SEXUAL SIN SERIES
Marital Fidelity, Part 2
by Matthew Coover
When one attempts a scriptural study merely to support previous conclusions, the results are often disastrous. Because mankind is fallible, his conclusions are many times in error. Logics and accuracy are frequently overlooked when a study is undertaken to safeguard oneself, rather than reveal truth. The reason we are in opposition to “Mr. A.’s” ignominious views regarding moral rectitude, is because they prove to be illogical and scripturally inaccurate when aligned with Yahweh ’s character and commands.
Mr. A. says, “Your reasoning is good and you’re a very eloquent writer.”
“With her much fair speech she caused him to yield, with the flattering of her lips she forced him. He goeth after her straightway, as an ox goeth to the slaughter, or as a fool to the correction of the stocks; til a dart strike through his liver; as a bird hasteth to the snare, and knoweth not that it is for his life.” (Prov 7:21) Mere eloquence of speech is not my desire, neither is it Yahweh ’s will for my life. Likewise, mere words will not draw me from the threshold of truth. Upright words are filled with truth while falsehood remains a lie, no matter how it is said. “Moses said unto Yahweh, I am not eloquent, but I am slow of speech and of a slow tongue. Yahweh said unto him, I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou shalt say.” (Ex. 4:10-12) “[Paul] came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of Yahweh.” (1Cor.2.1) “Behold, Yahweh doth take away from Jerusalem,.. the eloquent orator.” (Isa.3:1,2) I desire not “the speech of them that are puffed up” (1 Cor.4.19), but “great plainness of speech”, (2Cor.3.12) “boldness in speech” (7:4) and “sound speech which cannot be condemned” (Titus 2:8) Yahweh ’s will for mankind may be summed up in Paul’s words found in 2 Corinthians 11:6: “Though I be rude in speech, yet not in knowledge...” I am not condemning the gift of speech, but merely wish to say that it is the message that counts. If Yahweh uses my words to spread his truth, then may the glory and the honor be unto him, for he has placed those words in my mouth. If my words do not glorify the Almighty, they have become little more than a grating sound, for they are useless in advancing the cause of truth.
Mr. A. says, “I would think you would expect someone to question some of the things you write.”
It is no new experience to have the things which I write questioned by readers; it happens all the time, the subject of marriage and divorce being the most common. I feel that I must say along with the writer of Ecclesiastes, “There is no new thing under the sun” (Eccl. 1:9). “In the last days shall come scoffers, walking after their own LUSTS... all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation”. (2 Peter 3:3,4) Certainly the Saducees tested Yahshua the same when they ask him about marriage and divorce in regards to the millennium.
Mr. A. says, “Adultery, fornication, and harlotry are used many times in the scriptures. The uses of those words are not always literal, there are also figurative meanings too! We can take a figurative meaning and apply it to a literal.”
In this statement, it seems as though Mr. A. has attempted to justify polygamy and fornication by saying that the commands which forbid them are only referring to a spiritual aspect of the sin. To look up the meaning of the original word is one thing; with this I have no problem. However, we must realize that either a spiritual or physical definition, may be applied to almost any noun or verb. This applies not only to Hebrew, but to any language. When looking up a word in the Hebrew/Greek dictionary (as Mr. A. has obviously done), it may readily be noticed that the physical meaning appears first; the spiritual definition following (if such a definition even applies). It is evident that the first definition is the primary definition, being the one most commonly used. Subsequent meanings lay claim to less common usage, more and more so as the list goes on. Upon looking up the Hebrew and Greek definitions, physical immorality is placed first; the spiritual being placed second, if at all. The reason for this is because the physical is most applicable to the surrounding scriptural content.
Mr. A. must also realize that Hebrew is quite different from the English. In the process of translation, several Hebrew words are oftentimes combined into one English word, thus, the English language leaves much to be desired in regards to specificity. An English word may mean either literal or figurative, while the original Hebrew word meant only one or the other. Mr. A. should remember that he cannot get blood out of a turnip. If he attempts to extract a figurative definition from a Hebrew word that means only literal, his efforts will be useless. He may become “firmly persuaded in his own mind”, but that is absolutely meaningless unless he is firmly persuaded in truth.
Mr. A. says that I misquoted him by suggesting that he said “the commands which forbid [immorality] are only referring to the spiritual aspect of the sin.”
“Technically” he is correct. However, reading between the actual lines of written text can reveal a million words. I gather that he is ‘currently’ telling me that there actually is such a thing as physical adultery, fornication, and harlotry? I did not catch this from his previous communication... in fact, it portrays the exact opposite. Nonetheless, if he does indeed believe that a physical aspect of these sins exists, it would be interesting to know where he might find a definition by which to describe them. By showing support for polygamy, premarital sex, remarriage after divorce, etc., he has quite exhausted the supply of definitions which are applicable in describing physical immorality and infidelity.
Mr. A. supplied a number of Hebrew and Greek Word definitions regarding the subject.
Several of the definitions which he provided did not coincide with what I was able to find. I am using “The Strongest Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible”, copyright 2001 by Zondervan. The definitions which I found are as follows.
Hebrew/Aramaic #5003: to commit adultery; adulterer, adulteress; by extension: to be unfaithful to Yahweh (by having illicit relations with other gods):-- translated as the following in KJV: commit adultery , committed adultery , adulterers , committeth adultery , adulterer , adulteresses , adulterous , breaketh wedlock , committing adultery .
Mr. A.’s definition read “woman that breaketh wedlock”. This is in error, as the “breaking wedlock” refers to either sex.
Greek #3431 (act.) to commit adultery; (pass.) to become an adulterer:-- commit adultery , comitteth adultery , adultery , committed adultery 
Greek #3432 adulterer:- adulterers .
Mr. A’s definition for #3432 included a figurative meaning. I found no figurative meaning listed. Perhaps Mr. A’s 1994 concordance contains some errors which have since been corrected; or perhaps the ‘error’ was on his part. Who knows?
