Theology For Men of the West: Adultery

Artisanal Toad

Churchians tell lies… it’s what they do.

What Is Adultery?

Adultery in its most simple form, is the crime that occurs when a married woman has sex with a man who is not her husband. It is written:

 

You shall not have intercourse with your neighbor’s wife, to be defiled with her. Leviticus 18:20

 

and

 

If there is a man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, one who commits adultery with his friend’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. Leviticus 20:10

 

Adultery Requires A Married Woman

Without a married woman there can be no adultery, which brings an entirely new meaning to the word “lust” that churchians love to toss around. Jesus said

 

You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Matthew 5:27-28

 

Lust is adultery in the heart and adultery requires a married woman, so can a man look on an eligible woman with lust? No. It is not possible to commit adultery with an unmarried woman so likewise it is not possible to lust after an unmarried woman. So, according to Scripture, a boy that’s fapping to fantasies about the virgin girl next door is not lusting after her because she’s not married and he’s not in sin. If he starts fantasizing about the girl’s mother (assuming she’s married), that’s lust and according to Jesus he’s already committed adultery in his heart.

The Relationship Between Marriage and Adultery

In the act of taking the woman’s virginity the eligible man has taken her in marriage. Therefore, any woman who is not a virgin is (in approximately the order of occurrence):
  • A married woman (the vast, vast majority of all adult women)
  • A widow (more common than you might imagine).
  • A woman divorced by her non-Christian husband for her adultery.
  • A Christian woman whose non-Christian husband abandoned her.
  • A woman who is not a virgin but was never married because the man was ineligible.
This is where it gets tricky, so pay attention.
The last point on the list was the woman who is not a virgin (she has had sexual intercourse) but was not married with that act because the man was not eligible to marry her. A man who was a close relative that committed incest with her did not marry her because that is forbidden. A man who the woman’s father had forbidden to marry her is not eligible to marry her and the sex does not make her married. As I’ve written previously, this offers a way out for women who are married and don’t know it.
First, Numbers 30:5 says the father has the authority to forbid any agreement his daughter makes, in the day he hears of it. There is no time limit on this, but the authority of the father to forbid his daughters agreements only applies when she is in her youth and living in his house. If, while she was in her youth and living in her fathers house, the girl gave her agreement to have sex with a man (which could be as simple as lifting her ass so he could pull her pants off), her father has the authority to forbid that agreement in the day he hears of it. Which means that the sex did not create a marriage.
There is no time limit on when the father can do this, which has the effect of creating an interesting situation that I wrote about in Modern Women- Schrodinger’s Cats. If she qualifies, seven words from her father is all it takes. If not, the next step is to ask whether the man in question is still alive. If he’s dead, she’s a widow as of the moment he died. If he’s alive, the question is whether he is a Christian. Because Christian men are forbidden to divorce their wives. If the man is not a Christian he can give her a certificate of divorce because of her adultery.

Applying Scripture To The Real World

Let’s say a Jane gave Fred her virginity (was married to him) when she was 16 and living at home. She later broke up with “boyfriend” Fred and had sex with many other men through the rest of her teenage years and during college. Eventually she got married to Robert (a Christian man who was a really nice guy) and later divorced him because she was unhappy. Jane has now discovered just how badly she’s screwed up her life and she has several choices in terms of how she should deal with this.
Currently she’s still married to Fred and all the other men have been cases of adultery.
  • In the day her father hears of it, if he forbids it, she was not married to Fred. Because she was not a virgin and not married, she did not commit adultery with any of the other men she had sex with. When she had her wedding with Robert she was actually married to him because she agreed to be married and regardless of what some state court judge says, she is still married to Robert because she had no authority to divorce him. He, as a Christian man, is not authorized to divorce her for any reason.
  • If non-Christian Fred gives her a certificate of divorce, today, she is no longer married but she has a long track record of adultery. She was never married to Robert because at the time they had their wedding ceremony she was married to Fred, so her so-called divorce from Robert was just a formal break-up of an adulterous liaison.
  • If Fred is a Christian he is forbidden to divorce her. But, is he really a Christian? In 1st John 2 we are taught that someone who claims to be a Christian but does not keep His commandments is a liar. Fred is required to live with his wife and love her as Christ loves the Church. And to provide for her. So, when she shows up and he won’t do what he’s commanded to do, she can considered herself “abandoned” by her non-Christian husband.
Some might consider that legalism, but is it? God said to do things a certain way and He provided a few specific provisions to deal with problems. It would be amusing were it not so sad, but the same churchians who would object to the idea the women were married when they gave some man their virginity would then object that God provided a few ways out of that mess. Which was caused by the lies the churchians have taught for generations.

