Hi, James here. I would like some information on how you guys deal with negative people when it comes to plural marriages and how you respond when they bring up adultery. I believe god has put a lot of love in the hearts of Lacey and myself and we just want to share it with as many people as possible. We will battle all the negative people out there and god will grant us the faith to get through this. We just want to bring more love and happiness into our home with a sister wife. We love kids and family and I believe that is the way god wants us to be.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Adultery Question!
- Thread starter JamesandLacey
- Start date
Are you asking how to respond to them when they say to you that polygamy is adultery?
Yes, I would like to know how you guys answer that question. Thanks for any advise you can give.
In this case I explain that God defines sin, not anyone else. God rebuked adultery, but never polygamy. I also tend to bring up King David, and that God rebuked him specifically for adultery, in one case, though he was married to many women. It also says that King David followed God completely, except in that one case, and that God was willing to have given David more wives. Therefore, it cannot be adultery, because God hates adultery, but does not show any hatred towards polygamy. Then I point out that most of the people He was on the side of in the Bible were polygamous.
I also tend to point out that every reference to adultery in the Bible is easily shown to be any man, married or not, sleeping with a married woman... not a prostitute, not a maiden, not a widow. Also that any man, whether single or married, if he ends up sleeping with a virgin, he MUST get her as his wife, no matter how many wives he may already have or what anyone's opinion may be (including his wives opinions, own opinion, and the girl's opinion. The only opinion that matters at that point is the girl's father's opinion and who he wishes to consult on the matter). That is one out of TWO commands in the Bible that result in polygamy.
Then I point out that God doesn't change, and neither did His law. Dealing with it in the NT is just as easy. Jesus didn't change the definition of adultery, and even supported it in the sermon on the mount. The issue with the verses on divorce is easily stopped by pointing out that Jesus was talking about divorce, not polygamy. He knew what He was saying, and if He wanted to rebuke polygamy He could have done it at any time. Herod, that "fox", had 10 wives. Jesus didn't rebuke him for that. Neither did John the Baptist. But John the Baptist DID rebuke him for taking his brothers wife. Paul didn't change any definition of it either, and the arguments from his writings fall just as easily.
As God doesn't change, and neither does the definition of sin (as sin is missing the mark, and if the mark moves around God can't expect us to hit it in the first place). It is, thus, simple to point out that they seem to be finding God too stupid to clarify His own desires and laws, if they choose to hold polygamy as adultery, them being the genius human that they are, being able to judge even more righteously than the inventor of righteousness Himself... YHWH, King of kings and Lord of lords... holder of that target of perfection that they are aiming for.
The end result is usually giving up this method of attack... if they haven't already stated that I'm just looking for a way to justify sin and stopped this part of the subject entirely... or left. But usually I get relatively positive results from this.
I also tend to point out that every reference to adultery in the Bible is easily shown to be any man, married or not, sleeping with a married woman... not a prostitute, not a maiden, not a widow. Also that any man, whether single or married, if he ends up sleeping with a virgin, he MUST get her as his wife, no matter how many wives he may already have or what anyone's opinion may be (including his wives opinions, own opinion, and the girl's opinion. The only opinion that matters at that point is the girl's father's opinion and who he wishes to consult on the matter). That is one out of TWO commands in the Bible that result in polygamy.
Then I point out that God doesn't change, and neither did His law. Dealing with it in the NT is just as easy. Jesus didn't change the definition of adultery, and even supported it in the sermon on the mount. The issue with the verses on divorce is easily stopped by pointing out that Jesus was talking about divorce, not polygamy. He knew what He was saying, and if He wanted to rebuke polygamy He could have done it at any time. Herod, that "fox", had 10 wives. Jesus didn't rebuke him for that. Neither did John the Baptist. But John the Baptist DID rebuke him for taking his brothers wife. Paul didn't change any definition of it either, and the arguments from his writings fall just as easily.