When only the spiritual meaning of every word is considered, greater confusion is readily created. Why? Because Yahweh is an Elohim of order (creation alone is proof of that statement). That which is the opposite of Yahweh is not orderly because it is unscriptural. If polygamy were practiced in our society, the inevitable result would be many single men with no hope of even getting one wife. Yes, it has been said that there are many more women than men in the world today. I question the overall accuracy of such a statement. Nonetheless, it is obvious that there would never be enough women in the world for each man to even claim a mere two for himself. Government officials alone would have a large percentage of the female population as gullible “members” of their harems. Once they were elected out of office, their harems would quickly transfer themselves over to the successor’s harem instead.
A form of such an unscriptural system remains alive and well in today’s society. The world is full of polygamists that merely dispose of one mate before taking on another. And yes, there are also cases where that first mate never does leave the picture; the whole thing just remains a secret to the other side. Lack of commitment to a marriage partner creates nothing less than chaos. This statement will readily be confirmed by any child who is the product of, or the unfortunate victim of such a situation. Is the scene which such a system creates orderly? The only honest answer is “NO”.
It is absolutely impossible to keep Yahweh 's heavenly precepts without also keeping the earthly. In the process of physical unfaithfulness, Yahweh's commands are ignored. The direct result is that one is simultaneously being unfaithful to Yahweh as well. If only the spiritual interpretation is applied to adultery and fornication, the same must hold true for the other approximate 609+ commands which Yahweh has given to mankind throughout scripture. The result would be a world where there was no such thing as marriage between a man and woman, for marriage would also be only a spiritual thing. There would be no such thing as physical honesty, theft, or murder, for they would be only spiritual concepts as well. There would be no life, either in this world, or in the kingdom to come, for "Faith (spiritual) without works (physical) is DEAD". (James 2:7) Yes, a crazy argument, but that naturally happens with lack of scripture, or when scripture is mistranslated.
Scripture provides evidence of Yahweh’s unchanging nature. “And I will come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness... against the adulterers, and against false swearers,... and against those that fear not me, sayeth Yahweh of hosts. For I am Yahweh , I change not...” (Mal. 3:5,6) If the commands against adultery, fornication, and polygamy are to be taken only in the spiritual sense, then the same must also hold true for the rest of scripture. If this was truly the case, then the crazy arguments which I randomly present throughout this article would no longer be crazy; they would now be scriptural!!! Scripturally, however, I know that this is not the case.
Scripture alone attests that the #1 meaning of “adultery” and “fornication” is not figurative, even without a Hebrew/Greek dictionary to reference the original texts. This especially applies throughout Torah, and Yahshua 's perfecting of Torah. The focus point of purity throughout the books of the law is physical. Throughout the prophets, physical is often compared to spiritual with such expressions as “committing whoredom against Yahweh .” Because Torah places the most emphasis on physical sin, people were defiled through such actions as lust (just as they are today). For this reason, Yahshua perfected Torah by saying, “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” (Matthew 5:27,28) Mr. A. mentions that the word “woman” in this verse would better be rendered “married woman”. My concordance gives the same definition. It is necessary for one of those involved in the act to be married before for the act is considered adultery. However, we must remember that a coin remains the same size, no matter which side we look at. If the man was married and the woman was unmarried, the act would be adultery just the same. On the other hand, if those preforming the act are unmarried, it is considered fornication. I’ll get on to why this is based on another definition from the concordance further down.
Yahweh did not repeat the same command twice in the ten ‘words’ (commandments) which He spoke from the cloud at Mt. Sinai. There is one command to abstain from idolatry (Deut 5:7-10), while there is another to abstain from adultery. (Deut 5:18) Notice that the spiritual (idolatry) was mentioned first, and the physical (adultery) second, being placed amongst other sins which involve our fellow man. The reason for this order is because the things of earth are patterned after the things in the heavens. (See Gen 5:1, Deut 5:8, Heb 8:5, 9:23, 1 Cor.15:49) The physical is likened unto looking darkly through a mirror at the spiritual (1 Cor.13:12, 2 Cor.3:18, James 1:23). If we are not to commit spiritual adultery, a physical form of the sin must also exist
Following those first 10 sayings, Yahweh mentions fornication, whoredom, uncleanness, etc. If all such words mean spiritual idolatry, scripture is merely a repeat of itself. If scripture is only one ‘big’ repeat of one ‘little’ command, we might as well just go with ½ a verse from Romans: “...we continue in sin that grace may abound...” (Rom 6:1b). This is precisely what the world has done. (Ever wonder what they like about Romans so much?)
Mr. A. says, “In the cases of Abraham, Jacob, Moses, and King David, each had more than one wife”.
I have no idea where he gets the notion that Abraham and Moses had more than one wife! (It would have been nice if he had shared scripture verses to back that idea up.)
The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary describes Abraham’s affair with Hagar as follows: “Sarah, now 75 years of age, followed contemporary custom and allowed Abraham to take Hagar, her Egyptian handmaid, who bore him Ishmael.” Yahweh promised Abraham that his descendants would be as the stars of the heavens. (Genesis 15:5) When Abraham began to doubt whether Yahweh’s words would ever come to pass, he attempted to increase his social status through Hagar. The word translated as “concubines” in Genesis 25:6 is Hebrew #6370, and means “concubine, a female consort generally with lower status and fewer rights than a wife, with the function of giving social status or pleasure to the husband; once this refers to a woman’s male consorts (Ezekiel 23:20):–concubine , concubines , paramours 
Going back to Unger’s again, we read, “Concubinage substantially appeared when Abraham took Hagar... by whom Sarah hoped he would have children – to be reckoned, in some sense, as her own, and to take rank as proper members of the family (Gen.16:1-3)” It appears as though Genesis 25:5-6 would better be translated “the sons of the concubine which Abraham had”, as we find no mention of Abraham having relations with women besides Sarah and Hagar, until after Sarah’s death, when he married Keturah.