Gaming The System

Where this gets really interesting is that if Jane gets her father to forbid her marriage to Fred, she’s still married to Robert and has only been married to Robert. If she gets Fred to give her a certificate of divorce (or abandon her), she was never married to Robert, she was committing adultery with him. And, since as a Christian she is forgiven of her adultery, her only real issue is to stop committing adultery. So, does she want to be married to Robert?
What if Jane is still married to Robert but is unhappy and doesn’t want to be married to him any longer? If Daddy solves the problem she’s married to Robert. However, if she leaves Robert because it’s an adulterous relationship and legally divorces him she isn’t doing anything wrong. Then, when Fred gives her a certificate of divorce she’s no longer bound to Fred and she’s free.
Think it won’t happen? Consider Dalrock’s epic post “Why so many wives wish their husband would cheat“ (Archive; PDF).

The Reasons Churchians HATE This

One might ask, why would a “single” woman want to end a marriage she doesn’t know about, that she doesn’t believe she has? Suffer the embarrassment of confessing to her father in order to get him to forbid her marriage she didn’t know about? Get a certificate of divorce from the guy who got her virginity, to end a marriage neither one of them knew about? People will think she joined a cult!
Because of the attractiveness of the man and the power of her rationalization hamster.
If said woman is highly attracted to the man, she will do this for him. Get Daddy to say seven words? Not a problem, especially if she knows he walks if she won’t do it. And later when they have sex it will not be a sin. Thus, you could say that the man has a sexual motive for ensuring she is eligible to marry, because as soon as she’s eligible to marry she’s legitimately fair game for sex. Without sin.
Oh- and there goes the whole “sex outside of marriage is always a sin” doctrine. Oops.
How many unhappy women are there in the church who are not really married to the man they think they are married to? What happens when they are taught the truth? Some of them will need to separate because they have a husband who would like for them to come home and they’re living in adultery. However, the issue of the unintentional marriage caused by all the lies can be fixed in the vast majority of cases. The problem is that many of the women would love to have a reason to get out of the marriage they’re in. Again, I refer the reader to Dalrock’s post about that (Archived Version; PDF Version). Does anyone think this situation has gotten better in the past five years?
Doing something about the epidemic of adultery means acknowledging that sex with a virgin makes her married. It also requires admitting there is a double-standard of sexual morality that says women can only have sex with their husband but their husband is not limited to sex with only his wife. He could legitimately be banging the babysitter. He can legitimately have multiple wives.
Worst of all, the churchian leaders would be forced to admit that for generations everyone in the congregation has been lied to and for generations everything they taught about sex and marriage was a lie. Well, two things were true, men and women are not to commit adultery and men are not to have sex with prostitutes. But even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Churchians will not change because it’s all about money, power and control.

Then How Will This Change Occur?

It is well known that your not-so-humble Toad is a complete asshole. I have been challenging churchians for years to refute me from the Bible. If I was wrong it should be rather simple to refute me by laying out what the Bible actually says. That hasn’t happened because what I’m writing here is the truth. Like it or not, this is the truth.
Churchian teachers will not stop lying or doubling down on their lies. The idea that so-called “leaders” in the church will start teaching what the Bible actually says is laughable.
The change will only occur when men learn the truth of what Scripture says and become high-value men who are fit to rule over women. They must become the man that women will call their father for. After that happens and the women are eligible to marry, the men can enjoy the fruit of their labor. As strange as it sounds, calling such a thing a ministry is far more appropriate than the “ministry” of standing in a pulpit and telling folks that Jesus loves them and God forgives them, so have a great time of fellowship and don’t forget to tithe!
I can just imagine the screams of outrage that will center on the false belief that sex outside of marriage is a sin. Those who think it’s a sin should avail themselves of Toad’s Churchian Challenge. In the meanwhile, what about not binding the mouths of the ox that treads the grain? Isn’t the worker worthy of his hire? And if he gets paid in kind rather than in cash, so what? There is no sin.
Then comes the question: what if she wants to marry the man? I will be covering that in a future post, but the answer is simple. A man consents and commits to marriage with the act of penetration so he should not be having sex with any woman he isn’t interested in marrying. Given that she’s not a virgin, she has to agree to marriage before it’s a marriage. The question is whether she agrees to be married and how she might go about doing that.
In my studied opinion, men who want a reasonably safe marriage today with some hope they’ll be able to raise their children to adulthood without having them stolen should get married to at least two women at the same time using a contract, live in the same house with them and share the same bed. I’ll be explaining that in detail in a future post, which might just surprise the MGTOW brigade.

