After hearing about this book, I wrote a letter to a Torah teacher that I respected. This teacher encouraged me to read the book so that I could have a full understanding. I unwisely did so. I am a rape survivor and this book defiled me.
This author calls himself a Rabbi and Apostle to Israel. It is this bloggers opinion that this man is neither. After reading the book, I sent it on to a friend of mine who read, researched, and ultimately wrote two reviews. The brief one is included, with her permission, on my blog. The longer one is accessed via the internal link. If the link does not work for you, I have included it.
If you agree with the interpretation of what Torah teaches according to this man, that is between you and Our Holy One.
If you believe yourself to be a Watchman and feel the need to warn others, please pass this review on. Please make no changes and link to the author's site http://its-time.info/book-review/sex-and-the-believer/
If you believe that I'm sick for even placing a discussion such as this on my blog, then pray for me.
I love the Lord Jesus Christ with all my heart, with all my mind and with all my soul. My faith journey has taken me many places. I now know that all of God's word, including Torah, belongs in my life. This is the truth Our Holy One, Yeshua HaMashiach, has shown me. It caused me intense grief to see the words of our Scripture and the teachings of Jesus/Yeshua perverted in this manner. I am a simple woman, over the age of 50 with adult children. I desire to be a Berean and to search all things. I encourage each reader to do the same.
Shalom and Be Blessed. Kathy B.
Book Review – Sex and the Believer
By Moshe Koniuchowsky
There is a great deal of controversy surrounding the latest book by Moshe Koniuchowsky, entitled Sex and the Believer – Shocking Freedom of Sexuality in Torah. Having read the book myself, I can understand why there is such a commotion. Mr. Koniuchowsky, who describes himself as both an Apostle and a Rabbi, has influence over a vast number of Torah observant believers in Yeshua, through his website (www.yourarmstoisrael.org) and his publishing ministry (YATI Publishing). He writes with a very authoritative style that causes the reader to believe that he has been anointed by God Himself to spread this wonderful truth found in Scripture. The question we must ask ourselves, however, is just how truthful is this truth of his?
It soon became evident that he does not expect the reader to look up all of the Scripture referenced, because he draws conclusions from them that are simply unfounded in the verses cited. An example is the reference of Genesis 18:12 on page eight, which he prefaced with, “The patriarchs are described as playing with each other’s private parts.” A quick check of the verse referenced shows that the pleasure referred to here is not anything more than the pleasure of finally having a child after a lifetime of hoping. It has nothing to do with sex or foreplay or any other type of fondling.
Sarah laughed to herself, saying, "After I have become old, shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?" And the LORD said to Abraham, "Why did Sarah laugh, saying, 'Shall I indeed bear a child, when I am so old?' Is anything too difficult for the LORD? At the appointed time I will return to you, at this time next year, and Sarah will have a son." (Genesis 18:12-14)
This book is rife with contradictions. Although in one chapter he praises Joseph for refusing to sleep with Potiphar’s wife, in a later chapter he states that a slave has no right to deny his master’s pleasure, even if the master is a woman. He states in some places that God mandates polygamy, in other places he states that God does not. He even claims that Scripture states quite clearly that an unmarried man cannot be in a position of leadership, causing this reader to wonder if Yeshua was teaching in error, according to Mr. Koniuchowsky, due to his single status. This kind of confusion cannot be from Adonai.
His view of the female sex is also confusing. At times he seems to look at women through rose colored glasses, ignoring their natural tendencies favoring instead an unrealistic view of the way they think and behave. In other places he seems to believe that women’s only redeeming quality is that of childbirth and how they can please their man. There is absolutely no thought to a woman’s point of view, unless he is running it down as being “emotional.” Although he shares with us that the Hebrew word for co-wife also means enemy and adversary, with its root in opposition, he never seems to take that information into account.
The research is shoddy, in my opinion, as he doesn’t take other Scripture references into account and he has strange definitions that seem to come from his own imagination, as I have never heard anyone state before that fornication ONLY applies to intercourse. A careful study of the word harlotry, for the word fornication is not found in Torah, shows that it includes fondling.
Mr. Koniuchowsky also doesn’t seem to understand the need for a witness of two or three to establish a truth, as he is forming doctrine on single, obscure verses that we need to, “read between the lines.” Making the assumption of Job having a second wife, for example, he continues to speak of Job’s polygamy as if it were a certain fact. He simply ignores the tales of polygamous marriage that are not to his liking.