When Abraham could not wait for Yahweh ’s timing he had relations with Sarah’s handmaid. Sarah’s handmaid was Sarah’s female servant, NOT Abraham’s second wife. Abraham point blank committed adultery and Yahweh said to him, “Look!... I promised you that Sarah would have a son... Why did you have relations with some other woman?!!!” Abraham did not wait for Yahweh ’s will to be accomplished, and the result has been the constant feuding between the descendants of those two sons, being the Arab nations and Israel. There is no question as to whether or not Abraham’s affair with Hagar went against Yahweh ’s will, for the promise was “In Isaac shall thy seed be called.” (Genesis 21:12)
In regards to Moses’ family life, Unger’s Bible dictionary gives the following insight: “Zipporah, the wife of Moses, is described as a Cushite woman (Num. 12:1); elsewhere she is called the daughter of a Midianite (Ex. 2:21; cf. V. 16). Reference is probably made here to the Arabian Ethiopia or Cush. Ewald and Keil and Delitzsch think that allusion is made to another wife whom Moses married after the death of Zipporah.” There is no scriptural evidence that Moses had more than one wife at the same time.
Mr. A. says, “Yahweh said about Abraham in Gen 26:5, ‘because Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.’”
Yahweh also described Job as “a perfect and upright man, one that feareth Yahweh , and escheweth evil.” (Job 1:8, 2:3). David likewise was described as “a man after Yahweh’s own heart”. Upon reading the accounts of these men’s lives, it becomes evident that they were not without sin. We are commanded to “Be perfect as our father in heaven is perfect” (M’t 5:48), and yet, on the other hand Yahshua taught that “There is none perfect but one.” It is obviously a different meaning of perfect... and has been since the forbidden fruit was consumed.
Mr. A. says, “David coveted Uriah’s wife and his coveting lead to murder; not the act of [polygamy]. It's important to keep things in context.”
If David had purposed to obey the command forbidding polygamy in Deuteronomy, he would never have coveted Bathsheba; thus, he never would have murdered Uriah the Hittite. It may easily be concluded that polygamy was the root of the problem. Yes, it certainly is important to keep scripture in context. This requires that we not invent new scenes, or ignore the obvious causes of the many scenes enacted throughout history.
Mr. A. says, “We would not have the 12 tribes of Israel Today if Rachel and Leah's maidservant did not sleep with Jacob. That sounds like ‘lust and fornication to me’ what's the difference? Are you saying Yahweh is a respecter of person's or they did nothing wrong.”
I wish to remind Mr. A. that it would not be fornication, for Jacob was married. In regards to ‘lust and adultery’, that is precisely what I would classify it as, and scripture will back up that classification. He has also ask me, “Are you saying Yahweh is a respecter of persons or they did nothing wrong?” I am saying neither, for both of the answers which he presented are unscriptural.
I wish to remind Mr. A. of something else, using a verse that he brings to my attention further down. Jacob took both Leah and Rachel as his wives. This was in direct violation to Leviticus 18:18, for they were both sisters. Because Mr. A. did not attempt to explain this verse away throughout his communication, he has shown support for such an action being deemed as sin. With this in mind, we can more carefully consider the twelve sons of Jacob, through which we get the 12 tribes of Israel.
It is obvious that Yahweh ’s plan was not to create a world which would become polluted with sin. “And Yahweh saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented Yahweh that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And Yahweh said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man, and beast, and creeping thing, and the fowl of the air, for it repenteth me that I have made them.” (Gen. 6:5-7) Sin came into the picture as a direct result of man’s indiscriminate choices. Yahweh ’s plan for mankind did not include sin. Neither did it include the trickery and deceit which Jacob practiced throughout his lifetime, or his twelve sons to four separate women. “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith Yahweh. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.” (Isa. 55:8,9) We can be certain that Yahweh ’s plan in multiplying Abraham’s descendants did not include twelve sons conceived through adultery. For that matter, does scripture give evidence that it included twelve sons at all? If the union of marriage had been kept sacred, Jacob’s sons may have been many more, although, it is highly possible that they would have been far fewer in number. The reason for this is because Yahweh ’s desire is not in numbers, but in the quality of the offspring. “Yahweh hath been witness between thee and the WIFE OF THY YOUTH, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. And did he not make one,... that he might seek a RIGHTEOUS SEED?...” (Mal 2:14,15) “The days come, sayeth Yahweh , that I shall raise unto David a RIGHTEOUS BRANCH, and a king shall reign and prosper, and shall execute JUDGEMENT and JUSTICE in the earth.” (Jer. 23:5)
Mr. A. has insinuated that Exodus 21:7-11 gives allowance for polygamous marriages.
If Exodus 21:7-11 gave allowance for polygamous marriages, it would also give allowance for deceit. Although the KJV certainly has it’s flaws, it remains much closer to the original than modern translations. Mr. A. may want to use it in the future, if for nothing else, at least to compare. The verse we are centering on now provides a “perfect” reason for doing so, as the NIV has avoided some very important words. In the KJV, verse 8 reads, “If she does not please her master who hath betrothed her to himself, then he shall let her be redeemed,... seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.” This verse sets forth a way of dealing with sin, a way of enforcing fairness and making sin much less desirable. Once a man realizes that he cannot get out of providing for the woman whom he no longer desires, (even if he sins again by marrying another woman) he will be much less likely to do that which he knows to be wrong. To do so will only be an inconvenience and financial hardship for him. In this simple command, scriptural “alimony” requirements are set forth, and they worked much better than today’s corrupted laws, for they greatly discouraged sin in the first place. American courts do not care how many times such situations happen. Their occurrence only serves to support the legal system, and further enlarge the lawyers’ ever growing bank accounts.