As God doesn't change, and neither does the definition of sin (as sin is missing the mark, and if the mark moves around God can't expect us to hit it in the first place). It is, thus, simple to point out that they seem to be finding God too stupid to clarify His own desires and laws, if they choose to hold polygamy as adultery, them being the genius human that they are, being able to judge even more righteously than the inventor of righteousness Himself... YHWH, King of kings and Lord of lords... holder of that target of perfection that they are aiming for.
The end result is usually giving up this method of attack... if they haven't already stated that I'm just looking for a way to justify sin and stopped this part of the subject entirely... or left. But usually I get relatively positive results from this.
sadanyagci said:
First, I use very similar arguments to Sadan's, stated in the previous post. To his two arguments re-iterated here, I tend to add a couple of more observations as my personal twist, to wit:
** God must be either too stupid, too SHY, or too old and, sadly, afflicted with Alzheimer's to know what He's saying, say what He means, mean what He says, and (more to the point) leave unsaid what He doesn't want said. Sometimes I explore the likelihood that any of the three are applicable, with an eye to obtaining their agreement that He DOES say what He means ... Which then leads us to two interesting verses ...
** Deu 12:32 "Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to nit nor take away from it." and,
** Pro 30:5,6 "Every word of God is pure; ... Do not add to His words, Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar."
Enjoy,
Cecil
Very good replies. Not much to add. I would also insist that "monogomy only" is negative for modern application also and actually promotes adultery, porn, etc. and is the reason the church even with supposedly moral monogamy has just as bad a divorce rate as non-christians.
Great responses.
I have changed the way that I deal with these situations now differently than I did years ago when I first started speaking up about this issue. I know all the verses, the arguments, and still never changed anyone's mind that was not already open to hearing truth. I now ask them to to explain why polygamy is adultery. I don't try to explain anymore, my personality makes it seems like I am trying to justify something. But, when they start to try to explain, it usually is clear that they know what they believe, they just don't know why or how to support it from the Bible.
I spend less energy and emotion watching them bloody noses against God's Word rather than me holding the mule's nose to the water trough.
Whatever argument against poly they try to use, it seems like the most frequent response that I give is, "so you are saying that God changed something?" based on the passages in duet and exodus, and that is usually enough to start the blood flow.
I have changed the way that I deal with these situations now differently than I did years ago when I first started speaking up about this issue. I know all the verses, the arguments, and still never changed anyone's mind that was not already open to hearing truth. I now ask them to to explain why polygamy is adultery. I don't try to explain anymore, my personality makes it seems like I am trying to justify something. But, when they start to try to explain, it usually is clear that they know what they believe, they just don't know why or how to support it from the Bible.
I spend less energy and emotion watching them bloody noses against God's Word rather than me holding the mule's nose to the water trough.
Whatever argument against poly they try to use, it seems like the most frequent response that I give is, "so you are saying that God changed something?" based on the passages in duet and exodus, and that is usually enough to start the blood flow.
Paul not the apostle said:
Very good Paul. This is a very good way to hold people accountable to their own words. Most Christians do not know what "they believe" about most doctrines, let alone polygyny. Placing the responsibility back upon the questioner is a good way to make them think about what they truly believe.
One way of helping people to think out the adultery question is by helping them understand how the big 10 relate to the other commandments. Just like the two greatest commandments sum up the ten commanments, so do the 10 commandments sum up the rest of the commandments. So, if one were to take each commandment and place it at the top of a column, making it its own topic heading; and then go through the entire five books of Moses and place every law (and related story) under the corresponding heading, then one would be able to see clearly the full expression of each commandment. To put it in todays terms, the ten commandments are the Law, the rest of the commandments are "case law" that explains the ten.
So, if one does this with "thou shalt not commit adultery", one will be able to clearly see the full meaning of this commandment as it is worked out in case law. Then the conclusion is very easy to understand. Blessings!
I want to thank all of you for your response to my question. I feel God knows what he is doing and who am I to question it. You guys are a real big help and I am so glad Lacey, (my wife) and I joined this site. I hope to continue to have this brothership with all of you. Thanks for praying for Lacey and me.