Even a cursorily reading of the stories of the polygamous marriages in the Bible show that they are filled with strife, yet the author ignores this fact, instead focusing on what he believes to be the benefits of this arrangement. Unfortunately for women, most of the benefits are for the man himself, or any woman who is not willing to put her all into the marriage relationship, instead wanting help with everything from housework to pleasing her man. He doesn’t even address the times in Scripture when wives abuse each other, stating that Adonai’s made extra rules to regulate it and that is enough.
Mr. Koniuchowsky’s views on homosexuality seem to indicate that he has never spent time talking to one who has practiced this lifestyle, believing that a polygamous marriage would be perfect for a recovering lesbian. He also claims that the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah would be with us still had they only practiced polygamy. Who is to say that they didn’t? Sodomy can be very addicting; heterosexual men engage in sodomy as well.
He also states that Torah allows for sexual activity outside of the marriage covenant as long as they don’t “go all the way” so-to-speak. He then asks the reader to “prove me wrong from the WORD,” yet he doesn’t use the word to prove his statement. This is just one example of his lack of research and Scriptural proof.
Moshe’s discussions regarding the other aspects of sexuality in the life of the believer leaves much to be desired. His use of very graphic terms to describe intimate spousal relations cause this book to be pornographic in nature, necessitating the “for mature audiences only” warning at the beginning of the book. So, although the book’s intended audience is the Torah observant believer in Messiah Yeshua, most of the target audience will be so turned off by his use of these terms that they will be unable to glean anything good from this book, should there be any thing worth gleaning.
To be perfectly honest with you, this book was very difficult to read and I did not read every word. The chapters quoting other people, church fathers and Jewish sages, were skipped entirely as I was not really interested in their views of polygamy. After a time I simply could read no more. Had I not intended on reviewing this book, I would not have read as much as I did. The end of the book contains his arguments in response to questions raised by people so far, but for the most part it simply reiterates what was stated earlier, again with no Scriptural support.
He also tries to head off any arguments, especially from women, with statements like, “Are we going to let women, women’s emotions, possible jealousies, potential fears and dogmas override the Torah?” This is the type of blanket statement, akin to spiritual abuse and blackmail, which Mr. Moshe K. uses throughout the book. Overall, one walks away from this book with the feeling that the author does not give a whole lot of value to the lives of women and of those who are outside of his narrowly defined view of Israel, as displayed in the terms, “state approved baby” or a “take it or leave it child.”
One example Mr. Koniuchowsky gives is “a household where there are many children and the chores and homeschooling is just too much for any one woman,” as a good reason for multiple wives. If that were the case, why is her husband, the father of the children in question, not stepping up to help direct the children in their chores and help with their educational needs? Why not hire a young neighbor to come in and help with the chores a few days a week? Why add another wife and the strife that accompanies her? He answers that question with an emphatic, “the husband gets some extra, or varied sex and all are happy!”
Here is a simple truth that this book seems to be avoiding: just as slavery is acknowledged, regulated and displayed in the Bible but is not God’s will for His people, so too polygamy is acknowledged, regulated and displayed in the Bible, and is also not God’s will for His people. Adonai has stated that He will allow men to walk in the stubbornness of their own hearts in the hopes that we will see the error of our ways and turn back to His original plan. He will not, however, stand for the mistreatment and abuse of His people by anyone, His children included. The polygamous lifestyle has abuse inherit to the system, hence the need for its regulation.
If it were not for Moshe Koniuchowsky’s wide influence, this book would be laughable and easily ignored. Unfortunately this book has the potential of causing much heartache within the body of believers, as many men who have fallen for the Playboy lie regarding multiple sex partners will see this as the justification they were searching for. These men will convince their wives that they are in sin by rejecting their “need” for a second, third or fourth wife, giving them little choice but to concede under their spiritual blackmail.
