Also, Check out: http://inkaboutit4u.com/?p=Web_Pages_List
92
CHAPTER FIVE
ADULTERY
In sexual matters, adultery is probably the primary sin.
Adultery is without question sinful. No one who commits adultery
can expect to receive God’s blessing or forgiveness until repentance
has been rendered. We do not mean that adultery is any “worse”
than other sins. We simply mean that adultery is absolutely
condemned by God. No circumstances may bring adultery into the
“exception” area. However, when adulterers repent they receive
immediate mercy exactly like all other penitents.
Since adultery is unalterably evil, and is warned of through
both OT and NT, no serious study of sexuality can ignore it. At the
same time anything as hellish as adultery must be considered with
intense care so that we are certain we know exactly what it is and
what it is not. We are convinced that severe misunderstanding
surrounds this subject, just as it does other sex matters. The
consequence of this misunderstanding takes at least the following
forms:
• People think adultery is particularly a sexual sin. It is not, as
we will show.
• Because people do not understand the true nature of adultery
many commit adultery unawares. Having done nothing
“sexual” they do not realize they have committed adultery.
• Some marriages that should be dissolved continue in
relentless misery simply because neither party has been sexually
unfaithful. Since “adultery” (as they conceive it) has not been
committed they think they are bound by God’s law to remain
married.
The truth about adultery will prove both liberating and
restricting. Truth here will enable some people to live without fear
of having committed this sin. Truth here will also bring some under
conviction of having “adulterated” against their mates even though
they have been sexually faithful to them. Let us look at what the
Bible actually says about adultery. Once again, we begin with
definitions of the Biblical words.
93
Definitions:
Heb. “To apostatize; a woman that breaks wedlock.” (Strong’s #’s
5003, 4, 5)
Gk. moixeia, “to commit adultery, a (male) paramour; fig. apostate,
adulterer.” (Strong’s #’s 3428, 3429, 3430, 3431, 3432)
“…adultery, an adulteress.” Moixalis, an adulteress, applied as an
adjective to the Jewish people who had transferred their affections
from God.” (E. W. Bullinger, A Critical Concordance to the English and
Greek New Testament, pg. 28.)
“The parties to this crime, according to Jewish law, were a married
woman, and a man who was not her husband…Symbolically
adultery is used to express unfaithfulness to covenant vows to God,
who is represented as the Husband of His people.” (Smith’s Bible
Dictionary, pgs. 21, 22)
“(The words) mean ‘to commit adultery’ or ‘to seduce’…to
adulterate, illicit intercourse, adulterer, lover, adulterous,
adulteress, mistress, harlot.” (Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the New
Testament, pg. 605, 606)
“In Scripture, (adultery is) sexual intercourse by a married man
with another than his wife, or by a married woman with another
than her husband. It is distinguished from fornication, which is
illicit sexual intercourse by an unmarried person…It is a violation
of the original, divinely instituted marriage bond. Adultery
involves more than physical promiscuity. It also violates the
integrity of the person. The penalty for adultery in OT is death; no
partiality is shown the man: both parties in the act are equally
guilty.” (ISBE, vol. 1, pg. 58, 59)
Some observations must be made relative to this last quote. It is
not true that Scripture defines adultery as “sexual intercourse by a
married man with another than his wife.” As we will see, Scripture
does not recognize the possibility of a man, married or unmarried,
committing adultery except when he violates the married status of
the woman. Otherwise a man might copulate with numerous
concubines, slaves and even prostitutes without committing
adultery. As our study on polygamy and concubinage proved,
many of God’s choicest servants “had intercourse with another
than his wife” and was never charged with adultery, nor suffered
94
any rebuke or correction from God. Further, as we will
demonstrate, adultery is not the simple sexual act committed with a
married woman, but is the intent to deprive the husband of his property.
Further, it is not true that “fornication…is illicit sexual
intercourse by an unmarried person…” While this definition seems
to be standard in much writing and teaching it is nevertheless not a
valid lexical definition, and it does not meet the test of Biblical
usage. Fornication is a generic word, and is defined strictly as “any
illicit sexual activity.” “Fornication” does not in itself specify any
sex act as illicit. It encompasses all sexual acts that Scripture
defines as “illicit.” Unless Scripture defines “sexual intercourse by
an unmarried person” as illicit then the word “fornication” does
not apply to that act. “Fornication” has no inherent relationship to
the married status of the person committing it. Both married and
unmarried people may commit fornication by engaging in any act
that the Bible defines as illicit. Such acts as adultery, rape, bestiality,
incest, pedophilia and forced prostitution, are generically defined by
the word “fornication.” We will discuss the ramifications of these
observations as we proceed. Let us examine the Biblical references
to the sin of adultery.
Scripture References to Adultery:
Reuben lays with Bilhah, Jacob’s concubine, (Gen. 35:22). He is
cursed for this act, (Gen. 49:4). The adultery in this case is sexual
intercourse with a woman who belonged to another man.
Potiphar’s wife wants Joseph to have sex with her. He refuses,
giving the reason that “you are his wife,” (Gen. 39:7-9). Joseph
believes that to commit adultery is a “sin against God.” We wonder
if Joseph might have copulated with her if she had been
unmarried? The answer to that question must be determined by
what the Bible says about sex under those specific circumstances.
Joseph is concerned about what violates God’s will. Whether he
would copulate with this or any other woman, depends on what
God had spoken about particular situations. We must not jump to
conclusions before we study the evidence.
Adultery is strictly forbidden, (Ex. 20:14; Deut. 5:18, 21). One
may not “covet” a man’s wife or anything else that belongs to him,
(Ex. 20:17). Note first that these Scriptures do not deal with the act
of being sexually attracted to a woman even if she is married. They
95
deal with “coveting” which by definition, means to desire to deprive
another by taking what is his. Thus one cannot “covet anything that is
thy neighbor’s.” The desire to take what belongs to another is a sin.
So obviously a man cannot desire to take another man’s wife. But
this says nothing about sexual attraction to a neighbor’s daughter.
Can a man look at his neighbor’s daughter and be moved by sexual
attraction to the point of wanting to marry her? Certainly. But he
cannot look at his neighbor’s wife that way.
One must not commit adultery with a neighbor’s wife, (Lev.
18:20; 20:10).
Copulating with another man’s slave requires sacrifice, (Lev.
19:20). Since adultery is not dealt with on the basis of offering a
sacrifice, but by extracting the death penalty, it is obvious that this
act is not adultery. A man’s slave is not in the same category as his
wife. This is using another man’s property without paying
appropriate compensation. This is stealing. It requires a sin
sacrifice, not for the sex act, but for the theft of another’s property –
his sole rights to the sexual property of his slave.
Unfaithful wives are to be tried by priests, and punished if
guilty, (Num. 5:11-31).
A man who commits adultery with a married woman brings
death to both, (Deut. 22:22).
If an engaged virgin lies with another man in the city, both must
die, (Deut. 22:23-24). She dies for not “crying out,” and he dies for
humbling his neighbor’s wife. Because she was engaged she was
considered as good as married and therefore she was already the
sole sexual property of her betrothed/husband. Thus sex with
anyone other than her fiancé is “adultery.” The fact that she did not
“cry out” implies that her sexual act was consensual; i.e. she was not
raped. But if a man rapes an engaged virgin in the country, only he
dies, (Deut. 22:25-27). The presumption here is that the virgin
“cried out” but no one could hear her. The presumption is “rape”
which carries the death penalty against the rapist only.
If a man seizes an unengaged virgin and copulates with her he
pays the bride price to her father, marries her and can never
divorce her, (Deut. 11:28-29). This is his penalty for forcing himself
on her and ruining her as a prospect for carrying on the pure
96
lineage of another man as his wife. If she had voluntarily copulated
with him there would have been no penalty except that the man, if
discovered, would have to either marry her or pay her father a
dowry. We will note in passing that this text and similar texts
recognize the act of sex between unmarried people, but do not
define it as “fornication.”