Why couldn’t the woman which had been dealt deceitfully with depart and become another man’s wife? If she did so, she could still be provided for, and she could have a loving husband to top it all off, couldn’t she? The reason this was out of the question is because she had already been betrothed to another man. A betrothal is as binding as a marriage; a legal divorce being required to break the covenant. Once the woman has been betrothed, she becomes an adulteress by marrying another man. For this reason, if a man raped a betrothed woman, he was definitely put to death. If the crime was committed where none could hear the woman’s cry for help (i.e. somewhere in the country), the woman was allowed to live. If the rape of the betrothed woman occurred in the city, the woman was put to death as well, for she could have screamed for help, but did not do so. (Deut. 22:23-27). These few verses alone rule out the idea that only a woman can commit adultery. Several verses just previous rule out pre-marital sex as well, but I’ll cover that when we get there.
Mr. A. says that Yahshua gave allowance for divorce in M’t 5:31,32. Therefore, he says that our understanding of 1 Timothy 3:2 (that polygamy along with divorce/remarriage is forbidden) is conflicting to Yahshua ’s teachings.
Many folks have the same interpretation of Matthew 5:31,32 as that which Mr. A. has presented. For the life of me, I have never been able to understand how they reason out that Yahshua was giving allowance for divorce. Granted, if a woman commits adultery, Torah commands that she be “put away”. In this verse, Yahshua is not contradicting Torah, but neither is he advocating putting away. “For Yahweh , Elohim of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away...” (Mal.2:16) Yahshua certainly can not be filled with Yahweh’s spirit, and yet be advocating that which Yahweh hates! What did Yahshua really say in this verse? He taught that IF a man discovers his wife is being unfaithful, he is to “put her away”, so that he will not partake of her sins. (To knowingly continue to live with an adulteress is committing adultery). In Yahshua’s day, if a man put away a wife for a reason other than adultery, he placed her in between a literal “rock and a hard place”. In the time frame which we are looking at, a woman was supported by a man. This was prior to the corrupt feminist movement; before scriptural roles had decayed to the state which we see them today. If a woman’s husband died, the kinsman redeemer (as in the account of Boaz and Ruth) was to marry the woman to insure that she was provided for. If a woman’s husband put her away, she was left in poverty. If she remains single, she will most likely starve; if she remarries, she will be stoned as an adulteress. However, if the reason for putting away was marital unfaithfulness, the immoral woman has brought this tricky situation upon her own head.
Mr. A. must also realize that Yahshua did not use the term “divorce”. In our society, divorce is viewed as permanent. To “put away” is not permanent, anymore than to put your clothing away in a closet means that you will go without them from that time on. Upon repentance, the wife must be “taken back”.
Our understanding of 1 Timothy (taking it exactly for what it says) does not conflict with Yahshua ’s teachings. The problem has arisen due to a misunderstanding of Matthew 5:31-32 on Mr. A.’s part. The NIV does a good job at helping to confuse the meaning of this verse as well. As we can see, it is often necessary to leave the traditional interpretation which “churchianity” has given us before the puzzle pieces of scripture will fit together properly.
There has been no confusion about what Deuteronomy 17:17 means; apparently that one is too hard to get around. Playing what has been termed as “the devil’ advocate”, I will say that the only alternative is to say that it means spiritual as well. Spiritual polygamy? What in the world? (or should that be “Heavens!”, pardon the expression) What is spiritual polygamy??? Did not Yahweh and Yahshua tell us, “If you are not for me, you are against me!”? (M’t 12:30) If we are lukewarm, he spews us out of his mouth. (Rev 3:16) Yahweh does not tolerate polygamy and true believers do not either. “No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and will love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve both Yahweh and mammon.” (Lk 16:13) Can we not see Yahshua likening the physical to the spiritual once again in this verse? In order for this to be done, the physical must first exist.
Mr. A. says that if polygamy was a sin, then Leviticus 18:18 would have been a perfect place for it to be forbidden.
Anyone who would use such an argument appears to be grasping for last straws. Mr. A. cannot logically say “If we weren’t supposed to do it, it would have been forbidden here” when it is obviously forbidden right over there. It is the specific act of marrying two sisters (as Jacob did) which is forbidden here. This is in accordance with 18:6 (a mere 12 verses away) which forbids uncovering the nakedness of anyone that is closely related. I think sisters definitely qualify for closely related... don’t you? A second marriage to any other woman is forbidden in Deuteronomy 17:17. That is a perfect spot as well.
IF it could be said that anything was not forbidden in scripture, it seems as though wives with multiple husbands would have a far better chance. Perhaps it is merely circumstance in favor of such an argument, due to the fact that scripture was written before the “revolution of the sexes” where women have now taken it upon themselves to do the proposing. But anyway, I can’t help but ask Mr. A. why he didn’t choose an “easier” stand to back up? Or since he is a man, does he leave that side of it up to his wife?
Mr. A. says, “The bottom line is this: Polygamy was a part of ancient Hebrew lifestyle.”
I rather strongly disagree with Mr. A.’s sense of order, through which he has determined “the bottom line”. It has been wisely said that “Right is right, even if nobody does it, while wrong is wrong, even if everybody does it.” Just because something is common in society does not mean that it is lawful in the sight of Yahweh. Sin is a part of “modern American lifestyle”, but does this mean that Yahweh does not forbid sin? If it did, sin would no longer be sin... sin would really be righteousness, for sin is a way of life to many, and always has been. This is another crazy argument, and yet, Mr. A. has formed his opinions upon such arguments, instead of the infallible, unchanging word of Yahweh .