This is just a quick overview of Sex and the Believer. All in all I would say, “Save your money. This book is not worth it.” The sexual freedom he provides is for those who have sexual addictions and refuse to deal with them properly. Although the Bible clearly does not ban the practice of polygamy, neither does it promote the taking of multiple wives. Moshe K. does not prove that it is within God’s will or plan for our lives, only showing that it is allowed. He ignores the facts, making broad statements not backed with Scripture that he himself later contradicts, while ignoring crucial components of the very verses he references, to the annoyance of the intelligent reader.
http://its-time.info/book-review/sex-and-the-believer/
29 comments:
It is unfortunate that those in the restoration of all Israel would have to bring this to the attention of anyone, unfortunately it is with a heavy heart that we blow the trumpet to sound the alarm against this rabid teaching of MK. It is time for the body to stand up and shut this abomination down and call those that pervert the scriptures accountable.
Blessings dear watchman!
Davida Chava
Mesharet Outreach
This is a poor excuse for a review. A review takes a point, quotes it, and then presents a clear scripture or argument against it. This is nothing more than an opinion one might find in vanity fair.
On page eight Mr. Koniuchowsky states, speaking of Adonai, “He does not care about the number of commitments made, as long as those commitments are within the unbreakable bounds of marriage and as long as they are all honored for our entire lifetime.” Oh really? Then what about His command to future kings regarding the taking of multiple wives?
“He shall not multiply wives for himself, or else his heart will turn away; nor shall he greatly increase silver and gold for himself.” (Deuteronomy 17:17)
The next scenario must be read in its entirety; I could not say it quite the way Moshe does.
A widow who lives an Israelite lifestyle, but due to her desperation winds up marrying a Sunday keeper and finds herself in an unequally yoked situation; or worse yet, married to a heathen who denies Yahshua as the Son of YHWH. If she has a believing “brother in law - brother in Torah,” if she would only DEMAND that he obey Torah and add her as a second, or third wife, not only would her children be raised in the things of Israel, but she would have no need to look outside of Israel for a potentially dangerous spouse. A spouse has already been assigned to her by YHWH in His Torah and is none other than her brother in law. By so doing, she would make sure that her dead husband’s name would continue in Israel, along with the raising of his children in an Israelite heritage.
What if this brother in law is already married? Again we see the ASSUMPTION of mandated polygamy, as he states that she should demand that he obey Torah and marry her. Besides that, is this any way to talk about fellow believers in Messiah, simply because they have not come to the same understanding regarding Sabbath as Moshe has? I thought that the churches contained the lost members of Ephraim… yet now he states that they are to be considered as outside of Israel. Which is it? This is all very confusing to the reader.
A classic example of Mr. K's illogical reasoning
I touched on this in the first part of the review, but it is so horrendous, in my view, that it deserves a closer look.
A woman who cannot have children and is barren. Rather than settle for a “state approved baby,” or a “take it or leave it child,” that may not be her first choice anyway, she would rather have a proven godly man and woman and treat their children as her own with love, care and nourishment. Why take a chance on marrying an unknown and unproven man and later having to adopt children, if there are nay available that she likes and taking a chance of not being satisfied with what may be available to her? By CHOOSING a family for herself, she has the need for motherhood met by adopting a family whose children are already bent on serving Yahshua and have already been raised in the nurture and admonition of YHWH. If she were to adopt from an adoption agency, despite their best efforts, the child may grow up to murder her, as the child may be filled with anger and resentment. For this woman a polygamous situation is just ideal.
Having read this paragraph, my husband asked, “What is a state approved baby?” To be honest, I didn’t know how to respond. There is just so much wrong with this statement that I don’t know where to begin. How about this: what mother gets to choose her baby? Doesn’t Adonai make that decision? “Why take a chance on marrying an unknown and unproven man?” Moshe, every woman takes a chance when she marries, regardless of how “experienced” he is. That is simply a part of life.
Mr. Koniuchowsky explains it this way:
It seems Solomon had male and female concubines; since we have no record of his having been “gay,” we can assume the male concubines he collected were for his 700 wives, when he could not pay attention to them. Smart guy!
Now one may make the argument that Scripture forbids a woman sleeping with a male concubine as seen in Numbers 5:1-31 in the “law of a jealous husband.” The question is, do these verses referring to the “laws of a jealous husband” forbid the wife from lying carnally with a male concubine for intercourse?… NO. Concubinage was a separate classification and allowance by YHWH and was NOT considered adultery! So it seems that as best we can ascertain, that this was one way women chose to relive themselves of sexual neglect and lack of intimacy…”
First, the verse referenced above does not state that he had male concubines. Male singers, yes, and concubines, but he qualifies the concubine statement with, “the pleasures of men,” obviously referring to his concubines. Second, I would like to ask Mr. Koniuchowsky what would happen if the slave impregnated the woman? Would that not count as adultery? And third, I would like to know what he has to say about Joseph and Potiphar’s wife? Earlier it was clearly stated that Joseph could not sleep with her because that would have been adultery, but now he is stating that it would not be considered adultery because he was a slave. Which is it, Mr. Koniuchowsky?
