Is adultery just a classification charged to womern?

[Humble Penny]

Biblically, whenever there was a matter of taking on more than one wife, calamity always followed ... 100% of the time. It may have been permitted, but it was not the ideal. Messiah Yeshua agreed with His own Torah, when He said:



"... no longer two, but one flesh ..." is critical here. This was the ideal, two becoming one (i.e. echad; cf. B'resheet 2).

Hmmm...well I'd be careful with this line of argumentation as it would make it seem that single paired marriages aren't followed with calamity...Adam and Eve's marriage should be the first that comes to mind...

I want to be clear that I am simply defending the Law of Moses and making plain what it actually says. Whether people want to believe that or act on it is their choice. Afterall it is the choice of the man, and doesn't require the input of the first wife...though we see in the stories of Abraham and Jacob where their wives were the ones who volunteered to choose a woman for their husband's to sleep with and bear them children.

Therefore from their accounts we should see how emotional women can be in their decision making, and how antagonistic they can be towards one another when it comes to wanting to control how much affection they receive from their husband as compared to the other women. In the end we see that if the man knows how to lead then the women and children will generally follow him. Then we have the wild men like Samson and Gideon who seem to just boast in their strength and good looks, and just generally like to have sex...and if they weren't rich probably had loads of "ancient child support"! And there's a more exceptional man like Joseph who was able to control his sexual impulses at the height of his youth as he was barely 18 Years old, I mean he must've been a real attractive slave to catch the eye of Potiphar's wife (and not to mention all of the other Egyptian women) who had the riches and all a woman could ask for materially speaking; but in the end Joseph rejected her advances and as far as we can tell was satisfied with his wife Asenath.

But again...the Bible has all of these stories to highlight the true nature of men and women and how we interact with one another. I mean look at David, he was attractive, rich, powerful, wise, and could do whatever he wanted as king...but even he fell prey to a married woman's enchantments. While we don't have all of the details of that event with Bathsheba...we know he didn't just call her to bed for only one night as he was still in the palace when her husband Uriah came to report on the war! And then after Uriah's murder Bathsheba married David while he still had other wives. And then we can't forget king Solomon who was still a young man around his 20's who was the richest, most powerful, wisest, and famous king of the land...could you blame him for wanting to flaunt his glory to all the women he wanted to "politically align" himself with?

Anyways God already told Adam that his wife would constantly be contrary to him to test his dominance...and God said that he'd be able to rule over Eve. That story has not changed since they left the garden of Eden. What do you think feminism is all about? It's nothing more than a group of Eve's who are being ruled by their fallen nature and dominating a group of weak Adam's...and MGTOW is nothing but the male version of feminism, except its a group of weak Adam's putting all the blame on Eve and bemoaning the "tyranny of women"...but, the reality is that both Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden fruit lol!

While I'm not here to openly promote a man having more than one wife, I am saying that your answer is a bit simplistic and overlooks the nature of men and women. We see that as long as women see that you can provide and keep them happy they really don't care about how many other women you have...whether they'll all remain loyal and not give you hell...well that's a whole other issue.

 

[Humble Penny]

Biblically, whenever there was a matter of taking on more than one wife, calamity always followed ... 100% of the time. It may have been permitted, but it was not the ideal. Messiah Yeshua agreed with His own Torah, when He said:



"... no longer two, but one flesh ..." is critical here. This was the ideal, two becoming one (i.e. echad; cf. B'resheet 2).

I nearly forgot to address your "one flesh" argument...in short this phrase only speaks of the unity between a husband and a wife. This of course is only speaking about that particular union between the husband and the wife he has joined himself too. So if a man marries a second woman the unity between him and the second wife is not the same as the unity he shares with his first wife.

God makes this very clear when he speaks of the Two Sisters He married Himself to in Ezekiel 23; and they are spoken of in a similar manner in Jeremiah 3 in both cases God compares His relationship with Israel and Judah as a marriage to each and, He speaks of their spiritual idolatry and equates it to adultery. In both cases God tries to make an example of the older sister (Israel) by divorcing her in order to teach the younger sister (Judah) a lesson in the hopes that she won't follow the elder's evil example. In the end this doesn't workout so God ends up casting both Sisters from His sight and let's them live it up with their lovers who eventually abuse them. All the while God is calling them back to Himself.

