|
|
Post by jewishjediguy on Jul 29, 2009 17:21:07 GMT -8
If a man who is married rapes or even seduces a virgin, it is adultery, plain and simple, and he is the breaking the Mitz'vah: You shall not commit adultery, and, if caught, will be judged accordingly by the judges of Yis’rael. This is common sense and there is no way around it. This paragraph of yours suggests that you believe that a man is guilty of adultery if he has more than one wife. Please, explain yourself. You seem to see a difference between a married man who seduces a virgin and a married man who takes another wife but not through seduction. How is one instance adultery and the other not adultery? It suggests that a married man who seduces or rapes a virgin, is simply an adulterer because he is married. |
|
|
|
Post by bryce on Jul 29, 2009 17:32:11 GMT -8
Yes it is adultery if a married man seduces a woman, plain and simple. Or, was YHVH just speaking to the women when he said, “Thou shalt not commit adultery”? It takes two to commit adultery — a man and a married woman. I think that we'll agree that adultery occurs when a marriage covenant is violated. Can you please demonstrate how a married man violates his marriage covenant by marrying a virgin he had seduced? |
|
|
|
Post by bryce on Jul 29, 2009 17:33:27 GMT -8
This paragraph of yours suggests that you believe that a man is guilty of adultery if he has more than one wife. Please, explain yourself. You seem to see a difference between a married man who seduces a virgin and a married man who takes another wife but not through seduction. How is one instance adultery and the other not adultery? It suggests that a married man who seduces or rapes a virgin, is simply an adulterer because he is married. So, a married man who does not gain another wife through seduction is also an adulterer or not? What do you say? |
|
|
|
Post by jewishjediguy on Jul 29, 2009 18:07:22 GMT -8
Yes it is adultery if a married man seduces a woman, plain and simple. Or, was YHVH just speaking to the women when he said, “Thou shalt not commit adultery”? It takes two to commit adultery — a man and a married woman. I think that we'll agree that adultery occurs when a marriage covenant is violated. Can you please demonstrate how a married man violates his marriage covenant by marrying a virgin he had seduced? It suggests that a married man who seduces or rapes a virgin, is simply an adulterer because he is married. So, a married man who does not gain another wife through seduction is also an adulterer or not? What do you say? It can be a unmarried woman and a married man as well. If an unmarried woman has intercourse with a married man, she is committing adultery as well. You are trying to push the "man who seduces" as referring to not only a single unmarried man, but a married man. It doesn't refer to a married man. A married man who does such a thing commits adultery and dishonours his wife. Do you even know how polygamous marriages were arranged? How can you live in the Middle East and not know this? The man did not seduce another woman. Arrangements were made and a concubine was acquired. No seduction, it was an arranged business deal. Even Ya'akov acquired both his wives through a business deal. Despite desiring, the proper channels were followed. |
|
|
|
Post by bryce on Jul 29, 2009 22:01:36 GMT -8
You believe that a married man who takes a second wife through kiddushin and chuppah (the normal route of marriage) is guilty of adultery? If that is what you believe, please provide the commandments of  that support your claim. Please, try to be concise and to the point. |
|
|
|
Post by jewishjediguy on Jul 30, 2009 9:42:47 GMT -8
You believe that a married man who takes a second wife through kiddushin and chuppah (the normal route of marriage) is guilty of adultery? If that is what you believe, please provide the commandments of that support your claim. Please, try to be concise and to the point.
was incomplete when Mashiach came, and Mashiach made it complete. As such, Mashiach’s Words are as well. I know this isn’t going to be taken well, but why else would He say:Do not think that I came to destroy the , or the N’vi’im: I came not to destroy, but to fulfill.
Mattai 5:17People look at the “Do not think that I came to destroy the ” part, and overlook the “I came not to destroy, but to fulfill”. The word translated as “fulfill” here means to “make full”, “to fill to the full”. This word speaks of bringing to a completion, not an ending, but a completion in the manner of finishing the building thereof so that it can fully function for its task.
An example that needed to be “topped off” can be found in the teachings of Yeshua concerning Marriage and divorce. The doesn’t say anything about divorce being valid only because of sexual immorality, and Yeshua sheds some revelation that Mosheh allowed divorce because of the hardness of people’s hearts. And Yeshua goes on to say that from the beginning this was not the intended case.
