The definitions on this website for adultery and fornication are taken from Strong’s Concordance, the AFPMA, and from the context of the verses in which the words adultery and fornication are found. Occasionally the use of a less popular translation of the Bible such as Tyndale’s Bible completed in the early 1500s and the Geneva Bible which was completed in the late 1500s are used. Those were the two most popular versions before King James banned the printing of the Geneva Bible in 1611.
I’m surprised at how many Christians visiting this website find my definitions unusual when they are supported by most Bible Scholars, and as I’ve already stated, Strong’s Concordance. As for the pastors of those visiting this website, they apparently don’t follow pre-18th century Bible Scholars, otherwise, how could they keep getting donations from women who abort their children at the same rate as non-church goers? It’s clear that Christian Matriarchy, and now feminism, if there is a difference, is now more highly regarded than scholarship.
Here are some verses that are often used to try to change the subject when it comes to defining adultery. And changing the subject is the favorite tactic of those in Christian Matriarchy. I’ll show how these verses don’t do what those quoting them imply.
Hebrews 13:4
“Marriage [is] honorable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.”
This verse does not define adulterer or whoremongers. One must already know the definition of adultery and whore from other verses in the Bible, or simply from Strong’s Concordance, to understand what is being condemned here. A monger is one who sells. 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 that came from the pens of those writing the New Testament, must be taken from the Old Testament, the only scripture ever cited by the writers of the New Testament. Jesus’ statements on divorce are discussed in another article but in those statements, he did not define that adultery spoken of in the Old Testament which required stoning. The Pharisees, Sadducees, and the rest of the Jewish population knw that word and it’s meaning. Redefining that word would only cause confusion which is what today’s preachers within Christian Matriarchy seem to want. Jesus was frequently speaking of something that Tyndale in his translation called: breaking wedlock. Again, the New Testament does not anywhere define adultery or fornication. Those terms are already defined in the Old Testament, and you must determine the meaning of every term used in the verses of the New Testament based on Old Testament verses that have already defined those terms. In fact, Jesus prayed that his disciples would do this:
“Sanctify them through Thy Truth: Thy Word is truth.” John 17:17
God’s Word, at the time Jesus prayed, referred only to writings found in the Old Testament.
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 King David married to his many wives? Yes! So his marriages were honorable. David was punished for committing adultery with Bathsheba, another man’s wife, that’s adultery, but David was not punished for having many wives. Having many wives was not then, nor is it today, adultery. Not because David had many wives. But because God defines marriage, and God refers to David’s wives, that he had concurrently, as wives. And Paul declared in God’s Word through his pen, that marriage which would include David’s marriage, is honorable in all.
“And David dwelt with Achish at Gath, he and his men, every man with his household, even David with his two wives, Ahinoam the Jezreelitess, and Abigail the Carmelitess, Nabal’s wife.(widow)” 1 Samuel 27:3
Now let me clarify again. It’s NOT because David had several wives that marrying several wives is okay. It is because God, through Paul’s pen, declared all marriage honorable and that did not exclude David’s marriages which all Hebrews would be aware of. And this verse penned by Paul was to the Hebrews!
Some who are in bondage to Christian Matriarchy cite 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 don’t prove monogamy. How many times does a normal man leave his father and his mother? Of course just once. And for how many women AT A TIME would a POLYGAMIST leave his father and his mother. Well, let’s just put it this way, even polygamists who have every intention of marrying many, will first marry one, then another, etc. We even have the case of Jacob who was told by Laban to finish out the week with Leah before taking Rachel as a wife. Wives are typically taken one at a time.
“Fulfil her week, and we will give thee this also for the service which thou shalt serve with me yet seven other years.”
Genesis 29:27
Bible sentences are written logically. A man, polygamist or not, will leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife. The next time he cleaves unto a wife we will already be living in his own dwelling. The exact same sentence would be written whether men typically married one wife or ten wives because they marry them one a time though over time. Another illogical argument used in this verse is to first claim Adam had only one based on that one wife that was taken from his side, not taking into account the eggs that would be come women that were inside of Eve when she was taken from Adam. If he did have but one, stating these verses have the effect of limiting us to one would also limit us to the number and type of clothing that God made for Adam after the fall. It would also limit men to only those types of women who are literally pulled from our sides by God! Because that’s the type of wife Adam had. 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 disregard the fact that he made many through procreation) and if 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. Any more or any less would be a sin by their logic. “Oh you can’t have any other coat than the one God gave you.” Yeah, sure. Not to mention, “Oh you can’t have any wife other than one that’s taken from your side. Just wait upon the Lord.” Yeah, as the entire human race disappears. Sorry for the redundancy but for some folks this isn’t redundant enough!
Genesis 2:24 does offer us clues on why the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. It can be taken as a ban on homosexuality. And why we don’t have a second thought about Ham’s sin. A ban on mother son incest, and it is a command to get a wife and as I’ve explained a few paragraphs above, it is not limiting wives to one. 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.” Genesis 2:24
To understand any verse you must look at the verse or verses that precede it and the verse or 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.
Now let’s take a look at what the Lord tells us one more time:
“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” Genesis 2:24
Now let’s pay attention here. Adam didn’t say those words. Adam didn’t have a father other than God and certainly no mother. He didn’t have any children either. Other than the words and language that God had placed in his mind, Adam wouldn’t have even known what those were, until he was a father himself. So those words, whether spoken by God, or spoken by Adam, or written through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit by Moses or Joshua, those words, did not apply to Adam or Eve.
Now let’s pay attention here. The verse is NOT about Adam and Eve! Adam had no earthly father nor did Eve!
So if this verse applies to those who came after, who had mothers and fathers, any supposition that it tells us anything about Adam and Eve’s relationship is nonsense IN THE FIRST PLACE!
A Call To Those Who Must Repent of Bearing False Witness
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?! Again, I want to make clear, I’m NOT making any claims that “because they did it we can.” I’m saying, what kind of godless idiots are YOU, claiming that these men were too stupid to be aware of what you claim is a simple concept, your false claim with no evidence that polygamy equals adultery. That claim amounts to calling those great men, those patriarchs, adulterers, and it is to call all the Israelites, Jew Bastards, since they descended from Israel, the polygamist Patriarch of the Israelites. And that term was once common in Western Nations, Jew Bastards. It’s not surprising, based on the false teachings of Christian Matriarchy. And antisemitism isn’t entirely out of the realm of possibility when it comes to their exegesis of the Bible. It wouldn’t be the first time that antisemitism influenced exegesis of the Bible. But by claiming the patriarchs were adulterers, Jesus Himself, would be a bastard through Mary his mother who was also descended from the Israelite patriarchs. David, in fact, was only chastised regarding his behavior with one woman, for his one and only one case of adultery, the case with Bathsheba. For that, God made sure his first born of Bathsheba died. The Bible is so astoundingly clear on the subject of adultery that I’m shocked and grieved that anyone continues to try to redefine it. It can only be the result of their being a child of this world. But Jesus says His children are not of the world, even as He is not of the 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.
Click here for a more complete article on heautou / idios in Romans 7:2
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, having a personal relationship with each one of them, as we do with our Lord and Savior Jesus the Messiah! If you would don’t have a personal relationship with the Lord, let me share a special invitation to you to read the book of John in the Bible today. Here is the link: The Book of John – Chapter 1 – King James Bible
We please God by knowing Him and we know Him by knowing His Son, His Word, Jesus the Messiah. Amen!