So we see that even God Himself is showing by these parables that God has problems with His figurative wives but, shows that even if you can provide and lead that women will choose of their own accord and look to see if the grass is greener on the other side. And what of Yeshua our Messiah? His Bride is the Church and how many Churches did He speak to in Revelation?

So what can we conclude from the examples of God and Christ? It doesn't matter whether a man has one or many wives: he will still be tested by them and have problems whether he be rich or poor, wise or foolish. How he deals with these problems is what will set him apart and affect which side of eternity he will end up on.

 

[GedaliahMaegil]

While I'm not here to openly promote a man having more than one wife, I am saying that your answer is a bit simplistic and overlooks the nature of men and women. We see that as long as women see that you can provide and keep them happy they really don't care about how many other women you have...whether they'll all remain loyal and not give you hell...well that's a whole other issue.

And your answer - indeed, many of the teachings you've promoted - seem quite over-complicated. Perhaps that is why Rav Sha`ul was correct in his mention in his first letter to Timotheos, chapter 2. In your response, you prove his point ...

 

[Humble Penny]

And your answer - indeed, many of the teachings you've promoted - seem quite over-complicated. Perhaps that is why Rav Sha`ul was correct in his mention in his first letter to Timotheos, chapter 2. In your response, you prove his point ...

"Overcomplicated"? Hmmm...I think instead that the Church has not put much thought into these issues I've raised...which is quite a nuisance.

If you have something specific you disagree with then point that out but, otherwise I've shown my work and made it plain how I came to my conclusions. Otherwise you're just stating your own opinions.

 

[GedaliahMaegil]

"Overcomplicated"? Hmmm...I think instead that the Church has not out much thought into these issues I've raised...which is quite a nuisance.

Why would Messianics be interested in what the church thinks?

If you have something specific you disagree with then point that out but, otherwise I've shown my work and made it plain how I came to my conclusions. Otherwise you're just stating your own opinions.

Engaging in such debate would also be against Rav Sha`ul's recommendation, in this case. Perhaps you can take it up with your father or husband.

 

[visionary]

Why would Messianics be interested in what the church thinks?



Engaging in such debate would also be against Rav Sha`ul's recommendation, in this case. Perhaps you can take it up with your father or husband.

Humble Penny is a guy...lol

 

[Humble Penny]

Why would Messianics be interested in what the church thinks?



Engaging in such debate would also be against Rav Sha`ul's recommendation, in this case. Perhaps you can take it up with your father or husband.

Well brother...Peter also said that Paul's words are true, but hard to understand in some places. If you pay close attention to the sophisticated argument of Paul regarding the silence of women in the churches he is not making a blanket statement against all women, but specifically rebellious, stubborn, and headstrong women.

People who read the surface come to the same conclusions as you, but fail to see that from the beginning that God delighted in Wisdom everyday of creation (see Proverbs 8) and kept Her close to His side. And after man was created in their Image and Likeness God gave authority to mankind i.e. men and women to have dominion over the earth and the creatures in the world. Furthermore The woman has authority over whatever offspring her and her man produce; and God also put Deborah the judge over the children of Israel; and wasn't it Abigail's humility, gifts of food, and sound words that which saved her and her foolish husband Nabal's household from being destroyed by David? When Joab laid siege to the city in which an enemy escaped into, that city was saved by the wise counsel of the unnamed wise woman who convinced the people to behead that wicked man in order to save them from destruction; and was not Sheba queen when she visited Solomon? Didn't king Lemuel's mother counsel him on the woman he should marry and the women he should avoid? Wasn't it Esther who saved Israel from Haman? And wasn't it Judith who killed king Nebuchadnezzar's general Holofernes, cut off his head, and saved Israel? Didn't Pilate's wife tell him not to lay a hand on our Savior Yeshua? And was not Lydia a seller of purple? And did not Priscilla with her husband Aquila teach the young man Apollo the Scriptures more accurately?

