothing in Judaism at Christ's time took issue with that. So just by being part of Judaism, Paul was in an institution that took care of divorced women far better than cultures around it.

Yes, it's called 'egalitarianism', which by today's standards is 'misogyny'. That's why the cultural affinity is now replaced with 'feminism'. That literally means that nothing contemporary which is attributed to women can be remotely prescribed by any biblical context.

 

[Sonnet]

'To consort with' is adultery. It's not about polygamy.

The last sentence:

"But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress if she marries another man."

clearly implies polyandry is adultery. It affirms the case of her non-adultery if the first husband dies. If he isn't dead then what else can we infer? We know that she is married to two men and is an adulteress for doing so.

 

[serpentdove]

...[M]y previous questions still stand.

Jn 8:37

 

[Sonnet]

Jn 8:37

Please clarify.

 

[intojoy]

Indeed, but it still reveals a fact regarding the definition of adultery and polygamy which is the focus of this thread.

All wrong.
The reason Paul uses the vantage point from the woman is because under Mosaic law women were not given any authority to divorce their husbands and this was culturally understood in his day. Rusha. Because the church is pictured as the Bride of Christ which makes up ALL saved persons of today and as the Wife of Jehovah similarly represented saved the Old Testament saved, Paul is illustrating the transfer of the believer's rule of life from the Law of Moses to the Law of Messiah.

This passage has absolutely nothing to do with the rule of life for men and nothing to do with the rule of life for women, it is an allegorical lesson concerning what was detailed in Hebrews :

“For there is a disannulling of a foregoing commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness (for the law made nothing perfect), and a bringing in thereupon of a better hope, through which we draw nigh unto God.

by so much also hath Jesus become the surety of a better covenant. And they indeed have been made priests many in number, because that by death they are hindered from continuing: but he, because he abideth for ever, hath his priesthood unchangeable.”
**Hebrews‬ *7:18-19, 22-24‬ *ASV‬‬
http://bible.com/12/heb.7.18-19,22-24.asv


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[serpentdove]

Please clarify.

Mt 7:6

 

[Sonnet]

Mt 7:6

Meaning?

 

[Sonnet]

All wrong.
The reason Paul uses the vantage point from the woman is because under Mosaic law women were not given any authority to divorce their husbands and this was culturally understood in his day. Rusha. Because the church is pictured as the Bride of Christ which makes up ALL saved persons of today and as the Wife of Jehovah similarly represented saved the Old Testament saved, Paul is illustrating the transfer of the believer's rule of life from the Law of Moses to the Law of Messiah.

This passage has absolutely nothing to do with the rule of life for men and nothing to do with the rule of life for women, it is an allegorical lesson concerning what was detailed in Hebrews :

“For there is a disannulling of a foregoing commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness (for the law made nothing perfect), and a bringing in thereupon of a better hope, through which we draw nigh unto God.

by so much also hath Jesus become the surety of a better covenant. And they indeed have been made priests many in number, because that by death they are hindered from continuing: but he, because he abideth for ever, hath his priesthood unchangeable.”
**Hebrews‬ *7:18-19, 22-24‬ *ASV‬‬
http://bible.com/12/heb.7.18-19,22-24.asv


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

I am aware of your point. Nevertheless, Paul's statement about multiple marriage is a window into understanding polygamy. Since there aren't many verses that actually speak about this, then that is why I have brought it up.

I was asked to elaborate on my doubts regarding the Bible. Polygamy is one area that I find baffling.

Really baffling...

 

[Interplanner]

I am aware of your point. Nevertheless, Paul's statement about multiple marriage is a window into understanding polygamy. Since there aren't many verses that actually speak about this, then that is why I have brought it up.

I was asked to elaborate on my doubts regarding the Bible. Polygamy is one area that I find baffling.

Really baffling...

It is not about multiple marriages. It is about serial. But the consorting is adultery while in a marriage.

What questions do you have about polygamy after my essay?

 

[Interplanner]

The last sentence:

"But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress if she marries another man."

clearly implies polyandry is adultery. It affirms the case of her non-adultery if the first husband dies. If he isn't dead then what else can we infer? We know that she is married to two men and is an adulteress for doing so.

You are assuming simultaneous marriages; he meant serial.

 

[serpentdove]

Meaning?

 

[Interplanner]

Yes, it's called 'egalitarianism', which by today's standards is 'misogyny'. That's why the cultural affinity is now replaced with 'feminism'. That literally means that nothing contemporary which is attributed to women can be remotely prescribed by any biblical context.

In your last line do you mean 'proscribed' aka 'prohibited'?

 

[Interplanner]

:doh:
Women cannot initiate marriage.

This is where you pretty much prove that the Bible is anti-feminist, because God recognized polygamy. He outright acknowledged it and allowed it.

I don't think you've read my contribution in 109. Today's standards are not the only ones by which to assess the world.

 

[Crucible]

In your last line do you mean 'proscribed' aka 'prohibited'?

I'm meaning to say that the scriptures can't be used to justify contemporary, feminist ideology, because they stand by an egalitarian principle which stands by traditional roles.

As it happens, Rome was already in a state of egalitarianism and monogamy- Christianity didn't have to come in to change their central social working. In fact, it was almost entirely about religious worldview.