That also means that a boy and girl living together as roommates, NOT having intercourse is NOT SINFUL. They can have limited sexual contact (sex without intercourse), or none at all. I have been wrong about that and so have you!!!!! So mom and dad; don’t get uptight if your child is in that situation.
As long as they do not have intercourse Torah allows this. Prove me wrong from the WORD. Shocking? YES!! But that’s how we have been painfully brainwashed by Victorian and Puritanical societies that have no concept of Torah and have no concept of what YHWH does and does not allow!
So, fornication does not include fondling, according to MK, regardless of what we have seen in Ezekiel. According to him, we can allow our children to do anything they want, as long as no penetration is involved, and we can still call them spotless virgins. He actually goes on to say, “If they are having sexual pleasure galore without the actual act of consummation (hard to imagine) they have not sinned.” It is hard to imagine how anyone can come up with such a cockamamie idea!
I have stood up to his challenge; now I would like to challenge him back. I challenge you, Mr. Koniuchowsky to prove your statement that fornication only involves intercourse, and I would like you to do that using the Word alone.
Mr. K states "Moreover based on these same statutory laws that contradict Torah, the Father YHWH would be put in jail for statutory rape as well, as He placed His sperm ad egg inside Mary, without her permission, as she was a girl no older than 15, more than likely between 13-14. YHWH did not have anyone’s permission and therefore would be falsely accused."
This shows me MK’s lack of knowledge. First he states that Adonai placed His sperm and egg into Mary, which anyone who has taken biology can tell you is absolutely ridiculous as Mary already had eggs. Regardless, he also states that Mary did not consent to this action. Funny, that’s not what Luke says:
And Mary said, “Behold, the bondslave of the Lord; may it be done to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her. (Luke 1:38)
That sounds like permission to me, therefore, certainly not rape. A serious charge Mr. K and certainly an affront to all who respect the authority of scripture.
Kathy, you should know that there are two example you are citing that are being revised. The next edition of the book will have those corrections, those being the male concubine statements and some other things. The community of faith is critiquing it and it will inevitably be refined to have some of those issues resolved. However, the main framework of the book is sound, especially the statements about the scripturality of plural marriage.
Hebrew, which of these examples that I have posted will be revised?
All references to male concubines will be removed. Some of the issues in chapter nine will be revised as I understand.
Perhaps, since Hebrews continues to discuss this topic under another entry, he/she will be part of the 'community of faith' will be able to address the next twisting of scripture by Mr. K. It's becoming obvious to me that Hebrew is not truly interested in discussion the material. His/her purpose for posting at all has left me perplexed.
Let’s take a look at the verses that Moshe K. offers as his reasoning behind these statements.
“If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)
Mr. Koniuchowsky follows these verses with the statement, “The key here is that if he rapes an unengaged, or unmarried woman, he got lucky (because he had no knowledge if she was married) and must marry her, to be redeemed by society and not be sent to jail.” Naturally having intercourse with a married woman would be considered adultery, and punishable by death. But is Adonai really stating here that a rapist gets to keep his victim? Let’s take a closer look.
Verse 28 contains the key phrase, “seizes her and lies with her.” This is what Moshe K. is defining as rape. But is that an accurate translation of the phrase? The Hebrew word for “seizes” is number 8610 and literally means to capture. “Lies with,” is number 7901 and it means, “ravish; to lie down; to sleep.” Neither of these words have “rape” in their definition.
So, I did I search on the word “rape” and discovered that it only occurs once in my Bible (NASB) and that is in the book of Judges. It is found within the tale of a Levite priest and his concubine. They were traveling through Benjamin’s territory when they stopped for the night and were taken into the home of one of the town’s citizens. The scene that follows is like something out of Sodom and Gomorrah.
The citizens of that town came and asked the man for the Levite so, “that we may have relations with him.” The man adamantly refuses, instead offering the men of the city his own daughter and the Levite’s concubine.
But the men would not listen to him. So the man seized his concubine and brought her out to them; and they raped her and abused her all night until morning, then let her go at the approach of dawn. (Judges 19:25)
The word translated in this verse, as “raped” is number 3045 and literally means to “have relations.” Notice its helper word, “abused,” which is number 5953a and means, “act severely; bring pain.” This is very important, so we need to pay close attention. The word translated as raped is also the word used for sodomy. It is the word most often used to relate intimate sexual relations, specifically intercourse.
Sarah, I addressed your pertinent objections.
Just like a false teacher, changes things around to suit his view rather than the truth of the matter.
Hebrew, Whom, may I ask is Sarah, and what are her objections?
My apologies to Hebrew. He/she is now posting some of his/her comments on the appropriate entry.
Since I own a copy of the first edition, shall I assume the those of the 'community of faith' will keep this blog updated so we are sure to proclaim accurate information as taught by Mr. K?
Shalom Hebrew aka HMI Admin, I knew it would be a matter of time that I would realize who you were.
You are welcome to continue posting, but please do add to the content. Generic comments aren't worth my time to continue to respond to.
Please do let Mr. K know that we are going to continue to expose the twisting of scripture that allows him and those with him, to participate in their illegal activities.
I look forward to reading the second edition of Mr. K's twisting. It will be interesting to watch him rewrite his revelations.
No book is fully correct the first time around. Teachers grow and learn and their writings adapt many times. The book is not scriptures, its an interpretive work by a well known writer and teacher.
Hebrew aka HMI Admin... So nice to see you again. Have you grown tired of posting on http://www.prophecytalk.com/index.php?topic=5125I absolutely agree with you. A book put out so quickly, with work by a variety of authors would certainly need changes, substantial ones with the twisting that has gone into forcing Our Holy Scriptures to say something they don't.
Yes, I agree, teachers do change. Why it was just a short time ago that Mr. K was so strongly opposed to Polygamy in any form. I'll have to see where I saved that teaching. Oh yes, but Chris Schaefer, Mr. Altaf and Mr. K are all being quite clear to differentiate polygamy from polygyny.
Nice try Hebrews, look forward to hearing from you again.
Perhaps when I hear from you again I will have found my teaching where your prophetic teacher so opposes polygamy and we can discuss that differences that he claims have now been revealed to him, or to Mr. Altaf or to Chris Schaefer.
Oh, and could you ask Mr. Altaf why Mr. Schaefer's article http://www.prophecytalk.com/index.php?topic=5125
is so hidden on his website. My, my, my, with Mr. Altaf being so in support of this preversion, one would think he would display this position paper prominantly.
Perhaps it's time for another blog entry to address that very issue openly with Mr. Altaf.
My Error, I mistyped when I asked why Mr. Altaf makes it so difficult to find the article by Chris Schaeffer supporting polygyny. Surely such an extensive writing, all 30 pages should have a more prominent position since this topic is so important to the advancement of Israel. Allow me to correct myself, the link to Mr. Schaeffers article on Simon Altaf's site is http://www.abrahamic-faith.com/Torah/Torah-polygyny.pdf
It was remiss of me to allow that error to slip. See, I've proved your point that mistakes happen and must be corrected. Especially when one is trying to get a poorly written book published quickly so it can be part of the annual congress that YATI holds.
As my grandmother was so fond of saying, haste, makes waste.
kc
I agree it seams as though the reviewers point is that the author is wrong because the reviewer disagrees with the author.
One point I will make. The author issues a challenge to prove him wrong about sex outside of marriage. The reviewer seams to think the author should have to prove his point with scripture. This in my view is illogical. God is not shy. He states things he wants us to avoid clearly in the Torah. If something is not clearly prohibited , it is allowed. It is incumbent on somebody accusing a person of sin to prove there case, not on the accused to prove their actions are not sinful.
I've read the book and don't remember that part could you point out which section ?
Your examination is no more in context than the greatest if His errors, sister. You also failed repetively to Quote Him with proper literary etiqete.
I pray you review John 7:24 & let God be God in this matter.
Amein
Your examination is no more in context than the greatest of His errors, sister. You also failed repetively, to Quote Him with proper literary etiqete.
I pray you review John 7:24 & let God be God in this matter.
Amein
Your examination is no more in context than the greatest of His errors, sister. You also failed repetively, to Quote Him with proper literary etiqete.
I pray you review John 7:24 & let God be God in this matter.
Amein
Post a Comment