The best example to pattern our actions after is the nature of Yahweh . Yahshua commanded us, “Be ye perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is perfect.” (M’t 5:48) The Creator ( Yahweh & Yahshua , see Genesis 1:26, taking notice to the “US", also John 1:1-5) is the husbandman, and we, being the assembly, are his bride (Hosea 2:19,20). It is not acceptable for the assembly to depart from Yahweh , neither does Yahweh depart from a faithful bride. If it were permissible for Yahweh (being a spiritual husband) to commit adultery, he would not be reliable, nor deserve respect. I’m sure Mr. A. understands that as clear as night and day. He must consider the scenario from the woman’s side also. Just as we would not be joined to an Elohim who would be unfaithful to us, no virtuous woman will willingly be joined to a man who will be unfaithful to her. The command to abstain from adultery is clearly to be observed by all "4" sides ( Yahweh /Humanity; Man/Woman).
Mr. A. says, “Polygamy was a matter of choice. If someone chose to live that way, I don’t see where it was sin, we can quote scriptures all day.”
Such a statement reveals an inward attitude against change, and against scriptural truth. “Behold, ye have sinned against Yahweh, your Elohim... ye have turned aside quickly out of the way which Yahweh had commanded you.” (D’t 9:16) “[Such a man] feedeth on ashes, a deceived heart hath turned him aside, that he cannot deliver his soul, nor say, Is there a lie in my right hand?” (Isa 44:20) “The paths of [his] way are turned aside; they go to nothing, and perish.” (Job 6:18)
In regards to polygamy being a “matter of choice”, I must agree. However, Yahweh does not give mankind a multitude of choices, nor has He allowed mankind to dabble in sin without first giving him a set of righteous instructions. Upon setting forth the instructions contained in scripture, he has given but ONE choice: “I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live.” (Dt 30.19)
Mr. A. and I are presently on opposite sides of a large chasm; representing the important decision which Yahweh has placed before us. And now I ask him in all sincerity, what his choice has been; what side of the chasm has he chosen to be on? “If it seem evil unto you to serve Yahweh , choose this day whom you will serve;... but as for me and my house, we will serve Yahweh.” (Joshua 24:15)
Mr. A. says that regardless of whether Yahweh allows polygamy, we should not practice it today because the laws of the land forbid it. He has used 2 Peter 2:10 and 1 Timothy 2:1-4 to back up this statement.
It seems as though Mr. A. had failed to understand what the phrase “speak evil of” in 2 Peter 2:10 means. The Greek word is #987, blasphemeo, and means to blaspheme, insult, slander, or curse. It is not against scripture to speak out against sinfulness and unscriptural laws set in place by an unrighteous government. It is only sin to slander, or spread lies.
According to Mr. A.’s reasoning, if the laws of the land forbid marriage, he must abide by that as well. If it is forbidden to have more than 1 or 2 children (as it is in China), he must abide by that also. The problem is that such laws go against scripture, for Yahweh ’s people are commanded to "be fruitful and multiply" (Gen. 1:22,28) If Yahweh actually commanded us to commit polygamy, USA laws would be taking away from scripture, and that would be wrong. If polygamy was not a command, yet remained acceptable, USA laws would be adding to scripture, and that would be wrong as well. Believers are to “obey Yahweh rather than men”, (Acts 5:29) even if obedience gets them locked up, blown up by the government, or whatever. It's hard to tell what might become of true obedience these days because most Americans don’t even know what the term means. I am by no means suggesting that Mr. A.’s stand regarding polygamy is correct. I am only making a point that believers are under no obligation to abide by an unscriptural law which forbids something that Yahweh does not. In a nation which proclaims “freedom of religion”, Mr. A’s religious beliefs give HIM the ‘right’ to be the proud owner of a harem, regardless of what the government says. In regards to what Yahweh says, it would appear as though Mr. A. just doesn’t care.
I rest my case. Polygamy remains, without question, a sin which is committed against Torah, against Yahweh , against ones FELLOW MAN and against ONES SELF.
Mr. A. says, “There is no commandment saying premarital sex was a sin.”
By saying this he has presented an extremely confusing message. IF it was lawful for unmarried people to engage in the same actions which a married couple are entitled to, there would be absolutely no purpose in marriage, for it would merely be self inflicted ‘bondage’. Based on such a presumption, it would be unnecessary for Yahweh to marry his people; likewise it would no longer be imperative that we remain true to Him. We could conduct ourselves in like manner to the world, having intimate relationships with Nimrod (sun worship) Baal, Molech, Buddha, Mohammed, Satan, self, or whosoever we desired.
Is this yet another crazy argument??? And yet, this is exactly what the world has done. Furthermore, this is what many claiming believers have done through their disobedience to Torah, their participation in the customs of sun-worshiping pagans, and the sacrificing of their children to the Satanically based governmental education system. Due to crazy, unscriptural arguments and mans’ perverted opinion, physical defilement has become accepted, and so has the spiritual.
Sadly enough, Mr. A. has already shown support for such nefarious practices by declaring that purity is only required once we have made a lifetime commitment, if even then. What Mr. A. fails to realize is that once a single man or woman ceases to maintain their virginity, they become defiled. This is not something that marriage can undo... rather, such actions tend to quickly “undo” a marriage. Although Mr. A. claims to be a follower of Yahshua, the opinions which he has presented testify otherwise.
“[Those] which have not defiled their garments,... they shall walk worthy of me in white: for they are worthy.” (Rev 3:4) “...They which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the lamb withersoever he goeth...” (Rev. 14:4) Have we not heard the warning from Yahweh? Spiritual and physical purity travel hand in hand. But, (Quoting a prisoner who often writes from one of the worst prisons in the country), “Who listens to Yahweh , anyway?”
Mr. A asks: “Does this verse (Rev. 14:14) mean Yahweh 's called out ones are virgins? or they did not partake in false doctrine?
Upon looking up the Greek definitions for “defiled” and “virgins” in Revelation 14:4, it appears as though the intended meaning is indeed physical. Greek #3933 is the root of “virgins” in this passage, and means “a male or female who has never engaged in sexual relations.” There is no figurative meaning listed. The Greek for defiled is “molyno”, #3435, meaning to defile, soil, stain, make inpure:-- defiled . Such a definition may be applied to either defilement of the body (physcial) or of the mind (spiritual)... in this case, both sides would be literal.