PolyPride
Member
I recently finished a paper on polygamy and ironically my English teacher brought up this same point. He mentioned that polygamy would lead to the male breaking his vows of being faithful with one wife as soon as he has intimate relations/feelings with another woman/wife. I thought about this for a while and I figured out that the terms in a polygamous relationship are not all the same as the terms in a monogamous marriage. From that, people who claim that polygamy is adultery make the mistake of defining all terms of marriage only in terms of monogamous marriages as if it's the only standard of marriage when there is also polygamy. To get more to the point, as soon as a polygamous marriage is started, being faithful shifts to mean being only with your wives, rather than just applying to just one wife. So whatever vows you made with your first wife on faithfulness is now open and now you have two women. Adultery in this case would only be having intimate relations with someone other than your wives.
Another shorter answer would be that polygamy is a relationship that's all within marriage(s). All of the women a man has in a polygamous marriage are all his wives so there is no fornication nor adultery (with adultery meaning being with someone other than your wife (for monogamy) or wives (for polygamy)).
Another shorter answer would be that polygamy is a relationship that's all within marriage(s). All of the women a man has in a polygamous marriage are all his wives so there is no fornication nor adultery (with adultery meaning being with someone other than your wife (for monogamy) or wives (for polygamy)).
So many good posts!
It should be noted that too many people today practice what is called the anachronistic fallacy when interpreting Biblical words or phrases. An anachronistic fallacy is when one reads into the Biblical text words and phrase definitions derived from modern dictionaries instead of derived from definitions based upon the author's original intent. In other words, if one takes the word "adultery" from the English dictionary (representing our modern culture), reads passages from the Scripture that contain the word "adultery". This person reading passages that containing that word has just been deceived into thinking that the definition that he understands is the Biblical definition. When, in fact, the definition that the author had in mind over 2,000 years ago is as different from the modern definition as is night from day. Word meanings change over time - even over short periods of time, let alone a few thousand years. For example, who would have known in 1920 that the word "cool" doesn't always refer to something in relationship to temperature? We need to work hard at discovering authorial intent!
To express how one can achieve authorial intent concerning the Ten Commandments, specifically concerning adultery, one should place the Ten Commandments into separate columns - making each one its own separate title. Then research through the entire Law, placing any commandment related to that particular Law underneath one of the separate ten columns. So, if one takes the commandment, "thou shalt not commit adultery", and makes it the title of a column. He then should place every passage about marriage, pro and con, underneath that column. This will provide a composite picture of what that particular commandment means from an authorial intent perspective. If you want to get an entire "biblical worldview" on the topic, then merely expand it throughout the Bible (More workd than most of us have time for). To understand THE Law, from a legal perspective, the Ten Commandments are the broad principles, if you will, the basic Laws of God. The rest of the commandments are "case law", helping to define THE Law. Does that make sense? One will never truly understand the Ten Commandments in their fullness without doing this kind of research. I have done some of this research, and wow, my understanding of the particular Law is not quite the way I anticipated it would be. Blessings!
It should be noted that too many people today practice what is called the anachronistic fallacy when interpreting Biblical words or phrases. An anachronistic fallacy is when one reads into the Biblical text words and phrase definitions derived from modern dictionaries instead of derived from definitions based upon the author's original intent. In other words, if one takes the word "adultery" from the English dictionary (representing our modern culture), reads passages from the Scripture that contain the word "adultery". This person reading passages that containing that word has just been deceived into thinking that the definition that he understands is the Biblical definition. When, in fact, the definition that the author had in mind over 2,000 years ago is as different from the modern definition as is night from day. Word meanings change over time - even over short periods of time, let alone a few thousand years. For example, who would have known in 1920 that the word "cool" doesn't always refer to something in relationship to temperature? We need to work hard at discovering authorial intent!
To express how one can achieve authorial intent concerning the Ten Commandments, specifically concerning adultery, one should place the Ten Commandments into separate columns - making each one its own separate title. Then research through the entire Law, placing any commandment related to that particular Law underneath one of the separate ten columns. So, if one takes the commandment, "thou shalt not commit adultery", and makes it the title of a column. He then should place every passage about marriage, pro and con, underneath that column. This will provide a composite picture of what that particular commandment means from an authorial intent perspective. If you want to get an entire "biblical worldview" on the topic, then merely expand it throughout the Bible (More workd than most of us have time for). To understand THE Law, from a legal perspective, the Ten Commandments are the broad principles, if you will, the basic Laws of God. The rest of the commandments are "case law", helping to define THE Law. Does that make sense? One will never truly understand the Ten Commandments in their fullness without doing this kind of research. I have done some of this research, and wow, my understanding of the particular Law is not quite the way I anticipated it would be. Blessings!