But he emphasized “And so they are no more two, but one flesh. What God has joined together, let no one bring into division.” (Mattai 19:3-9)A careful examination of this passage also reveals a contrast to what it seems you are implying in your statement: “it takes two to commit adultery — a man and a married woman”, by saying, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for sexual immorality, and shall marry another, commits adultery”. What it seems like you are implying is that a man doesn’t commit adultery unless it is with a married woman regardless of whether he is married or not. However Yeshua mentions the man remarrying an obviously unmarried woman and he is committing adultery.
Of course it is asked, what does this have to do with polygamy? Yeshua’s words pertaining to the end of a marriage shed light on the beginning of the marriage. Plainly, things must be looked into a bit deeper. In doing this, it is important to look at what is being said in these passages concerning the valid divorce, which I’ve already explained in a previous post.
Yeshua says that, “If a man divorce a woman, except for sexual immorality, and he marries another, he commits adultery.” Plain and simple. What Yeshua doesn’t say, that is seen using the common sense God has given each of us, is that the reason he is committing adultery is because the divorce, though given, is not valid. If it is that the divorce is not valid, then the man is still married. And if this man is still married, and he marries another, he commits adultery. This is the meaning of it, which I have already explained.
Common sense goes a long way. Look at what Yeshua said to the Sadducees: “And as touching the dead, that they rise: haven’t you read in the book of Mosheh, how in the bush God spoke unto him, saying, I am the God of Av’raham, and the God of Yitz’chak, and the God of Ya’akov? He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: therefore, you do greatly err.” Mar’kos 12:26,27 This passage he quotes says nothing about resurrection, but because God says “I am...” (present tense). Then common sense would say that Av’raham, Yitz’chak and Ya’akov are alive, or else God would have said “I was...”.
Now, you may not agree with this, and that’s okay. This response should satisfy your question. If not, I cannot help you. I have presented plainly as possible what the Word says. Even compromising with the fact that polygamy is not commanded against in (though I mention it is not validated in either). I find it to be a social issue that a blind eye was turned to by God, much like he winked at the idolatry of the nations (Acts 17:30). There are just some things in scripture that God does not directly address, polygamy being one of them it would seem. Common sense dictates that the two shall be one flesh indicates what God’s design was, though mankind chooses not to follow, and apparently it was allowed, though probably grudgingly (that’s my opinion). |
|
|
|
Post by bryce on Jul 30, 2009 13:38:02 GMT -8
An example that needed to be “topped off” can be found in the teachings of Yeshua concerning Marriage and divorce. The doesn’t say anything about divorce being valid only because of sexual immorality...It is widely believed that our Master was properly interpreting the "indecency" (Heb. ervah) of Deuteronomy 24:1. As I'm sure you're aware, ervah is continually used in Leviticus 18 when Hashem is outlining what incest is. It is widely believed that the Greek word for "sexual immorality" (Gk. porneia) is used to translate what our Master said in Matthew 19:9 because that is a good representation of what He meant. You seem to disagree.www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6172&t=NASBA careful examination of this passage also reveals a contrast to what it seems you are implying in your statement: “it takes two to commit adultery — a man and a married woman”, by saying, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for sexual immorality, and shall marry another, commits adultery”. What it seems like you are implying is that a man doesn’t commit adultery unless it is with a married woman regardless of whether he is married or not. However Yeshua mentions the man remarrying an obviously unmarried woman and he is committing adultery.First, I will quote exactly what I said in it's context:
"It takes two to commit adultery — a man and a married woman. I think that we'll agree that adultery occurs when a marriage covenant is violated."
Our Master said that a man who illegally divorces his wife and marries another is violating the covenant he has with his wife. So, I would agree that a man who divorces his wife for some reason other than sexual immorality (as defined by the in passages like Leviticus 18) is guilty of violating his covenant with his first wife if he takes another wife. That is my position.
We both know that the clearly defines adultery as coitus between a man and a married woman, as they are violating the marriage covenant she has with her husband. In Matthew 19, our Master is showing how a man also violates a marriage covenant when he illegally divorces his wife and takes another. I don't see that as an addition to , but a proper application of it.
He properly teaches that adultery is when a marriage covenant is violated. It is violated when a man sleeps with another man's wife. It is also violated when a man illegally divorces his wife and takes another woman in her place — wickedness! Hashem hates divorce, for it breeds violence and tears.Now, you may not agree with this, and that’s okay.No, I do not agree. Now, so I'm sure that we both understand each other, I'll restate the points I think you've made:
1. We both agree that, before our Master Yeshua came, a married man who took another wife was not guilty of adultery, as the of Moses permitted it.