From scripture we find that marriage, when practiced according to Yahweh’s guidelines, does not make one physically impure. “Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled...” The Greek root of “undefiled” in this passage is #283, meaning pure. However, we must realize what a pure marriage bed actually consists of. We must also beware that the cares of this life do not cause us to leave our first love, being Yahshua . (see Rev. 2:4)
With this in mind, Revelation 14:4 coincides with 1 Cor 7:8,9 where Paul says, “I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.” (More proof that premarital sex is sin... otherwise, why should there be fear of burning?) Also skip up to verses 32-34 where we read, “He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to Yahweh , how he may please Yahweh : But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife. There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of Yahweh , that she may be holy both in body and in spirit, but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.” Taking all this into perspective, it becomes evident that the firstfruits of Yahweh are first undefiled in mind, meaning that they have not been distracted by the many carnal cares which naturally accompany marriage. They have devoted 100% of their service to Yahweh , therefore they are the first (but not the only) fruits of Yahweh’s kingdom. Whether their virginity is physical or figurative may be debated, although I would go with the first, based on the Greek definition. Clearly, the main emphasis is summed up in James 1:27 where we read, “Pure religion and undefiled before Yahshua and Yahweh is this:.. to keep ones self unspotted from the world” (See also Eph 5:27, 1 Tim 6:14, 2 Peter3:14) The formula for purity is currently being broadcasted worldwide in the form of the Scriptures. All one must do is make sure they’re tuned in to the right channel, being Yahweh ’s spirit.
Since Mr. A. currently accepts fornication (often referred to as “sowing your wild oats”), I realize that he might reply that ‘virginity’ only means unmarried, but does not mean that the individual has not had pre-marital sexual relations. All it takes is some digging into the Hebrew and Greek roots of the word (as we have just done) to confirm that such an opinion is in error. Furthermore, anyone who would hold to such an opinion has denied themselves salvation through Yahshua . According to their definition of “virginity”, Yahshua 's conception would not have been a miracle. It was such words that the Pharisees and unbelieving multitudes spoke against Yahshua during his trial, saying that he was a bastard. (Acts Of Pontius Pilate 2:6-17) IF such was the case, his father would not have been Yahweh . He would have been a mere man and an imposter at that; not a “righteous branch out of the stem of Jesse” (Isa. 11:1), but merely a wild oat which had sprung up from the dust of a defiled family line.
While we’re on the subject of ‘bastards’, IF pre-marital sex was condoned by scripture, why then does it have such a bad reputation? Although the act which produces illegitimate offspring is accepted by western society, the term applied to those offspring has developed an even more sinister connotation than it held in ancient times.
Hebrew #4464: One born of a forbidden marriage; foreigner; this can have the associative meaning of being an unprivileged or despised class:-- bastard 
Greek #3541: illegitimate, born out of wedlock:-- bastards 
Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary defines the term as follows: BASTARD, a. Begotten and born out of lawful matrimony; illegitimate. 2. Spurious; not genuine; false; supposititious; adulterate. In this sense, it is applied to things which resemble those which are genuine, but are not really genuine.
Webster’s New Collegiate dictionary, copyright 1974 by G. and C. Merriam Co. defines the word as: 1. An illegitimate child 2. Something that is spurious, irregular, inferior, or of questionable origin 3. an offensive or disagreeable person – used as a general term of abuse. Bastardize: 1. to declare or prove to be a bastard 2. To reduce from a higher to a lower state or condition : debase
“A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of Yahweh ; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of Yahweh.” (Deut. 23:2) Commonsense tells us that children live what they learn and it gets passed on from generation to generation.
“And a bastard shall dwell in Ash’-dod, and I will cut off the pride of the Phi-lis’tines.” (Zechariah 9:6)
“If ye endure chastening, Yahweh dealeth with you as sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.” (Hebrews 12:7,8)
In Mr. A.’s first correspondence, I quote him as saying, “There is no commandment saying premarital sex was a sin. If so please correct me.” In present day court systems, a trial and/or jail sentence is only carried out when one violates an existing law which has been set in place by the government. Likewise, a scriptural judgement only comes into effect in order to counteract a sin which has already been committed. Yahweh has instituted the following judgements in regards to dealing with premarital relations between men and women.
If a man has sexual relations with a virgin who is not betrothed, Yahweh requires that he pays the dowry according to virgins and marry the woman. As long as the father allows the marriage, her husband may never divorce her all of his days. If the father will absolutely not consent to the marriage taking place, the man must still pay the dowry, and remain single. (Exodus 22:16,17, Deut. 22:28,29) This way of handling the matter greatly discourages premarital sex, as the couple will, in all probability, be “stuck” for life. If premarital sex is used as a pressure technique to get the woman’s father to allow the marriage, he may still say “No”. Under such circumstances, the man is still required to pay the dowry, and both the man and woman have resigned themselves to singleness.
Mr. A. says, “Every form of unchastity is included in the term, ‘fornication’.”
While this may be true, what are the most common meanings? The Strong’s definitions are as follows:
Hebrew #2181: be, become a prostitute; to be sexually immoral; to be promiscuous; commit adultery; to feel a dislike for; [Pu] to be solicited for prostitution; [H] to make a prostitute, to turn to prostitution.
Hebrew #8457: promiscuity, prostitution, act of lust
Although Mr. A.’s definition for the previous word included a figurative meaning, I found none even suggested under the Hebrew. Also notice that Strong’s #2181 lists adultery 4th instead of 1st (as Mr. A’s definition placed it), indicating much less common usage for that meaning. Let’s take a closer look at some of the first definitions using Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary.
Prostitute: 1. A female given to indiscriminate lewdness; a strumpet. 2. A base hireling; a mercenary; one who offers himself to infamous employments for hire.