So is God against women being leaders? No, God is against women who would usurp the authority of men. All women which convince the man to eat of the forbidden fruit with them Solomon called the daughters of Folly; and, Christ reckons them with queen Jezebel and Mystery Babylon. And how does this occur? When women do not conquer their fallen nature they inherited from Eve. These are the women Paul commands to be silent, for the truly humble women already control themselves and are aware of their fallen nature. And when these humble women recognize their husband or the men to be foolish they are able to giggle about it, but they do not speak or act evil against them and they know how to honor their husband's and fathers.

You seem like a okay guy, but your mind is still too narrow. Anyways blessings to you brother.

Humble Penny is a guy...lol

Lol! Well as @visionary correctly pointed out I am a man. My name "Humble Penny" is to denote the lowliness of a penny, and this is because a $1.00 = 100 Pennies, so without the lowly penny you couldn't have the other denominations of money; and, because it is the cornerstone of money I saw Christ in it and thought it'd be a cool name since He's the cornerstone the builders rejected.

 

[Humble Penny]

Hmmm...after post #27 I believe that I need to create a separate thread regarding the order of the family and the Church, and show how God really does care for and value women. These things many men don't speak about correctly and as a result many women are left wondering what importance they have in God's eyes.

 

[visionary]

Hmmm...after post #27 I believe that I need to create a separate thread regarding the order of the family and the Church, and show how God really does care for and value women. These things many men don't speak about correctly and as a result many women are left wondering what importance they have in God's eyes.

Thank you.
We women are the backbone of the family while our men are the protecters and defenders (house band). We women have God given abilities to analyse things, situations, people, etc from more than one angle simulaniously to get a perspective that is wise for man to consider before final decision is made. We are the help meet necessary for a well rounded balanced life. There is no need to lord it, because then you lose the benefit of what God provided through the woman He created to balance you men. When a wise man choses his wise mate, they together can conquer all the challenges that come their way. That is the way God intended. Never belittle the role that women play, it is too important, very valuable, and never to underestimated.

 

[visionary]

Proverbs 6:32
But whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding: he that doeth it destroyeth his own soul.

 

[Torah Keeper]

Dkh587 is correct. Adultery is sexual relations between a man and another man's wife. Not with his own wife(s). Any other definition is wrong and likely due to mistranslation.

 

[Humble Penny]

Dkh587 is correct. Adultery is sexual relations between a man and another man's wife. Not with his own wife(s). Any other definition is wrong and likely due to mistranslation.

Hmmmm...and how are you to square such a narrow definition with the words of Christ on adultery? If you're definition were true then I could lust after any woman who isn't my wife and not break the Law of Moses...

 

[Torah Keeper]

My definition does not contradict Christ. If "woman" means any woman, then Christ said it is a sin to lust after my own wife! This is not what He meant. If woman means "another man's wife" it makes perfect sense.

γυνή can mean both "wife" or "woman" and hence the exegetical question. If wife, it is obviously another man's wife. If woman, it confuses modern readers. Even if it does mean woman in this case, it does not mean the woman is not another man's wife.

Case in point: In order to commit adultery the "woman" in question must be another man's wife. This would be common sense to His audience. But today, the definition of marriage and adultery is twisted.

This doesn't mean lusting after virgins is acceptable, but it is not adultery. Otherwise all the polygynous saints in the Bible become adulterers.

Marriage is (lawful) relations, and adultery is relations with another man's wife. This is the only definition that makes sense all throughout the Bible.

 

[Humble Penny]

My definition does not contradict Christ. If "woman" means any woman, then Christ said it is a sin to lust after my own wife! This is not what He meant. If woman means "another man's wife" it makes perfect sense.

γυνή can mean both "wife" or "woman" and hence the exegetical question. If wife, it is obviously another man's wife. If woman, it confuses modern readers. Even if it does mean woman in this case, it does not mean the woman is not another man's wife.

Case in point: In order to commit adultery the "woman" in question must be another man's wife. This would be common sense to His audience. But today, the definition of marriage and adultery is twisted.