2. You believe that, after our Master Yeshua gave His teachings He completed the and changed the definition of adultery to include a married man having sex with an available woman. So, according to you, our Master ended the 's allowance of polygyny.
Do I understand you correctly?
|
|
veggirl
Full Member
Greetings!
Posts: 103
|
Post by veggirl on Jul 31, 2009 9:43:03 GMT -8
brYce,
I do praise the Lord for these men you have talked about just now, because now we know that being married to many women is a BAD thing nothing good came out of it..
Solomon was not that wise to have many women he sinned against God!
Without polygyny (sin) things would have been perfect! Adam didn't marry many women.
brYce, how many wives do u have?
|
|
|
|
Post by bryce on Jul 31, 2009 10:01:57 GMT -8
Veggirl,
Do you believe that it was a sin for men who lived before our Master Jesus came to have more than one wife?
Shalom,
brYce
|
|
veggirl
Full Member
Greetings!
Posts: 103
|
Post by veggirl on Jul 31, 2009 13:11:47 GMT -8
Yes it was a sin because in the Garden Elohim made Adam and then made women out of man.
One man one women. Elohim never wanted for men to have more then one women!
Sooo brYce lover of polygyny theres just no getting around it (((( ITS SIN! ))))
Peace&love
bri'gette
|
|
|
|
Post by jewishjediguy on Jul 31, 2009 13:41:40 GMT -8
"How truly wonderful the mind of a child is..."
~Yoda
What's really interesting is that you and I are going round and round about this whole thing. And it's good that Iron sharpens Iron. While sitting here trying to focus on our discussion and your latest twist of semantics I have been attacked by adorable little creatures ranging from the ages of 6-10.
Yeshua teaches us to receive children unto ourselves, not to be offensive to them, but love them dearly. Admittedly, I began to become a bit grumpy. They kept entering my room every other minute, hiding from each other because they're terrorizing each other, and hiding under my desk, under my bed, under my blankets... essentially I was being infested with children lol
I had mentioned that they were disturbing my train of thought, saying something like, “the peels of your laughter are reeking havoc inside my skull!”
So the eldest of the three asks me, "What's so important that you're being so grumpy?"
I explain to her that I'm trying to read this post and ponder it and respond to it.
"What's it about?" she asks.
Obviously not a child's subject considering sexual immorality is mentioned and other such things, so I generalize it and tell her, "It's about a man having more than one wife." And I left it at that.
This is a ten year old girl who knows nothing of "adult" matters, who has never been instructed yet concerning marriage and such things. She says, "EEEWWWW! God wouldn't want that for a man! duuuuh. You should tell them that!" lol
"and a child shall lead them..." lolOf course this is not a theological response, but it did strike me funny (literally). I have often found that the innocence of a child should be the template of interpretation. It's the common sense factor I keep mentioning. Children take it for what it says and don't read things into it like an adult would.
But the thing between us, it seems, you are simply trying to justify your point of view. Or get me to admit to something. I perceive you driving at the same topic of this subject but in different manners. And once again, I have said nothing contrary to the practice of polygamy except in the case of the governing authority.
However, I must say concerning your comparisons of D’varim and Vayik’ra and the word Er’vah are not what you are presenting.
It is the same root, yes, but not the exact same meaning behind it. Having the same root doesn’t always give the same meaning. In D’varim its complete phrase is Er’vath Davar, not merely Er’vah of Vayik’ra. Davar cannot be discounted in its definition, and Davar is not used in Vayik’ra 18 in connection with Er’vah when speaking of uncovering the nakedness of your family members.
Er’vah of Vayik’ra speaks of an action. Er’vath Davar speaks of an attribute, which could lead to an action: an “unclean thing” or “a disgraceful thing” even “unclean word” or “a disgraceful word”. It doesn’t have to be sexual in nature as Vayik’ra points out Er’vah to be. It can be simply any immoral thing, even a joyous desire to see blood spilt.