Great point, Pastor Randy.
(When discussing the Bill of Rights on my radio show, I often made a similar case about the Constitution, and it has only been a bit over two centuries. Not how a word like "infringed" (as in "shall not be infringed") now includes the implicit words "unless we feel like it", and "Congress shall make NO law" means "let the Supreme Court make 'law' instead! :twisted: )
I have done a few searches on the word "adultery" in a Biblical context as well. Most concordances are still honest enough to use a definition more like "woman who breaks wedlock". While that's a bit terse, it's at least not totally 'PC', and the truth about patriarchy is hidden within the definition.
(When discussing the Bill of Rights on my radio show, I often made a similar case about the Constitution, and it has only been a bit over two centuries. Not how a word like "infringed" (as in "shall not be infringed") now includes the implicit words "unless we feel like it", and "Congress shall make NO law" means "let the Supreme Court make 'law' instead! :twisted: )
I have done a few searches on the word "adultery" in a Biblical context as well. Most concordances are still honest enough to use a definition more like "woman who breaks wedlock". While that's a bit terse, it's at least not totally 'PC', and the truth about patriarchy is hidden within the definition.
Hi Angel. I see you just joined. Welcome. Great first post.
Actually, you can narrow the definition of adultery even further, if you go by the Bible's internal definition, and the meaning of the Hebrew. (Help me out, Mark, if I get this not-quite-right.) Anyway, I figure the Bible's definition wins over Webster's, ya know? *grin* It seems to work like this ...
The Hebrew word for adultery, as in "Thou shalt not commit ..." means "woman who breaks her covenant." and the man who helps her do so. It doesn't mean "someone outside your marriage", exactly, though that's not exactly right to do either. But if you commit adultery, the Bible condemns you to death. If a fella and an unattached gal hookup without benefit of marriage, the Bible normally condemns them to GET married. Not so bad, but still cause for serious consideration and skipping the "casual encounters" thing.
The neat thing about this understanding of the definition is that not only does it mean that the 7th commandment is not disallowing PM, but the 10th somewhat expands that accomodation. It says, "You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."
Not how explicit that is! It doesn't say "your neighbor's spouse", which would seem more inclusive. But it is ok for an unmarried woman to "covet" her neighbor's husband to be a husband to her as well. Doesn't say, "your neighbor's unmarried daughter", or "your unmarried neighbor", or no fella could EVER get married. Just limits it to a woman who is in a covenant marriage already. Cool, huh? PM allowed inside the 10 Commandments!
Actually, you can narrow the definition of adultery even further, if you go by the Bible's internal definition, and the meaning of the Hebrew. (Help me out, Mark, if I get this not-quite-right.) Anyway, I figure the Bible's definition wins over Webster's, ya know? *grin* It seems to work like this ...
The Hebrew word for adultery, as in "Thou shalt not commit ..." means "woman who breaks her covenant." and the man who helps her do so. It doesn't mean "someone outside your marriage", exactly, though that's not exactly right to do either. But if you commit adultery, the Bible condemns you to death. If a fella and an unattached gal hookup without benefit of marriage, the Bible normally condemns them to GET married. Not so bad, but still cause for serious consideration and skipping the "casual encounters" thing.
The neat thing about this understanding of the definition is that not only does it mean that the 7th commandment is not disallowing PM, but the 10th somewhat expands that accomodation. It says, "You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."
Not how explicit that is! It doesn't say "your neighbor's spouse", which would seem more inclusive. But it is ok for an unmarried woman to "covet" her neighbor's husband to be a husband to her as well. Doesn't say, "your neighbor's unmarried daughter", or "your unmarried neighbor", or no fella could EVER get married. Just limits it to a woman who is in a covenant marriage already. Cool, huh? PM allowed inside the 10 Commandments!