This doesn't mean lusting after virgins is acceptable, but it is not adultery. Otherwise all the polygynous saints in the Bible become adulterers.

Marriage is (lawful) relations, and adultery is relations with another man's wife. This is the only definition that makes sense all throughout the Bible.

This makes no sense because then if what you're saying is true then the apostles wouldn't have said, "If this be the case then it is better not to marry". And what you say regarding the Greek gyne is pointless as the word wife in the Norse languages also mean and are connected to woman; and this is also the case with the Hebrew ISHaH which can mean "wife, woman". I believe you confuse the prohibition in the Law of Moses regarding incestuous relations among family members where we read, "Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brothers wife." It would make more sense to say that adultery refers to a married person having sex with someone who they aren't married to; while fornication is having sex with someone you're not married to whether you are unmarried or not.

Otherwise I don't see what point you make with the saints who had many wives and concubines have to do with anything since they were married to all of those women...

 

[Torah Keeper]

"If this be the case then it is better not to marry"

The context is divorce. They didn't want to get stuck with a wife they couldn't divorce. Obviously for selfish reasons.

What is so hard to understand about my previous post? I am not confused about incest. I didn't even mention it. Why are you rabbit trailing here? Stick to the topic at hand.

And what I said about woman/wife in Greek is not pointless, it is entirely the point of this very topic. This has been debated before, you know.

 

[Humble Penny]

"If this be the case then it is better not to marry"

The context is divorce. They didn't want to get stuck with a wife they couldn't divorce. Obviously for selfish reasons.

What is so hard to understand about my previous post? I am not confused about incest. I didn't even mention it. Why are you rabbit trailing here? Stick to the topic at hand.

And what I said about woman/wife in Greek is not pointless, it is entirely the point of this very topic. This has been debated before, you know.

You understand the strictness of the standard which Christ set about marriage right? Just because modern Bible's have headings which say "Jesus Teaches About Divorce" is not the sole context of the passage...he also included adultery in that after already telling the apostles that whoever lusts after a woman also commits adultery.

It's very silly to accept what you say about adultery because then I could lust after unmarried women and never be accused of adultery by my wife...and my wife could lust after unmarried men and not be guilty of adultery...a very stupid idea to believe that Christ was only referring to lusting after married women or men...

 

[Torah Keeper]

Very stupid you say? Is that your best evidence to prove me wrong?

"It's very silly to accept what you say about adultery because then I could lust after unmarried women and never be accused of adultery by my wife..."

Technically true, but I already said lusting after unmarried women who are not your wife is not a good idea.

"and my wife could lust after unmarried men and not be guilty of adultery.."

Not true. I never said that. Don't put words in my mouth.

 

[Humble Penny]

Very stupid you say? Is that your best evidence to prove me wrong?

"It's very silly to accept what you say about adultery because then I could lust after unmarried women and never be accused of adultery by my wife..."

Technically true, but I already said lusting after unmarried women who are not your wife is not a good idea.

"and my wife could lust after unmarried men and not be guilty of adultery.."

Not true. I never said that. Don't put words in my mouth.

No one is putting words in your mouth...I'm showing you how clumsy and short-sighted your theory by showing you where you clearly didn't think through all of what you were saying. You personally saying something "isn't a good idea" doesn't make you an authority especially when you're attempting to expound on the sense of the words of Christ.

 

[Dkh587]

Hmmmm...and how are you to square such a narrow definition with the words of Christ on adultery? If you're definition were true then I could lust after any woman who isn't my wife and not break the Law of Moses...

The woman he references is a married woman - when the subject of adultery is on the table, biblically, the woman is always married, which is why when he expounds on the commandment in the Beatitudes, he mentions a woman.

“You shall not commit adultery” applies to both genders: for the man, it means don’t have sex with another man’s wife. For the woman, it means don’t have sex with a man other than your husband.

adultery has a narrow definition according to the Torah, so the Messiah’s explanation would be narrow as well.

 

[Torah Keeper]

That is not anything close to what my doctrine is. Again you make false accusations.

If a wife sleeps with a man that is not her husband, it is adultery.

If a virgin sleeps with a man she is his wife(assuming no unlawful act like incest)