What does 'Thou shalt not commit adultery' mean?

[jamie]

Notable Fact: The father of Faith Abraham starts a ton of trouble by taking a second wife (concubine) as suggested by his wife.

God's first instruction to Adam was to be fruitful and increase. This had not happened with Sarah. However, Sarah loved Abraham enough to suggest a surrogate so that Abraham could comply with God's instruction. A woman can't love a man more than that.

Abraham was 86 years old when he finally had a son thanks to Sarah. However, Hagar was disrespectful to Sarah and was invited by Sarah to live elsewhere.

 

[chair]

Adultery requires a willing partner. According to the law of the land in David's day when the king summoned a person that person was required to come.

I'm sure Bathsheba was intimidated by David's summons and she feared resisting the king. This does not mean she consented.

Because of his position and power David abused her and rape is not the same as adultery.

You are projecting modern ideas of sexual abuse on ancient times. In any case: For David it was Adultery if Batsheva agreed- and both rape and adultery if she was forced in some sense.

 

[False Prophet]

Thou shall not cheat on your wife.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

God's first instruction to Adam was to be fruitful and increase. This had not happened with Sarah. However, Sarah loved Abraham enough to suggest a surrogate so that Abraham could comply with God's instruction. A woman can't love a man more than that.

Abraham was 86 years old when he finally had a son thanks to Sarah. However, Hagar was disrespectful to Sarah and was invited by Sarah to live elsewhere.

Alex, Self Surnamed "DeLarge", from Stanley Kubrick's famous and infamous novel, turned silver screen cult classic, steps from page and screen.

He looks up at this astonishingly interesting, two-paragraph quote with a glint of mischief in his makeup accentuated eye and begins to crack a menacing smile that says a million words.

He cleverly contemplates the many things that he could say in response, but finds edification in the sheer entertainment of his thoughts.

With clockwork precision, he returns to the screen and pages of his orange world. He steps into the "Korova", sits with his chums and takes a glass of milk-plus to his lips.

As the "plus" luminously permeates his thoughts and rests a sinister hand of agreement on his back, he says to himself, "Silence is indeed the only suitable reply to the quoted words above."

 

[Angel4Truth]

Really interesting thanks Angel4Truth -but David had multiple wives which would have been known.

Can you show me where the bible says he couldnt have multiple wives under the law and what his number of wives has to do with your question about Bathsheba?

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Can you show me where the bible says he couldnt have multiple wives under the law and what his number of wives has to do with your question about Bathsheba?

I could be way off here, but I believe that the point that is being made by Sonnet is within your point, but from a differing perspective.

It seems a bit morally skewed to differentiate multiple "spouses" / possible "marriage concubines", and then go forward and say that adultery is simply sex outside of marriage agreement or with someone else's "property" (so-to-speak).

The moral compass of polygamy is displeasing to Sonnet, from what I gather, and I believe he finds it contradictory that a simple property right of marriage could allow an individual to pour romantic and sexual energy into more than one committed relationship.

I could be wrong about his general tone in this discussion, but he has a valid point of observation.

In short speak, it appears that men and women are free to have a harem of "committed" lovers, or at least men are, if there is indeed a double standard.

People just can't "swap" a committed harem partner.

This is an odd point, and it seems a win for the Mormon's practice of multiple wives.... for now.

Isn't this odd?

 

[Angel4Truth]

I could be way off here, but I believe that the point that is being made by Sonnet is within your point, but from a differing perspective.

It seems a bit morally skewed to differentiate multiple "spouses" / possible "marriage concubines", and then go forward and say that adultery is simply sex outside of marriage agreement or with someone else's "property" (so-to-speak).

The moral compass of polygamy is displeasing to Sonnet, from what I gather, and I believe he finds it contradictory that a simple property right of marriage could allow an individual to pour romantic and sexual energy into more than one committed relationship.

I could be wrong about his general tone in this discussion, but he has a valid point of observation.

In short speak, it appears that men and women are free to have a harem of "committed" lovers, or at least men are, if there is indeed a double standard.