“If I have been enticed by a woman or lurked at my neighbor’s door…”
i.e., If I have sinfully desired to take my neighbor’s wife, (Job 31:9).
His self-imposed curse is, “let others have sex with my own wife,” (vs.
10).
“Wisdom” delivers us from the “the immoral woman” and the
“seductress… who forsakes the companion of her youth; her house leads to
death,” (Prov. 2:16-19). This refers to an adulteress, a married woman
who forsakes her husband for other men.
The lips of an immoral woman drip honey. In the end she is as
bitter as wormwood; her feet lead to death and hell. Do not ponder
her way of life; she is unstable, (Prov. 5:3-6). Again, as defined by
2:16-19 and all else in Scripture, this is a married woman who leaves
her husband for other lovers. See also Prov. 5:7-14.
Rejoice with the wife of your youth; let her breasts satisfy you;
why be enraptured by an “immoral woman?” (Prov. 5:18-20). This
verse does not forbid marrying more than one woman. Nor does it
forbid all circumstances of copulation with a woman other than
one’s wife. This is proven quickly by the fact that the author,
Solomon, had 699 wives after the “wife of (his) youth” plus 300
concubines. This text demands faithfulness to the original wife. She
is not to be neglected, but is to receive favored attention and full
satisfaction in all aspects of marriage, especially sex.
God’s commandment is a lamp to keep one from the “evil”
woman, a seductress. Don’t lust after her beauty in your heart,
(Prov. 6:24-26). There is great harm to one who goes in to his
neighbor’s wife. So these are references to adultery; sex with a
married woman. One who commits adultery – steals another man’s
wife – lacks understanding and destroys his soul; he reaps wounds,
dishonor, lasting reproach and a husband’s fury, (vs. 32-35).
A young man meets an ”immoral woman” who is “rebellious” and
“would not stay at home,” (Prov. 7:7-11). She seduces him, (vs. 13ff),
97
promising “my husband is not at home,” (vs. 19, 20). This is a married
woman, an adulteress. The young man yields to temptation and
suffers the consequences, (vs. 21-23). Do not fall into her trap,
avoid her, she leads to death, (vs. 24-27).
A “foolish woman” entices the “naïve” to come in to enjoy “stolen
water” and “bread eaten in secret,” but death is in her house, (Prov.
9:13-18).
The mouth of an immoral woman is a deep pit. The Lord abhors
those who fall in it, (Prov. 22:14). A harlot is a deep pit, a seductress
is a narrow well. She victimizes men and increases the “unfaithful”
among men, (Prov.23:27). This is an adulterous woman; a married
harlot. She refuses to admit guilt, (Prov. 30:20).
More bitter than death is the woman who is a snare, etc. A man
who pleases God escapes her, but she snares sinners, (Ecc. 7:26).
Exactly why this woman is a snare is not specified. In light of all we
have seen she must be an adulteress.
Israel turned from God to spiritual and sexual adultery with idols,
(Isa. 57:4-8).
Israel “tore off her bands and…lay down as a prostitute,” (Jer. 2:20).
Like a wild donkey in heat, she mated quickly with any male that
pursued her, (vs. 24). This is a married woman who tore off the
bands of her marriage vows to commit adultery.
Israel is so skilled at adultery that she can teach even the “worst
of women,” (Jer. 2:33).
Israel has “lived as a prostitute with many lovers,” (Jer. 3:1). There
is no place where she has not been ravished, (vs. 2); she has no
shame, (vs. 3); She has committed adultery everywhere, (vs. 6).
God divorced her and sent her away because of her adulteries yet
Judah followed her example, (vs. 8). Her immorality mattered so
little to her that she “defiled the land, committing adultery with wood
and stone,” (vs. 9). She is like a woman “unfaithful to her husband,”
(vs. 20).
Because of God’s judgment, Israel will pursue adultery in vain,
(Jer. 4:30). That is, Israel will try to leave God and find safety,
provision and blessing with another “husband” but God will not
allow her to be satisfied.
98
God supplied Israel’s needs yet she committed adultery &
thronged to the houses of prostitutes, (Jer. 5:7). She is like “lusty
stallions, each neighing after another man’s wife.” This is adultery. As
judgment, God will give their wives to other men, (Jer. 8:10). Wait a
moment! If God gives their wives to “other men,” is God going to
sovereignly make “adulterers” out of these “other men?” Is God
going to simply impose a sinful condition upon them? This cannot
be. But this situation will help us see that simple sexual relations
with another’s mate is not “adultery.” Something else is required
in order for the sex act to be adulterous.
Israel is full of adulterers and unfaithful people, (Jer. 9:2).
“He that looks upon a woman to lust after her has committed adultery
already with her in his heart,” (Matt. 5:27, 28). We will return to this
classic statement later.
“Everyone who divorces his wife except for … unfaithfulness, makes
her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits
adultery.” (Mt. 5:32; Mk. 10:1ff; Lk. 6:18ff).
“An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, but no sign will
be given,” (Mt. 12:39).
“Whoever will be ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous
generation…” (Mk. 8:8).
“If while her husband lives, she is joined to another man, she shall be
called an adulteress, but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so
that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man.” Rom.
7:3.
“Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers inherit the kingdom
of God,” (1 Cor. 6:9).
“The deeds of the flesh are evident, which are immorality,
impurity….” (Gal. 5:19).
“Whoremongers and adulterers, God will judge,” (Heb. 13:4).
“Adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that friendship with the
world is enmity with God?” (Jas. 4:4).
99
Comments and Observations:
The single greatest fear prohibiting people from enjoying the
range of sexual pleasure available to them is the fear of adultery.
This is to be expected. Adultery is condemned and those who are
guilty are threatened with severe punishment. No holy person will
even consider committing adultery. But is it crucial to our study to
understand what adultery actually is: not what it is said to be “by
those of old time.” Definitions matter supremely. Biblical examples
must be understood. Most of our paranoia about adultery comes
not from the Bible but from incorrect information handed down to
us for generations. Adultery has traditionally been defined as “sex
with someone other than our marital mate.” This definition of
“adultery” is false for two reasons:
1] It is not the true meaning of either the Greek or the
Hebrew word;
2] It does not meet the test of agreement with Biblical
examples.
Both adultery and prostitution are considered in Scripture to be
governed by property rights rather than by purity codes. Consider
again these quotes from above, (emphasis by the present authors).
Adultery is defined as, “To apostatize; a woman that breaks
wedlock.” (Strong’s # 5003, 4, 5)
“Symbolically adultery is used to express unfaithfulness to
covenant vows to God, who is represented as the Husband of His
people.” (Smith’s Bible Dictionary, pgs. 21, 22)
“…adultery, an adulteress.” Moixalis, an adulteress, applied as
an adjective to the Jewish people who had transferred their affections
from God.” (E. W. Bullinger, A Critical Concordance to the English and
Greek New Testament, pg. 28.)
“A young man meets an ”immoral woman” who is
“rebellious” and “would not stay at home,” Prov. 7:7-11.”
“Israel “tore off her bands and…lay down as a prostitute,” Jer.
2:20. This is a married woman who tore off the bands of her
marriage vows to give herself to another husband.
These statements suffice to demonstrate the core issue of
adultery. Adultery is committed by a woman who rebels against her
100
husband in going after sex with other men, or in other ways giving
her resources to them and depending on them, relating to them as
if they were her real husband. It is adultery because the husband
has not granted her freedom to have such association with other
men. She is his property (according to OT concepts) and she must
not breach his property rights by giving to others what he reserves
for himself alone.