It's funny that, despite this, people are still going to the scriptures to fix what was already fixed. Contemporary society is now simply trying to repeal human nature, especially along the interests therein men vs women.

 

[Sonnet]

You are assuming simultaneous marriages; he meant serial.

Are you suggesting that the 'sexual relations' of verse 3 wont be considered adultery if she marries this other man first?

 

[Nameless.In.Grace]

NIG - I do agree that there is much in the OT that speaks clearly, foreshadowing Christ - but, even so, I still feel uncomfortable with the issue described in the OP.

1 Kings 15:5 remains troubling. I guess we can argue, like you suggested (and others have too), that there were a lot more women compared to men so having more than one wife would appear to be a the least worst in terms of caring for them...but it's rather odd that there isn't any word from God on this.

It just looks peculiar - the 7th commandment and Solomon never rebuked for having a 1000 women.

Sonnet,

I will speak plainly on this.

Per Galatians,

Does Moses have any say in God's work of Salvation?


Sent from my iPad using TOL ~Jesus is the Theology and the Counselor is the Commentary

 

[Sonnet]

Sonnet,

I will speak plainly on this.

Per Galatians,

Does Moses have any say in God's work of Salvation?


Sent from my iPad using TOL ~Jesus is the Theology and the Counselor is the Commentary

Surely nobody has a say do they?

 

[serpentdove]

[Polygamy is forbidden (Gen. 2:24, Ex. 20:14, Ps. 128:1–6, 1 Co 7:2).] 2 Sam. 12:8

"2 Sa 12:8 your master’s wives. This phraseology means nothing more than that God in His providence had given David, as king, everything that was Saul’s. There is no evidence that he ever married any of Saul’s wives, though the harem of eastern kings passed to their successors. Ahinoam, the wife of David (2:2; 3:2; 1 Sam. 25:43; 27:3; 30:5), is always referred to as the Jezreelitess, whereas Ahinoam, the wife of Saul, is distinguished clearly from her by being called “the daughter of Ahimaaz” (1 Sam. 14:50)." MacArthur, J., Jr. (Ed.). (1997). The MacArthur Study Bible (electronic ed., p. 443). Nashville, TN: Word Pub.

And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things [2 Sam. 12:7–8].

"It took courage for Nathan to say this to David. In my judgment he is the bravest man in the Bible. I know of no one who can be compared to him. He said, “David, you are the guilty one.” What is David going to do? He is going to do something unusual, I can assure you of that. Dr. Margoliouth has said this: “When has this been done—before or since? Mary, Queen of Scots, would declare that she was above the law; Charles I would have thrown over Bathsheba; James II would have hired witnesses to swear away her character; Mohammed would have produced a revelation authorizing both crimes; Charles II would have publicly abrogated the seventh commandment; Queen Elizabeth would have suspended Nathan.” Years ago, the Duke of Windsor would have given up his throne for her. We have had some presidents who would have repealed the Ten Commandments and appointed Nathan to the Supreme Court. David did not do any of these things. His actions will reveal his greatness.

God would have given David anything his heart wanted, but David longed for something that was not his. The new morality today says it was not sin. God still says this is sin, and the man after God’s own heart cannot get by with it." McGee, J. V. (1997). Thru the Bible commentary (electronic ed., Vol. 2, p. 215). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

 

[Sonnet]

"2 Sa 12:8 your master’s wives. This phraseology means nothing more than that God in His providence had given David, as king, everything that was Saul’s. There is no evidence that he ever married any of Saul’s wives, though the harem of eastern kings passed to their successors. Ahinoam, the wife of David (2:2; 3:2; 1 Sam. 25:43; 27:3; 30:5), is always referred to as the Jezreelitess, whereas Ahinoam, the wife of Saul, is distinguished clearly from her by being called “the daughter of Ahimaaz” (1 Sam. 14:50)." MacArthur, J., Jr. (Ed.). (1997). The MacArthur Study Bible (electronic ed., p. 443). Nashville, TN: Word Pub.

And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things [2 Sam. 12:7–8].

"It took courage for Nathan to say this to David. In my judgment he is the bravest man in the Bible. I know of no one who can be compared to him. He said, “David, you are the guilty one.” What is David going to do? He is going to do something unusual, I can assure you of that. Dr. Margoliouth has said this: “When has this been done—before or since? Mary, Queen of Scots, would declare that she was above the law; Charles I would have thrown over Bathsheba; James II would have hired witnesses to swear away her character; Mohammed would have produced a revelation authorizing both crimes; Charles II would have publicly abrogated the seventh commandment; Queen Elizabeth would have suspended Nathan.” Years ago, the Duke of Windsor would have given up his throne for her. We have had some presidents who would have repealed the Ten Commandments and appointed Nathan to the Supreme Court. David did not do any of these things. His actions will reveal his greatness.

God would have given David anything his heart wanted, but David longed for something that was not his. The new morality today says it was not sin. God still says this is sin, and the man after God’s own heart cannot get by with it." McGee, J. V. (1997). Thru the Bible commentary (electronic ed., Vol. 2, p. 215). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

Still wondering what you meant by your two previous posts.

 

[serpentdove]

Still wondering what you meant by your two previous posts.

Keep wondering (Re 22:11).