People just can't "swap" a committed harem partner.

This is an odd point, and it seems a win for the Mormon's practice of multiple wives.... for now.

Isn't this odd?

Well no, her first question was about adultery.

As far as polygamy though - God adressed it, and the NT adresses it and Christ said one man and one women also. So no, mormons who came after Christ, arent correct, this has been adressed in scripture.

Deuteronomy 17:17 "He shall not multiply wives for himself, or else his heart will turn away; nor shall he greatly increase silver and gold for himself.

Matthew 19:3–6 - In this passage, He cited the Genesis creation account, in particular Gen. 1:27 and 2:24, saying ‘the two will become one flesh’, not more than two.

“Each man [should] have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband” (1 Cor. 7:2).

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Well no, her first question was about adultery.

As far as polygamy though - God adressed it, and the NT adresses it and Christ said one man and one women also. So no, mormons who came after Christ, arent correct, this has been adressed in scripture.

Deuteronomy 17:17 "He shall not multiply wives for himself, or else his heart will turn away; nor shall he greatly increase silver and gold for himself.

Matthew 19:3–6 - In this passage, He cited the Genesis creation account, in particular Gen. 1:27 and 2:24, saying ‘the two will become one flesh’, not more than two.

“Each man [should] have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband” (1 Cor. 7:2).

No point of contention here. I simply want to point out that that the Law says exactly as you quoted, but post Law given, God is quoted as saying He would have multiplied David's wives. This quote is earlier within this op. I'll find the # and link it when I get the chance.

I'm certain Sonnet, "he", will pick up on this.

Something remains askew.

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...dultery-mean&p=4834187&viewfull=1#post4834187

#23

iPhone didn't copy link as expected.

 

[Angel4Truth]

, God is quoted as saying He would have multiplied David's wives.

That quote references land, goods and other things, why do you assume it means wives when God already said for a man not to multiply wives to Himself? It makes no sense to interpret it that way by its own context, it merely says that God would have increased Him even more, if he would have obeyed God.

Not only did David commit adultery with Bathsheba, he broke this one as well:

Exodus 20:17 You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

That quote references land, goods and other things, why do you assume it means wives when God already said for a man not to multiply wives to Himself? It makes no sense to interpret it that way by its own context, it merely says that God would have increased Him even more, if he would have obeyed God.

Not only did David commit adultery with Bathsheba, he broke this one as well:

Exodus 20:17 You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

No matter what translation I go to, God says gave "your wives", not wife. I'm not sure I follow how 2nd Samuel 12:8 could be read any other way. It says wives plural and the word is in reference to David's multiple wives.

Again, no contention, but this is directly from Nathan as God's words.

The house of Israel is mentioned separately from the wives statement, thus it is clearly God condoning David's multiple spouses.

 

[Angel4Truth]

No matter what translation I go to, God says gave you wives, not wife. I'm not sure I follow how 2nd Samuel 12:8 could be read any other way. It says wives plural and the word is in reference to David's multiple wives.

Again, no contention, but this is directly from Nathan as God's words.

The house of Israel is mentioned separately from the wives statement, thus it is clearly God condoning David's multiple spouses.

Why would it say wife, when David inherited Sauls wives to take care of? That was part of the kingship. Youre adding what isnt there.

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.

Nowhere is it expressed or implied that God provided David himself with multiple wives of his own or that He would give him more wives.

We know Saul disobeyed God, and Gods word says that they are NOT to multiply wives to themselves.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Why would it say wife, when David inherited Sauls wives to take care of? That was part of the kingship. Youre adding what isnt there.



Nowhere is it expressed or implied that God provided David himself with multiple wives of his own or that He would give him more wives.

This is again odd. If the Law is one way, why would God not set this straight at the verbiage? He does not Author confusion.

I'm going to make it clear that we disagree, but I understand your perspective.

 

[Angel4Truth]

This is again odd. If the Law is one way, why would God not set this straight at the verbiage? He does not Author confusion.

I'm going to make it clear that we disagree, but I understand your perspective.

Except it isnt unclear, it clearly says "your masters wives" as in Saul, not Davids own, and context is the kingdom he was given, not wives. I am at a loss as to how thats misunderstood there.

God is basically saying, " I have given a kingdom to you, and everything you could want and would have given you more increase and greatness, how could you do this thing"

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Except it isnt unclear, it clearly says "your masters wives" as in Saul, not Davids own, and context is the kingdom he was given, not wives. I am at a loss as to how thats misunderstood there.

God is basically saying, " I have given a kingdom to you, and everything you could want and would have given you more increase and greatness, how could you do this thing"

I believe the law has now been quoted to not multiply wives.

In this context, the wives of Saul were now widows of Saul. They were free to remain widows or find a new union. However, God makes it clear that David could have multiple wives, despite the cause or context.

The point remains that situation or circumstance has caused God to condone the "inherited" wives he was married to at the time.

This is further enunciated later when all of David's wives are taken from him after the complete fallout from Bath...

The point remains that God didn't downsize David to fit the Law. He blessed David's union to multiple women.

From my perspective, it would be changing the meaning of the clear verbiage of 2 Samuel 12:8 to insinuate anything else.

 

[Angel4Truth]

I believe the law has now been quoted to not multiply wives.

In this context, the wives of Saul were now widows of Saul. They were free to remain widows or find a new union. However, God makes it clear that David could have multiple wives, despite the cause or context.

Verses? Kings were to take care of remaining wives and concubines of the last one.

The point remains that situation or circumstance has caused God to condone the "inherited" wives he was married to at the time.

So throwing them out in the street would be more Godly?

This is further enunciated later when all of David's wives are taken from him after the complete fallout from Bath...

Did they remain lost? They were taken for the man to establish kingship over David, not because he was blessed with more wives.

The point remains that God didn't downsize David to fit the Law. He blessed David's union to multiple women.

False, each instance of a man taking more than one wife resulted in hardship and heartache, God never told a man to take extra wives. Ever. He actually spoke against it as ive shown.

You are completely ignoring context and Gods clear command not to do such.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Verses? Kings were to take care of remaining wives and concubines of the last one.



So throwing them out in the street would be more Godly?



Did they remain lost? They were taken for the man to establish kingship over David, not because he was blessed with more wives.



False, each instance of a man taking more than one wife resulted in hardship and heartache, God never told a man to take extra wives. Ever. He actually spoke against it as ive shown.

You are completely ignoring context and Gods clear command not to do such.

I appreciate your Line by Line perspective in relation to my words. My opinion remains different than yours.

 

[Nick M]

I have yes. He wasn't stoned but no reason is given.

Where you there when he laid the foundations? People crack me up.

 

[Sonnet]

No it doesn't, because Paul is speaking to monogamy.

Romans 7:2-3
For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law that binds her to him. So then, if she has sexual relations with another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress if she marries another man.

Paul says that the woman may marry again IF her husband dies - so then, if she were to marry whilst he was still alive then it would be adultery - thus polygamy is adultery. His last sentence underlines this because the obverse would be such:

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

She is not an adulteress if she marries after he has died and therefore is an adulteress if she marries whilst he is still alive.

Marriage is never directly defined as between one man and woman, it's simply stated that it ought to be.

Such a statement renders adultery meaningless.

As I stated, you are just twisting things to avoid the inevitable.

You mean I am countering what you are saying.

There's a difference between having a discussion/debate, and just being vainly argumentative. I think that you come on here asking loaded questions- while conceal your reasoning for them- so that you can run over others with what you think in the end.

This would need some explaining.

 

[Sonnet]

Where you there when he laid the foundations? People crack me up.

What's funny?

 

[Sonnet]

Just go on somewhere, seriously. I would rather believe you are trolling then just that astoundingly ridiculous.

That everyone appears to have a different perspective on 'adultery' validates this thread. Why you seem to be threatened by such a debate is perplexing.