|
ADULTERY |
|
ADULTERY #4 -- New Testament Usage We come now to make application of these truths to the New Testament passages that use the moich group. First, perhaps it would be good to summarize what we learned when we examined the terms outside the New Testament. 1. The agent noun, "adulterer", indicates repeated acts of adultery. The contexts prove it. 2. The abstract noun, moicheia, when put in the plural and predicated of an individual, refers to several concrete instances of adultery. 3. The usage of the moich- verbs clearly shows that adultery was most often repeated and by the same perpetrator. 4. As to "duration" or grammatical "progress", we have, for the moment, conceded the possibility of ambiguity in the present (and the future) Indicative. We shall study that in the next article. a. However, this ambiguity has been greatly exaggerated. b. In the Subjunctive, Optative and Imperative modes and in the Participle and Infinitive, the action is indisputably continuous. NEW TESTAMENT EXAMPLES The group is used about 35 times in the New Testament. We shall begin with the agent and abstract nouns and then discuss the two verbs. MOICHOS -- "ADULTERER" Luke 18:11 -- The proud Pharisee prayed, "God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers or even as this publican". The adulterers mentioned were those who were committing the sin habitually. This is strongly suggested by the context. And, the word, moichos, means that. 1 Cor. 6:9 -- "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind ,...shall inherit the kingdom of God". Now, notice verse 11. "And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." If the agent noun, moichos, were given in respect of a single act committed in the past, they would still be adulterers. There was a time when they continually committed adultery. That is, their state of mind was such as to produce adultery whenever they felt like it. But now, they are no longer adulterers because they have come to abhor it as a sin. They no longer practice it. Heb. 13:4 -- "Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers (fornicators -JB) and adulterers God will judge." Fornication can be committed by anybody; adultery is committed by someone under marriage bond. The context suggests repeated violations. So does the agent noun itself. MOICHALIS -- "ADULTERESS" Jas. 4:4 -- "Ye adulterers (KJV) and 'adulteresses', know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? Whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." Spiritual adultery is the consideration here. It is continuous, for the context suggests a constant relationship of "friendship" with the world, something that they were continually practicing. Matt. 12:39 -- "An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign:" Moichalis (adulteress), here used as an adjective, describes an inherent character trait of the Jewish people in Jesus' day. They were "adulterous" because their state of mind was such as to encourage it. They committed adultery repeatedly. So it is with Matt. 16:4 and Mark 8:38. Rom. 7:3 -- This passage vividly shows the progress of the action. "For the woman which hath a husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then, if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man." The KJV says "...if she marries while her husband liveth". But, the Greek makes the words "while her husband liveth" to describe that segment of time during which the remarried woman is called an adulteress. We translate: "For, the married woman is bound by law to her living husband. But, if the husband should die, she stands released from the law respecting the husband. So then, during the time that her husband is living she shall be called an adulteress if she should marry a different husband. But, if the (first) husband should die, she is freed from the law, with the result of her not being an adulteress when she has married a different man." This passage plainly says that, if she remarries, she is an adulteress while --during the time that-- her first husband is living. She is divinely, or at least officially, "called" an adulteress because of habitual acts of unlawful intercourse with her second husband. But, when her husband dies, she is no longer an adulteress. This release from the stigma of adultery has nothing to do with any repentance on her part. Her state of mind has not necessarily changed. But, her relationship to that first husband has been dissolved by his death. 1. If the term "adulteress" applied to her by virtue of one act committed in the past, she would still be an adulteress after her first husband dies. 2. If the term "adulteress" applied to someone by virtue of a disposition of mind, she would still be an adulteress. It was her husband's death that took away the stigma of adultery, not any change in her own morals. This passage tells us how long she is to be called an adulteress, viz. until her first husband dies. And the adultery involved is continuous or, more properly, iterative. 2 Pet. 2:14 -- Peter describes the false teachers as, "having eyes full of adultery (literally, "an adulteress"), and that cannot cease from sin". The sin from which they cannot cease in spite of its hazards and its dishonor, is adultery. Here "an adulteress" is a married woman who is willing to violate her marriage vows. She does it habitually. The false teachers are continually looking for such a one as she. MOICHEIA -- "ADULTERY" Matt. 15:19 -- "For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornication, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man." The language is very general here, but it certainly indicates repeated adulteries by an individual. So with Mark 7:21. John 8:3 -- One case of adultery. But, as we shall see in the sequel, this was not the only time she had been guilty of it. Gal. 5:19 -- Adultery in the singular, very general and found only in the Textus Receptus. MOICHAOMAI -- "I COMMIT ADULTERY" Matt. 5:32 -- "But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery (in the King James text, moichasthai, a present and therefore durative, infinitive): and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery (moichatai, present Indicative). The verb in the present Indicative should also be construed as durative because (1) that is the usage of the term, (2) the nature of the sin, and (3) the universal meaning of the Present Indicative. Even though most modern textual critics reject the present infinitive in favor of the aorist, it is easy to see why the scribal error -- if it is an error -- occurred. The scribe knew his language. He knew that adultery was continuous, and he knew that the present infinitive described such a continuous action. So, even if it should not be a divine witness, it is a powerful human witness. Matt. 19:9 -- "...Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery (Present Indicative): and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." (Present Indicative) Again, the Textus Receptus provides a sentence that is informative even if it is rejected by many modern critics. It is instructive because it reveals what the scribe knew about the sin of adultery. "He who has married (aorist participle) a put-away woman is committing adultery". He does not say, "He who has married a put-away woman has committed adultery (on his wedding night). But rather, (KJV) he "doth commit adultery". The action described by the aorist participle (marrying) took place in the past. But, the action described by the Present Indicative is taking place in the present, and it is continuous. Surely, if adultery happened only once, the copyist (or the Holy Spirit) would have sensed the incongruity of his words. But, if adultery is continuous, as we know it to be, then his choice of words and tenses makes perfect sense. We do not venture to say which text is right. But, the Textus Receptus is informative in any case. Mark 10:11-12 -- "Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery (Present Indicative) against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery (Present Indicative)." Here we need to keep in mind that: (1) Adultery most often occurred repeatedly. (2) The Present Indicative nearly always refers to continuous action. This is not an aoristic present for reasons which we shall discuss in our next article. Therefore, we should understand the Lord's words according to their ordinary signification viz. that whoever puts away his wife and marries another one is committing adultery. And, if a woman, having put away her husband, should marry another man, she is committing adultery also. MOICHEUO -- "I COMMIT ADULTERY" The verbs moicheuo and moichaomai are used interchangeably and, so far as I can find, there is no difference in their meaning. Moicheuo is from the Attic dialect; moichaomai is Doric (Blass-Debrunner, Grammar, page 53 ad loc.). Matt. 5:27-28 -- "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery (future tense): But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery (Aorist Indicative) with her already in his heart." This describes the sin of the mind; the heart gives its full consent to the act although the physical union does not occur. It refers to one act of adultery, and that not a physical one. The future tense is used to express a command. Matt. 5:32 -- Moicheuthenai, found in texts other than the Textus Receptus, is the subject of article #6 to follow. Matt. 19:18 -- "...Thou shalt not commit adultery..." Again, future tense. Mark 10:19 has the same prohibition using "me" ("not") with the Aorist Subjunctive of moicheuo. Luke 18:20 also has the aorist. Rom. 13:9 has "ou" ("not") with the future tense. Luke 16:18 -- "Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another committeth adultery (Present Indicative and durative): and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery (Present Indicative and durative). We insist that these verbs are durative because (1) that is the nature of the sin, and (2) that is the meaning of the Present tense in the Indicative. John 8:3 -- "And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act." Here the Present Participle is used indicating a single act in progress. The voice is middle (Blass-Deb., p. 53) or else passive, since the woman was regarded as the direct object in the action of adultery (Lev. 20:10 et al.). But the really instructive comment is found in verse 11. "And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. The word "sin" is present imperative, and it points indisputably to the cessation of a sin she was already practicing. See Moulton, Proleg. p. 122-126; Blass-Deb. Grammar, p. 172, sections 335 & 336; Robertson's Large Grammar, p. 890, section 3; Robertson Short Grammar, p. 300 (a); Machen, Grammar, p. 180, section 420; Burton, Moods & Tenses, p. 75. The words "no more" are translated from the Greek "meketi", "no longer". And so, what Jesus said implies that this was not the first time the woman had committed adultery. "Be on your way, and from now on, do not be sinning (committing adultery) any longer". The Greek is identical to that of Jno. 5:14 which Robertson cites (p. 890, #3) to illustrate the durative or iterative nature of the Present Imperative. Rom. 2:22 -- "Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery (Present infinitive, durative), dost thou commit adultery (Present Indicative)?" Thou that teachest the other man, when you teach him not to be committing adultery, do you -- are you in the habit of -- committing adultery? The Present Infinitive proves it to be continuous (iterative). And the context will allow no other interpretation. No one can dispute the fact that a Present Infinitive is durative. Not, "Did you" commit adultery, but "do you", are you now in the habit of committing adultery? (Present Indicative and durative). Jas. 2:11 -- "For he that said, Do not commit adultery ("mè" with the Aorist Subjunctive, spoken of a single act or the beginning of a process) said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery (Present Indicative), yet if thou kill (Present Indicative), thou art become a transgressor of the law." The meaning is, If you offend in one aspect of the law, viz. that which governs murder, you are guilty of all the law, including that part which forbids adultery. James hypothesizes several acts of murder. Rev. 2:22 -- "Behold I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds." "Them that commit adultery" translates the Greek Present Participle. The sin is continuous. If adultery were a one-time thing, then we should have expected the Aorist, "Those who have committed adultery" with her. But, they were "living" in adultery. And, again the context suggests habitual adultery. CONCLUSION The question as to whether adultery can be repeatedly committed is not really a question except in the minds of those who are determined to justify unscriptural marriages and in the minds of their disciples. There has never been a single shred of evidence presented on behalf of the adulteration theory, only the bare and unsupported assertion that adultery is a one-time thing. 1. The meaning of the moich- family as determined by the contexts in which it is found; 2. the usage of the words by informed Greek authors; 3. and the implications of the Greek moods and tenses; all combine their force in compelling the objective student to one inescapable conclusion. Most often was committed repeatedly. And, each new act was called "adultery". In the next article, I would like to examine the "aoristic present" and then, in the final article, the use of the aorist tense in Matt. 5:32, since these matters represent possible objections to the conclusions reached thus far. |