26 thoughts on “Theology For Men of the West: Adultery”

  1. I used to think Jesus’ full name was Jesus Cockblocker Christ because of all the churchian rules about sex and marriage, but you’ve shown me that I was wrong. So one of the rewards for being a masculine man is having multiple women in my bed at the same time ‘interacting’ with myself and each other? YES please. Having multiple women means mutliple incomes which means one wife can stay home and ideally homeschool the children so they don’t get poisoned by the garbage state schools.
    Reply
    1. Keep in mind that the REASON a man is not forbidden from having sex with an eligible woman, regardless of his marital status, is because sex is the act by which marriage is begun and a man may have more than one wife. Sex is how we get babies and marriage/family is the container babies are to be reared in. The man gives his consent and commitment to marry when he engages in the act of marriage. Sex.
      Sex is important, but it’s not all about sex. It’s about forming a family into which babies will be born, a family that needs to survive when the storms come. And they will come.
      The truth is that very few men can get more than one wife because the women won’t share a man unless he’s clearly worth sharing. If the man can’t get threesomes then he isn’t going to get more than one wife. It’s one thing to get multiple women to share your bed, it’s more difficult to get them to share a kitchen, a bathroom and closet space. Part of making such a marriage work is the interaction of the personalities of the women, so how the women get along is as or more important than anything else.
      There will be more posts about this, but my advice remains: improve yourself and keep improving yourself. Become spectacular.
      Reply
      1. Yes I need to greatly improve myself before there is any possibility of me having multiple wives.
        I’m in the UK. From what I can tell living with multiple women is OK because Muslims do it and the state is unwilling to upset Muslims and you’re technically not breaking an laws.
        I may be satisfied with one wife anyway, if we have lots of sex and numerous children I may well have my hands full.
        Reply
  2. Jesus expanded on your definition of adultery with the words;“Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.” [Mark 10:11]This doesn’t have to include another man’s wife, the second wife could be a virgin [Think Esther]. Luke dumbed it down to: Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery…The result is the same. The church has held to this truth for most of history. Your limited definition works well with most of the Old Testament, but fails to reconcile with what Jesus taught.
    Reply
  3. Sir I was delighted to read thispost. Particularly. In light of the fact that my pastor’s wife taught on faith. On the one hand, and I am a woman I can with receive from from her but on the other hand she had no right to be teaching in the room for men
    I tried going down the rabbit hole, and I only ended up dictating sarcastic things that would not be appreciated by the owner of the form. So I’ll just move on to my questions.
    Number one at what time can woman be married given that virginity is given to a girl at the moment of birth. Then wouldn’t it be more sufficient for her father to marry her off as soon are you born? How could that happen in the world today
    Secondly if a woman if a woman know that she will begin the idolized sex in worship sex rather been worshiping God is a good for her to limit herself and buy into the text outside of marriage is sin because it would lead to her idolizing sex?
    I have more questions but I fear I would not read them correctly phrase them correctly.
    Thank you sir for any consideration to enter any part of my questions
    Reply
  4. Toad:
    I read Matt. 19:9, Mark 10:11 and Luke 16:18 to prohibit a man from “marrying” a divorced woman ” .” period, no qualifiers for the guilty party, the reason for divorce, etc. Do you agree with that plain reading?
    Reply
    1. No, because Jesus could NOT have been teaching that. Read the post that I linked for Don Quixote above.
      The Law forbids adding to or subtracting from the Law (Deut. 4:2 and 12:32) and had Jesus been teaching a prohibition on marrying a legitimately divorced woman… that would have been the sin of adding and subtracting from the Law. Because Moses was quite clear in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 that a legitimately divorced woman COULD be married again.
      Jesus COULD NOT have been teaching a prohibition on the remarriage of a legitimately divorced woman because it would have been a sin. If He sinned, He was not a perfect sacrifice and was not the Messiah and all of the New Testament is a lie.
      The Matthew 19:9 passage is one of the most widely misunderstood passages in all of Scripture. The reason there is so much confusion is the class issues involved. In the Gospels Jesus was teaching according to the Law and as He stated, Moses permitted men to divorce their wives if they found some “indecency” in them but Christ defined “indecency” as sexual immorality.
      Later, in 1st Corinthians 7:10-11, Jesus commanded His servants not to divorce. A non-Christian man can (under the Law) legitimately divorce his wife for adultery. If he does so she is legitimately divorced and can remarry. A Christian husband is forbidden to divorce his wife for any reason. A Christian wife is forbidden to leave her husband, but if she does she is to remain chaste or be reconciled to her husband. If a Christian is married to an un-believer and the un-believer leaves, the believer is free and no longer bound.
      Two different standards for two different groups of people. As far as the “no remarriage” goes, there is no divorce for a Christian woman married to a Christian man and no matter what some little state court says, she’s still married to her husband.
      Reply
  5. Artisanal Toad says:

    March 12, 2017 at 4:51 am
    And you seem to have completely forgotten that I dealt with your arguments almost a year ago. Perhaps you should read it and then tell me about my “limited definition” that “fails to reconcile what Jesus taught.”

    Thanks for your response AT.
    While I don’t wish to re-hash our differences there is a point or two that hasn’t been addressed.
    1stly: In Mark’s gospel the wording is different and points to something that I think you have missed. When Jesus said “commits adultery against her”
    The use of the word ‘adultery’ in this context is more like betrayal rather than adultery, but Jesus still calls it ‘adultery’ anyway. And that is precisely one aspect of what adultery is, not the only aspect but a vital one that you have ignored in your reasoning. This betrayal aspect of adultery doesn’t involve any type of sexual act with his wife, and the offending husband may even [re]marry a virgin but it is still called ‘adultery’ by Jesus.
    2ndly: In you response [link above] you only support your position with circular reasoning. i.e ‘adultery must involve a married woman’ therefore it cannot mean anything else.
    Reply
    1. Don, I made the point in the linked post that Jesus could *only* have been referring to marrying another woman who had been illegitimately divorced. Did you even read that post?
      As to Mark 10:11, ask yourself a question. Which woman is Jesus referring to? Is Jesus saying that the man is committing adultery against the woman he unjustly divorced? That isn’t possible because he is *still* married to her. He can only commit adultery “against” the “other” woman who was likewise illegitimately divorced and is thus still married to her husband.
      Adultery requires a married woman.
      In Mark 10:12 Jesus continued and said:
      and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.
      Why is she committing adultery, Don? Because no woman has the authority to divorce her husband. Only a husband could (under the Law) divorce his wife for her sexual immorality. Which is what Jesus said in Matthew 19:9 and 5:32. The husband could ONLY legitimately divorce his wife for sexual immorality and the wife had no authority to divorce her husband for any reason at all.
      Her husband married her and bound her to him. She is bound to her husband for as long as he lives, unless she is unbound. Only he could do that. Which is why Paul said, in Romans 7:2-3 that a wife who joins herself to another man is called an adulteress.
      You said:
      The use of the word ‘adultery’ in this context is more like betrayal rather than adultery, butJesus still calls it ‘adultery’anyway. And that is precisely one aspect of what adultery is, not the only aspect but a vital one that you have ignored in your reasoning. This betrayal aspect of adultery doesn’t involve any type of sexual act with his wife, and the offending husband may even [re]marry a virgin but it is still called ‘adultery’ by Jesus.
      Don, you are trying to claim that Jesus redefined the sin of adultery in this verse… or you are claiming that Jesus didn’t know what adultery was? This is adultery:
      ADULTERY
      1.Sin is a violation of the Law (Romans 4:15, 5:13).
      2.Adultery is a sin (Exodus 20:14).
      3.Adultery is defined in the Law as sex with another man’s wife (Leviticus 18:20 and 20:10).
      4.A wife is a married woman (Genesis 2:24).
      5.The crime/sin of adultery requires a married woman.
      6.Without a married woman there can be no adultery.
      Given Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32, neither you or Jesus have or had the authority to add to or subtract from the Law. The definition of adultery is fixed in the Law and will not change. Which was the testimony of Jesus in Matthew 5:18.
      Reply
  6. Artisanal Toad says:
    March 12, 2017 at 5:05 pm

    As to Mark 10:11, ask yourself a question. Which woman is Jesus referring to? Is Jesus saying that the man is committing adultery against the woman he unjustly divorced?

