As I take it it has nothing to do with what we call ‘marriage’ but only being united to someone who has a foreign god, or being united to someone when you have a foreign god. This is spiritual adultery, and from scriptures the law is spiritual (Ro 7:14). This is the meaning and the warning God gives His people here.
Note also In Esra 10 God commands the Israelites to divorce their foreign wives and abandon their children to purify themselves - however these were ‘legal’ marriages, yet adultery in the eyes of God.
Note also that Jesus states that the people (in the ‘good’ afterlife) will not be married or given in marriage but be like the angels in heaven. Many take this to mean no sex, but that does not hold up to many parts of scripture including God’s desire for life and love for children (it is not good for man to be alone (creation of Eve), Sons of God creating children with the daughters of men (creation of Nephilum) etc). Sex and reproduction are unquestionably part of God’s plan. It is what we call marriage that is out of line with it.
Some of your first reasonings don’t hold up to what God may call us to do, but is worldly fears. You may be called to love someone who has a disease as Jesus was called to touch the leopard - faith may protect you or perhaps not - that’s up to God. The flow of Love from God through people to others is more important then the body.
Some of your second reasons are the consequences of spiritual adultery, basically missing out on better things.
As I take it as long as the heart is pure (full of the Love of God, such as Jesus expressed), there is no sin in any sexual union, and IMHO angels have lots of sex. The problem we get into is when we have sex for reasons other then love on our part or the part of the partner.
And this is why some people, including Paul, think that his point was to make you realize that no one is without sin, and that you need something else to make you clean in God’s eyes.
Others just claim that the terms must have meant something less restrictive. I’m somewhat in that category: I think he was referring to fantasizing about having sex with her, not just being attracted to someone.
Just to add a dynamic to this discussion. Polygamy was okay in the Bible. Only in recent history comparably, has monogamy been expected. I believe it was the Catholic Church that made this change (from memory)
I’ve had some lovely lively discussions with religious folks about how the woman “taken in the very act of adultry” could possibly have committed adultry all by herself, since no man is there, or even mentioned.
There’s no absolute prohibition against polygamy in the Bible, but you could find substantial Biblical support for the idea that monogamy is the ideal.
I just bet you have. And did anyone say that, even if the man didn’t get nabbed (for whatever reason), the law didn’t say “In that case, you must let the woman go free”?
This is one reason I have always wonderd why God( if the Bible is true) would pick a Murderer and Adulterer (David) for the head of his people, and most of the leaders that were chosen wouldn’t stand a chance being elected in our day? And why was Onan punished because he refused to impregnate his brother’s wife?
Of course the Bible was written by humans and I believe that humans saw the betterment of a society, if certain laws were made, so a society would have less problems living together.
By that I mean that commentators found reason to prohibit it. The Maggid Mishneh says Maimonides held that that Deut 23:18 prohibits all sexual intercourse between a man and a woman not married to him. It’s not in the same class as adultery, in that the penalty was merely a beating makkat mardut – but neither is it permitted.
And the Shulḥan 'Aruk says it’s forbidden too – although by rabbinical law, not the Torah.
A couple of people have addressed this by simply saying that Onan’s sin was not masturbation, but haven’t really explained it further.
Onan did indeed “spill his seed upon the ground,” but he was not masturbating – he was having sex and pulled out early. And he was having sex with the wife – well, widow, actually – of his brother’s wife.
The B’reshith Rabba (85:6) makes this clear from the perspective of Jewish law, and it was later codified in excruciating detail by the Rambam: when a married man dies without having any children, his widow and his brother must marry so that his name will not be lost to Israel. (They actually don’t have to marry, and the practice was legislated away by Talmudic times - details on request).
Anyway, Onan’s problem was that he wasn’t doing his part – by spilling his seed on the ground, he wasn’t helping any names be not lost. Coitus interruptus, as Sheldon Cooper might describe it, but not masturbation.
God picked flawed people over and over again. Noah was a drunkard. Abraham was a liar. Jacob was a liar and cheat. Moses was a murderer. David was an adulterer and murderer. Jesus’ disciples included tax collectors and prostitutes. Paul called himself “the greatest of all sinners.”
The Bible is full of God taking flawed women and men and doing great things with them. That’s not a bug; it’s a feature. I could never be a perfect saint; but heck, if God can use morally feeble people like those in the Bible I can’t claim that he has no use with me.
I certainly agree with you on that, but there’s essentially no defined punishment for it from the Torah - Makat Mardut is a rabbinic punishment, even where they find basis in the Torah to condemn the behavior in question.
monavis:
Well, he did pick David before he had committed the sin. But the important thing is that once called to task for his sin (by the prophet Nathan), he immediately repented. This stands in contrast to Saul, who tried to rationalize his sinful behavior when Samuel confronted him with it.
Not to mention that God didn’t really seem to like Saul and just picked him because he was the tallest guy around, to shut the Israelites up because they kept begging for a king. He actually took some time picking David.
It would seem God didn’t care much for his other children or he wouldn’t have his favorites go into a town and help them kill a lot of innocent babies, children, or other people, just for land. If he knows all things then he knew that humans would act as they do. It doesn’t seem just to kill a lot of innocent people so one family of his so called chosen could have their land etc. A human father would not be considered good or just.
Saul may not have known about repentence, God knew ahead of time he wouldn’t repent, just as Hitler and other despots have done over the centuries but God knew and allowed it. I am just a human with all it’s weaknesses but would not conceive a child I knew for sure would be evil and harm other people (even my other children would be worse).
Well, the point I thought he was making – and if not, the point I’ll now make anyway – is that we don’t know if the man simply escaped. Lev. 20:10 mandates that both the man and the woman involved are to be put to death, so from a strict legal perspective I’m not sure what you’re saying.
I suppose it’s possible the crowd let the man slip away, and decided to stone the woman, but if they did they were not following the law.
If I were you, I’d focus more on the potion business in Numbers.
Half of your post gets into the big free will vs omniscience paradox. I’m not going to address that, because it’s not germane to understanding the individual matters. Suffice it to say that it’s a given that human beings have free will to choose to sin or not to sin. And having sinned, they have the free will to return to the path of goodness or not to.
Repentance is not about the expectation of forgiveness. It’s about the humble admission that one has done wrong, and that he aspires to do better. Saul tried to justify his wrong behavior rather than submit to the rebuke of the prophet. David did not.