So, too, the Septuagint, gives a literal rendition to the literal meaning of the text:“because he has found some unbecoming thing (Charis Enantion – not Porneia) in her...”This is the clause that Mosheh gave because of the hardness of their hearts. Yeshua speaks specifically about sexual immorality (Porneia). Thus he brings to its full revelation and completion the ordinance of the in this respect. Yeshua also speaks of lust in the heart being adultery, but does not mention at all if it is only the woman who is married, or only the man who is married, or both. Interesting, He only says "Whoseoever".Yes, but not limited to this exact statement. Even a married man and a single woman constitutes adultery, as they are violating the marriage covenant he has with his wife. Kal va Chomer ~ “if, then”
If it is adultery when coitus is between a man and a married woman,
then it is adultery when coitus is between a woman and a married man.
and the Davar ha lamad me’in’yano ~ “Deduction from context” ~ is:
Even a married man and a single woman having sexual relations constitutes adultery, as they are violating the marriage covenant he has with his wife. Correct, our Master is showing how a man also violates a marriage covenant when he illegally divorces his wife and takes another.I said nothing about “addition”, only bringing to full revelation. It was already there, just not fully realised. yes. yes. Yes, though the Kal va Chomer ~ “if, then” ~ of this is:If a man who is not legally divorced from his wife is considered married, and he marries another,
then it is adultery for him to marry another because he is still married.
and the Davar ha lamad me’in’yano ~ “Deduction from context” ~ is:
The fact that the divorce is illegal, or the fact that he remarried is not the issue. The issue is that he is still married, and that is what makes it adultery for him to marry another. An additional wife is another he marries, and so this may be seen as adultery.Amen.except for the semantics of “permitted” and “allowed”, generally yes. Just because something is allowed doesn't make it permitted. Something permitted is something designated as an ordinance or commandment in . In as far as it is undertood that he came not to destroy, but to bring to its fulness, Yes. Not exactly. Your idea of the definition is not taking into account the interpretive methodolgies of the pre-Rabbinic Soph’rim of Ez'ra's tradition. As I hope I have demonstrated above with ”Kal va Chomer” ~ “if, then” ~ Which is something Yeshua Himself used while speaking with people, this was already a consideration.That, I honestly cannot say with anything definite. The reason being is that the ancient practices of polygamy didn’t really contain these issues. A man's desire for a woman wasn't the basis for polygamy, it was the desire for more children, particularly sons.
And besides, says nothing about it being allowed. It isn't even mentioned in except in recording that so-and-so may have had many wives, or there was a mitz'vah given concerning a situation where a man had two wives and was needing to treat the firstborn, even of the unloved, with due respect in inheritance. Polygamy was never an issue sanctioned by . So Yeshua didn't change a ordinance, if by these teachings of His He has condemned polygamy.
Like I had said, it was something akin to a “business deal”, which is a term I should clarify as well. I don’t mean it was something mechanical or cold. It just wasn’t something based upon romantic desire and courtship as some are making it out to be today.
I do know that during the second temple period it was still practiced, however, there is nothing literally and outright said in the New Covenant writings for it or against it, except in the cases of congregation leadership. So I cannot say, “Yes, it is” as an absolute. Although, from the interpretations I have presented, it does appear to be that way. And these interpretations are not made from twisting the scriptural meaning nor the definitions of Words, but by the usage of a legitimate method of Interpretive perception – Kal va Chomer
|
|
|
|
Post by bryce on Jul 31, 2009 14:19:52 GMT -8
I said, "We both know that the clearly defines adultery as coitus between a man and a married woman, as they are violating the marriage covenant she has with her husband."
You replied, "Yes, but not limited to this exact statement. Even a married man and a single woman constitutes adultery, as they are violating the marriage covenant he has with his wife."
That is what I see as your problem in correctly understanding this issue. You say that a married man that has sex with a single woman is also guilty of adultery, but you do not provide Scriptural proof to back you idea. The reason you don't provide Scripture to back your idea is that it is an untenable position.
Show me how a married man who takes another wife, without divorcing or neglecting his first wife, is guilty of violating his marriage covenant according to the Tanach.
Now, I'd like to address the way the Septuagint translates Deuteronomy 24:1 and how it compares with the interpretation of our Master in Matthew 19:9. Who are we to believe? Shall we believe the rabbis who translated the Septuagint or our Rabbi, the Messiah of Israel? You decide what you'll do. Me? I'll follow what the my Rabbi said.
|
|
|
|
Post by jewishjediguy on Jul 31, 2009 15:50:56 GMT -8
I said, "We both know that the clearly defines adultery as coitus between a man and a married woman, as they are violating the marriage covenant she has with her husband."
You replied, "Yes, but not limited to this exact statement. Even a married man and a single woman constitutes adultery, as they are violating the marriage covenant he has with his wife."