    Yes.
    That is exactly what Jesus is saying. And that is exactly how all the main translations record it. Read it again:
    And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another,committeth adultery against her:ASV
    “Her” being the betrayed wife.

    That isn’t possible because he is *still* married to her. He can only commit adultery “against” the “other” woman who was likewise illegitimately divorced and is thus still married to her husband.

    It is possible in the context of betrayal. The offending husband has betrayed his wife and Jesus calls it adultery.

    Adultery requires a married woman.

    Not in every case, according to the example I have shown in Mark 10:11. Betrayal in marriage is also called adultery.
    {remove comments regarding Mark10:12 that I agree with}
    It’s possible that Mark recorded the situation of a wife divorcing her husband because of his Roman audience…

    You said:
    The use of the word ‘adultery’ in this context is more like betrayal rather than adultery, but Jesus still calls it ‘adultery’ anyway. And that is precisely one aspect of what adultery is, not the only aspect but a vital one that you have ignored in your reasoning. This betrayal aspect of adultery doesn’t involve any type of sexual act with his wife, and the offending husband may even [re]marry a virgin but it is still called ‘adultery’ by Jesus.
    Don, you are trying to claim that Jesus redefined the sin of adultery in this verse… or you are claiming that Jesus didn’t know what adultery was? This is adultery:

    It is just one example of Jesus expanding on the teaching of Moses to include more than what was considered the ‘norm’. Plenty of other examples of this can be seen in the Sermon on the Mount.

    ADULTERY
    1. Sin is a violation of the Law (Romans 4:15, 5:13).
    2. Adultery is a sin (Exodus 20:14).
    3. Adultery is defined in the Law as sex with another man’s wife (Leviticus 18:20 and 20:10).
    4. A wife is a married woman (Genesis 2:24).
    5. The crime/sin of adultery requires a married woman.
    6. Without a married woman there can be no adultery.
    Given Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32, neither you or Jesus have or had the authority to add to or subtract from the Law. The definition of adultery is fixed in the Law and will not change. Which was the testimony of Jesus in Matthew 5:18.