Biblical definition of Adultery for simplicity and accuracy...
Adultery requires unlawful sexual relations between a married woman and someone other than her husband.
For a married man to technically be guilty of adultery requires one of two primary circumstances...
1. For a married man to have sexual relations with another man's wife as would be expected by the above definition.
or
2. For a married man to put away his wife unrighteously and in so doing essentially cause her to commit adultery for which his unrighteous act of unlawfully putting her away makes him a causative factor. (As in Matt. 19)
Thus, any man who unrighteously "puts away" his wife (not to be confused with officially issuing her a certificate of divorce or "putting her away" due to her previous marital unfaithfulness in which case a certificate of divorce is not required by Torah) is in substantial danger of being party to adultery and perhaps even being fully guilty for it, in terms of law, depending on interpretation.
The above represents my technical understanding of the subject based on scripture with all things considered. Of course the motives and intents of the heart are fully exposed to Yah, who will hold us ultimately accountable not just to the letter of the law but to the spirit of the law as well.
May we all conduct ourselves rightly from the heart in all good conscious before both Yah and man.
Sincerely,
Curtis
Adultery requires unlawful sexual relations between a married woman and someone other than her husband.
For a married man to technically be guilty of adultery requires one of two primary circumstances...
1. For a married man to have sexual relations with another man's wife as would be expected by the above definition.
or
2. For a married man to put away his wife unrighteously and in so doing essentially cause her to commit adultery for which his unrighteous act of unlawfully putting her away makes him a causative factor. (As in Matt. 19)
Thus, any man who unrighteously "puts away" his wife (not to be confused with officially issuing her a certificate of divorce or "putting her away" due to her previous marital unfaithfulness in which case a certificate of divorce is not required by Torah) is in substantial danger of being party to adultery and perhaps even being fully guilty for it, in terms of law, depending on interpretation.
The above represents my technical understanding of the subject based on scripture with all things considered. Of course the motives and intents of the heart are fully exposed to Yah, who will hold us ultimately accountable not just to the letter of the law but to the spirit of the law as well.
May we all conduct ourselves rightly from the heart in all good conscious before both Yah and man.
Sincerely,
Curtis
Thanks Angel3, I agree with you. If you are faithful to your wives and them only you are not committing adultry. I have talked to people who say that things changed in the new testament where men no longer had multiple wives but I kindly ask them does that mean we suppose to throw out all God has given us in the old testament. The old testament is still part of the bible and we must use Gods word in both the old and the new. I love the way we all sit and discuss things cause this can really help a lot of people. Thanks for replying Angel3! BTW, joining this site has gotten me to do more reading in my bible which is a good thing.
Curtis you are on point with your definition and I will agree that as long as you are faithful and having sexual relations with your wives then you are not committing adultry.
Curtis you are on point with your definition and I will agree that as long as you are faithful and having sexual relations with your wives then you are not committing adultry.
Not to take this to a Old Covenant vs. New Covenant thread, but....
Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
The new covenant is written on the hearts, not on stone. He never said it would be any different in the aspects of standards, spirituality, letter, or intent. When people say that "we are under the new testament" line to me, I always ask them what that means, and then they start to fumble around, which is what I normally do in these poly arguments, cause like I said before, they know what they believe, they just don't know why, or how to defend it from God's Word.
Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
The new covenant is written on the hearts, not on stone. He never said it would be any different in the aspects of standards, spirituality, letter, or intent. When people say that "we are under the new testament" line to me, I always ask them what that means, and then they start to fumble around, which is what I normally do in these poly arguments, cause like I said before, they know what they believe, they just don't know why, or how to defend it from God's Word.
James said:
If a married man has sex with an unmarried woman that is not adultery but would rather fall under a more general category of sexual sin in the exact same way that pre-marital sex among an entirely unmarried man and woman would.
So the above post was presented specific to adultery itself and not to morality generally so it stands without need for caveat.
This issue is often confusing for folks, so I hope this clears it up.
Sincerely,
Curtis