That is what I see as your problem in correctly understanding this issue.
You shall not commit adultery. Plain and simple. This was the first mitz'voth about it, and it gave no "meaning" as to what it "means", nor does it define what constitutes adultery. It was known what adultery is. One half of a married unit cheating on the other half of the married unit - whether male or female. That has always been the understanding of Adultery, even in ancient days.
Or are you saying that I, being married (hypothetically), can go out, seduce and have intercourse with the next door neighbour (who is not married), and God is okay with this as long as I marry her? What you are implying is perversity, and if not adultery (which it obviously is), then it would still be sexual immorality.
I can see what you mean, though. It isn’t adultery according to your ultra-literal interpretation. But it is sexual immorality and still a sin.
I have given you my position, and the accepted method of interpretation Messiah Himself used while talking with people. If you cannot accept it, then be at peace within yourself, it is between you and God. I'm not your judge. I did, you just refuse to see it.
So what does Yeshua mean when speaking of a man committing adultery in the heart, he said nothing about the man being married, nor the woman he looked at as being married. Which one is married for it to be adultery?
And since it states that only if a man looks upon a woman with lust, then I assume, according to your ultra-literal interpretive logic, that a woman is free to look at a man with lustful thoughts and it wouldn’t be adultery or sin. After all, Scripture says nothing about the woman looking anywhere in Scripture.
And, in accordance with your ultra-literal interpretive logic, Yeshua cannot be Mashiach because He did not crush the head of the serpent, nor was his heal bruised. Or is that for His second coming? Wait, where is this written in the Tenakh' that it's supposed to be Mashiach anyways? Where's it written in the Tenakh' that there's a second coming? You have the untenable position. I did, you refuse to see it.[/color][/quote] Yeshua's interpretation and the Rabbis of the Septuagint do not conflict, nor contradict nor do they counter one another. A close examination of D'varim 24 and the Hebrew phrase "Er’vath Davar" and Messiah's interpretation in Mattai 19 will show you a cohesion that you may find pretty amazing. |
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Aug 1, 2009 6:40:48 GMT -8
It was important for me to wait to let Bryce and Yochanan have their say before I launch in again and create a lot of confusion. It’s really difficult to be clear in your position when you have two people arguing against you from different angles. I certainly didn’t want to put Bryce through that; but appears that conversation is pretty much over. There are four different passages used to support polygamy- all applied by Bryce with a very specific agenda. The most powerful of these is Exodus 21:10-11. If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money. However, while the second wife is allowed (in Hebrew, simply refers to a second woman in the home- no sexual relationship is necessarily implied), it is unquestionably discouraged. A husband cannot help but diminish the proportion of the first wife’s rights unless he rationed them in the first place. Such would disqualify his ability to love his wife as Messiah loved the Church. The second support for polygamy is the command that the brother perform the marriage duty for his deceased brother in Deuteronomy 25:5. Yet, condition that "brethren dwell together" is a specific condition. These two men are part of the same household- it is a more likely presumption that they are not already married (as they were not in the example provided in Genesis 38). This command is to provide providence and protection to the widow, not grant men permission to accumulate women. The usage of the man seducing a virgin in Exodus 22:16-17 is indefensible. Bryce would have us think that they live happily ever after; but this is not the thesis of this command. First, the word "entice" is the same idea as foolishness. The teaches that any woman (girl) who would have sec with a man with whom she is not married is an idiot. And the man, should he be so thoughtless and disrespectful toward this woman, her family, and the community, is then stuck with an idiot. He is not allowed to divorce her for any reason. It’s the "you broke it, you bought it" policy. Finally, the command that a king must not multiply wives is not an ipso facto endorsing the multiplication of wives for anyone who is not a king. The word "rabah" (multiply) simply means to increase. The king is required to be monogamous in - rabbinical interpretation has made other allowances for the sake of making King David appear more righteous. The command in Scripture is that a man shall have one wife and love her all of her life. The applications that Bryce has promoted are not consistent with the commandment. I know that the conversation was ended between Bryce and Yochanan because Bryce’s last post was deleted as it did not provide any more information but was an attack on Yochanan. |
|
|
|
Post by bryce on Aug 1, 2009 12:13:33 GMT -8
Since I'm being censored, I'll leave this discussion. I do not agree with Mark's assessment of my position above, but I don't see the point of having a discussion when censorship is involved. Shalom everyone.
|
|
that support your claim. Please, try to be concise and to the point.
