">
:: Unregistered? Register for a user account.



Christian Topics



Christian Friends

There are 2 unlogged users and 0 registered users online.

You can log-in or register for a user account here.

Languages

Preferred language:


Ethics In Practicing Your Faith

The definitions o­n this website for adultery and fornication are taken from Strong's Concordance and from the context of the verses in which the words adultery and fornication are found.

I'm surprised at how many Christians visiting this website find my definitions unusual when they are supported by most theologians and as I've already stated, Strong's Concordance. (No, your pastor is probably not orthodox - how could he keep getting donations if he were?)

Here are some verses that are often used to try to change the subject when it comes to defining adultery. I'll show how these verses don't do what those quoting them imply.

Hebrews 13:4
"Marriage [is] honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge."

This verse does not define adulterer or whore. O­ne must already know the definition of adultery and whore from other verses in the Bible or simply from Strong's Concordance in order to understand what is being condemned here. Since there was no Bible except the Old Testament at the time of the writing of the New Testament then every definition of adultery and fornication must be taken from the Old Testament, the o­nly scripture ever sited by the writers of the New Testament. Furthermore, the New Testament does not anywhere define adultery or fornication. Those terms are defined in the Old Testament. Please see the following article for more o­n that.

 Adultery in Your Heart - It's Not What You Think

What is notable about Hebrews 13:4 is that it states that marriage is honorable in all. This means that if a man is married then it is honorable. Was David married to his many wives? Yes! So it was honorable. David was punished for committing adultery with Bathsheba, not for having many wives. Having many wives was not then, nor is it today, adultery.

Some site Genesis 2:18 and Genesis 2:22-25 claiming that these verses have something to do with a definition of adultery.

Genesis 2:18 And the LORD God said, [It is] not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

Gen 2:22-25 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This [is] now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be o­ne flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

These verses do not use the word adultery nor can they even be said to limit a man to o­ne woman unless a man is also limited to just the amount and type of clothing that God made for him after the fall; coats of skins made by God. You'll see what I mean when you read the following verse.

Genesis 3:21
"Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them."

Follow the logic. If God made o­nly o­ne woman and that limits a man to o­ne wife then since God provided o­nly the animal skins that he clothed Adam with then men are also limited to those very same types and number of animal skins that God gave Adam after the fall. "Oh you can't have any other coat than the o­ne God gave you." Yeah, sure.

Genesis 2:24 is actually a ban o­n homosexuality, mother son sex, and an injunction to get married. Something else of note is that singleness is not an option in Genesis 2:24

It says, "Therefore SHALL a man leave his father and his mother, and SHALL cleave unto his wife: and they SHALL be o­ne flesh."

To understand any verse you must look at the verses that precede it and the verses that follow it. The verse that precedes Genesis 2:24 is of course Genesis 2:23

And Adam said, This [is] now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

Was Adam's father taken out of Adam? No. Was Adam's mother taken out of Adam? No.

Therefore, shall a man leave his father....etc. You see? If you read the verse that proceeds it you see that a man shall cleave to his wife because she is the o­ne who was taken out of him. Neither his father nor his mother were taken out of him.

Something to be very concerned about when you take positions o­n the lives of others is bearing false witness. If you're claiming that God calls men who have more than o­ne marriage at the same time adulterers by citing Genesis 2:18, Genesis 2:22, Genesis 2:23, Genesis 2:24, & Genesis 2:25 then you are also claiming that righteous Abraham, Israel, David, even righteous King Josiah who read the entire Law to the people, were knowingly committing adultery by taking more than o­ne wife since they were well aware of these passages. Certainly you don't think you have a higher I.Q. than those great men, or do you! Calling those great men adulterers is to call all Jews bastards since they descended from Israel, the polygamist Patriarch of the Israelites. By such a definition of adultery, Jesus Himself, would be a bastard through Mary his mother who was also descended from the Israelite patriarchs. David, in fact, was o­nly chastised for his o­ne and o­nly o­ne case of adultery, the case with Bathsheba. The Bible is so astoundingly clear o­n the subject of adultery that I'm shocked that anyone continues to try to redefine it. It can o­nly be a result of their being a child of this world.

Some say that 1 Corinthians 7:2 bans polygamy but in fact it acknowledges that a man can have more than o­ne wife.In 1 Corinthians 7:2 Let each man have his own (heautou) wife, and let each woman have her own (idios) husband." lol, now remember, it doesn't say "idiot husband" it says "her own" for which the Greek word is "idios."

The Greek reflexive pronouns are different for "his own" and "her own". The reflexive pronoun for "her own" is "idios" which means unique to her, just o­ne, as in the following sentence when referring to the city of your birth of which there is just o­ne.

Luk 2:3 And all went to be taxed, every o­ne into his own city. (his own - idios = o­ne to each person)

The Greek reflexive pronoun that is used in "his own" as in "his own" wife is "heautou" which means his own in the sense that you can have more than o­ne as in the following sentence.

Philippians 2:4 Look not every man o­n his own (heautou) things, but every man also o­n the things of others.

You can clearly have many things. This is why heautou was used here instead of idios.

So you can see from the Greek words in 1 Corinthians 7:2 that you have a clear example of where the Greek states that a man can have more than o­ne wife but a woman cannot have more than o­ne husband.

Now it needs to be understood that it is of no consequence whether the Greek word for wife is singular or plural because the Greek word "heautou" leaves open the door for more wives. Furthermore, it would be illogical for Paul to have used plural here because if it were plural then it would be saying that every man should have more than o­ne wife which is clearly an impossibility unless God starts making tons of women. Look at that construction: "let every man have his own wives." You see! This would be a command for all men to have more than o­ne wife. Clearly the singular for this sentence would be needed whether Paul accepted a man's right to more than o­ne wife or not. The greek word "heautou" keeps in place the Hebrew understanding of marriage which included the right to more than o­ne wife.Ephesians 5:33 is another such verse.

Ephesians 5:33
" Nevertheless let every o­ne of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife [see] that she reverence [her] husband."

If the word wife were plural then it would read: "so love his wives" and the reader would be led to the conclusion that everyone must have more than o­ne wife. In addition, the Bible never tells us to love any group. It tells us to love each member of that group, singular. You cannot love a group.

I have never disagreed with the fact that marriage is between o­ne man and o­ne woman. David was not married to a group of women as if they were a corporation where the marriage was between David and the corporation. David married each of his wives, individually.

May we always submit ourselves to the Bible. Amen!


Note: If you have questions or comments concerning this article please
click here
to send a message to Pastor Don.

Site Search


Admonitions

A real man gives to his family and community while a wimp takes all for himself.

-- Pastor Don Milton --

Other Stories

Chat with Pastor Don