    The problem I see here is you’re attempting to re-frame Jesus’ teaching into Moses teaching. But it goes the other way. Moses [Torah] must always be put in the context of Jesus teaching. Moses was the servant of God. Jesus is [Son of] God.
    Jesus opened the scriptures again as only He could do. The pharisees accused Him of not keeping the Law. Little did they know He was the author.
    Reply
    1. Don, consider what you are doing. You’re taking one single verse that is linguistically different from the other two verses (Luke and Matthew) describing the same thing and attempting to create an entirely new doctrine that redefines the word adultery, which is specifically defined in the Law, which cannot be changed.
      1. You are making the claim that Jesus changed the definition of Adultery, a crime that is a DEATH PENALTY offense. Your claim directly contradicts the commands of the Law that ensure it cannot be changed. Jesus could not add to the Law and still be the Messiah because it was a sin (violation of Deut. 4:2 & 12:32). The Apostles all testify that Jesus is the Messiah. This is antinomy #1.
      2. In an effort to get around #1, you are claiming Jesus had the authority to change the Law and He did so at Mark 10:11. The problem there is you have Jesus not only contradicting Moses, but also contradicting Himself when He said that not the least stroke or shading of the pen would change until heaven and earth pass away and all things are fulfilled. This is antinomy #2.
      3. Psalm 19:7 says the Law of the Lord is perfect. Perfect, as in complete. Was that a lie? If Jesus had to add to the Law then it wasn’t perfect, was it? This is the third antinomy.
      Strike three.
      You call into question whether Jesus is the Messiah, questioned His character and the integrity of Scripture. Because you don’t like God’s definition of adultery.
      Your theory in support of your doctrinal position is Jesus changed the Law by changing the definition of Adultery. If Jesus did that, He was in sin for violating the Law, He violated His own testimony and He proved the Law of the Lord was not perfect. But you’re claiming that should all be ignored because you want a different definition for adultery? Really?
      What did this woman do to you?
      Reply
  7. Toad:
    So we do agree then, that no professing christian woman can divorce her husband and marry another man without committing adultery. I care not what the heathen do. And even if you and I were wrong, and we adopted one of the churchian variants, then it still requires an inquiry into the reason for the woman’s divorce and thus there is virtually no way for many men to verify the purpose for which a woman divorced, other than the word of a woman ” ” . dangerous!
    Better to leave the divorcees to their own fate than yoke yourself to another man’s leftovers.
    I honestly do not understand why churchian men go through these mental gymnastics to justify marrying a woman who is used goods. Even if I am wrong about the prohibition, divorced woman have baggage ” ” . all of them!!! Leave them to wallow in their own self-made messes.
    Reply
    1. Samuel, you are treading a slippery slope. It is true that no Christian woman can end her marriage to a Christian man. However, if her non-Christian husband gives her a certificate of divorce because she has committed adultery, she is legitimately divorced and may remarry. If her non-Christian husband abandons her, then according to 1st Corinthians 7:15, she is free and no longer bound, she may remarry.
      The vast majority of Christian women today are not virgins, which means they are married to the man who got their virginity. Their father might be able to forbid that and solve the problem. Their non-Christian husband might give them a certificate of divorce or abandon them and they are free. Or maybe he is dead and she is a widow.
      As a side note- explaining this to a man can be hilarious.
      “Yep, according to God, when you got Cupcake’s virginity you became her husband and you’re still her husband. Which means every guy she’s banged since then was a case of adultery. She wants this over so she can get laid occasionally and not be committing adultery. According to God, that can only happen one of two ways, so I’d like you to write I divorce Cupcake for her adultery on a piece of paper, sign it and give it to me. I’ll see that she gets it.”
      “Ummm… what’s the other way?”
      “Well, the only other way out of this marriage is if she’s a widow. Wouldn’t it just be easier to write the note?”
      If you have purposed in your heart that you desire a virgin, go for it. Other men might be OK with a few banged up sluts as long as they’re eligible and trainable. ALL women have baggage.
      Reply
  8. Artisanal Toad says:
    March 12, 2017 at 8:02 pm

    Don, consider what you are doing. You’re taking one single verse that is linguistically different from the other two verses (Luke and Matthew) describing the same thing and attempting to create an entirely new doctrine that redefines the word adultery, which is specifically defined in the Law, which cannot be changed.
    1. You are making the claim that Jesus changed the definition of Adultery, a crime that is a DEATH PENALTY offense. Your claim directly contradicts the commands of the Law that ensure it cannot be changed. Jesus could not add to the Law and still be the Messiah because it was a sin (violation of Deut. 4:2 & 12:32). The Apostles all testify that Jesus is the Messiah. This is antinomy #1.

    As was His custom He expanded upon the Law many times, in many ways. He didn’t change the meaning of adultery, He pointed out the obvious that adultery includes betrayal.
    Surely you would agree that adultery includes betrayal?

    2. In an effort to get around #1, you are claiming Jesus had the authority to change the Law and He did so at Mark 10:11. The problem there is you have Jesus not only contradicting Moses, but also contradicting Himself when He said that not the least stroke or shading of the pen would change until heaven and earth pass away and all things are fulfilled. This is antinomy #2.

    Your second point is a re-hash of your first.

    3. Psalm 19:7 says the Law of the Lord is perfect. Perfect, as in complete. Was that a lie? If Jesus had to add to the Law then it wasn’t perfect, was it? This is the third antinomy.
    Strike three.

    Jesus said for the hardness of your heart Moses gave you this precept [Deut.24]. This was a concession included in the Law that Jesus exposed. Until then they thought it was a command. Touting the Law as perfect and then reverse engineering Jesus’ doctrine into Moses is backwards teaching.
    The Law [Torah] must only be measured against what Jesus taught, not the other way around.
    And Moses indeed was faithful in all His house as aservant,for a testimony of those things which would be spoken afterward, 6 but Christ as a Sonover His own house,Heb.3:5&6
    You have confused the position of servant and Son.

