QUESTIONS ABOUT ADULTERERS?

[JESUSLOVER2007]

How come married men who committed adultery on his wife with a SINGLE woman did NOT get stoned? She had to be married for him to get stoned. Leviticus 20:10 But a married woman who cheated on her husband with any man got stoned no matter what? Could a wife even divorce an adulterer husband back then or today? Why does GOD consider wives their husbands property?!

[jayne]

How come married men who committed adultery on his wife with a SINGLE woman did NOT get stoned?

You are assuming that because the married man has sex with a single woman and that the Bible does not address it in Leviticus 20 that he gets away with it scott free. You are wrong.

You also said that a married woman could cheat on her husband with any man at all and she would be stoned. You are going to have to show me where the Bible says that. I don't see it.

The law in Leviticus and Deuteronomy is not exhaustive of all human sins. If God made provisions for all human sins in the law, then the Bible would weigh a literal ton. For example - female homosexuality is not condemned in the law. Only male homosexuality is condemned. Did that mean it was OK for women to be lesbians? No. The law merely does not mention it.

The law was teaching the Jews how to live holy lives. And a lot of it is directed at the men. If the men would behave and do right, then their wives and children would follow.

The law said that two people - both married to other people - who are having consensual sex are to be stoned. The Bible does not mention in Leviticus 20 what is to happen if a married man has consensual sex with an unmarried woman. Does that men a married man could have consensual sex with an unmarried woman and God would let that slide? No, just like women could not have engaged in lesbian sex thinking that God would let that slide merely because it was not mentioned.

The law DOES say that a man (it doesn't specificy married or not) who engages in consensual sex with an unmarried young woman who was engaged to another man - that they both were to be stoned. Being engaged was taken as seriously as marriage.

Deuteronomy 22:23-24
“Suppose a man meets a young woman, a virgin who is engaged to be married, and he has sexual intercourse with her. If this happens within a town, you must take both of them to the gates of that town and stone them to death. The woman is guilty because she did not scream for help. (implying she gave consent) The man must die because he violated another man’s wife. In this way, you will purge this evil from among you."

If he (married or not) has consensual sex with a young who was NOT married or even engaged, he was to pay the customary bride-price for her and marry her and take care of her. He, with the law making the implication that he lead her into this and defiled her reputation, must bear the responsibility of making her his wife if he is going to have sex with her. If he were to be stoned, he could not bear this responsibility to her.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 "Suppose a man has intercourse with a young woman who is a virgin but is not engaged to be married. If they are discovered, he must pay her father fifty pieces of silver. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her (NOT rape), and he may never divorce her as long as he lives."

But - if he raped the woman - he was to die for it. The Bible says that the woman could not be punished because she did nothing wrong and she is given the benefit of the doubt that she struggled and cried out even if NO ONE heard her. The Bible says that God equates rape with murder.

Deuteronomy 22:25-27 "But if the man meets the engaged woman out in the country, and he rapes her, then only the man must die. Do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no crime worthy of death. She is as innocent as a murder victim. Since the man raped her out in the country, it must be assumed that she screamed, but there was no one to rescue her."

Could a wife even divorce an adulterer husband back then or today?

In Moses' day, divorce was to protect women from hard-hearted husbands. Moses said that and Jesus said that. Yes, today a woman can divorce a husband who commits adultery

Why does GOD consider wives their husbands property?

He doesn't and never has.

I know that you struggle with past and serious abuses. I also know that you struggle with a mental illness. Your struggles with these passages that you bring up over and over will end up breaking you if you not get some help.

It is NEVER TOO LATE to contact a crisis center and find competent counseling. It is NEVER TOO LATE to deal with what you have dealt with.

But my dear sister - you need to stop blaming God and stop declaring him to be a woman-hater.

I encourage you to find a real-life counselor.

[Walls]

How come married men who committed adultery on his wife with a SINGLE woman did NOT get stoned? She had to be married for him to get stoned. Leviticus 20:10 But a married woman who cheated on her husband with any man got stoned no matter what? Could a wife even divorce an adulterer husband back then or today? Why does GOD consider wives their husbands property?!

Some months ago I got verbally beaten up for giving my thoughts and observations on a similar matter. So at the risk of another berating, here goes. In Matthew 15:6b the Lord established that men's traditions make the Word of God of none effect. In a not so serious way our modern idea of marriage, based on our traditions does the same.

We WASPs (Western Anglo Saxon Protestants) have developed a tradition that says a marriage goes like this. Boy meets girl, they might kiss and hold hands (but no more please). Then it gets serious because they have fallen in love so please get engaged (but no heavy petting please). Then some time later comes a wedding ceremony followed by a feast and because the Preacher/Justice of the Peace/Marriage Officer says that by the power invested in him by the state - "you are married", they suddenly become married. Then sometime after long celebrations etc. the Bride and Bridegroom stumble into a hotel room somewhere and "consumate" the marriage by having sex.

The bible looks at it totally differently. You can do what you want. This vow or that ceremony, this kiss or that petting, this dress code or that venue, white dress or bikini - all are the traditions of men. Marriage in the bible is when a man and a woman copulate for the first time. It is a blood covenant. The woman's hymen is ruptured and the male sperm is a product of his blood. This is biblical marriage. Take a look at Isaac's marriage. The biblical marriage transcends all the different cultures and traditions. It is the simple and wonderful act of sexual intercourse by two eligible members of the opposite gender.

So, to your question. We observe in the bible (please don't kill me for saying this before you have checked it out) that (1) God made a man (single) and a woman (single). This was His perfect plan and our Lord Jesus confirms it in Matthew Chapter 19. And (2) for some reason God tolerated a man having more than one wife. But God never tolerated a woman having more than one husband. The only restriction on wives is found in the Law of Moses where the king of Israel was not "to multiply wives to himself" (Deut.17:17). Now the Hebrew word for "multiply" means to "numerically increase". It does NOT have the connotation of "restricting to one." Added to this, multiple wives was actually ordered by God in another part of scripture to ensure that the Land had an inheritor. In Deuteronomy Chapter 25 a woman whose husband died without giving her a child was to be taken as wife by the dead man's brother and given a child. The seriousness of this desire of God is seen in Genesis Chapter 38 were God kills a man for thwarting this purpose, and this long before the Law was given.

So your observation that married couples who committed adultery were to be killed, a married woman was to be killed, but not a single woman with a married man is correct. All that happens at the moment of copulation is that the single woman becomes the next wife of that married man. If he then puts her away and she goes with another man, then the problems start. But if she stays faithful as a second (or third, or what ever number she was) wife, all is well. No sin has been committed.

I hope my readers can jump over WASP traditions and see what was written in the bible.

[JESUSLOVER2007]

Thank you for always calling me Sister, Jayne. I appreciate it. All i heard is that a husband who slept with a single woman never got stoned, only osctrasised and whipped. But Leviticus 20:10 doesn't say that a wife could sleep with a single man and not get stoned. It just seems unfair to me that a husband got away with cheating on his wife with a single woman, not get stoned, and his wife couldn't even divorce him for his unfaithfullness. What if the woman who got raped was single? Then would her rapist get stoned? I don't think so.
I don't think GOD is a woman hater all the time. Whenever i feel HE loves us women i know it is never as much as HE loves men.
My mental illnesses have nothing to do with this issue of mine. Reading the BIBLE does. I used to really think GOD did love me very much before. Then i read HIS WORD and found out i was wrong!!! I am NOT trying to throw a pity party. I don't want pity, just answers. The BIBLE makes it perfectly clear that GOD and HIS men are to keep us women in line, especially our husbands!

[jayne]

Added to this, multiple wives was actually ordered by God in another part of scripture to ensure that the Land had an inheritor.

You are going to have to show me the exact "part of scripture" where God ordered men to take more than one wife for the "Land's" sake for for any other sake.

I hope my readers can jump over WASP traditions and see what was written in the bible.

Oh, trust me. It isn't my WASPishness that sees the tragedies that polygamy caused in the Old Testament.