A prostitute sells her body for hire. This is precisely what premarital sex is. The costly price paid by both sides is temporary pleasure, founded upon lust. Love and commitment are not in the picture, and neither is Yahweh .
Immoral: Inconsistent with moral rectitude; contrary to the moral or divine law; wicked; unjust; dishonest; vicious. Every action is immoral which contravenes any divine precept, or is contrary to the duties which men owe each other. 2. Wicked or unjust in practice; vicious; dishonest; as an immoral man. Every man who violates a divine law or social duty is immoral, but we particularly apply the term to a person who habitually violates the laws.
This is certainly something which a true follower of Yahweh does not want to be, and yet, so many claiming believers ignore his laws because they want to live their own life the way they want to live it.
Promiscuous: 1. Mingled; consisting of individuals united in body or mass without order; confused; undistinguished; as a promiscuous crowd or mass. 2. Common; indiscriminate; not restricted to an individual; as promiscuous love or intercourse.
Premarital sex is clearly practiced indiscriminately, randomly, and without order. As it is fueled by lust, it is not restricted to an individual; anyone who is “game” will serve to “fuel the fire”.
Lust: 1. To desire eagerly; to long; with after. 2. To have carnal desire; to desire eagerly the gratification of carnal appetite. 3. To have irregular or inordinate desires.
Enough said... now on to the Greek definitions.
Greek #4202: porneia, meaning sexual immorality, fornication, marital unfaithfulness, prostitution, adultery, a generic term for sexual sin of any kind:-- fornication ; fornications 
Greek #4203: porneuo, meaning to commit sexual immorality of any kind, adultery:-- commit fornication ; committed fornication ; committed ; committeth fornication 
Although adultery is listed as a possible meaning for both of these Greek words, notice once again the order of definitions; adultery comes last both times. It’s not that hard to compare the Hebrew term for fornication and gather that since the newer writing were originally written in Hebrew as well, the intended meaning is most often the same.
Following are a couple other words and definitions which give indication that fornication is a sin for both sexes.
Harlot(s) Greek #4204, porne, meaning prostitute, a woman who practices sexual immorality for payment; this can refer to religious unfaithfulness:-- also translated as whore on 4 separate occasions
Fornicator(s): Greek #4205, pornos, meaning one who is sexually immoral (male or female), in some contexts distinguished from an adulterer (1Cor.6:9):-- also translated as whoremongers on 4 separate occasions, and as whoremonger once.
Whoredom(s): Hebrew #2183: wanton lust, prostitution, adultery; by extension: idolatry, as unfaithfulness to Yahweh . Hebrew #2184: prostitution, sexual immorality, unfaithfulness, by extension: idolatry, as unfaithfulness to Yahweh
Take notice to the root of all the Greek words referring to fornication. I suppose that Mr. A. considers ‘adult’ establishments and XXX rated movies acceptable as well? I am certainly reminded of Yahshua ’s words in Matthew 7:22,23. “Many will say unto me in that day, Rabbi, Rabbi, have we not prophesied in THY NAME? and in THY NAME cast out devils? and in THY NAME done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me ye that work iniquity.”
The point can be pressed further by asking another simple question: Is prostitution a sin? Mr. A has told me that as long as a prostitute is unmarried, as long as none of the men she has had relations with have been married, and as long as I am not married, it is OK for me to have relations with such a person. In the future, any of those involved, including myself, may go and marry someone else who can say “Been there, done that” as well. In his opinion, the fact that such a business is technically a crime in this country does not matter, because HE believes that “Yahweh allows it”, and scripture teaches that we are to obey Yahweh rather than men. (Is this why Rahab was spared? and was it for this reason that the spies stayed in her house? Come on, be REAL!!!) I know much better than that. “Do not prostitute thy daughter, to cause her to be a whore; lest the land fall to whoredom, and the land become full of wickedness” (Lev. 19:29) However, if Mr. A.’s statement were to lead me astray, who would Yahweh hold accountable for my defilement? I would be accountable, for one, but the apostle Paul reminded us that those who teach false doctrine and cause others to stray from truth will receive a greater condemnation. Yahshua came on even stronger. In Mark 9:42 He taught that whosoever caused a CHILD to sin would have been better off to have a millstone hung around his neck and be drowned in the depths of the sea. (I’m 17, just in case anyone wondered.) I am once again reminded of Yahshua ’s words on a separate occasion when he came on even stronger than before. “Depart from me, ye cursed, unto everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.” (M’t 25:41)
Mr. A. says, “I think you might be reading too deep in the scriptures.”
It would be quite interesting to hear Yahshua’s reply, had the Pharisees said the same to Him. Since I am not Yahshua , I will merely say that it is impossible to see a lake bottom without looking deeply into the water. Likewise, if we do not look deeply into Torah, we will never find the answers to our questions.
So often we do not see things in the true light of reality because #1, we have failed to search for truth, and #2, we have become hardened to sin through it's abundance in society. We begin to view sin as acceptable in one form, and yet crime in another. Even the world hangs on to such ideas as “corruption of minors”, and yet, corruption is no longer viewed as a problem once you’ve reached 18. Clinton was impeached due to an affair with a woman other than his wife. Even as this was happening, many other American couples were committing the same act of unfaithfulness, yet suffered no publicity or legal action against them because of it. A lifetime jail sentence can result from taking the life of a 6 month old child, and yet, the murder would have been considered “legal” if action had been taken a mere 6 months earlier. It no longer makes our hair stand on end because we know it happens thousands of times every day. To a certain extent, this hardening to sin happens to everyone, and it is one of the adversaries biggest and most effective ways of luring us down the slopes of the pit. We must be aware of the devils schemes if we are ever to overcome.
Mr. A. says, “The part of your article (referring to the “O, How I Love Your Law!” series on our website by Norman S. Edwards) concerning divorce and remarriage appeared more opinionated than scriptural fact. Are your definitions based on the scriptures or opinionated?”
Mr. A. must first realize that opinion is no bad thing. A man who is not opinionated to some degree is a gullible man. Likewise he is an unscriptural man. “Henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men and cunning craftiness wherein they lie in wait to deceive.” (Eph. 4:14) Without opinion, we are no more than defenseless prey of the lion which roams about, seeking whom he may devour. (1 Peter 5:8) In regards to a lack of scriptural backup, perhaps this because the article was written from the viewpoint of one already convicted regarding morality, who merely desired to help others fit the sometimes “confusing” puzzle pieces of Torah together. This I could not say for sure, as it was not I who wrote the article in the first place. Then again, perhaps the seeming lack of scripture from Mr. A.’s viewpoint is merely due to the glasses through which he has chosen to examine the subject.
Folks often use the term ‘cult’ for anything that is off the mainstream watered down American religion... Many seem to think that this is what we are, and the same term is probably used on Mr. A. as well. “Cult” really means “a follower of a man”. Yahshua was more than just a man. He was the son of Yahweh in the flesh, and he was without sin, for he came in his Father's name, and he did his Father's will. As long as we are following Yahshua , we are not a cult. Sadly enough, there are a number of Sacred Name groups out there which advocate and accept polygamy, especially for the “head man”. But just because they use the Sacred Names does not mean they are seeking after Yahweh ’s heart. “This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, truce-breakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, high-minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of Yahweh , having a form of righteousness, but denying the power thereof: from such TURN AWAY”. (2 Tim. 3:1-5) If our beliefs are based firmly upon the teachings contained in scripture, our opinions may likewise be firmly adherent to the truth.
Mr. A. says, “I've been to too many Sacred Name groups, and heard many of their different doctrines. Whenever one starts to think they know it all concerning all things and they know the way one should live according to the scriptures, I start to wonder.”
We also have been to many religious groups throughout the years. For us, this has proved to be an invaluable tool in regards to Yahweh ’s leading in our lives. We cannot say that we have been to “too many” groups, or heard “too many” opposing doctrines, for if we hadn’t been where we have been, we most likely would not be where we are now. The many doctrines in constant circulation serve as a refining fire, to test the purity and durability of Yahweh ’s true followers. By no means do we consider ourselves as having obtained all truth, for we are ever learning and growing as well, and will be until the end of our earthly lives.
Mr. A. says, “I try to listen and be a little less judgmental of others. We all will be accountable for ourselves.”
“Mr. A.” must realize that he has been judging me throughout every phase of our correspondence, just as I have been judging him. “Ye have wearied Yahweh with your words. Yet ye say, Wherein have we wearied him? When ye say, Everyone that doeth evil is good in the sight of Yahweh, and he delights in them; or, Where is the Elohim of judgement?” (Malachi 2:17) We, as believers, are commanded to “Judge righteous judgement” (John 7:24b) Yes, we are accountable for our own lives, but as I mentioned earlier, we are held accountable for the soul of our fellow man if we do not exhort him as well. “For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without, Yahweh judgeth. Therefore, PUT AWAY FROM YOURSELVES THAT WICKED PERSON.” (1 Cor. 5:12,13)
Mr. A. says, “I see your point in saying polygamy is a bad idea because women of the world today would [wouldn’t?] allow it, because through the laws made by men we [men] have given up our rightful position in the family.
In closing, may I encourage our readers (including Mr. A.) That they “be not conformed to the world, but transformed by the renewing of their minds”. (Rom. 12:2) Yes, the world and it’s ways are a path which leads to utter destruction. However, as believers, we do not have to follow in the majority’s footsteps. Righteous men may once again take their place in the home as the leader, provider, and spiritual guide. Once the steps have been taken, the home can be transformed into a place of purity, both in body and in mind.
I am not out to battle this back and forth. I am not out to push my beliefs on others, or brainwash them into believing what I have conveyed. If Mr. A. wants to believe that polygamy and fornication is OK, then nothing I can say to him will change his mind. If Yahshua were to appear in the flesh, he would still remain unconvinced, for Yahshua appeared once already, and the world hated him for it. Scriptural evidence lies in wait at each individual’s very fingertips, but before spiritual growth can occur, the desire for purity and truth must exist in our own heart. True marital fidelity begins before marriage, in ones youth. In modern society, this aspect, along with the rest of the concept, has been tossed on the wind and applause has been heard as it is slowly carried away to those which yet have “ears to hear” and a heart to obey. “Thou shall surely rebuke your neighbor, and not bear sin because of him.” (Lev. 19:17) My only desire is to make known the important truths in Yahweh 's word which have been removed from the religion which many practice. If I were to remain silent regarding the matter, Yahweh would hold me accountable for the soul of my fellow man, by not causing the undefiled message of truth to be heard. If I do my part in spreading Yahweh 's truth, I have freed myself from this burden and can continue pressing towards the prize which Yahweh Elohim has set before us.
“Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear Yahweh and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For Yahweh shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.” (Ecclesiastes 12:13,14)
“If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Rabbi, Yahshua Moshiach, and to the doctrine which is according to righteousness; he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is righteousness: from such withdraw thyself.” (1 Timothy 6:3-5)
Perhaps Mr. A. now feels that my words are too plain, too bold, too strong, or too sound. All I can say in response is the words which Yahshua spoke so many years before. “And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when you depart thence, shake the dust off you feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for the Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgement, than for that city.” (Mark 6:11)
Mr. A. says, “You might be right? I may be wrong? What I appreciate is that you provoke me to think.”
A seed has been planted; the remainder is between Mr. A. and Yahweh . Whether the roots will take hold, that I do not know. However, if the seed is spread abroad, some searching heart will eventually become established and develop into a living example of Yahweh ’s power and life changing love. It is for this reason that the foregoing correspondence has been included in this issue. “Behold, the reign of Yahweh draweth nigh!” (James 5:8) May Yahweh grant the increase, and may we be prepared for the approaching harvest.