    You call into question whether Jesus is the Messiah, questioned His character and the integrity of Scripture. Because you don’t like God’s definition of adultery.

    I have called Jesus the author of the Law. As such He is entitled to reveal what He wants to. I agree with all the definitions of adultery in the Bible. Not just the bits from the OT.
    Adultery = sex with another man’s wife. [Moses]
    Adultery = marrying any divorced woman. [Jesus]
    Adultery = betrayal of trust within a marriage covenant. [Jesus]
    Anything less is not the full gospel, but just another religious idea doom to fail.
    Reply
  9. Don Quixote
    “As was His custom He expanded upon the Law many times, in many ways.”
    You may now cite, chapter and verse where Jesus CHANGED the Law by either adding to it or subtracting from it. Then explain how that squares with the fact that Jesus testified:
    “For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”
    Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is clear that the legitimately divorced woman was permitted to remarry and it was not adultery. In verses 2 and 3 she is referred to as the second man’s wife and he is referred to as her husband. That’s marriage, not adultery. Your claim that Jesus taught that marriage to a divorced woman was adultery is to claim that Jesus added to the definition of adultery as well as removing the ability of a legitimately divorced woman to remarry. Changing the Law was forbidden and a sin; and Jesus testified that until Heaven and Earth passed away the Law would not change. You have not rebutted that at all. Your statements are completely contradictory.
    He didn’t change the meaning of adultery, He pointed out the obvious that adultery includes betrayal.
    The meaning of adultery is written at Leviticus 18:20 and 20:10. Adultery is the crime/sin of a married woman having sex with a man who is not her husband. Period. That is the act for which the death penalty applied.
    I have called Jesus the author of the Law. As such He is entitled to reveal what He wants to. I agree with all the definitions of adultery in the Bible. Not just the bits from the OT.
    Adultery = sex with another man’s wife. [Moses]
    Adultery = marrying any divorced woman. [Jesus]
    Adultery = betrayal of trust within a marriage covenant. [Jesus]
    Mosescommanded “You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.”
    David, testifying in the Spirit, said “The Law of the Lord is perfect”
    Jesustestified that until heaven and earth pass away not the slightest stroke or shading of the pen of the Law will pass away.
    Don Quixoteclaims Jesus was revealingchanging the Law as He went along, specifically claiming Jesus added to and subtracted from the Law by redefining the meaning of adultery.
    Obviously, someone in that list is not in agreement with the other three.
    Don, are you starting a cult, by chance?
    Reply
  10. Sir
    Where the environments were the truth marriage is accepted? Ei mountain country homeschooled groups? And does with effects one ability to not for sake the assembling of ourselves?
    Reply
  11. Toad:
    Yes I most certainly desired a virgin, however I settled for a banged up divorced woman/slut. The woman the state/church calls my wife is exactly the woman those verses describe. She was not living under her fathers authority when she agreed to marry a young man (both baptized christians, one Baptist the other Methodist) has a public ceremony, in a church, adoptive father gives her away, gives virginity to said boy sometime after the wedding ceremony, isn’t happy with the decision, claims husband was romantically involved with someone within a few months of marriage, has fight, moves back to momma’s house and husband files for divorce. She signed a consent decree dissolving said marriage and all of this under 2 years from start to finish. “Wife” then goes on slut tour for next ten years until my dumb ass comes along, starts banging her and decides “she’ll do”! The rest is history and now 16 years into it and two kids later, we are both miserable.
    I pointed out these scriptures to her years ago (this isn’t new theology) and explained to her why this “marriage” is against God’s word, hence why it doesn’t work and we are both miserable with one another. She still to this day, will not read them but wants to be “in church” every Sunday. We are frauds. We fake it for the kids sake, but I don’t know how much more of this I can do. At my age, the prospects for finding a virgin are nil and I honestly don’t want to have kids with different women anyway, its just unworkable I think given our cultural norms and western psychology. Her biological father is deceased, so nothing he can do to help. I am screwed!
    The silver lining if there is one, is that I will not let my children be ignorant of the truth like my parents allowed me. We were raised in a strict baptist church/home and still didn’t hear the truth or even one discussion about the consequences of living the life of a whore/whoremonger ” ” . that’s inexcusable but my father was a tradcon who got his virgin, so he just assumed, I guess, that I would figure it out for myself.
    Reply
  12. Samuel