[Walls]

"5 If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the widow of the dead man shall not be married to a stranger outside the family; her husband's brother shall go in to her, take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her. 6 And it shall be that the firstborn son which she bears will succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel. 7 But if the man does not want to take his brother's wife, then let his brother's wife go up to the gate to the elders, and say, 'My husband's brother refuses to raise up a name to his brother in Israel; he will not perform the duty of my husband's brother.' 8 Then the elders of his city shall call him and speak to him. But if he stands firm and says, 'I do not want to take her,' 9 then his brother's wife shall come to him in the presence of the elders, remove his sandal from his foot, spit in his face, and answer and say, 'So shall it be done to the man who will not build up his brother's house.' 10 And his name shall be called in Israel, 'The house of him who had his sandal removed.'
(Deut.25:5 - NKJV)

Note that he is not relieved of the duty just because he may have another wife (wives).

See also; "Then Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, and her name was Tamar. But Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord, and the Lord killed him. 8 And Judah said to Onan, "Go in to your brother's wife and marry her, and raise up an heir to your brother." 9 But Onan knew that the heir would not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in to his brother's wife, that he emitted on the ground, lest he should give an heir to his brother. 10 And the thing which he did displeased the Lord; therefore He killed him also." (Gen 38:6-10 - NKJV)

I thought this might be the passages you brought you. I am quite familiar with them as I have taught Genesis many times.

My two cents?

This isn't God ordaining polygamy. God doesn't contradict Himself as He described marriage as "a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife" As you said, the brother of the dead man may be married or he may not be married. Odds are, he may not be since the scripture begins with "if there are two brothers who are living together". But I suppose two married brothers could have been living in the same extended household.

I see this as God protecting the widow. Being a widow and having no son to provide for you was deadly business. A woman in those days was 110% dependent on a father, husband, or son for every bite put in her mouth and every shelter and every need for her and her children. If her husband's name is blotted out in Israel and she doesn't have a son, then her only recourses are: marrying someone else (probable, but difficult if she were older or since she is not a virgin anymore), prostitution, slavery, and/or begging. In that patriarchal society, it was nearly impossible for a woman with no husband to survive and provide for herself with ending up an a undesirable and unhappy situation.

Also, the first-born son is a "type", if you will, of Christ - being he always received the double portion of inheritance and 100% of the blessing. It was important that a family not be blotted out and it was important to maintain the family number.

These levirate marriages don't promote nor condone a generic polygamy.

Also, with Onan, I'm of the thinking that he did not impregnate Tamar because he knew that if she had a male child, it would be Er's and that child would receive the double portion and blessing from Judah. And Onan wanted it for himself. He enjoyed sex with Tamar but ejaculated on the ground so as to avoid losing his dead brothers inheritance that would go to him, if no son for Er was produced.

Onan was greeeeeedy little man. Greedy for sex on his terms and greed for his father's wealth.

Just my thinking.

[Vanderhoven7]

<<The woman's hymen is ruptured and the male sperm is a product of his blood. This is biblical marriage.>>

I don't believe this is a biblical definition of marriage. Rape of a 12 year old granddaughter by a 65 year old polygamist is not marriage.

[Walls]

I thought this might be the passages you brought you. I am quite familiar with them as I have taught Genesis many times.

My two cents?

This isn't God ordaining polygamy. God doesn't contradict Himself as He described marriage as "a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife" As you said, the brother of the dead man may be married or he may not be married. Odds are, he may not be since the scripture begins with "if there are two brothers who are living together". But I suppose two married brothers could have been living in the same extended household.

I see this as God protecting the widow. Being a widow and having no son to provide for you was deadly business. A woman in those days was 110% dependent on a father, husband, or son for every bite put in her mouth and every shelter and every need for her and her children. If her husband's name is blotted out in Israel and she doesn't have a son, then her only recourses are: marrying someone else (probable, but difficult if she were older or since she is not a virgin anymore), prostitution, slavery, and/or begging. In that patriarchal society, it was nearly impossible for a woman with no husband to survive and provide for herself with ending up an a undesirable and unhappy situation.

Also, the first-born son is a "type", if you will, of Christ - being he always received the double portion of inheritance and 100% of the blessing. It was important that a family not be blotted out and it was important to maintain the family number.

These levirate marriages don't promote nor condone a generic polygamy.

Also, with Onan, I'm of the thinking that he did not impregnate Tamar because he knew that if she had a male child, it would be Er's and that child would receive the double portion and blessing from Judah. And Onan wanted it for himself. He enjoyed sex with Tamar but ejaculated on the ground so as to avoid losing his dead brothers inheritance that would go to him, if no son for Er was produced.

Onan was greeeeeedy little man. Greedy for sex on his terms and greed for his father's wealth.

Just my thinking.

I understand the general abhorrence to polygamy. I disagree with it totally as well. My postings has firmly established what you have repeated - that "it was no so from the beginning" (Matt.19:8; Mk.10:6).

But may I comment on your statement, "I see this as God protecting the widow." You may of course hold any notion you want. It is your right before God. And I do believe that having a son, no matter how he was generated, would have been an advantage for a widow. But we were, I believe, discussing this from a biblical standpoint. So the argument becomes moot because the woman gets a husband according to the Law of Moses ("and take her to him to wife" - Deut 25:5b). The son would not bring any advantage according to this Law. Secondly, while you state that "her only recourses are: marrying someone else (probable, but difficult if she were older or since she is not a virgin anymore)...", this very thing is fulfilled by what this Law demands. Thirdly, notwithstanding God's protection of the woman, the reason for the Law that I gave in my first posting "to ensure that the Land had an inheritor" is established by scripture in the Book of Ruth where this very Law of Deuteronomy Chapter 25 was applied in the case of Boaz and Ruth, grandparents of Jesus Christ removed over generations. In Ruth 4:10-11 scripture says, "10 Moreover Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I purchased to be my wife, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance, that the name of the dead be not cut off from among his brethren, and from the gate of his place: ye are witnesses this day. 11 And all the people that were in the gate, and the elders, said, We are witnesses."

In the common usage of language, and the usage of a quote, statements like, "This isn't God ordaining polygamy" and "These levirate marriages don't promote nor condone a generic polygamy" seem to be answers directed at statements I made. I hope this is not true. It would be very unrighteous I'm sure you would agree. My only statement in regard to multiple wives was that "we observe from scripture," and "God seemed to tolerate...". If these statements are incorrect, I am only too happy to be taught.

(I would like to add a smiley, but the posters on this subject look serious)

God Bless

[Walls]

<<The woman's hymen is ruptured and the male sperm is a product of his blood. This is biblical marriage.>>

I don't believe this is a biblical definition of marriage. Rape of a 12 year old granddaughter by a 65 year old polygamist is not marriage.

OK. Your example is a good one. May I ask you to show me what marriage in the bible entails then, if it is not being joined in sexual union?

[WITDNM]

OK. Your example is a good one. May I ask you to show me what marriage in the bible entails then, if it is not being joined in sexual union?

Bible marriage involves a leaving and a cleaving, Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:5. If it is just sex, Wilt Chamberlain would have had 10,000 wives. In I Corinthians 6:16 Paul discusses fornication with a prostitute. If this makes a marriage, then the fornicator would be her husband along with every other man who ever had her.

This passage was quoted earlier. Notice, the marriage came after the sex.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 "Suppose a man has intercourse with a young woman who is a virgin but is not engaged to be married. If they are discovered, he must pay her father fifty pieces of silver. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her (NOT rape), and he may never divorce her as long as he lives."

[Diggindeeper]

<<The woman's hymen is ruptured and the male sperm is a product of his blood. This is biblical marriage.>>

I don't believe this is a biblical definition of marriage. Rape of a 12 year old granddaughter by a 65 year old polygamist is not marriage.

This is precisely the way I understand it too!

Bible marriage involves a leaving and a cleaving, Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:5. If it is just sex, Wilt Chamberlain would have had 10,000 wives. In I Corinthians 6:16 Paul discusses fornication with a prostitute. If this makes a marriage, then the fornicator would be her husband along with every other man who ever had her.

This passage was quoted earlier. Notice, the marriage came after the sex.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 "Suppose a man has intercourse with a young woman who is a virgin but is not engaged to be married. If they are discovered, he must pay her father fifty pieces of silver. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her (NOT rape), and he may never divorce her as long as he lives."

This IS the way its presented in the Bible. The scripture above offers a picture of a young woman who is enticed into sex by some man she has met. (Another notch in the count of women he has enticed into the sin of fornication...quite prevalent in this day and time!) He violates her and is thus commanded, "Go now and marry that girl, who because of you, is not longer a virgin!"

So, first came the sex. THEN came the commandment to go and MARRY her.

Here in the South, people used to take that very literally. So much so that if a male 'violated' a young woman, the dad and brothers would go after him with a shotgun and march the man and their female family member to the nearest preacher man so he could perform the marriage ceremony. This happened all the time, no matter if she was a willing partner in the crime of fornication.

[Walls]

Bible marriage involves a leaving and a cleaving, Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:5. If it is just sex, Wilt Chamberlain would have had 10,000 wives.

I'm not familiar with Wilt Chamberlain's score card but according to Wikipedia his claim was actually 20'000. King Solomon is documented by the Lord and it was 700 wives and 300 concubines (1st Ki.11:3). But seriously, to your question, you've said it yourself. "... cleaving and becoming ONE FLESH" is marriage and God's comment is; "what He has joined let no man put asunder." My understanding is that if a man has intercourse with a virgin, she is to be his wife. If he has intercourse with a married woman he has committed adultery. If he puts away the virgin he had intercourse with, he commits adultery. If he has intercourse with multiple women but never stays with them it is fornication. In the extreme case of Solomon, he is never accused of adultery. Why? Because he took the women as wives (making it legal in the eyes of the Law). He is guilty of another Law, that of multiplying wives to himself as king, but that had no penalty like adultery attached to it. Of course there was a penalty because he lost the kingdom of united Israel for his son and his sons.

In I Corinthians 6:16 Paul discusses fornication with a prostitute. If this makes a marriage, then the fornicator would be her husband along with every other man who ever had her.

Was this not the case of the woman at the well in John Chapter 4? And, to quote your verse "What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh", does it not confirm what both of us said; "IS ONE BODY" and "IS ONE FLESH?"
(1st Cor.6:16). The idea of biblical marriage is upheld so Paul warns against it. He is literally saying; "don't get married to a harlot", and the reason is, by this marriage to a woman who knows multiple men you are defiling your body which is the Temple of God.

This passage was quoted earlier. Notice, the marriage came after the sex.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 "Suppose a man has intercourse with a young woman who is a virgin but is not engaged to be married. If they are discovered, he must pay her father fifty pieces of silver. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her (NOT rape), and he may never divorce her as long as he lives."

OK. I'm not against dynamic translations but they can let you down when it comes to a single word because they are not literal. If we read the crucial part of the verse pertaining to our discussion in a literal translation of the Hebrew, it reads (I have chosen "Youngs Literal Translation" to be neutral); "and to him she is for a wife; because that he hath humbled her, he is not able to send her away all his days." If you accept Young's (and the KJV, NKJV, Darby, ASV etc. which are identical), my contention is again upheld. If he has intercourse with her, she is his wife and he may never send her away. It does not say that any event taking place after the intercourse will cause it to be a marriage. It says the act that he performed makes her his wife and he may never send her away.

Very often, in such subjects as this, we all have ideals and all have a concept of how things should be. But this is a bible forum and the original question came from the bible. Thus, as a student of the bible what else can I say except what the bible says, even if vilification rains down on my head.

[John 8:32]

How come married men who committed adultery on his wife with a SINGLE woman did NOT get stoned? She had to be married for him to get stoned. Leviticus 20:10 But a married woman who cheated on her husband with any man got stoned no matter what? Could a wife even divorce an adulterer husband back then or today? Why does GOD consider wives their husbands property?!

***************************