A man commits adultery by taking from the married woman
what her husband has claimed as his sole privilege. It is this
“property rights” issue that distinguishes adultery. Strictly
speaking adultery is not a sex issue. Adultery is not “sex with
someone other than one’s spouse.” Adultery is taking what belongs
to someone else.
Adultery is not merely a sexual act. As we read from Scripture
Israel committed “adultery” against God numerous times yet all of
us understand that God and Israel never had sex, nor did “Israel”
as a nation have sex with other nations. Adultery is a matter of
rebelling against one’s spouse then putting trust in, depending on,
transferring one’s affections to another mate. By aligning herself
with foreign nations and taking their gods for herself Israel
committed adultery against God who was her true Husband. She
left God for another mate. Many things constitute adultery other
than a sex act. And a sex act itself is not adulterous unless it violates
the claim of exclusive ownership by one’s spouse. In other words, if
exclusive rights to a wife’s sexual favors is not claimed by a husband
then if his wife has sex with another man she has not thereby
committed adultery. There is no “rebellion” in her act and she has
in no way been “unfaithful” to her commitment to her husband.
She has not “broken the bands” of her marriage. If her faithfulness
to her marital commitment is not injured, the sex act has no moral
repercussions and it is not “adultery.”
It is impossible for us to perceive life as did Israel and her
neighbors. We have made many strides in the past few decades
toward realizing the full rights of women. We no longer have a
culture in which men generally consider women as “property.”
Especially in the Western world husbands do not feel they “own”
their wives. Women are granted liberty and privilege in every walk
of life, including marriage. But for us to understand the Biblical
concept of “adultery” we must understand that to the men of that
101
age a wife was as much his personal property as was a slave, a
horse or a house. His wife was granted more consideration that a
slave but she had very little more freedom or authority. From the
time of espousal the woman “belonged” to the man. Therefore for
another man to attempt to win a woman away from her fiancé was
considered “adultery.” Even if the two never had sex, any romantic
complicity between a fiancé and another man was “adultery.
Likewise in a marriage the husband maintained sole rights to
everything that pertained to his wife, including her sexuality.
Israelite men especially protected this sexual exclusivity because
his wife’s child-bearing capacity was absolutely crucial to his tribal
standing and posterity. A man’s future depended on his having
many children, especially sons. But these children must be his, and
not another man’s. Anything that might in anywise raise a doubt
about whether a child truly was his own was potentially
devastating to an Israelite husband. Their clannish, tribal Hebrew
culture demanded that a man have only “pure” offspring to receive
his inheritance. Otherwise his inheritance might fall into the hands
of another family.
The OT concept of adultery can be understood only when we
view it in light of its cultural setting. A man’s problem with a wife’s
sexual adultery was not merely a problem with her having sex with
another man. It was a problem with potential destruction of his
tribal lineage; a problem with knowing whether her children were
actually his. We have no such cultural concerns today, so it is hard
for us to see the importance of this issue. But to them it was a
survival matter.
And adultery was not limited to sexual unfaithfulness. Adultery
was a matter of being unfaithful to the marriage covenant. A man’s
wife could not leave him and live with another man as long as she
did not have sex with the second man. Property rights came into
play. Since she belonged to her husband, to leave and go to another
man was to participate in marital theft; taking the husband’s
property (herself, her presence, her abilities, her house-keeping,
cooking, etc.) and giving it to another man. Because she was an
accomplice to this theft she was as guilty as the second husband
and they were both to be executed. Adultery was, and is, breaking
marriage, destroying the marriage bond. There are more ways to
do this than mere sexual unfaithfulness. When a man abuses his
wife physically, mentally, emotionally or financially, he has
102
“broken covenant” with her and is an “adulterer.” Most marriages
in our society are formed around public vows whereby a man
swears before God and human witnesses that he will “love, cherish,
and honor” his wife, and promises to “protect and provide for her”
as well as to “keep myself (sexually) for you alone.” Any breach of
those vows is “adultery.” If a man makes six distinct vows, and
breaks all but one of them, how do we consider him “faithful?” If a
man honors his sexual vow but refuses to “love, honor, cherish,
protect and provide” for his wife has he been faithful to the
marriage covenant? Absolutely not!
Consider too, that whatever is not mutually enjoined upon each
other by the marriage covenant cannot be made a matter of
adultery. Suppose neither of the pair vowed to love, honor, cherish,
protect and provide for the other. To fail in any of those specifics
would not constitute breaking marriage covenant because none of
them was a part of that covenant. And if the couple did not vow to
grant the other exclusive rights to their sexuality, then to have sex
with someone else would not constitute breach of marriage
covenant. In other words it would not be adultery. It could not
possibly be so because sexual exclusivity was not a part of the
covenant. We say it again for emphasis: adultery is not “having sex
with someone other than one’s spouse.” Adultery is breaking the
marriage bond. Whatever breaks that bond is adultery. If a husband
and wife did not “bind” themselves to sexual exclusivity, then for
either of them to have sex with a third party is not adultery. It may
be something terrible, but it is not adultery.
If this is almost too outlandish to accept, put yourself again in
the OT setting and think of a righteous man like Jacob. He married
Leah first, then Rachel. Did he commit adultery with Rachel? Or
was it OK just because they were both married to him? Well, then
consider Judah’s encounter with his daughter-in-law Tamar (Gen.
38). He thought she was a prostitute and paid to have sex with her.
But even though adultery was a serious crime he was not accused
of adultery. Instead, when the affair was discovered he suffered
nothing more than a mild embarrassment at not having fulfilled his
promise to her. Maybe Abraham will help us again. He was
married to barren Sarah. In order to have children she could claim
as her own, Sarah insisted that Abraham copulate with Hagar,
Sarah’s maid. Abraham did so, thus having sex with someone other
than his wife. But Abraham did not commit adultery. Nor did he
103
commit any sort of sexual sin. Or how about all the others who had
wives yet without a second thought had sex with their wive's
“handmaidens,” with concubines, with slaves and with prostitutes.
All of this occurred under a law that mandated the death penalty
for both the man and woman caught in adultery. The sexual
proclivity of men like David, Solomon, Gideon and others was
public knowledge. If having sex with so many women to whom
they were not married was “adultery” why were none of those men
ever accused? Why were none of them ever punished? The truth
stares us right in the face doesn’t it? In a culture that knew exactly
what adultery is and is not, and took severe measures to do away
with adultery, having sex with people other than one’s mate was a
common occurrence, yet was never treated as adultery. Indeed it was
never treated as even unusual. Think about it! Even godly men
going in to prostitutes was not thought to be anything worth
fretting about. Doesn’t it make you wonder how we got all our
concepts about the sordidness of all sex except monogamous
intercourse in the missionary position?
In the OT system a slave woman who has sex with a man other
than her master is not considered an adulteress. She and her lover
are not to be killed, “because she has not been emancipated,” (Lev.
19:20-22). The law demands “damages” instead. The sexual act
itself was not “defiling,” otherwise there could not have been such
leniency on God’s part. The law in this case gives the reason for
leniency: she is a slave, not a wife. Thus “adultery” can be
committed only with, and by a woman who is free to “rebel”
against her husband. It is a property rights matter. In Scripture
adultery is primarily an offense against property. It is theft – whether
actual or intended – of another’s property.
An objective study of Biblical sex law makes one thing clear:
sexual practice was largely regulated by the principle of respect for
sexual property. God forbade what violates one’s personal sexual
property (thus forbidding rape, incest, and parents prostituting
their children), and sexual property belonging to others (thus
forbidding adultery and requiring restitution for “using” another
man’s slave.). Bestiality is forbidden evidently as inherently
abominable and unnatural. All other sex laws have to do with
honoring the personal rights of the other parties involved.
Property is an extension of the owner. To violate my property is
to violate my person. It is to steal something from me. In marriage,
104
violation of property rights by taking, or seeking to take a married
woman from her husband, is adultery. The notion of personal
sexual property formed the foundation of OT sexual ethics.
Impurity and dirtiness did not define sexual sin but “covetousness”
the desire to have something that belongs to someone else, did. Not
impurity and dirtiness, but disrespect for the rights of others
defined sexual sin. In other words, sexual practices were not
condemned because they were “filthy, unclean and dirty.” Sex acts
were condemned because they in some way hurt other people.
Take away this factor and you eliminate virtually all regulations
against sexual activity. That is, if a sex act does not in some way
harm another person, it is not of concern to God. It is a matter of
personal choice.
Deut. 20:5-7; 28:30, etc, equates acquisition of house, vineyard,
and wife. The wife, like these other possessions, became the
property of the husband and of the husband’s family as well. This
seems to be the logic of the Levirate marriage law which required
that if a man failed to impregnate his wife his brother was required
to do so. (cf. the previous chapter on “Polygamy”) If the brother
refused, it was a disgrace because he was setting his personal
desires above the good of the family, (Deut. 25:5-10).
In Israel, if another man had intercourse with a married woman
it constituted theft of her husband’s right to legitimate offspring.
Purity of physical lineage was crucial to inherited property rights,
preservation of the family name, and Messianic lineage. To corrupt
this in any way was a gravely serious issue. Thus the OT law
against adultery applied only to a man having sex with a married
woman, because this act threatened her husband’s lineage. And a
man could not commit adultery against his own wife, because she
had no claim to him as her property. A man could copulate with as
many women as he desired without ever corrupting his family
lineage. So for a man to have sex with many women was not an
issue, as long as he did not copulate with another married woman. If
he copulated with a different woman every night for a month, and
only the last woman was married, then he committed adultery only
with the last woman. Adultery was an issue only with a married
woman. A married woman committed adultery if she ever had sex
with any other man, under any conditions. Yeah, I know: “Where’s
the equality in that?” With Jesus’ alteration to this situation, the
woman became equal property owner of the husband thereby
105
gaining the same privileges in sexual matters as he has. Granting
equal status to both husband and wife did not shackle both of them
with prohibitions against privileges that were available to the man
in OT law. It had the effect of opening to both man and woman the
same sexual privileges. We discuss this in detail below.
Adultery compromised the continuity of the family lineage.
Having legitimate, tribal heirs was a primary concern to Israelite
culture. This is why an Israelite man hesitated to marry a nonvirgin.
It was not that she was “defiled” or “dirty.” It was because
she might possibly be pregnant with a child that would be outside
the man’s pure lineage. It was for this same reason that a man did
not want his wife to have intercourse with another man. Not that
the sex act itself was sinful but that it threatened the purity of the
lineage and put in question legitimate inheritance of family wealth.
Take away these factors and adultery becomes a non-issue when a
man has sex with another man’s wife or if the wife has sex with
another man. If a sex act ceases to be a situation where a man’s wife
is being taken from him, or his rights to legitimate offspring are
threatened, or inheritance of family wealth is not compromised, or
Messianic lineage is not being compromised, then the act of sex
with the mate of another becomes something other than adultery.
Regardless of how we might otherwise define it, it is not adultery. It
may be good, bad or indifferent, but it is not adultery. A married
man, under OT law, could have sex with virtually any other
woman who was not already married. It was not adultery for him
to do so because the above circumstances were not a factor in his
actions. Adultery was a factor only when sexual intercourse
involved a married woman. It was always adultery for a married
woman to copulate with any other man. It was never adultery for a
married man to copulate with anyone other than his wife, unless
the other woman was married.
The 7th Commandment, prohibiting adultery, is in proximity to
that of theft, (Ex. 20:14,15). One is forbidden to covet his neighbor’s
house or wife or servant or ox or ass or other property, (Ex. 20:17).
Adultery refers to a man taking, or desiring to take, a married woman
from her husband. This concept of adultery is strange to the
Western world but only because we have adopted concepts that
suit our own cultural setting and that flow from our polluted
doctrinal inheritance. We understand adultery to be sexual activity
outside the marriage by either spouse. But OT teaching proves that
106
a woman who was another man’s property must not violate his
property rights, yet the same man could have sex with a single
woman, a prostitute, another wife, a concubine, a slave, a divorced
woman or a widow, without committing adultery. This fact proves
beyond doubt that the sex act alone does not breach marital status and
is not adultery.
We moderns define adultery as “betrayal of trust,” but the Bible
never does so. Scripture teaches adultery is theft of another man’s
property, or rebellion against covenant commitment. This is true even in
the NT. Jesus redefined adultery such that both the husband and
the wife could commit adultery against each other. In the NT the
woman owns her husband just as he owns her, (cf. 1 Cor. 7:3,4). So
his sexual freedom is no greater than hers. They share “equal
opportunity” both with each other, and with others. In Jesus’
teaching adultery is defined such that its nature was in divorcing
one’s spouse and marrying another without sufficient reason. This
was to discard one’s wife without consideration to her rights to him
as her property. He was destroying her rights to possess her
property. He also broke the covenant bond of permanency – i.e.
“until death do us part.”
So with Jesus and NT authors, intention becomes the main thing.
Even in the “looking at a woman to lust after her,” it is the intention
Jesus deals with. It is not the “looking” that is adultery, but it is the
intention to take away the man’s property and have it as his own; to
break up the marriage and marry the woman whom he “covets.”
This is why polygamy was not an issue with God. God’s
concern has never been with “who is having sex with whom, and
how?” For a man to have several sex partners was never a matter of
adultery, even if a Solomon had 1,000 sex partners, always
available. In the NT the same privilege remains for the man simply
because God never took it away. But now, because woman is
sexually and maritally equal with man this privilege is open for the
woman also. Since God did not change His law and did not forbid
polygamy in the NT, it remains a freedom for a man to marry many
wives, have several concubines and even visit prostitutes, without
the sin of adultery. Such multiple relationships were not sin in the
OT and are not classified as sin in the NT. Since man and woman
become equal in NT ethics God makes it possible for woman now
to enjoy the same privileges that were once open only to a man.
Rather than destroying a man’s former privileges and bringing him
107
down to a lower level, Jesus raises woman up to the man’s previous
level. What constitutes adultery in Jesus’ teaching is not having sex
with someone other than one’s spouse, but it is divorcing and
remarrying without just cause. It is getting rid of one’s mate– breaking
marriage covenant – that constitutes adultery in His example. It is
rebelling against the covenant vow to live together “until death do
us part.”
Purity of physical lineage is no longer an issue in marital sex.
Messianic lineage is no longer an issue. And it is obvious that
copulating with multiple partners was never a moral issue with
God. Thus it seems clear that since God does not change the basic
structure of sexual license for the man, woman’s privilege now is
the same as his – across the board. A man may have sexual
pleasure with another woman but he may not prohibit his wife
from enjoying the same pleasure with another man. Property rights
– the right to expect the husband/wife to remain husband/wife
and not seek divorce – remain intact. Covenant commitment – mutual
vows to be married until death – remain intact. Having sex with
other partners does not automatically threaten the marriage bond.
Neither husband nor wife is free to divorce their mate in order to
pursue other mates. This could be done in the OT. A man who was
not rich enough to have more than one wife could divorce her and
marry another. The change made by Jesus is that now mates must
remain married to each other and make their sexual practices fit
with their absolute commitment to remain married until death
separates them. The point is that Biblically nothing changed
relative to a man having sex with another woman than his wife.
What changed was Jesus opening to the wife equal privileges with
the husband. In NT ethics “marital fidelity” is not defined as sexual
exclusivity; it is defined as “fidelity” to mutual property rights, and
to covenant vows of lifetime marriage.