    Several things strike me about this.
    1. “baptized christians, one Baptist the other Methodist”
    2. “adoptive father gives her away”
    3. “Her biological father is deceased”
    4. “gives virginity to said boy sometime after the wedding ceremony”
    5. “isn’t happy with the decision, claims husband was romantically involved with someone within a few months of marriage”
    6. “the “Wife” then goes on slut tour for next ten years”
    7. “my dumb ass comes along, starts banging her and decides “she’ll do”! The rest is history and now 16 years into it and two kids later, we are both miserable.
    OK, you’re miserable. I get that. There is a lot I could say but I won’t.
    First, “baptism” does not a Christian make. Second, you have her word that she gave this man her virginity after the wedding ceremony. Really? You believe that? The woman who accuses her “husband” of being romantically involved (have you heard of projection?), leaves and goes home to Mommy, husband files for divorce and she signs. Then she goes on a slut tour. What on earth makes you believe she did not start her slut tour years before?
    I suspect her 1st husband might provide some interesting commentary about this woman you married. Have him give you a certificate of divorce for her, she doesn’t have to know.
    Moving onward.
    You have been in this “legal marriage” relationship for 16 years, have two children and you are *both* miserable. Read this now:
    http://www.realworlddivorce.com/NewJersey
    Check your email.
    Reply
  13. I would agree with most of your post, but when it comes to ‘lust’ I would agree more with BGR over at Biblical Gender Roles that ‘lust’ is more of an intent of the heart rather than just a desire for that which cannot be obtained. For example it’s one thing to say “My neighbor has a hot wife”, and another thing to say “I wish I had my neighbors hot wife” and even to think about ‘having’ her, and yet another thing altogether to determine in the heart “I want my neighbors hot wife and will do whatever I can to have her.”. That is an intent of the heart to do evil and, thus, lusting or coveting after another. We know lust can apply to more than just people, but to things as well.
    Your input?
    Reply
    1. I think what Jesus was doing was to define lust as sexual coveting. Lust is the intersection between the command not to commit adultery and the command not to covet. I suppose that the term lust could be applied metaphorically to other things.
      I get what you’re saying in terms of the difference between appreciating your neighbor’s hot wife and coveting your neighbor’s hot wife. But, there has to be the element of coveting in there, which means a married woman.
      To define lust as *only* the intent of the heart is to say that you *can* lust for a woman who is obtainable, even when this is impossible. Which is what churchians have traditionally done.
      Consider the attempt to define adultery as a betrayal. The physical act of adultery is a betrayal, but a betrayal alone is not adultery without the physical act. The intent of the heart toward a married woman is lust, but the intent of the heart alone is not lust unless the woman is married.
      Reply
  14. Toad:
    “. ” ” her 1st husband might provide some interesting commentary” You wrote a mouth full here!
    That is the problem with taking a woman to wife that is not a virgin ” ” . you have to rely on her word. She might be telling you the truth or she maybe be lying to get a commitment out of the man. Rather than wrestle with all of these passages to massage out an exception, I think the safer route is to marry a virgin or not at all. This is what I will teach and expect of my children, otherwise they will not get my blessing or support for their marriages. If all of the so-called redpill dads out there did the same, we could roll this scourge back to hell where it came from.
    This second chance grace theology culture has literally taught young christians to behave this way, because, it is preached, when they are done defiling themselves, all they have to do is invoke God’s grace and it will all magically disappear and the consequences with it! What a sewer church has become.
    Reply
    1. Sir
      I apologizethis sounds like hectic sarcastic sarcastic. There are men with daughters in the red pill world that I man who wish to marry guaranteed virgins why is there not a website that can help ensure these marriages.
      Reply
  15. Toad:
    You may have done this already, but if not, read the NIV version of Matthew 5:32. See any difference?
    Reply
  16. 1984 version. The translators obviously were wrestling with this too. The insertion of the word “so” implies that the passage describes the same woman throughout rather than a different woman after the semicolon. That language was removed in the 2011 version, which is pre-dominate now, but alot of millenials were raised on 1984 versions of the NIV. Combine laziness with feelgoodism theology and it is no wonder that there is so much confusion on this subject.
    I personally read the KJV and 1611 along with the oldest versions of the Strongs I could find and still scratch my head alot.
    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *