The Definitions on this website
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.
Definitions supported by most Bible Scholars
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, my definitions are in agreement with Strong’s Concordance. As for the pastors of those taking issue with what is posted on this website, they apparently don’t follow pre-18th century Bible scholarship standards. It’s clear that feminism, and now Christian Matriarchy, if there is a difference, is more highly regarded by those pastors than Bible scholarship. What might the motivating factor be? Who knows? Some might say, follow the money. But could it really be that they consider donations from their feminist congregants of more value than “rightly dividing the Word of Truth.” Let’s hope not.
Tactics of the Inquisition & of Modern Christian Matriarchy
Here are some tactics along with verses that are often used to misdirect the discussion when it comes to defining marriage and adultery. And misdirecting the discussion, 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 Jesus statements on marriage and adultery, He did not redefine that adultery spoken of in the Old Testament which required stoning. He spoke of the sin of adultery in the heart which is simply coveting thy neighbor’s woman. A sin, but an unseen sin that does not have the punishment that adultery has. The Pharisees, Sadducees, and the rest of the Jewish population knew that word and it’s meaning. Redefining that word can only cause confusion which is what today’s preachers within Christian Matriarchy seem to want.
Jesus is also recorded as having spoken of something Tyndale in his translation called: breaking wedlock. Again, the New Testament does not anywhere define adultery, fornication, or divorce. So the meanings of all terms and verses in the New Testament are understood through the 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 King David’s wives. And Paul declared in God’s Word through his pen, that marriage, which includes David’s marriages, 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 the having of several wives has never been declared in the Bible to have been a sin. Nonetheless, through Paul’s pen, God declares what obviously follows, that all marriage is honorable and that does not exclude David’s marriages, which all Hebrews would have been aware of. And this verse penned by Paul was to the Hebrews!
Hebrews 13:4
Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
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 often does this verse recommend that a monogamist leave his father and his mother? Of course just once. And the same would apply for a polygamist. Even polygamists who have every intention of marrying many wives, would 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 and there is not even a case in the entire Bible of a man taking two new wives the same night.
“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 he 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. Sorry for the redundancy but we are dealing with a severe from of mind control that causes typically normal individuals to accept illogical arguments when those arguments are in agreement with their Western cultural beliefs.
Another illogical argument regarding this verse is to claim Adam had only one wife based on the fact that only one wife was taken from his side, not taking into account the eggs that were in Eve’s ovaries, many of which would become women. Eve was not just a woman taken from Adam’s side. She was a reservoir of humanity awaiting fertilization by Adam. If he did have but one wife, claiming these verses have the effect of limiting future men to one wife, is tantamount to claiming that since Jesus said “Love thy neighbor” not “neighbors,” that we must love only one neighbor and to love more would be a sin. If that were not enough nonsense coming from Christian Matriarchy, their argument would also have the effect of limiting men to only those types of women who are literally pulled from their sides by God! because that’s the type of wife Adam had.
Genesis 2:24 does offer us clues on why the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. It can be taken as a ban on homosexuality. It can also be understood as a ban on mother son incest. It also stands as a command to get a wife, not simply remain with parents. 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
Contexts that Define Words
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 Adam’s mind, Adam wouldn’t have even known what a father or mother or children 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.
The Notion based on English Translations
that 1 Corinthians 7:2 Bans Polygamy
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!