To protect both husband and wife Jesus prohibited divorce for
either husband or wife except on the grounds of covenantal
unfaithfulness. What breaks covenant is reason for divorce. What
does not break covenant is not valid reason for divorce. If vows
were made concerning sexual exclusivity those vows must be kept.
But since such vows were made, not by God’s requirement but by
man’s invention, they can be altered by mutual consent. If they are
altered so as to eliminate the demands for sexual exclusivity then
108
sexual non-exclusivity cannot break marriage, and cannot be the
basis of either divorce or adultery.
The basis of marriage is lifetime commitment to each other.
Sexual intercourse with another person does not imply anything
about that commitment. Adultery in the mind and in actuality, is
either the desire or the actual attempt to end a marriage where there
has been no breach of covenant. God demands that a man and
woman not attempt to sever their marriage ties unless their mate
has been unfaithful to their original vows. Biblical vows evidently
included only that they would remain married for life. If evidence
arose that one mate was attempting to rob the other of his/her
property by severing the marriage bond it became grounds for
divorce by the innocent party. Jesus makes this a valid reason for
divorce and remarriage (Matt. 5:32ff; 19:9ff; Mk. 10:1ff; Lk. 16:18ff).
He was not talking about one mate having sex with someone other
than his/her mate. He was talking about desiring, planning or
attempting to undo the life long commitment they made to each
other. The appropriate and Biblically provable definition of “adultery”
is “severing or attempting to sever the marriage bond.” Doing so,
even in thought, “adulterates” the bond, lessens it, destroys it.
In Jesus’ statement about divorce and remarriage, two
significant facts appear.
[1. Jesus said if a man divorces his wife except for cause of
unfaithfulness he “makes her commit adultery,” (Mt. 5:32). How can
this be so? The woman in this case has obviously not had sex with
another man. So if “adultery” is “having sex with someone other
than one’s spouse,” how do we make sense of this statement? Since
the woman is innocent in this case, it is not possible that the mere act of
divorcing her has somehow made her guilty of having sex with
another man!
The Greek word here is moixeuthenai (aorist tense, passive
voice). The form of this word is intriguing in that the passive voice
puts the woman, not in a position of doing something, but of
something being done to her. What is said here is that the woman in
this case has been forcibly made a participant, not in a sex act, but
in “marriage breaking.” Beck’s translation says, “makes her a
partner in adultery.” Tyndale’s translation says, “causeth her to
break matrimony.” This makes the matter plain. Adultery is “the
act of breaking marriage.” The case cited above forces the woman
against her will, to become a party to marriage breaking. And any
109
man that marries her is also forced to participate in “marriage
breaking.” Neither of them are guilty of illicit sex. The situation of
unjustifiable divorce has broken marriage illegitimately, and this is
what God considers “adultery.” The woman has “been made to
participate in marriage breaking.” Sex has nothing to do with it.
[2. Adultery, in Jesus’ words, does not mean “sex with someone
other than one’s spouse.” Jesus defines “adultery” in His own
words as “divorcing one’s wife without legitimate reason.” As we
have been saying, this demonstrates that “adultery” is the intention
or the actual act of “breaking marriage bond.” If the marriage bond
is not broken, i.e. if the “partnership” is neither threatened nor
destroyed, then “adultery” is not an issue regardless of what sex
has been participated in. If sexual activity has been enjoyed with a
man other than this woman’s husband yet there was no intention to
break the marriage, then the sex act did not break the marriage.
Again we say emphatically, adultery is not a sex act. One may have
sex with many partners and never even come close to committing
adultery just as occurred in thousands of instances in the OT. If we
can get our definitions right then we can get our thinking and our
theology right.
God never voiced displeasure with multiple wives or
concubines or even prostitution. God did demand that when a man
married a woman he remain married to her and never allow her to
be thought of as less than other women in his life. He is
commanded to rejoice in the wife of his youth, (Prov. 5:18), that is,
treat her with the honor, dignity and favor she deserves as his first
and most highly cherished wife. It doesn’t exclude other wives or
concubines. It demands that a man give priority to his relationship
with his first wife. This requires that he not demean her, neglect
her, deprive her of sexual pleasure, etc. It also means that he must
not seek to get rid of her in order to marry other wives.
We mentioned the importance of intent in this issue. NT teaches
that it is not the act itself that is sin so much as the motive that
drives it. In the statement, “he that looks upon a woman to lust after her
has committed adultery already with her in his heart,” (Matt. 5:27, 28),
the sin is neither in the looking nor in sexual desire. The sin is “to
lust after.” The words refer to covetousness. This is, looking with the
intention to possess what belongs to someone else. Adultery is
present in intention even when it is not enacted. This infers that
where sexual thoughts and even sexual actions are exercised
110
without the intention of taking another’s property then neither the
sexual thoughts nor the act itself is adultery. If both mates agreed that a
wife was free to copulate with someone other than her husband
then doing so would not be adultery. If there was no intention to
possess the woman for oneself and take her away from her
husband it would not be adultery even if they have sexual
intercourse. A woman may set her eyes on another man and plan a
way to take him away from his wife and have him for herself. This
is adultery even in the thought. But if the desire is only for sexual
pleasure then it does not qualify as adultery for the intent to deprive
another is not there. And as with other possessions, a man may
“lend” his tools, car, boat, etc. to other people with perfect
propriety. Borrowing is not stealing and it does not deprive the
owner of his property. But if a man enters his neighbor’s garage at
night and takes his tools against his will it is theft. A man must be
allowed to exercise control over what belongs to him. To do
otherwise is theft. No one suspects that a neighbor desires to steal
his car, boat, tools, etc. if the neighbor asks to borrow them. And for
one to desire to borrow his neighbor’s property in no way
compromises the neighbor’s sole rights to that property. Others can
use it only by permission of the owner. But the owner does have the right
to allow others to use it. The same principle is true of both men and
women in marriage. They each possess the other’s body. They have
equal rights, and sole rights to the sexual favors of their mate. A
husband may have intercourse with another woman if his wife will
allow another woman to “borrow” her property. And a wife can
have intercourse with another man if her husband is willing for
another man to “borrow” his property. If mutual consent prevails,
sexual non-exclusivity in no way breaks the marriage bond.
“Outrageous?” No, it is Biblical. Just go back again to the OT and
read the hundreds of examples.
The idea that “I do not want to share my mate with anyone
else,” suggests that something is lost if one’s mate has sex with
another person. The reality is otherwise. There remains as much
sexual pleasure available to the mate as before. Nothing is
diminished or lost unless there is intent to end the marriage.
Otherwise it is nothing more than sexual pleasure, the same as it
was enjoyed by Abraham, Jacob, Judah, Gideon, Samson, David,
Solomon, etc. Can we get it in our mind that sex, in and of itself,
has no moral quality? Sex is a biological function. We have stated that
111
sex in humans is of no more moral consequence than is sex in
animals. It is only when sex is used in such a way that others are
harmed or their personal rights are disregarded that sex becomes
wrong. God’s laws for sex relate directly to this one issue. No one is
allowed to try to steal my wife from me or me from her. My wife is
not free to ditch me so she can marry someone else and I cannot
divorce her so I can remarry. Even the desire to do so is adultery.
Our vows to be united for life are God’s required vows. Having sex
with another person is not a part of that equation except when it
breaches one partner’s sole ownership of his/her mate’s body. If
either or both mates grant permission and freedom then sexual
experience may be enjoyed with other people. It no more threatens
their marriage bond than borrowing one’s tools threatens the
owner’s possession of them.
Wives of OT saints did not “share” their husbands with other
women for they lost nothing by their husband’s sexual activities
with other women. If a wife has sex with another man the husband
has not “shared” her with the other man. He still “possesses” his
wife as his own and he still has as much of her sexual favors as he
desires plus all other marital blessings. If a woman’s husband has
sex with another woman the wife has not “shared” him with the
other woman. She still “possesses” her husband as her own and she
still has as much of his sexual favors, protection, provision, etc. as
before. In either case the husband and wife must not diminish the
sexual pleasure desired by their mates. If they exercise themselves
sexually outside the marriage they must be faithful to the needs of
their mates at all times. These things said, there is no reason for
men not to enjoy the same sexual advantages now that God’s
holiest men did in OT. And since women are now sexual equals
with men there is every reason to liberate them, inform them of
their privileges, and release them to take advantage of their sexual
freedom and enjoy this wonderful pleasure to their full satisfaction.
Men have always had this privilege (in spite of church dogma). Are
we “man enough” to grant it to our women?
We do realize that this sounds radical. But we encourage
readers to reflect again on the fact that this very situation prevailed
in OT Israel with God’s approval, with the exception that only the man
could enjoy this privilege and that he enjoyed it whether or not the
wife approved! How, when and why does it become “crude”
“lascivious” “promiscuous” etc. to continue the same freedom for
112
the husband but now open it also to the wife? In other words how
could it be a blessing for the man then but a curse for the woman now?
How can we accuse God of vulgarity and other such accusations by
implying that He should never have sanctioned these very
situations? And how can we think we have a better concept of
sexual propriety than God does? If we can get it in our minds that
adultery is to deprive another of their property we will cease to have
difficulties with this subject. The advantage granted by the ethics of
the NT is that now the woman has a voice in this whole arena and she
has the same sexual liberty as her husband. A parallel to this is the
raising of woman to the same spiritual status of the man so that she
can now exercise leadership in the church equally with the man.
What was not generally allowable in OT is now allowable in this
area. So it is with sexual liberty. Only the man could enjoy sexual
liberty then. Since God did not eliminate that freedom it remains
for the man. But because the gospel liberates woman and raises her
to the same status as man, now the woman can also enjoy the same
sexual liberty that man has always enjoyed. Man was not brought
down; woman was brought up.
What difference does this concept make? We believe that
marriages by the thousands can be saved if husband and wife can
accept the facts that sexual desire is natural and clean and that desire
for sexual pleasure is as normal now as it was in the OT. The desire
for more sexual pleasure is no more “perverted” or “unnatural” or
“unholy” than is the desire for more food! A husband’s appetite for
more food does not threaten the wife just because she does not
desire more. A wife’s desire for another helping does not threaten
the husband just because he is already full. It is no more sinful or
unclean today for men to desire sex with many women than it was
for David, Solomon, Gideon, and all the rest. If it was good then it
cannot be evil now! And it is not sinful or unclean for women to
desire to have sex with more than one man. The sex act itself is not
an issue with God. What God protects is the relationship we have
with others. He demands that we respect their personal rights, their
property rights, and our/their mutual commitment to lifetime
marriage. God requires only that husbands and wives do not sever
their marriage ties in order to pursue sex with other partners. If the
commitment to marriage ties remain strong there is no prohibition
against, nor limit to each spouse enjoying the sexual favors of
113
others. It was so for men in the OT. It is so for both men and women
now.
Spouses should not feel threatened by the desire of their partner
to have sex with another person. It is literally as natural and
common as the desire for water. Such a desire is not a lack of love
for one’s mate. It is nothing more than a desire for additional sexual
pleasure. When David added wives to his harem it in no way
implied a loss of love for his previous wife/wives. Neither partner
should feel threatened by their spouse’s desire for sexual variety.
Sex is not love, it is pleasure. When combined with love sex is
intensified, but sexual intercourse does not inherently imply love. It
certainly does not imply love in the animal world. That a spouse
desires sexual pleasure with others does not mean he/she loves
their mate any less. The love and the marriage bond of life-long
commitment is still as strong as ever. But they have opened
themselves up to pleasure that God has explicitly allowed for
thousands of years. We would do well to cease referring to sexual
activity as “making love” because truthfully, it has nothing
inherently to do with “love.” We could more appropriately call it
“having pleasure,” “enjoying sex,” or whatever, and thereby
eliminate the thought that to engage in sex with a person means we
“love” that person. There is no more reason to equate love and sex,
than to equate a back-rub and love; eating together and love; etc.
Sex with one we love intensifies the enjoyment and emotion of sex.
But in the same way eating a meal with one we love makes the
meal more enjoyable than eating with relative strangers. Marriages
that are founded on sex rather than love will not endure beyond the
physical limitations of our bodies and our physical capacity for sex.
Marriage founded on love will remain strong despite whatever else
comes along. We can and should make the effort required to rid
ourselves of the junk that fills our minds because of life-long
misinformation heaped upon us “by them of old time.” We can
give our partners a wonderful gift by giving them the freedom to
use their sexual liberty in ways that will enhance their joy of living
and increase their fulfillment.
These things being said, it may now be apparent to wives, that
when their husband “checks out” a beautiful woman he is not
somehow being “mentally unfaithful” to her, or wishing he had
married someone else, or no longer thinks she is beautiful, or no
longer loves her, or....… If a husband looks appreciatively at
114
another woman the wife need not feel hurt as though she has
somehow become less in his eyes. If a husband enjoys looking at
photos of beautiful, nude women, the wife should not think he has
become perverted and that she is an unworthy wife. When
husbands show such proclivity for the beauty and sexuality of
other women it implies nothing about the worthiness, sexuality,
attractiveness or anything else, of the wife. She should absolutely
not feel the least bit threatened. All it means is that her husband
enjoys sex and beautiful women in the same way David, Abraham,
Solomon and other great saints did. Surely no one believes that
when a couple marry then suddenly all other women become
unattractive to the husband and all other men become unattractive
to the wife. Possessing a beautiful house does not suddenly cause
all other houses to become ugly. Husbands do not suddenly
become blind to beautiful women when they marry and wives do
not suddenly become blind to handsome men when they marry.
Once married, husbands and wives do not cease to have any sort of
sexual response to other attractive people. It is unrealistic for
married people to expect their mates to never again take a second
look at an attractive person of the opposite sex. And it is not
necessary for married people to feel they must choke off sexual
urges and desires that simply exist. They do not need to feel that
they must “protect my property at all cost,” and thereby deny the
one they love some sexual adventure and pleasure that is legitimate
for them. And those who desire to take advantage of their sexual
liberty should not feel guilty or ashamed or condemned because
they have that desire.
A man should not feel the least bit threatened if his wife looks a
second time at a handsome, well-built man. There is absolutely no
excuse for jealousy in such a situation. If she comments on how
good-looking he is the man should be able to agree and be glad his
wife is not cowed and in bondage to unrealistic opinions and
expectations. What a wonderful thing it would be if all men would
allow their wives to open their eyes and enjoy the normal delight of
looking appreciatively at the other sex. How can a man truly love
his wife and refuse to allow her to fully experience natural,
legitimate emotions? If a man’s wife looks at other men and acts in
a way so as to suggest she might be having sexual thoughts about
other men he should not feel the least bit threatened by it. If a wife
enjoys looking at photos of well-built, nude men, the husband
115
should not feel the least bit inadequate as a lover or fear that he is
no longer satisfying his wife. Such “looking” implies nothing about
her commitment to their marriage, and nothing at all about her
husband’s attractiveness, sexuality or anything else. All it means is
that his wife enjoys sex and handsome men in the same way David,
Abraham, Solomon and other great saints loved beautiful women.
It means that she has come out of her shell, has been able to
straighten up her bent back, lift her bowed shoulders and raise her
head and gladly and confidently begin to enjoy her equal status
with her husband. The husband who genuinely loves his wife, who
can understand what this means to women in general and his wife
in particular, will rejoice and thrill in his heart that his wife has thus
come to full freedom and is able to do what few women have ever
been free to do. The very nature of “love” is the desire to give to the
loved one all that will make them happy; to sacrifice for the sake of
happiness and satisfaction of the loved one. The husband who can
understand and accept this will rejoice that his wife can fully enjoy
her whole person – soul, spirit, and body. Such a husband must be
very confident in himself and in his wife’s love for him. And a wife
who is offered such freedom should be able to see in it a gift of
supreme love and trust from a husband who desires for her
everything that she is able to enjoy and who trusts in her complete
devotion to him. Rather than being suspicious of his possible
“ulterior motives” she should see his gift to her of sexual liberty as
doubtless the greatest gift he is able to give her and to deeply
appreciate it as such and to demonstrate her appreciation by using
the gift! For a wife to extend to her husband such sexual freedom as
we have discussed requires a wife whose love for her husband rises
above suspicion, fear, jealousy and possessiveness and motivates
her to grant to him the liberty to enjoy everything that he can
legitimately enjoy. And she must trust in his complete devotion to
her. A husband who receives such a gift from his wife must surely
realize the great love she demonstrates in giving him the greatest
gift she is able to give him. He must be aware of the tremendous
depth of trust she has in him. Such a mutual gift of sexual liberty is
perhaps the clearest demonstration possible, of a couple’s mutual
commitment to the full growth and development of their partner.
If a married couple can overcome the mountainous hurdle that
has been placed before them in the opinions, traditions and cultural
standards of society and an ignorant church; if they can transcend
116
the fallacy that sex with anyone other than their spouse is utterly
forbidden, they are poised to begin exciting adventures together
heretofore unimaginable. They can go places together, do things
together, watch things together, talk about things together that will
enhance their enjoyment of life, of other people, and of each other.
If they have committed together to remain married no matter what
and then grant the gift of sexual freedom to their mate, they can do
nothing else that is so unselfish and so full of love and trust.
Jesus said, “the truth will makes us free.” Digging through the
morass of misinformation, traditional interpretation, doctrinal
error, prejudicial opinions, high minded dogmatism and outright
contempt for legitimate Biblical truth is a formidable task. But
finding Biblical truth is worth any effort required. We believe that
if people will sincerely study Biblical truth (rather than read it
superficially), and can accept Biblical truth (rather than yielding to
fear of breaching prevailing opinions), and are willing to think
through and draw correct conclusions for themselves from Biblical
truth, then they can step into sexual freedom with none of the
illegitimate baggage that would otherwise plague them. This takes
courage and determination. But the sexual freedom they gain for
themselves, and grant to each other would be so wonderful as to
make the price seem insignificant by comparison.
May women now, as men once did, experience the full freedom
of their equal status with men. And may men gladly grant to their
wives all the freedom that they should rightfully enjoy. May all
husbands and wives proceed together with gladness into the liberty
made possible by truth.
May they never again be shackled by unbiblical doctrines and
opinions of men.
Additional note on Rom. 7:1-4, relating to “adultery.”
Paul references the OT code regulating marriage from the
“patriarchal, wife-as-possession” perspective unique to the
cultural/national/messianic hope environment in which that code
was given. Referencing this code makes maximum impact upon
his Jewish readers for the purpose of helping them recognize his
point about being freed from the OT code entirely, (vs. 4). Thus, “I
am speaking to those who know the law,” (vs. 1). To reference this code
does not establish it as regulative for NT believers, any more than
to reference any OT ceremonial/sacrifice/holy day code would
117
become regulative for Christians. Jesus ended the law’s rule over
believers (Rom. 10:4). This emphatic statement from the Holy Spirit
ends any validity to arguments that the OT law is regulative for our
conduct in any way.
But this very truth is stated in the very text of Rom. 7:1-4. Verse.
4 is transparently clear: “You were made to die to the law through the
body of Christ.” Then Paul says, “Now we have been released from the
law, having died to that by which we were bound,” (vs. 6). Likewise, “if
the husband dies she is released form the law of the husband” (vs.
2) and “if her husband dies she is free from the law,” (vs. 3). The entire
section is written specifically to prove that our spiritual death with
Christ (Rom. 6:1ff) has ended our relationship to law, and it never
again can “bind” us to its rules, restrictions and penalties.
So Paul’s use of this OT law of “adultery” is an appeal to their
understanding of how that code operated for as long as they were
under it, in order to demonstrate that they had been set entirely free
from law by the death of Christ. Their freedom from the rule of law
was just as total as a widow’s freedom from a dead husband.
Regardless of what harsh laws he may have laid down, how severe
his treatment of her, or how controlling he might be, once he is
dead the widow owes no more allegiance to him or his laws. We
feel pity for a widow who cannot escape the emotional scars left by
a harsh, demanding husband. Yet spiritually, we find millions of
believers doing the same thing relative to the law, their dead
spiritual husband. We must walk away from all vestiges of that
former relationship and never look back. The law is dead. We are
set free. Our new Husband, Jesus, demands only that we “love God
with our whole heart, and love our neighbor as we love ourselves,” (Matt.
22:36-38). His “new commandment” is that we love each other just as
He has loved us, (Jn. 13:34; 15L12, 17; 1 Jn. 2:7f 3:11, 23; 2 Jn. 5). If
we will love God and neighbor, we fulfill all commandments God
ever gave, (Rom. 13:8, 10). Thus Christ’s one new commandment
has effectively replaced all God’s former individual
commandments. This includes all God’s commandments about sex.
We are not under that old husband’s rule anymore. We are under
the rule of our New Husband, Jesus. His law about sex and
everything else is singular: “In sexual matters do nothing that will
harm others. This will fulfill all God’s previous laws about sex.”
118
To return to Rom. 7 then, the OT “code of marriage” is a part of
that which we “are made free from,” (vs. 4). Therefore the “wife as
possession” regulative principle no longer exists. All NT believers
are “made free from” that law. Since the death and resurrection of
Jesus, marriage no longer makes a wife the property of her
husband. Therefore all the regulations that served to enforce that
concept, have no validity. The heart of that concept having been
killed, the extremities must also die.
It should go without saying, but we will say it anyway: that
code never eliminated God’s prima facie acceptance of polygamy and
concubinage. The God who gave that marriage code, still accepted
multiple sexual relationships. Paul does not attempt to explore the
ramifications of the OT marriage code. His sole interest is to
establish the basic OT principle of “bondage” of a woman to man in
marriage for the purpose of illustrating how NT believers are freed
from all such bondage, to be joined to Christ in a life of liberty.
Paul did not mention the fact that even under that code, one
could divorce his wife and marry another, but a wife could not thus
divorce her husband to marry another. Divorce and remarriage, in
OT, was a one sided privilege: for the man only. In making divorce
a privilege for the woman also, Jesus opened to her the same
advantages the man always had.
Paul himself, in 1 Cor. 7:15, releases a woman from “bondage”
to a husband who merely leaves her. He is still living, yet she is
“free.” Thus re-marriage is an option for her with no fear of
“adultery.” Paul’s point here demonstrates that his use of Rom. 7:4
is from the OT perspective for the sole purpose of persuading Jews
of the abrogation of the law. It is not, in any sense, an attempt to
enforce as an eternal, universal law what God mandated only in the
temporary setting of Jewish patriarchy.
We have no justification for trying to apply the OT law of
marriage to NT believers in such a way that we bind NT believers
to something even that OT law did not bind them to. Paul’s use of
this code cannot possibly be employed in a way that goes beyond
the bounds of its original OT application. Nor can his use of this
code contradict his own revelation that saints are set free from that
very code. Since OT law allowed multiple sexual relationships then
it is “unlawful” to use that law in an attempt to outlaw multiple
sexual relationships today. Paul’s use is in strict harmony with OT
application: he deals solely with the “woman” side of the issue to
119
make his point about being free from the law. Any use of OT
marriage code by NT believers must necessarily incorporate Jesus’
alteration of its basic regulation of women.
The “Open Marriage”
It is unfortunate that we no not have a good word to describe
the sexual activity of married couples who mutually agree to
enlarge their “circle of love” to include others in their sexual
activity. By now we can see that the word “adultery” is utterly
inappropriate to describe this activity. “Infidelity” is also
inappropriate, inasmuch as neither partner is being “unfaithful” to
the other. Both have agreed to explore sexuality with others than
their marital partners. As such, extra-marital sex becomes in fact a
manifestation of their true “fidelity” to each other; a demonstration
of their strong trust in each other and their mutual delight in the
spiritual, emotional and sexual growth and fulfillment of their
partners. Infidelity, like adultery, is much more involved than mere
sexual behavior. It is an issue of constriction of love; false security,
dishonesty; mistreatment, deception and general lack of respect for
the other’s person-hood. It grows out of suffocating possessiveness
which is life-destroying. Infidelity is manifested in many ways
other than in a sexual sense. It is a lack of trust and honesty. It is
based on fear of the other, and uncertainty about oneself. It shows a
disregard for truth, integrity and trustworthiness.
The open-ended marriage respects the integrity of the other
mate and values sexual liberty. Infidelity is as much an issue with
those who pursue open marriage as is adultery. Open marriage
advocates are careful to protect their primary relationship with
each other. They are committed to their vows of permanency and
mutual nurturing. Each works at encouraging the growth and
fulfillment of the other. Both partners are sensitive to the need for
truth and honesty in their sexual practices and in all other aspects
of their relationship. And at the same time they refuse to constrict
themselves and their partners to exclusive intimacy.
It is ironic and hypocritical for courts to grant divorce on the
grounds of “adultery” while refusing to accept and honor the
testimony of couples who wish divorce on the grounds of mutual
incompatibility, unhappiness, or on irreconcilable infidelity in the
broader non-sexual sense. Such incongruity often consigns people
120
to enduring hellish conditions in an exploded relationship, on the
theory that only “adultery” (restricted meaning: sex with another
than one’s mate) makes divorce acceptable. This ignores the reality
that many more lives are destroyed by the non-sexual lying,
deceiving, conniving, hurtful behavior of mates, than is the case
with “sexual infidelity.”
Open marriages are monogamous: the couple maintains a
primary one-to-one relationship based on mutual commitment and
intended to last a lifetime. But it does not exclude the possibility of
other intimate and sexual friendships. It may or may not involve
formal “marriage” (i.e. license, minister, public ceremony). We
understand that there are risks and challenges involved in open
ended marriages. But so are there risks in traditionally
monogamous marriages. But there are a significant number of men
and women who are ready and eager to face those challenges and
take those risks because they know that a more joyful and loving
marital lifestyle is possible and attainable. Open-ended marriage
promotes risk-taking in trust. It encourages the warmth and joy of
loving without anxiety. It fosters the extension of affection beyond
only one person in the universe. It proclaims the excitement and
pleasure of knowing a variety of persons in a sensual way. It
experiences the enrichment that a variety of personalities can
contribute to each other. Open marriage makes it possible to be
fully alive in every encounter with other people.
Christians desperately need an ethic of sex for enjoyment,
pleasure and interpersonal enrichment, all of which aligns with the
“goodness” of sex as God created it and as it is seen practiced
throughout the Bible. We need to discard the non-biblical notion
that sex is utterly forbidden except to married people and only for
purposes of reproduction. The subject of sexuality is so frightening
and threatening that few parents, educators or church leaders are
willing to do the hard work of trying to understand what the Bible
actually says about it and then allowing sex to have an unhindered
place in the human experience. If we could arrive at a sex ethic for
pleasure along the lines suggested by the Song of Solomon for
instance, it might include at least the following:
1. Consistently positive attitudes toward sexual pleasure.
2. Eradication of the double standard as harmful to both male
and female sexuality.
121
3. Learning methods of non-coital mutual orgasm as a birth
control option and as forms of enjoyable and healthy sex.
4. Openly joyful celebration of the human body and all its
sexual possibilities, with none of the hiddeness, shame and guilt
that currently shrouds human sexuality.
5. Education that values and encourages personal responsibility
and decision making, with integrity, sensitivity and love for the
other person.
6. Honest, non-judgmental information about options for
relational styles and modes of sexual behavior.
7. Enjoyment of what “turns one on” sexually without judging
those whose personal choices do not coincide with ours.
Traditional monogamy is in a crisis. It has been cheapened by
the double standard, is mocked by the high divorce rate and is
seriously threatened by the incredible weight of the functions it is
forced to serve. Parents and children teeter on the beguilingly
frosted tiers of unrealistic expectations, and many of them crumble
under the weight of failed expectations. We expect too much of
ourselves, of each other, of the community and of the fragile
complexity of marital and family obligations. To attempt to be all
things to each other at all times and under all circumstances is to
beg for defeat. We can begin the reparative work by teaching our
children the truth about the pain, frustration, agonies and puzzles
of married life. We must not shield them from the truth that they
will love and live in the midst of crises and tragedies that will make
their loving and living difficult. We can attempt to pull the fangs of
jealousy by truthfully telling them that their self-esteem and
confidence in self and others is in no wise damaged or threatened
by the naturally human desire to reach out intimately to other
people. We can help them immensely by teaching them that they
can be sexually faithfully to each other while at the same time
giving each other the freedom to explore openness and sexual
intimacy with others. In short, our young people have the right to
know that there is an option for their desire for a stable, long-term
relationship. Traditional monogamy is acceptable for all who desire
it. But the option is open for all who wish to explore the openended
marriage.
122
Open marriages preserve the values and commitments of
traditional monogamy while overcoming its main limitation –
sexual exclusivity. There are many who do not automatically
equate sexual exclusivity with marital fidelity. Repudiating the
double standard, they enjoy intimacy, sensuality and often sex with
other friends. With no shame and with full trust in each other, the
partners in an open marriage enrich each other through their
mutual gift of sexual liberty, through encouragement to each other
to learn and grow sexually and through delight in each other’s joy
in loving other people. Their loving of others does not diminish
love for each other. Rather, it opens new vistas of love that only
enrich their mutual love and commitment. Open marriage offers
the possibility of a vibrant, committed monogamy that also
embraces the being of other persons, sharing with them the grace of
human caring and touch.
Finally, those who decide to pursue open-ended marriage must
be prepared for the social consequence. Most of those who learn of
your practice will not be able to exercise sympathy with your
lifestyle. Our cultural/religious training virtually prohibits most
people from seeing the morality of sex with someone other than
one’s spouse. “Infidelity,” “adultery,” “promiscuity,” “sick,”
“immoral,” “degenerate” and other such words will be the staples
of choice for accusers, judges and finger pointers. Traditional
morality focuses so much on the act that it can make no room for
relationships that are not sexually exclusive. Traditional morality
focuses on the number of sexual partners without reference to the
more important matter of the quality of relationship. Those who
practice open marriage must be prepared to be judged as immoral,
blasphemous and degenerates. But perhaps it will help to know
that this places you in the same category as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob,
David and a host of other mighty saints. In our society they would
be judged as severely, with the same epithets. But God accepted
them and their non-sexually-exclusive practices. If it is good
enough to pass God’s inspection why worry overmuch about
passing human inspection? We trust that we have demonstrated
that what God defines as “adultery” does not fit at all the practice
of including others into the circle of our commitment to each other
as a couple-married-for-life. We have demonstrated that the most
godly of Biblical saints did not practice sexual exclusivity within their
marriages. This is simply an indisputable matter of the Biblical
123
record. We can safely follow their example without fear of
committing “adultery.” And our lives can be wonderfully
enhanced by mutually granted sexual liberty without the
judgmental baggage heaped upon it by an ignorant and prejudicial
church and society.
124