Biblical Marriage, Polygamy and Polygyny

MARRIAGE, DIVORCE, REMARRIAGE, CONCUBINES, POLYGYNY & JESUS;
Another Look for Christians.
COPYRIGHT JANUARY 14, 1995 All rights reserved. Portions of this file/document may be posted/published as long as the paragraph of the portion, the paragraph before the portion and the paragraph after the portion are included without any additional breaks or spaces, and the source and author are included with the protion posted/published.
Copyright 01/12/96; 11/10/05; 5/13/09 (Revised)
By L. Tyler P.O. Box 620763, SanDiego, CA 92162-0763
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PolyPolygamyPolygnyNJesus
http://groups.google.com/group/BiblicalChristianPolygamyPolygyny
http://www.flickr.com/groups/christian_polygamy/
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=6382095167
http://biblicalmarriagepolygyny.yuku.com/directory
http://polygynouschristians.multiply.com/
http://groups.myspace.com/BiblicalChristianPoly
http://american-christian-polygynists.ning.com/


TOPICS: FOREVER MARRIAGES CROSS CULTURALLY, FORMAL AND INFORMAL CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE, COMMON LAW MARRIAGE, CHRISTIAN DIVORCE, CHRISTIAN REMARRIAGE, CHRISTIAN CONCUBINES, CHRISTIAN POLYGYNY (POLYGAMY), RACISM, ETHNOCENTRICITY, AND THE SWEARING OF OATHS

This work is dedicated with love and honor to Carol Lynn McIntyre (of Oceanside's Camelot), Beverly Tyler (of Tennessee}, Diane Tava Lovelady (of Santee CA), Lua Nguyen (of Vietnam), Marilyn Tyler (of Canada), Paula D. (of San Diego, CA); Meli Bunnell (of Tepic, Nyarit Mex), and Carmen Guerrero (of Mazatlan, Mex).

This document can be found at the following Yahoo web site:
http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/YHdHSl2Su1RV45KoleWIn2axTJQI_y_iUobXaWci-FDhG
kstYMOEOWL6rTnjucZEb2RnHRqdhUNTEBUG9RU/MarDivorRemarPoly0509.html
OR
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OrthodoxBiblicalMarriagePolygamy/files/     
The file entitled MarDivorRemarPoly0509.html

It is also dedicated to all those who have suffered through divorce and the complexities of
remarriage, and to all of the following:

1. The shattered African polygynist husbands and their families who are made to feel like
second class citizens in the local church because of their polygyny, made to feel less loved
by Christ and made to feel less a child of God by the local "Christians".
2. The broken hearted Chinese polygynist wives and their children in their local churches
who are shunned by the "proper Christian" women and made to feel less welcome and
spiritually inferior because of their polygynous families.
3. The devastated Burmese polygynist husbands who believe in and have received the
Lord Jesus Christ, but who are rejected and shunned by the local "Christian"
church/leader because they love their wives too much to divorce them.
4. The grieved, stumbled, offended and broken hearted born-again and Spirit sealed Indian
wives and children of the born-again and Spirit sealed husband who loved his wives and
children too much to renounce and repudiate them in order to be baptized and accepted
by the local"Christian' church, and so now live in Christ, denied fellowship by their local
congregation of "Christians".
5. The discouraged Mid-Eastern polygynist husbands who genuinely wanted to know
Christ and the fellowship of the saints but who were embittered and kept from saving
faith by the campaign of "Christian" leaders/churches against them and their polygyny. It
would be no surprise if they were the most active in the community in resisting the
Gospel and those who preach it. Talk about closing a door and making an enemy of the
Gospel!
6. The troubled Liberian polygynist wives and children who genuinely wanted to know
Christ and the fellowship of the saints but who were embittered and kept from saving
faith by the campaign of "Christian" leaders/women against them and their polygyny. It
would be no surprise if they were the most active in the community in resisting the
Gospel and those who preach it. Talk about closing a door and making an enemy of the
Gospel!
7. The broken hearted, stumbled, offended and grieved Kenyan polygynist wives and
their children whose husbands and fathers were forced to reject and renounce them in
order to be baptized and join the local "Christian" church.; especially in the case where a
carnal husband used the church rule as an excuse to get rid of a wife and children he didn't
want.
8. The disconsolate Pakistani polygynist husbands who are stumbled, grieved, offended
and broken in their faith and love for the Lord Jesus Christ because of how badly they
and their loved ones have been treated by the local "Christian" leader/church.
9. The grief stricken Bengali polygynist wives and children who are stumbled, grieved,
offended and broken in their faith and love for the Lord Jesus Christ because of how
badly they and their loved ones have been treated by the "Christian" women of the local church.
10. The miserable Thai polygynist husbands who, with grave doubts and troubled hearts,
succumbed to "Christian" pressure to renounce and reject (Malachi 2:13-17) all of their
wives except one to satisfy the demands of some misguided "Christian" leader, or
association of "Christians".
11. The miserable American Christian woman, a genuine believer in Christ, who divorced her
genuinely saved Christian husband for "irreconcilable differences" as her pastor recommended,
married a "more godly" man, and now has realized that the Bible says she is maritally bound to her genuinely saved exhusband in the Kingdom of God as long as they both live, making her present marriage adultery - - - and she doesn't know what to do.
12.  The miserable American Christian man, a genuine believer in Christ, who was divorced by his genuinely saved Christian wife for "irreconcilable differences" as her pastor recommended, who has gone on and married a "godly" Christian woman, and now has realized that the Bible says he is maritally bound to his genuinely saved exwife in the Kingdom of God as long as they both live, and he doesn't know what to do about the situation.

TABLE OF CONTENTS (PLEASE USE YOUR FIND TOOL TO FIND THE
CHAPTER BY THE CHAPTER ROMAN NUMERAL)

I. INTRODUCTION: PRIORITIES RECONSIDERED.

II. DIVORCE DEFINED, A Surprise

III. DIVORCE! A PLAGUE AND ITS CONSEQUENCES.

IV-A. MARRIAGE AND POLYGYNY FROM GENESIS TO JUDGES

IV-B. MARRIAGE AND POLYGYNY FROM JUDGES TO JESUS

V. MARRIAGE, POLYGYNY, JESUS AND THE APOSTLES

VI. ADULTERY DEFINED: A SURPRISE! ISNT POLYGYNY ADULTERY?

VII. SO, WHAT ABOUT CONCUBINES & POLYGYNY TODAY IN MY
COUNTRY?

VIII. ARE POLYGYNISTS AND CONCUBINES LIVING IN ERROR TODAY?

IX. MARRIAGE, CONCUBINES, CIVIL LAW, PERSONAL LIBERTY AND A
LOVING CONSCIENCE!

X. DOES GOD FORGIVE BROKEN VOWS, DIVORCE AND ADULTERY?

XI. CAN YOU COME BACK TOGETHER & REMMARY AFTER ADULTEROUS
REMARRIAGE?

XII. WHAT ABOUT THE HEALTH QUESTIONS INVOLVED IN SUCH
REUNIONS?

XIII. CAN ADULTERY, DIVORCE, VOWS AND REPENTANCE RESULT IN
POLYGYNY/CONCUBINAGE?

XIV. ADULTERY, DIVORCE, CONCUBINES, POLYGYNY AND THE UNSAVED.

XV. THE MARRIED MAN WHO WOULD ADD WIVES/CONCUBINES TO HIS
"HAREM".

XVI. ARE POLYGYNY & CONCUBINES OPTIONS FOR THE ABANDONED
MAN?

XVII. POLYGYNISTS, CONCUBINES AND THE LEADERS OF GOD'S PEOPLE.

XVIII. POLYGYNY & CONCUBINES AND THE WESTERN CHRISTIAN WOMAN.
 
XIX. WHAT'S WRONG WITH POLYANDRY?

XX. HUSBAND RULE OVER THE WIFE? IF SERVANT-TEACHERS RULE .

XXI. THREE CHEERS FOR MONOGAMY! THE BEST FOR MOST!

XXII. LISTEN TO THE WORD!

XXIII. BIBLIOGRAPHY

APPENDIX ONE: WHAT MAKES A WEDDING &/OR A MARRIAGE?

APPENDIX TWO: WHEN MUST ONE MARRY?

APPENDIX THREE: THE PRACTICE OF POLYGYNY IN AN HOSTILE
ENVIRONMENT



I. INTRODUCTION: PRIORITIES AND PARADIGMS RECONSIDERED
This study is the result of my own marital experience where I was divorced from my wife
and both of us claimed sincerely and earnestly that we were born again believers in the
Lord Jesus Christ. I was faced with the question, "What does a Christian do about his/her
need to marry when in a divorced-from-one and wanting-to- marrry-another situation, and
he believes that he/she and the Christian exmate are bound to each other maritally by the
Lord until death parts them?" Or ---- "What does a Christian do in a divorced-from-one
and remarried-to-another situation, and he/she believes that he/she and the Christian
exmate are bound to each other maritally by the Lord until death parts them?" And the
moral question: "Is it adultery or is it something else?"

As I read the papers and listen to the news many questions come to my mind. According
to the census department, 40% of Black women never marry. Single parent households
abound. Welfare undermines marriage by giving the mother an artificial and unearned
financial independence of the father. It gives them the option of being able to have a child
without having or needing a husband. It is very difficult for most man to comfortably stay
with a woman who doesnt need him and often has a more sure and steady income than he
has. Where are the Black men who love and desire these Black women? TV news special
after news magazine articles after newspaper articles tell about so many Black men who
are in serious trouble with the law. For many this reflects a economically crippling
attitude towards authority, society, their families, their women and their children. This
crisis for so many Black men, not wanted or needed by their women and rejected by the
majority society, is devastating to the Black family. So what is the solution for sincere
Black Christians dealing with the issues of divorce and remarriage in this context? I believe
this document has some radical but realistic solutions.

What about the widows of Rwanda, Burundi, Somalia, Viet Nam, Cambodia, Sri Lanka
and Bosnia? Are they doomed to a lifelong widowhood, never to remarry because of the scarcity of
men? Is remarriage not possible where there are so many more women than men? What
kind of life in those countries is a widow or a single mother doomed to when they are not
able to remarry? I believe this document has some radical but realistic solutions for such
people, especially if they are of the Judeo-Christian persuasion.
Our relationships with our mates and our children are second in importance and emotional
intensity only to our relationship with Jesus. In San Diego's Union-Tribune several
months ('95) ago they reported on a study of the effects of divorce that involved
thousands and lasted over 20 years. The social scientists screened the participants so that
they had two groups that basically differed as follows, one whose parents had divorced or
separated and the other group whose parents did not divorce or separate. They found that
the average life expectancy was five years longer for the group whose parents did not
divorce. Divorce made a five year difference in the life expectancy of the two groups.
Dr. Griffith Banning conducted a study of 800 Canadian children.It was reported that
their parents' divorce, death or separation, resulting in the children's felt lack of love and
affection, did greater damage to their growth and development than disease and all other
factors combined.>a
[>a Love, by Leo Buscaglia, Fawcett Crest, NY,1972,p.78

What we do with our marital relationships has a profound effect not only on us, but on
our children, for a lifetime. We already know that a divorce, statistically, usually results in
serious health problems ranging from ulcers and cardiovascular problems to hormonal and
emotional problems. Divorce can devastate us and our loved ones. How can we afford to
let our marriages, which Jesus intended to arenas filled with love and testimonies of His
life changing all-sufficiency, become instead arenas of suffering, bitterness and hatred ---
trophies for the enemy of our souls?

Yet look at the relationship most of us have with our loved ones and our God. Most of us
live our lives devoid of the life changing power and compassionate cherishing of our living
and reigning God. Most of us are falling short of compassionately cherishing our mates
and children. We wonder why we dont see the power of God in our lives. Yet how can
Jesus bless us miraculously and and powerfully intervene in our lives when we have let
ourselves become so entangled in the cares and affairs of our daily lives that the Spirit in
us is chocked and rendered fruitless. It is not just a matter of seeking first the Kingdom of
God and His righteousness, which most of us fall short of by letting TV or other personal
pleasures rob us of the time we could spend with Jesus. It goes even beyond that.
For many of us the question is , Why is our relationship with our living and powerful
God so lifeless and embarrassingly weak? Why is there such a great discrepancy between
the the life changing power of God we believe in, and the disastisfying mediocrity and
ineffectiveness of most of our lives? We know that if we walk in His will and do those
things that are pleasing in His sight, He hears our prayers and supernaturally intervenes in
our lives (1Jn3:21-24; 5:14,15), so when we fail to walk in His will and fail to do those
things that are pleasing to Him we should not be surprised at the spiritually impotent
lives and testimonies we have. What a tragedy to lose the battle for the souls of our
children and loved ones because we stuck with bad or foolish choices.

Specifically with this study I try to discover and share what I understand to be His will
for us maritally. I try to show that an adulterous marriage, an adulterous remarriage, and
or an adulterous divorce can gut our walk in the power of our God, leaving us with an
impotent and sterile life and testimony  that is bad enough in and of itself; but when you add
the chastening of our God to an
impotent and sterile life, it can be enough to break your heart and spirit. But isnt that
why He sends the chastening of weakness and sickness (1 Cor. 11) or the chastening of
poverty, strife, diseases and animal attacks (Ezek 14) ---- to break our stiff necks and
hard hearts so He, as the potter, can remake us in our confession and repentance? Are you
experiencing this chastening? Do you think it might be due to an ungodly divorce or
marriage? Do you wonder what you should do about it? Please read this study.
This study is written as a wake up call to Christians who have fallen into marriages,
divorces and remarriages that are contrary to the will of God and now want to know what
they should do. A child of God wants to do the will of God (1Jn2:3,4,5).We know that
our God has told us in 1 Pet. 3 that if we fail to live wisely with our wives, our prayers
will be hindered. He has told us that in Isaiah 59:1,2 that he wont hear our prayers if we
fall into disobedience and fail to be Ambassadors of His Love. This study is for the
person who is not sure about the will of God facing a divorce, marriage or remarriage. This
study is for the divorced, the married and the remarried who find themselves in a situation
that neither affords them the peace nor the joy of the God who longs to fill their lives
with both. Hopefully this study will be used of God to shed some light on those
heartbreaking and unfulfilling situations. Please hear the Word in this study, and be brave
in the Lord to do His will, no matter what the cost.

Dear reader, I exhort you to test, try, prove, examine, scrutinize and check against the
Word every idea or concept in this document that seems questionable, doubtful or radical.
Stay with what you understand the Word to say. What you will read is where I have
arrived in the quest for His will. It is very controversial and I believe it is controversial
because I came to this quest as a scholar, an anthro-pologist and a child of God who
earnestly wants to know his Father's will. So "Here I stand!" ---- until further
enlightenment from the Father.

This study is based on the understanding of the Word of God that a godly marriage of
two godly people is for life, and that they are bound by God to each other maritally until
death dissolves the marriage. It is an attempt to catch the mind of the God who hates
divorce and who hates the breaking of wedding covenants. It is an attempt to understand
the marital will of the God who doesnt want us to be foolish vow breaking fools in whom
he has no pleasure. This document is written from a "Christian", fundamental, evangelical,
dispensationalist, etc. point of view for those who understand that point of view. The
followers, or disciples, of Jesus Christ are called "Christians", and for them loving
obedience to their Lord and King is the paramount issue in all matters of human life.
What does "Christian" mean? Who is the God of one who is called a "Christian"? Jesus is
God revealed in the flesh-blood-bone body, God's only incarnate Son, physically begotten
of the virgin Mary, God's Mediator of the New Covenant, Savior and Redeemer of all
who obediently believe, King of Kings, Lord of all soon to return visibly, Creator of all
things that have ever existed (including Michael, Lucifer, Satan, Gabriel), and Judge of all
humans soon to return visibly in His resurrected flesh and bone body. What is a
"Christian"? Without controversy the Word is clear that we are saved and born again
Spiritually as a result of the following:

(1) His unearned compassion He had for us even before we know Him, which compassion
moved Him to give His only begotten Son to bear our sins and die in our place.
(2) His enlightening us about who He is, convincing us of our sins and His righteous
judgment of sin, and constraining us to accept Him while we are still spiritually dead in
our sins. [John 1:9,12; 16:7-11]
(3) His giving us the gift of belief/faith in God (revealed as Jesus Christ, His miraculous
birth, His holy life, His undeserved and substitutionary death, and His resurrection
demonstrating His victory over death and sin) in spite of our spiritual blindness and death
[James 1:17]
(4) Our willingness >1 to accept and use His gift of belief is met with His enabling >2 us
to have and exercise genuine faith in Him as our King, God and Savior in every area of our
life. [>1 2 Corinth. 8.; >2 Phil. 2:13; 4:13.]
(5) Since all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags there is no work or deed that we can do
to earn Gods salvation. Our part is to genuinely believe in, accept and submit to His
gracious gift in Jesus Christ.

Okay, so that is what a Christian is . Whats next? I believe that it is obvious that a
Christian should not lean to his own understanding>3 and should not just do that which
seems right to himself>4. I believe that those who are born of God are led by the Spirit of
God Spiritually>5 and by the Word>6 I believe that the believer must acknowledge
Christ's Lordship in every area of his/her life for Christ to be the real and actual
LORD/KING of that believer>7. I agree with the Bible that a Christian's obedience is his
birthmark, the vital and critical proof of having been truly born again of God>8 . Besides
all of that, Jesus said that if I loved Him, I would obey Him, showing my love by my
obedience>9 so of course I want to show my love for Him and show proof of my rebirth
in Him by obeying Him.
[Footnotes:>3 Prov. 3:5,6; >4 Prov. 16:24; >5 Romans 8:13,14.; >6 Psalm
119:9,11,24,32,72,89, 93,101, 104,105 ,166,167; >7 Prov. 3:5,6; Romans 12:1,2; 1 Cor.
6:19, 20 etc; >8 (1John 2:3,4,5; 3:10, 24; 5:2,3; Hebrews 5:8,9); >9 (John 14:15,21).]

Yes, I realize that obeying Him is not necessarily obeying Christian leaders and teachers
because if they teach the traditions and commandments of men>10 instead of or along
with the commandments and traditions of God, they make the Way of God null, void and
ineffective. Yes, I know that God can use godly men and Christian leaders/teachers to
show us His Way>11 but surely it is our responsibility to be like the Bereans>12,
testing-trying-examining-scrutinizing>13 all of their teachings and leadership to see if it
conforms to the Word of God, holding fast to what we find to be true/good. We need to
diligently search the Word to find the will of God, especially in the matter of
controversial and questionable things.
[Footnotes:>10 (Matthew 15:1-9; Mark 7:1-15); >11 (Hebrews 13:7; >12 of Acts
17:11.31; >13 1 John4:1-4 and 1 Thess. 5:21.]

III. DIVORCE DEFINED. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Let me try to clarify the word "divorce" at this point since it has so many definitions in
our current culture. The Greek word apoluo >1 used by Jesus in Mark 10:11 & 12 means
TO SEND OR PUT AWAY, DISMISS (FROM ONE'S PRESENCE), RELEASE AND
REPUDIATE. It could be done informally or formally and legally as divorce.
[Footnote: .>III.1 See also Matt. 1:19; 5:31; 19:3,7-9.]
The Greek word choridzo >2 , used in Mark 10:9 of the saved couple and in 1 Cor. 7:10
&11 of the saved wife , and in v. 15 of the unsaved mate, means TO SEPARATE
ONESELF FROM ANOTHER, BE SEPARATED; LEAVE, PART OR DEPART
FROM, PUT ASUNDER AND DIVIDE. It could be done informally or formally as a
divorce. God allows the Christian wife to choridzo her husband as second best but still
affirms that she is bound maritally to her husband as in v. 39.
[III. footnotes: >III.2. See also active: Matt. 19:6; Mark 10:9; Rom. 8;35,39;---passive: 1 Cor. 7:10,11,15;Acts 1:4; 18:2]
The Greek word afeeaymee >141, used of the man in l Cor. 7:11 and 12 and of the woman in v. 13, means TO SEND AWAY, ASK TO GO AWAY OR LEAVE, TO RELEASE,
AND TO LEAVE. This can be done informally or as a formal divorce. So the word
divorce can mean many different things depending on one's culture, society, motivation, intent and purposes. But the bottom line is that the husband is commanded not to send his wife away, nor to ask his wife to leave, nor release her nor leave her. Even if she asks or commands him to leave, He is under the Lord's command not to leave. Even if she gets a court order, he is under God's order not to leave her voluntarily. If the marshals/officials remove him and his belongings, then he didn't leave voluntarily. He was removed, but he did not relase or leave her. Separate rooms, sleeping separately or etc. is not leaving or releasing her as long as he is obeying 1 Cor. 7:1-5 with her.l   [Footnote: .^141 See also Mat. 13:36;; Mark 4:36.]

In summary we see the following:

(1) the Christian husband must not divorce/send away/release [See apoluo or afeeaymee
above] his Christian wife to whom he is bound as long as they both live. 1 Cor. 5:10,11
and 2 Thess. 3:6 & 14 may require a separation that doesn't involve sending her away,
asking her to go away or leave, releasing her from their marriage bond, or leaving her ----
but they are still bound for life. I experienced such a separation without leaving with the
mother of my children. The last two years we were together we slept inthe same king size
bed but she never let me touch her, kiss her, hold her or make love with her. Now that is
separation without leaving. But for the male under 1 Cor. 5:ll and 2 Thess. 3:6,14
commands to "stand apart" from his sining wife would still be bound by the commands in
1 Cor. 7:2,3,4,5 which could require him to be maritally intimate with her, so the
"separation" would have to be in other areas ---- always in the Spirit of 2 Tim. 2:24-26;
Galat. 6:1,2,3; and Luke 6 ---- like not eating together, not hanging out together, not
dating, not socializing together , not spending your leisure time together or etc.

(2) the saved husband must not divorce/send away/ask to leave/leave [See afeeaymee
above] his unsaved wife as long as she agrees or consents or is willing to dwell/live /house
with him.

(3) the Christian wife must not divorce/send away/dismiss/repudiate[See apoluo above]
and should not (but may) divorce/separate from/leave/put apart [See choridzo above] her
Christian husband. The saved wife must not divorce/send away/ask to leave/leave [See
afeeaymee above] her unsaved husband as long as he agrees or consents or is willing to
dwell/live/house with her. Because of the definition and 1 Cor. 7:11 some believe that the
saved wife also can divorce/separate from/leave/put apart [choridzo] her unsaved husband
in faithful separation, but still not divorce/send away/ask to leave/leave [afeeaymee] him,
in the event of spousal abuse, fornication or etc. These actions find many different legal
and informal forms and expressions in many different cultures and subcultures. So when
you see the word divorce in your Bible, it at least means send away, release, "leave" or be
separated, put asunder, divide informally or formally.
If Mark 10:8-12; 1 Corinthians 7:10,11,39 and Romans 7:1-3 are taken quite literally, a
genuinely saved Elias who legally married (with no vow of exclusivity such as forsaking
all others & keeping yourselves only to each other until death do you part) and was
legally divorced by several genuinely saved Jane Does who just wanted to live as singles
again>142 would have to deal with the question, "Are they still my wives in God's
eyes?". They all divorced him exercising their scriptural option and whatever he felt or
wanted would be irrelevant in terms of 1 Cor. 7:11,39. What if these genuinely saved but
carnal Jane Does became engaged to others and maritally vowed to forsake all others
including their Elias and to keep themselves only to their new mates until death part
them? It would be adultery and their vows would be the sin because those vows would be
invalidated by God's statement in Mark 10:8-12 and 1 Corinth. 7 :11,39 that they are
bound to Elias as long as they both live.
[Footnote: >142 (1 Cor. 7:11) ]


III. DIVORCE! A PLAGUE AND ITS CONSEQUENCES .

St. Augustine (4th Cent AD) had a powerful way of stating the permanent nature of the
marriage of two who married after being born again, lovingly obedient to Jesus and fruitful
in the Spirit---

"To such a degree is that marriage compact entered upon a matter of a certain sacrament,
that it is not made void even by separation itself, since, so long as her husband lives, even
by whom she hath been left, she commits adultery, in case she be married to another: and
he who hath left her, is the cause of this evil. . . Seeing that the compact of marriage is not
done away by divorce intervening; so that they continue wedded persons one to another,
even after separation; and commit adultery with those, with whom they shall be joined,
even after their own divorce, either the woman with a man, or the man with a woman. . .
But a marriage once for all entered upon in the City of our god>14, where, even from the
first union of the two, the man and the woman, marriage bears a certain sacramental
character, can no way be dissolved but by the death of one of them. . . Therefore the good
of marriage throughout all nations and all men stands in the occasion of begetting, and
faith of chastity: but, so far as pertains unto the People of God, also in the sanctity of the
sacrament, by reason of which it is unlawful for one who leaves her husband, even when
she has been put away, to be married to another, so long as her husband lives, no not even
for the sake of bearing children: . . . not even where that very thing, wherefore it takes
place, follows not, is the marriage bond loosed, save by the death of the husband or
wife.">15
[Footnotes:>14 This footnote mark etc. is not St. Augustine's or Arthur Haddan's. I insert
it just in case the reader is not aware of the fact that all marriages between real saints take
place "in the City of our god" not according to St. Augustine, but according the the Holy
Spirit in Hebrews 11:10,13-19, where they are already seated with Christ in the
Heavenlies according to Eph. 1 & 2. >15 St. Augustin: On The Trinity; pp. 402, 406,
412.]

The King's Word is "Mt. 19:5 and said, For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two shall be one’?> 6 Thus they are no longer two, but ‘one’! What therefore God has joined together, humans should not separate.”   Separate? What does He mean?  Strong's shows us that He means humans should not separate, divide, part, put asunder, separate or depart from the one to whom they are united.

Paul, emissary of the King, continues with the Word from the King
to His followers: "1 Cor 7: 10* ¶ And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, the wife should not depart from her husband: 11 But and if she depart, she should remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and the husband should not put away his wife. . . . 39* ¶ The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord."
What part do we not understand of "humans should not separate . . . the husband should not put away his wife. . . . The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth"?

The particular case in point is the situation caused by the plague that divorce is among
Christians. If many of the Corinthian Christians were weak, sick and asleep in death because they shamed the poor and didn't share with the poor generously (1Cor 11:17-34), I am quite sure that there are many American Christians who are weak, sick and asleep in death because they are/were living in adultery, the adultery of legally being married to someone other than the one to whom God joined them.
***Mat 19: 6 What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.

I understand the following scriptures to indicate that genuine believers in the
Lord Jesus Christ who were free to marry each other in the Lord and did marry each other
are bound maritally to each other as long as both live ----

***1 CORINTH. 7:10* And to the married I command (not I, but the Lord), a woman not to
be separated from [her] husband. 11* But if she is indeed separated, let her remain
unmarried, or be reconciled to [her] husband. And a husband is not to leave [his] wife. 12
But to the rest I speak, not the Lord, If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and
she is pleased to dwell with him, do not let him put her away. 13 And the woman who
has a husband who does not believe, if he is pleased to dwell with her, do not let her leave
him. . . .15 But if the unbelieving one separates, let [them] be separated. A brother or a
sister is not in bondage in such [cases], but God has called us in peace. 39* The wife is
bound by the law as long as her husband lives, but if her husband is dead, she is at liberty
to be remarried to whom she will, only in the Lord.
*** ROMANS 7:  2* A wife, for instance, whose husband is living is bound to him by the Law; but if her husband dies the law that bound her to him has now no hold over her. 3 This accounts for the fact that if during her husband’s life she lives with another man, she will be stigmatized as an adulteress; but that if her husband is dead she is no longer under the old prohibition, and even though she marries again, she is not an adulteress.  WEY
*** MARK 10: 6 but from the beginning of the creation the rule was, <‘Male and female did God make them. 7 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cling to his wife, 8 and the two shall be one’;> so that they are two no longer, but <‘one.’> 9 What, therefore, God has joined together let not man separate.”  . . . 11* He replied, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman, commits adultery against the first wife; 12* and if a woman puts away her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.” WEY

MARRIED TIL DEATH

I believe they state that a Spiritually reborn man and a Spiritually reborn woman who are
free to marry each other in the Lord and do marry each other are bound to each other by
the Word of the Lord as long as both their bodies are alive. What is the case in the Bible?
***Gen. 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his
wife, and they shall be one flesh.>20. There are three acts described here:
[Footnote>.(20. The Holy Scriptures According to the Masoretic Text]
(1) From the following it is clear that it means leaving the parents' presence, authority and
control;
***PSALM 45:10 ¶ Hearken, daughter, and see, and incline thine ear; and forget thine own people and thy father’s house: 11 And the king will desire thy beauty; for he is thy Lord, and worship thou him.  . . . 13 All glorious is the king’s daughter within; her clothing is of wrought gold: 14 She shall be brought unto the king in raiment of embroidery; the virgins behind her, her companions, shall be brought in unto thee: 15 With joy and gladness shall they be brought; they shall enter into the king’s palace. 16 Instead of thy fathers shall be thy sons; princes shalt thou make them in all the earth. 17 I will make thy name to be remembered throughout all generations; therefore shall the peoples praise thee for ever and ever.

(2) Cleaving is the act of the will making marital covenants and vows that bind them
maritally before God>21.
***Gen. 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his
wife, and they shall be one flesh.>20
[Footnote:>21 Ezekisl 16:7,8; Malachi 2; Matt. 1:18-25 where Mary and Joseph are
declared to be husband and wife even before the actual wedding and cohabitation.
"Cleave" in the Hebrew means "cling or adhere; . . . abide fast, cleave (fast together),
follow close (hard after), be joined (together), keep (fast), overtake, pursue hard, stick,
take." (Strong''s Exhaustive Concordance.) J. Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon says it
means "to glue upon, glue to" ]

(3) Becoming one flesh is the sexual act of coitis or sexual penetration and one can become
one flesh with one's wife or with an adulteress or with a harlot>22. Becoming one flesh is
not what makes a relationship a marriage. For the permanence of the relationship of
marriage the focus is on the word "cleave" which in the Hebrew means "cling or adhere; . .
. abide fast, cleave (fast together), follow close (hard after), be joined (together), keep
(fast), overtake, pursue hard, stick, take.">23. Thayer says it means "to glue upon, glue
to">24. If God commands the husband to conduct himself as if he were being joined
together with her, clinging, adhering, cleaving and glued to her in this manner towards his
wife, then he had better do it if he wants a good future with God, because to disobey
would be death>25 . Being under this command would certainly bind a man to his wife as
long as both lived.
[Footnotes:>22 1 Cor. 6:13-20; MAT 19:1-15; >23. Strong''s Exhaustive Concordance; >24. Greek
English Lexicon of the New Testament; Joseph Henry Thayer, D.D.; American Book Co.,
New York, 1889;
>25 Rom. 6:23; 1:31,32; Malachi 2:14-17.]

The Jewish Septuagint (third century B.C.) for Gen. 2:24 uses the same word for "cleave"
that Jesus uses in Matt. 19:5. The word used for cleave in the LXX's Gen. 2:24 and Jesus'
Matt. 19:5 means the following: 1. According to Thayer --- "to join one's self to closely,
cleave to, stick to"; and 2. According to Arndt & Gingrich ---"adhere closely to, be
faithfully devoted to, join tini someone". The Greek tense in both is future indicative
passive which means that this is what they shall have themselves doing in the future on a
regular basis. Some say that it is not a command. Jesus seems to differ with them both in
Malachi 2, where He says the husband who breaks his marital agreement with his wife is
under His wrath, and in Matt 19:6 where Jesus says "So then, they are no longer two but
one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, man must not separate." It is the
marital commitments and covenants between the husband and wife that is the glue that
binds them, and it is the solemn and disciplined honoring of those commitments that
reinforces and maintins that glued bond that binds them.

Every legal>26 and moral>27 marriage of two who are morally free in Christ to marry is
ordained or allowed by God and takes place under His control>b, so indeed God has
joined them, based on the truth of the following:
[Footnote: >26 Legal= recognized and accepted as legal by one's culture and law enforcers
Rom. 13; 1 Pet. 2:13-17; >27 moral= free from all others maritally and free in the Lord's
kingdom to marry according to His Word. >b Eph. 1:11; Rom. 8:28]

***Romans 8:  27 Yet he who searches all our hearts knows what the Spirit’s meaning is, because the pleadings of the Spirit for Christ’s People are in accordance with his will. 28 But we do know that God causes all things to work together for the good of those who love him-those who have received the Call in accordance with his purpose.TCNT
*** ROMANS 13: 1 ¶ Let every one obey the supreme Authorities. For no Authority exists except by the will of God, and the existing Authorities have been appointed by God. 2* Therefore he who sets himself against the authorities is resisting God’s appointment, and those who resist will bring a judgement upon themselves.TCNT .
***Ephes. 1: 10 In view of that Divine Order which was to mark the completion of the ages, when he should make everything, both in Heaven and on earth, center in him. 11* In him, I say, for by our union with him we became God’s Heritage, having from the first been destined for this in the intention of him who, in all that happens, is carrying out his own fixed purpose; 12 That we should enhance his glory--we who have been the first to rest our hopes on the Christ. TCNT

The marriage/covenanting of two free to marry in Christ is an event that has been worked together for their good, exists by the appointment and authority of God, is a part of His carrying out and fulfilling His own fixed purpose.  That's why we can trust God that we are to remain married to the person we are married to when we are saved. He gave Adam his Eve, and if you are His child, He worked in you to want to marry your mate>c, He lead you to marry your mate>d, and He worked all
things so that you did marry you mate>e. So you can understand why 1 Cor. 7 speaks of
the binding nature of marriage.
[>c Phil. 2:12,13; Heb.13:20,21. >d Romans 8:9,14; Acts 16:6,7; Isa. 30:21. >e Eph. 1:11;
Rom. 8:28; Mt. 10:29; Prov. 16:1,9; Isa. 46:9-13; Neh. 9:6]
***1 CORINTHIANS 7:17* ¶ In any case, a man should continue to live in the condition which the Lord has allotted to him, and in which he was when God called him. This is the rule that I lay down in every Church.  . . .  20 Let every one remain in that condition of life in which he was when the Call came to him.  . . . 24 Brothers, let every one remain in the condition in which he was when he was called, in close communion with God.TCNT

When I have approached Christian leaders here in my area, most of them fall back on a
rationalization of scripture to defend or at least conform to the worldly norms of
separation/divorce/ remarriage in contemporary society. So they accept divorces, where
those put together by God are put apart by man, and remarry "believers" who have been
divorced or separated from "believers". They are sincerely and earnestly concerned about
stumbling the weak and are reluctant to ask of the saints what seems to the world's eyes
to be impossible for many saints, to accept the Word that genuine believers are bound
maritally as long as both live.

So we see that most "Christian pastors" in America today allow and accomodate the separation/divorce of two genuine believers, even though God says "What therefore God has joined together, humans should not separate.”   We see that most "Christian pastors" in America today allow and accomodate the believing wife when she separates herself from her believing husband and marries another, even though the Word of God is "the wife should not depart from her husband: 11 But and if she depart, she should remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: . .  . A woman is bound to her husband during the whole period that he lives; . . ."  We see that most "Christian pastors" in America today allow and accomodate the believing husband when he puts his believing wife away from him by divorce, declaring that he is no longer maritally bound to her, even though the Word of God says "the husband should not put away his wife. ."  What part do we, who are believers in Jesus, not understand of "humans should not separate . . . the husband should not put away his wife. . . . The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth"?

Some of America's present "Christian pastors" teach the false doctrine that when a believer's  believing mate commits sex sin, that sin kills/ends the marriage, saying that since death was the penalty for adultery in the Sinai Law (Deut 22), so since they have come under the death sentence they are as good as dead and the wronged m ate is free of them.  THERE IS NOT ONE SCRIPTURE IN THE WHOLE BIBLE THAT TEACHES THIS.  All sin has the death penalty on it (Rom 1:17-32; 6:23).  
***Rom 1:30* They were secret backbiters, open slanderers; hateful to God, insolent, haughty, boastful; inventors of new forms of sin, disobedient to parents, destitute of common sense, 31* faithless to their promises, without natural affection, without human pity. 32* In short, though knowing full well the sentence which God pronounces against actions such as theirs, that they who do such things ARE WORTHY OF DEATH, they not only practise them, but even encourage and applaud others who do them.

I hope you understand the Scriptures well enough to know that people like this and people who do such things are not to be considered dead and their marital partners freed of them.   All unbelievers are "dead in trespasses and sins"
(Eph 2:1), yet a believer married to an unbeliever is commanded not to leave that  unbeliever until the unbeliever no longer wants to live with the believer (1Cor 7:12,13), and the believer remains maritally bound to the unbeliever until the unbeliever separates him/herself from the believer (1Cor7:15).  Those unbelievers are really dead in trespasses and sins, but the believers are under God's command to recognize their marital ties to the unbelievers according to those Scriptures.  So there is no way that a believer who has a mate who falls into sex sin is maritally free by "spiritual death" from such a fallen  but believing mate.  THERE IS NOT ONCE SCRIPTURE THAT SAYS ADULTERY ENDS AND DISSOLVES THE TRUTH THAT TWO BELIEVERS MARRIED IN JESUS TO EACH OTHER
ARE MARITALLY BOUND TO EACH OTHER UNTIL DEATH PARTS THEM.

Jesus makes binding>28 the cleaving >29 and the one flesh experience that we know as
marriage. Since the only terms of divorce are given in Deut 24:1-4 (which were superseded
by Matt. 19:1-15 and 1 Cor. 7:10-15,39), it is clear that marriage is a life long relationship
based on the covenants of the couple and on God's command not to be put asunder or put
asunder the relationship. Rather than abide by this believers-married-for-life principle,
most Christian churches/ pastors today are telling their divorced and divorcing
communicants that they should forget the things that have happened in the past trusting
God's forgiveness to cover it all and press on into the future with their new mates and
lives.
[Footnotes:>28 (Mt. 19:6); >29 (Mt. 19:5) ]

They say it would do more harm than good to tell Christian mates that they need to leave
their new mates, married in adultery, and new kids and go back to the Christian mates
they divorced contrary to the Word>f. I believe that we are to live by every Word of
God, and not by unscriptural traditions of men that put asunder what God said must not
be put asunder, that tell couples they are loosed from each other when God says they are
bound for life>30 . How dare we say "You are loosed" when God Himself says she is
"bound as long as her husband lives"?
[Footnotes:>f in 1 Corinth. 7; Romans 7 and Mark 10 >30 (Matt. 19:5; Rom. 7:1-5; 1
Cor. 7:10,11,39)]

What are the responsibilities of still being bound to someone when you have loosed
yourself according to human law but remain bound according to the Law of Christ?
Wouldn't they be responsible for parenting both their children by the mates to whom
they are bound by the Lord, as well as their children by their adulterous>31 new marriage.
Wouldn't they be responsible for keeping whatever promises they made and can keep in
the Lord--that they made to their mates in the Lord and to their mates in adultery>32 ?
They can't keep their adulterous promises of marital intimacy with their adulterous
mates, but they can keep the promise to Agapé Love them, cherish them, honor and
respect them, pray and fast earnestly and fervently for them, and clothe and feed them if
they are destitute and in need. Jesus instructs us to do these things even to our
enemies>g. There is no question that they are responsible for the parenting, provision and
care of any children by their adultery, as God and man's law allow(Eph. 6; 1 Tim. 5:8;
Heb. 12; 1Jn.3:16,17).
[Footnotes:>31. Mark 10:11,12; >32 (Psalm 15:4; Ezek. 17:15;Eccles.5:1-7) >g Luke 6;
Mt 5; Isa. 59; 1 tim. 2; James 2; 1 Peter 2,3,4]

I submit that the commandment of God in Romans 7:1-3 and the following passage below
(binding the saved husband to his saved wife until death separates them) is laid aside to
hold mans tradition, making of no effect the Word of God.:
**** MARK 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and
female. 7 For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his
wife. 8 And the two of them shall be one flesh. So then they are no longer two, but one
flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let not man put apart. . . . 11 And He
said to them, Whoever shall put away his wife and marries another commits adultery
against her. 12 And if a woman shall put away her husband and marries to another, she
commits adultery.
**** 1 CORINTH. 7: 4 The wife does not have authority over [her] own body, but the
husband. And likewise also the husband does not have power [over his] own body, but
the wife. 5 Do not deprive one another, unless [it is] with consent for a time, so that you
may [give yourselves to] fasting and prayer. And come together again so that Satan does
not tempt you for your incontinence. . . . 7 For I would that all men were even as I myself
am. But each has his proper gift from God, one according to this manner and another
according to that. 8 I say therefore to the unmarried and the widows, It is good for them if
they remain even as I. 9 But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is
better to marry than to burn. 10* And to the married I command (not I, but the Lord), a
woman not to be separated from [her] husband. 11* But if she is indeed separated, let her
remain unmarried, or be reconciled to [her] husband. And a husband is not to leave [his]
wife. . . . 39* The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband lives, but if her
husband is dead, she is at liberty to be remarried to whom she will, only in the Lord.

I submit that those passages mean exactly what they say, that the obediently believing
wife is bound by law as long as her obediently believing husband lives. No qualifiers! No
exemptions! Instead many Christian leaders tell the saved divorced that if they just
confess the sin of the divorce to God, God will forgive them and they are no longer bound
to their departed saved mate so they can go on and remarry someone new. So they set
aside Gods command to keep their own tradition. Can God bless and anoint with His
miraculous power a person, a couple or a church sets aside His will and Word so they can
keep their own tradition (Mk 7)? Not the Jesus I know.

I submit that those passages mean exactly what they say, that the obediently believing
wife is bound by law as long as her obediently believing husband lives. No qualifiers! No
exemptions! Instead many Christian leaders tell the saved divorced that if they just
confess the sin of the divorce to God, God will forgive them and they are no longer bound
to their departed saved mate so they can go on and remarry someone new. So they set
aside Gods command to keep their own tradition. Can God bless and anoint with His
miraculous power a person, a couple or a church sets aside His will and Word so they can
keep their own tradition (Mk 7)? Not the Jesus I know.

What does it really mean to 1Jn.1:9 confess our sins so that He will forgive us?
***1 Jn 1:9 If we keep on admiting (homologeo) our sins, [continuing to agree (homologeo) with Jesus about our sins,] He is faithful and just to forgives us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness/wickedness.
***Prv 28:13 ¶ He who keeps his sins secret will not do well; but one who agrees with [God about them], and forsakes them, will get mercy.

Confession of sin for forgiveness means agreeing with God about our sins, their sinfulness and the death penalty they deserve, coupled with the forsaking of the sin confessed.  It also includes the godly sorrow of 2 Cor 7 and the repentance of Prov 28:13.  What does that mean in these circumstances?
***Mark 10:11* And he says to them, Whosoever shall put away his wife and shall marry another, commits adultery against her.
***Mt19:9* And I tell you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except her unfaithfulness, and marries another woman, commits adultery.”

The believing adulterer must come to agree with God that his sin was putting away his believing wife AND marrying another.  He has violated the commands:
***1 Cor 7:11. . . . a husband  should not leave a wife."
***Mk 10: 9 What therefore God has joined together, humans should not separate.
He must agree with God that he sinned by leaving his wife, by separating himself from his wife, by divorcing his wife.  The sin that he must forsake is the sin of leaving his wife, of separating himself from his wife, of divorcing his wife. His repentance in godly sorrow is
doing everything he can to clear h imself of the sin (2Cor7) by joining himself to his wife, by reuniting with his wife, and by acknowledging that he is maritally bound to her til death part them because they are both forever people in Jesus.  The case of believers married to unbelievers is different according to 1 Cor 7:12-15.

What about Deut 24? There is no command to divorce here, only the description of a procedure.  Yes Jesus allowed the Jews under Moses to divorce their mates (Dt. 24& Mt. 19) but it was for the hardness of their hearts and you can be sure that a just and holy God chastened the hard of heart. If I were an insurer, I sure wouldn't want to sell them any life insurance given what God did to those who act with hardened hearts (1Cor.10).
***Dt.24:1 ¶ "When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth her, it shall be if she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly [6172 `ervah {er-vaw'}; n f] thing in her, that HE SHALL WRITE HER A LETTER OF DIVORCE, and give it into her hand, and send her out of his house."
6172 `ervah stands for the genitals or human excrement, according to how the Holy Spirit used the word in Ge 9:22, 23; Ex 20:26; 28:42; Le 18:6-19; 20:11,17-21.  So what is Deut 24 about?  

In Deut 22:13-21 the husband went in to his wife and found no evidence of virginity, instead finding evidence of a lack of virginity, and publicly charged "her with things for scandalous talk," and caused "an evil name against her to be spread abroad," and said, "This woman have I taken, and I came in unto her, and I did not find her a virgin; . . ."  If that was proven, she was to be executed.  Deut 24 is different from Deut 22 in that the husband DOES NOT publicly charge "her with things for scandalous talk," and cause "an evil name against her to be spread abroad," and say, "This woman have I taken, and I came in unto her, and I did not find her a virgin; . . ."  Instead, like Joseph in Mat 1,
>>>>>>>"19 But Joseph her husband, being a kind-hearted man and unwilling publicly to disgrace her, had determined to release her privately from the betrothal." <<<<<<<<
the man of Dt 24 privately and discretely writes her a letter of divorce, gives it into her hand, and sends her away out of his house.  She may have lied to him about the fact she was a widow (Dt 25), or that she was raped by a soldier/agent of the occupying forces while betrothed to him and was afraid to tell him (Dt 22:25-27), or like Joseph he loved her so much he couldn't bring himself to shame her publicly, but didn't love her enough to accept her in her failed or damaged state.  And so he divorces her with a hardened but discrete heart because she lacks virgin genitals.

In Matt. 5 & 19 Jesus made it plain divorce was permitted for the hardness of human hearts
and Malachi 2 makes it plain that God hates the treacherous breaking of marital covenants
that results in divorce. In Matt. 5 Jesus permits the husband to divorce his wife is she is
guilty of fornication, but does not command it. There is no command to divorce one's
mate for fornication, not even in Dt 24 for those under the Law, but after Acts 1 there is the
command to separate (not divorce) yourself from a saved mate who is snared in sexual sin in order to bring that mate to repentance and reconciliation>16.  Before Acts 1 Jesus, who hates divorce, allowed divorce for the hardness of hearts >17.
[Footnotes:>16. 1 Cor. 5:9-11; 2 Thes. 3:6-14; 1 Tim. 6:1-5; 2 Tim. 3:1-5;  >17. Mat. 19:6-9]

 The compassionate heart of the Spirit filled Christian would respond to a mate's fornication according to the Word>18. . The goal of  such compassion for one's mate snared in sexual sin would be the Church discipline prescribed in 1 Cor. 5:3-11 and  2 Thess 3:6-14 with the goal of bringing the erring one into godly sorrow, described in the following: 2 Cor. 7 and 1 Corinthians 5:5 . . . "deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction [ruin , damage] of the flesh, so that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus."  The Saviour's goal for the erring one is salvation, not destruction.  So what does a disciple of Christ do if he/she discovers that his/her mate is involved in sex sin? Consider the following:
[Footnotes:>>18. 1 Corinth. 5:5-11; Matthew 18:15-18; Gal. 6:1; John 8: 1-10; 1 Tim. 5:20,21; 2 Th. 3:6-14]

**** 2 CORINTHIANS 2: 5 6 This punishment by the majority [is] enough for such a
one; 7 so that, on the contrary, you should rather forgive and comfort [him], lest perhaps
such a one should be swallowed up with overwhelming sorrow. 8 So I beseech you to
confirm [your] love toward him. 9 For to this end I also wrote, that I might know the
proof of you, whether you are obedient in all things. 10 But to whom you forgive
anything, I also [forgive]. For if I forgave anything, for your sakes I forgave [it] to him in
the person of Christ; 11 so that we should not be overreached by Satan, for we are not
ignorant of his devices.
**** 2 CORINTHIANS 7: 8 For even if I grieved you in the letter, I do not regret; if
indeed I did regret; for I see that that letter grieved you for an hour. 9 Now I rejoice, not
that you were grieved, but that you grieved to repentance. For you were grieved according
to God, so that you might suffer loss by nothing in us. 10 For the grief according to God
works repentance to salvation, not to be regretted, but the grief of the world works out
death. 11 For behold this same thing (you being grieved according to God); how much it
worked out earnestness in you; but [also] defense; but [also] indignation; but [also] fear;
but [also] desire; but [also] zeal; but [also] vengeance! In everything you approved
yourselves to be clear in the matter. 12 Then, though I wrote to you, [it was] not on
account of the one who did wrong, nor on account of the one who suffered wrong, but for
the sake of revealing our earnestness on your behalf, for you before God.

Even though Jesus apparently allows a genuinely believing husband to divorce his wife
snared in adultery and then go ahead and remarry, I wouldn't want to stand before the
judgment seat of Christ, who hates divorce, and tell the God of Love I divorced my wife
for fornication because of the hardness of my heart and my failure to do 2 Tim 2:22-26;
Gal 6:1; Matt. 18:15-18; 1 Cor 5; 2 Thess 3:6-14. The motivation of a hardened heart
doesn't square with Eph. 4 or I Cor. 13 or Romans 15.

Even though Jesus apparently allows a genuinely believing husband to divorce his wife
snared in adultery and then go ahead and remarry, I wouldn't want to stand before the
judgment seat of Christ, who hates divorce, and tell the God of Love I divorced my wife for fornication because of the hardness of my heart and my failure to do 2 Tim2:22-26;Gal 6:1; Matt. 18:15-18; 1 Cor 5; 2 Thess 3:6-14. The motivation of a hardened heart doesn't square with Eph. 4 or I Cor. 13 or Romans 15.

***WEY EPHES. 4:  15 But we shall lovingly hold to the truth, and shall in all respects grow up into union with Him who is our Head, even Christ. . . 25 For this reason, laying aside falsehood, every one of you should speak the truth to his fellow man; for we are, as it were, parts of one another. 26 If angry, beware of sinning. Let not your irritation last until the sun goes down; 27 and do not leave room for the Devil.. . . . 30 And beware of grieving the Holy Spirit of God, in whom you have been sealed in preparation for the day of Redemption. 31 Let all bitterness and all passionate feeling, all anger and loud insulting language, be unknown among you--and also every kind of malice. 32 On the contrary learn to be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving one another, just as God in Christ has also forgiven you.
***1 CORINTH. 13: 4 Compassionate cherishing has patience, is kind; compassionate
cherishing is not envious, is not vain, is not puffed up; 5 does not behave indecently, does
not seek its own, is not easily provoked, thinks no evil. 6 Charity does not rejoice in
unrighteousness, but rejoices in the truth, 7 quietly covers all things, believes all things,
hopes all things, endures all things. 8 Compassionate cherishing never fails.
***WEY ROMANS 15: 1* ¶ As for us who are strong, our duty is to bear with the weaknesses of those who are not strong, and not seek our own pleasure. 2 Let each of us endeavour to please his fellow Christian, aiming at a blessing calculated to build him up. 3 For even the Christ did not seek His own pleasure. His principle was, <“The reproaches which they addressed to Thee have fallen on me.”> 4 For all that was written of old has been written for our instruction, so that we may always have hope through the power of endurance and the encouragement which the Scriptures afford.
 5 ¶ And may God, the giver of power of endurance and of that encouragement, grant you to be in full sympathy with one another in accordance with the example of Christ Jesus, 6 so that with oneness both of heart and voice you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
 7 ¶ Habitually therefore give one another a friendly reception, just as Christ also has received you, and thus promote the glory of God. 8 My meaning is that Christ has become a servant to the people of Israel in vindication of God’s truthfulness-- in showing how sure are the promises made to our forefathers--

Being forgiven by God for sins worthy of death (Rom. 1) how can we not forgive our
mate if he/she falls in adultery and then repents in godly sorrow? How can we say anything besides "Go on with your life and sin no more!">19 if the Godly repentance described in the following is evident? That's the example He left for us (1Pet.2:20,21). There is no greater Love than to lay down and deny your life/will for another's good.
[>19. John 8:1-10.]
***WEY2 CORINTHIANS 7: 8* For if I gave you pain by that letter, I do not regret it, though I did regret it then. I see that that letter, even though for a time it gave you pain, had a salutary effect. 9 Now I rejoice, not in your grief, but because the grief led to repentance; for you sorrowed with a godly sorrow, which prevented you from receiving injury from us in any respect. 10 For godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation, a repentance not to be regretted; but the sorrow of the world finally produces death. 11 For mark the effects of this very thing--your having sorrowed with a godly sorrow--what earnestness it has called forth in you, what eagerness to clear yourselves, what indignation, what alarm, what longing affection, what jealousy, what meting out of justice! You have completely wiped away reproach from yourselves in the matter.

 What do you do about your spouse who is snared in
adultery, fornication, lesbianism, sodomy, bestiality, incest or etc.? Consider the
following:
**** JOHN 8: 4 they said to Him, Teacher, this woman was taken in adultery, in the
very act. 5 Now Moses in the law commanded us that such should be stoned. You, then, what do you say? . . . 7 But as they continued to ask Him, He lifted Himself up and said to them, He who is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her. . . .
9 And hearing, and being convicted by conscience, they went out one by one, beginning at the oldest, until the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
10. . . Did not one give judgment against you? 11 And she said, No one, Lord. And Jesus said to her, Neither do I give judgment. Go, and sin no more.
**** 1 CORINTH. 5: 1 Everywhere [it is] reported [that there is] fornication among
you, and such fornication as is not named among the nations, so as one to have [his]
father's wife. . . . 3 For as being absent in body but present in spirit, I indeed have 15
already [as though I were] present [concerning] him who worked out this thing; 4 in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, with my spirit; also, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ; 5 to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. . . .
MATT. 5:32* But I say to you that whoever shall put away his wife, except for the
cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery. And whoever shall marry her who is put away commits adultery. 7 Therefore purge out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, as you are unleavened. . . . 11 But now I have written to you not to associate intimately, if any man  called a brother [and is] either a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one not to eat. 12 . . . Do you not judge those
who are inside? 13 . . . Therefore put out from you the evil one.

These show that such a separation can be an exercise in Church discipline, delivering the
Chr istian offender's body for the destruction of the flesh (chastening) to the end that the
erring saint should be effectively chastened and stop sinning and in godly sorrow repent
of the fornication. The sinning saint is chastened>34 into weakness, sickness or sleep
(death) by the Lord. If weakness or sickness results in godly sorrow and repentance, then
the repentant one is restored as in the following:
[Footnote: >34 (1 Cor. 5 &/or 11; Heb.12)

**** 2 CORINTHIANS 7: 8 For even if I grieved you in the letter, I do not regret; if
indeed I did regret; for I see that that letter grieved you for an hour. 9 Now I rejoice, not
that you were grieved, but that you grieved to repentance. For you were grieved according
to God, so that you might suffer loss by nothing in us.
**** 2 CORINTHIANS 2: 6 This punishment by the majority [is] enough for such a
one; 7 so that, on the contrary, you should rather forgive and comfort [him], lest perhaps
such a one should be swallowed up with overwhelming sorrow. 8 So I beseech you to
confirm [your] love toward him. . . 10 But to whom you forgive anything, I also [forgive].
For if I forgave anything, for your sakes I forgave [it] to him in the person of Christ; 11
so that we should not be overreached by Satan, for we are not ignorant of his devices.

These show that such a separation can be an exercise in Church discipline, delivering the Chr istian offender's body for the destruction of the flesh (chastening) to the end that the erring saint should be effectively chastened and stop sinning and in godly sorrow repent of the fornication. The sinning saint is chastened>34 into weakness, sickness or sleep (death) by the Lord. If weakness or sickness results in godly sorrow and repentance, then the repentant one is restored as in the following:
[Footnote: >34 (1 Cor. 5 &/or 11; Heb.12)

**** 2 CORINTHIANS 7: 8 For even if I grieved you in the letter, I do not regret; if
indeed I did regret; for I see that that letter grieved you for an hour. 9 Now I rejoice, not
that you were grieved, but that you grieved to repentance. For you were grieved according
to God, so that you might suffer loss by nothing in us.
**** 2 CORINTHIANS 2: 6 This punishment by the majority [is] enough for such a
one; 7 so that, on the contrary, you should rather forgive and comfort [him], lest perhaps
such a one should be swallowed up with overwhelming sorrow. 8 So I beseech you to
confirm [your] love toward him. . . 10 But to whom you forgive anything, I also [forgive].
For if I forgave anything, for your sakes I forgave [it] to him in the person of Christ; 11
so that we should not be overreached by Satan, for we are not ignorant of his devices.

They would both still be saved and both still be bound to each other maritaly no matter
who else they married or how many kids they might have had in the meantime. There is
nothing in scripture that would indicate the the marital bond between two genuine
Christians is broken by sexual immorality. If adultery required a marital-bond breaking
divorce/separation, then Matt 5:32 would read as follows:
>>But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality
causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced for any
other reason than sexual immorality commits adultery.<<

This would imply that it would NOT be adultery to marry a woman divorced/separated for sexual immorality. But what did Jesus say to genuine believers? He said "... whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery."(Mt 5:32). He gives no qualifier or exception except for 1 Cor. 7:12-15 in the case of the believer divorced/ desserted by the unsaved mate. No matter what the reason for the divorce except 1 Cor. 7:15, including sexual immorality, "whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." "And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery." (Mk.10:12). It is adultery to marry a woman divorced
from her legitimate husband except in the case of 1 Cor. 7:15, in which case God has
loosed her from her husband. It is adultery to marry a genuinely believing woman
divorced from her genuinely believing man if they were free to marry in the Lord when
they married, because when they married they became maritally bound to each other until
death parts them (1Cor. 7:39)

What about if two believers were married and one of them fell into sex sin?
Mt 5:32 But *I* say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except for cause of fornication, makes her commit adultery, and whosoever marries one that is put away commits adultery. . . . . 19:9* And I tell you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except her unfaithfulness, and marries another woman, commits adultery.”
What should be done?  What can be done?

 He never commanded a genuine believer to divorce a genuine believer. It just is
not in the Word. He never commands His child to divorce His other child after He has put them together. But there is a commanded separation or standing back or break in
fellowship that is required by Jesus when one's mate is snared in the sins described below ---- not a divorce, but some form of separation. Consider the following about sinners (for those married to the unsaved) and about "saints" snared in sin:
***MATTHEW 5: 32* But I say to you that whoever shall put away his wife, except for
the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery. And whoever shall marry her who is put away commits adultery.
***Romans 16: 17. . . mark them who cause divisions and causes of offense contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them.
***1 Timothy 6:1-5 If any man. . . . consent not to . . . . the Words of our Lord Jesus . . . withdraw yourself from such.
***2 Timothy 3:1-5: For men shall be lovers of their own selves.........avoid such.
***1 CORINTH. 5: 9 I wrote to you in the letter not to associate intimately with fornicators;
10 yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or
extortioners, or with idolaters; for then you must go out of the world. 11 But now I have
written to you not to associate intimately, if any man called a brother [and is] either a
fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with
such a one not to eat.
***2 THESSALONIANS 3:6 Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord
Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother who walks disorderly,
and not after the teaching which he received from us. . . . 14 And if anyone does not obey
our word by this letter, mark that one and have no company with him, that he may be
ashamed. 15 Yet do not count [him] as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.

Yes there is an avoiding or withdrawing from such spouses but we will see below how 1
Cor. 7:10-15 and Mark 10 etc. exclude the option of marital separation or divorce except
under very specific conditions. He never said that they were no longer bound to each
other as Christian husband and Christian wife according to the scriptures>33 . You and I
know that a married couple can avoid or withdraw from each other in many ways without
getting a divorce. They withdraw emotionally or socially. A saint can't join the sinning
spouse in the sin, so right there is a withdrawal or avoidance.
[Footnote: >33 (Matt. 19:5; Rom. 7:1-5; 1 Cor. 7:10,11,15,39)]

What should be the spouse's attitude be when married to one to whom she/he is
commanded to be manifesting some form of avoidance or withdrawal? The key is in 2
Thess 3:15 above where we enjoined to "not count [him] as an enemy, but admonish him
as a brother." or in 1 Pet. 3:1 where the wives are instructed to "be submissive to your
own husbands so that, if any obey not the Word, they also may without a word be won
by the behavior of the wives . . . . ". Consider the following:
Luke 17:3 Take heed to yourselves. If your brother wrongs you, rebuke him; and if he
repent, forgive him.
Galatians 6:1 Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, you who are spiritual restore such
a one in the Spirit of meekness . . .
John 13:10-15 . . . . you also ought to wash each other's feet, for I have given you an
example, that you should do as I have done to you.
Ephes. 4:15 . . . speaking the Truth in Love . . . .
Ephes 5:6-11 . . . because of these things comes the wrath of God upon the sons of
disobedience. Therefore don't be partakers with them. . . .And have no fellowship with
the unfruitful works of darkness but, rather, reprove [them].
1 Tim. 5:20,21 Them that sin rebuke before all, that others may fear. .
2 Tim. 2:24 And
the servant of the Lord must not strive, but be gentle unto all, able to teach, patient, in
meekness instructing those that oppose them . . . . .
1 Pet. 3:1 . . . be submissive to your own husbands so that, if any obey not the Word,
they also may without a word be won by the behavior of the wives . . . .

What should be the spouse's attitude be when married to one to whom she/he is
commanded to be manifesting some form of avoidance or withdrawal? The key is in
2 Tim. 2:24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive, but be gentle unto all, able to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that oppose them . . . . .
1 Pet. 3:1 . . . be submissive to your own husbands so that, if any obey not the Word,
they also may without a word be won by the behavior of the wives . . . .

According to 1 Cor. 5 it is a whole different ball game if the spouse is often doing,
practicing, regularly or habitually doing any of the following: adultery, fornication, sexual
perversion (sodomy, homosexuality, bestiality, incest), greediness or covetousness, the
worship of false gods, reviling (verbal abuse), drunkeness or intoxication, robbing,
swindling, and/or extorting. The saved spouse is under command NOT to associate, keep
company or be intimate with a spouse who does the above and is claiming to be genuinely
saved, a genuine believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, a born again child of God. This may
take the form of the husband divorcing such a "believing" wife and remarrying (Matt:
19:9) or it may take the form of the wife chastely and maritally separating herself from
such a "believing" spouse (1 Cor. 7:10,11). The reason for this difference in options will
be discussed in the chapter dealing with adultery and its definition.

So then what is the meaning of the following passages?
***Mt 5:32 But *I* say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except for cause of fornication, makes her commit adultery, and whosoever marries one that is put away commits adultery. . . . .

The fact that it is adultery to  marry the wife put away for fornication (sex sin)
clearly indicates that she is still bound to him maritally, and he to her. So what is the purpose of his putting her away?  The purpose of his putting her away is to obey the following Scriptures:
***1Cor 5:11* But what I meant was that you were not to associate with any one bearing the name of “brother,” if he does fornication  . . . . With such a man you ought not even to eat.
***2Thes 3:14* But if any one obey not our word by the letter, mark that man, and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed of himself; 15 and do not esteem him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.

The believing brother separates himself from his sinning wife because he is under command to not associate with her, not to eat with her, and not keep company with her, so that she may become ashamed of herself and repent of her sin in godly sorrow.  He is still bound to her maritally, till death part them,
and 1 Tim 5 makes it clear that he is still responsible to provide what she needs to live.  The purpose of the separation is ultimately to achieve restoration and reconciliation, as in 2 Cor 2.

I believe the saved wife of an unsaved husband, who is involved in the sins listed above in
this section, has the same chaste separation option, from the context of 1 Cor. 7:10-15. I
understand this kind of separation from such sinning mates involves the cessation of
sexual intimacy, until either the sinning spouse repents as in 2 Cor 2 & 7 or the Lord
takes the life of the sinning spouse so as to save his spirit.

There is a parallel in the relationship of the Body of Christ to Christ. When a brother
becomes part of the Bride of Christ Jesus is bound by His own Word in the relationship,
not to put apart what God has put together (John 17:2, 6, 9, 10, 20, 21).So when a
brother stumbles into fornication>35, instead of cutting off the relationship and
disowning him, Jesus Loves him and has promised to chasten him in that Love>36. There
is a break in fellowship, a separation, in that Jesus doesn't respond to his usual
prayers>37 and releases his body to Satan for the destruction of his body>38 in order to
save his spirit>39. He still belongs to Jesus because he shows that his spirit will be saved
even if the chastening doesn't result in repentance>40. No one, neither himself nor Jesus,
can take him out of Jesus hand>41. So the brother is chastened>42 and genuinely
repents>43, resulting in his restoration to good standing and fellowship in the Bride of
Christ and with Jesus.
[Footnote: >35. 1 Cor. 5; 2 Tim. 2:24,26. >36. 1 Cor.5; Hebrews 12. >37. Isaiah; Mat.
6:16; 1 Pet. 3:7; 1 Jn. 3:22,23. >38. 1 Cor. 5:5; 11:27-32; Heb. 12. >39. 1 Cor. 5:6; 11:27-
32 >40. 1 Cor. 5:5; 11:27-32. >41. John 10:28,29. >42. 1 Cor. 5 & 2 Cor. 2. >43. 2 Cor. 2
and 7].

Another parallel is Jesus and the nation Israel. Israel became the bride of
Jehovah/Jesus>44. When Israel misused their bodies/temple, Jehovah/Jesus allowed their
bodies to suffer>45. He didn't end His relationship/promises with the nation Israel, even
though He allowed many of them to suffer/die and allowed the temple to be destroyed.
When Israel repented genuinely, He restored His fellowship and blessings to the
genuinely repentant, even allowing them to rebuild the temple for full fellowship>46.
Jehovah/Jesus' bond with the nation Israel was not annulled and broken by their sin nor
the chastening He allowed>47.
[Footnote: >44. (Ex. 20; Ezek. 16:7; 23:1-6). >45. 1Cor. 10:9,10 >46. Ezra, Nehemiah.
>47. Ezekiel 16 and 23; Hosea]

In American reality, because of the wretchedly poor Bible teaching today Christians,
divorce and remarry almost as much as J.Q Public. The Christian wife divorces her
Christian husbandand remarries in adultery reaping the chastening of the Lord until she
dies>48 or repents in reconciliation or celibacy if she is genuinely born again. The
Christian man divorces his Christian wife and remarries. If he really repudiates his
Christian wife for another and marries another he commits adultery>49 and reaps the
Lord's chastening. At this point we need to define our terms.
[Footnotes:>48. (1 Cor 5 and 11:29-32); >49 (Mark 10, Luke 16, Matt 5, 1 Cor 7)]


IV-A. MARRIAGE,  POLYGYNY & CONCUBINES FROM GENESIS TO JUDGES

THE FIRST MARRIAGE
Gen.2: 7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into
his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom
he had formed. 9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is
pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and
the tree of knowledge of good and evil. . . 15 And the LORD God took the man, and put
him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou
mayest freely eat: 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat
of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
18 And the LORD God said, [It is] not good that the man should be alone; I will make
him an help meet for him. 19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast
of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought [them] unto Adam to see what he
would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that [was] the name
thereof. 20 And Adam gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every
animal of the field. But there was not found a suitable helper for Adam.
21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept. And He took
one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh underneath. 22 And the LORD God made the rib
(which He had taken from the man) into a woman. And He brought her to the man.
>>>>[Is this an ideal setting for the first marriage? Do we have such a face to face
relationship with God? Had man been designated as her head/ruler yet? Had she been told
by God yet that Adam would take the lead in their marriage? Weren't they still perfectly
equal partners still? Is it realistic to take this perfect marriage-in-paradise and hold it up
as the norm and standard for us today? Wasn't it God Himself that changed the marital
relationship when they were expelled from the Garden? Does God anywhere in His Word
say that this marriage-made-in-Paradise is to be our model and standard for Godly
marriage? Where? If He didn't make it the norm and the standard, dare we make it the
standard (Mark 7)?
[Is there anything in this first marriage that clearly and specifically allows only
monogyny? Is there anything in this first marriage that clearly and specifically forbids
polygyny? Is there anything in this passage that indicates that God set monogyny up as
the model we must follow? Is there anything in this passage that clearly and specifically
instructs us to follow Adam's example of monogyny?]

[The first mention of marriage in the Bible is where God miraculously provided Eve to
Adam in the Garden of God. Monogamists say that if God approved of polygyny God
would have given Eve, Eyvette, Eva and Evellyn to Adam. On the other hand, just like
with you and I, if we have more than one good option, we dont need to exercise all of
them, just the one that is best at the time. There is no quarrel with the fact that God has
ordained that the male leaders of his Church are to have one wife>33 , and that even in the
Old Testament the leaders were instructed not to multiply wives to themselves. To be a
valid prefigure of Christ (as the first Adam) you would expect Adam to have one wife,
just as Christ, the last Adam, has one wife the Church. [Footnote: >33 1 Tim. 3; Titus 1]

Gen.2: 23 And Adam said, This [is] now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. [She]
shall be called Woman because [she] was taken out of man.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife and
they shall be one flesh. 25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife; and they
were not ashamed.
Does Jesus' statement The two shall become
one flesh  mean that only one man and one woman
should become one flesh, as in monogamy>57 , as
most of the "leaders" maintain? Doesn't the Spirit uses The
two shall become one flesh principle in 1 Corinth. 6
to show that he who is joined to a harlot is one body
with her , and then uses the same one flesh
principle in Eph. 5 about a husband and his wife?
Jerome (340-420AD) didn't indicate any problem
understanding the possibility when he wrote,
"Lamech, a man of
blood and a murderer, was the first who divided one
flesh between two wives.">58
[Footnotes:>.57 Please see THE INSTITUTES OF
BIBLICAL LAW, by R. Rushdonney, p. 363. >.58 A
Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers
of The Christian Church, Vol. VIII; p. 358.]

Since the harlot is one flesh with every fornicator she
has sexual union with and the husband is one flesh
with his wife, how can the one flesh principle be unique to
marriage and how can it be an argument for monogamy
or against polygyny ? Doesn't the one flesh principle in
physical reality describe only the result of
sexual union, whether it involve a harlot, a fornicator,
a married couple or a polygamous marriage? Weren't David,
Israel and Abraham one flesh with each of
their wives, just as the adulteress of Prov. 6 & 7 was
one flesh with each of her adulterers? Under the Law
by Moses, being one flesh could have been the basis
for marriage>11 but not so for us after the Sinai Law
of Moses was declared voided for Gentile/nonJewish
believers in Acts 15 and 21; Eph. 2 and Col. 2,
especially in the case of 1 Cor. 7:9; 1 Tm. 5:11-14, right?If
we do not control ourselves today, aren't we commanded
to marry>12 , with who to marry not specified, only
that your mate be saved>13 and godly>14?
[Footnotes: >11 (Deut. 22:22-30; Ex. 22:16,17). >12
1 Cor. 7:9,36; 1 Tim 5:14; Appendix Six of this
document. >13. 2 Corinthians 6. .>14 1 Corinthians
5:9-11; 2 Thess. 3:6-14]

Gen.3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree [was] good for food. and that it was
pleasing to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make wise, she took of its fruit, and ate.
She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. 7 And the eyes of both of them were
opened. And they knew that they [were] naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and
made girdles for themselves. 8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the
garden in the cool of the day. And Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of
the LORD God in the middle of the trees of the garden.
9 And the LORD God called to Adam and said to him, Where [are] you? 10 And he said,
I heard Your voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I [am] naked, and I hid myself.
11 And He said, Who told you that you [were] naked? Have you eaten of the tree which I
commanded you that you should not eat? 12 And the man said, The woman whom You
gave [to be] with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate. 13 And the LORD God said to
the woman, What [is] this you have done? And the woman said, The serpent deceived
me, and I ate.
16 To the woman He said, I will greatly increase your sorrow and your conception. In
pain you shall bear sons, and your desire shall be toward your husband, and he shall rule
over you.
17 And to Adam He said, Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have
eaten of the tree, of which I commanded you, saying, You shall not eat [of] it! The ground
[is] cursed for your sake. In pain shall you eat of it all the days of your life. 18 It shall
also bring forth thorns and thistles to you, and you shall eat the herb of the field. 19 In
the sweat of your face you shall eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you
were taken. For dust you [are], and to dust you shall return.
20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.
21 And for Adam and his wife the LORD God made coats of skins, and clothed them.
22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man has become as one of Us, to know good
and evil. And now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and
live forever, 23 therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden to till the
ground from which he had been taken. 24 And He drove out the man. And He placed
cherubs at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to
guard the way to the tree of life.
4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife. And she conceived and bore Cain, and said, I have
gotten a man from the LORD. 2 And she bore again, his brother Abel. And Abel was a
keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
>>>>>[ Are they now in a whole new "universe", under a curse, mortal, subject to
sickness and weakness and a whole new way of relating to each other as a result of their
sin? Isn't there a significant change in their relationship with each other and with God?
Hadn't the ideal first marriage become a very different thing because of sin? Didn't their
world become like ours is today? Isn't this the beginning of the changes that would take
place in human matrimony? Is there anything in this first marriage that clearly and
specifically allows only monogyny? Is there anything in this first marriage that clearly
and specifically forbids polygyny? Is there anything in this passage that indicates that
God set monogyny up as the model we must follow? Is there anything in this passage
that clearly and specifically instructs us to follow Adam's example of monogyny?]
[Leaders say that one of God's purposes in creation was that the marital standard for man
be monogamy>32 even though there is not one scripture, quoted or paraphrased, that
says that. Yet I understand a Christian elder and most of the "leaders" to persist,
apparently maintaining that there is no doubt that God's indisputable will, as seen in the
Old Testament, is monogamy.>33.
[Footnotes:>.32 Please see THE INSTITUTES OF BIBLICAL LAW, page 362, by R.
Rushdonney.; >33. Trobisch, MY WIFE MADE ME. . . P.21]

Whether or not it is the best form of marriage for each individual depends on the gift and
the leading (Rom. 8:1-14) each individual receives from God. St. Augustine (4th Century
AD) had a gentler way of saying it that I feel more reflects the God of Gen. 1 and 1 Cor.
13. Consider the following:
That the good purpose of marriage, however, is better promoted by one husband with one
wife, than by a husband with several wives, is shown plainly enough by the very first
union of a married pair, which was made by the Divine Being Himself, with the intention
of marriages taking their beginning therefrom, and of its affording to them a more
honorable precedent. In the advance, however, of the human race, it came to pass that to
certain good men were united a plurality of good wives, --- many to each; and from this it
would seem that moderation sought rather unity on one side for dignity, while nature
permitted plurality on the other side for fecundity. For on natural principles it is more
feasible for one to have dominion over many, than for many to have dominion over one.
[Footnote: >..34 2b A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The
Christian Church; Vol. V; p. 267]
Not one verse, quoted or paraphrased, says that God's purpose was that "monogamy be
the standard for man" but most of our relgious leaders teach this doctrine. They say that
Gen. 2:18-24 shows that "The normative marriage is clearly monogamous.
First that passage says nothing about Gen 2 being normative, and no other passage in the
Bible says that. None of us are commanded by God to emulate or imitate Adam. Adam
had to be unique as the first Adam just as Christ had to be unique to be the last
Adam>35. , and being unique it is no surprise that both Adams have one unique wife (the
first Adam, Eve; the last Adam>36. Jesus, the Church). In the Old Testament Jesus
portrayed Himself as a polygynist>37 in accordance with His own Law governing
polygyny, and as King of Kings He did not multiply wives to Himself. In the New
Testament as the Leader of the Church, He could have only one wife in accordance with
His own Law governing the marital status of Church leaders>4
[Footnotes:>.35. 1 Cor. 15:45-49; Romans 5:12-21. >.36. DITTO 1 Cor. 15:45-49;
Romans 5:12-21. >.37 Ezekiel 23; >.>4 Titus 1; 1 Timothy 3]

"Monogamy is implicit in the story of Adam and Eve, since God created only one wife
for Adam. Yet polygyny is adopted from the time of Lamech (Gn. 4:19), and is not
forbidden inScripture. . . ...Polygamy continues to the present day among Jews in
Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Asian, Oriental, and African countries." [Douglas New Bible
Dictionary : MARRIAGE: .....p.787]
. . Elkanah, the husband of Hannah and Peninnah, is an interesting example of a man of no
particular position who nevertheless had more than one wife; this may be an indication
that bigamy, at least, if not polygamy, was not confined to the very wealthy and exalted.
At all events, polygyny was an established and recognized institution from the earliest of
times.>39 [Footnote: >39. HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE; p.259.]

Polygamy meets us as a fact: e.g. Abraham, Jacob, the Judges, David, Solomon; 1 Ch 7:4
is evidence of its prevalence in Issachar; Elkanah (1 Sam.1:1ff) is significant as belonging
to the middle class; Jehoida (2 Ch 24:3) as a priest. . .Legislation . . . safeguarded the
rights of various wives, slave or free; and according to the Rabbinical interpretation of Lv
21:13>40. . . .the high priest was not allowed to be a bigamist. . . The marriage figure
applied to the union of God and Israel . . . implied monogamy as the ideal state. . . Being ..
apparently legalized, and having the advantage of precedent, it was long before polygamy
was formally forbidden in Hebrew society, though practically it fell into disuse; the
feeling of the Rabbis was strongly against it. Herod had nine wives at once. . . Its
possibility is implied by the technical continuance of the Levirate law, [Deut. 25:5-10]
and is proved by the early interpretation of 1 Ti 3, whether correct or not. Justin
reproaches the Jews of his day [A.D.] with having 'four or even five wives,' and marrying
'as they wish, or as many as they wish.' The evidence of the Talmud shows that in this
case at least the reproach had some foundation. Polygamy was not definitely forbidden
among the Jews till the time of R. Gershom (c. A.D. 1000), and then at first only for
France and Germany. In Spain, Italy, and the East it persisted for some time longer, as it
does still among the Jews in Mohammedan countries>41.
[Footnote: (>.(40. Septuagint Lev. 21:13 "He shall take for a wife a virgin of his own
tribe.". .>41. HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE; p.583ff.]

Eugene Nida's (American Bible Society) book Customs and Cultures>42 documents the
practice of polygyny by Christians in non Western countries, and how it is still practiced
in China, SE Asia, India, Africa and parts of South America. Eugene Nida points out that
when polygamists become Christians they are told of their limitations in church offices
and are asked not to take any additional wives because it stumbles western Christians>5 .
They are not usually asked to abandon their other wives to a premature widowhood
because of l Cor. 7:1-15.
[Footnotes:>.42 1954, Harper & Brothers, New York; >5 (Rom 14, l Cor. 8 and 10)]

The unscriptural condemnation of polygyny/concubinage by the Western Christian
community has proven to be one of the main obstacles for people in Eastern and third
world countries to accept the message of Christ, especially if Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist,
Asian, Oriental, or African, fulfilling Christ's Word in Mark 7:13 "making the word of
God of no effect through your tradition which you have delivered . . ." The Western
Christian tradition against polygyny hinders the spread of the Gospel of Christ in
Moslem and other polygynous societies.

What about all those third world folks, especially the Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Asian,
Oriental, and Africans, who are practicing polygyny/ concubinage and are told that they
have to dump or abandon their extra wives in order to become Christians? This
requirement keeps many from Christ and alienates many against Christ, being one of the
biggest obstacles for the Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Asian, Oriental, and African
communities. These "Christian" folks who feel their own tradition about monogamy and
polygyny must be kept by Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Asian, Oriental, and Africans and
other third world polygamists for them to become Christians, sound like the folks: Mat.
23:13 " But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for you shut up the
kingdom of the heavens before men; for *you* do not enter, nor do you suffer those that
are entering to go in."

The angels are waiting to rejoice over the conversion of one polygamous Moslem, Hindu,
Buddhist, Asian, Oriental, and African or third worlder. "Christian legalists and
traditionalists" wont let them into their "Christian" churches unless they sin by (1)
"dealing treacherously">6 with their wives by putting them away in repudiation, (2)
disobeying Christ's command not to leave their wives>7 , and (3) not remaining in the
marital condition in which they were called to Christ, whether it be concubinage,
polygyny or in monogamy. I understand one source to make the point has been made that
it would be brutal for the Christian community to force a polygamist to have to choose
between (1) being saved and then baptized, and (2) having his wives in legally and
sociably acceptable polygyny.>43.
[Footnotes:>6 Malachi 2; >7 1 Cor. 7:11,12,13,14; ^>.^43. Trobisch, MY WIFE MADE
ME. . . P.33; [Karl Barth, CHURCH DOGMATICS, III/4, p. 203].

So what is the solution? What is God's solution? At the very least the Spirit's Word in
Paul tells us that if you, husband or wife, are saved in polygyny/concubinage, then remain
in polygyny/concubinage and accept it as God's distribution for each person involved in
particular.
1 Cor.7: 17 However, as the Lord has divided to each, as God has called each, so let him
walk; and thus I ordain in all the assemblies. . . . 20 Let each abide in that calling in which
he has been called. . . . 24 Let each, wherein he is called, brethren, therein abide with God.
. . . 26 I think then that this is good, on account of the present necessity, that [it is] good
for a man to remain so as he is. 27 Are you bound to a wife? Seek not to be loosed; are
you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife.

ADAM'S CREATOR, JEHOVAH, LATER PRESENTED HIMSELF AS A
POLYGYNIST WITH TWO WIVES.
**** EZEKIEL 23: 1 The word of the LORD came again to me, 2 Son of man, there
were two women, the daughters of one mother. 3 And they fornicated in
Egypt; they whored in their youth, their breasts were handled, and there their Oholibah,
her sister. And they were Mine, and they bore sons and daughters . And their names:
Samaria [is] Oholah, and Jerusalem [is] Oholibah. 5 And Oholah whored under Me. And
she lusted after her lovers, to [her] Assyrian neighbors, . . . 18 So she uncovered her
fornications and uncovered her nakedness. And My soul was alienated from her just as
My soul was alienated from her sister. 36 And the LORD said to me: Son of man, will
you judge Oholah and Oholibah, and declare to them their abominations, 37 that they have
committed adultery , and blood [is] on their hands? And they have committed adultery
with their idols and have also caused their sons whom they bore to Me to pass through
the fire to them, to devour them. . . . . 45 And [as] righteous men, they shall judge them
[with] the judgment of adulteresses, and the judgment of women who shed blood;
because they [are] adulteresses, and blood [is] in their hands.

EZEK 16:8 And I swore to you and entered into a covenant with you, says the Lord
Jehovah. And you became Mine, and they bore sons and daughters . And
their names: Samaria [is] Oholah, and Jerusalem [is] Oholibah. . . . . . . 20 And you have
taken your sons and your daughters, whom you have borne to Me, and you gave these to
them for food. [Are] your fornications small? . . . . . . . . . 30 How weak is your heart,
says the Lord Jehovah, since you do all these, the work of a woman, an overbearing
harlot; 31 in that you build your mound at the head of every way, and make your high
place in every street. Yet you have not been as a harlot, scorning wages. 32 [Like] the
adulterous wife,  instead of her husband, she takes strangers. 33 They give a gift to all
harlots, but you give your gifts to all your lovers, and bribe them to come to you from all
around, for your fornication. 34 And in you was the opposite from [those] women in
your fornications, since no one whores after you, and in your giving wages, and hire is not
given to you. [In] this you are opposite. . . . . . . 59 For so says the Lord Jehovah: I will
even deal with you as you have done, who have despised the oath in breaking the
covenant.
60 But I will remember My covenant with you in the days of your youth, and I will
establish to you an everlasting covenant. 61 And you shall remember your ways and be
ashamed, when you shall receive your sisters, your older and your younger. And I will
give them to you for daughters, but not by [your] covenant. 62 And I will establish My
covenant with you; and you shall know that I [am] the LORD; 63 so that you may
remember and be ashamed; and it will not be [possible] to open [your] mouth any more
because of your shame; in that I am propitiated for all that you have done, says the Lord
Jehovah.

Does God ever portray Himself as a sinner commiting sin? Can polygyny be a sin if God
portrays Himself as a polygynist? Is there anything in this passage that condemns or
forbids polygyny? In the Old Testament Jesus, as Jehovah>34 , presents Himself as the
husband of one wife remembering their wedding day and the exchange of the vows at
Mt. Sinai in the desert>35 . Reflecting the reality of how Israel and Judah divided after
Solomon died, Jesus (as Jehovah) presents Himself as the husband of two wives
God never presents Himself as sin or sinner to us except for when holy Christ became sin
for us on the cross. In Ezek. 23, the sinners were His wives and He was righteous as the
husband of two wives. It was only two wives in accordance with His own Law that
decreed that the ruler must not multiply wives to himself. Polygyny , even Gods
polygyny , is NEVER labeled or declared to be sin or sinful in the Bible.
God portrays Himself, in the fullness of His holiness, as the polygamous husband of two
wives in Ezekiel 23. I believe God was not a victim of the fall, and remains holy in a
world of sin. If polygamy clearly appears as a product of the fall then why isnt there one
scripture or even one verse that says that? Since there isnt, it seems to be more mens
teaching. No where does polygyny appear, in the Old or the New Testaments, in any list
of sins, list of fleshly works or list of abominations to God. I understand Rev. Gerhard
Jasper to make the following points: (1) In Old Testament times a Jewish polygynist's
marriage was fully recognized as marriage, protected by the Law and the elders; (2) the
Jewish polygynist's faith in or faithfulness to God was not questioned because of his
polygyny; (3) the polygyny of the Jewish polygynist did not keep him from being
admitted to the congregation with full membership.>44. Moses did not forbid
polygamy>8 (Dt. 21:15,16) >8 but apparently it was unusual among average people
.>45.
[Footnotes:>.f89 Please see p. 362, THE INTSTITUTES OF BIBLICAL LAW, by R.
Rushdonney. >44. Trobisch, MY WIFE MADE ME. . . P.18; (AFRICAN
THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL, Rev. Gerhard Jasper of Lutheran Theological College in
Makumira, Tanzania; Februrary 1969, p. 41). >45. Please see THE INTERNATIONAL
BIBLE COMMENTARY; p. 407.]

St. Augustine (4th Century AD) had a good word on this subject. Consider the
following:That the holy fathers of olden times after Abraham, and before him, to whom
God gave His testimony that "they pleased Him," [Heb. 11:4-6] thus used their wives, no
one who is a Christian ought to doubt, since it was permitted to certain individuals
amongst them to have a plurality of wives, where the reason was for the multiplication of
their offspring, not the desire of varying gratification. . .In the advance . . . of the human
race, it came to pass that to certain good men were united a plurality of good wives, ---
many to each; and from this it would seem that moderation sought rather unity on one
side for dignity, while nature permitted plurality on the other side for fecundity. For on
natural principles it is more feasible for one to have dominion over many, than for many
to have dominion over one.>46
[Footnote: >46 A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian
Church Vol. V; p. 267.]


LAMECH, THE FIRST POLYGYNIST.
Gen.4:17 And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. And he built a city,
and called the name of the city after the name of his son, Enoch. 18 And Irad was born to
Enoch. And Irad fathered Mehujael. And Mehujael fathered Methusael. And Methusael
fathered Lamech.
19 And Lamech took two wives to himself. The name of the first one [was] Adah, and the
name of the other [was] Zillah.

As Jerome (340-420AD) put it, "Lamech, a man of blood and a murderer, was the first
who divided one flesh between two wives." >3 Some maintain that polygamy was much
less common in the Old Testament than is frequently thought to be the case, though its
practice usually seemed to have a valid reason >4.
[Footnotes:>39. **** GEN. 4: 19 ; A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene
Fathers of The Christian Church,Vol. VIII; p. 358. >4. Please see THE
INTERNATIONAL BIBLE COMMENTARY; p.119.]

Have you considered what Saint Augustine said in the fourth century AD?
"But here there is no ground for a criminal
accusation: for a plurality of wives was no crime when
it was the custom; and it is a crime now, because it is
no longer the custom. There are sins against nature,
and sins against custom, and sins against the laws. In
which, then, of these senses did Jacob sin in having a
plurality of wives? As regards nature, he used the
women not for sensual gratification, but for the
procreation of children. For custom, this was the
common practice at that time in those countries. And
for the laws, no prohibition existed. The only reason
of its being a crime now to do this, is because custom
and the laws forbid it."
[Footnote: >.14 A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian
Church, Vol. iv; p. 289]

THE POLYGYNOUS PATRIARCH, ABRAHAM , SARAH AND HAGAR

GEN. 16: 2 And Sarai said to Abram, Behold now, the LORD has kept me from
bearing. I pray you, go in to my slave woman. It may be that I may be built by her. And
Abram listened to the voice of Sarai. 3 And Sarai, Abram's wife, took
Hagar her slave woman, the Egyptian, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his
wife  (after Abram had lived ten years in the land of Canaan); . . . . 9 And the Angel of the
LORD said to her [Hagar], Return to your mistress and submit yourself under her
hands. 10 And the Angel of the LORD said to her, I will multiply your seed exceedingly,
so that it shall not be numbered for multitude. 11 And the Angel of the LORD said to her,
Behold, you are with child, and shall bear a son. And you shall call his name Ishmael,
because the LORD has heard your affliction 12 And he will be a wild man. His hand will
be against every man, and every man's hand against him. And he shall live in the presence
of all his brothers. 13 And she called the name of the LORD who had spoken to her, You
[are] a God of vision! For she said, Even here have I looked after Him that sees me? 14
Therefore the well was called The Well of the Living One Seeing Me. Behold, [it is]
between Kadesh and Bered. 15 And Hagar bore Abram a son . And Abram called his son's name, which Hagar bore, Ishmael. 16 And Abram [was] eighty-six years old when Hagar
bore Ishmael to Abram. . . . 17: 1 And when Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, I [am] the Almighty God! Walk before Me and be
perfect. 2 And I will make My covenant between Me and you, and will multiply you exceedingly. 3  And Abram fell on his face. And God talked with him, saying,
4 As for Me, behold! My covenant is with you, and you shall be a father of many
nations. 5 Neither shall your name any more be called Abram, but your name shall be
Abraham. For I have made you a father of many nations. 6 And I will make you
exceedingly fruitful, greatly so, and I will make nations of you, and kings shall come
out of you. 7 And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your seed after you in
their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God to you and to your seed after
you. 8 And I will give the land to you in which you are a stranger, and to your seed
after you, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession. And I will be their
God. 9 And God said to Abraham, And you shall keep My covenant, you and your seed
after you in their generations. 10 This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between
Me and you and your seed after you. Every male child among you shall be circumcised.

[If polygyny is a sin, why does God bless both Abraham and his two wives in their
polygny? Is there anything in this passage that specifically and clearly shows God's
disapproval of and displeasure in Abraham's polygyny?]

15 And God said to Abraham, As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her name
Sarai, but her name [shall be] Sarah. 16 And I will bless her, and give you a son also
of her. Yes, I will bless her, and she shall be [a mother] of nations, kings of people shall
be from her. 17 And Abraham fell upon his face and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall [a
child] be born to him that is a hundred years old? And shall Sarah, who is ninety years
old, bear? 18 And Abraham said to God, Oh that Ishmael might live before You! 19 And
God said, Sarah your wife shall bear you a son indeed. And you shall call his name
Isaac. And I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with
his seed after him. 20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard you. Behold, I have blessed him,
and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly. He shall father twelve
princes, and I will make him a great nation. 21 But I will establish My covenant with
Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this set time in the next year.  22 And He left off
talking with him, and God went up from Abraham.

[If polygyny is condemned by God and forbidden to man, then why does God bless
Sarah who influenced Abraham to become a polygynist? If Abraham's polygyny was a
sin, why did God bless the offspring of his polygyny? If Abraham's polygyny was a sin,
why did God personally talk with him and bless him so richly? Where is the
condemnation of Abraham's polygyny?]

23 And Abraham took his son Ishmael, and all that were born in his house, and all that
were bought with his silver; every male among the men of Abraham's house; and
circumcised the flesh of their foreskins in the same day, even as God said to him. 24 And
Abraham [was] ninety-nine years old when he was circumcised in the flesh of his
foreskin. 25 And his son Ishmael [was] thirteen years old [when] he was circumcised in
the flesh of his foreskin. 26 In the same day Abraham and his son Ishmael were
circumcised.
GEN. 21:1 And the LORD visited Sarah as He had said. And the LORD did to Sarah as
He had spoken. 2 For Sarah conceived and bore Abraham a son in his old age, at the set
time of which God had spoken to him. 3 And Abraham called the name of his son that
was born to him (whom Sarah bore to him) Isaac. 4 And Abraham circumcised his son
Isaac when he was eight days old, as God had commanded him.

WHERE IS THE CONDEMNATION OF ABRAHAM'S POLYGYNY? WHERE IS
THE DENUNCIATION OF THE CHILDREN OF HIS POLYGYNY?

Gen. 21: 9 And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian (whom she had borne to
Abraham) mocking. 10 And she said to Abraham, Cast out this slave woman and her
son. For the son of this slave woman shall not be heir with my son, with Isaac. 11 And
the thing was very evil in Abraham's sight, because of his son. 12 And God said to
Abraham, Let it not be grievous in your sight because of the boy and because of your
slave woman. In all that Sarah has said to you, listen to her voice. For in Isaac your
Seed shall be called. 13 And also, I will make a nation of the son of the slave woman,
because he [is] your seed.

WAS SHE KICKED OUT BECAUSE THEY BELIEVED THEIR POLYGYNY
DISPLEASED GOD? WHAT IS THE REASON SARAH GAVE FOR THE
EXPULSION OF HAGAR AND ISHMAEL? DID HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH
THEIR POLYGYNY?

GEN. 21: 14 And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and took bread and a bottle of
water, and gave [it] to Hagar, putting [it] on her shoulder. And he gave her the boy, and
sent her away. And she departed and wandered in the wilderness of Beer-sheba. 15 And
the water was gone in the bottle, and she cast the boy under one of the shrubs. 16 And
she went and sat down across from him, a good way off, about a bowshot. For she said,
Let me not see the death of the boy. And she sat across from him, and lifted up her voice,
and cried. 17 And God heard the voice of the boy, and the angel of God called to Hagar
out of the heavens, and said to her, What ails you, Hagar? Do not fear, for God has
heard the voice of the boy where he is. 18 Rise up, lift up the boy and hold him up with
your hand, for I will make him a great nation. 19 And God opened her eyes, and she
saw a well of water; and she went and filled the bottle with water, and gave drink to the
boy. 20 And God was with the boy, and he grew, and lived in the wilderness, and
became an archer.  21 And he lived in the wilderness of Paran, and his mother took a wife
for him out of the land of Egypt.

WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT GOD CONDEMNED OR PUNISHED HAGAR AND
ISHMAEL FOR THEIR POLYGYNY? If their polygyny were a sin, why did God take
such good care of them and promise them such great blessings?

***Gen.22: 20 And it happened after these things that it was told Abraham, saying, Behold
Milcah! She also has borne children to your brother Nahor: 21 Huz his first-born, and
Buz his brother, and Kemuel the father of Aram, 22 and Chesed, and Hazo, and Pildash,
and Jidlaph, and Bethuel. 23 And Bethuel fathered Rebekah. These eight Milcah bore to
Nahor, Abraham's brother. 24 And his concubine, named Reumah, she also bore
Tebah, and Gaham, and Thahash, and Maachah.
***Gen. 23: 19 And after this, Abraham buried Sarah his wife in the cave at the field of
Machpelah before Mamre, which [is] Hebron, in the land of Canaan.
***Gen. 25: 1 Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah. 2 And she bore
him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah. 3 And
Jokshan fathered Sheba and Dedan. And the sons of Dedan were Asshurim and Letushim
and Leummim. 4 And the sons of Midian: Ephah and Epher and Hanoch and Abida and
Eldaah. All these [were] the sons of Keturah. 5 And Abraham gave all that he had to
Isaac. 6 But to the sons of the concubines which Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts. And
he sent them away from Isaac his son while he still lived, eastward to the east country.
****1 Chronicles 1: 32 And the sons of Keturah, Abraham's concubine : She bore Zimran,
and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah. And the sons of Jokshan:
Sheba and Dedan. 33 And the sons of Midian: Ephah, and Epher, and Henoch, and Abida,
and Eldaah. All these [are] the sons of Keturah.

[Where is God's denunciation of Abraham for having concubines? Where is God's
denunciation of the concubines for marrying Abraham? Where is Abraham's confession of
his sin, if polygyny is sinful as some say?]

Have you considered the following?
". . . a man's 'house' might consist of his mother; his
wives and the wives' children; his concbines and their
children . . . and slaves of both sexes. Polygamy was
in part the cause of the large size of the Hebrew
household; in part thecause of it may be found in the
insecurity of early times, when safety lay in numbers
. . . Polygyny and bigamy were recognized features of
the family life. From the Oriental point of view there
was nothing immoral in the practice of polygamy.
The female slaves were in every respect the property
of their master and became his concubines; except in
certain cases, when they seem to have belonged
exclusively to their mistress . . . At all events,
polygyny was an established and recognized
institution form the earliest times">8 HASTINGS
DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE; p.259.

Eerdmans' Douglas' New Bible Dictionary: Concubine.
A secondary wife acquired by purchase or as a war
captive, and allowed in polygamous society such as
existed in the Middle east in biblical times....Where
marriages produced no heir, wives presented a slave
concubine too their husbands in order to raise an heir
(Gen. 16). Handmaidens, given as a marriage gift,
were often concubines (Gen. 29:24,29). Concubines
were protected under Mosaic law (Exod. 21:7-11; Dt.
21:10-14), though they were distinguished from
wives (Jdg. 8:31) and were more easily divorced
(Gen.21:10-14)."
[Footnote: >10. 1962, IVCF, Editor J.D.Douglas; W. B.
Eerdmans Publishing]

FUNK & WAGNALLS NEW ENCYCLOPEDIA:
CONCUBINAGE, refers to the cohabitation of a man
and a woman without sanction of legal marriage.
Specifically, concubinage is a form of polygyny in
which the primary matrimonial relationship is
supplemented by one or more secondary sexual
relationships. Concubinage was a legally sanctioned
and socially acceptable practice in ancient cultures,
including that of the Hebrews; concubines, however,
were denied the protection to which a legal wife was
entitled. . .. In Roman law, marriage was precisely
defined as monogamous; concubinage was tolerated,
but the concubine's status was inferior to that of a
legal wife. Her children had certain rights, including
support by the father and legitimacy in the event of
the marriage of the parents [>11 1986, Funk &
Wagnalls]

HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE: The relative
positions of wives and concubines were determined
mainly by the husband's favour. The children of the
wife claimed the greater part, or the whole, of the
inheritance; otherwise there does not seem to have
been any inferiority in the position of the concubine
as compared with that of the wife, nor was any idea
of illegitimacy, in our sense of the word, connected
with her children. . . . The female slaves were in every
respect the property of their master, and became his
concubines; except in certain cases, when they seem
to have belonged exclusively to their mistress, and
could not be appropriated by the man except by her
suggestion or consent (Gn 16:2,3). The slave-
concubines were obtained as booty in time of war (Jg
5:30), or bought from poverty-stricken parents (Ex
21:7); or, possibly, in the ordinary slave traffic with
foreign nations. >12
[Footnote: >12. HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE;
p.259.]

The difference between a wife and a concubine
depended on the wife's higher position and birth,
usually backed by relatives ready to defend her. >13
[Footnote: >13. 1989, HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE
BIBLE; p.585.]

For this paper a distinction is made between a mistress and a concubine. I understand a
mistress to mean a human female who has sexual (breast &/or vagina) intimacy with
another human with whom she has no marital covenants/vows/ commitment. So a
mistress is in the same category as a whore, harlot, prostitue etc. except that she might be
having sexual intimacy with only one person during a specific period. I attempt to show
at length, later in the paper, that in the Bible a concubine has the status of a wife, even
though it may be by informal marital covenants/vows/ commitments. And so, continuing
the discussion . . . . Having one wife/concubine is said to significantly complicate ones life
and distract one who is waiting on God>37 , so of course we understand that any godly
man with more than one wife/concubine would be significantly more distracted from
waiting on God and would have a significantly greater struggle in his spiritual life with
God. In the New Testament in accordance with His law for church leaders, Jesus presents
Himself to His people as having only one wife, the Church>38 because believing Jews
and believing Gentiles were reconciled into one Body, the Church, to be one unified and
united Bride to Christ.
[Footnotes:>37 1 Cor. 7; >38 (1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1) ]

In the Bible's reality is a concubine the same as a mistress? In the following paragraphs I
believe you will see that a concubine has marital status in God's eyes even though socially
and culturally she doen't have as high a status as a wife who was married publicly and
according to the laws of the culture. The difference between a wife and a concubine is
discussed in the next paragraph. On the other hand a mistress is a female who lets "her
man" relate to her sexually by means of her breasts>50 and/or genitals>51 without them
making or agreeing to any marital "for life" commitments or covenants>52. So a mistress
provides sex and affection to her partner without marital commitments or covenants.
[Footnotes:>50 Prov. 5:19,20,21; Ezek.23:3,8,21; >51 1 Cor. 6:15,16, 17,18; >52 Prov.
2:16,17,18,19; 5:3,4,5,6; 6:24,25,26; 7; Ezek. 16; 23]

The only differences I can detect between a concubine and a wife are: (1) that the
concubine's marriage is confirmed by a solemn covenant between the husband and
concubine>53 without a public wedding, (2) the concubines rights were protected by God
(see below), and (3) their status as concubines spared them certain penalties>54 . The
Holy Spirit by the writer of Judges 19 declared the Levite to be the concubine's
"husband", declared the father of the concubine to be the Levite's "father-in-law", and
declared the Levite to be the "son-in-law" of the concubine's father. This is a very strong
legitimization of the husband-concubine marital status. It is the same legitimization of the
relationship that the Holy Spirit used in Matthew 1, calling the espoused Mary "wife"
and the espoused Joseph "husband". If God so recognizes them and describes them, then
who are we to do any less. By the Holy Spirit here in Judges 19 we see that a concubine
had a "husband" who was the "son-in-law" of her father, his "father-in-law". A wife has a
"husband" who is the "son-in-law" of her father, her husband's "father-in-law".
[Footnotes:>53 (Ezek. 16 and Malachi 2); >54 (Lev. 19:20 vs. Deut. 22)]

Sarai gave her slave/maid "to her husband Abram to be his wife", not concubine, but wife.
Consider the following points that appear to be made in one commentary: (1) It was
Sarai's idea>* ; (2) it was a common at the time for a wife to obligate herself to get an heir
by providing a slave girl to her husband so he could have his heir by the slave girl; (3) this
was legal but left a tangle of emotions due to the heartlessness of conventional law; (4)
polygamous marriages cause damage of
a psychological nature; (5) there is no reproof of Abram for fathering Ishmael who, in his
turn, was blessed of God and became the father of an important nation.>5. By the way
there is no proof or documentation given that proves that polygamous marriages cause
psychological damage.
[Footnotes:>* **** GEN. 16: 2 And Sarai said to Abram, Behold now, the LORD has
kept me from bearing. I pray you, go in to my slave woman. It may be that I may be built
by her. And Abram listened to the voice of Sarai. 3 And Sarai, Abram's wife, took Hagar
her slave woman, the Egyptian, and gave her to her
husband Abram to be his wife (after Abram had lived ten years in the land of Canaan); >5.
THE INTERNATIONAL BIBLE COMMENTARY; Editor, F.F.Bruce; pp. 126ff]

I understand the same commentary to make these points: (1) Abraham was reluctant
because of the customs and the laws of his society, valid concerns about his reputation;
(2) very old documentation reveals that normally it was not correct or legal to get rid of
one's concubine and children in this way; (3)
God intervened and instructed him so that he was assured that Ishmael's rights and his
mother's prospects were ensured.>6.
[Footnote: >6. THE INTERNATIONAL BIBLE COMMENTARY; Editor, F.F.Bruce;
p. 129]

Yes it is obvious that Sarai apparently acted on her own and there was no divine guidance
in this move, but there was also no divine condemnation. God intervened and sent Hagar
back into the marital situation with Abram and Sarai>41 When God next spoke to
Abraham>42 there was no condemnation of his polygyny , but instead God blessed him
with an even greater blessing than before. In response to the blessing he takes his son by
Hagar and circumcised him>43 . But I understand a Christian elder to maintain that there
was no blessing from God on Abraham's polygamy, that the Biblical record of it is a
criticism of Abraham's conduct. >7. He gives no references so look at the Word for
yourselves -- "in all things the Lord had blessed Abraham" (Gen. 24:1).
[Footnotes:>41 (Gen 16:9-16.); >42 (Gen. 17:1--); >43 (Gen. 17:23-25); >7. MY WIFE
MADE ME. . . .p.20.]

Consider the following:
". . . a man's 'house' might consist of his mother; his wives and the wives' children; his
concbines and their children . . . and slaves of both sexes. Polygamy was in part the cause
of the large size of the Hebrew household; in part thecause of it may be found in the
insecurity of early times, when safety lay in numbers . . . Polygyny and bigamy were
recognized features of the family life. From the Oriental point of view there was nothing
immoral in the practice of polygamy. The female slaves were in every respect the
property of their master and became his concubines; except in certain cases, when they
seem to have belonged exclusively to their mistress . . . At all events, polygyny was an
established and recognized institution form the earliest times">8 HASTINGS
DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE; p.259.

God blessed Sarah with fertility in polygyny>44 and God blessed Hagar and Ishmael
even though she was cast out of Sarah's house at Sarah's confirmed request because of the
question of an heir, not polygyny>45 . Abraham had another concubine after Hagar,
named Keturah>46 by whom Abraham had six children without any condemnation or
denunciation by God. What about a Christian elder's apparent assertion that polygamy is
a breeding ground for contemptuous, jealous, quarrelsome conduct in a marriage resulting
in alienation between wife and husband<9 Forgive me if I sound a little naive (I'm only in
my 50's and have experienced marriage for only 24 years) but divorce court records and
sociological studies of divorce indicate that those vices are quite common in monogamy in
America today. Does that make monogamy evil? I think not. Contempt, jealousy,
quarreling and estrangement are sinful works of the flesh and need to be dealt with
Spiritually, just like any other sins involving more than one person. Sin and the flesh are
the evils, not polygamy or monogamy.
[Footnotes:>44 (Gen 21:1-7); >45 (Gen. 21); >46 (1 Chron.1:32) ; >9. See Gen. 16 and
21 as well as HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE;p.259]

ESAU'S POLYGYNY
Genesis 26: 34 And Esau was forty years old when he took to wife Judith the daughter
of Beeri the Hittite, and Basemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite; 35 who were a grief
of spirit to Isaac and to Rebekah.
Gen. 28: 8 and when Esau saw that the daughters of Canaan did not please Isaac his
father; 9 then Esau went to Ishmael, and took Mahalath  the daughter of Ishmael,
Abraham's son, the sister of Nebajoth, to the wives [which] he [had] for his wife .
Gen.36: 12 And Timna was concubine to Eliphaz, Esau's son. And she bore to Eliphaz
Amalek.

THE POLYGYNOUS PATRIARCH JACOB, HIS WIVES & CONCUBINES.
Were these Old Testament saints less Godly than we?
I think not. But what of those who say that having
more than one wife in those days was a falling short
of the will of God and reflected a weakness in the
character of those who participated in polygyny? St.
Augustine has a good word on that, as follows:
"But those who have not the virtues of temperance
must not be allowed to judge of the conduct of holy
men, any more than those in fever of the sweetness
and wholesomeness of food. . . If our critics, then,
wish to attain not a spurious and affected, but a
genuine and sound moral health, let them find a cure
in believing the Scripture record, that the honorable
name of saint is given not without reason to men who
had several wives; and that the reason is this, that the
mind can exercise such control over the flesh as not to \par allow the appetite implanted
in our nature by
Providence to go beyond the limits of deliberate
intention. . . . the holy patriarchs in their conjugal
intercourse were actuated not by the love of pleasure,
but by the intelligent desire for the continuance of
their family. . . .nor did the number of their wives
make the patriarchs licentious. But why defend the
husbands, to whose character the divine word bears
the highest testimony. . . ."
[Footnote: >.23 A Select Library of the Nicene and
Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church, Vol. iv;
p.290]

Gen. 29: 21 And Jacob said to Laban, Give [me] my wife, for my days are fulfilled, so
that I may go in to her. 22 And Laban gathered together all the men of the place, and
made a feast. 23 And it happened in the evening, he took his daughter Leah and brought
her to him. And he went in to her.  24 And Laban gave Zilpah his slave woman to his
daughter Leah for a handmaid. 25 And it happened in the morning, behold, it [was] Leah!
And he said to Laban, What [is] this you have done to me? Did I not serve with you for
Rachel? Why then have you tricked me? 26 And Laban said, It must not be done so in our
country, to give the younger before the first-born. 27 Fulfill her week, and we will give
you this one also for the service which you shall serve with me still another seven years.
28 And Jacob did so, and fulfilled her week . And he gave him Rachel his daughter to
wife also. 29 And Laban gave Bilhah his slave woman to his daughter Rachel, to be her
handmaid. 30 And he also went in to Rachel. He also loved Rachel more than Leah, and
served with him still seven more years.
31 And when the LORD saw that Leah [was] hated, even He opened her womb.  But
Rachel [was] barren. 32 And Leah conceived and bore a son.
Gen. 30:1 And when Rachel saw that she bore Jacob no children, Rachel envied her sister.
And she said to Jacob, Give me sons, or else I will die. 2 And Jacob's anger was kindled
against Rachel. And he said, Am I in God's stead, who has withheld from you the fruit of
the womb? 3 And she said, Behold my slave woman Bilhah; go in to her, and she shall
bear upon my knees, and yea, let me be built up from her,  me also. 4 And she gave him
her slave woman Bilhah to wife. And Jacob went in to her. 5 And Bilhah conceived,
and bore Jacob a son.  . . . 9 When Leah saw that she had quit bearing, she took her
slave woman Zilpah and gave her to Jacob to wife. 10 And Leah's slave woman Zilpah
bore Jacob a son. . . .  . 16 And Jacob came out of the field in the evening. And Leah went
out to meet him, and said, You must come in to me, for I have surely hired you with my
son's love-apples. And he lay with her that night. 17 And God listened to Leah, and she
conceived, and bore Jacob the fifth  son. . . . . 22 And God remembered Rachel, and
God listened to her and opened her womb. . . . . . 26[And Jacob said to Laban] Give me
my wives and my children, [for] whom I have served you, and let me go. For you know
my service which I have done you.
Gen.31: 3 And the LORD said to Jacob, Return to the land of your fathers, and to your
kindred, and I will be with you.
[If polygyny is the sin that some say it is, why did God intervene to help Leah conceive?
Why did God remember and bless Rachel when she influenced Jacob to have a third wife?
Why did God listen to Leah's prayer after she influenced Jacob to have a fourth wife? If
polygyny is unacceptable to God, then why did the Lord speak to Jacob and promise to
bless him with His abiding presence?]


Gen 32: 1 And Jacob went on his way, and the angels of God met him . 2 And when
Jacob saw them he said, This [is] God's camp. And he called the name of that place
Refuge. . . . . . .24 And Jacob was left alone. And a Man wrestled there with him until the
breaking of the day. 25 And when He saw that He did not prevail against him, He touched
the hollow of his thigh. And the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint as he wrestled
with Him. 26 And He said, Let Me go, for the day breaks. And he said, I will not let You
go except You bless me. 27 And He said to him, What [is] your name? And he said,
Jacob. 28 And He said, Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel; for like
a prince you have power with God and with men, and have prevailed. 29 And Jacob
asked and said, I pray You, reveal Your name. And He said, Why do you ask after My
name? And He blessed him there. 30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel; for I
have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved. 31 And as he passed over Penuel the
sun rose upon him, and he limped upon his thigh.
>>>>>[Why would God allow his angels to meet Jacob, since he was practicing
polygyny with four wives? Why did Jesus wrestle with Jacob, and bless Him with a new
and significant name, if Jacob was under God's judgment for practicing polygyny? Exactly
where is God's denunciation and disapproval Jacob's polygyny expressed?
Jacob marries Rachel and Leah>58 , and goes on to have children by his concubines as
well>59. Sure, treachery was involved in the Rachel and Leah marriage, but it appears that
the treachery stands alone as the evil since at the first mention of the polygyny
option,>60 Jacob has no moral objection and nowhere does God denounce the
development. Yes Lev. 18:18 shows that much later in the time of Moses, God forbade
two sisters being wives to one husband at one time and makes rivalry the issue. God
deliberately involved Himself in the polygyny of Jacob by blessing Leah with
fertility>61. God repeated himself in this way with the mother of Samuel without
denouncing her polygyny>62 . God intervened and granted fertility to Rachel in her
polygyny>63 . God not only blesses Jacob with fertility but also with miraculous
prosperity in his polygyny> 64 . God not only blessed Jacob in his polygyny but also
delivered him from evil and harm as a polygynist>65
[Footnotes:>58 in Gen 29 & 30; >59 (Gen. 35:22; 37:2);. >60 (Gn. 29:27,29). >61 (Gn.
29:31,32; 30:17); >62 (l Sam 1:1-6); >63 (Gn. 30:22); >64 (Gn. 30:41-31:10); >65 (Gn.
31:24, 29,42)]

In spite of this Biblical record of God's blessings on Jacob, I understand a brother to write
that Jacob experienced only troublesome times with Rachel and Leah, and that they were
angry, envious, and hateful rivals.>15. Only troublesome times? What about all of God's
miraculous provision and prospering their family experienced directly from God's
intervention? What about their cooperation, their love, trust and loyalty for Jacob when
he was in conflict with their father and then with Esau? Maybe their polygyny lacked the
sweet bliss and loving harmony of Solomon's early polygyny >66 , but there is no
passage that Rachel and Leah only had troublesome times.
[Footnotes:>15. Trobisch, MY WIFE MADE ME. . ; p. 20; >66 (Song of Songs 6:4-9)]
 
I wish I had some of that trouble in my life! What about the rivalry? God saw the
destructive potential of such sibling rigalry and made the law that a polygynist should not
marry the sister of his wife >67 . He did not condemn the man for being a polygynist, He
just indicated that the man as polygynist should not marry his wife's sister while she
lived. What about the hatred, envy and anger? Well folks, I don't mean to be redundant,
but we see those sins in monogamy, between sisters, between brothers (Cain & Abel) and
between children and parents (Absalom and David) then and today. If you aren't aware of
that, then I have to ask you if you were raised by Robinson Crusoe on some island.
[Footnote: >67 (Lev. 18:18)]

PATRIARCHAL POLYGYNY
1 Chronicles 2: 4 And Tamar his daughter-in-law bore him Pharez and Zerah. All the sons
of Judah [were] five. 5 The sons of Pharez: Hezron and Hamul.
9 And the sons also of Hezron, who were born to him: Jerahmeel, and Ram, and Chelubai.
18 And Caleb the son of Hezron fathered [sons] of Azubah [his] wife, and of Jerioth.  
Her sons [are] these: Jesher, and Shobab, and Ardon. 19 And when Azubah died, Caleb
took Ephrath to himself, who bore him Hur. . . . . . . 46 And Ephah, Caleb's concubine,
bore Haran, and Moza, and Gazez. And Haran fathered Gazez. 47 And the sons of
Jahdai: Regem and Jotham and Geshan and Pelet and Ephah and Shaaph. 48 Maachah,
Caleb's concubine, bore Sheber,  and Tirhanah. 49 She also bore Shaaph the father of
Madmannah, Sheva the father of Machbenah, and the father of Gibea. And Caleb's
daughter [was] Achsah. 50 These were the sons of Caleb the son of Hur. The first-born of
Ephratah [was] Shobal the father of Kirjath-jearim; 51 Salma the father of Bethlehem,
Hareph the father of Beth-gader.

1 Chronicles 4: 1 The sons of Judah [were] Pharez, Hezron, and Carmi, and Hur, and
Shobal. . . . . . .These [are] the sons of Hur, the first-born of Ephratah, the father of
Bethlehem. 5 And Ashur the father of Tekoa had two wives, Helah and Naarah.

1 Chronicles 7:14 The sons of Manasseh: Ashriel, the son born to his Syrian concubine
with Machir the father of Gilead,  15 and Machir took a wife for Huppim and for
Shuppim; and the name of his sister [was] Maachah. And the name of the second [was]
Zelophehad. And Zelophehad had daughters. 16 And Maachah the wife of Machir bore
a son,  and she called his name Peresh. And the name of his brother [was] Sheresh, and his
sons [were] Ulam and Rakem.

1 Chronicles 8: 8 And Shaharaim fathered [sons] in the land of Moab, after he had sent
them away. Hushim and Baara [were] his wives. 9 And by his wife Hodesh,  [were]
Jobab, and Zibia, and Mesha, and Malcham, 10 and Jeuz, and Shachia, and Mirma. These
[were] his sons, heads of the fathers.
[Exactly where is God's denunciation and disapproval of the patriarchs' polygyny
expressed?

Consider what Saint Augustine said in the fourth century AD.
"But here there is no ground for a criminal accusation: for a plurality of wives was no
crime when it was the custom; and it is a crime now, because it is no longer the custom.
There are sins against nature, and sins against custom, and sins against the laws. In which,
then, of these senses did Jacob sin in having a plurality of wives? As regards nature, he
used the women not for sensual gratification, but for the procreation of children. For
custom, this was the common practice at that time in those countries. And for the laws,
no prohibition existed. The only reason of its being a crime now to do this, is because
custom and the laws forbid it."
[Footnote: >.14 A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian
Church, Vol. iv; p. 289]

I hope that dear brother Augustine is having a wonderful time in Heaven. I also hope that
Jesus has shared with Him meaning of Prov. 5:18, 19----- a husband's sensual gratification
by and with his wife's breasts, being enraptured and intoxicated with and by her
lovemaking; the sensual gratification of the marital joys of the Song of Solomon; the joyful
marital living of Eccles. 9:7,8,9; and the sensual gratification of the blissful exchange of
intimate marital affection required in 1 Cor. 7:2,3,4,5. I don't understand how he could
have missed these obvious God given instructions to blissfully and wholeheartedly love
our mates in marriage.
The maidservant status of Hagar and Jacob's wives is clothed in marital status>74 . It is a
profound statement that in all of the explicit moral injunctions of Lev. 18, 19, &20; Deut
12 & 27 there is not one denunciation of polygyny or concubinage. Concubinage
apparently, because it involved maidservants, seems to have a lower status as reflected in
Ex. 21:7-9 with Lev. 19:20 in contrast to Deut. 22:23-26.]


GOD GAVE MOSES RULES ABOUT POLYGYNY
*Exodus 21:7 And if a man sells his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as
the menservants do. 8 If she does not please her master, who has betrothed her to
himself,  then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no power to sell her to a strange
nation, since he has dealt deceitfully with her. 9 And if he has betrothed her to his son, he
shall deal with her as with daughters. 10 If he takes himself another [wife], her food, her
clothing, and her duty of marriage shall not be lessened.  11 And if he does not do these
three to her, then she shall go out free without money.
[If polygyny is a sin, why doesn't God forbid the men from taking an additional wife? If
polygyny is unacceptable to God, why does He instruct men what He requires of them if
they take an additional wife? If polygyny is sin, where is His command that a woman not
marry a man who already has a wife?]

*Leviticus 18: 17 The nakedness of a woman and her daughter shalt thou not uncover;
thou shalt not take her son's daughter, nor her daughter's daughter, to uncover her
nakedness: they are her near relations: it is wickedness. 18 And thou shalt not take a wife
to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness beside her, during her life.  [darby]
And thou shalt not take a woman to her sister, to be a rival
to her . . .. beside the other in her lifetime.>47
[Footnote: >.47 The Holy Scriptures, Masoretic Text]
Thou shalt not take a wife in addition to her sister, as
a rival . . in opposition to her, while she is yet
living.>48
[Footnote: >.48 The Septuagint Version, 1972]
And you shall not take to wife a sister of your wife,
to distress her. . ..beside the other in her lifetime.>49
[Footnote: >.49 The Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern
Manuscripts]
And thou shalt not take a wife to her sister, to be a
rival to her , . . ...besides the other in her life-
time.>50
[Footnote: >.50 American Standard Version 1901 &
1929]
You must not marry a woman in addition to her
sister, to be a rival to her. . . .when the first one is
alive.>51
[Footnote: >.51 Amplified Bible, 1965, Zondervan
Publishing House.]
The New King James Version agrees with the meaning
of those above.The New International Version agrees
with the meaning of those above. >53
[Footnote: >.53 HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL
VERSION.]

Lev 18:18 A husband marrying two sisters???????
18 You are not to take a woman to be a rival with [her] sister [and] have sexual relations with her while her sister is still alive. Stern's Complete Jewish Bible

I appreciate your concern about your husband taking your sister as another wife in light of Lev 18:18. Young's Literal Translation and Strong's Concordance/Lexicon make it clear that in the Hebrew there is no "her" in the Hebrew for "her sister", there is no "and" in  "and have sexual relations", that the word "Rival" is not the only rendering of the Hebrew and is misleading, and there is no basis for "beside her."
 
 18 And a woman unto another thou dost not take, to be an adversary, to uncover her nakedness beside her, in her life. YLT

Putting Strong's in the verse you get the following:
18 And do not  take, accept, bring, buy, carry away, fetch, get, include, mingle, place, receive, reserve, seize, send for, take up, use, and/or win<3947> a woman unto a sister, being an adversary, an affliction, an oppression, a trouble, a distress, an enemy, and/or a vexation<6887>; uncovering her nakedness, in her life. YLT

So in contrast to the following translations:
18 You are not to marry a woman as a rival to [her] sister [and] have sexual intercourse with her during her [sister's] lifetime. HCSB
18 You are not to take a woman to be a rival with [her] sister [and] have sexual relations with her while her sister is still alive. Stern's Complete Jewish Bible
18And you shall not take a woman as a rival wife to [her] sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is still alive. ESV
18'You shall not marry a woman [in addition to her] sister as a rival while she is alive, to uncover her nakedness. NASB
18 " 'Do not take your wife's sister as a rival wife [and] have sexual relations with her while your wife is living. NIV

I understand the verse to instruct a husband
that he should
[1] neither take, accept, bring, buy, carry away, fetch, get, include, place, receive, reserve, seize, send for, take up, use, and/or win<3947> a woman as wife in a situation where she is the sister of anyone already in his family, and so is already/potentially an adversary, an affliction, an oppression, a trouble, a distress, an enemy, and/or a vexation to his family;
[2] nor uncover the genitals of and have sexual relations with such a woman.


A sister is born for adversity and difficulty that should be avoided whenever possible. (Proverbs 17:16-18; Proverbs 18:18-20). We know how Jesus wants siblings to live together in peace and harmony:
"Behold, how good and how pleasant it is For brothers to dwell together in unity!" Psa133:1-3
We know how displeasing trouble among sisters is to God it is to God to stir up trouble among brothers (Prov 6:18-20).

Given all of the above I would strongly urge any husband not to take as an additional wife the sister of anyone who is already in his family. Rachel and Leah are the model of sisters thrown into contention when married to the same man.

If a husband doesn't accept this understanding, but goes with the more common interpretation, consciously and intentionally not taking the sister to be an adversary, an affliction, an oppression, a trouble, a distress, an enemy, and/or a vexation to her sister who is already his wife, and so thinks the passage does not apply, THEN I WOULD STRONGLY ADVISE THE HUSBAND TO TAKE THE ADVICE GIVEN IN THE FILES/DOCUMENTS SECTION OF MY POLY GROUPS - "SUCCESSFUL POLYGYNY" + "URBAN BLUE COLLAR POLYGYNY" + "A PRINCESS REMEMBERS" - - - - that each sister have her own dwelling/residence, with her own kitchen, bedroom and bathroom, NOT WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE, PREFERABLY IN A DIFFERENT TOWN/SUBURB/BARRIO (especially to avoid their children attending the same K-9 schools), and that the sisters be together with their husband only on a visitor/visiting basis for picnics, outings, special occasions etc. - - - an even then the husband being careful to spend approximately the same time at the side of each, being careful to have approximately the same eye and touch contact with each - for jealousy is an ever present threat.

[Can Lev. 18:18 be used to condemn polygyny, or does it forbid being married to two
blood sisters at the same time? Is the issue here that of marrying sisters, or is the issue
polygyny? I SEE A PROHIBITION OF RACHEL+LEAH MARRIAGES INVOLVING
TWO SISTERS BEING MARRIED TO THE SAME HUSBAND, BUT WHERE IS
THE IMPLIED PROHIBITION OF POLYGYNY? It seems to me that God is simply
prohibiting a husband from marrying the sister in-the-flesh of his wife.
Does it apply to sisters in the Spirit? The obediently believing Israelite women were as
much sisters in the Lord as are the Christian women sisters in the Spirit and there was no
prohibition against them being in polygynist marriages like King Davids. Are you willing
to add to the scripture to support the tradition of men?

*De 17:15 You shall only set him king
over you whom Jehovah your God will choose: from
among your brethren shall you set a king over you; .
. . 16 Only he shall not multiply horses to himself,  . . .
17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, t hat his
heart turn not away; neither shall he greatly multiply
to himself silver and gold.
[If this passage is used to make a case against polygyny, shouldn't it also be used to make
a case that the king should have only one horse, only one bar of gold, and only one bar of
silver?]

God's Law forbade a king from "multiplying" wives>.75 to himself without making such a
command to we nonkings. It appears from later scripture about Godly and God blessed
kings of Israel that God makes a distinction between MULTIPLYING wives & horses to
yourself and adding wives & horses to yourself. None of us object to King David having
more than one horse but many object to King David having more than one wife, yet it is
the same command "he shall not multilply hoses . . . wives to himself." By 2 Samuel 5-12
God had given him seven wives plus a number of concubines. We see His implied blessing
on Davids polygyny . This implied blessing of his polygyny would have to mean that
David, with concubines and seven wives, had not yet violated the prohibition against a
king multiplying wives and horses to himself.
[Footnotes:>75 De 17:15 You shall only set him king over you whom Jehovah your God
will choose: from among your brethren shall you set a king over you; . . . 16 Only he shall
not multiply horses to himself, . . . 17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his
heart turn not away; neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold. NO
PROHIBITION FROM HAVING SOME HORSES , SOME WIVES and some gold]

*Deut. 21:15 If a man have two wives,  one beloved,
and one hated, and they have borne him children,
[both] the beloved and the hated, and [if] the first-
born son be hers that was hated; 16 then it shall be,
in the day that he makes his sons to inherit [that]
which he has, [that] he may not make the son of the
beloved first-born before the son of the hated, who is
the first-born; 17 but he shall acknowledge as first-
born the son of the hated, by giving him a double
portion of all that he has; for he is the firstfruits of his
strength: the right of the firstborn is his.

John MacArthur, a leading conservative and orthodox Bible teacher and head of a leading evangelical seminary, in his attempt to prove that polygyny is not godly or Biblical, declares that the original Hebrew of Deut 21:15 should be translated "if a man has had two wives" but gives us no Hebrew to support his allegation. None of the reputable Bible translations today support his translation, neither does the Septuagint, nor Young's Literal Translation. Consider the evidence:

The Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint, completed 250 BC
http://septuagint-interlinear-greek-bible.com/intro.htm
LXX Deut 21:15 But if there be to a man  two  wives,  one  of them being loved, and one of them being detested, and they should bear with him,  both the one being loved and the one being detested,

Please note that it does not say 'But if there were to a man  two  wives, one  of them was being loved, and one of them was being detested,' or 'But if there had been to a man  two  wives, one  of them had been loved, and one of them had been detested,'.

LXX Deut 21:15 “And if a man has two wives, the one loved and the other hated, and both the loved and the hated should have born him children, and the son of the hated should be firstborn;
TRANSLATED, REVISED AND EDITED BY PAUL W.  ESPOSITO
http://www.apostlesbible.com/books/deuteronomy.htm

LXX Deut 21:15Now if a man has two wives, one of them
loved and one of them hated, and if both the loved
and the hated bear him children and the firstborn
son is of the one who is hated,
Melvin K. H. Peters - - http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/

LXX Deut 21:15 And if a man have two wives, the one loved and the other hated, and both the loved and the hated should have born him children, and the son of the hated should be first-born;
http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx/

The Complete Jewish Bible (D. H. Stern)
Deut 21:15 If a man has two wives, the one loved and the other unloved . . . .

Deut 21:15"If a man has two wives, the one loved and the other unloved, and both the loved and the unloved have borne him sons, if the firstborn son belongs to the unloved,
 Gen 29:33
New American Standard Bible (NASB)

 15 If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love,
New International Version (NIV)

Deut 21:15"If a man has two wives, the one loved and the other unloved, and both the loved and the unloved have borne him children, and if the firstborn son belongs to the unloved,  (See Gen 29:30, 33; 1 Sam 1:4, 5)
English Standard Version (ESV)

Deut 21: 15 "If a man has two wives, one loved and the other unloved, and both the loved and the unloved bear him sons, and if the unloved wife has the firstborn son,
Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)

Deut 21:15`When a man hath two wives, the one loved and the other hated, and they have borne to him sons (the loved one and the hated one), and the first-born son hath been to the hated one;
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)


If God condemns polygyny, why does he not only allow a man to have two wives, but
he actually legislates the right of one wife's child over the right of the other wife's child? If
the children are children of polygyny, why would God give them any rights at all, if it is
such a sin as some say?

I understand Rev. Gerhard Jasper to make the following points:
(1) In Old Testament times a Jewish polygynist's marriage was fully recognized as
marriage, protected by the Law and the elders;
(2) the Jewish polygynist's faith in or faithfulness to God was not
questioned because of his polygyny;
(3) the polygyny of the Jewish polygynist did not keep him from being
admitted to the congregation with full membership.>44. Moses did not forbid
polygamy>8
(Dt. 21:15,16) >8 but apparently it was unusual
among average people .>45.
[Footnotes:>.f89 Please see p. 362, THE INTSTITUTES
OF BIBLICAL LAW, by R. Rushdonney. >44.
Trobisch, MY WIFE MADE ME. . . P.18; (AFRICAN
THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL, Rev. Gerhard Jasper of
Lutheran Theological College in Makumira, Tanzania;
Februrary 1969, p. 41). >45. Please see THE
INTERNATIONAL BIBLE COMMENTARY; p. 407.]

It was expected that the female slave would become her master's wife or concubine, or
become the wife or concubine of her master's son, and the law protected her rights if he
was unwilling to do so.>16. Her owner could not sell her to foreigners because he had
"trifled" with her (see LXX), "seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.">17.
[Footnotes:>16. Please see the discussion in THE INTERNATIONAL BIBLE
COMMENTARY; p.126ff & p.172ff.; >17. Ex. 21:8; The Holy Scriptures according to
the Masoretic Text].

He legislated polygyny without one word or hint of condemnation. If polygyny were sin,
why didn't God condemn it instead of putting the royal seal of His holy Law on it? God's
designated and anointed leaders freely and openly practiced it (Abraham, Jacob, David,
Jehoida the priest, and God in Ezekiel 23). Where in the Bible does he find an Old
Testament writer embarrassed to report polygamy? If you know of a single passage that
clearly and explicitly states that, please let me know. How can any Old Testament writer
be embarrassed of something God sanctioned and legislated, and that His designated and
anointed leaders freely and openly practiced with God's obvious and abundant blessing in
their lives (see the next section)? The Old Testament writers untiringly and realistically
show the negativity of polygamy? Abram and Sarai, Rachel and Leah had problems, as
did Hannah and so did Solomon, but even with these four there is no untiring and
relentless criticism of polygamy? I couldn't find it. In the next section, covering thousands
of years and each major period of Jewish history there is no such relentless criticism of
polygyny found in the Bible.

IV-B. MARRIAGE AND POLYGYNY FROM JUDGES TO JESUS

POLYGYNY UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF THE JUDGES
Judges 8: 29 And Jerubbaal the son of Joash went and lived in his own house. 30 And
Gideon had seventy sons, begotten of his body. For he had many wives. 31 And his
concubine, who was in Shechem, also bore him a son whose name he called Abimelech.
32 And Gideon the son of Joash died in a good old age, and was buried in the tomb of
Joash his father, in Ophrah [of] the Abiezrites.
>>>>>[If Gideon were in open sin as a polygynist, why did God choose him to lead
Israel, and grant him success in his confrontation of the enemy? Where is God's explicit
and specific denunciation of Gideon's polygny?
Gideon had MANY WIVES, was blessed and used of God without any
condemnation/denunciation from God about his polygyny>77 . A dear brother
apparently states, of Gideon's (Jerubbaal's ) son Abimelech, that polygamy actually lead
to murder in Judg. 9:5 >18. Excuse me! With logic like that I guess you would have to say
that the monogamy of Adam and Eve led Cain to murder Abel. I think not. Jesus makes it
clear that murder comes from the murderer's heart >78 or from the inner working of the
evil ones>79 , but not from monogamy or polygamy. The problem is sin and the flesh,
not polygamy.
[Footnotes:>77 (Judges 8:29-32); >18. Trobisch; MY WIFE MADE ME>.>.>.p. 20; >78
(Matt. 15:18,19); >79 (Eph. 2:1,2; 6:12)]

Judges 19:1 And it came to pass in those days,
when [there was] no king in Israel, that there was a
certain Levite, . . . who took to him a concubine out of
Bethlehem-Judah. 2 And his concubine played the
whore against him, and went away from him to her
father's house to Bethlehem-Judah, and was there
four whole months. 3 And HER HUSBAND rose up and
went after her, to speak friendly to her, [and] to bring
her again; . . . And she brought him into her father's
house; and when the father of the damsel saw him he
rejoiced to meet him. 4 And his FATHER-IN-LAW,
the damsel's father, retained him, and he abode with
him three days; . . .5 . . . And the damsel's father said
to his SON-IN-LAW , . .
[If a concubine is not a legitimate wife, then why does God call the Levite "her husband",
and why does God call her father the Levite's "father-in-law"?
If a concubine is a harlot in God's eyes, then why was the outrage so universal and so
right in their eyes, their outrage against the sexual abuse and sexual murder of his
concubine? The death of a harlot or an adulteress was expected and accepted as righteous
by Israel, so why wasn't that the case in the sexual murder of the Levite's concubine?
What about the Levites? These keepers of the tabernacle, did they have special rules that
kept them from polygyny? Not according to the following, because when his concubine
was mercilessly murdered by rape, the nation of Israel rose to vindicate him and avenge
her murder.

SO A CONCUBINE IS NOT A HARLOT. Just like any other wife, she can become a
harlot while married (Ezek. 16 and Hosea). HARLOTRY IS AN EVIL THAT EITHER A
WIFE OR A CONCUBINE CAN PRACTICE WHILE MARRIED. Not only is a
concubine not a harlot, the Holy Spirit by the writer of the book of Judges declared the
Levite to be the concubine's "husband", declared the father of the concubine to be the
Levite's "father-in-law", and declared the Levite to be the "son-in-law" of the concubine's
father. This is a very strong legitimization of the husband-concubine marital status. It is
the same legitimization of the relationship that the Holy Spirit used in Matthew 1, calling
the espoused Mary "wife" and the espoused Joseph "husband". If God so recognizes
them and describes them, then who are we to do any less. By the Holy Spirit here in
Judges 19 we see that a concubine had a "husband" who was the "son-in-law" of her
father, his "father-in-law". A wife has a "husband" who is the "son-in-law" of her father,
her husband's "father-in-law".


1 Sam. 1: 1 And there was a certain man of Ramathaim-zophim from the hills of Ephraim,
and his name [was] Elkanah, the son of Jeroham, the son of Elihu, the son of Tohu, the
son of Zuph, an Ephrathite. 2 And he had two wives, the name of the one [was]
Hannah, and the name of the second, Peninnah. And Peninnah had children, but
Hannah had no children. 3 And this man went up out of his city from year to year, to
worship and to sacrifice to the LORD of hosts in Shiloh. And the two sons of Eli,
Hophni and Phinehas, the priests of the LORD, [were] there.4 And the time came that
Elkanah offered, he gave portions to Peninnah his wife, and to all her sons and her
daughters. 5 But to Hannah he gave one double portion, for he loved Hannah. But the
LORD had shut up her womb.  6 And her foe also provoked her grievously, in order to
make her tremble, because the LORD had shut up her womb. 7 And [as] he did so year
by year, when she went up to the house of the LORD, so she provoked her. And she
wept and did not eat. 8 And Elkanah her husband said to her, Hannah, why do you weep?
And why do you not eat? And why is your heart grieved? [Am] I not better to you than
ten sons?
9 And Hannah rose up after they had eaten in Shiloh and after they had drunk. And Eli
the priest sat on the seat by the side post of the temple of the LORD. 10 And she [was]
in bitterness of soul, and prayed to the LORD, and wept sorely. 11 And she vowed a
vow and said, O, Lord of hosts, if You will indeed look upon the affliction of Your
handmaid and remember me, and not forget Your handmaid, but will give to Your
handmaid a man-child, then I will give him to the LORD all the days of his life, and there
shall no razor come upon his head. 12 And it happened as she continued praying before
the LORD, Eli noticed her mouth. 13 Now Hannah spoke in her heart, only her lips
moved, but her voice was not heard. And Eli thought she had become drunk. 14 And Eli
said to her, How long will you be drunken? Put away your wine from you! 15 And
Hannah answered, No, my lord, I [am] a woman of a sorrowful spirit. I have neither
drunk wine nor strong drink, but have poured out my soul before the LORD. 16 Do not
count your handmaid for a daughter of wickedness, for out of the abundance of my
meditation and grief I have spoken until now. 17 And Eli answered and said, Go in peace,
and the God of Israel grant [to you] your petition that you have asked of Him. 18 And
she said, Let your handmaid find grace in your sight. So the woman went her way and ate,
and her face was no longer [sad].
[If her polygyny were an evil thing, why would Eli bless her and ask God to grant her
request?]
19 And they rose up in the morning early, and worshiped before the LORD, and returned,
and came to their house to Ramah. And Elkanah knew Hannah his wife, and the LORD
remembered her.  20 And it happened when the time had come around, Hannah conceived
and bore a son and called his name Samuel, [saying], Because I have asked him of the
LORD.

Why would the Lord remember her if she were in sin because of her polygyny? Why
would God bless her and answer her prayer, if her polygyny were a sin and an evil in the
eyes of God? Where is God's explicit and specific condemnation of this family's polygyny? Hannah, the wife of polygamous Elkanah, received the same intervention and blessing
from God that Sarah, Rachel and Leah received in their polygyny>80 . Her problem with
her co-wife and her own infertility is quite similar to Abraham and Sarah's experience. The
co-wife had a sin problem, and it was her problem, not a polygyny problem. You find the
same sinful behavior today between sisters, brothers, wives in social groups, wives
socializing in church or work settings. Sin and the flesh are the problems, not polygyny.
[Footnote: >80 (l Sam. 1:1-19)]

POLYGYNY UNDER THE LEAD OF THE KINGS OF ISRAEL
Consider St. Augustines point in the following:
. . . no one doubts . . . who reads with careful attention what use they made of their
wives, at a time when also it was allowed one man to have several, whom he had with
more chastity than any now has his one wife . . . But then they married even several
without any blame . . >65
[Footnotes:>..65 St. Augustin: On The Trinity; p. 406.]

2 Samuel 3: 7 And Saul had a concubine whose name [was] Rizpah, the daughter of
Aiah. And [Ishbosheth] said to Abner, Why have you gone in to my father's concubine? 8
And Abner was very angry over the words of Ishbosheth, and said, [Am] I a dog's head,
who shows kindness against Judah this day to the house of Saul your father, to his
brothers, and to his friends, and have not delivered you into the hand of David? [Am] I a
dog's head that you charge me today with a fault concerning this woman today?
>>>>[If a concubine is just a harlot as some say, then why all the fuss? Why is the
offense give the status of being indiscreet with another's wife, if a concubine is just a
harlot? If polygyny is a sin, as is consulting mediums (for which Saul was clearly
condemned), then why isn't his having a concubine dealt with in the same manner as his
other sins?]

DAVID'S SEVEN WIVES AND HIS TEN CONCUBINES.
****1 Samuel 18: 27 And David arose and went forth, he and his men. And [they] killed two
hundred men of the Philistines. And David brought their foreskins, and they gave them in
full number to the king so that he might be the king's son-in-law. And Saul gave him his
daughter Michal for a wife. 28 And Saul saw and knew that the LORD [was] with
David, and that Michal, Saul's daughter, loved him.
****1 Samuel 25: 42 And Abigail hurried and arose, and rode on an ass, with five of her
maidens who went after her. And she followed the messengers of David and became his
wife. 43 David also took Ahinoam of Jezreel. And they became, both of them, his wives.
44 And Saul gave his daughter Michal, David's wife, to Phalti t he son of Laish, who
[was] of Gallim.
****2 Samuel 3: 1 And there was a long war between the house of Saul and the house of
David. But David [became] stronger and stronger, and the house of Saul became weaker
and weaker. 2 And sons were born to David in Hebron . And his first-born [was] Amnon,
[the son of] Ahinoam of Jezreel . 3 And his second was Chileab, of Abigail of Carmel,
the former wife of Nabal . And the third [was] Absalom, the son of Maacah the
daughter of Talmai king of Geshur . 4 And the fourth [was] Adonijah, the son of
Haggith.  And the fifth [was] Shephatiah, the son of Abital. 5 And the sixth [was]
Ithream, by Eglah, David's wife . These were born to David in Hebron.

****2 Samuel 6:16 And it happened [as] the ark of the LORD came to the city of David,
Michal, Saul's daughter, looked through a window and saw king David leaping and dancing
before the LORD. And she despised him in her heart. . . . . . 20 And David returned to
bless his household. And Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David and said,
How glorious was the king of Israel today, who uncovered himself today in the eyes of
the handmaids of his servants, as one of the vain fellows shamelessly uncovers himself!
21 And David said to Michal, [It was] before the LORD, who chose me before your
father, and before all his house, to appoint me ruler over the people of the LORD, over
Israel. And I danced before the LORD. 22 And I will be still lower than this, and will be
base in my own sight. And of the handmaids of whom you have spoken, with them I shall
be had in honor. 23 And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to the day of her death.
[If God made Michal childless because of her error, why didn't God punish David in some
equally significant way, since he had at least six wives by the time of this incident? If
polygyny is sinful, why didn't God punish David instead of Michal, his first wife?]

****2 SAMUEL 7:4 And that night the word of the LORD came to Nathan saying, 5 Go and
tell My servant David, So says the LORD, Shall you build Me a house for My dwelling?
. . . . . . 8 And now so shall you say to My servant David, So says the LORD of hosts: I
took you from the sheepcote, from following the sheep, to be ruler over My people, over
Israel. 9 And I was with you wherever you went, and have cut off all your enemies out of
your sight, and have made you a great name like the name of the great ones in the earth. . .
. . . Also the LORD tells you that He will make you a house. 12 And when your days
[are] fulfilled, and you shall sleep with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you,
who shall come out of your bowels. And I will make his kingdom sure. 13 He shall build a
house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be his
Father, and he shall be My son. If he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of
men, and with the stripes of the sons of men. 15 But My mercy shall not leave him, as I
took [it] from Saul, whom I put away before you. 16 And your house and your kingdom
shall be made sure forever before you. Your throne [shall be] established forever.
>>>>>[If polygyny is a sin like adultery, why did Jehovah confer such a great blessing,
reward and heritage on a man with six wives and numerous concubines?]

**** 2 Sam.12: 7 And Nathan said to David, You [are] the man! So says the LORD
God of Israel, I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you out of the hand of
Saul.  8 And I gave you your master's house and your master's wives into your bosom,
and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah.

Do I have a reading problem, or did God just say that He gave wives (plural) to David?
Why is this giving of wives listed by God among the blessings that He gave to David, if
polygyny is the sin that some say it is?

In yet another attempt to prove that polygyny was/is ungodly and not Biblical, John MacArthur declares in his notes on 2 Sam 12:8 the fllowing:
"There is no evidence that he ever married any of Saul's wives, . . . ."
The following, especially the LXX translations, make it clear that David physically took Saul's widows into his "bosom", into his arms, into his embrace.

The Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint, completed 250 BC
http://septuagint-interlinear-greek-bible.com/intro.htm
LXX 2 Sam 12:8 And I gave to you the house of your master, and the wives of your master into your bosom

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/
LXX 2 Sam 12:8 I gave you the house of your master and the wives of your master into your bosom

http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx/Kings%20II/index.htm
LXX 2 Sam 12:8 and I gave thee the house of thy lord, and the wives of thy lord into thy bosom,

The Complete Jewish Bible (D. H. Stern)
2 Sam 12:8 I gave you your master's house and your master's wives to embrace . . . .

NIV 2 Sam 12:8 I gave your master's house to you, and your master's wives into your arms. . .

ESV 2 Sam 12:8 And I gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your arms .

HCSB 2 Sam 12:8 I gave your master's house to you and your master's wives into your arms,

Nathan in his God-inspired prophecy prophesied that his "neighbor" would sexually lie with David's "wives" (12:11). Ahithophel did not see them as "wives" but as concubines when he advised Absalom to have sex with them. Absalom followed Ahithophel's advice and "went in to" them to have sex with them before all (2 Sam 16:21,22). in 2 Sam 20:3 we are told that since Absalom had sex with David's concubines/wives, David "did not go in to them" to have marital sex, but put them in seclusion, supported them but had them live as widows, wives who had lost their husband.  Obviously this was a significant change in their marital status, and their relationship with David, which clearly indicates that before Absalom "went in to them" sexually, David "went in to them" sexually, receiving them into his "bosom", his "arms" and to "embrace". So much for John MacArthur's interpretation that "There is no evidence that he ever married any of Saul's wives, . . . .".

2 Samuel 12:9 And if that [was] too little, I would have given to you such and such
[things] besides. 9 Why have you despised the word of the LORD, to do evil in His
sight? You have stricken Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and have taken his wife [to be]
your wife, and have killed him with the sword of the sons of Ammon. 10 And therefore,
the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised Me and have
taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife. 11 So says the LORD, Behold, I will
raise up evil against you out of your own house, and I
will take your wives before your eyes and give [them] to your neighbor. And he shall lie
with your wives in the sight of this sun.
**** 2 Sam 16: 21 And Ahithophel said to Absalom, Go in to your father's
concubines, that he left to keep the house. And all Israel shall hear that you are
abhorred by your father. And the hands of all who [are] with you will be strong. 22 And
they spread Absalom a tent on the top of the house, and Absalom went in to his father's
concubines in the sight of all Israel.
****2Sam.20:3 And David came to his house at Jerusalem. And the king took the ten
women, [his] concubines, whom he had left to keep the house,  and put them in ward,
and fed them but did not go in to them. And they were shut up till the day of their death,
living in widowhood.

1 Kings 11: 4 For it happened when Solomon was old, his wives turned away his heart
after other gods. And his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as [was] the
heart of David his father. . . . 6 and Solomon did evil in the sight of Jehovah, and did not
[go] fully after the LORD like his father David.
[Why would God say that King David went "fully after the LORD", being blessed and
commended by God, even though he had fallen into adultery and had many wives and
concubines? Why would God say that David's heart was perfect with the Lord his God,
when the Lord knew that David was a practicing polygynist, if polygyny is a sin as some
say? Where do we see God blessing evil doers in their sin? Adultery is a sin and God
exacted a severe punishment on David, so why didn't God punish David for his
polygyny, if it is a sinful as some say?]

1 Chronicles 3:1 And these were the sons of David, who were born to him in Hebron. The
first-born, Amnon, of Ahinoam of Jezreel. The second, Daniel, of Abigail of Carmel . 2
The third, Absalom the son of Maachah the daughter of Talmai  king of Geshur. The
fourth, Adonijah the son of Haggith. 3 The fifth, Shephatiah of Abital.  The sixth was
Ithream by Eglah his wife . 4 [These] six were born to him in Hebron. And there he
reigned seven years and six months. And he reigned in Jerusalem thirty-three years. 5 And
these were born to him in Jerusalem Shimea, and Shobab, and Nathan, and Solomon, four
of Bathsheba the daughter of Ammiel  6 and Ibhar, and Elishama, and Eliphelet, 7 and
Nogah, and Nepheg, and Japhia, 8 and Elishama, and Eliada, and Eliphelet, nine. 9 [These
were] all the sons of David, besides the sons of the concubines,  and Tamar their sister.

>>>>>[ IF POLYGYNY IS THE SIN THAT SOME SAY IT IS, WHERE IS GOD'S
CONDEMNATION OF THE SEVEN WIVES AND TEN CONCUBINES OF KING
DAVID? WHY WOULD GOD REBUKE AND CHASTEN DAVID FOR HIS
ADULTERY WITH BATHSHEBA, AND THEN TURN AND BLESS DAVID IN HIS
MARRIAGE TO BATHSHEEBA AND HIS OTHER WIVES, IF POLYGYNY IS SIN
AS SOME SAY? If you count his first wife, Michael, then he had eight wives when he
died. \f3In these passages you see God calling and recognizing as "wives" Davids
concubines. If that is the way God sees them, only a fool would treat them as less than a
wife (Malachi 2). Malachi 2 makes it pretty clear how God feels about those who break
their covenants with their concubines and wives.

David is a fascinating case. He marries Michal in l Sam. 18. Then, as the anointed future
king of Israel, David took to himself three additional wives in l Sam 25, and one is
recognized by the Spirit for her grace and wisdom. He does this at a time of God's
miraculous intervention and blessing in his life. God neither denounces or condemns him
or his polygyny. In the case of three or four wives you are still dealing with addition,
rather than the multiplying of Deut.
**** DEUT. 17:16 But he shall not multiply
horses to himself. . . . 17 Nor shall he multiply wives to himself, so that his heart does
not turn away. Nor shall he greatly multiply silver and gold to himself.

It is interesting that horses, silver and gold - AS WELL AS WIVES - were not to be
multiplied. I can't believe this was meant to limit the king to ONE HORSE, or ONE
SILVER OR GOLD BAR, even so I can't believe it limits a king to one wife.
In fact in 2 Sam 6, it is Michal who is condemned and punished instead of her
polygamous husband David. By the time he becomes King in Judah he has 6 wives>83
and is being blessed and prospered by God. At the time of the wonderful Covenant with
David in 2 Sam. 7, God specifically blesses and covenants with polygamist David and his
concubines and his seven wives, as part of his house, receive a blessing. God even said "I
gave you . . . your master's wives" >84 ". And Nathan said to David, you are the man!
Thus says Jehovah the God of Israel: I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you
out of the hand of Saul; 8 and I GAVE YOU YOUR MASTER'S HOUSE, AND YOUR
MASTER'S WIVES INTO YOUR BOSOM, and gave you the house of Israel and of
Judah; and if [that] had been too little, I would moreover have given unto you such and
such things."
[Footnotes:>83 (2 Sam. 3); >84a 2Sa 12:7]
At this time God had given him seven wives plus a number of concubines (1 Chronicles
3). God here condemns Davids adultery and murder, but implies His blessing on Davids
polygyny . This implied blessing of his polygyny would have to mean that David, with
concubines and seven wives, had not yet violated the prohibition against a king
multiplying wives to himself. >84b to David in his polygyny. Apparently even
concubines plus seven wives is not "multiplying" wives to oneself. He had about 14
wives and concubines at the end of his life>85. David the polygamist was declared to be
loyal to God>86. God declares that David, the polygamist, fully followed God>87.
[Footnotes:>84b 2Sa 12:7; >85 (1 Chron 3); >86 ( l King 11:4); >87 (l King 11:6)]
In contrast to God's evaluation of David, we have a beloved brother's evaluation that
David was adulterous, unjust, favored some over others, and his sons became killers
because he didn't have the authority deal decisively with his heritage>19. Unless I'm
mistaken, I believe that monogamous Adam and Eve had a similar problem with Cain and
Abel, and monogamous Isaac and Rebekah certainly had their share of "favoritism and
injustice. . . intrigues" in their parenting of Jacob and Esau and Jacob's obtaining the
blessing instead of Esau. Again and again we see that sin and the flesh are the problems,
not polygyny.
[Footnote: >19. Trobisch; MY WIFE MADE ME. . . p.20.]
God conferred the status of wives on David's concubines in 2 Sam. 12:11 as we see how
the prophecy was played out in 2 Sam. 16:21, 22; and 20:3. Again the distinction
between concubines and wives seems to be an issue on man's end, not on God's end where
it seems to be the solemn vow/covenant>20 and not the wedding ceremony>21 that
makes a woman a wife even if society calls her a concubine>88 .
[Footnotes:>.20 See appendix #4.; >.21 See appendix #4; >88 (Ezek. 16; Malachi 2;
Eccles. 5:5-9;and Matt. 1:18-20 where we see the Holy Spirit call Mary and Joseph
husband and wife based on their betrothal/ espousal alone and before the actual wedding
and cohabitation)]



KING SOLOMON
1 Kings 3:1 And Solomon made an alliance by marriage with Pharaoh king of Egypt, and
took Pharaoh's daughter and brought her into the city of David until he finished building
his own house, and the house of the LORD, and the wall around Jerusalem. . . . 3 And
Solomon loved the LORD, walking in the statutes of David his father. Only he sacrificed
and burnt incense in high places. . . . . .
5 In Gibeon the LORD appeared to Solomon in a dream by night. And God said, Ask
what I shall give you! 6 And Solomon said, . . . . 7 And now, O LORD my God, You
have made Your servant king instead of David my father. And I [am] a little child; I do not
know to go out or come in! 8 And Your servant [is] in the midst of Your people whom
You have chosen, a numerous people who cannot be numbered nor counted for multitude.
9 And give to Your servant an understanding heart, to judge Your people, to discern
between good and bad. For who is able to judge this, Your great people? 10 And the word
was good in the eyes of the LORD, that Solomon had asked this thing. 11 And God said
to him, Because you have asked this thing, and have not asked for yourself long life, and
have not asked riches for yourself, nor have asked the life of your enemies, but have asked
for yourself understanding to judge justly, 12 behold, I have done according to your
words. Lo, I have given you a wise and an understanding heart, so that there was none like
you before you, and after you none shall arise like you. 13 And I also have given you that
which you have not asked, both riches and honor, so that there shall not be any among the
kings like you all your days. 14 And if you will walk in My ways, to keep My statutes
and My commandments, as your father David walked, then I will lengthen your days.
Ecccles 2:8 I also gathered silver and gold to myself, and the treasure of kings and of the
provinces. I got men singers and women singers for myself, and the delights of the sons of
men, a wife and very many wives.
Song of Solomon 6: 8 There [are] sixty queens, and eighty concubines , and virgins
without number. 9 But My dove, My undefiled is one [alone]. She [is] the [only] one of
her mother. She [is] the choice of her who bore her. The daughters saw [her] and blessed
her; the queens and the concubines  saw her, and they praised her.
>>>>>[Isn't this a strange way to punish Solomon for having sixty queens (including
Pharaoh's daughter) and eighty concubines? Why did God heap such great blessings on a
practicer of polygyny on a large scale, if polygyny is the sin that some say it is?
Why did God put in His Book a book about Solomon in his early polygyny, a book
blessed and used mightily by God, a bold and extravagant practicer of polygyny, if
polygyny is the sin some say it is?]
In fact if you accept the Song of Solomon as the story of young Solomon and his
Shulamite wife in a polygamous marriage>34 , you have one of the most beautiful and
positive statements of good will and love between the Shulamite and her co-wives as well
as with the daughters of Jerusalem, many of whom probably also became wives to
Solomon later in life when he went too far and disobeyed God by multiplying wives to
himself>35 . Let's look at the record in the Word.
[Footnotes:>34 (Song of Sol. 6:8-10). >35 (Deut 17:15-17)]


1 KINGS 11:1 And king Solomon loved many foreign women, even the daughter of
Pharaoh, Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians, Hittites; 2 of the nations which the
LORD had said to the sons of Israel, You shall not go in to them, and they shall not go in
to you; surely they will turn away your heart after their gods. Solomon clung to these in
love. 3 And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines. And
his wives turned away his heart. 4 For it happened when Solomon was old, his wives
turned away his heart after other gods. And his heart was not perfect with the LORD his
God, as [was] the heart of David his father. 5 For Solomon went after Ashtoreth, the
goddess of the Sidonians, and after Milcom, the abomination of the Ammonites; 6 and
Solomon did evil in the sight of Jehovah, and did not [go] fully after the LORD like like
his father David. 7 Then Solomon built a high place for Chemosh, the abomination of
Moab, in the hill which [is] before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the
sons of Ammon. 8 And likewise he did for all his foreign wives, and burned incense and
sacrificed to their gods.
9 And the LORD [was] angry with Solomon because his heart was turned from the
LORD God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice 10 and had commanded him
concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods; and he did not keep that
which the LORD commanded. 11 And the LORD said to Solomon, Since this is done by
you, and since you have not kept My covenant and My statutes which I have
commanded you, I will surely tear the kingdom from you and will give it to your servant.
12 But I will not do it in your days, for David your father's sake, [but] I will tear it out of
the hand of your son. 13 Only, I will not tear away all the kingdom, [but] I will give one
tribe to your son for David My servant's sake, . . . . .
Ne 13:26 Did not Solomon king of Israel sin by these things? Yet among many nations
there was no king like him, who was beloved by his God, and God made him king over all
Israel. But women from other lands caused even him to sin.
Ne 13:27 Shall we then listen to you, to do all this great evil, to sin against our God in
living with foreign women?
[If polygynous exceses were Solomon's damning sin, why isn't that stated here? God
plainly rebukes Solomon for disobeying Him by marrying unbelieving aliens,
so why doesn't God also condemn him for practicing polygyny? God plainly condemns
Solomon in his latter years for disobeying Him by multiplying wives and concubines, so
why did God lift, bless, anoint and exalt Solomon in his early polygyny when he had
married Pharaoh's daughter and had numerous wives and concubines?
Solomon's polygyny was sinful first because He disobeyed Gods command against a king
multiplying wives to himself>89; and secondly because he married unbelievers with
whom God had specifically forbidden marriage>90. Too many wives and forbidden wives
both had the same predicted result, that they turned his heart away from God. Solomon
was declared to be disloyal to God in his polygyny>91 while David the polygamist was
declared to be loyal to God>92 . God even declares that polygynist David fully followed
God>93 .
[Footnote: >89 (Deut. 17:15-17); >90 (Nehemiah 13:23) ; >91 (1 Kings 11:1,2,6, 11); >92
( l King 11:4); >93 (l King 11:6)]


THE POLYGYNOUS KINGS AFTER DAVID & SOLOMON
2 Chronicles 11:17 And they made the kingdom of Judah stronger, and made Rehoboam
the son of Solomon strong for three years. For three years they walked in the way of
David and Solomon. 18 And Rehoboam took Mahalath the daughter of Jerimoth the son
of David as a wife for himself, [and] Abihail the daughter of Eliab the son of Jesse, 19
who bore him sons, Jeush, and Shamariah, and Zaham. 20 And after her he took
Maachah the daughter of Absalom, who bore Abijah to him, and Attai, and Ziza, and
Shelomith. 21 And Rehoboam loved Maachah the daughter of Absalom above all his
wives and his concubines (for he took eighteen wives and sixty concubines, and had
twenty-eight sons and sixty daughters). . . . . . And he demanded many wives.
12:1 And it happened when Rehoboam had established the kingdom, and had made
himself strong, he departed from the law of the LORD, and all Israel with him. 2 And it
happened in the fifth year of king Rehoboam, Shishak king of Egypt came up against
Jerusalem, because they had sinned against the LORD. . . . . . 6 And the rulers of Israel
and the king humbled themselves. And they said, The LORD [is] righteous. 7 And when
the LORD saw that they humbled themselves, the word of the LORD came to Shemaiah,
saying, They have humbled themselves. I will not destroy them, but I will give them some
deliverance. . . . . 11 And when the king entered into the house of the LORD, the guard
came and carried them and brought them again into the guardroom. 12 And when he
humbled himself, the wrath of the LORD turned from him so that He would not destroy
[him] altogether. And also things went well in Judah.
[If Rehoboam's polygyny were sin, why didn't God rebuke it and judge him for it, as God
rebuked and judged him for his idolatry and his departure from the law of the Lord?
Where is God's explicit and specific condemnation of Rehoboam's polygyny?]

2 Chronicles 13: 13 But Jeroboam caused an ambush to come around behind them, so that
they were in front of Judah, and the ambush [was] behind them. 14 And Judah turned,
and, behold, the battle [was] before and behind. And they cried to the LORD, and the
priests sounded with the trumpets. 15 And the men of Judah shouted. And it happened
as the men of Judah shouted, God struck Jeroboam and all Israel before Abijah and
Judah. 16 And the sons of Israel fled before Judah. And God delivered them into their
hand. . . . . . 21 And Abijah became mighty, and married fourteen wives,  and fathered
twenty-two sons and sixteen daughters. 22 And the rest of the acts of Abijah, and his
ways, and his sayings, [are] written in the inquiry of the prophet Iddo.
1 And Abijah slept with his fathers, and they buried him in the city of David.
>>>[If polygyny is unacceptable to God, then why did God intervene to help Abijah and
deliver his enemies into his hand? Does God consistently deliver his sinning people into
the hands of their enemies?]

2Ch 21:12 And a writing came to him from Elijah the prophet, saying, So says the LORD
God of David your father, Because you have not walked in the ways of Jehoshaphat your
father, nor in the ways of Asa king of Judah, 13 but have walked in the way of the kings
of Israel, and have made Judah and the people of Jerusalem to go lusting like the
fornications of the house of Ahab, and also have killed your brothers of your fathers
house ([who were] better than you), 14 behold, the LORD will strike your people with a
great plague, and your sons, and your wives,  and all your goods. 15 And you [shall have]
great sickness by disease in your bowels, until your bowels fall out because of the
sickness day by day. 16 And the LORD stirred up the spirit of the Philistines against
Jehoram, and of the Arabians who [were] near the Ethiopians. 17 And they came up into
Judah and broke into it, and carried away all the stuff that was found in the king's house,
and his sons also, and his wives , so that there was not a son left with him except
Ahaziah, the youngest of his sons.
>>>[Why didn't God say one of the reasons He punished this evil king was because of
his polygyny, if it is the sin some say it is?]

2Ch 24: 2 And Joash did the right in the eyes of the LORD all the days of Jehoiada the
priest. 3 And Jehoiada took two wives for him, and he fathered sons and daughters. . . . .
. . 20 And the Spirit of God came on Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest, who stood
above the people and said to them, So says God, Why do you transgress the
commandments of the LORD so that you cannot be blessed? Because you have forsaken
the LORD, He has also forsaken you. . . . . . 24 For the army of the Syrians came with a
small company of men, and the LORD delivered a very great army into their hand,
because they had forsaken the God of the fathers. And they executed judgment against
Joash. 25 And when they had departed from him (for they left him in great diseases), his
own servants conspired against him for the blood of the sons of Jehoiada the priest, and
killed him on his bed, and he died. And they buried him in the city of David, but they did
not bury him in the tombs of the kings.
>>>[Joash's sins and the reason for his punishment are clearly stated, right? Then where
is God's explicit and specific denunciation of his polygyny?]

CONCUBINE ESTHER BECOMES POLYGYNOUS QUEEN ESTHER, ENABLED
BY GOD TO SAVE ISRAEL
Esther 1: 1 And it happened in the days of Ahasuerus (this [is] the Ahasuerus who
reigned from India even to Ethiopia, [over] a hundred and twenty-seven provinces). 2 in
those days, when king Ahasuerus sat on the throne of his kingdom in Shushan the palace,
Es 2:5 In Shushan the palace there was a certain Jew whose name [was] Mordecai, the
son of Jair, the son of Shimei, the son of Kish, a Benjamite 6 who had been carried away
from Jerusalem with the captivity which had been carried away with Jeconiah king of
Judah, whom Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon had carried away. 7 And he brought up
Hadassah, that [is], Esther, his uncle's daughter. For she had neither father nor mother,
and the young woman [was] fair and beautiful, whom Mordecai, when her father and
mother were dead, took for his own daughter. 8 And it happened when the king's
command and his order was heard, and when many young women had been gathered to
Shushan the palace, into the hand of Hegai, Esther was also brought to the king's house,
into the hand of Hegai, keeper of the women. 9 And the young woman pleased him, and
she received kindness from him. And he quickly gave to her purifiers and her portion.
And seven young women [who were] fit to be given her, out of the king's house. And he
moved her and her servant women to the best place in the house of the women. 12 And
when the turn of each young woman had come to go in to king Ahasuerus, after she had
been purified twelve months, according to the law of the women (for so the days of their
anointing were done, six months with oil of myrrh, and six months with sweet odors, and
with the perfumes of the women). 13 And in this way the young woman came to the
king. Whatever she desired was given her to go with her out of the house of the women to
the king's house. 14 She went in the evening, and on the next day she returned to the
second house of the women, into the hand of Shaashgaz, the king's officer who kept the
concubines. She did not come in to the king any more, unless the king delighted in her,
and she was called by name.  15 And when the turn of Esther, the daughter of Abihail the
uncle of Mordecai who had taken her for his daughter, had come to go in to the king, she
asked nothing but what was chosen by Hegai the king's officer, the keeper of the women.
And Esther had favor in the sight of all who looked on her. 16 And Esther was taken to
king Ahasuerus into his royal house in the tenth month, which [is] the month Tebeth, in
the seventh year of his reign. 17 And the king loved Esther above all the women, and
she rose in grace and favor in his sight more than all the virgins. And he set the royal
crown on her head, and made her queen instead of Vashti. 18 And the king made a great
feast to all his princes and his servants, Esther's feast. . . . . 20 Esther had not yet revealed
her kindred nor her people, as Mordecai had commanded her. For Esther obeyed the
command of Mordecai as she did when she was brought up with him.
>>>[If concubines are just harlots, then why did godly Mordecai allow Esther to become
one of the king's many concubines? If she were so careful to obey godly Mordecai, why
did she obey him when he told her to become one of the king's concubines, if that is such
an evil thing as some say?]

4: 7 And Mordecai told him of all that had happened to him, and of the sum of the silver
which Haman had promised to pay to the king's treasuries for the Jews in order to
destroy them. 8 Also he gave him the copy of the writing of the decree which [was] given
at Shushan in order to destroy them, to show [it] to Esther and to declare it to her, and to
command her that she should go in to the king to make supplication to him, and to seek
help for her people. 9 And Hatach came and told Esther the words of Mordecai. 10 Again
Esther spoke to Hatach, and gave him command to Mordecai. 11 And the king's servants
and the people of the king's provinces know that whoever, whether man or woman, shall
come to the king into the inner court, who is not called, [there is] one law of his,
execution, except such to whom the king shall hold out the golden scepter so that he may
live. But I have not been called to come in to the king these thirty days. 12 And they told
Mordecai Esther's words. 13 And Mordecai commanded them to answer Esther, Do not
think within yourself that you shall escape in the king's house more than all the Jews. 14
For if you are completely silent at this time, relief and deliverance shall arise to the Jews
from another place, but you and your father's house shall be destroyed. And who knows
whether you have come to the kingdom for a time like this? 15 And Esther said to return
to Mordecai [this answer], 16 Go, gather all the Jews who are present in Shushan, and
fast for me, and do not eat nor drink three days, night or day. My maidservants and I will
also fast in the same way. And so I will go in to the king, which [is] not according to the
law. And if I perish, I perish. 17 And Mordecai passed over and did according to all that
Esther had commanded him.
9: 29 And Esther the queen, the daughter of Abihail, and Mordecai the Jew, wrote with all
authority to confirm this second letter of Purim. 30 And he sent the letters to all the
Jews, to the hundred and twenty-seven provinces of the kingdom of Ahasuerus, [with]
words of peace and truth, 31 in order to confirm these days of Purim in their [set] times,
according as Mordecai the Jew and Esther the queen had ordered them, and as they had
decreed for themselves and for their seed the matters of the fastings and of their cry. 32
And the order of Esther confirmed these matters of Purim. And it was written in the
book.
>>>[If concubines and polygyny were such a disgusting thing to (and so unpopular with)
Israelis, then why did they, and why do they, honor Esther and Mordecai so highly in the
celebration of Purim?}

POLYGYNY, A MARITAL SOLUTION IN TIMES OF WAR.
Isaiah 3: 25 Your men shall fall by the sword, and your mighty in the war. 26 And her
gates shall lament and mourn; and she shall sit deserted on the ground.
4:1 And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, we will eat our
own bread and wear our own clothing; only let us be called by your name, to take away
our shame.
[Does God anywhere explicitly and specifically denounce this marital remedy for such a
shortage of men?]

FOOLISH KING BELSHAZZAR
Da 5:2 When tasting the wine, Belshazzar commanded to bring the golden and silver
vessels which his father Nebuchadnezzar had taken out of the temple in Jerusalem, that
the king and his rulers, his wives and his concubines , might drink from them. 3 Then
they brought the golden vessels that were taken out of the temple of the house of God in
Jerusalem. And the king, and his rulers, his wives, and his concubines, drank in them. . . .
. . . 23 But you have lifted up yourself against the Lord of heaven. And they have brought
the vessels of His house before you; and you, and your lords, your wives, and your
concubines , have drunk wine from them. And you have praised the gods of silver, and
gold, or bronze, iron, wood, and stone, which do not see, nor hear, nor know. And you
have not glorified the God in whose hand [is] your breath and all your ways.
>>>[In listing the sins of Belshazzar, why didn't God include his polygyny and
concubines, if it is comparable sin as some say it is?]

JEHOVAH AS THE POLYGYNOUS HUSBAND OF TWO WIVES
Ezekiel 23: 1 The word of the LORD came again to me, 2 Son of man, there were two
women, the daughters of one mother.  3 And they fornicated in Egypt; they whored in
their youth, their breasts were handled, and there their virgin nipples were worked. 4 And
their names [were] Oholah, the oldest, and Oholibah, her sister. And they were Mine, and
they bore sons and daughters. And their names: Samaria [is] Oholah, and Jerusalem [is]
Oholibah. 5 And Oholah whored under Me.  And she lusted after her lovers, to [her]
Assyrian neighbors, . . . . . . . . 35 So the Lord Jehovah says this: Because you have
forgotten Me and cast Me behind your back, therefore bear also your wickedness and
your adulteries.
36 And the LORD said to me: Son of man, will you judge Oholah and Oholibah, and
declare to them their abominations, 37 that they have committed adultery , and blood [is]
on their hands?
Never by God or His prophets is polygyny denounced, condemned or grouped with sins
or carnal expressions of the flesh. God Himself portrays Himself as a monogynist in
Ezekiel 16 and then as polygynist in Ezekiel 23. It appears He has no problem with the
marriage styles he initiated, legislated and in which He blessed His people. So who are we
to condemn as sin that which God never condemns as sin? Why would we want to do
such a thing? Yes it is against the law in some countries and we know that God wants us
to obey the laws of the land as long as it does not violate His Law. So we should not
practice formal and public polygyny in those lands in obedience to Romans 13 etc. So
why not simply say that instead of teaching as doctrine the tradition of religious men, i.e.
that polygyny is sinful?

V. MARRIAGE, POLYGYNY, JESUS AND THE APOSTLES

SINCE JESUS IS JEHOVAH, HOW DID HE FEEL ABOUT THE LAW HE GAVE
TO MOSES, WITH ALL ITS PROVISIONS FOR AND REGULATIONS OF
POLYGYNY?
MATT. 5:17 Do not think that I have come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I have
not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For truly I say to you, Till the heaven and the earth
pass away, not one jot or one tittle shall in any way pass from the law until all is fulfilled.
19 Therefore whoever shall break one of these commandments, the least, and shall teach
men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of Heaven. But whoever shall do and
teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of Heaven.

DO YOU MEAN THAT JEHOVAH AS JESUS OBSERVED THE LAW OF MOSES,
THE LAW THAT INCLUDED POLYGYNY?
**Matt. 8: 4 And Jesus said to him, See that you tell no one; but go, show yourself to the
priest. And offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony to them.;
**12: 10 And behold, a man having [a] withered hand. And they asked Him, saying, Is it
lawful to heal on the sabbaths? This so that they might accuse Him. 11 And He said to
them, What man among you will be, who will have one sheep, and if it falls into a pit on
the sabbaths, will he not lay hold on it and lift [it] out? 12 How much better is a man then
than a sheep? Therefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days. 13 Then He said to
the man, Stretch out your hand. And he stretched [it] out, and it was restored whole like
the other.
**13:53 And it happened when Jesus finished these parables, He departed from there. 54
And when He had come into His own country, He taught them in their synagogue,  so
much so that they were astonished and said, From where does this [man have] this
wisdom and these mighty works?
**15: 3 But He answered and said to them, Why do you also transgress the
commandment of God by your tradition? 4 For God commanded, saying, "Honor your
father and mother"; and, "He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him die by death." 5
But you say, Whoever says to [his] father or mother, Whatever you would gain from me,
[It is] a gift to God; 6 and in no way he honors his father or his mother. And you voided
the commandment of God by your tradition . 7 Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of
you, saying, 8 "This people draws near to Me with their mouth, and honors Me with
[their] lips, but their heart is far from Me. 9 But in vain they worship Me, teaching [for]
doctrines [the] commandments of men.". . . . . . .
22 And behold, a woman of Canaan coming out of these borders cried to Him, saying,
Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David! My daughter is grievously vexed with a
demon. 23 But He did not answer her a word. And His disciples came and begged Him,
saying, Send her away, for she cries after us. 24 But He answered and said, I am not sent
except to the lost sheep of [the] house of Israel.  25 Then she came and worshiped Him,
saying, Lord, help me! 26 But He answered and said, It is not good to take the children's
bread and to throw [it] to dogs. 27 And she said, True, O Lord; but even the little dogs eat
of the crumbs which fall from their masters' tables. 28 Then Jesus answered and said to
her, O woman, great [is] your faith! So be it to you even as you wish. And her daughter
was healed from that very hour.
**19: 17 And He said to him, Why do you call Me good? [There is] none good but one,
that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.  18 He said to
Him, Which? Jesus said, You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall
not steal, you shall not bear false witness, 19 honor your father and mother, and, you
shall love your neighbor as yourself.
** 21:12 And Jesus went into the temple of God and cast out all those who sold and
bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money-changers, and the seats of
those who sold doves. 13 And He said to them, It is written, "My house shall be called
the house of prayer"; but you have made it a den of thieves. 14 And the blind and the
lame came to Him in the temple, and He healed them.
** 22:34 But hearing that He had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees were gathered
together. 35 Then one of them, a lawyer, asked, tempting Him and saying, 36 Master,
which [is] the great commandment in the Law ? 37 Jesus said to him, You shall love the
Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. 38
This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second [is] like it, You shall love
your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the
Prophets.
** Matt. 26: 18 And He said, Go into the city to such a man, and say to him, The Master
said, My time is at hand. I will keep the Passover at your house with My disciples. 19
And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them. And they made the passover ready.  
20 And when evening had come, He sat down with the Twelve. . . . .
59 And the chief priests and the elders and all the sanhedrin sought false witness against
Jesus , in order to put Him to death. 60 But they found none; yea, though many false
witnesses came, they found none.
>>>[Doesn't this mean that He had an impeccable record as a citizen of Israel, as a keeper
of the Sinai Law? Wouldn't they easily have had a case against Jesus if He had been
disobedient to His Sinai Law?]

WHAT DID JESUS TELL HIS JEWISH FOLLOWERS TO DO ABOUT THE LAW OF
MOSES, THE LAW THAT INCLUDED POLYGYNY?
Matthew 23: 1 Then Jesus spoke to the crowd and to His disciples, 2 saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. 3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, observe and do.  But do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.Some might say all or most of those Old Testament passages on marriage and morality were for the nation Israel under the Law of Moses and not for Jesus' church under the Law of LOVE in Christ. Bible history indicates quite clearly that Jesus came not to destroy the Law but to fulfill it>96 . Jesus showed that He was observing all the Law of
Moses as an adult when He said that whoever does the commandments and teaches others to do the Law of Moses "shall be called great in the kingdom of Heaven">~ . Over and over again in the Gospels you see Jesus obeying the Law of Moses and telling His followers to obey it>97 . Matt. 23:3, 4, and 23 are the strongest statements of this expectation that His followers were to be obeying the marriage and morality laws of Moses when He was still visibly with them, and Jesus made it soon before His death.
[Footnotes:>96 (Matt. 5:17,18); >~ (Matt. 5:19); >97 (Matt. 8:4; 12:11,12; 13:54; 15:3-6, 22-26; 17:24, 27; 19:17-19; 21:12,13; 22:34-40; 23:3,4,23; 26:18,19; 26:63,64; etc.)]

IF JESUS TOLD HIS FOLLOWERS TO BOTH KEEP THE LAW OF MOSES AND
THE TEACHINGS OF THEIR RELIGIOUS LEADERS, WHY DON'T WE NON-
JEWS KEEP THE LAW OF MOSES TODAY, INCLUDING THOSE LAWS ABOUT
POLYGYNY?
Acts 15: 4 And arriving in Jerusalem, they were received by the church, and [by] the apostles and elders. And [they] declared all things that God had done with them. 5 But some of those from the sect of the Pharisees, having believed, rose up, saying, It was necessary to circumcise them and to command [them] to keep the law of Moses.. . . . . 7 And after much disputing, Peter rose up and said to them, Men, brothers, you recognize that from ancient days God chose among us [that] through my mouth the nations [should] hear the word of the gospel, and believe. 8 And God, who knows the hearts, bore them witness, giving them the Holy Spirit even as to us. 9 And He put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore why do you tempt God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples, a yoke which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11 But we believe that through the grace of [the] Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, according to which manner they also believed. . . . . 22
Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men from them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; Judas, whose last name was Barsabas; and Silas, chief men among the brothers. 23 And they wrote these things by their hand: The apostles and elders and brothers [send] greeting to the brothers, from [the] nations in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia. 24 Because we have heard that certain ones who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, Be circumcised and keep the law! (to whom we gave no such command); 25 it seemed [good] to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have given up their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 Therefore we have sent Judas and Silas, who will also announce [to you] the same things by word. 28 For it seemed [good] to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from meats offered to idols, and
[from] blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which, if you keep yourselves, you shall do well. Be prospered. 30 Then indeed they being let go, they came to Antioch. And gathering the multitude, [they] delivered the letter. 31 And when they had read [it], they rejoiced at the comfort.

WHY THIS DOUBLE STANDARD IN THE BOOKS OF ACTS?
Consider Hebrews 8, especially the Greek of verse 13:
In that he says, A new [covenant], he has made the
first [covenant] old. Now that which is becoming
obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
Consider The Greek of 2 Cor. 3:7,11:
. . . the ministration of death, written [and] engraved
in stones, was glorious . . . How shall not the
ministration of the Spirit be more glorious? . . . For if
what is passing away [was] glorious, much more that
which is reamaining [is] glorious..

These passages show there was a period of transition (is becoming obsolete..growing old..is ready to vanish..is passing away) from the Sinai Law of Moses to the Calvary Law of LOVE in Christ. The book of Acts is full of the apostles keeping the Sinai Law of Moses after Pentecost. You see them worshipping in the Temple regularly>98 , Peter refuses to socialize with Gentiles according to the Sinai Law>99 , Peter refuses to eat the
animals classified as unclean in the Sinai Law>1 , Paul circumcises Timothy, Paul keeps the Law's feasts>2 , Paul recognizes the authority of the Chief Priest, the believing Gentiles are released from the Sinai Law of Moses while the believing Jews are not released >3 .
[Footnotes:>98 (Acts 4, 12, 15, 21); >99 (Acts 10, 11, Gal. 1 & 2); >1 (Acts 10 & 11); >2 (Acts 21); >3 (Galatians, Acts 15 and see Acts 10; 11:8, 23; 15:5; 16:3; 18:18, 21;21:18-25; 24:18)]

DO YOU REALLY THINK THE CHURCH WAS DIVIDED IN THE BOOK OF
ACTS, WITH ONLY THE BELIEVING JEWS KEEPING LAW?
***Acts 10: 9 On the next day, as these went on [the] road, and drawing near the city, Peter went up on the housetop to pray, about [the] sixth hour. 10 And he became very hungry and desired to eat. But while they made ready, an ecstasy fell on him. 11 And he saw the heaven opened and a certain vessel like a sheet coming down to him, being bound at the four corners and let down to the earth; 12 in which were all the four-footed animals of the
earth, and the wild beasts, and the reptiles, and the birds of the heaven. 13 And a voice came to him, saying, Rise, Peter! Kill and eat! 14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord, for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean. 15 And the voice [spoke] to him again the second [time], What God has made clean, you do not call common. 16 This happened three [times], and the vessel was received up again into the heaven. 17 And while Peter
doubted within himself what the vision which he had seen might be, even behold, the men who were sent from Cornelius had asked for Simon's house and stood on the porch. 18 And they called and asked if Simon whose last name is Peter was staying there.19 And [while] Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said to him, Behold, three men are looking for you. 20 Therefore arise and go down and go with them without doubting, for I have sent them. . . . . . . 26 But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up! I also am a man myself. 27 And as he talked with him, he went in and found many who had come
together. 28 And he said to them, You know that it is an unlawful thing for a man, a Jew to keep company with or to come near to one of another nation. But God has shown me not to call any man common or unclean.
***Galatians 2: 11 But when Peter came to Antioch, I opposed [him] to his face, because he was to be blamed. 12 For before some came from James, he ate with the nations/Gentiles. But when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those of the circumcision. 1 3 And the rest of the Jews also dissembled with him, so as even Barnabas was led away with their dissembling. 14 But when I saw that they did not walk uprightly with the truth
of the gospel, I said to Peter before all, If you, being a Jew, live as a Gentile, and not as the Jews, why do you compel [the] nations/Gentile to judaize?
***Acts 16: 3 Paul wanted him to go with him, and taking [him he] circumcised him , because of the Jews who were in those places; for they all knew that his father was a Greek. 4 And as they passed through the cities, they delivered to them the commandments to keep, th e ones that were ordained by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem.
***Acts 18:18 And Paul having remained many days more, taking leave of the brothers, he sailed from there into Syria. And Priscilla and Aquila were with him. And Paul had shorn his head in Cenchrea, for he had a vow.  19 And he came to Ephesus and left them there. But he himself entered into the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews. 20 And they asking [him] to stay a longer time with them, he did not consent 21 but took leave of them, saying, I must by all means keep this feast that is coming in Jerusalem , but I will return again to you, God willing. And he sailed from Ephesus.

***Acts 21:18 And on the next [day] Paul went with us to James. And all the elders were
present. 19 And having greeted them, he related one by one what things God had done
among the nations by his ministry. 20 And hearing, they glorified the Lord, and said to
him, You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are who believe, and they are
all zealous of the law. 21 And they are informed concerning you, that you teach all the
Jews who are among the nations to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to
circumcise [their] children, nor to walk after the customs.  22 What is it therefore? At all
events a multitude will come together, for they will hear that you have come. 23
Therefore do this, what we say to you: We have four men who have a vow on themselves;
24 taking them, be purified with them , and be at expense for them, so that they may
shave [their] heads. And all may know that what they have been told about you is
nothing, but you yourself also walk orderly and keep the Law. 25 And as to the nations
who believe, we joined in writing, judging them to observe no such things, except only
that they keep themselves from both idol sacrifice, and blood, and a thing strangled, and
[from] fornication. 26 Then taking the men on the next day, being purified with them,
Paul went into the temple, declaring the fulfillment of the days of the purification,
until an offering should be offered for each of them.

[ Doesn't this mean that the marriage and morality teachings
of 1 Thess. 4 ; Romans 7; 1 Corinthians 5, 6 and 7, which
were written before the time of Acts 21:16 while Paul
and the believing Jews, including the apostles, were
still obeying and teaching the marriage and morality
laws of the Law of Moses, discussed at length above
including polygyny ? Doesn't that mean that all of their terms and definitions were in harmony and accord with the Law of Moses, which the apostles were still keeping since they were believing Jews? Isn't it amazing that when God made up and gave all the exhaustive lists of sins, both in the Sinai Law and in the New Testament, He never included polygyny? If He made sure to condemn sodomy, pederastery, homosexuality, lesbianism, incest, adultery and fornication, then why didn't He also make sure to condemn polygyny, if it is the sin that some say it is?] So we see Paul, the Apostle of Grace to we non-Jews, purify himself with four other Christian Jews under a vow, pay the expenses of their being under the vow including the shaving of their heads, and have an offering offered for them all so that he could show the believing Jews that he walked orderly, keeping the Sinai Law and its customs and telling the believing Jews to circumcize their children and walk in Moses' customs. These
customs of Moses included the laws given to Moses regulating and recognizing polygyny. So the apostles and believing Jews were still keeping the Law, not for salvation, but to obey Jesus in Mat. 23:1-3, and still they do not condemn or reject the polygyny being practiced all around them by both Jews and Romans

WHY DON'T THE BELIEVING GENTILES/NONJEWS OF TODAY STILL KEEP THE LAW OF MOSES, WITH ITS PROVISIONS FOR POLYGYNY?

***AB Acts 15:¹³When they had finished talking, James replied, Brethren, listen to me ¹⁴Simeon [Peter] has rehearsed how God first visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people [to bear and honor] His name. ¹⁵And with this the predictions of the prophets agree, as it is written,  ¹⁶After this I will come back, and will rebuild the house of David, which has fallen; I will rebuild its [very] ruins, and I will set it up again, ¹⁷So that the rest of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles upon whom My name has been invoked,    ¹⁸Says the Lord, Who has been making these things known from the beginning of the world.    ¹⁹Therefore it is my opinion that we should not put obstacles in the way of and annoy and disturb those of the Gentiles who turn to God,  ²⁰But we should send word to them in writing to abstain from and avoid anything that has been polluted by being offered to idols, and all sexual impurity, and [eating meat of animals] that have been strangled, and [tasting of] blood.  ²¹For from ancient generations Moses has had his preachers in every town, for he is read [aloud] every Sabbath in the synagogues. ²²Then the apostles and the elders, together with the whole church, resolved to select men from among their number and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, [both] leading men among the brethren, and sent them.  ²³With [them they sent] the following letter: The brethren, both the apostles and the elders, to the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings:    ²⁴As we have heard that some persons from our number have disturbed you with their teaching, unsettling your minds and throwing you into confusion, although we gave them no express orders or instructions [on the points in question],  ²⁵It has been resolved by us in assembly to select men and send them [as messengers] to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, ²⁶Men who have hazarded their lives for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ.  ²⁷So we have sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will bring you the same message by word of mouth. ²⁸For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to lay upon you any greater burden than these indispensable requirements:    ²⁹That you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from [tasting] blood and from [eating the meat of animals] that have been strangled and from sexual impurity. If you keep yourselves from these things, you will do well. Farewell [be strong]! . . . . . . . . . 21:¹⁹After saluting them, Paul gave a detailed account of the things God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. ²⁰And upon hearing it, they adored and exalted and praised and thanked God. And they said to [Paul], You see, brother, how many thousands of believers there are among the Jews, and all of them are enthusiastic upholders of the [Mosaic] Law.  ²¹Now they have been informed about you that you continually teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn back from and forsake Moses, advising them not to circumcise their children or pay any attention to the observance of the [Mosaic] customs.  ²²What then [is best that] should be done? A multitude will come together, for they will surely hear that you have arrived.    ²³Therefore do just what we tell you. With us are four men who have taken a vow upon themselves. ²⁴Take these men and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses [for the temple offering], so that they may have their heads shaved. Thus everybody will know that there is no truth in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself walk in observance of the Law. ²⁵But with regard to the Gentiles who have believed (adhered to, trusted in, and relied on Christ), we have sent them a letter with our decision that they should keep themselves free from anything that has been sacrificed to idols and from [tasting] blood and [eating the meat of animals] which have been strangled and from all impurity and sexual immorality. 

In fact, it is not until after Acts 22 that the Spirit has Paul confirm in writing the confirmation of this Spirit led decision of the Apostles by writing the following about the uncircumcised GENTILES, those believers who are not Jewish:

***DBY+ AB EPHES. 2:  ¹¹Therefore, remember that at one time you were GENTILES(heathens, NOT JEWS) in the flesh, called UNCIRCUMCISION by those who called themselves Circumcision, [itself a mere mark] in the flesh made by human hands. ¹² [Remember] that you were at that time separated (living apart) from Christ, utterly estranged and outlawed from the rights of ISRAEL as a nation, and strangers with no share in the sacred compacts of the [Messianic] promise. And you had no hope (no promise); you were in the world without God. ¹³But now in Christ Jesus, you who once were [so] far away, through (by, in) the blood of Christ have been brought near.14 ¶ For *He* is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of enclosure, 15 having annulled the enmity in His flesh, the law of commandments in ordinances, that He might form the two in Himself into one new man, making peace; 16 and might reconcile both in one body to God by the cross, having by it slain the enmity; 17 and, coming, He has preached the glad tidings of peace to you who were afar off, and the glad tidings of peace to those who were nigh.
***DBY+AB COLOS. 2:¹¹In Him also you were circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, but in a [spiritual] circumcision [performed by] Christ by stripping off the body of the flesh (the whole corrupt, carnal nature with its passions and lusts). ¹²[Thus even though you were uncircumcised in the flesh you were circumcised in the Spirit when] you were buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised with Him [to a new life] through [your] faith in the working of God [as displayed] when He raised Him up from the dead.13* ¶ And you, being dead in offences and IN THE UNCIRCUMCISION OF YOUR FLESH, He has quickened together with Him, having forgiven us all the offences; 14* having effaced the handwriting in ordinances which stood out against us, which was contrary to us, He has taken it also out of the way, having nailed it to the cross; 15 having spoiled principalities and authorities, He made a show of them publicly, leading them in triumph by it.
 16* ¶ Let none therefore judge you in meat or in drink, or in matter of feast, or new moon, or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
***DBY 2 PETER 3:14 Wherefore, beloved, as ye wait for these things, be diligent to be found of him in peace, without spot and blameless; 15 and account the longsuffering of our Lord to be salvation; according as our beloved brother Paul also has written to you according to the wisdom given to him, 16* as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; among which some things are hard to be understood, which the untaught and ill-established wrest, as also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

SO WHAT PLACE DID POLYGYNY HAVE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH?

1 Cor 8, 10 and Romans 14 appear to have been given to enable the freed-from-having-to-observe-the-Law Gentiles/nonJews/Nations to be in fellowship with the Sinai Law observing Jewish disciples of Christ. Remember the instructions the Spirit gave Peter, James and the elders about the Gentiles:
"Acts 21:24 [Paul,] take these men and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses [for the temple offering], so that they may have their heads shaved. Thus everybody will know that there is no truth in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself walk in observance of the Law. 25 But with regard to the Gentiles who have believed (adhered to, trusted in, and relied on Christ), we have sent them a letter with our decision that they should keep themselves free from anything that has been sacrificed to idols and from [tasting] blood and [eating the meat of animals] which have been strangled and from all impurity and sexual immorality." See also Acts 15.

A Word regulating the practice of polygyny is 1 Cor 8, paraphrased with the polygyny application in [brackets]:
1Cor 8:  8 It is true that a particular kind of [marriage] will not bring us into God’s presence; we are neither inferior to others if we abstain from [polygyny], nor superior to them if we [practice] it. 9 But take care lest this liberty of yours should prove a hindrance to the progress of weak believers. 10 For if any one were to see you, who know the real truth of this matter, [practicing polygyny], would not his conscience (supposing him to be a weak believer) be emboldened to [practice polygyny as well but with doubts]? 11 Why, your knowledge becomes the ruin of the weak believer--your brother, for whom Christ died! 12 Moreover when you thus sin against the brethren and wound their weak consciences, you are, in reality, sinning against Christ. 13 Therefore if [my polygyny] causes my brother to fall, never again to the end of my days will I [openly and publically practice polygyny to the knowledge of weak believers], for fear I should cause my brother to fall. [Derived from 1 Cor 8:8-13]

Another Word regulating the practice of polygyny is 1 Cor 10, again paraphrased with the polygyny application in [brackets]:
'23 "All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up. 24  No one should seek his own benefit, but the benefit of his neighbor. 25 [Practice any legal form of marriage you wish]  without raising any question on the ground of conscience. . . .  27 If one of the unbelievers invites you to [a public and official polygynous wedding] and you are disposed to go, [partake in the event] without raising any question on the ground of conscience. 28 But if someone says to you, “[The public and official practice of polygyny is illegal here],” then do not [attend]  it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience— 29 I do not mean your conscience, but his. For why should my liberty be determined by someone else’s conscience? 30 If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks? 31 So, whether you [practice monogyny or polygyny], or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. 32 Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, 33 just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved.'

Christian elders agree that during Jesus' physical
and visible walk on earth, the Jews practiced
polygamy>24.
[Footnote: >24. Trobisch; MY WIFE MADE ME..P. 23. ;
"Polygamy was not definitely forbidden among the
Jews till the time of R. Gershom (c. A.d. 1000), and
then at first only for France and Germany. In Spain,
Italy,m and the East it persisted for some time longer,
as it does still among the Jews in Mohammedan
counties". HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE,
p.584. ; A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-
Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church, Vol. V, p. 267.;
A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene
Fathers of The Christian Church, Vol. iv, p.290.;
A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene
Fathers of The Christian Church, Vol. VIII, p. 258. ;
St. Augustin: On The Trinity, p. 402.;
HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE, p.259, 583ff.]

Let's look at the following evidence:
DOUGLAS NEW BIBLE DICTIONARY : MARRIAGE:
."Monogamy is implicit in the story of Adam and Eve,
since God created only one wife for Adam. Yet
polygyny is adopted from the time of Lamech (Gn.
4:19), and is not forbidden in Scripture . . ..It is
difficult toknow how far polygamy was practised, but
on economic grounds it is probable that it was found
more among the well-to-do than among the ordinary
people. Polygamy continues to the present day
among Jews in Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Asian,
Oriental, and African countries." >25
[>25 IVCF, Editor J.D.Douglas; 1962,W. B. Eerdmans
Publishing, p.787]

Eerdmans' Douglas' New Bible Dictionary: Concubine.
A secondary wife acquired by purchase or as a war
captive, and allowed in polygamous society such as
existed in the Middle east in biblical times....Where
marriages produced no heir, wives presented a slave
concubine too their husbands in order to raise an heir
(Gen. 16). Handmaidens, given as a marriage gift,
were often concubines (Gen. 29:24,29). Concubines
were protected under Mosaic law (Exod. 21:7-11; Dt.
21:10-14), though they were distinguished from
wives (Jdg. 8:31) and were more easily divorced
(Gen.21:10-14)
[Footnote: >26 IVCF, Editor J.D.Douglas; 1962,W. B.
Eerdmans Publishing.]

FUNK & WAGNALLS NEW ENCYCLOPEDIA:
CONCUBINAGE, Refers to the cohabitation of a man
and a woman without sanction of legal marriage.
Specifically, concubinage is a form of polygyny in
which the primary matrimonial relationship is
supplemented by one or more secondary sexual
relationships. Concubinage was a legally sanctioned
and socially acceptable practice in ancient cultures,
including that of the Hebrews; concubines, however,
were denied the protection to which a legal wife was
entitled. In Roman law, marriage was precisely
defined as monogamous; concubinage was tolerated,
but the concubine's status was inferior to that of a
legal wife. Her children had certain rights, including
support by the father and legitimacy in the event of
the marriage of the parents.
[Footnote: >27 1986, Funk & Wagnalls NEW
ENCYCLOPEDIA.]

In HASTING'S DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE we read
"Being .. apparently legalized, and having the
advantage of precedent, it was long before polygamy
was formally forbidden in Hebrew society, though
practically it fell into disuse; the feeling of the Rabbis
was strongly against it. Herod had nine wives at once.
. . Its possibility is implied by the technical
continuance of the Levirate law," [Deut. 25:5-10] "and
is proved by the early interpretation of 1 Ti 3,
whether correct or not. Justin reproaches the Jews of
his day" [A.D.] " with having 'four or even five wives,'
and marrying 'as they wish, or as many as they wish.'
The evidence of the Talmud shows that in this case at
least the reproach had some foundation. Polygamy
was not definitely forbidden among the Jews till the
time of R. Gershom (c. A.D. 1000), and then at first
only for France and Germany. In Spain, Italy, and the
East it persisted for some time longer, as it does still
among the Jews in Mohammedan countries."
[Footnote: >28. HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE;
p.583ff.]

Eugene Nida's (American Bible Society) book Customs
and Cultures>.29 . . documents the current practice of
polygyny by Christians in non Western countries, and
how it is still practiced in China, SE Asia, India, Africa
and parts of South America. Eugene Nida points out
that when polygamists become Christians they are
told of their limitations in church offices and are
asked not to take any additional wives because it
stumbles western Christians (Rom 14, l Cor. 8 and 10).
They are not usually asked to abandon their other
wives to a premature widowhood because of l Cor>.
7:1-15.
[Footnote: >.29 1954, Harper & Brothers, New York]

Tacitus, who died in 117 A.D., was a Roman historian
who provided us with one of the earliest detailed
descriptions of the Germans and their Germanic
tribes, which later migrated into western Europe and
included the English and the French. >30 These
Germans of his time were unique. They strictly
observed the marital tie and were generally content
with one wife for each husband, in marked contrast to
most of the "barbarians" of the time who often
practiced polygyny. The few exceptions to this
Germanic monogyny was when they were sought for a
polygynous marriage because of their high birth>31
[Footnotes:>30 Source: Tr. Maurice Hutton, in Tacitus:
Dialogus, Agricola, Germania, Loeb Classical Library
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1914).
WOMEN'S LIVES IN MEDIEVAL EUROPE - A
SOURCEBOOK; p. 36.;>31 WOMEN'S LIVES IN
MEDIEVAL EUROPE - A SOURCEBOOK; p. 37.]

**** 1 CORINTH. 7: 7 For I would that all men were
even as I myself am. But each has his proper gift from
God, one according to this manner and another
according to that. 8 I say therefore to the unmarried
and the widows, It is good for them if they remain
even as I. 9 But if they do not have self-control, let
them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn. 17
But as God has distributed to each one, as the Lord
has called each one, so let him walk. And so I ordain
in all churches.18 [Was] any called having been
circumcised? Do not be uncircumcised. Was anyone
called in uncircumcision? Do not be circumcised. . . .
20 Let each one remain in the calling in which he was
called. 21 Were you called as a slave? It does not
matter to you, but if you are able to become free, use
[it] rather. . . . 24 Each in whatever way he was called,
brothers, in this remain with God.
[Doesn't this principle extend to include being called in polygyny?
Wouldn't it be like this? ' But as God has distributed to each one, as the Lord
has called each one, so let him walk. And so I ordain
in all churches.18 [Was] any called in polygyny/concubinage? Do not become
monogynous. . . . . . 20 Let each one remain in the calling in which he was
called.' ]

Consider the following: "That the good
purpose of marriage, however, is better promoted by
one husband with one wife, than by a husband with
several wives, is shown plainly enough by the very
first union of a married pair, which was made by the
Divine Being Himself, with the intention of marriages
taking their beginning therefrom, and of its affording
to them a more honorable precedent. In the advance,
however, of the human race, it came to pass that to
certain good men were united a plurality of good
wives, --- many to each; and from this it would seem
that moderation sought rather unity on one side for
dignity, while nature permitted plurality on the other
side for fecundity. For on natural principles it is more
feasible for one to have dominion over many, than for
many to have dominion over one."
[Footnote: >..34 2b A Select Library of the Nicene and
Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church; Vol. V; Augustine p.
267]

Ephesians 2:14-18 and Colossians 2:11-17, confirmed by 2 Peter 3:15, show us that Jesus reveals and instructs us that nonJews-Gentiles were freed from having to observe the Law of Moses; while the believing Jews continue to obey the Law of Moses (Mat. 23:1-3; Acts 21:17-27; Acts 15; not for salvation but as the good works they were foreordained to walk orderly in Eph 2:10). Then not many years later causes the Jerusalem Temple to be destroyed so that it would be impossible for any Jew to keep all the Law and try to be saved by his/her good works.This means that the marriage and morality teachings of 1 Thess. 4 ; Romans 7; 1 Corinthians 5, 6 and 7 were written before the time of Acts 21:17-27 while Paul and the believing Jews, including the apostles, were still obeying and teaching the marriage and morality laws of the Law of Moses, discussed at length above including polygyny .

The change of significance was not that polygyny was condemned or forbidden but that monogamy was made a prerequisite for holding an official position of leadership in the local church (1 Tim 3; Titus 1). The polygyny of the Jewish, Greek and Roman world was not attacked, but the leadership of the local churches was transformed by the monogamy restriction, probably to prevent polygamous leaders from
getting involved in church service that would result in the neglect of time with their own children and/or wives. What was the actual status of polygamy in New Testament time, the First Century AD? Christian elders agree that during Jesus' physical and visible walk on earth, the Jews practiced polygamy>24.
[Footnote: >24. Trobisch; MY WIFE MADE ME..P. 23. ; "Polygamy was not definitely
forbidden among the Jews till the time of R. Gershom (c. A.d. 1000), and then at first only for France and Germany. In Spain, Italy,m and the East it persisted for some time  longer, as it does still among the Jews in Mohammedan counties". HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE, p.584. ; A Select Library of the Nicene and Post- Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church, Vol. V, p. 267.; A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church, Vol. iv, p.290.; A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church, Vol. VIII, p. 258. ; St. Augustin: On The Trinity, p. 402.; HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE, p.259, 583ff.]

WHAT THEN DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT ACTUALLY SAY ABOUT
POLYGYNY FOR BELIEVERS TODAY?
"Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits
adultery against her."  Mark 10:11 Pretty clear, right? But did you note
that nowhere in the Bible does He say "Whoever remains married to
his wife and marries another woman in polygyny commits adultery against her."
Why? When Jesus walked on earth didn't He Himself
command the apostles and His disciples to observe and obey all of
the Law of Moses>a., including the Laws about polygyny cited in the
following, and that the apostles and Jewish believers kept and
observed all the Laws given to Moses (including those about
polygyny) through the entire book of Acts>b period up until God
released the apostles and believing Jews from the Law of Moses in
Ephesians 2 and Colosians 2? What about the following facts:
(1) Immediately after God gave Moses the ten commandments He
gave Moses instructions for men who have more than one wife>14. .
(2) Later He gave Moses instructions (Dt.12:1ff) for a husband who
has two wives>15. .
(3) He gave Moses specific instructions for the brother-in-laws of a
widow and did not exempt any brother who was already married>16.
and Jesus introduced no such exemption when He spoke of this
passage>17.
(4) God Himself told polygynist King David (he had ten +/- wives and
concubines at the time>18. ) that He had been with him wherever he
had gone, that He would make a great name for him, that his descendant
would be the Messiah>19. , and that He Himself had given David
more than one wife>20.
(5) God, who cannot sin and never portrays Himself as sinning,
portrayed Himself as the polygynist husband of two wives in Ezekiel
23.
[Footnotes: >a. Matthew 23:1-3
>b. In Matthew 23:1-3 Jesus commands obedience to the Laws give n
to Moses. In Acts 15 the believing non-Jews, not the believing Jews, were released from the Laws given to Moses. In Acts 21:15-25 we see the Jewish apostle Paul and the surviving apostles still obeying the Law of Moses in obedience to Christ in Matt. 23:1-3.
>14. Exodus 21:7-11 (See Hosea 3:2; Deut. 25:5-10; Lev. 19:20)
>15. Deut. 21:15-17 (See 2 Chron. 24:3; Gen. 29:33; 1 Chron.5:2; 26:10;
2 Kings 2:9)
>16. Deut. 25:5-10
>17. Matt. 22:23-25; Mark 12:18-20; Luke 20:27-29
>18. 2 Samuel 5:13; 6:12-23
>19. 2 Samuel 7:8-17
>20. 2 Samuel 12:8 ; that this did not mean platonic care is evident
from 1 Kings 1:1-3; 2:13-25.]

Does Jesus' statement The two shall become
one flesh  mean that only one man and one woman
should become one flesh, as in monogamy>57 , as
most of the "leaders" maintain? Doesn't the Spirit uses The
two shall become one flesh principle in 1 Corinth. 6
to show that he who is joined to a harlot is one body
with her , and then uses the same one flesh
principle in Eph. 5 about a husband and his wife?
Do you recall the discussion of this issue in the section on
Adam and Eve?

1Cor.7:2's . . . ..each [man] is commanded to be having
his own wife, and each [woman] is commanded to be having her own
husband . How can this be an argument for monogamy as most Christian leaders
maintain>62? Whenever Abraham had Sarah, he had his own wife;
and whenever Abraham had Hagar, he had his own wife, not
someone else's wife,right? When David had Ahinoam, didn't he have his own
wife? When David had Abigail, didn't he have his own wife? When
David had Maacah, didn't he have his own wife? When David had Haggith,
didn't he have his own wife, instead of having another's wife? When David had
Abital, didn't he have his own wife? When he had Eglah, didn't he have his own
wife, not someone else's wife? Each time Jacob, Joash or Gideon had one of their own wives in polygny, wasn't he having his own wife/concubine? Wasn't each wife/concubine of these polygamists having her own polygamous
husband? Isn 't this also true of a man and his concubine with whom he
has maritally covenanted>22 honorably before God? Doesn't each polygynist
have his own wife, and have each one of them intimately and each one is
his own wife? Doesn't each of the polygynist's wives have her own husband
and have him intimately in their marriage. How does the passage above
rebuke, demean or condemn polygyny? Doesn't the passage address
marital faithfulness and exclude adultery, which involves a husband
having anothers wife and a wife having one who is not her own
husband? Doesn't it restrict sexual having to marriage with ones own
mate in monogyny or polygyny?
[Footnotes:>22 Ezek. 16:8; Malachi 2:10-17; Neh. 9:38 with 1 Sam.
20:3-17; As in Matt. 1:18-24 and Luke 1 & 2, she was his "wife" by their covenant even before their actual formal wedding.]

. . . .."let each man have his own wife, and let each wife have her own husband"
is not an argument for monogamy as most Christian leaders maintain>62 .
Whenever Abraham, David, Jacob, Joash or Gideon had one of their own wives,
he was having his own wife/concubine; and each wife/concubine of these
polygamists had her own polygamous husband. This is also true of a man and his concubine with whom he has maritally covenanted>22 honorably before God.
David had his own Abigail and Abigail had her own David. David had his own Abigail and Bathsheeba, and Bathsheeba and Abigail both
had their own David. The polygynist has his own wife, and has each one of them
intimately and each one is his own wife. Each of the polygynist's wives has her own
husband and has him intimately in their marriage. This passage does not rebuke, demean or condemn polygyny. The passage addresses marital faithfulness and excludes adultery, which involves a husband having anothers wife and a wife having one who is not her own husband. It restricts sexual having to marriage with ones own mate.
[Footnotes:>.62 Please see THE INSTITUTES OF BIBLICAL LAW, by R.
Rushdonney, p. 363.]

1 TIimothy 3: 1*  Faithful [is] the word: If anyone reaches out to overseership, he desires
a good work. 2* Then it behooves the overseer to be without reproach, husband of one
wife , temperate, sensible, well-ordered, hospitable, apt at teaching, 3 not a drinker, not
quarrelsome, not greedy of ill gain, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous, 4 ruling his
own house well, having children in subjection with all honor. 5 (For if a man does not
know to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) 6 not a novice,
lest being puffed up he may fall into the condemnation of the Devil. 7 But he must also
have a good report from those on the outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of
the Devil.
8 Likewise the deacons [are to be] reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine,
not greedy of ill gain, 9 having the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. 10 And let
these also first be tested, then let them [use the office of a deacon], being blameless. 11
Even so [their] wives are to [be] reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things.
12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling [their] children and households
well.
Titus 1: 6  if anyone is blameless, husband of one wife , having believing children, not
accused of loose behavior, or disobedient. 7 For an overseer must be blameless, as a
steward of God, not self-willed, not full of passion, not given to wine, not quarrelsome,
not greedy for ill gain; 8 but hospitable, a lover of good, discreet, just, holy, temperate 9
holding fast the faithful word according to the doctrine, that he may be able, by sound
doctrine, both to exhort and to convict the gainsayers.
[Are these requirements only for elders,overseers and deacons, or are they for all of us in
Christ? Aren't we all supposed to be without reproach, temperate, sensible, well-ordered,
not drinkers, not quarrelsome, not greedy of ill gain, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not
covetous, reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, having the mystery of
the faith in a pure conscience, being blameless, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all
things. having a good report from those on the outside?

But doesn't 1 Corinth. 12 and Ephes. 4 make it plain that we all have different gifts so
that some [but not all] are hospitable, some [but not all] are able to teach, some [but not
all] rule their own house well, some [but not all] have their children in subjection with all
honor, (For if one does not know to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the
church of God?)? Since novices are not expected to be able or qualified to be an elder,
overseer or deacon, doesn't that also mean that they are therefore not expected to be
mongynous? Since all believers are not required to have the gift of hospitality, of teaching,
of ruling well and effectively their children, and since all believers are novices at one point
in their spiritual lives, then isn't it obvious that not all believers have the gift (1 Cor. 7) of
monogyny? If these standards (especially monogyny) are to be required of all believers,
then what about those believers Paul encourages to never marry at all so that they can
wait on God without distraction in times of persecution? Isn't it clear that these
requirements are required only of those who seek to qualify for such positions?
Husband of one wife: Yes! Definitely!

An elder/overseer/bishop/superintendent of a
church must be the husband of only one wife. Are we all elders/overseers/bishops/
superintendents? Clearly not. The unmarried are not. The married who have unruly
children are not. Husbands with disrespectful, uncooperative and defiant wives are not.
The married and unmarried who are unable to teach are not. All novices are not. Those
with a bad reputation, earned or unearned, among the unsaved through slander or
misunderstandings are not. Those who dont want a church leadership position are not.
That includes most of us, and most of us are not covered by the injunction to be the
husband of only one wife.

There is the problem of the polygamous mentality. A man who has learned to love
passionately and maritally more than one wife at one time would be more vulnerable to
sexual temptation in church ministry than a man who has learned to love passionately and
maritally only one wife at a time. A ministering polygamist in a leadership position would
be more likely to be tempted to accept the advances/ propositions of an unmarried sister
in the church who falls in love with him and he with her. This could result in sex outside
of marriage (fornication) or yet another addition to his polygamous "harem". This would
stumble the saints and would be a reproach to the unsaved. It would appear that a godly
polygamist would have to have a very low profile (no leadership position) in the church,
as the scripture requires.]

Douglas New Bible Dictionary : MARRIAGE:
....."Monogamy is implicit in the story of Adam and
Eve, since God created only one wife for Adam. Yet
polygyny is adopted from the time of Lamech (Gn.
4:19), and is not forbidden inScripture. . . ...Polygamy
continues to the present day among Jews in Moslem,
Hindu, Buddhist, Asian, Oriental, and African
countries."
HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE: . . . Elkanah,
the husband of Hannah and Peninnah, is an
interesting example of a man of no particular position
who nevertheless had more than one wife; this may
be an indication that bigamy, at least, if not polygamy,
was not confined to the very wealthy and exalted. At
all events, polygyny was an established and
recognized institution from the earliest of times.>39
[Footnote: >39. HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE;
p.259.]

Polygamy meets us as a fact: e.g. Abraham, Jacob, the
Judges, David, Solomon; 1 Ch 7:4 is evidence of its
prevalence in Issachar; Elkanah (1 Sam.1:1ff) is
significant as belonging to the middle class; Jehoida (2
Ch 24:3) as a priest. . .Legislation . . . safeguarded the
rights of various wives, slave or free; and according to
the Rabbinical interpretation of Lv 21:13>40. . . .the
high priest was not allowed to be a bigamist. . . The
marriage figure applied to the union of God and Israel
. . . implied monogamy as the ideal state. . . Being ..
apparently legalized, and having the advantage of
precedent, it was long before polygamy was formally
forbidden in Hebrew society, though practically it fell
into disuse; the feeling of the Rabbis was strongly
against it. Herod had nine wives at once. . . Its
possibility is implied by the technical continuance of
the Levirate law, [Deut. 25:5-10] and is proved by the
early interpretation of 1 Ti 3, whether correct or not.
Justin reproaches the Jews of his day [A.D.] with
having 'four or even five wives,' and marrying 'as
they wish, or as many as they wish.' The evidence of
the Talmud shows that in this case at least the
reproach had some foundation. Polygamy was not
definitely forbidden among the Jews till the time of R.
Gershom (c. A.D. 1000), and then at first only for
France and Germany. In Spain, Italy, and the East it
persisted for some time longer, as it does still among
the Jews in Mohammedan countries>41.
[Footnote: (>.(40. Septuagint Lev. 21:13 "He shall take
for a wife a virgin of his own tribe.". .>41. HASTINGS
DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE; p.583ff.]

So what are you doing if you are condemning
polygyny in general as sin?Mark 7:8 [For], leaving
the commandment of God, you hold what is delivered
by men [to keep] --washings of vessels and cups, and
many other such like things you do. 9 And he said to
them, Well do you set aside the commandment of
God, that you may observe what is delivered by
yourselves [to keep]. . . . 13 making void the word of
God by your traditional teaching which you have
delivered; and many such like things you do.

Pretty serious stuff, laying aside God's
commands so you can keep your own traditions and
making God's Word ineffective through your
traditions. It wont look good for those folks at the
judgment seat of Christ. What about all those third
world folks, especially the Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist,
Asian, Oriental, and Africans, who are practicing
polygyny and are told that they have to dump and
abandon their extra wives &/or concubines in order
to become Christians, the biggest obstacle for the
Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Asian, Oriental, and African
community? These "Christian" folks who feel their
own tradition about monogamy and polygyny must
be kept by Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Asian, Oriental,
and Africans and other third world polygamists for
them to become Christians sound like these folks:
Mat.23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and
Pharisees, hypocrites, for you shut up the kingdom of
the heavens before men; for *you* do not enter, nor
do you suffer those that are entering to go in.

I understand that Rev. Joseph Conrad Wold>*, a
Lutheran missionary in Liberia, maintains the
following points: 1. Some missionaries have become
like the Pharisees, knit picking legalists; 2. For
unbelievers it is more of a question of who is or is not
a polygamist rather than who is and who isn't a
Christian; 3. Rejecting polygamy has become the
rejecting of polygamists; 4. If Cornelious>45 could be
born again without circumcision, then surely
polygamists should be able to be born again without
cutting away their wives, breaking their solemn
promises and forcing their beloved and faithful wives
into adultery for survival; 5 Let the polygamist be lost
because he refused to love and obey Jesus, rather
than because he loved his wives too much to cause
them to suffer, or was too virtuous to be a
hypocrite.>70 He makes such an impassioned case I
hope you take the time to read the original. Truly the
commandments of men, condemning as sin and
forbidding polygamy, make of no effect the
commandments of God for so many.
[Footnote: >*GOD'S IMPATIENCE IN LIBERIA, Rev.
Joseph Conrad Wold, pp. 179ff. >45 (Acts 10 &
11). @>.@70 Trobisch, MY WIFE MADE ME. . .
Pp.16 & 17;].

What about those who practice polygyny/concubinage
where most of the people on earth live, in China,
India, SE Asia, Africa and in parts of South America
where it is legal and a part of mans tradition? If the
condemnation of polygyny/concubinasge is only the
commandment and tradition of men, dare we impose
as Doctrine the commandment and tradition of men
about polygyny/concubinage as if it were the Word
of God? If our teaching against polygyny is only the
tradition and commandment of men, will we not
again make of no effect the Word of God in the lives
of these people who live where most of the people on
earth live ?

The angels are waiting to rejoice over the conversion
of one polygamous Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Asian,
Oriental, and African or third worlder and "Christian
legalists and traditionalists" wont let them in unless
they sin by "dealing treacherously">46 with their
wives &/or concubines by putting them away in
repudiation, and sin by disobeying Christ's command
not to leave their wives>47 , and sin by not
remaining in the marital condition in which they were
called to Christ. According to the New York Times
News Service, there were 200,000 polygynists in Paris
France alone. Can we turn away such a mission
field?
[Footnote: >46 (Malachi 2). >47 (1 Cor. 7:11)]
1 Cor.7: 17 However, as the Lord has divided to
each, as God has called each, so let him walk; and thus
I ordain in all the assemblies. . . 20 Let each abide in
that calling in which he has been called. . . . 24 Let
each, wherein he is called, brethren, therein abide
with God. . . . 26 I think then that this is good, on
account of the present necessity, that [it is] good for a
man to remain so as he is. 27 Are you bound to a
wife? Seek not to be loosed; Are you free from a
wife? Do not seek a wife.

Yes, that means if they were called in polygyny, they
remain in polygyny unless their polygyny violates the
law>48 of the land they are called in. If the law of
the land prohibits their polygyny, they cannot dump
their wives since they are bound by God to them in
marriage since Gods Laws take precedence over the
laws of man>49 , so they must change their formal
polygyny to informal concubinage to live without
offense>50 .
[Footnote: >48 Romans13. >49 (Moses & Pharaoh,
Daniel and the lions, Shedrach and the fiery furnace,
Acts 4). >50 Romans 13 & 14.]

Yes, that means that if they were called in
concubinage, they remain in concubinage unless (1)
their informal concubinage should become formal
polygyny so as not to offend or stumble the Church
>51 , or (2) their open and public concubinage must
become personal, private, discrete and secretive>52
so as not to stumble or offend the saints.
[Footnote: >51 Romans 14 & 15. >52 Romans 14 &
15, 1 Cor. 8 & 10]

So polygyny in and of itself is not a sin and was
tolerated in the Bible>71, unless practiced in violation
of mens laws>53 , or unless its practice is abused by
offensive selfishness and sinfulness>54. The polygyny
of concubinage is not illegal in modern society, but is
bound by the principles of Liberated Love in Romans
14, 1 Cor 8 and 10.
[Footnote: >.71 Please see THE INSTITUTES OF
BIBLICAL LAW, by R. Rushdonney, p. 364.
HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE; 1989, p.259;
p.583ff. >53 (Rom 13). >54 (Rom. 14) ]

The New York Times News Service reported in Jan. '96 that there were 200,000
individuals involved in polygamous marriages in Paris France alone. These polygamous
individuals were reported to be mostly immigrants from SE Asia, India, Pakistan,
Bangladesh and Africa. This is significant since England and Germany also have similar
immigrant populations with similar marriages. This is an awesome mission field right in
middle of Western Europe, involving our NATO allies. Are we going to exclude them
from the Gospel message because of their polygamy? Are we going to tell the husbands to
disobey the Jesus who condemns the breaking of marital covenants (Mal.2; Rom. 1) by
abandonning/divorcing all their wives but one. Are we going to disobey the Jesus who
tells new converts to stay in the calling in which they were called (1 Cor.7:25-35) and tell
the husbands not to abide in the polygamous calling in which they were called, but to
dump and abandon their "extra" wives, condemning them to widowhood, poverty and
prostitution?

It is incredible to think that Jesus and the apostles would say nothing about such a
widespread contemporary practice as polygyny if it were indeed sinful, less than God's
best, carnal and reprobate to good works. God never said such a thing in Old Testament
times and He obviously never said such a thing in New Testament times. When you
consider how specific God was in Lev. chaps. 18-22; Deut. chaps. 22-24; Romans 1; 1
Cor. 6; 2 Cor. 6; Gal. 5 and etc., I can not believe that God would "forget" to include
polygyny if it is as bad as most Christian leaders say it is. Let's take a look at what most
Christian leaders say about polygyny and concubines in the next section.

Being one flesh, as Eph. 5:22-33 shows, is one of the best motives for the husband being  good and godly to his wife. A Christian elder apparently maintains that godly equality is
possible only in a monogamous marriage, and that polygamy increases women's
subordination.>59 He apparently believes that the harmony and unity of Gen. 2:24 is
unable to develop in a polygamous marriage, and that monogamy best reflects Christ's
love to the Church>60. How did I miss that? Was it the blissful and enraptured love the
Shulamite had for her Solomon who loved and adored her in their polygynous
marriage>15? Was it Abigail who gave up her wealthy independence as Nabal's widow in order to be David's wife in a polygynous marriage?
[Footnotes:>59. Trobisch; MY WIFE MADE ME A POLYGAMIST; p21ff. >60.
Trobisch; MY WIFE MADE ME. . . . P. 25. >15 (Song of Sol. 6)]

No, but I think a Christian elder missed the point that a tragic number husbands around
the world have neglected, been unloving to, abused and subordinated their wives in
monogamy. The women's movement for the right to vote, the heart breaking of spousal
abuse and neglect, the right to have equal pay for equal tasks done by men, and the whole
affirmative action program for women shows that monogamy proves to be a pretty
effective context in which women can be subordinated and treated quite unlovingly. The
problem, again, is that sin and the flesh are the problem, not monogamy or polygyny.
There is no question that monogamy best reflects Christ's love to the Church, that is why
He chose it and modeled it for all the Church leaders>16 of whom He is the Chief leader.
The real situation is that we are all not Church leaders and we all have our "best", our
different "gifts" from God>17 .
[Footnotes:>16 (1 Tm. 3 & Ti. 1). >17 (1 Cor. 7:6,7,17-28)]

I understand a Christian elder to state that in monogamy both leave and both cleave,
becoming one flesh, and this is only possible for two marital partners, therefore
polygamy is excluded by the Biblical idea of equality>61. He gives no scripture reference
for this position, and I don't believe he would be able to do so. Statistics show that most
Christian monogamous marriages fail to maintain this harmonious equality, and again
because of sin and the flesh. There is no claim that in polygyny three "become one", but
indeed the husband does become one flesh with each of his wives>18 and the fornicator
becomes one flesh with each harlot with whom he fornicates>19 . There is no reason why
a polygynist and his wives/concubines could not attain to the level of the saints in the
early church where they shared all that they had, and had all things in common>20 in a
sweet and loving harmony. In the Lord any family, even a polygynous family, can achieve that unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace>21 .
[Footnotes:>61. Trobisch; MY WIFE MADE ME. . . >. P. 49ff. >18 (Matt. 19). >19 (1
Cor. 6:12-20). >20 Acts 4. >21 (Phil. 4:13;Eph. 4:1-5; Psalm 133 and Acts 3 & 4)]

Are polygyny and concubinage a form of female abuse? Without even discussing cases
like that of OJ Simpson's, there is a very well documented serious and growing problem
of spousal abuse in monogamous America. There is still an internationally known serious
and abiding problem of males killing their wives either to free them so they can get the
dowry of a new wife, or just because they don't love their wives, in India where open
polygyny has been illegal for some time. You will find spousal abuse in every form of
marriage known to and practiced by humans because their sinful nature>3 or because of
the involvement of evil spiritual beings>4. The problem is not the social form of the
marriage. The problem is in the humans who exercise that social form of marriage. Mates will abuse mates whether it be polygyny or monogyny.
[Footnote: >3 Rom 3:23. >4 Eph. 2:1,2; 6:12.]

Does it denote inferiority on the part of the woman? There is nothing in the Bible that
says women are inferior to men. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond
nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.">5 What
does it mean to be in Christ Jesus? "But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great Love
with which he Loved us, even when we were dead in sins, has made us alive together with Christ . . . and has raised [us] up together, and made [us] sit together in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus . . . for through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father." >6 In terms of what is real, spiritually right now we who are His children have a presence in His
very presence right now where sex is totally irrelevant and inconsequential. "Therefore,
from now on, we know no one according to the flesh. . .">7 Our sexuallity is not a
legitimate basis for knowing each other or relating to each other. Our sexuality is like a
temporary "uniform" we wear during a short period of our eternal life with God, or like an
instrument we temporarily play in God's orchestra.
[Footnote: >5 Gal 3:28. >6 Ephes. 2:1-18. >7 2 Cor. 5:16]

Our Father decided>8 which of us would wear female "uniforms" and which would wear
male "uniforms", which of us would play female insturments and which of us would play
male instruments during our pilgrimage on earth. As the Grand Conductor of his
orchestra, He decides where we should be and when we should play our "instrument" or
wear our "uniform". All are uniformed musicians in God's orchestra and all are musicians
with an instrument to play. There are varying degrees of skill and varying degrees of
importance in His orchestra>9 We know that everyone in the orchestra must be
harmonious and unified in their effort because it takes only one musician to make one sour note to mess up the performance, so clearly all are important and are all under the
command of the Conductor.
[Footnote: >8 Eph. 1:11; Rom. 8:28. >9 Rom. 12; 1 Cor. 12.]

For some of us life means we are males, for some of us life means we are females, all
under the same Conductor. His males and His females must be harmonious and unified in their effort because it only take one member to be grieved for the whole Body of Christ to be hurting>10 . The females' part in the symphony of life is spelled out in Bible
passages>11 and the males' part in the symphony of life is spelled out in Bible
passages>12. They are not the same parts, but under the grand Conductor the parts can
and should be harmonious and unified, blending to produce a wonderful work for the
benefit of all.
[Footnote: >10 Rom. 12:5; 1 Cor. 12:26,27. >11 Gen. 2; 1 Cor. 11:1-16; 14:34,35,36;
Ephes. 5; 1 Tim. 2 & 5 and Titus 2. >12 Gen. 2; 1 Cor. 11:1-16; Eph. 5; 1 Tim 3 & 5;
Titus 1 & 2.]

If that means the Conductor wants the male to play the lead violin and the female to play
the lead viola in a duet (marriage), then He knows best and can draw out of us in that
relationship beautiful harmonies for the delight and benefit of all. The female is not
inferior to the male, but while they are male and female, He has laid down some rules how we are to relate in His Church when we assemble in one place, and He has laid down some rules when we come together in marriage/sex. If we Love Him, we will obey His rules in those settings>13 . If we love Him, we will compassionately cherish each other, male and female, in obedience to Him. Sacrificial and self-denying compassionate cherishing results in no victims, not tyrants, no dictators, no slaves and no abuse. It means seeking the best for the object of such Love and cooperating with them to achieve that best.
[Footnote: >13 John 14:15, 21; 1 John 2:1-5; Heb. 5:8,9]

Do polygyny and concubinage unfairly or unjustly give a male the advantage over his
women? The husband is still commanded to live wisely and respectfully>14 with his wife
and we know that the beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord resulting in obedience to the Lord>15 . The husband is still commanded to compassionately cherish his wife as
Christ compassionately cherishes the Church. The advantage over women? It sounds
more like the male is given additional and solemn responsibilities for the loving of his
woman.
[Footnote: >14 1 Peter 3:7. >15 Psalm 19:9; Prov. 1:7; Hebrews 5:6,7,8,9; Prov. 4:20-22]

I submit to you that, as most Christian messengers have said, monogyny is the ideal and
preferable form of marriage for most people. Most of us do not live in an ideal and
preferred world. Most of us do not have first class tickets for the trip of life. Most of the
Christian leaders told us that our ancestors were wrong in their practice of polygyny, so
most of us stopped practicing it. In this document I submit that, for us who find
ourselves in such a less than perfect world, we need to know our options and know them
better. I try to show in this paper, that polygyny and concubinage are options available
to followers of Christ today, that polygyny and concubinage are neither sinful nor
displeasing to God, that polygyny or concubinage may be God's ideal/best for you, and
that there is a way for the godly in Christ Jesus to live in polygyny or concubinage that
today is acceptable to God and allowed by society. As with any controversial thing>16 in
life, one must search out the will of God in the matter and, with His wisdom and enabling,
walk in it as He leads and provides. Hopefully this paper will help you move in that
direction, if it is His will.
[Footnote: >16 Romans 14]

VI. ADULTERY DEFINED, A SURPRISE! ISNT POLYGYNY ADULTERY?

Some say The same laws apply to both male and female. This is an issue of nature, not
role. Therefore all are equal: male and female. Some Bible interpreters are more zealous for unisex doctrines and practices than the bleeding heart liberals who encourage unisex restroom and coed dorms. God made males and females very different for a reason, and we miss the mark when we fail to recognize the differences He made and instituted. Mary leave/divorces Elias. Some say that this forsaken Elias commits adultery when he marries
Sally but the Biblical definition of adultery>143 in Matt. 5:32 and 19:6-9; Mark 10:1-11;
Luke 16:18; 1 Thess. 4:4-6 and Romans 7:1-3>143 plainly states the double standard in
the definition of adultery. There really are different scriptural laws for men than for
women governing marriage and remarriage, and there are different scriptural laws for men than for women defining adultery.

Adultery for the woman:
1. "Whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery">144. The reason being that she is still bound to him as wife.>145.
[Footnote: >144 Mat. 5:32; 19:9; Luke 16:18; except in the cases of 1 Cor. 7:12-15,39; 1
Tim. 5:14. >145. 1 Cor. 7:10, 11, 39; Romans 7:1-3. ]

2. The husband "causes her to commit adultery" when he divorces her for any reason
other than sexual immorality>146. The reason being that she is still bound to him as
wife.>147 In 1 Corinth. 7:5 we see that her husband "causes her to commit adultery"
because her husband is failing to meet her marital needs and the enemy of her soul tempts in her burning need. (On the other hand: The wife is not said to cause her husband to commit adultery when she divorces him for any other reason than sexual immorality, probably because he is free to be a polygynist.)
[Footnote: >146. Matt. 5:32; 19:9. >147 1 Cor. 7:10, 11, 39; Romans 7:1-3.]

3. "And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits
adultery.">148. The adultery consists of both divorce AND remarriage. The reason being
that she is still bound to him as wife.>149.
[Footnotes:>148. Mark 10:12. >149. 1 Cor. 7:10, 11, 39; Romans 7:1-3.]

4. "if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man.">150
[Footnote: >150. Romans 7:3.]

Adultery for the man:
1. "Whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery", obviously because she still is bound to the husband from whom she is divorced.
[>.^151. Mat. 5:32; 19:9; except in the cases of 1 Cor. 7:12-15,39; 1 Tim. 5:14.]

2. "Whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another,
commits adultery." The adultery consists of divorcing his wife for something else besides
sexual immorality AND then remarrying. If he stayed married to his wife and married
another, he became a polygynist. On the other hand, it is implied here that if he divorces
his wife for sexual immorality and marries another, he does not commit adultery. His
divorcing her does not cause her to commit adultery because she is already immorally
sexually involved with someone else. His refusal to meet her sexual needs (1 Cor 7:2-5)
does not cause her to be immoral because she is already being immoral. He is commanded
not to be intimate with her (1Cor.5:11) but his lack of her intimacy will cause him to be
tempted (1 Cor.7:5). If the temptations overcome him and he is faling to control himself,
burning with marital desire, he comes under command to marry (1Cor.7:9) and so
remarries in the Lord. [Footnote: >152. Matt 19: 9: Mark 10:11; Luke 16:18.152.]

3. "You shall not covet your neighbor's wife.">153. "You shall not lie carnally with your
neighbor's wife>154. "For this is the will of God. . . ..that no one should take advantage of
and defraud/cheat his brother in this matter.>155. A genuine Christian wife is bound to
her husband as long as he lives and she becomes an adulteress when she marries another while he still lives.
[Footnotes:>153. Exod. 20:17. >154. Leviticus18:20. >155. 1 Thess. 4:3-6.]

Adultery for the female is sexual intimacy with anyone else besides her own
husband/mate. Adultery for the male is when (1) he is married to a new wife and had
left/rejected/divorced his former wife in order to marry this new wife>99 . ; or (2) is
sexually intimate with some one elses wife. It is this double standard that allowed
Abraham, Jacob, David and Joash to be godly polygamists, but declared a woman to be an
adulteress if she was intimate with anyone but her own mate. It is a double standard for
the man and the woman, just like polygyny was/is a double standard for the man and the
woman. The same sin is defined differently for the woman and differently for the man.
See more on this below.
[Footnotes:>99 It is the combination of divorcing one's mate in order to marry another
and then marrying that other. If he both dutifully keeps his own wife and then marries
another woman, it is polygyny and not adultery. If the wife dutifully keeps her own
husband and marries another it is adultery (Romans 7:3) The double standard is clearly
laid out in Matt. 5:32 and 19:6-9; Mark 10:1-11; Luke 16:18; 1 Thess. 4:4-6 and Romans
7:1-3; 1 Corinth. 7:39]

It is this double standard that results from the man being the designated the head of the
family (Gen 2; 1Cor. 11), that results in what appears to be another inequity. In Mt. 5:32
Jesus apparently allows the genuinely believing husband to divorce his wife because she is snared in sexual immorality. Not only is he allowed to divorce her, he is allowed to
remarry. If she is genuinely saved, she is still bound maritlly to him as wife before the
Lord, even though she is snared in sex sin and Jesus hasn't finished his Mat. 18;15-18 & 1 Cor. 5:5-11 work with her yet. He remarries with a free-in-the-Lord-to-marry genuinely
believing woman and is now bound before the Lord to two wives. If the one involved in
sex sin survives 1 Cor . 5 and repents according to 2 Cor. 2 & 7, he must accept her back
as his wife along with his new wife, being bound to both as long as he and they all live.

What about the genuinely saved wife whose "believing" husband is involved in sex sin
so she is commanded to separate from and not be intimate with him.
Such a wife separates from him according to 1 Cor. 7:10,11 but after a while she finds
herself being tempted according to 1 Cor.7:5. Then she falls to the temptation and is
afraid she might fall to it again, finds herself maritally burning and under command be
married and have marital sex (1Cor.7:5,9). Hopefully Jesus has finished his 1 Cor. 5:4,5-
11 work and the guy has either died and his spirit is with the Lord, if he were really
saved, or he has repented according to 2 Cor 2 & 7 and is ready to be reconciled to her. Or
in the case of Matt. 18:15-18 she has learned that she is to relate to him as an unsaved
person, an unsaved person who no longer wants to live with her, no longer wants her as
his wife(1Cor7:13,15), so she is free from him and free to obey the Lord and get married
in the Lord.

Will God intervene in behalf of His fasting and praying but maritally burning and sorely
tempted daughter, who as wife is separated from her husband because of his 1 Cor. 5 sin,
and because of that separation is burning with marital desire and sorely tempted? If He
took out the rich and unloving believers in 1 Cor. 11 for the shabby way they stumbled
and offended their poorer brethren in the celebration of the Lord's supper, don't you think
He will give her a 1 Cor. 10:13 out or make a quick end the husband causing her the grief?
The God who promised 1 Cor. 10:13 and Phil. 4:6,7,13,18,19 will not break those
promises.

Let's look at some hypothetical examples. Elias was divorced/ rejected/abandoned by Jane
(with his never repudiating or rejecting Jane as wife) his new marriage to free-to-marry
Sally may violate no scripture, may not be what the Bible calls adultery and may seem to
put him in the Old Testament position of having and being bound to more than one wife. I
understand he would still be bound by the Lord to the saved wife who left him.
But the way is narrow. If saved Jane leaves/divorces her saved Elias and marries Harry, it
is adultery as long as both Jane and Harry are married and Elias lives. If saved Elias
leaves/divorces saved Jane for Sally and marries saved Sally, it is adultery as long as Jane
lives and Elias and Sally are married and repudiating Jane. If Elias's wife Sally is sexually
intimate with someone else it is adultery. If Elias is sexually intimate with Pete's lawful
wife, it is adultery. If married Elias is sexually intimate with single/ unmarried Susie who
is playing the harlot (having sex without being married), it is fornication>156 If American
and legally married-to-Jane Elias also legally marries free-to-marry Betty, it is a sin
because Elias is under command>157 to obey the laws of the government authorities
which forbids official/legal bigamy and polygyny and he would have to live with the legal
consequences.
[Footnotes:>156 (Ezekiel 16 and 23 and 1 Corinth. 6. >157 Romans 13; 1 Peter 2:12-14]

Mark 10 ; 1 Cor 7:10,11, 12, 13-15,39; and Rom 7 seem to state rather clearly that a
Christian marriage lasts and is binding on both as long as both live. That being the case I
often wondered why God gave the Christian wife the second best option of departing and
remaining unmarried and possibly being reconciled with her saved husband later. The
husband is given no such second best option. He must not leave his wife, period! Because
of spousal abuse I can understand why God would allow a wife to separate herself while
still bound to the abuser in marriage in order to allow the exercise of church
discipline>158 to have an effect. But what about that poor turkey of a husband who is
warned by God>159 that being deprived of his wife will result in Satanic temptations to
immorality and that he is explicitly forbidden to leave her, send her away or ask her to
leave>160. No qualifications or exceptions. Why the double standard? See below.
[Footnotes:>158 (Matt 18 and l Cor 5). >159 (1 Cor. 7:1-5). >160 (Greek of l Cor.
7:11,12 and Mark 10)]

The scriptures above make it plain that if Jane Dovany exercised her 1 Cor 7:11
repentance option, having left/divorced Elias, and then Elias repudiated/ rejected Jane in
order to marry Sally, Elias's rejection/repudia-tion of Jane coupled with his marriage to
Sally constitutes Biblical adultery. It would be adultery if saved Jane divorced/ rejected
saved Elias and married Harry because Biblical adultery in the scriptures above is saved
Jane divorcing/ rejecting saved Elias and marrying some one else. According to all of those
scriptures, adultery for the male is either (1) the act of marrying or being intimate with
someone else's wife, (2) or the act of leaving one wife and taking another wife. Adultery
for the wife is having sexual intimacy with anyone else except her husband to whom she
is married for life. If you very carefully examine those scriptures you will see that the
Bible does not say it is adultery for Elias to recognize AS WIFE his self-separated Jane
and at the same time take as wife another saved and free-to-marry (unbound/ unmarried)
sister. See the discussion on polygyny.

Yes, thats right, there is a double standard going all the way back to Genesis. It was not
adultery for a married man to marry another woman free-to-marry under the laws of God
throughout the whole Old Testament. It was legal and divinely permitted polygyny , if
the scriptures are understood correctly. Under the same Word of God, a woman who was
sexually intimate with another besides her own husband was an adulteress. The double
standard started in Genesis 3:16, restated in 1 Corinth. 11 and 1 Timothy 2 appear to
allow a godly man to be a polygamist but does not allow a godly woman to be a
polyandrist.

The woman's repentance option explains the double standard and apparent inequity of 1
Corinthians 7:10,11 where it appears that the woman who has left her husband has the
repentance option of remaining single but the man must never leave his wife. If a wife left
her husband according to 1 Cor. 7:11, he would immediately be put in the hazardous
position of 1 Corinth 7:1-5, being tempted to sin because his wife will not give him the
marital sexual outlet since she is gone. It seemed to me to be quite unfair that she could
leave him and live unmarried, and he, knowing he is still bound to her for life, has to
struggle with the burning temptations predicted in 1 Corinth. 7:1-5, 9 with no legitimate
sexual outlet.

Then I realized that 1 Corinth. 7:1-5 predicted his need of marital intimacy, how Satan
would use the wife's absence to tempt him, how marital intimacy is the prescription to
avoid Satan's temptations, and then the command in verse 9 plainly commands the one to
marry who is failing to have successful self-control>100 . Then I realized that the
polygyny option balanced the equation. The wife could leave her husband and remain
single and the husband who was still bound to such a departed wife seems to have had a
Biblical option of polygyny / concubinage, (depending on the laws of his land) if he found
himself tempted and burning as in 1 Cor. 7:5, 9,12. She could leave and he could remarry
becoming a polygamist and the inequity was gone. She could separate and remain single,
and he could remarry as long as he recognized that he was still bound to his separated
wife.
[Footnote: >100 See Appendix Six.]

Now consider the case where the wife, claiming to be a Christian, refuses for years to
obey 1 Cor. 7:1-5 with her saved husband and then finally leaves, abandons, rejects
,separates herself , and dismisses him from her presence. She doesn't care about getting a
formal divorce but feels free to date and get involved with another man. Her abandoned
husband is faced with the question, "Is she saved and is it a case of 1 Cor. 7:11 & 39 or is
she unsaved and is he free according to l Cor. 7:12 & 15?" Her abandoned husband wants
to do Matt. 18:15-17 to clarify the situation and get an answer to his question but can
find no Christian body willing to do the following:
**** **** 1 CORINTH. 5: . . . I indeed have judged already [as though I were]
present [concerning] him who worked out this thing; 4 in the name of our Lord Jesus
Christ, when you are gathered together, with my spirit; also, with the power of our Lord
Jesus Christ; 5 to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that the
spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. . . . 11 But now I have written to you
not to associate intimately, if any man called a brother [and is] either a fornicator, or
covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one not
to eat. 12 . . . Do you not judge those who are inside? 13 . . . Therefore put out from you
the evil one.
**** MATTHEW 5:32* But I say to you that whoever shall put away his wife, except
for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery. And whoever shall marry her
who is put away commits adultery. . . . 18 Truly I say to you, Whatever you shall bind on earth shall occur, having been bound in Heaven; and whatever you shall loose on earth shall occur, having been loosed in Heaven.
MATTHEW 18: 15 But if your brother shall trespass against you, go and tell him his
fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if
he will not hear [you], take one or two more with you, so that in [the] mouth of two or
three witnesses every word may be established. 17 And if he shall neglect to hear them,
tell [it] to the church. But if he neglects to hear the church, let him be to you as a heathen
and a tax-collector.

This means he is unable to clarify the status of both himself and his departed wife. He is
unable to determine if she is unsaved and he is free to remarry>161, , or if she is saved
and he is bound maritally to her for life>162 So without sending her away, dismissing ,
repudiating, leaving, releasing or separating himself from her, he gets a legal divorce (on
the grounds of irreconcilable differences) for state and federal tax and inheritance purposes
but reaffirms in writing to her what he believes may be the binding nature of their
relationship>163 .
[Footnotes>161 1 Cor. 7:12,13,14,15. >162 1 Cor. 7:10,11, 39; Mark 10; Rom. 7:1-5.
>163 (1 Cor. 7:39)]

So the divorce is only a legal recognition of the wife's departure and
unwillingness to be reconciled, while he still publicly recognizes the binding nature of
their relationship. Then he remarries another Christian because his burning and his 1 Cor.
7:5 predicted failures to control himself bring him under the command to marry in l Cor.
7:9,36 (NIV & Amplified "they should marry"),
1 Cor. 7:36 (NIV "They should get married);
1 Tim 5:14 (NIV "So I counsel younger widows to marry.."
Amplified "So I would have younger [widows] marry..") and
1 Thess 4:3-8 (NIV "that each of you should learn to control his own body in a way that
is holy and honorable . . ..") >101
[Footnote>101 Please see Appendix Six; NIV , NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION. ]

He has entered the realm of American polygyny . Legally divorced and remarried but
openly acknowledging his marital ties to two "sisters-in-Christ", he is an American
polygamist. The departed wife could remarry in adultery or remain single the rest of her
life while he continues in his new marriage. If she repents and opts for reconciliation after
he has married again, all of her rights and privileges as in 1 Cor. 7:1-5 & 39 are in force and
the husband faces the complex dilemma described next. How do you have two wives in
America where it is illegal to officially and "legally" have more than one wife of official
public record with tax and inheritance rights granted and protected by the government?
Please see the discussion of polygyny in chapter 4.

I understand a Christian elder to state that it is inadequate to prescribe polygamy as a
treatment for the problem of adultery, because polygamy facilitates stepping into
adultery. Apparently he maintains that polygamous wives are often driven to adultery by
the sinful neglect)>23 of their husbands, and may have to bribe their husbands away from
their other wives, resulting in very unsatisfying sexual relations for the wives.>63. First
of all, God is the only real antidote against adultery, because He tells us that even in
monogyny spousal neglect can result in temptations to adultery>24 . Secondly, whether
it be the "inclusive sex-partnership" of polygyny or the exclusive sex-partnership of
monogyny, the step to adultery depends entirely on the individual's relationship to Jesus,
obedience to Jesus and level of commitment to both Jesus and the marriage. Surveys show
that monogamous America today steps easily and frequently to adultery. Lastly, if the
polygynist husband was obeying Jesus by having his own wives >25 , defrauding none of
them>26 , loving them and laying down his life for them>27 , showing no favoritism or
partiality in his behavior towards them>28 , by simply walking in the Spirit his family
would be very unlikely to experience the problem described above by a Christian elder.
[Footnotes:>23 (1 Cor. 7:2-5. {>63. Trobisch; MY WIFE MADE ME. . .. P. 31ff. >24 (1
Cor. 7:1-5). >25 (1Cor.7:1-4). >26 (1Cor.7:5). >27 (Eph. 5). >28 (1Tim5:20,21)]


VII. SO, WHAT ABOUT CONCUBINES & POLYGYNY TODAY ?

The aim of this document is to show that both monogyny and polygyny or concubinage
may be acceptable options for the followers of the Lord Jesus Christ, God revealed in a
human body and Savior of the world. It is written from a Christian, orthodox,
fundamenta-list, dispensationalist, charismatic and evangelistic point of view for any who
are interested in a minority view of what the Bible says about monogyny, polygyny,
concubinage, divorce and remarriage. The writer believes that monogyny is the best for
most, but that for those who are called in or called to polygyny or concubinage in this
mortal life -- their calling may be exercised in a manner acceptable to God and tolerated by
their fellow man if they walk in the Spirit and in Christ's law of Love.

Polygamy and polygyny are currently illegal in most of the world, the Third World's and
the Orient's token sacrifice to enter the world of the "West", the lifestyle of America, and
the captialism and technology of the 20th century. Few educated and succesful Orientals,
Asians or Third Worlders would want to appear to be primitive and barbaric by having
more than one wife, especially when his peers will instead admire him if he has
concubines or mistresses on the side. Two thirds of the world's population live in
societies where concubines and mistresses are officially sanctioned and the other third
lives in societies where mistresses and common law wives are officially sanctioned. The
plight of most wives, concubines and mistresses are worse now than when polygamy
were legal because then at least they had some security and commitment from their mates
even if they took additional wives, while now they are dumped (divorced etc.) when the
man takes a new wife, mistress or concubine.

Are polygyny and concubinage only for the benefit of males? It is 1995 and the women
live in Somalia or Rawanda and Burundi, Africa. Almost 50% of them are widows and
almost 50% of the marriagable men in their tribe/nation have been killed or have been
missing for months. It is a patriarchal society and the women do not want to be lesbians.
They can live as single widows suffering mind and heart breaking hardships in a war
ravaged poverty stricken land with no protection against sexual attack by roving homeless
males; or they can become the polygynous wives or concubines of one of the few
surviving stable and working males, coming under their societies patriarchal umbrella,
becoming part of a working family unit with all its support and having protection against
the vulnerability of living alone. It is 1995 and the women living in Bosnia, Rawanda,
Somalia, Sri Lanka, Cambodia and in Black inner city ghettos are facing the same critical
shortage of marriagable males in a patriarchal society where they want no part of
lesbianism. In 1990, it was found that 33% of all black males aged 20 - 29 were either
incarcerated, on parole, or on probation.>1a. I got more information from a local
newspaper>1b. 1.) Approximately 1 out of every 25 black males is in prison; 2.)
Between prison and death, there are significantly more Black females available for
marriage than Black males; 3.) The vast majority of the Black males in prison range in age
from 20 - 40, with most in the 25-35 age group; 4.) Most of the imprisoned Black males
will return to prison. Just this week (12/1/95) it was on national TV news and in the local
paper that 6.8% of all Black males are in prison. This means a very significant number of
Black males are unavailable for marriage or parenting their children during the normally
most productive years (20-40) due to imprisonment or death. Perhaps that is why only
30% of married Black femaleshave their spouse present in their homes, half the
Caucasian/white rate (57%); while 9% of the married Black females have spouses that are
absent from the home (four times the Caucasian/White 2% rate); and 39% of the Black
females never married >1c.
[Footnote: >1a The San Diego Union-Tribune, 10/5/'95, page A-5, quoting from The
Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice in San Francisco. >1b Parade 8/13/'95; Parade
Publications, 711 Third Ave., NY NY 10017. >1c Census Bureau/World Almanac. ]

One out of every thousand Black people is dying of AIDS>1c making it the number one
killer of Blacks in America. That means approximately 30,000 Blacks will be dying each
year from HIV/AIDS, a horrendous slaughter! Condoms fail 33% of the time [see Doctor
Lorraine Day, MD], and then on stationary artificial genitals according to federal test
results, so they give very little protection. But when you add crack or speed or other
mind altering drugs to the equation, so the users cant even think straight to appraise their
risk or use them carefully and correctly, then condoms cant even give their miserable little
66% protection. And the AIDS rolls on through the urban Black communities like the
plague.

The second major killer of Blacks in America, especially the males, is Black-on-Black
homicide. The third major killer of blacks in America today is abortion, where more Black
babies are being killed/aborted than are being born. According to Beverly LaHaye of
Concerned Women for America, the original founder of Planned Parenthood had as her
original purpose the use of government funded abortion to keep the minority populations
small, especially the Black population.

The Black population in America has increased very little in the last twenty years, one %
in twenty years, to the delight of the bigots. Tragically all of the facts cited above (AIDS,
Gangs, drugs, abortion) mean that Blacks are killing more Blacks per year now than the
number of Blacks killed by Caucasian bigots and the KKK during any one year from 1800
to 1940, to the delight of the bigots. In 1880, according to the census bureau, Blacks
accounted for 13.1% of the total population, whereas today Blacks account only for
12.5% of the total population. One hundred ten years later and the Black community has
not yet recovered from the 1880s 13.1% (of the total USA pop.) drop to the 1895s 9.5%
(of the total USA pop.) that lynchings, Jim Crow, and Western-Canadian-Mexican
migrations caused in the Black community. More than a fourth of the Black population
just dropped off the census charts during that time and the Black community has never
made it back up to 13.1% of the total USA population. Not much chance give the present
circumstances.
[Footnote: >.1c San Diego Union Tribune, ll/25/'95 page A-8, quoting the US Center
Disease for Control and Prevention.]

This means a very significant number of Black males are unavailable for marriage or
parenting their children during the normally most productive years (20-40) due to
imprisonment or death. This results in significantly more Black females than males being
available for marriage and parenting children, many of whom are single parentsraising a
family without a present or stable father figure. According to the Census Bureau and
Focus on the Family radio program, 39% of Black women never marry, and 46% of Black
men never marry>.1d On 11/26/'95, Michelle said that the Essence magazine gave the
figure of 40%>.1d. We still live in a racist society 20 years after the death of M.L.King.
Black females are not sought for as wives by a significant number of non-Black males in
America.

This leaves a significant number of marriagable Black females with no suitable male to
marry and help raise their children. Normal young, Black females with affectionate and
passionate needs do not have enough suitable males for monogynous marriages so that
leaves neurotic frustration, promiscuity, lesbianism or bisexuality. In America, bigamy
and polygyny are illegal. Why shouldn't ethically moral and Biblically acceptable
Christian concubinage be a viable option for such a population (30 million Blacks in l990,
12.1% of the total USA pop.) with an obvious shortage of stable and successful males,
even in America?

It is 1995 and the women living in and around San Francisco who want no part of
lesbianism face the same critical shortage of marriagable men. It is 1995 and there seems to
be a genuine shortage of godly, spirit-filled and born-again men for the godly, spirit-filled
and born-again women who want to marry, especially for those who are burning and are
under God's command to marry>2 .
[Footnote: >.2 See appendix 6 .]

Patriarchies are not the problem. They are a social institution that has usually worked for
the protection of women and children in most societies of the world, for most of the
history of the world. Yes there have been many instances of abuse, but every social
institution on earth has a history of abuses because of the nature of humans>1 and the
involvement of evil spiritual powers>2. God's solution for widows in Deut. 25 included
the possibility of polygyny since being married did not exempt a brother from the
command to marry his brother's widow. Given the shortage of males in poor, rural, and
primitive or war-ravaged lands, patriarchal polygyny seems to be a realistic option for
widows and women facing a real shortage of males. I intend by this document to show
that polygyny or concubinage should be viable options for society in general and born-
again and Spirit-filled Christians in particular.
[Footnote: >1 Rom. 3:23. >2 Eph. 2:1,2; 6:12.]

Any child of God who feels led to consider polygyny or concubinage for his/her life
and/or loved ones needs to determine what kind of relationship he/she has with Jesus.
Whatever we believe about marriage, divorce, remarriage, monogyny, concubinage or
polygyny, our relationship with Jesus Christ is the paramount issue.
God's laws about polygyny and concubinage in the Old Testament were brought by Jesus
into the New Testament without being changed or nullified. During the transition period
(transition from the Law of Moses to the Royal Law of Christ) we saw the following:
***Mat. 5:17 Think not that I am come to make void the law or the prophets; I am not come
to make void, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Until the heaven and the earth
pass away, one iota or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all come to pass.
19 Whosoever then shall do away with one of these least commandments, and shall teach
men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of the heavens; but whosoever shall practise
and teach [them], *he* shall be called great in the kingdom of the heavens.
***Matt. 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 saying, The scribes and
the Pharisees have set themselves down in Moses' seat: 3 all things therefore, whatever
they may tell you, do and keep. But do not after their works, for they say and do not, . . .
Heb. 8:8* For finding fault, he says to them, Behold, days come, says the Lord, and I will
consummate a new covenant as regards the house of Israel, and as regards the house of
***Juda; 9 not according to the covenant which I made to their fathers in [the] day of my
taking their hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; . . .13* In that he says New, he
has made the first old; but that which grows old and aged [is] near disappearing.

Hebrews 8, especially the Greek of verse 13..........................
In that he says, A new [covenant], he has made the first [covenant] old. Now that which
is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
.. . .and the Greek of 2 Cor. 3:7,11 .................................
. . . the ministration of death, written [and] engraved in stones, was glorious . . . How shall
not the ministration of the Spirit be more glorious? . . . For if what is passing away [was]
glorious, much more that which is remaining [is] glorious".......
show there was a period of transition (is becoming obsolete..growing old..is ready to
vanish..is passing away) from the Sinai Law of Moses to the Calvary Law of LOVE in
Christ. The book of Acts is full of the apostles keeping the Sinai Law of Moses after
Pentecost. You see them worshipping in the Temple regularly>1 , Peter refuses to
socialize with Gentiles according to the Sinai Law>2 , Peter refuses to eat the animals
classified as unclean in the Sinai Law>3 , Paul circumcises Timothy >4, Paul keeps the
Law's feasts>5 , Paul recognizes the authority given to the elders and Chief Priests under
Moses' Sinai Law>6, the believing Gentiles were released from the Sinai Law of Moses
while the believing Jews were not released ,>.68 , before the Law of Moses was abolished
after the Book of Acts was finished>. 69 , in Acts 15 and 21 we see the believing Jews
(including the apostles) keeping the law of Moses as Christians, and part of that law was
God's laws regulating and allowing polygyny and concubinage.
[Footnote:>1 Acts 3 & 4. >2 Acts 10; Galat. 2. >3 Acts 10. >4 Acts 16:1-5. >5 Acts 21
>6. Acts 4:1-22; 23:1-5 >68 Acts 15 & 21 >.69 Eph. 2:14 For *He* is our peace, who
has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of enclosure, 15 having annulled
the enmity in his flesh, the law of commandments in ordinances, that He might form the
two in Himself into one new man, making peace; 16 and might reconcile both in one body
to God by the cross, having by it slain the enmity; . . . Colos. 2: 9 For in Him dwells all
the fullness of the Godhead bodily . . . 13 and you . . . He has made alive together with
Him . . . 14. Blotting out the handwriting of decrees that was against us, which was
contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to His cross . . ]

Galatians is no problem, given a date of writing of Acts 14+/-. The Jewish believers were
not keeping the law to be saved or made righteous with God because they were just
obeying Jesus in Matthew 23:1,2,3 just like all believers obey Jesus in John 14:15 and
Matt. 28:19,20----- not for salvation but as a RESULT salvation (1 John 2:2,3,4,5; Heb.
5:8,9; Phil 2:12,13). The Legalists who were seducing Peter and the other Galatian
backsliders to require circumcision for salvationl and righteousnes before God and
fellowship with the apostles, were the object of Pauls wrath in Galatians. So we have
Paul and the apostles observing the Law of Moses, including the laws on polygyny and
concubinage, as Christians and the only thing they wrote about polygyny was that the
elders/bishops/ deacons/overseers and church superintendents should have only one wife
at a time. NEVER IN THE WORD OF GOD IS polygyny OR CONCUBINAGE
LABELED SIN, CALLED SIN, DENOUNCED AS SIN, PROHIBITED FOR ALL
SAINTS, CALLED A WORK OF THE FLESH, CALLED A CARNAL ACT OR
CALLED A SIGN OF SPIRITUAL WEAKNESS.

Yes Romans 13 make it crystal clear an American Christian may not openly and officially
practice polygyny in America because we have to obey the laws of the land if they do not
violate the Word of God. But concubinage is neither against the laws of God nor is it
against the laws of the vast majority of the United States of America. In fact the courts
have validated its legality in its palimony rulings.

You may ask, Pray tell, what commandment of men do most of Americas religious leaders
teach as doctrine>36 ? I submit that most of Americas religious leaders teach as doctrine
mans commandment that monogamy is the only marital way for the godly, and that
polygyny/concubinage is evil and sinful for all people and cultures on the earth presently.
God Himself enacted laws regulating polygyny/ concubinage>.37 . God Himself gave
wives in polygyny to King David>38 Which commandment of God is laid aside to hold
their tradition, making the Word of God of no effect?
[Footnote: >36 Mark 7:6-13. >37 Exodus 21:7-11; Leviticus 18:18; Deut. 17:15-17; Deut.
21:15-17. >38 2 Sam 12:7,8.]

I am attempting to show that most of todays religious
leaders of the Christian community are laying aside Gods Old Testament Sinai Law
commands>39 about polygyny, commands that Christ, as seen above in the Gospels,
commanded His followers to keep>40 while He was on Earth. The apostles commanded
the believing Jews to keep>41 in the first century church until they, like the believing
Gentiles>42 were released from keeping the Sinai Law by God's Word>43 Jesus and the
apostles commanded the believing Jews to keep the Sinai laws governing polygyny
through the book of Acts period>44 . I propose to show that most Christian religious
leaders lay this fact aside for their tradition of condemning polygyny/ concubinage as sin.
[Footnote: >39 Exodus 21:7-11; Leviticus 18:18; Deut. 17:15-17; Deut. 21:15-17. >40
Matt. 5:17-19; 23:1-3; Acts 21:18-26. >41 Acts 15 & 21:18-26.>42 Acts 15. >43 in Eph.
2 and Col. 2. >44 Exodus 21:7-11; Leviticus 18:18; Deut. 17:15-17; Deut. 21:15-17;
Matt. 5:17-19; 23:1-3; Acts 21:18-26. ]

So what are you doing if you are condemning polygyny in general as sin?Mark 7:8 [For],
leaving the commandment of God, you hold what is delivered by men [to keep] --
washings of vessels and cups, and many other such like things you do. 9 And he said to
them, Well do you set aside the commandment of God, that you may observe what is
delivered by yourselves [to keep]. . . . 13 making void the word of God by your
traditional teaching which you have delivered; and many such like things you do.
Pretty serious stuff, laying aside God's commands so you can keep your own traditions
and making God's Word ineffective through your traditions. It wont look good for those
folks at the judgment seat of Christ. What about all those third world folks, especially the
Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Asian, Oriental, and Africans, who are practicing polygyny
and are told that they have to dump and abandon their extra wives &/or concubines in
order to become Christians, the biggest obstacle for the Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Asian,
Oriental, and African community? These "Christian" folks who feel their own tradition
about monogamy and polygyny must be kept by Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Asian,
Oriental, and Africans and other third world polygamists for them to become Christians
sound like these folks:
*****Mat.23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for you shut up the
kingdom of the heavens before men; for *you* do not enter, nor do you suffer those that
are entering to go in.

I understand that Rev. Joseph Conrad Wold>*, a Lutheran missionary in Liberia,
maintains the following points: 1. Some missionaries have become like the Pharisees, knit
picking legalists; 2. For unbelievers it is more of a question of who is or is not a
polygamist rather than who is and who isn't a Christian; 3. Rejecting polygamy has
become the rejecting of polygamists; 4. If Cornelious>45 could be born again without
circumcision, then surely polygamists should be able to be born again without cutting
away their wives, breaking their solemn promises and forcing their beloved and faithful
wives into adultery for survival; 5 Let the polygamist be lost because he refused to love
and obey Jesus, rather than because he loved his wives too much to cause them to suffer,
or was to virtuous to be a hypocrite.>70 He makes such an impassioned case I hope you
take the time to read the original. Truly the commandments of men, condemning as sin
and forbidding polygamy, make of no effect the commandments of God for so many.
[Footnote: >*GOD'S IMPATIENCE IN LIBERIA, Rev. Joseph Conrad Wold, pp.
179ff. >45 (Acts 10 & 11). >.@70 Trobisch, MY WIFE MADE ME. . . Pp.16 & 17;].

What about those who practice polygyny/concubinage where most of the people on earth
live, in China, India, SE Asia, Africa and in parts of South America where it is legal and a
part of mans tradition? If the condemnation of polygyny/concubinasge is only the
commandment and tradition of men, dare we impose as Doctrine the commandment and
tradition of men about polygyny/concubinage as if it were the Word of God? If our
teaching against polygyny is only the tradition and commandment of men, will we not
again make of no effect the Word of God in the lives of the people who live where most
of the people on earth live ?

The angels are waiting to rejoice over the conversion of one polygamous Moslem, Hindu,
Buddhist, Asian, Oriental, and African or third worlder and "Christian legalists and
traditionalists" wont let them in unless they sin by "dealing treacherously">46 with their
wives &/or concubines by putting them away in repudiation, and sin by disobeying
Christ's command not to leave their wives>47 , and sin by not remaining in the marital
condition in which they were called to Christ. According to the New York Times News
Service, there were 200,000 polygynists in Paris France alone in 1995. Can we turn away
such a mission field?
[Footnote: >46 (Malachi 2). >47 (1 Cor. 7:11)]

1 Cor.7: 17 However, as the Lord has divided to each, as God has called each, so let him
walk; and thus I ordain in all the assemblies. . . 20 Let each abide in that calling in which
he has been called. . . . 24 Let each, wherein he is called, brethren, therein abide with God.
. . . 26 I think then that this is good, on account of the present necessity, that [it is] good
for a man to remain so as he is. 27 Are you bound to a wife? Seek not to be loosed; Are
you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife.

Yes, that means if they were called in polygyny, they remain in polygyny unless their
polygyny violates the law>48 of the land they are called in. If the law of the land
prohibits their polygyny, they cannot dump their wives since they are bound by God to
them in marriage since Gods Laws take precedence over the laws of man>49 , so they
must change their formal polygyny to informal concubinage to live without offense>50
.[Footnote: >48 Romans13. >49 (Moses & Pharaoh, Daniel and the lions, Shedrach and
the fiery furnace, Acts 4). >50 Romans 13 & 14.]

Yes, that means that if they were called in concubinage, they remain in concubinage unless
(1) their informal concubinage should become formal polygyny so as not to offend or
stumble the Church >51 , or (2) their open and public concubinage must become personal,
private, discrete and secretive>52 so as not to stumble or offend the saints.
[Footnote: >51 Romans 14 & 15. >52 Romans 14 & 15, 1 Cor. 8 & 10]

So polygyny in and of itself is not a sin and was tolerated in the Bible>71, unless
practiced in violation of mens laws>53 , or unless its practice is abused by offensive
selfishness and sinfulness>54. The polygyny of concubinage is not illegal in modern
society, but is bound by the principles of Liberated Love in Romans 14, 1 Cor 8 and 10.
[Footnote: >.71 Please see THE INSTITUTES OF BIBLICAL LAW, by R.
Rushdonney, p. 364. HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE; 1989, p.259;
p.583ff. >53 (Rom 13). >54 (Rom. 14) ]

VIII. . ARE POLYGYNISTS AND CONCUBINES LIVING IN ERROR TODAY?
The Mormon church so shocked America that they passed laws against polygyny in
almost all of the states. The Christian community takes positions on polygyny ranging
from a flat out condemnation of it as sin to the position that it lies in the area of God's
permissive or second best will and it is not a sin, though quite socially undesirable. Most
agree it is not God's best for marriage and that a polygamist should at least be excluded
from church offices/positions>55. Most missionaries no longer demand a converted
polygamist to divorce/ abandon all of his wives except for the first wife, recognizing the
binding nature of the wedding vows/ covenants and the plight of the abandoned/divorced
women. They usually at least instruct him to take no new wives and be content with
what he has>56.
[Footnote: >55 (1 Tim. 3 & Titus 1). >56 (1 Tim. 6).]

We know polygyny/concubinage is still practiced today in parts of Utah, China, India, SE
Asia, Africa, in all Moslem nations, and among the Indians of Latin America. There are
the 200,000 + polygynyist immigrants in France, mentioned above. Communism greatly
discouraged polygyny in China among the working class but concubinage flourishes
among the powerful and the affluent. So roughly half of the people of the world live in a
society where some form polygyny or concubinage is practiced and accepted.
That makes this issue a burning issue for missionary outreach in these areas. I understand
that Eugene A Nida, of the American Bible Society in his book Customs and Cultures
discusses how polygyny is not a sin in and of itself, but that at the very least I Timothy
3 and Titus 1 disqualify any polygamist from being an elder, bishop, overseer, deacon or
official leader in the Christian church. An elder , or etc. , would be like the apostles in
Acts 6:1-7 and should not be tied up with the daily service to many wives which would
prevent him from being in the Word of God enough to lead and feed the flock he has been
placed over. The polygamist would have his hands full leading, feeding and serving his
wives and children, essentially his family-church.

Please consider the points of view of influential and significant leaders from the early
church:
That the holy fathers of olden times after Abraham, and before him, to whom God gave
His testimony that 'they pleased Him,' [Heb. 11:4-6] thus used their wives, no one who is
a Christian ought to doubt, since it was permitted to certain individuals amongst them to
have a plurality of wives, where the reason was for the multiplication of their offspring,
not the desire of varying gratification. . . . In the advance, however, of the human race, it
came to pass that to certain good men were united a plurality of good wives, --- many to
each; and from this it would seem that moderation sought rather unity on one side for
dignity, while nature permitted plurality on the other side for fecundity. For on natural
principles it is more feasible for one to have dominion over many, than for many to have
dominion over one.>72
[Footnote: >..72 A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian
Church, Vol. V; p. 267]

So for St. Augustine (4th century AD) ". . . good men were united [to] a plurality of good
wives. . ." in a "feasible" form of polygyny that involved "moderation", "dignity" and
"fecundity". Clearly he didn't label it sin and he didn't say that the practice of polygyny
made these "good" people sinners. This is the position of St. Augustine, a significant
post-Pentecost leader in the 4th Century AD church, speaking in the era of the Church in
which we live today. Hear him again, in the following:
"But those who have not the virtues of temperance must not be allowed to judge of the
conduct of holy men, any more than those in fever of the sweetness and wholesomeness
of food. . . If our critics, then, wish to attain not a spurious and affected, but a genuine
and sound moral health, let them find a cure in believing the Scripture record, that the
honorable name of saint is given not without reason to men who had several wives; and
that the reason is this, that the mind can exercise such control over the flesh as not to
allow the appetite implanted in our nature by Providence to go beyond the limits of
deliberate intention>. . . .the holy patriarchs in their conjugal intercourse were actuated
not by the love of pleasure, but by the intelligent desire for the continuance of their
family. . . .nor did the number of their wives make the patriarchs licentious. But why
defend the husbands, to whose character the divine word bears the highest testimony. . .
." >73
[Footnote: >.73 A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian
Church, Vol. iv; p.290]

Here we see St. Augustine describing most of the Bible's polygynists as "holy patriarchs"
who deserved the "honorable name of saint" because their "character .. bears the highest
testimony", the Word of God. It sure doesn't sound like they are a back slidden lot of
fleshly saints! Quite to the contrary! Any "elder" today would do well to be so spoken of
as these polygynous patriarchs.

Is polygyny with wives and concubines a sin today? St. Basil (4th Century AD) wrote
that "On polygamy the Fathers are silent, as being brutish and altogether inhuman. The
sins seems to me worse than fornication.">74 "Herard of Tours, A.D. 858, declares any
greater number of wives than two to be unlawful. . . Leo the Wise, Emperor of
Constantinople, was allowed to marry three wives without public remonstrance, but was
suspended from communion by the patriarch Nicholas when he married a fourth.">75 St.
Augustine (4th Cent. AD) indicates that the Roman Catholic Church was the power
behind the move to not allow polygyny or concubinage among the church members of his
time..>76 So even in the early church we find a wide diversity of reactions to the
polygyny and concubinage of the Bible. This, in its own way, bears witness to the fact
that there is no clear scriptural teaching against polygyny and concubinage. They
obviously fall in the category of things discussed in Rom. 14, 1 Cor. 8 and 1 Cor 10.
[Footnote: >.74 A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian
Church, Vol. VIII; p. 258. >.75 A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of
The Christian Church, Vol. V; p. 267. >76 St. Augustin: On The Trinity; p. 402.]

MARRIAGE: ."Monogamy is implicit in the story of Adam and Eve, since God created
only one wife for Adam. Yet polygyny is adopted from the time of Lamech (Gn. 4:19),
and is not forbidden in Scripture . . ...Polygamy continues to the present day among Jews
in Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Asian, Oriental, and African countries."
[Footnote: >.77 Douglas New Bible Dictionary, 1962; W. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,
Grand Rapids, Mich]

NOW CHECK THAT OUT! " . . . POLYGYNY . . . IS NOT FORBIDDEN IN
SCRIPTURE". SHALL WE ADD TO GOD'S WORD AND FORBID IT?
At all events, polygyny was an established and recognized institution from the earliest of
times.>78. Justin reproaches the Jews of his day [A.D.] with having 'four or even five
wives,' and marrying 'as they wish, or as many as they wish.' The evidence of the Talmud
shows that in this case at least the reproach had some foundation. Polygamy was not
definitely forbidden among the Jews till the time of R. Gershom (c. A.D. 1000), and then
at first only for France and Germany. In Spain, Italy, and the East it persisted for some
time longer, as it does still among the Jews in Mohammedan countries.>79.
"POLYGAMY WAS NOT DEFINITELY FORBIDDEN AMONG THE JEWS"
DURING MOST OF THE POST PENTECOST CHURCH ERA. SINCE JESUS
COMMANDED HIS APOSTLES TO OBEY THE JEWS (MT. 23:1-3) IN THEIR
LAWS GOVERNING POLYGYNY, WHO ARE WE TO SAY THAT THEY WERE
CARNAL AND MISLED IN OBSERVING POLYGYNY AND CONCUBINAGE
ACCORDING TO THE LAW OF MOSES?
[Footnote: >78. HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE; p.259. <79. HASTINGS
DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE;p.583ff.]

What does St. Augustine (4th Century AD) say about the practice of polygyny and
concubinage? Consider the following:
"The only reason of its being a crime now to do this, is because custom and the laws
forbid it. Whoever despises these restraints, even though he uses his wives only to get
children, still commits sin, and does an injury to human society itself, for the sake of
which it is that the procreation of children is required. In the present altered state of
customs and laws, men can have no pleasure in a plurality of wives, except from an excess
of lust; and so the mistake arises of supposing that no one could ever have had many
wives but from sensuality and the vehemence of sinful desires. Unable to form an idea of
men whose force of mind is beyond their conception, they compare themselves with
themselves, as the apostle says [2 Cor. x. 12], and so make mistakes. Conscious that, in
their intercourse though with one wife only, they are often influenced by mere animal
passion instead of an intelligent motive, they think it an obvious inference that, if the
limits of moderation are not observed where there is only one wife, the infirmity must be
aggravated where there are more than one.">.80
[Footnote: >80 A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian
Church, Vol. iv; pp.289ff.]

"But here there is no ground for a criminal accusation: for a plurality of wives was no
crime when it was the custom; and it is a crime now, because it is no longer the custom.
There are sins against nature, and sins against custom, and sins against the laws. As
regards nature, [Jacob] used the women not for sensual gratification, but for the
procreation of children. For custom, this was the common practice at that time in those
countries. And for the laws, no prohibition existed. The only reason of its being a crime
now to do this, is because custom and the laws forbid it.">.81
[Footnote: >81 A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian
Church, Vol. iv; p.289.]

Whose laws forbid it? A "a plurality of wives was no crime when it was the custom".
"NO PROHIBITION EXISTED." NOW IT IS A CRIME ONLY BECAUSE OF Man's
laws, not God's laws! Mark 7 and Matt.13 give us a very good insight into how godly
man's laws are when they are made in the Name of God. On the other hand it is living in
error to live in polygyny or concubinage where man's customs and laws forbid it because
we are to obey the laws of the land>57 if at all possible>58 . It is NOT living in error to
live in polygamy or concubinage where man's customs and law permit it. The vast
majority of the world lives under laws that permit concubinage. Some countries, mostly
Moslem or Asian or Oriental, still permit official and legal polygamy.
[Footnote: >57 Romans 13. >58 (Rom. 12:18; Acts 4:18-20; Deut. 1:13-18; 17:8-13)]

Unofficial, discreet, private and personal>59 contractual concubinage is legal in almost all
countries, even in the United States. American courts have given a positive legal status to
monogynous concubinage in the forms of palimony and common law marriages, even in
cases of serial polygynous concubinage. They have not yet given such a positive legal
status to polygynous concubinage, but that doesn't stop its widespread practice. Most
American concubines are only mistresses where there are no long term commitments or
relationships. Without marital commitments a concubine is only a harlot or whore>60 .
We have already seen how God recognizes as wives concubines who have covenanted/
contracted as wives with their husbands before God and there is a significant number of
such honorable concubines even in America today, especially in states where common law
marriages are recognized.
[Footnote: >59 (Romans 14:13-23). >60 1 Cor. 6; Prov. 5 & 6; Ezek. 16 & 23]

One reason for polygyny is the common belief held by many that a breast feeding mother
in primitive and rural settings would refrain from intimacy until her baby is weaned for
fear that if she would become pregnant her milk flow would stop and she would be unable
to feed her baby and so lose it. Believing this, the father also would not want his breast-
feeding wife to become pregnant and lose the nursing child for lack of her milk. Knowing
his own passion for vaginal sex with her and the chance that in the heat of passion his
reason might not prevail over his desire for vaginal insertion, he would not risk being
intimate with her even for the satisfying of her sexual needs by breast &/or clitoral
stimulation. His wife would self-stimulate herself to satisfy her sexual needs rather than
risk losing her milk for her nursing child.

Knowing that he would be subject to Satan's sexual temptations by abstaining from sex
with his breast-feeding wife>40, for sexual fulfillment he turns to his other wife/concubine
who was not breast feeding. The sexual needs of the husband and both of the wives could
be met in this way. So polygyny allows them to save and feed their children and also
meet their sexual needs in marriage. Modern birth control techniques could make such an
arrangement unnecessary for some, but many people living at or below the poverty level
in underdeveloped nations still face these problems without modern aids.
[Footnote: >40 1 Corint. 7:4,5]

IX. MARRIAGE, CONCUBINES, CIVIL LAW, PERSONAL LIBERTY AND A
LOVING CONSCIENCE!

Surely Romans 13 and related passages apply. And certainly the principles of Romans 14
and l Cor 8 & 10 apply. The following is a brief summary of those principles:
1. Receive the weak in faith (their faith allows them very little personal liberty) but not to
dispute doubtful things/points>61 . Doubtful things are things that the Bible is not
explicitly clear about leaving a gray area for individuals to exercise their own judgment
(e.g. eating meat vs. vegetarianism, length of dress, courtship and engagement, television,
movies, computer use etc.)
2. Don't despise or condemn your brother/sister in Christ if (1) they feel free to do
doubtful things or (2) they don't feel free to do doubtful things>62
3. Don't put a stumbling block, an occasion to take offense, put an obstacle in the
way>82 , give someone an opportunity for sinning>63
4. Don't make your brethren uneasy>83 or hurt, injure or damage others' feelings>84.
5. Don't destroy your brethren's faith with your personal liberty>64
6. Let not the personal liberty your faith allows be evil spoken of>65
7. Do that which builds and helps the faith of your brethren>66 .
8. Don't put a temptation to sin in someone's way>.85 , or do that which leads another to
sin>.86 .
9. Have your faith from the Word that allows you your personal liberty privately,
discretely and personally before God and be happy in it>67
10. Don't do anything you have doubts about, doubts about whether or not it is God's
will for you to do, be or have)>68
11. If your faith is strong allowing you a great deal of personal liberty, you should bear
the weaknesses of those whose faith allows little personal liberty, not pleasing ourselves.
Seek to please your brethren for their good, growth and development in the Lord and
Word>69 .
[Footnote: [>61 (Rm.14:1) >62 . (Rm. 14:3,4) >.82 Please see Arndt & Gingrich's
Lexicon. >83 Please see Thayer's Lexicon. >63 . (Rm. 14:13). >.84 Please see Arndt &
Gingrich's Lexicon. >64 . (Rm 14:15). >65 (Rm. 14:16,17). >66 (Rm. 14:18,19). >.85
(Rm. 14:13)Please see Arndt & Gingrich's Lexicon. >.86 Please see Thayer's Lexicon. >67
(Rm.14:22). >68 . (Rm. 14:23). >69 . (Rm. 15:1-3)]

But how do these principles apply? Obviously polygyny or concubinage is a felony to
officially marry (by man's laws) more than one woman in terms of the government's law,
public records, inheritance laws and divorce laws in most Western or industrial nations.
Obviously it is socially acceptable, legal and not a felony in most Asian nations, the Mid
East, Africa and Indian tribes in the Americas. That is as clear as black and white. But
there is a great big gray area. Many Western states recognize informal marriage
(concubinage) as common law marriages but as soon as they become official they come
under the monogamy laws. But they can live for years in the morally acceptable informal
and unofficial common law status without any illegality.

Under Administrative Law in California, County Welfare officials set up semi-official
marriages with people who live together without being married where one or both parties
could still be legally married to others. Administrative Welfare law recognizes them as a
semi-married couple and will grant them AFDC aid and even help them get divorces so
they can eventually marry IF THEY WISH. With the state's approval they live together
as a family sometimes for years, but they have no IRS rights, or inheritance rights or
marital tax status from the state as a married couple. It is legal and approved of by state
law.

California's courts have also established palimony rights where they protect the
covenant/contractual rights of people living in unofficial marriage or concubinage. While
they have no official tax status or inheritance rights the courts have established that a
marital relationship and the members of that relationship have protection under the law in
terms of their covenants, contracts, vows, espousal or betrothal. The courts have awarded
"palimony", property and child custody rights in and from these relationships. The new
no-discrimination-against-one's-sexual-orientation laws protect those who practice
informal contractual polygyny or concubinage.
Since God prescribes no "wedding ceremony", ritual, vows or rite>87 to make two people
married, leaving it to the local churches to have their own redeemed local and indigenous
marital customs>88 . The vows, covenants, betrothals and prenuptial contracts seem to
be covered by God's standards in the following:
[Footnote: >87 See appendix #4 . >.88 See appendix #4 .]
**** EZEKIEL 16: 3 And say, So says the Lord Jehovah to Jerusalem, . . . 8 And I
passed by you and looked on you, and, behold, your time [was] the time of love. And I
spread my skirt over you and covered your nakedness. And I swore to you and entered
into a covenant with you, says the Lord Jehovah. And you became Mine.
**** MALACHI 2:14 Yet you say, Why? Because the LORD has been witness
between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously; yet
she [is] your companion and your covenant wife. 15 And did He not make [you] one? Yet
the vestige of the Spirit [is in] him. And what [of] the one? He was seeking a godly seed.
Then guard your spirit, and do not act treacherously with the wife of your youth. 16 The
LORD, the God of Israel, says He hates sending away; and to cover [with] violence on
his garment, says the LORD of hosts. Then guard your spirit, and do not act
treacherously. Here "act treacherously" means " break covenant" or "fail to honor your
covenant/commitment".
**** ECCLES. 5:4 When you vow a vow to God, do not wait to pay it. For He has no
pleasure in fools. Pay that which you have vowed. 5 [it is] better that you should not
vow, than that you should vow and not pay. 6 Do not allow your mouth to cause your
flesh to sin; do not say before the angel that it [was] an error. Why should God be angry
at your voice and destroy the work of your hands?
**** PSALM 15:1 A Psalm of David. LORD, who shall dwell in Your tabernacle? . . .
2 He who walks uprightly, and works righteousness, and speaks the truth in his heart; . . .
[he] has sworn to his hurt, and does not change it; 5. . . He who does these [things] shall
not be moved forever.
**** ROMANS 1:28 And even as they did not think fit to have God in [their]
knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do the things not right, 29 being
filled with all unrighteousness . . . 31 . . . covenant-breakers. . . 32 who, knowing the
righteous order of God, that those practicing such things are worthy of death, not only do
them, but have pleasure in those practicing [them].

It is the treachery of breaking marital covenants that God condemns in these passages and
that which he hates. "Yes, I swore an oath to you and entered into covenant with you,
and you became Mine," says the Lord God>70 . We become a part of the bride of Christ
in the same way. The Spirit considered Mary and Joseph as husband and wife on the
basis of their espousal/betrothal/ covenants even before the wedding and the coming
together>71.
[Footnote: >70 (Ezek. 16:8). >71 (Mat. 1:18-25 ;Deut. 22:23-27)]

So why can't two Christians exchange espousal/betrothal covenants and become each
other's marital partners without a formal marriage which would be illegal? Of course they
can since common law marriages are legally acceptable in most of Americas states and in
most of the countries of the world. But should they? We are bound by our covenants and
God makes it clear He has no pleasure in the fools who break them >72 . We enter into
the gray zone of the liberty we have in Christ>73 that is limited by the cords of Agape
love. Yes two Christians could exchange their vows/ covenants without a formal/legal
wedding day but if they became involved in intimacy and that intimacy became an offense
or stumbling block to another saint it would be sin and could destroy the work of Christ
in another or embolden a weak one to be intimate contrary to his/her conscience>74 . So is
such intimacy a sin between two Christians who have solemnly and formally covenanted
before God that they are maritally one flesh as long as they both live? It is neither illegal
nor sinful but it becomes sin if it stumbles, offends, grieves another in Christ> 75 .
[Footnote: >72 (Eccles. 5:5; Psalm 15). >73 (Rom 14). >74 (l Cor. 8 & 10). >75 (Rom.
14; 1 Cor. 8 & 10).]

But what about the command in Romans 14 that states that if you have a solid
controversial conviction from the Word, have it to yourself before God? Happy is the one
who does not condemn himself in what he approves>76 . But woe to him if he does it
with doubts or offense to another in Christ. So it seems to be with post covenant but pre-
wedding day intimacy. It seems to be the same case with polygyny / concubinage. Do
you practice/believe in polygyny /concubinage? Have it and do so privately and very
discreetly before God. Happy is the one who does not condemn one's self in what he
approves in the liberty of Christ. But she who practices/believes in polygyny
/concubinage with doubts is condemned if she indulges because she does not practice it
out of conviction from the Spirit and the Word. polygyny/ concubinage is indeed pure,
but it is evil to practice it if it stumble, offends, grieves or weakens your brethren in
Christ>77 .
[Footnote: >76 (Rom 14:22,23). >77 (Rom. 14; 1 Cor. 8 & 10)]

Foreign Christian polygynists visiting Western monogamous societies encounter a special
challenge. Spiritual and Godly Christians would be able to handle it well and in the Lord,
but the unsaved, the carnal, the Spiritual milk drinkers, the legalists, the ignorant, and
those weak of conscience would all have varying problems with a Christian polygynist
and his wives visiting their Western/Occidental church>78 . The visiting Christian
polygynist should do all within his power to not let his liberty hinder the effectiveness
of his testimony and witness to these people, if they would be willing to receive it.
[Footnote: >78 (1 Cor. 8 & 10; Rom. 14 & 15)]

Hopefully mercy and compassion would move the Christian polygynist to not flaunt his
polygyny in the face of such "Christians" even though they are so unlike Christ. Mercy
would move the polygynist to not lay a heavier burden on the weak than they can bear,
not wanting their liberty to cause their weak brethren to fall into sin. Compassion would
move the polygynists to be sensitive to the weakness and doubts of the weak saints.
Obviously the polygynist would not be an official leader in the church and would not be
visiting local churches as a leader/elder/deacon/ bishop/ overseer/etc.>79 . Ideally the local
saints would be bearing the fruits of the Spirit and receive such foreign visitors with
mercy and compassion. If they agreed and were able>80 for a short while to be separated,
the polygynist could visit the Western church bringing one or none of his wives so as to
reduce the controversy. The same would be true of a polygynist wife visiting the West
without her husband, under the rule of 1 Cor. 7:4,5.
[Footnote: >79 (1 Tim. 3 and Ti. 1). >80 (**** 1 CORINTH. 7: 4 The wife does not
have authority over [her] own body, but the husband. And likewise also the husband does
not have power [over his] own body, but the wife. 5 Do not deprive one another, unless
[it is] with consent for a time, so that you may [give yourselves to] fasting and prayer.
And come together again so that Satan does not tempt you for your incontinence.]

X. DOES GOD FORGIVE BROKEN VOWS, DIVORCE AND ADULTERY?
 
The issue here is does God forgive born again Christians when they fall into divorce and
adultery? The cornerstone of this issue is "What is a born again Christian?" Genuinely
born again Christians would be characterized by the following: (1) They have believed and
received Jesus Christ, God revealed in the flesh, as the Master of their daily lives and as their Savior from the penalties and power of sin in their lives; (2) They have a consistent public testimony by word and deed of their salvation; (3) They live in obedience to the Word at
home and away from home; (4) They are compassionately and effectively involved in
nurturing and shepherding
Christian fellowship; (5) They are characterized by the fruits of the Spirit instead of the
works of the flesh; (6) They are faithfully in the Word in a life building way; and (7)
They are faithfully in prayer on a regular basis. If any of these is missing, you should not feel
comfortable about their status with the Lord and it would be a mistake to assume that
they are really saved.

We don't have to decide if someone is saved, all we have to do is decide if their life lines
up with the Word, and if it doesn't, then we are to do the following:
**** 1 TIMOTHY 5:19 Do not receive an accusation against an elder except before
two or three witnesses. 20 Those who sin, rebuke before all, so that the rest also may
fear. 21 I charge [you] before God and [the] Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that
you guard these things without prejudice, doing nothing by partiality.
**** GALA. 6: 1 Brothers, if a man is overtaken in a fault, you the spiritual ones
restore such a one in the spirit of meekness, considering yourself, lest you also be
tempted. 2 Bear one another's burdens, and so you will fulfill the law of Christ.
DBY MATT. 18:15 But if thy brother sin against thee, go, reprove him between thee
and him alone. If he hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. 16 But if he do not hear
[thee], take with thee one or two besides, that every matter may stand upon the word of
two witnesses or of three. 17 But if he will not listen to them, tell it to the assembly; and
if also he will not listen to the assembly, let him be to thee as one of the nations and a tax-
gatherer.
DBY 1 CORINTH.5:3 For *I*, [as] absent in body but present in spirit, have already
judged as present, 4 [to deliver,] in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ (ye and my spirit
being gathered together, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ), him that has so
wrought this: 5 to deliver him, [I say,] [being] such, to Satan for destruction of the flesh,
that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
DBY 2 THESS. 3: 6 Now we enjoin you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
that ye withdraw from every brother walking disorderly and not according to the
instruction which he received from us. . . .14 But if any one obey not our word by the
letter, mark that man, and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed of
himself; 15 and do not esteem him as an enemy, but admonish [him] as a brother.

If they fail the Matt. 18:15-18 procedure, then God tells us to treat and relate to them as
if they were unsaved. This would be very important for a Christian married to someone
of whose salvation he/she is not sure. This uncertainty should be resolved so the
Christian could know if his/her instructions are those of 1 Cor. 7:10,11,39 or 1 Cor. 7:12-
15. So we are talking about real, sincere and genuine children of God who become involved
in divorce etc. and need to know God's will for them.

Can a Christian divorce a Christian mate, ask God to forgive them, and then go on and
marry another Christian with God's blessing? In Matt. 5:23,24 Jesus says you must not
only ask forgiveness but you must attempt to right the wrong for which you seek
forgiveness. Zaccheus received Jesus salvation because he not only confessed his sin but
also righted his wrongs against others. In Mark 10:11, 12 Jesus did not say, Whoever
divorces his wife, asks forgiveness for divorcing his wife and then marries another may be
blessed. Not at all, and quite to the contrary.
****Mark 10:7 For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, 8
and the two shall be one flesh; so then they are no longer two but one flesh. 9 What
therefore God has joined together, let not man separate. . . . 11 And he says to them,
Whosoever shall put away his wife and shall marry another, commits adultery against her. 12 And if a woman shall put away her husband and shall marry another, she commits adultery.

The adultery is not just that he married her in a wedding ceremony, a single event, rather
the adultery is that he continues to be married to her and keeps on being married to her.
It's not a matter of asking God to forgive you for the wedding ceremony that resulted in
you being married. It is a matter
of asking God to forgive you for continuing and keeping on being married to your new
adulterous mate. The Greek verb is present tense indicative which indicates an on going
and continuing condition. The one who put away the other and marries yet another keeps
on and continues committing adultery against the one put away as long as the one put
away remains put away.
So He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another keeps on and
continues committing adultery against her. And if a woman divorces her husband and
marries another, she keeps on and continues committing adultery."
Matt. 21:28-32 reveals it is the one who regrets the wrong and rights the wrong that does
the will of his father. In the context of faithfulness, trustworthiness and covenant keeping
>164 Jesus says that it is adultery to repudiate (reject, dismiss, send away, abandon, etc.)
and marry another and whoever marries the repudiated wife commits adultery. The
wrongs are repudiation with remarriage. He who confesses and covers repudiation with
remarriage will not prosper, but whoever agrees with God about repudiation and
remarriage and forsakes the repudiation and remarriage will have mercy from God>165 .
[Footnotes:>164(Luke 16:1-18). >165 (Prov 28:13)]

The omolego confession of 1 John 1:9 means the one who AGREES WITH GOD
ABOUT HIS SIN receives His faithful and just forgiveness. To agree with God about the
sin of repudiation-with-remarriage adultery means to forsake the repudiation-with-
remarriage adultery. It doesn't mean saying "OOPS! I'm so sorry!" and expecting God to
forgive you for repudiating/ leaving your mate now that you have married another. The
sin to be forsaken is the sin of repudiating/leaving/ putting away the mate to whom you
are bound for life in the Lord---and marrying another mate.
Just because you confess that you repudiated (or etc.) your saved wife doesn't change the
following scriptures ----
**** MALACHI 2: 14 Yet you say, Why? Because the LORD has been witness
between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously; yet
she [is] your companion and your covenant wife. 15 And did He not make [you] one? Yet
the vestige of the Spirit [is in] him. And what [of] the one? He was seeking a godly seed.
Then guard your spirit, and do not act treacherously with the wife of your youth. 16 The
LORD, the God of Israel, says He hates sending away; and to cover [with] violence on
his garment, says the LORD of hosts. Then guard your spirit, and do not act
treacherously
*****LUKE 16: 15 And He said to them, You are those who justify yourselves before
men, but God knows your hearts. For that which is highly esteemed among men is
abomination in the sight of God. . . .18 Everyone putting away his wife and marrying
another commits adultery; and everyone marrying her who is put away from [her]
husband commits adultery.
DBY MARK 10: 6 but from [the] beginning of [the] creation God made them male and
female. 7 For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be united to his
wife, 8 and the two shall be one flesh: so that they are no longer two but one flesh. 9
What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate. . . . 11 And he says to
them, Whosoever shall put away his wife and shall marry another, commits adultery
against her. 12 And if a woman put away her husband and shall marry another, she
commits adultery.
DBY ROMANS 7:1 Are ye ignorant, brethren, (for I speak to those knowing law,) that
law rules over a man as long as he lives? 2* For the married woman is bound by law to her
husband so long as he is alive; but if the husband should die, she is clear from the law of
the husband: 3* so then, the husband being alive, she shall be called an adulteress if she be
to another man; but if the husband should die, she is free from the law, so as not to be an
adulteress, though she be to another man.
DBY 1 CORINTH. 7: 4 The wife has not authority over her own body, but the husband:
in like manner also the husband has not authority over his own body, but the wife. 5
Defraud not one another, unless, it may be, by consent for a time, that ye may devote
yourselves to prayer, and again be together, that Satan tempt you not because of your
incontinency. . . . 10* But to the married I enjoin, not *I*, but the Lord, Let not wife be separated from husband; 11* (but if also she shall have been separated, let her remain
unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband;) and let not husband leave wife. . . . 39*
A wife is bound for whatever time her husband lives; but if the husband be fallen asleep,
she is free to be married to whom she will, only in [the] Lord.

These plainly state that you are bound to born-again mate as long as you both live. When
God forgives us he washes us and accepts us while at the same time condemning and
denouncing the wrong that we did. The confession with forgiveness doesn't undo the
sinful deed, but rights the sinner and frees him from the eternal consequences of his sin. In
like manner we are told to submit to judgment the sinning saint in his sin >166 and when
he renounces and forsakes the sin we forgive and reconcile with him>167 .
[Footnontes: >166 (1 Cor. 5:1-11). >167 (2 Cor.2)]

2 Cor 7 makes it plain that worldly sorrow which results in no or inadequate repentance
brings judgment while godly sorrow that works genuine repentance from the wrong and
sinful act/deed/ thought results in deliverance. We are to diligently, zealously, angrily,
earnestly vindicate ourselves by clearing ourselves of the wrong and/or sinful matter
(adulterous repudiation-with-remarriage). We are to clear ourselves of the repudiation-
with-remarriage that is the adultery. There is no way we can run to the God of the
following passages and expect Him to favor and bless the one who breaks his engagement
and/or wedding vows, covenants, oaths and promises.
**** PSALM 15: 1 A Psalm of David. LORD, who shall dwell in Your
tabernacle? . . .2 He who walks uprightly, and works righteousness, and speaks the truth
in his heart; . . . [he] has sworn to his hurt, and does not change it; 5 . . . He who does
these [things] shall not be moved forever.
**** ECCLES. 5:4 When you vow a vow to God, do not wait to pay it. For He has no
pleasure in fools. Pay that which you have vowed. 5 [it is] better that you should not
vow, than that you should vow and not pay. 6 Do not allow your mouth to cause your
flesh to sin; do not say before the angel that it [was] an error. Why should God be angry
at your voice and destroy the work of your hands?
DBY MALACHI 2:14 Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because Jehovah hath been a
witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt
unfaithfully: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. 15 And did not one
make [them]? and the remnant of the Spirit was his. And wherefore the one? He sought a
seed of God. Take heed then to your spirit, and let none deal unfaithfully against the wife
of his youth, 16 (for I hate putting away, saith Jehovah the God of Israel;) and he
covereth with violence his garment, saith Jehovah of hosts: take heed then to your spirit,
that ye deal not unfaithfully.
**** ROMANS 1:28 And even as they did not think fit to have God in [their]
knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do the things not right, 29 . .
.[becoming] . . ., haters of God, insolent, covenant-breakers, . . . 32 who, knowing the
righteous order of God, that those practicing such things are worthy of death, not only do
them, but have pleasure in those practicing [them].

You cant run to this God of integrity and honor and say, "OOPS! I'm so sorry I
repudiated (or etc.) my wife, Carlita, for Sonia and went on and married Sonia. I know
you'll forgive me for divorcing my Carlita and breaking my vows and promises to her so I
can be blessed by You with my Sonia!" Romans 13:7-14 and l Cor.11:27-33 shows that
God holds us responsible to do His right things with those with whom we have to do, and
woe to us if we don't.

The fouth century's St. Augustine states the seriousness of this situation powerfully in
the following:
"To such a degree is that marriage compact entered upon a matter of a certain sacrament,
that it is not made void even by separation itself, since, so long as her husband lives, even
by whom she hath been left, she commits adultery, in case she be married to another: and
he who hath left her, is the cause of this evil. . . Seeing that the compact of marriage is not
done away by divorce intervening; so that they continue wedded persons one to another,
even after separation; and commit adultery with those, with whom they shall be joined,
even after their own divorce, either the woman with a man, or the man with a woman. . .
But a marriage once for all entered upon in the City of our God, where, even from the first
union of the two, the man and the woman, marriage bears a certain sacramental character,
can no way be dissolved but by the death of one of them. For the bond of marriage
remains, although a family [i.e. children], for the sake of which it was entered upon, do
not follow through manifest barrenness; so that, when now married persons know that
they shall not have children, yet it is not lawful for them to separate even for the very
sake of children, and to join themselves unto others. And if they shall so do, they commit
adultery with those unto whom they join themselves, but themselves remain husbands
and wives [to each other] . . Therefore the good of marriage throughout all nations and all
men stands in the occasion of begetting, and faith of chastity: but, so far as pertains unto
the People of God, also in the sanctity of the sacrament, by reason of which it is unlawful
for one who leaves her husband, even when she has been put away, to be married to
another, so long as her husband lives, no not even for the sake of bearing children: . . . not
even where that very thing, wherefore it takes place, follows not, is the marriage bond
loosed, save by the death of the husband or wife."
[Footnote: >. n102 St. Augustin: On The Trinity; pp. 402, 406, 412]

The aim of repentance is reconciliation with people and with God. St. Jerome (340-420
A.D.) stated that "a wife who has been put away, may not, so long as her husband lives,
be married to another, or at all events that her duty is to be reconciled to her
husband.">103 God is Love and forgiveness, and most people arent. Matt. 5:23,24 and
18:15-18 tell about repentances reconciliation and how to do it, but when dealing with so-
called sinning brothers/sister>168 and the snared/dead/blind/foolish/ manipulated
unsaved>169 reconciliation may not be possible just like fellowship, communion, accord,
and agreement>170 are not usually possible or sometimes not even desired with such
folks. You repent and right the wrong if possible for your sake and the name of God
whether or not reconciliation ever takes place. Your repentance does not depend on the
cooperation, or lack of it, of the victim/witness. If they wont cooperate, then you are
responsible to do the right you know to do, and you are not responsible to do the right
you are unable to do if it requires the cooperation of someone who is unwilling to
cooperate.
[Footnotes:>.n103 A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The
Christian Church,Vol. VIII; p.353. >168 (1 Cor. 5:9-12; 2 Thess. 3:6-14). >169 (2 Tim.
2:25,26; Ephes. 2:1,2; Psalm 1 and 14). >170 (2Cor. 6:14,15).]
 
Before God you must render that which is due >171 by covenant with your rejected wife.
If a Christian brother remarried in adultery, it seems that any vows/ covenants he made
with his new wife of adultery, if she were indeed free to marry him, would still be as
binding as those he made with any
creditor, employer or neighbor. Remarried to his rejected wife in godly sorrow and
repentance, any lawful and right covenants he made with the wife of his adultery (and his children by her) that dont involve the adultery would still be binding on him and in honor he would be bound by his nonadulterous covenants with her
and theirs. Situations like these demand of our leaders the wisdom of Solomon and bold
and authoritative teaching from the Word of God about these issues.
[Footnote: >171 (Rom. 13:7-10; 1 Cor. 7:1-5)]

What about conflicting vows and/or covenants? We are not our own and we are bought
with a price >172 so we have no authority to vow or covenant to do something contrary
to the will of God. Even in the Old Testament the husband could void any vow made by
his wife that was unacceptable to him as her husband, and the father of a daughter could
void any vow made by his daughter>173 . As a member of the Bride of Christ, as His
bond slave, as His child, He can and surely does void any vow or covenant that we might make that is contrary to His will.
[Footnotes:>172 (1 Cor. 6). >173 Numbers 30:1-16]

What if the vows or covenants do not involve sin, but they contradict each other?
Wouldn't the vow or covenant made first take priority over any contradictory vow or
covenant made later---all other things being equal? What if a person made a set of
vows/covenants and later found that some of that set of vows/covenants were sinful,
contrary to the will of God or voided by another vow/covenant made earlier? Wouldn't
only those few vows/ covenants that were wrong be voided by God, leaving standing the
rest of the vows/covenants made? When it comes to vows and covenants we need to be
very careful to obey James 5:12A>.Ap#7 If we do stick our necks out in a vow/covenant
not according to James 4:15, then we need to know that God has no pleasure in fools so
we need to keep our word>174
[Footnotes: >.Ap#7 See Appendix #7.p#7 and James 4:13-17A. >174 (Eccles. 5:2-7;
Psalm 116:14;; 66:13,14; 15:4; Ezek 17:15-20; Rom. 1:31)]

But Gorki may say, "What about my new mate, Lara, and the children we have had since
I repudiated (or etc.) Slavania and married Lara?" God's grace and love is big enough for
the whole world, as well as his legal but new mate-in-sin Lara and his new children-in-
adultery. Gorki is still under God's command of Eph. 6 (etc.) to parent, love and provide
for them. But what about Lara?" You know this happens with professing Christians
divorcing and remarrying professing Christians in America today! Well, what about Lara?
If she is bound by God for life to Stanislavski, then just like King David's Michal (who
was "legally" divorced and remarried), she has to return to her Christian husband,
Stanislavski, to whom she is bound for life. Gorki may still love Lara and he may have to
parent his own children, but Lara is bound to Stanislavski as long as they both live>175 .
See the discussion "Can you go home again".
[Footnote: >175 (1 Cor. 7; Rom 7)]

Ezekiel 16:59 For thus says the Lord Jehovah: I will even deal with you as you have
done, WHO HAVE DESPISED THE OATH, AND BROKEN THE COVENANT. . . .
17: 15 But he rebelled against him . . . Shall he prosper? shall he escape that does such
things? SHALL HE BREAK THE COVENANT, AND YET ESCAPE? . . . 16 [As] I
live, says the Lord Jehovah, verily in the place of the king that made him king, WHOSE
OATH HE DESPISED, AND WHOSE COVENANT HE BROKE, even with him, in the
midst of Babylon, shall he die. . . .18 HE DESPISED THE OATH, AND BROKE THE
COVENANT; and behold, he had given his hand, yet has he done all these things: he shall
not escape. 19 Therefore thus says the Lord Jehovah: [As] I live, verily, MINE OATH
WHICH HE HAS DESPISED, AND MY COVENANT WHICH HE HAS BROKEN,
EVEN IT WILL I RECOMPENSE UPON HIS HEAD. 20 AND I WILL SPREAD MY
NET UPON HIM, AND HE SHALL BE TAKEN IN MY SNARE; . . .



XI. CAN YOU COME BACK TOGETHER AND REMARRY AFTER
ADULTEROUS REMARRIAGES?

Ezekiel 16: 3 . . . Thus says the Lord Jehovah unto Jerusalem: Your birth and Your
nativity is of the land of the Canaanite: your father was an Amorite, and your mother a
Hittite. 8 And I passed by you, and looked upon you, and behold, your time was the time
of love; and I spread my skirt over you, and covered your nakedness; and I SWORE
UNTO YOU, AND ENTERED INTO A COVENANT WITH YOU says the Lord
Jehovah, and you became mine. . . . 15 But you did confide in your beauty, and played
the harlot because of your renown, and poured out your whoredoms on every one that
passed by: his it was. . . . . 32 O adulterous wife, that takes strangers instead of her
husband. 59 For thus says the Lord Jehovah: I will even deal with you as you have done,
WHO HAVE DESPISED THE OATH, AND BROKEN THE COVENANT. 60
Nevertheless I will remember MY COVENANT with you in the days of your youth, and
I will establish unto you an everlasting covenant. 61 And you shall remember your ways,
and be confounded, . . . I will give them unto you for daughters, but not by virtue of
YOUR COVENANT. 62 And I will establish MY COVENANT WITH YOU, and you
shall know that I [am] Jehovah; 63 that you may remember, and be ashamed, and no more
open your mouth because of your confusion, when I forgive you all that you have done,
says the Lord Jehovah.

Should I go back to my godly mate from whom I, a born again believer, was divorced
while we were both in the Lord? What does the Word say? Consider God's example, the
model he sets for us.
Hosea 9: 1 Rejoice not, Israel, exultingly, as the peoples; for you have gone a whoring
from your God, you have loved harlot's hire upon every corn-floor. 11: 7 Yea, my people
are bent upon backsliding from me: though they call them to the Most High, none at all
exalts [him]. 8 How shall I give you over, Ephraim? [how] shall I deliver you up, Israel?
how shall I make you as Admah? [how] shall I set you as Zeboim? My heart is turned
within me, my repentings are kindled together. 9 I will not execute the fierceness of mine
anger . . . 14:1 O Israel, return unto Jehovah your God; for you have fallen by your
iniquity. 2 Take with you words, and turn to Jehovah; say unto him, Forgive all iniquity,
and receive [us] graciously; so will we render the calves of our lips. . . . neither will we
say any more to the work of our hands, [You are] our God; because in you the fatherless
finds mercy. 4 I will heal their backsliding, I will love them freely; for mine anger is turned
away from him. 5 I will be as the dew unto Israel: he shall blossom as the lily, and cast
forth his roots as Lebanon. . . . 7 They shall return and sit under his shadow; they shall
revive [as] corn, and blossom as the vine: . . . 9 Who is wise, and he shall understand these
things? intelligent, and he shall know them? For the ways of Jehovah are right, and the
just shall walk in them; but the transgressors shall fall therein.

Gen. 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his
wife; and they shall be one flesh.>104. For the permanence of the relationship the focus is
on the word "cleave" which in the Hebrew means "cling or adhere; . . . abide fast, cleave
(fast together), follow close (hard after), be joined (together), keep (fast), overtake, pursue
hard, stick, take.">105. Thayer says it means "to glue upon, glue to">106. If God
commands the husband to conduct himself in this manner towards his wife, then he had
better do it if he wants a good future with God, because to disobey would be death>176 .
Being under this command would certainly bind a man to his wife as long as both lived.
[Footnotes>104. King James Version. The Holy Scriptures According to the Masoretic
Text agrees with the meaning. >105. Strong''s Exhaustive Concordance. >106. Greek
English Lexicon of the New Testament; Joseph Henry Thayer, D.D.; American Book Co.,
New York, 1889 . >176 Rom. 1:28-32; 1 Cor. 5:5-11; 11:30,31,32.]

The Jewish Septuagint (third century B.C.) for Gen. 2:24 uses the same word for "cleave"
that Jesus uses in Matt. 19:5. The word used for cleave in the LXX's Gen. 2:24 and Jesus'
Matt. 19:5 means the following: 1. According to Thayer --- "to join one's self to closely,
cleave to, stick to"; and 2. According
to Arndt & Gingrich ---"adhere closely to, be faithfully devoted to, join tini
someone">107 . The Greek tense in both is future indicative passive which means that
this is what they shall have themselves doing in the future on a regular basis. You say that
it is not a command? Jesus seems to differ with you both in Malachi 2, where He says the
husband who breaks his marital agreement with his wife is under His wrath, and in Matt
19:6 where Jesus says "So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what
God has
joined together, man must not separate." Based on the truth of Ephes. 1:11 (He "works all
things according to the counsel of His own will") and Rom. 13:1-3 ("For there is no
power but of God; the authorities that be are ordained by God"), every legal and moral
marriage is ordained or allowed by God and takes place under His control, so indeed God
has joined them. That's why we can trust God with 1 Cor. 7:17-28, that we are to remain
married to the person we are married to when we are saved. So in this case, even 1 Cor. 7
speaks of the binding nature of marriage. So Jesus makes binding >177 the cleaving>178
and the one flesh experience that we know as marriage.
[Footnotes:{>.{n107 A GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
and Other Early Christian Literature ; By W.F.Arndt & F. W. Gingric. >177 (Mt. 19:6).
>178 (Mt. 19:5).]

What do the experts say? There is no controversy that marriages, divorces, and
remarriages that happened before one was saved are not binding on the new convert to
Christ. The case of the one who is saved while married to an unsaved person has some
controversy>179 . But what is the Word for those Christians who have married, divorced
and remarried all since they were genuinely and fruitfully saved and walking in loving
obedience to the Savior? [Footnote: >179 1 Corinth. 7:12,13,14,15]  Consider the following:
"In the present modern tangle of marriage, divorce, and remarriage the Christian Church, in
dealing with converts and repentant members, is often compelled to accept the situation
as it is.">108
[Footnote: >..n108 The New Bible Dictionary, J.D. Douglas Ph.D. p..790.]

In the NT divorce seems to be forbidden absolutely. . . Our Lord teaches that the OT
permission was a concession to a low moral standard, and was opposed to the ideal of
marriage as an inseparable union of body and soul. . . But remarriage also closes the door
to reconciliation, which on Christian principles ought always to be possible; cf. the
teaching of Hosea and Jer. 3; Hermas [2nd Cent. AD] (Mand. iv.1) allows no re-marriage,
and lays great stress on the taking back of a repentant wife.>109
[Footnote: >..n109 HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE; p. 586.]

To such a degree is that marriage compact entered upon a matter of a certain sacrament,
that it is not made void even by separation itself, since, so long as her husband lives, even
by whom she hath been left, she commits adultery, in case she be married to another: and
he who hath left her, is the cause of this evil. . . Seeing that the compact of marriage is not
done away by divorce intervening; so that they continue wedded persons one to another,
even after separation; and commit adultery with those, with whom they shall be joined,
even after their own divorce, either the woman with a man, or the man with a woman. . .
But a marriage once for all entered upon in the City of our god, where, even from the first
union of the two, the man and the woman, marriage bears a certain sacramental character,
can no way be dissolved but by the death of one of them. . . Therefore the good of
marriage throughout all nations and all men stands in the occasion of begetting, and faith
of chastity: but, so far as pertains unto the People of God, also in the sanctity of the
sacrament, by reason of which it is unlawful for one who leaves here husband, even when
she has been put away, to be married to another, so long as her husband lives, no not even
for the sake of bearing children: . . . not even where that very thing, wherefore it takes
place, follows not, is the marriage bond loosed, save by the death of the husband or
wife.>75
[Footnote: >. 75 St. Augustin: On The Trinity; pp. 402, 406, 412. ]

Since the only terms of divorce are given in Deut 24:1-4 which was superseded by Matt.
19:1-15 and 1 Cor. 7:10-15,39, it is clear that marriage is a life long relationship based on
the covenants of the couple and on God's command not to be put asunder or put asunder
the relationship. What about
Deut. 24:1-5? Does it set some kind of precedent or establish some kind of principle that
would loose a godly couple from the binding nature of their relationship before God?
Deut. 23:13 = and you shall have a trowel on your girdle; and it shall come to pass when
you would relieve yourself abroad, that you shall dig with it, and shall bring back the
earth and cover your {nuisance}. 14 Because the Lord your God walks in your camp to
deliver you . . . and your camp shall be holy, and there shall not appear in you A
{DISGRACEFUL THING}>111. , and so he shall turn away from you. . .
[Footnote: >111. {caps mine}; same Hebrew words in both Dt. 23:14 as in Dt 24:3 in
LXX.]
Deut. 24:3= And if any one should take a wife, and should dwell with her, then it shall
come to pass if she should not have found favour before him, because he has found some
{UNBECOMING THING} >111. in her, that he shall write for her a bill of divorcement
and give it into her hands, and he shall send her away out of his house. 4. And if she
should go away and be married to another man; 5. and the last husband should hate her,
and write for her a bill of divorcement; and should give it into her hands, and send her
away out of his house, and the last husband should die, who took here to himself for a
wife; 6. the former husband who sent her away shall not be able to return and take her to
himself for a wife, after she has been defiled; because it is an abomination before the Lord
your God, and you shall not defile the land which the Lord thy God gives you to
inherit.>112. [Old English updated]
[Footnote: *>111. ditto: caps mine; same Hebrew words in both Dt. 23:14 as in Dt 24:3
in LXX. >112. Please see The Septuagint Version; 1972; Zondervan Publishing House,
Grand Rapids, Mich.]
Deut. 23:15. . . that He see no {UNSEEMLY THING}>113. in thee, and turn away from
thee. Deut. 24:1-4 . . . because he hath found some {UNSEEMLY>114. THING}>115. in
her, . . .>116.
Deut. 23:14 . . . He must not see anything {INDECENT}>117. among you lest He turn
away from you. . . Deut. 24:1-4 . . . he has found some {INDECENCY}>118. in her. .
>119.
[Footnotes: (>113. caps mine; same Hebrew word in Deut 23:15 as in Deut 24:1. >114.
"unseemly thing" = American Standard Version; Thomas Nelson; 1901. >115. {caps
mine}; same Hebrew word in Deut 23:15 as in Deut 24:1. >116. The Holy Scriptures
According to the Masoretic Text >117. {caps}mine; same Hebrew word in Deut 23:14 as
in Deut 24:1. >118. ditto:{caps}mine; same Hebrew word in Deut 23:14 as in Deut 24:1.
. . >119. Holy Bible New American Standard; 1977.]

Thank God for the originals so that we can see that the Hebrew word used in Deut 23 is
the same as used in Deut. 24, and that it apparently means anything deemed or decreed
by God to be unholy, a sin or an abomination. In Deut 23 that includes human feces and
excrement which God made know by law to His people that it was unclean and defiling in
His eyes. Using the Word the way the Spirit used the Word would enable us to
understand that whatever the husband found in the wife that was "unseemly" or
"indecent", was something expressly and explicitly declared by God to be unholy and
defiling in His Word. This included any of the bodily ailments that resulted in an
unnatural excretion or flow of bodily fluids, things like leprosy, running sores, and
figurative things that made you unholy like idolatry and breaking the commandments of
God through Moses.

The word rendered "indecency" in the phrase "he has found some indecency" means
something expressly and explicitly declared by God to be unholy and defiling in His
Word, including any of the bodily ailments that resulted in an unnatural excretion or flow
of bodily fluids, things like leprosy, running
sores, and figurative things that made you unholy like idolatry and breaking the
commandments of God through Moses. The word rendered "defiled" in the phrase " not
allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled" is used by God of
sexual defilement>180 , spiritual defilement >181 defilement by death or bodily emissions>182 .
[Footnote: >180 (Gen. 34:5,13; Lev. 18:24; Num. 5:13-29). >181 (Lev. 19:31; Ezek. 22:4;
23:7). >182 (Lev. 15:32; 21:1-3).]

This means that the "indecency" or "unseemliness" that led Benhadad to divorce Lohana
could be the same "defilement" that makes the situation so that he cannot remarry her.
Specifically, Lohana could either have been an unbelieving Jewess or a Jewess with an
abnormal external flow of bodily fluids, both of which were unseemly, unholy and
indecent according to the Sinai Law of Moses. If Lohana was divorced by Benhadad for
this unholy indecency, remarried Abdullah while still unholy and indecent and then
divorced again or widowed by Abdullah-----still all the while an unbelieving Jewess or a
Jewess with the abnormal external flow of bodily fluids. The problem that led Benhadad
to divorce Lohana is still her problem after the remarriage and the divorce, a problem that
makes her and marriage to her unholy, unseemly and/or indecent according to the Law of
Moses.

For him to remarry her would be the fulfillment of Prov. 26:11 and 2 Pt. 2:22 where " . . .
'A dog returns to his own vomit', and, 'a sow, having washed, to her wallowing in the
mire.'". This is not and would not be acceptable to God. This fits well with the after-
Moses OT precedents found in Ezra and Nehemiah where God commanded that the
people divorce those whom they disobeyed Him to marry, who were idolaters and lived
in disobedience to His Word, people with whom God had forbidden marriage. For a Jew
to have remarried one of these wives would have been the unholiness of flagrant
disobedience. That the disqualifying thing in these wives was their spiritual heritage rather
than their race is obvious by the fact that God did not forbid marriage to believing
Egyptians (Joseph), Philistines (Samson), Syrians, Assyrians or Ethiopian Cushites
(Moses), etc.

The same principles work in the Church of today. We know that it is unholy and
therefore unacceptable to marry a "saint" living in sin>183 , or to marry an
unbeliever>184 . Now if I married someone who called herself a believer, but because of
problems that surfaced after the wedding we had to do Matt. 18:15-17-20 and she turned
out to be a "heathen", I would have had grounds to divorce her in OT times according to
Deut 24, but now under the Law of Christ in 1 Cor. 7: 12-15 I am not free to divorce her
unless she is unwilling to live with me or has left me. If she became unwilling to live with
me and then left me, I would be free from her maritally and free to remarry. For me to
remarry her still in her "heathen" unholiness/defilement would be a sin in violation of the
Scriptures120 , and an abomination to God.
[Footnote: >183 1 Cor. 5; 2 Thess. 3:6-14; 2 Tim. 3:5; 1 Tim.6:5. >184 (2 Cor. 6:14-7:1).
>.n120 Please see Appendix Five.]

If you can accept the preceding understanding of Deut. 23 & 24, a woman divorced for
unholiness is not to be taken back by her husband in her unholiness, then there is no
problem from these passages for a godly brother to remarry his godly wife who, in
ignorance or in a snare by the enemy >185, divorced him or was divorced by him and had
gone on and married someone else.
[Footnote: >185 2 Tim. 2:24-26; Gal. 6:1; 1 Cor. 5:5-11 + 2 Cor 2).]

If you understand the unholy indecency of the woman in Deut. 24 to be some specific
violation of God's Law of Moses, an unholy indecency which caused her to be divorced
and forbids her former husband from remarrying her because such a remarriage would
violate some specific Law of Moses -----
then there is no application of this passage to two born again and godly saints today who,
in ignorance or in a snare by the enemy>186 , were divorced and had gone on and
remarried others, but now, acknowledging the Word of God that they are bound as
husband and wife for life (1 Cor. 7 & Rm. 7), want to remarry in repentance.
[Footnote: >186 2 Tim. 2:24-26; Gal. 6:1; 1 Cor. 5:5-11 + 2 Cor 2)]

Some Christians say you cannot go back, once youve remarried>187 . They cite
Deuteronomy 24:1-4 as their proof text. First of all, we know that we are not under that
command according to Ephesians 2:14,15,16; Colossians 2:13-17 and Acts 15. Secondly,
it cannot be argued that it is a "higher-than-the-law-of-Moses" principle of defilement and
uncleanness. Yes God did keep the king from defiling Abraham's Sarah. But the same God
blessed the marriage of the very defiled harlot Rahab so that she became a direct ancestor
of both King David and Jesus. His Word in Deut. 24:1-4 is followed by his Word in Deut.
25:5-10 that the defiled-by-former-husbands widows were to be married to their brother-
in-laws etc>. Ruth, a defiled-by-former-husband widow, was blessed in her marriage with
Boaz so that she also became a direct ancestor of King David and Jesus. Jesus commands
the church defiled-by-former-husband widows to remarry in the Lord in 1 Timothy 5.
[Footnote: >187 Deut. 24:1-4; Matt. 5:17-20; Luke 16:17. ]

No where in the Word of God does it say that your remarriage in adultery looses you
from Gods binding Christian-you to your Christian mate for life>188. Jesus plainly states
that Deut. 24:1-4 was given because of the hardness of their hearts>189 not because it
was the best thing to do. Christians have been given new hearts and were released from
Deut. 24:1-4 by the Lord in Ephes. 2:14,15 and Colos.2:13,14. So what do Christian-you
do about the Christian mate that Christian-you divorced and you married another in
adultery>190 , or about your Christian mate who divorced Christian-you and then
married another in adultery>191 ?
[Footnote: >188. Romans 7:1-5; 1 Corinth. 7:3-11,39. >189 (Matt. 19:8). >190 Mark
10:11,12; Luke 16:18; 1 Cor. 7:10,11. >191 Mark 10:11,12; Luke 16:18; 1 Cor. 7:10,11.]

While still being bound to your Christian mate, you may have to separate from, or
perhaps even divorce, your Christian mate as part of the Churchs discipline of your
Christian mate who is living in sin>192 Since the purpose of Church discipline is to result
in repentance and reconcilia-tion>193 , the separation/divorce should be seen as a
temporary measure, unless the Lord puts the sinning saint to sleep in death>194 , or
turns out to be an unbeliever>195 If there is repentance by your adulterous and remarried
Christian mate, should you be reconciled to your repentant mate? Since you two are
bound maritally for life by the Lord, I would hope so. What does God say? Because of
John 8 and Eph. 2 and Colos. 2 we dont stone to death adulterers and adulteresses.
Because of 1 Corinth 7:10-15,39; and Romans 7:1-5 we dont just walk away and disown
our mates. In the Church's Ecumenical Council, the African Code of A.D. 419 stated that
"It seemed good that according to evangelical and apostolical discipline a man who had
been put away from his wife, and a woman put away from her husband should not be
married to another, but so should remain, or else be reconciled the one to the other. .
.">121
[Footnote: >192 Romans 16:17;1 Corint. 5:9-11; Eph. 5:11; 2 Thess. 3:6-14;1Tim. 6:3-5;
2 Tim. 3:1-5; Matt. 18:15-20. >193 (2 Corinth 2 and 7). >194 1 Corinth. 5:4-8; 11:28-32.
>195 Matthew 18:15-18. >.n121 A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers
of The Christian Church,Vol. XIV; p. 493.]

King David took his wife Michal back after she had been given in marriage to another,
with Gods blessing>.196. Some might say that he took her back but wasn't intimate with
her, as he did with the wives/concubines that his son raped>197. That doesn't seem to be
the case with Michal because the Holy Spirit made a point of the fact that He caused her
to be barren AFTER she had returned to David from her other husband-in-adultery>.198
If he brought Michal back but was not intimate with her there would have been no point
to God making her barren. So apparently David was being intimate with Michal after her
adultery but God made sure she was barren after her sin.
[Footnote: >.196. 1 Sam. 25:44; 2 Sam. 3:13-16. >197. 2 Sam 16:21,22; 19:5; 20:3. >.198.
1 Sam 25; 2 Sam 6:16-23.]

Hosea the prophet was told by God to marry an unfaithful woman and then to take her
back as wife after she had been unfaithful to him. In Ezekiel 16 and 23 God presents
Himself as a husband who takes back his unfaithful wife. So there is a place for
reconciliation and reunion of two obedient believers who are bound for life but who
sinned by divorcing and remarrying. There are grounds for leaving an adulterous marriage
and going back to the Christian mate to whom you are bound for life.

So why the Word in Deut. 24:1-4 about not taking back your ex-wife after she has
remarried? Jesus tells us that Deut. 24:1-4 was given because of the hardness>199. of
their hearts, not because it was God's best for them. Jesus overruled Deut. 24 and
restored His Law that made divorce itself just as much an abomination>200 as the
"abomination" of taking back your ex-wife after she had been married to somebody else.
Perhaps Deut. 24 and it hardness-of-heart rule was a temporary attempt by God to
discourage divorce, at least frivolous divorce. Deut 24 deals with a woman who has
what the Law calls an "uncleanness",  something expressly and explicitly declared by
God to be unholy and defiling, an "uncleanness" that she had when she was married to
the husband that sent her away,  and the same "uncleanness" she had after her subsequent
husband sent her away. Whatever the reason, it wasn't just a defilement issue of sexual
union, because the Deut. 25:5-10; Rahab & Ruth 4; David & Michal, Hosea
passages make it clear that there is and was no sin or defilement in marrying a woman
who had been "defiled" by her former husband (David and Abigail, Ruth and Boaz) or
some other man (Rahab the harlot) before the current marriage.
[Footnote: >199. Matthew 19:1-19. ^>.^200. Malachi 2.]

The Holy Spirit did not restate or reinstate the hardness-of-heart rule in the cases of 1
Tim. 5:10-14, or 1 Cor. 7:10-15, 39 or Romans 7:1-5. The only restrictions on remarriage
were that they be "in the Lord", which at least means within the Lord's explicit will and
marrying someone who is in the Lord. Everything in John 8; Gal. 6:1; Mat. 18:15-18; 2
Cor. ch. 2 and ch. 7; Hosea, Ezekiel etc. all indicate that is okay for accepting back the
repentant and believing mate who fell in  adultery and has heard Jesus say, "Go and sin no more!" Of course the believing wife has the right to exercise her celibate separation option as long as her believing husband lives, the option given in 1 Cor 7:10,11,39. For the saved woman
married to the unsaved husband, if she exercises her separation option, she is maritally
bound to him as long as he wants to maritally house with her even if they are separated.


XII. WHAT ABOUT THE HEALTH QUESTIONS INVOLVED IN SUCH
REUNIONS?
What if the saved mates want to reunite, acknowledging their bound-for-life status before
God, after they have sinfully separated, been adulterous, divorced or remarried? With so
many sexually transmitted diseases (STD) out and about today, it is a pressing question.
What if the couple who wish to reunite still have small or dependent children so that they
must make sure that at least one of them lives to care for them?

If one of the two has acquired genital warts, it's only annoying for the husband but the
wife would have to deal with the fact that reunion with full marital intimacy could expose
her to cervical cancer, a leading killer of women. There are diseases that only affect
fertility but if the couple has had

no children yet, then that is a major decision for them to make with possible remedies like
artificial insemination or etc>. What if one of them has genital herpes? For some people,
usually the woman, that results in great discomfort periodically, sometimes even
temporarily disabling. Would the reuniting mate be willing to be exposed to that if the
other mate had it? What about HIV and AIDS? It's a death sentence with a heart break,
and an ugly painful death at that. What do you do if saved you and your saved mate wish
to acknowledge the reality of your bound-for-life status before God but you are staring an
STD right in the face as a possible consequence?

Some would run right back to Deut. 24 and say that reconciliation is out since one or both
have been "defiled". But defilement under the law included everything from nocturnal
seminal emissions, running sores, blood, touching a dead body, eating the wrong food,
touching or associating with gentiles (non Jews) or a woman's menstrual flow. The
patriarch married Rahab the harlot of Jericho, who certainly had been defiled, and became
an ancestor of Mary and Jesus. Under Deut. 25, every brother who married his brother's
widow married a woman who had been defiled by another man (the dead brother). I don't
think that is the issue.

What does being bound-for-life-maritally-in-the-Lord mean when one or both have
STD's? When one or both have STD's that could end or severely handicap life? I have
some idea of what this means because I was engaged to a dear saint whose deceased
husband of 20 years had been repeatedly unfaithful to her, exposing her to whatever his
whores had, and then after their divorce she backslid in depression and was seduced by a
felonious excon, and we know of the homosexual diseases to which excons are exposed. A
brother I know became engaged to a church going "Christian" lady and then found out that
before they met she had been a prostitute with over 100 other men, some in refugee
camps in utter poverty where her pay was food for her and her children. He worried
about what he had exposed himself to just by kissing her.

Again, what does being bound-for-life-maritally-in-the-Lord mean when one or both have
STD's? If we really believe that the "wife is bound by the law [of God] as long as her
husband lives">201 , then we must also believe the commands and truths of Prov.
5:18,19; and 1 Cor. 7:2,3,4,5 where your marital partner's rights and responsibilities are
described. Are you ready and willing to repent of wrongfully leaving or divorcing your
saved mate and marrying another (or just being intimate with another)? Are you, the
abandoned/ divorced/rejected mate, ready to grant 2 Cor. 2 forgiveness to your mate has
demonstrated 2 Cor. 7 godly repentance for his or her 1 Cor. 5 offense against you and
God? The blessing is on those who hear and obey. The sin lies at the door of the one who
knows to do right and does not do it.
[Footnote: >201 (1 Cor. 7:39).]

But what about STD's? Do you expect me to resume full marital intimacy with my saved
and repentant mate who now has genital herpes and/or penicillin resistant gonorrhea? Yes
these are very inconvenient and genuine concerns and the Old Testament Law would have
forbidden you to touch people with such issues. But according to Acts 15, Eph. 2 and
Colos. 2 we are not bound by the Mt. Sinai Law given to Moses now. That infected and
repentant mate, bound to you by God as long as you both live, still has 1 Cor. 7:2-5
authority over your body and you still are under 1 Cor. 7:4,5 authority to meet her needs
in marital intimacy so that mate wont be dangerously tempted by the enemy of your
souls. The physical peril is greater than the spiritual peril.
You have what your mate needs>202 in marital intimacy, the precedents>203 show that
it is your responsibility to meet those needs that only you can meet. You are not being
asked to lay down your life for your mate>204 . You may land up bearing the
burden>205 of the ailment with your mate but that is godly and rewarded/blessed in the
Lord. The one who seeks to save his life is the one who looses it before the Lord, whereas
the one who lays down his life for another is the one who receives it again anew forever
from the Lord.
[Footnote: >202 (1 Jn. 3:17). >203 Luke 3:11; Acts 20:36; 1 Tim. 6:17-19; Eph. 4:28; 2
Cor 8 & 9; James 2:14-17; Deut. 15;7;Prov. 3:27,28; 21:13; Job 31:16-23. >204.(1 Jn.
3:16; Jn. 15:13; Rom. 16:4; Mk. 8:35). >205 (Ga. 6:2; Rom. 15:1-6).]

Creativity is not a sin. The two may mutually decide that their needs in marital sex could
be met by mutual petting to orgasm, or erotic massage, erotic bathing, or etc. so that there
is no genital to genital contact, no exchange of infectious fluids. Condoms are little or no
protection with even the best of them failing to protect 22% of the time in federal tests
that involved no motion on an artificial penis>#. Dr. Askew of the County Health
Department told me (4/'96) the latest research he is aware of indicates as 17% User
Failure Rate (the condoms failed the users who used them)>*. The latex gloves that
surgeons use offer some protection because they are so much thicker than condoms. They
both can pray for wisdom and receive it from God on how to wisely meet their marital
sex responsibilities to each other in a godly and loving manner without infecting the other.
But the bottom line is that the love of God constrains them both to meet each other's
marital sex needs in order to obey God and deliver their partner from life threatening
temptations>206 .
[Footnote: ># Dr. Loraine Day, surgeon. ; >* He also indicated that the HIV/AIDS blood
tests are 90% accurate three months after exposure, 99% accurate after six monthsl of
exposure; >206 (1 Cor. 7:2-5; Prov. 5:18,19,20)]

What if my repentant and returning mate has HIV or AIDS? If you have dependent
children to raise, you have some hard planning and decision making ahead of you. I can
only offer my untried opinions. You must seek the Lord in fasting and prayer in this. The
thought that comes to my mind is that of St. Francis of Assisi ministering to the lepers to
the risk of himself and his beloved brethren. I think again of the beloved saint in Hawaii
who ministered to the lepers in his leper colony and finally contracted it and died himself
as a leper. And I think of Christ who fleshed Himself in this world of leprous sin, lived
with we spiritually leprous sinners, and then voluntarily died, taking all our leprous sin
into His own pure and sinless body.

Isn't He our Master? Isn't that His way? Aren't we called to follow in His footsteps>207
? Did He dodge and forego the suffering He was called to for us? Can we do any less as
His Ambassadors? Isn't He the same Christ who indwells us and lives in us, our very life,
and would He shrink from laying down His life in you for your mate who has AIDS but
needs your marital sex according to 1 Cor. 7:2,3,4; and Prov. 5:18,19,20 in order to avoid
the deadly temptations>208 that will come if you don't meet you mate's needs? They
knew Him by the nail prints in His hands. Would it be too much for Him to ask you to be
known by the AIDS of your needy mate in whom He also dwells? Is not His grace
sufficient in every need and crisis? Can't you depend on Him to keep His Word to not let
you be tried in this life more than you are able to bear>209 ? Read your Bible, Amy
Carmichael's Rose from Briar, Amy's Gold Cord, Corrie Ten Boom's writings! Our God is
able and we are a people called to take up our cross daily, laying down our lives for our
brethren. I believe the same scriptures that compelled Peter Elliot to risk his life and be
martyred in Ecuador - compel the saved mate to respond according to 1 Cor. 7:2,3,4,5 to
the genuine marital sex needs of their saved, repentant and returning mate.
[Footnote: >207 (1 Peter 2:21,22,23,24). >208 (1Cor. 7:5). >209 (1 Cor. 10:13)]

Of course if the infected wife had the gift of continence, having no need of marital sex and
was free from temptation, and so was able to deny herself her right so that her beloved
mate need not be exposed, that would be the way to go for them. Sometimes something as
easy as asking and endocrinologist to help a Christian male medically lower his
testosterone level to the lowest safe level can so lessen the intensity of the aching needs
and appetites that they cease to be a problem. But he would need to do it with the doctor
monitoring him since we now know that hormonal imbalances can result in tumors and
cancers. But we each have our gift>210, and even AIDS doesn't change those marital gifts
which physically and mentally express themselves powerfully as aching needs and
compelling appetites, as 1 Cor. 7:9 & 1 Tim. 5:11-14 and the practicers of Prov.
5:18,19,20 can tell you.
[Footnote: >210 (1 Cor. 7)]

XIII. CAN ADULTERY, DIVORCE , VOWS AND REPENTANCE RESULT IN
POLYGYNY OR CONCUBINAGE?

We are called to speak Truth to each other (Eph.4) by the God Who is the Truth. We are
called to serve the God who cannot lie. Our God calls us to be a people whose mouths
reflect His Light and Truth. The passages below show us that He expects us to be
honorable and honest in the agrteements, understanding and contracts we have and make
with each other. If we want His blessing, we will provide honest things in the sight of all
so as not to give the adversaries an opportunity to blaspheme God or God's work in your
life. Consider these:
**** PSALM 116:13 I will take the cup of salvation, and call on the name of the
LORD. 14 I will pay my vows to the LORD now in the presence of all His people.
**** PSALM 66:13 I will go into Your house with burnt offerings; I will pay You my
vows,14 [those] which my lips have uttered and my mouth has spoken in my trouble.
DBY PSALM 15: Jehovah, who shall sojourn in your tent? . . . 2 He that walks uprightly
. . .who, if he have sworn to his own hurt, changes it not; . .
YLT ECCLES 5:4 When thou vowest a vow to God, delay not to complete it, for there is
no pleasure in fools; that which thou vowest--complete. 5 Better that thou do not vow,
than that thou dost vow and dost not complete. 6 Suffer not thy mouth to cause thy flesh
to sin, nor say before the messenger, that `it [is] an error,' why is God wroth because of
thy voice, and hath destroyed the work of thy hands?
**** EZEKIEL 17:13 And he has taken of the king's seed and has made a covenant
with him, and has taken an oath from him. He has also taken the mighty of the land, 14 so
that the kingdom might be low, that it might not lift itself up, [but] that by keeping his
covenant it might stand. 15 But he rebelled against him in sending his ambassadors into
Egypt, to give him horses and many people. Shall he be blessed? Shall he who does such
[things] escape? Or SHALL HE BREAK THE COVENANT AND BE DELIVERED? 16
[As] I live, says the Lord Jehovah, surely in the place of the king who made him king,
WHOSE OATH HE DESPISED AND WHOSE COVENANT HE BROKE, even with
him in the midst of Babylon he shall die. . . . 18 And HE HAS DESPISED THE OATH
BY BREAKING THE COVENANT. And, behold, HE HAD GIVEN HIS HAND, AND
HAS DONE ALL THESE, HE SHALL NOT ESCAPE. 19 Therefore so says the Lord
Jehovah: [As] I live, surely MY OATH THAT HE HAS DESPISED, AND MY
COVENANT THAT HE HAS BROKEN, I WILL EVEN REPAY IT ON HIS OWN
HEAD. . . . I WILL JUDGE HIM THERE WITH HIS SIN WHICH HE HAS SINNED
AGAINST ME.
****** ROMANS 1:28 . . . God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things
which are not convenient; . . . covenantbreakers, . . . 32 Who knowing the judgment of
God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but
have pleasure in them that do them.

If American and legally married John legally marries free-to-marry Betty, it is a sin
because John is under command>211 to obey the laws of the government authorities
which forbids official/legal bigamy and polygyny and he would have to live with the legal
consequences but I don't believe that would nullify the covenants he made with Betty.
The covenants that are not covenants-to-sin could still be binding for the two in the Lord.
So bigamy is illegal, Christians divorce Christians who are bound by the Lord to each
other as long as both live, and Christians go on and marry others while still bound by the
Lord to their exs under the banner of forgiveness. This combination has very complicated
outcomes, consequences and effects which may include marriage, separation, polygyny ,
concubinage, adultery and/or fornication. Please read on.
[Footnote: >211 (Romans 13; 1 Peter 2:12-14)]

What about this saved but separated and chaste wife? It seemed to me to be quite unfair
that she could leave him and live unmarried, and we have seen that he, knowing he is still
bound to her for life, has to struggle with the burning temptations predicted in 1 Corinth.
7:1-5, 9 with no legitimate sexual outlet. The double standard of male polygyny seems to
favor the male, while the double standard of the wifes ability to separate (remaining
chaste while the male may not separate) seems to favor the female.

St. Augustine (4th Cent AD) had a powerful way of stating the permanent nature of the
marriage of two who married after being born again, lovingly obedient to Jesus and fruitful
in the Spirit---
"To such a degree is that marriage compact entered upon a matter of a certain sacrament,
that it is not made void even by separation itself, since, so long as her husband lives, even
by whom she hath been left, she commits adultery, in case she be married to another: and
he who hath left her, is the cause of this evil. . . Seeing that the compact of marriage is not
done away by divorce intervening; so that they continue wedded persons one to another,
even after separation; and commit adultery with those, with whom they shall be joined,
even after their own divorce, either the woman with a man, or the man with a woman. . .
But a marriage once for all entered upon in the City of our god>122, where, even from the
first union of the two, the man and the woman, marriage bears a certain sacramental
character, can no way be dissolved but by the death of one of them. . . Therefore the good
of marriage throughout all nations and all men stands in the occasion of begetting, and
faith of chastity: but, so far as pertains unto the People of God, also in the sanctity of the
sacrament, by reason of which it is unlawful for one who leaves here husband, even when
she has been put away, to be married to another, so long as her husband lives, no not even
for the sake of bearing children: . . . not even where that very thing, wherefore it takes
place, follows not, is the marriage bond loosed, save by the death of the husband or
wife.">123
[Footnotes:>122 This footnote mark etc. is not St. Augustine's or Arthur Haddan's. I
insert it just in case the reader is not aware of the fact that all marriages between real
saints take place "in the City of our god" not according to St. Augustine, but according the
the Holy Spirit in Hebrews 11:10,13-19, where they are already seated with Christ in the
Heavenlies according to Eph. 1 & 2. >123 St. Augustin: On The Trinity; pp. 402, 406,
412.]

If she divorces him so she can live alone>212 , and he remarries a sister without rejecting/
repudiating/denying/ forsaking her who divorced him (so there is no adultery, see Mark
10:9-11), then yes it is legal in America and both she who wants to be alone and she who
married him are both bound to
him as long as he lives. She who divorces him to be alone is bound by Law as long as he
lives, and she who married this rejected and abandoned man is bound both Gods Law and
the law of man to him>. Under Gods Law the two are bound to him as long as he lives.
There is nothing in scripture that contradicts this. We have seen that polygyny is not a
sin and an evil. It is against the law and tradition of America and a saint must obey the
laws of America>213 as long as they dont require us to disobey God. That is mans
tradition, not Gods.
[Footnote: >212 (1 Cor. 7:11). >213 (Rom. 13).]

In the Old Testament and New Testament times (4000 B.C. to 100 AD) polygyny and
concubinage were practiced by Israel, Egypt, Babylon, Greece and Rome according to
Jewish historians like Josephus. Yes, officially being married to two women in America is
illegal by man's laws and those laws
have to be obeyed if possible, but an informal/private covenant relationship between a
married man and another woman besides his wife is concubinage, a practice as old as
Jacob, Lea and Rachel in Genesis 22 (Lea's and Rachel's handmaidens/ concubines with
whom Jacob fathered the heads of the 12 tribes) and is not illegal in America and is
practiced on every continent on earth. A "mistress" is not a concubine in Biblical terms
because a concubine is maritally bound to her husband by covenants and by the same
scriptures as bind a wife to her husband, while a mistress is what the Bible calls a harlot
in Ezekiel 16 and 23. Please see the full polygyny discussion enclosed.

Keeping one's marital vows/covenants can indeed result in polygyny, especially if done in
repentance to a sinful divorce or an adulterous remarriage on the part of one or both of the
saved marital partners who abide by God's Word, that they are bound by God maritally
as long as both of them live. The foundation for believing that you or your mate is saved
would be the following fruits of the Spirit, produced in the believer by the empowering of
Christ: (1) They were legally and honorably married, before the divorce etc.; (2) They
both had consistent public testimony of their salvation; (3) Their lives were consistent
with the Word at home and away from home; (4) They both were compassionately and
effectively involved in nurturing and shepherding Christian fellowship; (5) They were
both characterized by the fruits of the Spirit instead of the works of the flesh; (6) They
were faithfully in the Word in a life changing way; and (7) They were faithfully in prayer
on a regular basis. If any of the above are missing, you have good cause to question the
salvation of the person in question, which should move you to intercessory prayer and
Matt. 18: 15-18. One of the best ways to resolve the question of a persons salvation is to
exercise the Mat. 18:15-18 procedure in the manner of 2 Tim. 2:24-26. It would clarify
the situation by showing you if your case was that of 1 Cor. 7:10,11,39 or that of 1 Cor.
7:12-15.

How can vows result in polygyny for genuinely the genuinely saved?What if Saphronia
disobeyed God, left her husband, Eli, and married Raj? Since she is bound to Eli as long as
he lives, she has committed adultery>216 . She makes the same vows to Raj as to Eli, in
her adultery. After experiencing God's promised chastening>217 she repents, forsaking
her adulterous relations with Raj and either returns to marital relations with Eli or
chastely lives alone. Raj and Serena would have to do the sin of adultery to keep their
vow to have and live with each other as husband and wife, so that vow is nullified
(Numbers 30; we are the purchased bride of Christ = 1 Cor. 6:19,20 --so He nullifies our
sinful vows, our vows to sin.). Their vows to cherish each other in all honor, love, duty,
service, faith and tenderness are not sinful and therefore are not nullified but would have
to be exercised chastely and free of any adulterous elements, at least in fervent
intercessory prayer for each other. The same would hold true for Eli if he married Poona,
Sukkur's lawful wife, in adultery and then repented of it, forsaking the adultery of his
marital relations with Poona. Their vows to cherish each other in all honor, love, duty,
service, faith and tenderness are not sinful and therefore are not nullified but would have
to be exercised chastely and free of any adulterous elements, at least expressed in fervent
intercessory prayer.
[Footnote: >216 (Mark 10:11,12; Luke 16:18; Rom.7:1-5). >217 (1 Cor. 11; Heb. 12).]

What if Kure and Toegu Ohtani, a genuinely saved couple, had made the wedding vow
that they would forsake all others, to keep themselves only to each other as long as both
live? Dear little Toegu is overwhelmed by the strains of married life, sins by separating
herself from Kure but repents by
living chastely and unmarried>218 . Kure comes under the tormenting temptation
predicted in 1 Cor. 7:5 & 9, and so finding himself burning and or failing to control
himself, he obeys God's command to marry>125 and marries genuinely saved Kasai, who
accepts Kure even though he, Kasai and Toegu know that he is still bound before the Lord
to Toegu as her husband.
[Footnote: >218 (1 Cor. 7:10, 11). >.n125 See Appendix #6.]

But what about his vow to forsake all others, keeping himself only to Toegu? He finds
himself under God's command to keep his word>219 , and he also finds himself under
God's command to marry>220 . Toegu refuses to be wife to him so he could beat the
predicted temptations caused by her not obeying 1
Cor. 7:2-5 with him. He's bound by their vow but, as predicted, he is being taken
advantage of by the Enemy, burning and sometimes failing to control himself. I believe
that Kure, who is not his own but the purchased bond slave and member of the Bride of
Christ, is released by his Spiritual Lord and
Husband from his "forsaking all others" vow and released>221 to obey God's Word>222
to let the loving comfort of marital intimacy drown his burning.
[Footnote: >219 (Eccles. 5:1-5; Psa. 15). >220 (1 Cor. 7:5,9,36). >221 (Numbers 30).
>222 (1 Cor. 7:4,5,9.])

Any vow to sin is nullified for the believer according to Numbers 30 and 1 Cor. 6:19,20.
You are not your own so you have no authority to promise yourself to anything except
your Master's will. You would not allow your five year old son to keep his foolish
promise to rob a bank. Your boss, hopefully, would not let you use his luxury car to rob
the bank you promised to rob using his car. It would be sin on sin to keep sinful vows
(Rom.6:1-5). It would not be sin to keep a vow that is in agreement with the Word of
God. You have no authority to yield your self to keeping a vow to sin even if your good
intention is to keep your word, especially when keeping your word in and of itself would
be sin, because what you vowed to do is sin.
The best plan is to obey Jesus in Deut. 23:22; Eccles. 5:2,5; Matt. 5:33-37 and James
5:12A>#7 . Instead of vows/promises/covenants/ swearings/oaths, we should obey Jesus
in James 4:13-17 and Matt. 5:33-37, making solemn declarations and affirmations of
marital intentions, aspirations and hopes
instead of making presumptuously arrogant and boastful marital vows about what we are
going to do and not do in the future, which belongs to God and not to us. Please see the
appendices 6 & 7 for a sample of such marital declarations and affirmations.
[Footnote: >7 See Appendix #7]

For Kure to reject, repudiate and forsake his marital bond to Toegu in order to marry
Kasai would make him an adulterer and his marriage to Kasai, adultery>223 .
Acknowledging his marital bond with both Toegu and Kasai he becomes a polygynist, not
an adulterer, even if Toeguy can only be his informal and unofficial contracted concubine
because of the laws of the land. He keeps all righteous vows to both.
[Footnote: >223 (Mark 10:11,12; Luke 16:18).]

If the saved husband, Ndola, has divorced his saved wife, Lusaka, and married another
saved wife, Serowe, his repentance for the adultery of both divorcing his wife Lusaka and
marrying Serowe -- should at least result in his seriously trying be to reconciled to the
Lusaka he left>224 . Then he would have to deal with the question of his
vows/covenants>225 he made with his new saved wife, Serowe. He would have to decide
whether or not his covenants, if any, were binding and whether or not that results in him
being a polygynist with two wives before the Lord (two wives, or a wife and a concubine
before his community).
[Footnote: >224 (Prov. 28:13; 1 Cor. 7:11,39). >225 (Psa. 15:4; Prov. 20:25;Ezek. 17:15;
Malachi 2:13-17; Rom. 1:31).]

The situation could come to pass another way. If Lusaka has gone through a divorce from
her saved husband Ndola, and she has married Ankora, her repentance should at least
result in her leaving Ankora to either be reconciled to Ndola or live in celibate separation
from him>226 . If Lusaka exercised her second best option and gets a divorce separating
herself from Ndola in celibacy>227, subjecting Ndola to the temptations of 1 Cor. 7:5 so
that his burnings and failures to control himself>228 bring Ndola under God's command
to marry>126 and so he marries Serowe and is now bound before God to two saved wives
as long as they both live>229. If Lusaka divorced and separated herself and later chooses
to be reconciled to Ndola, to whom she is bound by the Lord but who has already
remarried Serowe, then they have to decide if they resume their marital relationship with
Lusaka being an unofficially contracted concubine in Western monogamous societies, or as
either a concubine or a second wife in non-Western polygynous societies. So indeed,
adultery, divorce and repentance can result in polygyny and/or concubinage.
[Footnote: >226 (1 Cor.7:10,11,39). >227 (1 Cor. 7:11). >228 of 1 Cor. 7:9,36 (1 Th.
4:3,4,5). >.n126 See Appendix 6. >229 (1 Cor. 7:39; Rom. 7:1-3).]

XIV. ADULTERY, DIVORCE, POLYGYNY, CONCUBINES
AND THE UNSAVED
    
     Okay, I know that God doesn't want
saved/believing me to marry one who is 
unsaved/unbelieving>5 , but what if I am/was
married to an unsaved person?  There is no question
in scripture about the permanence of the marriage of
two Christians, but what if you are a Christian and
your mate is not a Christian, or at least you are not
sure if your mate is a Christian because, even though
the mate professes to be born-again, the mate's
behavior is so sinful you doubt your mate's salvation. 
The book of First John 2:3-7 makes it clear that a
mate's open and unrepentant continual disobedience
to clear and explicit commands in the Word of God
shows that he doesn't know God.  The book of First
John 2:19 shows that a mate who professed to be
saved and then rejected Christ and Christians never
was really saved in the first place.  If you still aren't
sure if your mate is saved, then Matt. 18:15-19 tells
you what to do and if you do it you will know
whether or not your mate is truly saved and then
may proceeded according to 1 Corinth.
7:10,11,12,13,14, & 15.
[Footnote: >5  See Appendix #5.]
    
So what if you have a mate who is plainly unsaved or
one who has been found to be unsaved by the Matt.
18:15-18 procedure?  The scriptures in 1 Corinth.
7:12,13,14,15 plainly state that as long as the unsaved
mate wants to live and/or house with you, you should
not leave the unsaved mate.  It appears that the
saved wife with the unsaved husband probably has
the same 1 Corinth 7:10,11 repentance option of
separation without remarriage that the saved wife
has with her saved husband.  The l Corinth. 7:12-15
passages make it clear that (1) if the unsaved no
longer wants to live/dwell/ cohabit>127  with the
saved, the saved mate may leave the unsaved mate
but not be free to remarry since the saved one is free
to remarry only if the unsaved departs; and (2) if the
unsaved leaves/abandons/ divorces the saved mate,
the saved mate may leave/divorce the unsaved mate
and be free to remarry.
[Footnote: >.n127  Greek Lexicons: Berry's Intelinear
and Thayer's: " dwell";  Harpers and Brothers
     Analytical: "to dwell, cohabit";  Arnndt and
Gingrich's: "dwell, have one's habitation".]
    
What if the believer sinned>230 and left/ divorced
the unsaved mate who wanted to live with and remain
married to the believer? 2 Corinthians 7 and Prov. 28:13
would seem to say that the believer's repentance of the sin (
a believer leaving the unsaved mate who still wants to
live with the believer )  would be to forsake and clear
his/herself of leaving/divorcing the unbeliever
and return to the unbeliever.  If the believer
left/divorced the unbeliever while he/she still wanted to
live/house with the believer and the believer
remarried it would seem to be adultery since the
believer wasn't freed according to 1 Cor. 7.  What if the
unsaved mate was abusive and cruel to the
believer so the believer left/divorced the unsaved to
live as chastely unmarried?  Would the believer still be
morally bound to this abusive unbeliever who sincerely still
wants to live/house with the believer?  I don't
know but it would appear  to be the same as the case
as in 1 Cor. 7:11.  Intense believing prayer and fasting>231
can be a big part of the solution for a saved but separated
sister whose unsaved husband is both abusive and
desirous of living with her.  The saints should stand
with her in this travail of prayer.
[Footnote: >230   (1 Corinthians 7:12-15).     >231 Mat.
17:21; Luke 5:33,34; Acts 10:30;13:3; Ephes. 6:12; 2
Cor. 10:3-7]
    
Because of Prov. 28:13 and 2 Corinth. 7 and Philemon
I can't believe that she can just say to God, "I goofed and I'm
sorry and I know You give the option of separation without
marriage to anothe>232 but I don't want to be
involved with my abusive unsaved husband anymore
so I want you to forgive me for my disobience to Your
will (leaving my unsaved husband who still wants to
live/house with me) so I can marry somebody else".  
[Footnote: >232 (1 Cor. 7:11)]
    
There is no scripture that I know of that plainly and
explicitly says that a believer who leaves an unbeliever who
still wants to live/house with the believer (and the
unbeliever has not left the believer)   is still morally bound
to the unbeliever and not free to remarry.  I'm not
aware of any scriptural basis for the believer who left the
unbeliever to marry someone else if the unsaved mate still
wants to live/ house with the believer and has not
left/abandoned the believer.  If I were in that
situation I would take the safest course possible in the
absence of any clear scripture and consider
myself morally and maritally bound to my unsaved
mate as long as my unsaved mate sincerely wants to
live/house with me and has not left/abandoned me. 
As soon as the unbeliever leaves/ abandons/divorces
me, no longer  sincerely wanting to live/house with
me, then I am no longer bound to that unbeliever and
am free to remarry as I understand 1 Corinth. 7:12-
15.

XV.  THE MARRIED MAN WHO WOULD ADD  WIVES TO
HIS "HAREM."  
    
What about the married character who says that since
polygyny/concubinage is not a sin he will just go
ahead and add a couple of new wives to his "harem"?
It is understood here that the common man does not
have a "harem", and his wives/concubines may not
even live in the same place with him. So I admit that
I use the idea of "harem" in the sense of the place or
places where the wives of one man live.
 
Well, such a man who would take on additional wives/
mates won't get off the ground in America unless he
is rolling in money and/or has found some financially
independent and like-minded women.  Even then they
can't formally or legally marry in most modern nations.  
He could only legally marry one as wife and
contract/covenant unofficially, privately and
discreetly with the others as concubines.

Granted it is possible for a man to unselfishly and
compassionately cherish in Love, in holy marital
passion, his wife so well that she feels so secure
in his love and in their marriage that she is willing
to share him with another unselfish, compassionate,
cherishing, generous and passionate woman (Song
of Solomon 6). This is the exception and not the
rule.
    
What about the married "brother" who knows a
"sister" who knows she can't marry him because of
the bigamy laws but they want to be married so bad
that she is willing to be his "concubine" (wife by
private and discrete contract/covenant/pact)in
polygyny, even though she knows his wife objects
or doesn't even know?
    
The Spiritual fruit of contentment should prevail.  A
person should be content with the mate they have.  
Selfishness is a work of the flesh and anyone who
wants a mate, or another mate, or an additional mate,
out of selfish reasons is out of the will of God and
snared in sin.
YLT=1 Tim. 6:5 "wranglings of men wholly corrupted
in mind, and destitute of the truth, supposing the
piety to be gain; depart from such; 6 ÿ but it is great
gain--the piety with contentment; . . . 8 but having
food and raiment--with these we shall suffice
ourselves;   9 and those wishing to be rich [having
more than they need], do fall into temptation and a
snare, and many desires,
foolish and hurtful, that sink men into ruin and
destruction, . . ." [Young's
Literal Translation]
1Cor. 7:17 ÿ "However, as the Lord has divided to
each, as God has called each, so let him walk; and thus
I ordain in all the assemblies." [Darby]

If his present wife objects to his taking a concubine
(wife by private and discrete contract/covenant/pact)
for himself, can't she exercise her second best option>81  and
separate herself from him and remain separate or be
reconciled to him at some later date?
[Footnote: >81    (1 Cor. 7:10,11,39)]
    
If his present wife objects to his taking a concubine
(wife by private and discrete contract/covenant/pact)
for himself,  how can he say to Jesus that he is being kind to
her, that he is not selfishly seeking his own by taking a
concubine?  God has promised to chasten>82  those saints
who deliberately sin, and if he unkindly and selfishly
takes on a concubine, then isn't he going to be chastened?
[Footnote: >82    (1 Cor. 11:30 weakness, sickness,
death; Ezekiel 14 famine, hurtful beasts, war or
personal violence, disease and pestilence)]
    
If his wife is innocently and sincerely grieved,
stumbled and offended by his desire to have a concubine,
experiencing a genuine sense of loss or betrayal,
then he has broken all the principles of Love in
Romans 14, 1 Cor. 8 & 10 by using his liberty (to have a
concubine) to the hurt of his "sister" in the Body
of Christ and chastening>83  is certain.  Certainly his
prayers will be hindered>84.
[Footnote: >83    (Malachi 2;1 Cor. 11:30 Heb 12).        
>84    (1 Peter 3:7;Isa 59:1,2)]
    
What if before he took another wife without her knowledge
she had been loving, generous, kind, caring, sympathetic,
compassionate; and then after she finds out he has taken
another wife her objections to his taking a concubine are
selfish, hateful, mean spirited, unkind and spiteful?  These
are all works of the flesh.  If his taking a concubine stumbled
her into these vices, caused her to fall into these vices,
then he is destroying one for whom Christ died and
for whom Christ is the Avenger (Rom. 14)]  .
    
What if she normally and naturally is selfish, hateful,
mean, unkind and selfish?  What if her objections to his
taking a concubine are selfish, hateful, mean spirited, unkind
and spiteful?  These are all works of the flesh.  If she
was this way by her choice before the concubine
became an issue between them, she has chosen to walk in
the flesh, her salvation is questionable at best, and he is at
least in a 1 Cor. 7:12,13 situation:
1 CORINTH. 7:12 But to the rest I speak, not
the Lord, If any brother has a wife who does not
believe, and she is pleased to dwell with him, do not
let him put her away. 13 And the woman who has a
husband who does not believe, if he is pleased to
dwell with her, do not let her leave him. 14 For the
unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the
unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; else your
children would be unclean, but now they
are holy. 15 But if the unbelieving one separates, let
[them] be separated. A brother or a sister is not in bondage
in such [cases], but God has called us in peace.

He is bound to her as long as  she wishes to
house/dwell with him.  With this kind of wife, wouldn't a
godly concubine  be his "corner on the roof," his sanctuary
from the strife of her spirit and her tongue?
    
What if she doesn't know about his taking on a
"sister" as a concubine (but the world would call her a
mistress because they don't believe in marital
commitment)? Well, the following scriptures indicate
that there could be a  problem involving honesty:
Luke 8:15 "But that in the good ground, these are they
who in an honest and good heart, having heard the word
keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience."
 Rom. 12:17* "recompensing to no one evil for evil:
providing things honest before all men: . . ." Ò.
Eph. 4:25 "Wherefore, having put off falsehood, speak
truth every one with his neighbor,  . . . 29 Let no
corrupt word go out of your mouth, but if [there be]
any good one for needful edification, that it may give
grace to
those that hear [it]."   
2 Cor. 8:21 "for we provide for things honest, not only
before [the] Lord, but also before men."
    
There would  have to be no communications or there
would have to be false communications between a man and
his wife if the man had a secret concubine on the side.  As
his wife exercised her authority over his body for affection
and sex>86  he probably would, at some point because of the
secret concubine,  resist her sexual authority>87  over his
body and be chastened of God, or he would get into a
situation where he would have to lie to get out of it, and be
chastened of God.  If he keeps that up, couldn't she  land up
a widow and get to marry again in the Lord since He
liberated her from her Judas?
[Footnote:  >86   (1 Cor.7:3-5).      >87   (Romans 13:1-
5)]

What if it is a situation of real need and crisis?  What
if she decided to exercise her option to separate>95
herself from her husband, but not by divorce but by
separate beds or separate bedrooms and allowed him
no more access to her body for his sexual needs?  
He is under God's command to not leave or divorce
her>96  .  She is wife in name only and he has no sexual
partner.  Hasn't she sinfully set him up for Satan>97  
and burning>98   which will compel him to marry or
be an adulterer.  If it is to marry, wouldn't it have to
be with a concubine, since bigamy is illegal in the
USA?
[Footnote: >95    (1 Cor. 7:10,11).      >96    (1 Cor.
7:10,11; Mark 10:9-11).       >97    (1 Cor.7:5).      >98    
(1 Cor. 7:9; 1 Th.4:4,5; Appendix 6).]
    
What if Theo is a devoted, loving and caring husband
but Safronia is uninterested in sex with him, passively
tolerating sex with him while making him feel, without a
word, that he is imposing on her and being burdensome to
her in the matter?  She refuses the help available from
counseling and support groups. Well she obviously is not
doing 1 Cor 7:2,3,4,5 as unto the Lord.  
*** 1 CORINTH. 7: 2 "But, [to avoid] fornication, let
each have his [own] wife, and let each have her own
husband. 3 Let the husband give to the wife proper
kindness, and likewise the wife also to the husband. 4 The
wife does not have authority over [her] own body, but the
husband. And likewise also the husband does not
have power [over his] own body, but the wife.  5 Do not
deprive one another, unless [it is] with consent for a
time, so that you may [give yourselves to] fasting and
prayer. And come together again so that Satan does not
tempt you for your incontinence."
~    
Seeing her brother-husband in need, she shuts up her
feelings of compassion>88  .  But in the meantime she has
killed   his affections for her
by her words and deeds and his affection goes
unanchored now.  She refuses to welcome his
affectionate and intimate touch in disobedience to the
Word>89  .    As predicted, Theo is being sexually
tempted by Satan and Theo finds himself burning  
and sometimes failing >90  to control himself when
exposed to things like pornography.  Tempted,
burning and sometimes failing to control himself,  
Theo finds himself under the command to marry (be
having his own wife)>n89.
[Footnote: >88    (1 John 3:14-18).      >89    (1 Cor.
7:2,3,4,5).      >.n89  See Appendix Six.
>90  (1 Cor. 7:9, see Appendix 6). ]   

Safronia refuses to help
him meet his needs, and he can't divorce her because
she claims to be saved >91  . Since she cares not for
affection with him, he might have to exercise his liberty
to have a concubine in the manner of Romans 14,
privately and discretely instead of publicly and openly.  
If his faith allows him to have a concubine but having a
concubine would grieve, offend and/or stumble
someone, perhaps even his Arctic wife, then wouldn't
he have to exercise his faith's personal liberty by
having his concubine  privately and discretely
between himself, her and God so as not to let his
liberty offend the Body of Christ.
[Footnote:  >91   (1 Cor.7:10,11,39; Mark 10:1-12).]
    
What kind of sister would be concubine to such a
brother?  Perhaps one who
saw his need>92  and was moved with compassion
and, having what he needs she lays down her life for
him to minister as wife-concubine to him>93  .  
Perhaps she feels called to be his good Samaritan
concubine in his wounded
and neglected need.  She would have to be of one
mind and one faith with him to be his concubine
privately and discreetly so as not to offend the Body
of Christ.  They would have to agree to deny
themselves the free and open
exercise of 1 Cor. 7:2-5 and exercise those rights and
needs within the
limitations of privacy and discretion before God and
the Body of Christ>94  .  
Wouldn't they have to agree not to lie or deceive
while on the other hand they would have to agree to
obey Rom. 14:28ff in not breaking their commitment
to privacy and discretion, even if they have to say
nothing when asked?  Wouldn't it be a marriage
fraught with self denial, self sacrifice and self control?
[Footnote: >92    (1 Cor. 7:2-5).       >93   (1 John 3:14-
18).    >94    (Rom14:28-).]
    
Anyone who did this would have to selflessly and
unselfishly seek to provide protection and well being
even for his cold and indifferent wife.  He would
have to do everything possible to make sure that any
concubine he would have would not bring harmful
sexually transmitted diseases (including HIV) into the
germ pool of their polygyny .  That would mean
genital cultures, blood tests and abstaining from
marital intimacy/ commitment and waiting several
months for repeated tests since HIV might not show
up for several months. Since STDs, including HIV, can
be transmitted by bloody saliva in kissing, wouldn't
they have to abstain even from kissing  until all tests
came back okay?
    
What if there were a widow or abandonned wife who had
come under command to marry>*, and there is no one
found who will marry
such a woman.  The woman has a legitimate need to marry
in order to obey God but she can find no way to do so.
What if a godly married man sees her need to marry, her
inability to find anyone to marry in obedience to God,
and he is moved with compassion for her, deciding to meet
her need by taking her as his concubine (wife by private and
discrete contract/covenant/pact)>** ?  What if he
communicates to his wife his desire to help this
needy woman and his wife understands the need and the
plight of the woman but hardens and steels her heart
against the need of the woman and her husband's desire
to help her, and exercises her sexual authority over his
body>***, stating that he does not have her
permission to help the woman by marrying her as his
concubine (wife by private and discrete contract/covenant/
pact)?
[Footnotes: >*. according to 1Cor7:1,2,8,9 and 1Tm5:14;
>** Jas 2:16; 1Jn3:16,17; Isa 58;    >*** 1Cor7:2,3,4,5]

The Palestinian Rahab of Jericho saw the need of the Israeli
spies for safety and protection. Her ruler exercised his legal
right and demanded her to turn them over to him. She did
not obey her legitimate ruler, but disobeyed him in order to
meet the needs of the Israeli spies. God and Israel saved
her life and the life of her family for this, blessed her, and
one of the Israelis married her. Rahab was an ancestor of
Jesus Christ (Mat 1).

King Saul's son, Jonathon, saw the need of the David for
safety and protection from Saul's intention to murder him.
His father exercised his legal right, as king and father, and
demanded that Johathon not assist David and turn David
over to him for execution. Johnathon did not obey his father
and legitimate ruler, but disobeyed him in order to meet the
survival needs of David. God and Johnathon saved David's
life, and God and David blessed Johnathon. David was an
ancestor of Jesus Christ.

Jesus' good Samaritan Palestinian saw the need of the
severely wounded and helpless traveler,  who was ethnically
of the people and society that belittled and discriminated
against him and his Samaritan people.  He saw his social
enemy's need for safety and protection in order to recover
from the wounds inflicted on him by the violent robbers, his
need to continue to live. He could have exercised his legal
right, as a freeman and subject of the local rulers, as a
Samaritan whose people were consistently wronged by the
social group of the wounded man, and joined the others in
legally not helping the wounded man, leaving him to die.  The
Palestinian Samaritan went beyond the requirements of the
land and against the will of his own people in order to meet
the survival needs of the wounded and helpless man and
generously saved the life of his severely wounded social
enemy.  Jesus blessed and lifted up this Palestinian of
Samaria as His example of unselfishly and compassionately
cherishing in Love one's neighbor, the needy known to one
in one's life.

The godly and capable husband saw the need of the widow
(or abandonned wife) for safety and protection in marriage
in obedience to God's command. His hard and steel hearted
wife exercised her legal right, as his wife having sexual
authority over the sexual use of his body, and told her
husband that he did not have her authority to marry the
needy woman under God's command to marry, that he
would have to answer to God for what he does about the
woman.  The compassionate and capable husband saw that
he had what the needy woman needed to obey God, the
ability to be her husband, and he was constrained by
compassion and mercy to meet the legitimate need of
the woman, so in order to obey King Jesus, he disobeyed
his wife who exercised  her legitimate authority over
the sexual use of his body>~.  He disobeyed her in order to
compassionately obey God by meeting the survival needs
of the woman,  which compassionate act he was able to
meet without reducing his care and provision for his
hard heated wife>95.
[Footnote: >~ Jas 2:16; 1Jn3:16,17; Isa 58; 1Cor7:2,3,
4,5; Rom. 13:1-7.  >95 Exodus 21:7-11; Deut 21:15,16;
Jas 2:16; 1Jn3:16,17; Isa 58.  Clearly God instructs us
in many places inthe Bible to obey and be subject to
those He has allowed to be in authority over us, as long as
those in authority do not violate or contradict His Laws
in His Word in the Kingdom of God.  Heb 11 etc. declare
that we believers have dual citizenship, USA by natural
birth, Heaven and the New Jerusalem by rebirth in Jesus.  
The Kingdom of God is for eternity and the kingdom of
man is temporary, so the Laws of the Kingdom of God
take precedence when man's authority and rules
contradict/violate God's laws, as Shedrach and Co.
showed when they refused to obey their king and his
laws that required them to bow to and worship a false god;
as Daniel showed when he disobeyed the law of the land
and continued praying to God; as Moses showed in
disobeying Pharaoh; As Johnathon did in disobeying the
King to save David's life; as Michal did when she saved
David's life; as David disobeyed Saul as a fugitive from
"justice"; as Rahab did when she saved the Israeli spies;
as Esther did when she save the Israelis; as Joseph did
when refused to have sex with his owner; as Samson did
when he disobeyed the Philistine occupation forces; as
Peter did when he disobeyed the authorities in order to
obey Jesus; as Dr. ML
King did when he integrated nonviolently churches,
buses, stores etc which were segregated legally,
exposing and confronting the sins of bias, prejudice,
partiality and injustice; as Jesus did when He disobeyed
the rulers of Israel by healing on the Sabbath, gleaning
and eating the gleanings on the Sabbath, and by publically
exposing the bias, prejudice, partiality and injustice, and
sins of the rulers of Israel contrary to their law.]

XVI. ARE POLYGYNY & CONCUBINES OPTIONS FOR THE ABANDONED
MAN?
What about the divorced Christian husband? Could he just go out and take another wife
while his prior Christian wife chooses to remain chastely separated? Would that be
selfish? Those who are born of the Spirit of God are led by the Spirit of God,
acknowledge Him as Lord in all their ways and love Him by obeying Him. Any act not
led by the Spirit or any act that is contrary to the Word of God is sin. Exodus 21:10
states, "If he takes another, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marriage
rights." It didnt depend on her wanting or demanding them. He had to be ready to give to
her whether she wanted it or not. In l Corinth. 7:1-4,10,11,39 the separated wife has
authority over his body in her right to sexual intimacy with him any time she chooses
reconciliation.

Brother Sam's vows, subsequent separation and divorce could lead to his polygyny. He
marries Sophia, both genuinely saved and free to marry in the Lord, and they vowed/
covenanted to have each other to be husband and wife to each other, pledging their troth
in all honor, love, duty, service, faith and tenderness, to cherish and live with each other
according to the ordinance of God, honoring and keeping each other in the holy bond of
marriage. Before God and other witnesses they promised and covenanted to be each
others comforting, loving and faithful mate; in plenty and in lack, in joy and grief; in
infirmity and health; as long as they both live.

Then Sophia decides to exercise the sin/repentance option of leaving him and living
chastely separated from him>214 as long as he lives. He comes under the tormenting
temptation predicted in 1 Cor. 7:5 & 9 (see the discussion of this burning beginning in the
appendix "When Must We Marry"). Sophia refuses his authority over her body, refuses
to be wife to him subjecting him to Satan's tempting as he burns (1Cor.7:9) with sexual
desire generated from his high testosterone level. Finding himself burning and or failing to
control himself (1Cor.7:5,9), he obeys God's command to marry (1Cor.7:9) and marries
genuinely saved Serena. Serena accepts him even though he and Serena both know that he
is still bound before the Lord to Sophia as husband. For him to reject, repudiate and
forsake his marital bond to Sophia in order to marry Serena would make him an adulterer
and his marriage to Serena, adultery>215 . Acknowledging his marital bond with both
Sophia and Serena he becomes a polygynist, not an adulterer. Sophia has a change of heart
and wants to be married to him again, but in the USA he can legally be married to only
one wife, so he has to accept her back as his concubine, fully honoring his vows both
Serena and Sophia. If Serena doesn't want to be married to an active polygynist, she can
sin by leaving him and repent by remaining chastely single as long as he lives. In thought,
word and deed he must love each according to his vows, since separation or polygyny do
not release him from his vows>124 .
[Footnote: >214 1 Cor. 7:11,39. >215 (Mark 10:11,12; Luke 16:18). >124 See
Appendices 4 and 7; (see the pages and scriptures just before the Bibliography).]

What a shame most women have no idea of what the average male's testosterone sex drive
does to him. I believe it is almost impossible for the average woman to understand the 1
Cor.7:9 burning that a middle to high testosterone blood level male experiences due to his
testosterone. Granted about half of males have low mid-range to low testosterone levels
as well as nocturnal emission, so they have little or no problem turning off or on their sex
lives. The low testosterone level males may have a great deal of difficulty turning on their
sex lives.

Women have no idea that the sex drive in that half of the male who have mid to high
testosterone levels in their blood is as strong and compelling as the hunger drive when the
stomach is growling and cramping for lack of food; or as the thirst drive when the tongue,
throat and mouth are so dry it is even difficult to talk; as the rest drive when it is
impossible to keep the eyes open or the body erect due to utter exhaustion. These same
women would not normally ignore such hunger/thirst signs, nor say that they would take
cold showers and exercise to overcome such hunger/thirst signs. If they chose to fast, go
without food and drink, by the second day they would be too weak to do their daily work
and chores, and by the third day they would be too weak walk far or stand for long
periods of time. As one who has fasted and prayed three days without food or drink, I
know.

Yet they fault the mid to high testosterone blood level male for not being able to ignore his
compelling sex drive and do without. When the men who are not blessed with natural
nocturnal emission (wet dreams) have gone without sexual release for several days, the
prostrate becomes so congested that it begins to squeeze shut the urethra so they cannot
urinate normally and the effect on the brain is that those males are so distracted and
distractible, especially by anything female, that quite literally their minds could be said to
be weakened in that it is very difficult to concentrate or focus on necessary tasks. If
women could think of their nasal sinuses being so congested that they cannot breath, or of
the problems with urination that a woman has with urination when 8 or 9 months
pregnant, then maybe they could understand the problems prostrate congestion can cause.
Without release, ejaculation, they could become so distracted and distractible by anything
that, as with too much alcohol, their judgment and thinking is impaired and foolish
(risky), dangerous (AIDS,HIV) or irrational behavior results.

To help his wife or daughter understand the effect of testosterone on a male in
relationship with his woman whom he loves and desires passionately, a man might do the
following. (1) Take his lady out to eat her favorite meal. Order the meal, talking it up to
maximize her anticipation and desire for it (2). When the meal is served, ask her take a
minute to look carefully at each item (how it is arranged, how it appears). Ask her to
smell each item. Ask her to take one fork/spoon serving of each item and eat it, one at a
time. Ask her if she is pleased and still wants it (3). If she replies that she is ready and
eager to eat and wants no more delay, then gently, sweetly, carefully ask/beg/entreat her
to trust you in what you are about to do and that she go along with what you are about to
do. If she will cooperate, ask the waiter/waitress to doggy bag the meal(4). She will
probably need a lot of reassurance at this point, so tell her that if she will go along with
you it will significantly improve her marriage. Hopefully she will believe you, reluctantly.
Ask her to carry the bagged food in the car on her lap, or on the floor at her feet. Turn on
the heater of your car with a little floor heat so the smell of the food will rise to her
face(5). When you get home, ask her to carry it and put it in the refrigerator (6). She will
probably need more encouragement to do this. Ask/beg/entreat her to trust you and
cooperate. Ask her if she likes the way that the evening has gone so far. Ask her how she
feels about her favorite meal, cooling off in the refrigerator. Sit her down and gently,
compassionately and wisely explain to her what follows next.

The favorite meal to him is HER (1). He approaches, anticipates, and awaits her with
eager expectation(2). Tell her that everytime he sees, smells, hears, touches and/or tastes
her lips/skin, it is what she felt above (3). Explain that the bagging of the food in front of
her (4) is what he feels when she says to him Honey! Not tonight., I have a headache and
I just dont feel like it right now., All you think of is sex! Chill out baby! Not tonight!,
What have you done lately to deserve it, baby?. Explain to her that the carrying of the
pleasantly aromatic food home on her lap in the car is like when he is near her but cant
feast on her, cant fully enjoy her(5). Explain that her putting the nice warm and delicious
food in the refrigerator is what he experiences when he has to go to bed or part from her
without having had the honor, the privilege, the delightful pleasure, the soul fulfilling
experience of feasting on her and her many delectables (6). Explain patiently and gently
and that for him his sexual drive is an appetite, and his appetite is for her - his favorite
feast. Explain that to be near her is like ordering and receiving his favorite meal, her.
Explain that when he is denied his compelling hunger and thirst for her, it is painful and
hard to bear. Explain that it is a soul wrenching experience. Explain that he NEEDS he
even more than he WANTS her. Appeal to her experience with the deferred meal to
understand how frustrating and emotionally troubling it is to be denied her. If nothing
else, lay the Word on her----how it is the will of God for her to feed the hungry, and
seeing his need and her ability to meet it -- pray that she will be moved with compassion
and meet his need. And explain that his responsibility is to receive the wonderful and
gracious gift that she is and has, is to gently and kindly and thoughtfully enjoy her---
seeking to give her as much pleasure as possible. If he doesnt do that, then he is the swine
that had pearls thrown before him, the fool who has no idea of the value of his precious
possession and hides it away from all, even from himself.

As a male with mid to high testosterone and no nocturnal emission when I was in high
school, my Urologist (Vital Haynes,MD), told me I had a few options to prevent my
recurring prostrate congestion. He said that I, at age 17, could either get married and be
intimate frequently, be promiscuous frequently, self-stimulate quite frequently, become
homosexual (the penis in the anus squeezes the seminal fluid out of the prostrate), or
come into his office two to three times a week for him to massage/press the seminal fluid
out of my prostrate (too expensive and embarassing). Cold showers, exercise and being
spiritual just did not empty the prostrate so I could urinate normally and have my mind
clear of testosterone distractions. For the mid to high testosterone male, sexual release is
just as much as physical need as food, drink, and sleep.

The question such men have to deal with is, "How can I have the testosterone release I
need so I can take care of daily business and be acceptable to Jesus since my wife left me
and refuses reconciliation and intimacy with me?" The obvious answer is marriage (1 Cor.
7:1,2,5,9 monogynous or polygynous) with a wife or concubine who understands his
sexual needs and is committed to ministering to him in his need in Christ, and as unto
Christ (Matt. 25:34,35,36), so that his physical need of the release/ejaculation can be met
and they can get on with their lives. The closest the female comes to this experience is in
her PMS where her mind is bombarded with hormones etc. making many to be quite
distracted and temporarily not their normal selves. It is extremely difficult for a woman to
understand that testosterone can make a godly man REALLY NEED (not just want) the
physical marital love making of a godly wife. It is not just a matter of the will and the
mind, just like the physical needs for food, drink and sleep.

It is possible that he could know a Christian widow or sister who was burning>99 and
under command to marry>100 who had no marital prospects except a Christian man
divorced from a chastely separated Christian sister, no other brother wanting to marry
her. The divorced Christian man who would like to marry her could be moved as in the
following:
[Footnote: >99 (1 Cor. 7:9). >100 (1 Tim 5:11-14).]

**** 1 JOHN 3:16 By this we have known the love [of God], because He laid down
His life for us. And we ought to lay down [our] lives for the brothers. 17 But whoever
has this world's goods and sees his brother having need, and shuts up his bowels from
him, how does the love of God dwell in him? 18 My children, let us not love in word or in
tongue, but in deed and in truth. 19 And in this we shall know that we are of the truth,
and shall assure our hearts before Him.
He could be moved by her plight and pray for an unencumbered husband for her. But if
God doesnt provide another and the sister is burning, having great trouble with and almost
succumbing to temptations, his continued prayer alone would be empty piety like in the
following:
**** JAMES 2: 14 My brothers, what profit [is it] if a man says he has faith and does
not have works? Can faith save him?15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of
daily food, 16 and if one of you says to them, Go in peace, be warmed and filled, but you
do not give them those things which are needful to the body, what good [is it]? 17 Even
so, if it does not have works,
faith is dead, being by itself.

He would seem to be compelled to intervene, offering himself in marriage to her as he
desires anyway, to enable her to obey Gods solution for her problem>101 . This could
even be the case if his chastely separated and divorced "Christian" wife was carnal and
too selfish/rebellious to be moved by her plight and 1 John 3:17 to approve of her
divorced Christian mans plan to marry her. You dont let the saint who seeks Gods
solution be destroyed because of a carnal saint who resists or refuses compassion and
Gods solutions.
[Footnote: >101 (1 Cor. 7:1,2,3,9; see Appendix Six).]

Jesus went ahead and pleased His Father to die for us while his friends and apostles either
resisted or could not comprehend the idea. Peter risked the scorn of his fellow apostles
when he went to Corneliuss house in Acts 10 & 11. Paul rebuked Peter before all and
took his stand with the Lord and
righteousness when Peter fell into public sin in Galatians 2. If a man is led by the Spirit in
conformity with the Word of God to remarry after Christian divorce (let a man examine
himself>102 ) then he had better make sure to not forget that his divorced and chastely
separated wife is bound to him as wife as long as they both live>103 . He would have to
recognize her authority over his body for marital intimacy with her if she ever sought
reconciliation. To act contrary to her authority would be the resisting of God's authority
in the following:
[Footnote: >102 , his motives, his desires, his obligations and make sure they are of 1
John 3:17. >103 1 Cor. 7:11,39; Rom. 7:1-5; Mark 10; Malachi 2.]

***ROMANS 13: 1 Let every soul be subject to the higher authorities. For there is no
authority but of God; the authorities that exist are ordained by God. 2 So that the one
resisting the authority resists the ordinance of God; and the ones who resist will receive
judgment to themselves. 3 For the rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the bad.
And do you desire to be not afraid of the authority? Do the good, and you shall have
praise from it. 4* For it is a servant of God to you for good. For if you practice evil, be
afraid, for it does not bear the sword in vain; for it is a servant of God, a revenger for
wrath on him who does evil. 5 Therefore [you] must be subject, not only for wrath, but
also for conscience' sake.

Most of the godliest men who had the closest and most blessed relationship with God in
the Old Testament were polygynists at some point in their lives. A Godly polygynist is
not an oxymoron. A Godly polygynist could be and could have been God's man for that
moment in history since polygyny never excluded anyone from God's miraculous blessing
and intervention. I believe St. Augustine (4th Century AD) had a good word here for such
a man.

"But those who have not the virtues of temperance must not be allowed to
judge of the conduct of holy men, any more than those in fever of the
sweetness and wholesomeness of food. . . If our critics, then, wish to attain
not a spurious and affected, but a genuine and sound moral health, let them
find a cure in believing the Scripture record, that THE HONORABLE NAME OF
SAINT IS GIVEN NOT WITHOUT REASON TO MEN WHO HAD SEVERAL
WIVES; and that the reason is this, that the mind can exercise such control over the flesh
as not to allow the appetite implanted in our nature by Providence to go beyond the
limits of deliberate intention. . . .the holy patriarchs in their conjugal intercourse were
actuated not by the love of pleasure, but by the intelligent desire for the continuance of
their family. . . .NOR DID THE NUMBER OF THEIR WIVES MAKE THE
PATRIARCHS LICENTIOUS. But why defend the husbands, to whose character the
divine word bears the highest testimony. . . .">.n90
[Footnote: >n90 The CAPS are Tyler's. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene
Fathers of The Christian Church, Vol. iv; p.290. Yes it is understood that some of the
patriarchs, in their conjugal intercourse, might have actually been motivated by the
conjugal pleasure of Prov. 5:18,19; Song of Solomon; Eccles. 9:9-------actually obeying
God's command.]

XVII. POLYGYNY, CONCUBINES  AND  THE  LEADERS  OF  GOD'S  PEOPLE.

   
Husband of one wife: Yes! Definitely! An elder/overseer/bishop/

superintendent of a church must be the husband of only one wife.
Are we all elders/overseers/bishops/ superintendents?  Clearly

not. The unmarried are not.  The married who have unruly children
are not.  Husbands with disrespectful, uncooperative and defiant
wives are not. The married and unmarried who are unable to teach
are not.  All novices are not.  Those with a bad reputation, earned

or unearned, among the unsaved through slander or

misunderstandings are not.  Those who don't want a

church leadership position are not.  That includes most of us, and
most of us are not covered by the injunction  to be the husband of only one wife.

   

1 Cor. 7:33 and 34 with Eph. 5:22-32 show why an

elder can have only one wife:

*** 1 CORINTH. 7:33"But the [one] who is married

cares for the things of the world, how to please [his]

wife. 34 The wife and the virgin [are] different. The

unmarried woman cares for the things of the Lord,

that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But

she who is married cares for the things of the world,

how she may please [her] husband."

*** EPHES. 5:22 "Wives, submit yourselves to [your]

own husbands, as to the Lord.  23 For the husband is

the head of the wife, even as Christ [is] the head of

the church; and He is the Savior of the body.  24

Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so [let] the

wives [be] to their own husbands in everything.  25

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved

the church and gave Himself for it . . .  28 So men

ought to love their wives as their [own] bodies. He

who loves his wife loves himself.  29 For no man ever

yet hated his [own] flesh, but nourishes and cherishes

it, even as the Lord loves the church. . . . 33 But also

let everyone of you in particular so love his wife even

as himself, and the wife that she defers to her

husband."

 

With one wife would he have the time to invest in the

needs of the local church under his care.  The local

church would be the equivalent of a second wife for

him due to the time and energy he would have to

invest to do the work well.  There are only so many

hours in the day and we all have only so much

strength and energy.  Beyond that the work must fall

to some one else.  A  polygynist church elder would

fall short of Matt. 6:33 due to time pressures, - - - -

*** MATT. 6:33 "But seek first the kingdom of God

and His righteousness; and all these things shall be

added to you."

- - - - - -fall into disobedience of the following with

his wives,  - - - -

*** 1 CORINTH. 7: 4 "The wife does not have

authority over [her] own body, but the husband. And

likewise also the husband does not have power [over

his] own body, but the wife.  5 Do not deprive one

another, unless [it is] with consent for a time, so that

you may [give yourselves to] fasting and prayer. And

come together again so that Satan does not tempt you

for your incontinence."

- - - - his prayers would be hindered according to the

following - - - - -

DARBY 1 PETER 3: 7 "[Ye] husbands likewise, dwell

with [them] according to knowledge, as with a weaker, [even]
the female, vessel, giving [them] honour, as also fellow-heirs of

[the] grace of life, that your prayers be not hindered."

- - - - - - -and the church would be poorly served due

to his lack of time and energy.

   

There is the problem of the polygamous mentality.  A

man who has learned to love passionately and

maritally  more than one wife at one time would be

more vulnerable to sexual temptation in church

ministry than a man who has learned to love

passionately and maritally only one wife at a time.  A

ministering polygamist in a leadership position would

be more likely to be tempted to accept the advances/
propositions of an unmarried sister in the church who falls in
love with him and he with her. This could result in sex

outside of marriage (fornication) or yet another addition to his
polygamous "harem". This would stumble the saints and would
be a reproach to the unsaved. It would appear that a godly
polygamist would have to have a very low profile (no leadership

position) in the church.



XVIII.  POLYGYNY, CONCUBINES AND THE MODERN OR

WESTERN CHRISTIAN  WOMAN.

Why would a Western/Occidental woman ever
consider polygyny/concubinage?  It is clearly a sin to marry
an unsaved person> 104 .  She knows she must not marry an
unsaved man>105 or a snared-in-sin "saint">106.   If a Christian
woman in a Western church finds the usual shortage of godly

brothers, yet earnestly desires marriage or is

commanded to marry>91 she may consider marrying

a Christian brother (1) whose "Christian" wife has

divorced him exercising her option>107 to be separate

and chaste,  or (2) who sinfully divorced his

"Christian" wife who now will not forgive him or be

reconciled to him, exercising her option to be separate

and chaste.

[Footnote: >104   (2 Cor. 6 & 7 etc.).      >105  (2 Cor.

6:14-7:2).      >106  See Appendix five.         >91  See

Appendix Six.          >107 1 Cor 7:10.]

   

If this Western Christian sister is burning with passion and not successfully controlling her passions and/or imagination

consistently, she must marry>92.  If she finds herself

in repeated defeat morally and spiritually and the

only Christian brother who is available or interested

is the one who is legally divorced from a Christian

wife who wants chaste separation without reconciliation, 
the choice to marry in Biblical polygyny  would be  more

acceptable than continued burning and moral defeats.

It is clearly a sin to marry an unsaved>#5 or backslidden
Christian>108 . It is not a sin to exercise personal liberty in
Christ  in covenanted polygyny .Yes, the polygyny

of being married to a divorced Christian man who is

bound for life to his former wife who left/ divorced him and
refuses to be reconciled to him, exercising her option of chaste separation.
[Footnote: >92See Appendix Six.      >#5  See Appendix
#5.       >108 (l Cor. 5:11; 2 Thess 3:6,14).]

   

Would born-again Thusnelda be willing to take the chance of
having to share her preciously rare godly husband with a sister-in-

Christ Felicia who had previously been married to Thusnelda's
husband and who now wants reconciliation,  even if it had to be informal, discreet and private?  Can l John

3:17 mean that Thusnelda, who has a godly husband

and sees her sister Felicia in marital need now, should

not shut up her own heart from Felicia, according to

the Love of God abiding in her?  Sarai had a need and

asked Abraham to become a polygamist.  Rachel had a

need and asked polygamist Jacob to take her maids as

additional wives.  Then Leah did the same and the

world got the twelve tribes of Israel. A godly wife

should not be selfish, seek her own, but should seek

the benefit of others>109 and she who is strong

should bear the burden of the weak one>110 as the

Spirit and peace of God lead.  Consider St. Augustine's

thought:

[Footnote: >109  (1 Cor l3).      >110  (Rom 15).]

"Clearly with the good will of the wife to take another

woman, that from her may be born sons common to

both, by the sexual intercourse and seed of the one,

but by the right and power of the other, was lawful

among the ancient fathers: whether it be lawful now

also, I would not hastily pronounce....">n93

[Footnote: >n93  St. Augustin: On The Trinity; p. 406.]

   

Does the principle of the good Samaritan enter here?

Would godly wife "A" share her godly husband with the
needy godly sister "B", essentially laying down her own life
and denying herself for the other? It is definitely not

natural or carnal. The only precedents I'm aware of

are like the one that involved Ruth, where the widow's need
for a husband's care and intimacy to carry on the blood line
was taken up by God and he mandated that the brother, married
or not, had to marry her and meet her needs>111   The only similar

New Testament passages I know of are the following.

[Footnote: >111 (Gen. 38: 9,10,11; Deut.25:5-10; Ruth

4:1-11; Matt 22:24ff; Mark 12: 19ff;Lk. 20:28ff).]


***1 CORINTH. 7: 8 "I say therefore to the

unmarried and the widows, It is good for them if they

remain even as I.  9 But if they do not have self-

control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than

to burn. . . . 36  But if anyone thinks [it] behaving

himself indecently toward his virginity (if he is past

[his] prime, and so it ought to be) let him do what he

will; he does not sin; let them marry. 37 But [he] who

stands steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but

who has authority over [his] own will (and has so

judged in his heart that he will keep his virginity) he

does well. 38 So then he who gives in marriage does

well. But he who does not give in marriage does

better. 39*  The wife is bound by the law as long as

her husband lives, but if her husband is dead, she is

at liberty to be remarried to whom she will, only in

the Lord.

*** 1 TIM. 5: 11 But refuse younger widows, for

whenever they grow lustful against Christ, they desire

to marry . . .14 Therefore I want the younger ones to

marry, bear children, guide the house, giving no

occasion to the adversary because of reproach."

 
Here the widow is told to remarry in the Lord but she

isn't told who to marry in the Lord. 1 John 3:16,17

could enter here with a Christian brother seeing her

marital need and marrying her to minister and serve

her as husband (like Ruth & Boaz).   Are saints today
capable of such mental and Spiritual "self-control" and self

denial? A Spirit filled and Spirit led saint could rise to

such a level>112 . 
[Footnote:  >112(Gal. 5 and  Phil. 2:13 + 4:13).]

The women  described above would be
comparable to St. Augustine's man of the following:
"But those who have not the virtues of temperance

must not be allowed to judge of the conduct of holy men,
any more than those in fever of the sweetness and
wholesomeness of food. . . If our critics, then, wish to attain
not a spurious and affected, but a genuine and sound moral
health, let them find a cure in believing the Scripture record, that
THE HONORABLE NAME OF SAINT IS GIVEN NOT WITHOUT

REASON TO MEN WHO HAD SEVERAL WIVES; and that

the reason is this, that the mind can exercise such

control over the flesh as not to allow the appetite

implanted in our nature by Providence to go beyond

the limits of deliberate intention. . . .the holy

patriarchs in their conjugal intercourse were actuated

not by the love of pleasure, but by the intelligent

desire for the continuance of their family. . . .nor did

the number of their wives make the patriarchs

licentious. BUT WHY DEFEND THE HUSBANDS, TO

WHOSE CHARACTER THE DIVINE WORD BEARS THE

HIGHEST TESTIMONY, WHEN IT APPEARS THAT THE

WIVES THEMSELVES . . . WHEN THEY FOUND

THEMSELVES BARREN, THEY GAVE THEIR

HANDMAIDS TO THEIR HUSBANDS; SO THAT WHILE

THE HANDMAIDS HAD THE FLESHLY MOTHERHOOD,

THE WIVES WERE MOTHERS IN INTENTION .">.n94

[Footnote: >n94  The CAPS are Tyler's.  A Select

Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The

Christian Church, Vol. iv;  p.290.]

   

What if he and his wife know a widow or a "sister"

abandoned by her unsaved husband who has come

under the commands to marry >113 ? They and she

cannot find a "brother" for her and she is failing and

burning and under the command to marry.  Does it

become a 1 Jn 3:16,17 situation: [paraphrased] Ô.He

laid down His life for us. And we also ought to lay

down our lives for the brethren. But whoever has a

godly husband and sees her sister in need, shuts up

her heart from her refusing to share her husband

with her in polygyny , how does the Love of God

abide in her?' See the following and note that the

"brother" is not exempted or excused from this law if

he is already married:

[Footnote: >113 1 Cor. 7:9; 1 Th. 4:3,4,5 and 1 Tim.

5:11-14]

 

***DEUT. 25: 5  "If brothers live together, and one

of them dies and has no child, the wife of the dead

shall not marry outside to a stranger. Her husband's
brother shall go in to her and take her as a wife for himself,
and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her. . .  7

And if the man does not want to take his brother's wife, then
let his brother's wife go up to the gate to the elders and say, My husband's brother refuses to raise up a name in

Israel to his brother. He will not perform my levirate.

8 Then the elders of his city shall call him and speak to him. And
[if] he stands and says, I do not desire to take her, 9 then his
brother's wife shall come to him in the presence

of his elders, and take off his shoe from his foot, and

spit in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done to
that man who will not build up his brother's house. 10 And his

name shall be called in Israel, The house of him who

has his shoe taken off."

   

Like the movie, SUBSTITUTE WIFE (Farrah Fawcett),

where the wife was dying and knew her husband

wouldn't remarry without her intervention, leaving

her baby and children motherless, she went out and

found a concubine for him and brought her home to

him before she died, whom he married and loved

after her death at his deceased's request.  An

American, a normal woman, could only do such a

thing by the grace of God.


XIX. WHAT'S WRONG WITH POLYANDRY?

Why can't a Christian woman have more thanone husband? Because God has made it crystal clearin the following:
***GENESIS 1: 26 "And God said, Let Us makeman in Our image, after our likeness. . . . 27 And Godcreated man in His image; in the image of God Hecreated him. He created them male and female. 28And God blessed them. And God said to them, Befruitful, and multiply and fill the earth, and subdue it.. .
"*** GENESIS 2: 20 "And Adam gave names to all thecattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every animalof the field. But there was not found a suitable helperfor Adam. 21 And the LORD God caused a deepsleep to fall on Adam, and he slept. And He took oneof his ribs, and closed up the flesh underneath. 22And the LORD God made the rib (which He had takenfrom the man) into a woman. And He brought her tothe man. 23 And Adam said, This [is] now bone of mybones and flesh of my flesh. [She] shall be calledWoman because [she] was taken out of man. 24Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother,and shall cleave to his wife and they shall be oneflesh."
***GEN. 3:16 "To the woman He said, I willgreatly increase your sorrow and your conception. Inpain you shall bear sons, and your desire shall betoward your husband, and he shall rule over you."
***1 CORINTH. 11: 1 "Be imitators of me, even asI also [am] of Christ. 2 But I praise you, brothers, thatyou remember me in all things, and you keep thedoctrines as I delivered [them] to you. 3 But I wouldhave you know that the head of every man is Christ;and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the headof Christ [is] God. 4 Every man praying or prophesyingwith [his] head covered dishonors his Head. . . . 7 Fora man indeed ought not to have [his] head covered,because he is the image and glory of God. But thewoman is [the] glory of [the] man. 8 For the man isnot of the woman, but the woman of the man. 9 Norwas the man created for the woman, but the womanfor the man. . . . 11 But neither is the man without thewoman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord.12 For as the woman [is] of the man, even so the man[is] also by the woman; but all things ofGod. "

Those passages make it very clear that the wife is under the authority of the man even though he is no better no godlier than her. If she joins herself to another while he lives >114 it is adultery, even if she has a perfectly legal divorce decree from the government since God's laws are the final word. So why then does God allow men to have more than one wife but allow a wife to have only one husband? Why the three double standards (e.g>. 1. the male canbe polygamous, but not the female; 2. the wife canseparate herself chastely from her husband, but hemay not separate himself from his wife at all; 3. Thewife may not rule over the husband, but the husbandmust take the lead as her servant and she must makethe choice whether or not to follow him)?[Footnote: >114 (l Cor. 7:39 and Romans 7:1-5; Mark10:1-20).]

This does not mean that women are second class citizens in the Kingdom of God, because the Word is clear>115, that even now inthe spiritual realm - seated with Christ now in the heavens- there is nodifference between males and females in their rights, privileges andresponsibilities. In terms of the spiritual warfare and influence seen in Daniel 10 and Ephesians 6:10-20, females and males have equal opportunities to be used of God mightily and effectively.[Footnote: >115 in Galatians 3:26,27,28; Ephesians 2:6,19-22 and Matthew 19:10-12 and 1 Peter 3:7.]

So there is now no difference between the sexes in spirit in Christ in theheavens. But our spirits are also now in our bodies on earth in the realm of Satan, the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now works in the sons of disobedience. Our reborn spirits, the Holy Spirit, now lives in our flesh and blood bodies, which flesh and blood bodies cannot receive our inherit the Kingdom of God and are at war >116 with the Spirit in us. When our bodies are transformed by Jesus they will not have blood and they will obviously have transformed flesh no longer under theinfluence of hormones, germs etc.[Footnote: >116 (Romans 7:13- 8:11; Galatians 5:16-26).]

So being in the body now has its problems and limitations. Being in the body on earth is a real handicap in terms of the Spirit because we daily have to practice Romans 6:1-14, crucifying the flesh daily>117 The woman's bodywas designed and created to help/assist man>118 .Adam needed no spiritual companion because he hadspiritual communion with Jesus daily in the garden. His body needed a female body and the female bodyneeded a compatible spirit to be the kind of flesh-spirit helper Jesus designed her to be. They werecompletely equal in the garden, like we will be in thespiritual realm of the heavens with Christ, especiallywhen we reign on earth with Him for a thousandyears after the tribulation. But they failed to obey inthe garden and ruined that wonderful arrangement sotemporarily we have the "double standards".[Footnote: >117 (Colos. 3:5). >118 (Gen.2:18; l Cor.11:1-10).]

Genesis 3 and l Corinthians 11 show the tragic consequences of their sin. Yes, their sin. I really like the radio preacher's ideathat Adam knew that she would die for eating that fruit, so being compelled by his love and need for her he decided to die with her rather than to lose her and so he also ate the fruit. His fear of God was still greater than his love for her, yet not great enough to keep him from eating the fruit, so he blamed her when he wasconfronted by Christ. Maybe that is why Jesus madesuch a big deal in Luke 14 etc. that we must love Himmore than we love our loved ones. See St.Augustine>.n95 who makes the same points.[Footnote: >.n95 A Select Library of the Nicene andPost-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church, Vol. V;W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., pp. 267ff.]

Yes there are some cultures in the world today wherethey practice polyandry in matriarchal systems, butthat doesn't make it moral or right, no more than thetemple prostitutes of India's classical Hinduism makesprostitution right or moral. Pornographers in Americapresent the spectacle of three men havingsimultaneous intercourse with one woman where thenumber of the woman's lovers is only limited by thenumber of orifices in her body that allow penetration. I don't think anyone, especially any godly woman,would argue that this is justification for a woman tohave more than one husband at a time. Polyandrymay be a way that seems right to some, but the endsthereof are the ways of death and alienation from theGod who created the wonder of woman. The malewas the rough draft, the female is the masterpiece----to be handled with tender loving care andthanksgiving to God.

XX. HUSBAND RULE OVER THE WIFE? IF SERVANT-TEACHERS RULE . . .?
The husband who is said to "rule" over his wife, is the same husband who is commanded
over and over again in Eph. 5 to compassionately cherish her. A ruler-husband who
compassionately cherishes his wife? Big words, but what do they mean? They mean that
when he "rules over" his wife he--------
1. Meekly (Spiritually controlling his superior strength so as to be gentle) chersihes her
without envy or jealousy.
2. Patiently bears ill treatment from her.
3. Is kind and gentle to her.
4. Mellows that which would be harsh or austere for her.
5. Does not brag or show off with her. He is not haughty to her.
6. Does not act unbecomingly with her, free of arrogance or bad manners.
7. Is unselfish and selfless with her, not insisting on his own rights or way.
8. Does not become touchy, resentful, irritated, provoked, exasperated, angry with her.
9. Does not take into account any evil she may do to him, holding no grudges.
10. Does not take pleasure or delight in evil with her.
11. Rejoices with her in the truth.
12. Endures all her things.
13. Optimistically believes her and in her.
14. Hopes the best for and in her.
15. Courageously bears up under all her trying ways.
16. Is committed to let Christ's Love in him for her never fail.
17. Intelligently and wisely conducts his home life with her.
18. Holds her in particular honor, considerately showing all due respect.
19. Renders to her what Christ says is due her, recognizing her sexual authority over his
body, not denying her intimate marital affection.
[Footnote: See Wuest's Expanded New Testament and the Amplified Bible for 1 Cor.7,
13; Ephes. 5; Luke 22:25,26,27 and 1 Peter3:7]
THIS MAKES A GREAT CHECK LIST FOR SELF EVALUATION.
Such a ruler would be welcome in any sane and god-fearing realm, with great enthusiasm
by the subjects. If the husband is like this to the wife, then the wife would be encourage
to behave similarly to her children, and then the children would be encouraged to behave
similarly to each other ------ and the world would be a better place. Of course any saint
knowledgable in the Word knows that it is impossible for us to generate this behavior on
our own. As we reckon our selves indeed to be dead to sin/evil, we yield our minds and
bodies to Him and trust Him to work His will in us by His Holy Spirit, inspiring and
enabling us to yield ourselves to Him so He can rule and live that way in us (Romans 6;
Phil.2:12,13; 4:13; Heb. 13:290,21).
The husband "rule" over the wife?!?! "How primitive and barbaric!" But didn't God say
to the woman " your desire shall be to your husband, and he shall rule over you"? "That's
just the Old Testament! It's irrelevant and out of date, besides being primitive and
barbaric!" -------- Well what does God say about people who feel that way?
**** 1 CORINTH. 14:37 If anyone thinks to be a prophet, or a spiritual one, let him
recognize the things I write to you, that they are a commandment of the Lord. 38 But if
any is ignorant, let him be ignorant.
**** 1 THESS. 4: 8 Therefore he who despises does not despise man, but God, who
also has given us His Holy Spirit.
**** ACTS 7:51 O stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist
the Holy Spirit. As your fathers [did], so you do.
**** ROMANS 9: 19 You will then say to me, Why does He yet find fault? For who
has resisted His will? 20 No, but, O man, who are you who replies against God? Shall the
thing formed say to Him who formed [it], Why have you made me this way? 21 Does not
the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel to honor and
another to dishonor?
**** 2 TIMOTHY 3: 8 But as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so these also
resist the truth, men of corrupt mind, reprobate concerning the faith. 9 But they shall
proceed no further. For their foolishness shall be plain to all, as theirs also became.

The husband should not lord it over (exercise lordship) or tyrannize/ suppress the wife,
according to the following:
**** 1 PETER 5: 5 Likewise, younger ones, be subject to older ones, and all being
subject to one another. Put on humility. For God resists proud ones, but He gives grace to
the humble. 6 Therefore be humbled under the mighty hand of God, so that He may exalt
you in due time . . .
**** LUKE 22: 25 And He said to them, The kings of the nations exercise lordship
over them. And they who exercise authority on them are called benefactors. 26 But you
[shall] not [be] so: but the greater among you, let him be as the lesser, and he who
governs, as [one] who serves.
1 TIM. 2: 9 In the same way also, I desire that wives adorn themselves in decent clothing,
with modesty and sensibleness, not [adorned] with braiding, or gold, or pearls, or costly
clothing, 10* but with good works, which becomes wives professing godliness. 11* Let
the wife learn in silence with all subjection. 12* But I do not allow a wife to teach, or to
exercise authority [over] a husband, but to be in silence.
AND 1 CORINTH. 14:34 Have your wives keep silence >a in the churches, for it is not
permitted to them to speak >b , but [they are commanded]to be subjecting >c themselves
, as also says the Law. 35. And if they will learn anything, have them ask their husbands
at home, for it is a shame for wives to speak in the church.
[Footnote: See the Greek for this interpretation: wife and woman is the same Greek word,
man and husband is the same Greek word, it is the context that shows what the word
means. >a See l Cor. 14:28,30; Acts 12:17; 15:12 for the Greek usage. >b See 1 Cor.
14:27,28,29; Eph. 5:19; Acts 26:26; John 8:44; 9:21. >c See Arndt & Gingrich and Thayer
Lexicons]
A wife should not obey her husband if and when he tells her to do something that is
contrary to the explicit, plain and uncontested Word of God. By "explicit, plain, and
uncontested" I mean that the majority of fundamental, orthodox, evangelical and
traditional Christian Bible teachers/preachers/ authors agree on the meaning of that
portion of scripture, e.g. "Honor your parents!". I don't mean those portions of scripture
that are characterized by parables, allegories or symbolism where you find so much
disagreement. I mean that if her husband tells her to steal, lie, fornicate or blaspheme, she
knows that such conduct is contrary to the will of God for her so she doesn't obey him.
On what grounds?
Throughout the Bible God makes it plain that we are to obey our parents and the
social/civil authorities over us>^. God makes it very plain that if our parents or the
social/civil authorities over us tell us to disobey the clear and explicit will of God, we
must disobey>* them in order to obey God. This is true of the state over the citizen,
parents over children, and husbands over wives. If the one occupying your culture's place
of authority over you tells you to do that which is contrary to the clear, explicit and plain
Word of God, then you must disobey the one in authority in order to obey God. So the
husband who tells his wife not to go to church, pray or read her Bible-----that husband
has to be disobeyed, with all due respect, humility, grace and amiability and without
preaching, teaching or lecturing>``.
[Footnote: >^=(Romans 13; Heb. 13:7,21 etc.). >*Ezek. 20:17,18; Daniel 3:13-18; 5:21;
6:7-11; Deut. 1:13-18; 17:8-13; Acts 4:15-21; 5:20,29,40,42; 23:5. >`` (Luke 6:27-36;
Galat. 6:1; 2Tim.2:24-26 and 1 Peter 3:1-6).
The husband exercises his authority as "head" of the wife by humbly teaching>119 her
what she should do/say and by being a good example of how she should act/speak >120 .
THE HUSBAND HAS NO RIGHT TO MAKE HIS WIFE DO WHAT HE WANTS
HER TO DO AND HE HAS NO SCRIPTURAL RIGHT TO BOSS OR ORDER HER
ABOUT>121 . If his wife resists his lead and authority, or just rebels outright, he can
compassionately but firmly admonish and rebuke her humbly and gently according to the
following:
[Footnote: >119 2 Tim. 2:24-26. >120 (Hebrews 13:7, 17,). >121 (Luke 22:25,26;1 Peter
5:5).]
**** GALATIANs 6: 1 Brothers, if a man is overtaken in a fault, you the spiritual
ones restore such a one in the spirit of meekness, considering yourself, lest you also be
tempted. 2 Bear one another's burdens, and so you will fulfill the law of Christ.
**** 2 TIMOTHY 2:24 But the servant of [the] Lord must not strive, but to be gentle
to all, apt to teach, patient, 25 in meekness instructing those who oppose, if perhaps God
will give them repentance to the acknowledging of [the] truth, 26 and [that] they awake
out of the snare of the Devil, having been taken captive by him, so as to do the will of
that one.
**** LUKE 17: 3 Take heed to yourselves. If your brother trespasses against you,
rebuke him. And if he repents, forgive him. 4 And if he trespasses against you seven
times in a day, and seven times in a day turns again to you, saying, I repent, you shall
forgive him.
**** MATTHEW 18: 15 But if your brother shall trespass against you, go and tell him
his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. 16
But if he will not hear [you], take one or two more with you, so that in [the] mouth of
two or three witnesses every word may be established. 17 And if he shall neglect to hear
them, tell [it] to the church. But if he neglects to hear the church, let him be to you as a
heathen and a tax-collector.
**** 1 CORINTH. 5: 3 For as being absent in body but present in spirit, I indeed have
judged already [as though I were] present [concerning] him who worked out this thing; 4
in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, with my spirit;
also, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ; 5 to deliver such a one to Satan for the
destruction of the flesh, so that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. 8
Therefore let us keep [the] feast; not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and
wickedness, but with the unleavened [bread] of sincerity and truth. . . 11 But now I have
written to you not to associate intimately, if any man called a brother [and is] either . . .
or an idolater, or a reviler, . . . with such a one not to eat.

After having done all of the above, when his wife is uncooperative or rebellious, he has to
leave the results to the Lord/Spirit even if she is difficult and defiant. THE HUSBAND
HAS NO RIGHT OR AUTHORITY FROM GOD TO FORCE, COERCE OR
INTIMIDATE HIS WIFE IN ORDER TO MAKE HER GIVE IN UNWILLINGLY
AND DO WHAT HE WANTS HER TO DO>122 His business and duty is to
compassionately cherish her.
[Footnote: >122 (Luke 22:25,26;1 Peter 5:5; Eph. 6:9; Col. 4:1)]

XXI. THREE CHEERS FOR MONOGAMY!! THE BEST FOR MOST!!
That the good purpose of marriage, however, is better promoted by one husband with one
wife, than by a husband with several wives, is shown plainly enough by the very first
union of a married pair, which was made by the Divine Being Himself, with the intention
of marriages taking their beginning therefrom, and of its affording to them a more
honorable precedent. >n128
[Footnote: >.n128 A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The
Christian Church,Vol. V; p. 267.]

Monogamy is not monotony, no matter what the world may say. Those that maintain
that monogamy is monotony seem to have no idea of loving one's wife wisely or as Christ
loves the Church. If one's love for one's wife is limited to the physical, the sexual and
only a superficial understanding of her personality, then monogamy could be
monotonous. That monotony is an indictment of an uninspired and unloving lover. If you
studied your mate, learned her learning style, mastered her personality type, determined
her
spiritual gifts and their possible applications, studied her body's erogenous zones,
mastered personal body massage where she likes it best, perfected your skills in bringing
her to climax, with creativity explored the perfumes and scented massage oils that delight
her, meditated on her goals and needs and helped her in quest to meet them, diligently
listened and questioned her so as to be able to more effectively pray and intercede for her,
fasted and prayed for her where she is experiencing serious problems or personal defeat,
and zealously sought how the two of you can more effectively deal with the household
chores, then I doubt seriously that your monogamy will be monotonous.

But that brings up another advantage of monogyny, because we have only so much time
and only so much energy and only so much mental ability. If it is such a formidable
challenge to love one wife well and in a manner well pleasing to Christ, not many would
have the ability to love more than one wife well and in a manner well pleasing to Christ. If
you had a choice, a realistic and hard working parent would prefer monogamy simply for
the reduced needs and demands. The Christian male who thinks of women, and
specifically his own wife, only in terms of sex and erotic pleasures is probably not going
to have much of a prayer life since God wont be answering his prayers>233 , is probably
not going to live long since God going to be faithful to chasten her with weakness,
sickness or death for his insensitive and unwise conduct towards her>234
[Footnote: >233 (1Pet.3:7;1 Jn 3:22). >234 (1 Cor. 11:27-32).]

Look at the energy expended by Solomon and the Shulamite in the Song of Solomon!
Right out of the honey moon manual, but only the leisurely rich and famous could have
the time to maintain that on an ongoing basis. Most wives would be delighted to be loved
in this manner, and once they've experienced it there remains an appetite for it. Your
average Elias might be able to pull it off for a while, with more than one wife even, but
even if it is only with one wife that peak activity will decline, if from nothing else but
fatigue, and then there will be disappointment felt by the wife, and possible frustration
and a sense of inadequacy for the husband. These negative emotions don't make for a
happy marriage. If a godly man finds himself in a polygamous situation, I'm sure that the
2 Cor. 8 & 9 principle of being accepted based on one's willingness instead of on one's
possessions would hold here, and hopefully his wives would be spiritual enough to
understand and allow for it, giving him credit for doing the best he can do.
The command that you should have no other gods before Jehovah seems to be one reason
from Deut. 17:17 where it is stated that too many wives will cause the heart of such a
lover of many wives to turn away from following Jehovah with his whole heart. This ties
in with 1 Cor. 7:32-35 which shows that wives distract one from serving the Lord and too
many wives distract the husband too much for the family's spiritual good. A man who is
covetous of having many wives could be guilty of idolatry, loving polygyny more than
Jesus>235 . We should be content with what we have maritally>236 .
[Footnote: >235 (Eph. 5:5,6). >236 (1 Tim. 6:5-9 and 1 Cor. 7:9,26-35).]

The bottom line for the child, being led by the Spirit who works in him to will and do His
good pleasure>237 , is that celibacy, marriage or polygamy is not really up to him if he
acknowledges Jesus as Lord. The Lord is the Lord and He gives the gifts. Celibacy,
marriage, or polygamy are gifts from the Lord and the obedient and loving child of God
waits on his Father and Lord to give His servant the appropriate gift>238 . If he is called
to marriage, God will also call one of His daughters to marry the blessed bloke, also giving
her the gift of marriage. If he is called to polygyny, if that is his gift from his Father and
Lord, then his wives will also be called to polygyny. God's grace will be sufficient if he is
called/saved in monogyny or in polygyny. He doesn't give us impossible callings, since
nothing is impossible for Him as He works out His will in us.
[Footnote: >237 (Rm.8:14; Ph 2:13). >238 (1 Cor. 7:7,8,9,17-27).]

Since godly polygyny really requires the Spiritual fruits of unity>239 and sharing>240
even more so than monogyny, the Spiritual challenge of walking in the Spirit would be
even greater requiring a close walk with the Lord. If it weren't His gift and calling for each
member of the polygynist family, it would be completely impossible to maintain on a
voluntary basis. With His gift and calling, they can do all things in Christ>241 . There is
no dispute that marital harmony, sharing and unity would be much easier in monogamy.
It's easy to see why God ordained that elders, deacons, bishops, church overseers,
deacons etc. had to be monogynists, since they have to deal with all the people and issues
in their care in the Church. Polygynists have their hands full with the people and the
issues of the church in their home.
[Footnote: >239 (Ep. 4:1-5). >240 (Acts 4:32-37; 2 Cor. 8 & 9). >241 (Ph. 4:13).]

"If a man desires the position of a bishop/overseer, he desires a good work">242 . Part of
that "good work" is a monogamous marriage. We are to follow/imitate their faith>243 and
part of their faith is that they believe they were called to be a Church leader and as such,
called to have a monogamous marriage. We are to support and imitate their walk of faith,
their walk in their calling, and their trust in His leading.
[Footnote: >242 (1 Tm 3:1). >243 (Heb. 13:7).]

So each one of us needs to wait on our Lord for his leading>244 , His gifts>245 , and His
enabling>246 . Our church leaders are monogamous. Christ presents Himself as the
Church's Overseer as the monogamous husband of one wife. In the Old Testament He
portrayed Himself as both monogamous >247 and polygamous >248 as husband to Israel.
He knows what He can do in us, and being the God of 1 Cor. 10:13 and Ph. 4:13, He
knows how much we can handle so He gives the gifts and leadings accordingly.
[Footnote: >244 (Rom. 8:14). >245 (1 Cor.7:7,8,9 etc.). >246 (Ph.2:13;4:13).>247 (Ezek.
16) . >248 (Ezek. 23).]

Our responsibility is obedience and contentment. For His blessing to be upon us, we
must walk in obedience to His calling and leading>249 . For us to be blessed by Him in
our walk, we must be content with what He gives and how He leads>250 . To go beyond
and get more than His will is to trespass and He is faithful to chasten. To know to do
right and then not do it is sin, and He is faithful to chasten. Strait is the way and narrow.
Few there be that find it.
[Footnote: >249 (Heb. 5:8,9; Jn. 14:15). >250 (1 Tm. 6:3-19).]

Noah, Isaac, and Joseph had only one wife, and domestic happiness in the Bible is always
connected with monogamy>.n129 (2 K 4, Ps 128, Pr 31, Sir 25,,,). The marriage figure
applied to the union of God and Israel. . . .. implied monogamy as the ideal state.
Polygamy is, in fact, always an unnatural development from the point of view both to
religion and of anthropology; 'monogamy is by far the most common form of human
marriage; it was so also amongst the ancient peoples of whom we have any direct
knowledge' (Westermarck, Hum. Marr. p. 459). Being, however, apparently legalized, and
having the advantage of precedent, it was long before polygamy was formally forbidden in
Hebrew society >n130 , though practically it fell into disuse; the feeling of the Rabbis
was strongly against it.>n131
[Footnotes:>.n129 Always? What about the divorce statistics in our modern and
monogamous America? Also, Solomon and the Shulamite seemed to have a great deal of
domestic happiness in their polygamy according to the Song of Solomon 6. >.n130
"Polygamy was not definitely forbidden among the Jews till the time of R. Gershom (c.
A.d. 1000), and then at first only for France and Germany. In Spain, Italy,m and the East
it persisted for some time longer, as it does still among the Jews in Mohammedan
counties". HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE; p.584. >..n131 HASTINGS
DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE; pp. 583-587.]

Monogamy is implicit in the story of Adam and Eve, since God created only one wife for
Adam. Yet polygamy is adopted from the time of Lamech (Gn. iv. 19), and is not
forbidden in Scripture. It would seem that God left it to man to discover by experience
that His original institution of monogamy was the proper relationship. . . >n132
[Footnote: >..n132 The New Bible Dictionary, J.D. Douglas Ph.D ; p.787.]
The gradual evolution in the OT of monogamy as the ideal is therefore of the highest
interest. The earliest codes attempt in various ways to regulate the custom of polygyny.
The Deut. code in particular actually forbids kings to multiply wives (Dt 17.17); this is
the fruit, apparently of the experience of
Solomon's reign.>n133
[Footnote: >.n133 HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE; p.259..]

Romans 8:12-15 Therefore, brothers, we are not debtors to the flesh, to live according to
the flesh. For if you live according to the flesh, you shall die. But if you through [the]
Spirit mortify the deeds of the body, you shall live. For as many as are led by [the] Spirit
of God, they are the sons of God. For you have not received the spirit of bondage again to
fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption by which we cry, Abba, Father! The
Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are the children of God. [****]
1 Corinthians 7: 7ff For I would that all men were even as I myself am. But each has his
proper gift from God, one according to this manner and another according to that. I say
therefore to the unmarried and the widows, It is good for them if they remain even as I.
But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn.
. . . .
But as God has distributed to each one, as the Lord has called each one, so let him walk.
And so I ordain in all churches. [Was] any called having been circumcised? Do not be
uncircumcised. Was anyone called in uncircumcision? Do not be circumcised.
Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the
commandments of God.
[Was any called in monogyny? Do not become unmarried. Were you called in polygyny?
Do not become a monogynist. Monogyny is nothing, and polygyny is nothing, but the
keeping of the commandments of God.]
Let each one remain in the calling in which he was called. Were you called as a slave? It
does not matter to you, but if you are able to become free, use [it] rather. For he who is
called a slave in [the] Lord is a freed man of [the] Lord. And likewise, he who is called a
free man is a slave of Christ. You are bought with a price, do not be the slaves of men.
Each in whatever way he was called, brothers, in this remain with God. [****]


XXII.  LISTEN TO THE WORD.
 
James 4:13 Go to now, you  who say, To-day or to-
morrow will we go into such a city and spend a year there, and traffic and
make gain, 14 you  who do not know what will be on the morrow, ([for] what [is]
your life? It is even a vapor, appearing for a little while, and then
disappearing,) 15 instead of your saying, If the Lord
should [so] will and we should live, we will also do
this or that.  16 But now you  glory in your vauntings:
all such glorying is evil. 17 To him therefore who
knows how to do good, and does it not, to him it is sin.
   
He would have us make marital affirmations and marital declarations of
intentions, all qualified with "If the Lord will".  Vows and covenants are
inherently boastings about one's future performance, something we have no
right to do.
 
James 5:12 ∫ But before all things, my brethren,
swear [solemnly promise/vow/covenant See Appendix #7]  not,
neither by heaven, nor by the earth, nor by any other
oath; but let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay, that
you  do not fall under judgment.
   
Here and in Matt.5 God makes it real clear we have no
business making solemn promises, vows or covenants
without the "If the Lord will".  But what if we observe
the tradition of men and have the traditional wedding
vows and covenants?
 
Psalm 15:1 ∫  Jehovah, who shall sojourn in your tent? who shall dwell in the
hill of your holiness?  2 He that walks uprightly, and works righteousness,
and speaks the truth from his heart. . . . 4 . . .who, if he have sworn [solemnly
promised/covenanted/vowed] to his own hurt, changes it not; . .
   
If you solemnly promised, vowed or covenanted to do something that is not
contrary to the will of God as expressed in the Bible, better stick to it and
keep it because each time you don't, there is sin on your head.
 
Eccles. 5:2 Be not rash with your mouth, and let not your heart be hasty to
utter anything before God: for God is in the heavens, and you  upon earth;
therefore let your words be few.  3  . . .and a fool's voice through a multitude
of words.  4 ∫ When you  vow a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for he has 
no pleasure in fools: pay that which you  have vowed.  5 Better is it that you
should not vow, than that you  should vow and not pay.  6 Suffer not your
mouth to cause your flesh to sin; neither say you before the angel, that it
was an inadvertence. Wherefore should God be wroth at your voice, and
destroy the work of your hands?
   
No need for comment.  The Word speaks for itself, and
it certainly does
include wedding vows that are not contrary to the
will of God in the Bible. SEE Eccles. 5: 5-7; Malachi 2:7;
Prov. 20:25; Acts 5:4; Psalms 50:14; 76:11;
66:13,14.
 
Ezekiel 16:59 For thus says the Lord Jehovah: I will
even deal with thee as
thou have done, who has despised the oath, and
broken the covenant. . . . 17: 15 But he rebelled
against him  . . .  Shall he prosper? shall he escape
that does such things? shall he break the covenant,
and yet escape? .  .  . 16 [As] I live, says the Lord
Jehovah, verily in the place of the king that made him
king, whose oath he despised, and whose covenant he
broke, even with him, in the midst of Babylon, shall
he die. . . .18 He despised the oath, and broke the
covenant; and behold, he had given his hand, yet hath
he done all these things: he shall not escape.  19
Therefore thus says the Lord Jehovah: [As] I live,
verily, mine oath which he hath despised, and my
covenant which he hath broken, even it will I
recompense upon his head.  20 And I will spread my
net upon him, and he shall be taken in my snare; . . .
   
Malachi 2:14 Yet you  say, Wherefore? Because
Jehovah has   been a witness between you     and the wife of your youth,
against whom you  have dealt unfaithfully:  yet is she your companion, and the
wife of your covenant. 15 And did not one make [them]? and the remnant of
the Spirit was his. And wherefore the one? He sought a seed of God. Take
heed then to your spirit, and let none deal unfaithfully against the wife of his
youth, 16 (for I hate putting away, says Jehovah the God of Israel;) and he covers
with violence his garment, says    Jehovah of hosts: take heed then to
your spirit, that you  deal not unfaithfully.

     The unfaithfulness here is the unfaithfulness to
the wedding vows/ covenants which takes the form of putting away
(divorcing) one's mate.
 
Romans 1:28 And according as they did not think
good to have God in [their] knowledge, God gave them up to a reprobate mind to
practiceunseemly things;   .  .  . 31 void of understanding,
faithless [covenant breaking, undutiful], without
natural affection, unmerciful; 32 who knowing the
righteous judgment of God, that they who do such
things are worthy of death, not only practice them,
but have fellow delight in those who do [them].
Romans 2:5 . . .  God,  6 who shall render to each
according to his works:  7 to them who, in patient continuance of good works, seek
for glory and honor and incorruptibility, life eternal.
8 But to those that are contentious, and are
disobedient to the truth, but obey unrighteousness,
[there shall be] wrath and indignation, . . .
   
Is there any question about what will happen to the
mate who breaks or disregards the marital affirmations/covenants/vows?
In case you missed it, they were death, wrath and God's personal
indignation.  It is in your own self interest to abide by
you marital affirmations/covenants/vows.  Why be a
fool and get burned for it?

XXIII. BIBLIOGRAPHY

>1. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church, Vol.
IV; edited by Philip Schaff (D.d., LL.D.); W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids
Mich; 1956
>2. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church, Vol.
V; edited by Philip Schaff (D.d., LL.D.); ; W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids
Mich; 1956; p. 267
>3. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church, Vol.
VIII; edited by Philip Schaff (D.d., LL.D.) and Henry Wace (D.D.) ; W.B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co., Grand Rapids Mich; 1956
>4. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church, Vol.
XIV; edited by Philip Schaff (D.D., LL.D.) and Henry Wace (D.D.) ; W.B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co., Grand Rapids Mich; 1956
>5. Amplified Bible, The; 1965, Zondervan Publishing House
>6. ANALYTICAL GREEK LEXICON, THE: Harper & Brothers, New York
>7. Arndt & Gingrich: A GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
and Other Early Christian Literature ; By W.F.Arndt & F. W. Gingrich; The Univ. of
Chicago Press, Chicago, Ill.; Cambridge at the Univ. Press.; 1957
>8. ASV: The Holy Bible, American Standard Version 1901 & 1929; Thomas Nelson &
Sons, New York
>9. Gold Cord, by Amy Carmichael, Christian Literature Crusade, Fort Worthington,
Penna.; London's Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge, Holy Trinity
Church, Marylebone Rd., N.W. (N.Y. The Macmillan Company).
>10. CUSTOMS AND CULTURES, Anthropology for Christian Missions, by Eugene
A. Nida1954, Harper & Brothers, New York
>11. Darby's 1890 translation: Most of the scriptures quoted in this work, if not
otherwise indicated, are from the a modernized version of J. N. Darby's translation, the
OnLine Bible computer program of "Online Bible f ", Ken Hammil 1-908-741-4298; [E-
Mail: khamel@aol.com].
>12. DIVORCE, John Murray, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co. \
>13. G. Duty's book on divorce and remarriage , Downers Grove, Ill.
>14. HASTING'S DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE; 1989, Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.,
Peabody, Mass;, Editor James Hastings, DD.,
>15. I LOVED A GIRL; Walter Trobisch, Inter-Varsity Press, Downers Grove, Ill.
>16. INTERNATIONAL BIBLE COMMENTARY, THE; Editor, F.F.Bruce; 1979;
Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids Michigan.
>17. Jay Adam's book on divorce and remarriage
>18. JEWISH: The Holy Scriptures according to the Masoretic Text, 1955, The Jewish
Publication Society.
>19. KINSHIP & MARRIAGE, Robin Fox, 1967, Penguin Books, Inc., USA & England
>20. LAMSA: The Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts, 1940, Holman Co.,
by G. Lamsa.
>21. MARRIAGE EAST AND WEST; David & Vera Mace, 1960, Dolphin Books,
Double Day & Co., Inc. Garden City, NY
>22.MARRYING AGAIN; David Hocking, 1977, Fleming H. Revell Co.
>23. ****: MODERN KING JAMES VERSION, 1993, by Jay P. Green Sr., in Online
Bible 2.5.1; the OnLine Bible computer program of "Online Bible f ", Ken Hammil 1-
908-741-4298; [E-Mail: khamel@aol.com].
>24. MY WIFE MADE ME A POLYGAMIST; Walter Trobisch, 1971, Inter-Varsity
Press,
>25. NASB: Holy Bible New American Standard; Broadman & Holman Publishers,
Nashville Tenn.; The Lockman Foundation, 1977
>26. NEB: NEW ENGLISH BIBLE, 1970; Oxford/Cambridge University Press
>27. NEW BIBLE DICTIONARY, THE; Editor J.D.Douglas Ph.D; 1962; W. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, Mich.
>28. NEW TESTAMENT GREEK FOR BEGINNERS, By, J. Gresham Machen, D.D,
Litt. D.,1959
>29. NIV: "Scripture taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL
VERSION. Copyright @ 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society." Used as required
by Zondervan Bible Publishers.
>30. NKJV: New King James Version, 1984, Thomas Nelson, Inc.
>31. OnLine Bible computer program of "Online Bible f ", Ken Hammil 1-908-741-4298;
[E-Mail: khamel@aol.com].
>32. PLEASE HELP ME! PLEASE LOVE ME!; Walter Trobisch, Inter-Varsity Press,
>33. St. Augustin: On The Trinity; translated by Arthur West Haddan, B.D.; W.B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids Mich; 1956
>34. Strongs Lexicon, Open Bible "Online Bible f", Ken Hammil 1-908-741-4298. Also
Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Mich.
>35. Thayer: Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament; Joseph Henry Thayer, D.D.;
American Book Co., New York, 1889
>36. The Septuagint of the Old Testament and Apocrypha With an English Translation;
Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan; 1972; Samuel Bagster & Sons,
Ltd. London
>37. WOMEN'S LIVES IN MEDIEVAL EUROPE - A SOURCEBOOK; Edited by
Emile Amt; Routledge, Chapman, Hall; NY, NY; 1993
>38. Wuest's THE NEW TESTAMENT, An Expanded Translation, Kenneth S. Wuest,
1961
>39. YLT; Young's Literal Translation, 1898: OnLine Bible computer program of "Online
Bible f ", Ken Hammil 1-908-741-4298; [E-Mail: khamel@aol.com].


APPENDIX ONE: What makes a wedding &/or a marriage?
From many passages in the Bible (including Ezekiel 16:8, Exodus chapters 19 & 20, and
Malachi 2:14,15) it appears clear to me that marriage of a couple is based on their
covenant/solemn agreement to be husband and wife to each other in a relationship of
marital/ sexual intimacy, - - whether or not they do it legally or officially. Adam and Eve
had no formal or official wedding and exchanged no formal vows but they accepted each
other as husband and wife and lived accordingly. There is no wedding formula in the Bible
and there is no wedding ceremony prescribed in the Bible.
When you study how they married in the Old Testament you see that the basis was
either their covenant to be husband and wife to each other, or they accepted their parents
covenant for them to be married. The strongest statement I know of is the one in
Matthew 1:18,19,20 where, based on their covenant/betrothal (v.18), the Holy Spirit
callED Joseph her husband (v.19) and the angel called Mary his wife (v.20) before (Luke
1:26,34) their official wedding and cohabitation (v.24). God and His messengers call Mary
and Joseph wife and husband before their wedding and solely on the basis of their
covenants to be husband and wife to each other. This agrees with the great weight God
gives our solemn word in such passages as DBY PSALM 15: Jehovah, who shall sojourn
in thy tent? . . . 2 He that walketh uprightly, . . .who, if he have sworn to his own hurt,
changeth it not; . . .
YLT ECCLES 5:4 When thou vowest a vow to God, delay not to complete it, for there is
no pleasure in fools; that which thou vowest--complete. 5 Better that thou do not vow,
than that thou dost vow and dost not complete. 6 Suffer not thy mouth to cause thy flesh
to sin, nor say before the messenger, that `it [is] an error,' why is God wroth because of
thy voice, and hath destroyed the work of thy hands?

All of this is to say that if you and your mate have agreed seriously to be faithful to each
other in and for marital/sexual intimacy as husband and wife, then I believe that makes
you husband and wife. Even if you havent used the magic words husband, wife, marriage,
if you two have agreed to be faithful marital/sexual partners to each other, to me thats the
same thing as Ezekiel 16:14 where God shows that marriage is by covenant. In Malachi 2
God shows again that a woman becomes a wife by covenant, and to break that covenant is
to deal treacherously with you mate. Sexual intimacy>m with anyone else besides your
mate is fornication, sexual sin. If you are maritally committed to each other and then you
yourself --- but not your mate----- genuinely received Jesus Christ as your Lord and Ruler
to be obeyed and as Savior to deliver you from the penalty of your sins- - but your guy
hasn't, then I believe you find yourself in the situation described in 1 Corinthians
7:12,13,14,15, the saved mate of an unsaved person.
[>.m see footnotes on breast pressing, petting,caressing and/or genital contact (Ezekiel
23:3,8,21; Prov. 5.)]

Creativity is not a sin. The two may mutually decide that their needs in marital sex could
be met by mutual petting to orgasm, or erotic massage, erotic bathing, or etc. so that there
is no genital to genital contact, no exchange of infectious fluids. Condoms are little or no
protection with even the best of them failing to protect 22% of the time in federal tests
that involved no motion on an artificial penis>#. Dr. Askew of the County Health
Department told me (4/'96) the latest research he is aware of indicates as 17% User
Failure Rate (the condoms failed the users who used them)>207. The latex gloves that
surgeons use offer some protection because they are so much thicker than condoms. They
both can pray for wisdom and receive it from God on how to wisely meet their marital
sex responsibilities to each other in a godly and loving manner without infecting the other.
But the bottom line is that the love of God constrains them both to meet each other's
marital sex needs in order to obey God and deliver their partner from life threatening
temptations>206 .
[Footnote: ># Dr. Loraine Day, surgeon. >206 (1 Cor. 7:2-5; Prov. 5:18,19,20); >207 He
also indicated that the HIV/AIDS blood tests are 90% accurate three months after
exposure, 99% accurate after six monthsl of exposure]


APPENDIX TWO: WHEN MUST ONE MARRY?

Dear Sam,
Thanks for taking the time to think about the subject and address it
thoughtfully. This is a major issue in my understanding of 1 Corinth
7:9,36 so I really want to get it right. So if you have the time, please go
down this trail a little further with me. If I'm wrong, I want to be
right. Some people actually read my stuff and take it seriously, and so I
don't want to mislead anyone or confuse or complicate the issue for
anyone trying to understand God's Word. If you can, please hear me
out.

You wrote: The Command is to let them marry. In other words, all
believers are commanded to allow marriage and not to stand in the
way of marriage or erect false barriers to it.

So the command is, as I understand you, "(You, the believers) are
commanded to allow them to marry", or briefly
"(You, the believers) allow them to marry".

Your usage of "let" in 1 Cor. 7:9,36 would have to require the presence
of a Greek word that is translated "let" or "permit" or "allow", e.g.
(You) let them marry."
Such a translation would have to be based on one verb for "(You) let"
and there would have to be a second verb for " them marry". Go to
your interlinear, your Strongs or Youngs and you will find that there is
no separate verb/word for "let" in 1 Corinth. 7:9,36. Why?????

In the Bible there are Greek words that are translated as let, permit or
allow.


Luke 9: 61 And another also said , Lord , I will follow thee ; but
LET <2010> (5657) me first go bid them farewell , which are at
home at my house .
Strong's 2010 epitrepo {ep-ee-trep'-o}



1.    to turn to, transfer, commit, instruct

2.    to permit, allow, give leave
Strong's 5657


Tense - Aorist See 5777
Voice - Active See 5784
Mood - Imperative See 5794

***So Sam, there would be your "permit, allow" or "(You) let them
marry" if there were a Greek word for "let" in 1 Corinth. 7:9,36

Acts 5: 38 And now I say unto you , Refrain from these men ,
and LET <1439> (0) them alone
Strong's 1439 eao {eh-ah'-o}



1.    to allow, permit, let

2.    to allow one to do as he wishes, not to restrain, to
let alone


***Again, Sam, there would be your "permit, allow" or "(You) let
them marry" if there were a Greek word for "let" in 1 Corinth. 7:9,36


Mark 1: 24 Saying , Let [us] alone <1436>;
Luke 4: 34 Saying , Let [us] alone <1436>;
Strong's 1436 ea {eh'-ah}
apparent imperative of 1439 and expresses indignations
mixed with fear or wonder mixed with fear.
Strong's 1439 eao {eh-ah'-o}


1.    to allow, permit, let

2.    to allow one to do as he wishes, not to restrain, to let
alone



***Ditto

But Sam, look at 1 Corinth. 7:9 and 36 and you will see that there
is no Greek word or basis for our English "let"

1 Corinthians 7:9 But if they cannot contain , let them marry
<1060> (5657):
Strong's 1060 gameo {gam-eh'-o}


1.    to lead in marriage, take to wife


1a) to get married, to marry
1b) to give one's self in marriage


1.    to give a daughter in marriage

Strong's 5657
Tense - Aorist See 5777

Voice - Active See 5784
Mood - Imperative See 5794

***Sam do you see that there is no separate Greek word (2010, 1436,
1439) for "let".
If there were it would read like this
1 Corinthians 7:9 But if they cannot contain ,
let <2010/1436/1439>them marry <1060> (5657):
So there is no Greek verb/word to translate as "let". Instead the word
"let" is the imperative indicator for 1060 gameo. Why do we use "let"
to indicate the third person imperative? Remember G. Machen's

The active voice represents the subject as the
doer or performer of the action. E.g., in the
sentence, "The boy hit the ball," the boy
performs theaction.
Mood - Imperative
The imperative mood corresponds to the English
imperative, and expresses a command to the
hearer to perform a certain action by the order
and authority of the one commanding. Thus,
Jesus' phrase, "Repent ye, and believe the
gospel" (Mk.1:15)is not at all an "invitation," but
an absolute command requiring full
obedience on the part of all hearers.
Does "let them marry" mean "You let/permit/allow
them to marry"? Is You the hearer to perform the
action of marrying in this passage, so that the meaning is really
"they are commanded to marry" , or "they should marry"?

J. Gresham Machen, D.D., Litt.D; in his
Macmillan Co. Greek manual, states the
following:"The imperative mood is used in
commands....It will be observed that the
English language has, properly speaking, no
imperative of the third person. Hence in
translating the Greek imperative of the third
person WE HAVE TO USE THE HELPING VERB LET, so
that the noun or pronoun that is the subject of
the imperative in Greek becomes the object of
the helping verb in English.

English is handicapped by not being able to literally translate the
first (us) and third (him/her/it/them) persons. The only way
we can do it is briefly is to use "let" to indicate that
us/him/her/them are the ones commanded to do whatever is
commanded. It is like the Genesis 1 "Let there be light". God
wasn't speaking to the angels and demons saying, "You angels
and demons allow/permit there to be light". No. He
commanded there to be light, not needing anyone else to allow
or permit there to be light. Essentially He said, "Light, be!"
So in if they cannot exercise self-control, let them
marry. it means that the...pronoun (them)
that is the subject (third person plural:they)
of the imperative (marry) in the Greek
becomes the object (them)
of the helping verb (let) in English.

So a literal translation of let them marry would be they
are commanded to perform a certain action (marry) by the
order and authority of the one commanding (The Holy
Spirit in Paul); or simply, they should marry.
Who is commanded to marry? Those who dont exercise
self-control.

And that is how you see the following translations render it
NIV they should marry....
NEB they should marry.
AB they should marry.



1 Corinthians 7: 36 But <1161> if any man <1536> think
<3543>
(5719) that he behaveth himself uncomely <807> (5721) toward
<1909> his <848> virgin <3933>, if <1437> she pass the flower of
[her] age <5230> <5600> (5753), and <2532> need <3784> (5719) so
<3779> require <1096> (5738), let him do <4160> (5720) what <3739>
he will <2309> (5719), he sinneth <264> (5719) not <3756>: LET
THEM MARRY <1060> (5720).
Strong's Strong's 1060 gameo {gam-eh'-o}


1.    to lead in marriage, take to wife


1a) to get married, to marry
1b) to give one's self in marriage


1.    to give a daughter in marriage

Strong's 5720 Tense -
Present See 5774

Voice - Active See 5784
Mood - Imperative See 5794

***Sam do you see that there is no separate Greek word (2010, 1436,
1439) for "let" but instead the word "let" is the imperative indicator for
1060 gameo. Why do we use "let" to indicate the third person
imperative? Remember G. Machen's above.

1 timothy 5: 14 I will <1014> (5736) therefore that the younger
women marry <1060> (5721),
Strong's 1014 boulomai {boo'-lom-ahee}


1.    to will deliberately, have a purpose, be minded

Strong's 5736 Tense -
Present See 5774

Voice - Middle or Passive Deponent See 5790
Mood - Indicative See 5791
Strong's 1060 gameo {gam-eh'-o}


1.    to lead in marriage, take to wife


1a) to get married, to marry
1b) to give one's self in marriage


1.    to give a daughter in marriage

Strong's 5721 Tense -
Present See 5774

Voice - Active See 5784
Mood - Infinitive See 5795

***Sam, do you see that there is no imperative mood here, but that he
is deliberately willing that they marry
has the purpose that they are to marry.
So 1 Timothy 5:14 is significantly different from 1 Cor. 7:9,36 in that
there is in 1Tim 5:14 no imperative command that the widows marry,
but only the expression of his deliberate will and purpose that they
marry. Of course Hebrews 7:7,14,21 would cause any widow to very
carefully consider such an expression of purpose and will of such a
leader of the saints, especially one so inspired as to write so much
scripture.

So I hope you see why I believe there is a situation where we can come
under God's express imperative command to marry, when it is is will
and purpose that we marry.

In conclusion, the case as I see it------
**** 1 Thess 4:1 For the rest, then, my brothers, we
beseech you and exhort [you] in [the] Lord Jesus, that, as you
have received from us how you ought to walk and to please
God, so you would abound more [and more].
2 For we know what commands we gave you by the Lord
Jesus.
3 For this is the will of God, your sanctification, for you to
abstain from fornication,
422 each one of you to know how to possess his 22vessel in
sanctification and honor
5 (not in the passion of lust, even as the nations who do not
know God),
6 not to go beyond and defraud his brother in this 23
matter (because the Lord [is the] avenger concerning all
these, as we also have forewarned you and testified).
7 For God has not called us to uncleanness, but in
sanctification.
8 Therefore he who despises does not despise man, but God,
who also has given us His Holy Spirit.

KJV 1 Corinth. 7: 8 I say therefore to the unmarried and
widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. 9 But if
they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry
than to burn.

9 BUT IF THEY CANNOT <Strongs 3756>---------
3756 ou {oo}...
a primary word, the absolute negative [cf 3361]
adverb; particle

1.    no, not; in direct questions expecting an
affirmative answer



So we see there is no Greek basis for the word can. It
was supplied by the translators. When the KJV
translators translated the very same word, without the
negative not, in 1 Cor. 9:25 (And every man that
striveth for the mastery is temperate <1467> (5736) in all
things. ) they use is temperate, not can be
temperate, to translate <1467> so even they are
inconsistent.

CONTAIN [Strongs<1467> (5736)],

Strongs1467 egkrateuomai {eng-krat-yoo'-om-ahee}
middle voice from 1468


1.    to be self-controlled, continent


1a) to exhibit self-government, conduct, one's self
temperately
1b) in a figure drawn from athletes, who in
preparing themselves for the games abstained from
unwholesome food, wine, and sexual indulgence
5736 Tense - Present; Voice - Middle or Passive
Deponent; Mood Indicative

LET THEM MARRY [Strongs <1060> (5657)]:

Strongs 1060: gameo {gam-eh'-o}from 1062.....

1.    to lead in marriage, take to wife


1a) to get married, to marry
1b) to give one's self in marriage

1.    to give a daughter in marriage
Strongs 5657 Tense - Aorist;
Voice - Active-------


The active voice represents the subject as the
doer or performer of the action. E.g., in the
sentence, "The boy hit the ball," the boy
performs theaction.
Mood - Imperative
The imperative mood corresponds to the English
imperative, and expresses a command to the
hearer to perform a certain action by the order
and authority of the one commanding. Thus,

Jesus' phrase, "Repent ye, and believe the
gospel" (Mk.1:15)is not at all an "invitation," but
an absolute command requiring full
obedience on the part of all hearers.

1 CORINTHIANS 7:9A
NIV12 But if they cannot control themselves,
DBY13 But if they have not control over themselves,
NEB14 but if they cannot control themselves,
YLT15 and if they have not continence--
NKJV16 but if they cannot exercise self-control,
****17 But if they do not have self-control,
ASV18 But if they have not continency,
LP19 But if they cannot endure it,
AB20 But if they have not self-control (restraint of their
passions),
WNT21 But assuming that they are not able to exercise self-
control in the realm of the continent life,

1 CORINTHIANS 7:9B
NIV they should marry....
DBY let them marry; --------So also ****, LP
NEB they should marry.
YLT --let them marry,
NKJV let them marry.
ASV let them marry...
AB they should marry.
WNT let them marry,.....

1 CORINTHIANS 7:9C
NIV for it is better to marry than to burn with
passion.
DBY for it is better to marry than to burn. So also
****, ASV
NEB Better be married than burn with vain desire.
YLT for it is better to marry than to burn;
NKJV For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
LP for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
AB For it is better to marry thanto be aflame (with passion
and tortured continually with ungratified desire).
WNT for it is more advantageous to marry than to
continue to burn
[with the heat of sexual passion}

The next passage is seen in two ways, has two possible
translations, both of which apply and pertain to believers in
the world today. The first is that it applies to a brother and
his own virginity. The second has two possibilities, one that
applies to a father and his virgin daughter, or that it applies
to a fiance and his fiancee (engaged but not married).

****24 1 Cor. 7;36ff 36 But if anyone thinks [it] behaving
himself indecently toward his virginity (if he is past [his]
prime, and so it ought to be) let him do what he will; he does
not sin; let them marry.
37 But [he] who stands steadfast in his heart, having no
necessity, but who has authority over [his] own will (and has
so judged in his heart that he will keep his virginity) he does
well. 38 So then he who gives in marriage does well. But he
who does not give in marriage does better.

KJV25 1 Cor. 7: 36 But if any man think that he behaveth
himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of
[her] age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he
sinneth not: let them marry.
37 Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart,
having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and
hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin,
doeth well. 38 So then he that giveth [her] in marriage doeth
well; but he that giveth [her] not in marriage doeth better.

So there are two parts to the solution for a believers
struggle with sex sin; 1. First do 1Jn1:9 with 2 Cor. 7; 2.
Secondly marry a Spirit filled believer walking in the Spirit.
A third very controversial option, for those who are uable to
marry at the time of need, is presented after the following
marriage discussion.

>>>About marriage, I wrote the following to my adult
daughter recently: What makes a marriage?
From many passages in the Bible (including Ezekiel 16:8,
Exodus chapters 19 & 20,and Malachi 2:14,15) it appears
clear to me that marriage of a couple is based on their
covenant/solemn agreement to be husband and wife to each
other in a relationship of marital/ sexual intimacy, - -
whether or not they do it legally or officially. Adam and Eve
had no formal or official wedding and exchanged no formal
vows but they accepted each other as husband and wife and
lived accordingly. There is no wedding formula in the Bible
and there is no wedding ceremony prescribed in the Bible.
When you study how they married in the Old Testament you
see that the basis was either their covenant to be husband
and wife to each other, or they accepted their parents
covenant for them to be married. The strongest statement I
know of is the one in Matthew 1:18,19,20 where, based on
their covenant/betrothal (v.18) the Holy Spirit calls Joseph
her husband (v.19) and the angel called Mary his wife
(v.20) before (Luke 1:26,34) their official wedding and
cohabitation (v.24). This agrees with the great weight God
gives our solemn word in such passages as Psalms 15:4 and
Ecclesiastes.
All of this is to say that if you and your guy have
agreed seriously to be faithful to each other in and for
marital/sexual intimacy as husband and wife, then I believe
that makes you husband and wife. Even if you havent used
the magic words husband, wife, marriage, if you two have
agreed to be faithful sexual partners to each other, to me
thats the same thing as agreeing to be faithful marital
partners since, in Gods Kingdom, only husbands and wives
are faithful sexual partners to each other. Sexual intimacym
with anyone else besides your mate is fornication, sexual sin.
If you are maritally committed to each other and you
genuinely have received Jesus Christ as your Lord and Ruler
to be obeyed and as Savior to deliver you from the penalty
of your sins, then I believe you find yourself in the situation
described in 1 Corinthians 7:12,13,14,15, the saved mate of
an unsaved guy.



APPENDIX THREE: THE PRACTICE OF POLYGYNY IN AN HOSTILE
ENVIRONMENT
(CALIFORNIA, FOR EXAMPLE)
COPYRIGHT 1997 BY L. TYLER
This file may be copied and distributed publicly if it is not changed.
oldservant@delphi.com
mark541@hotmail.com
Lovenchosen@hotmail.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction P.1
1. Federal law and the practice of polygyny. p.4
2. California law and the practice of polygyny. P. 5
3. The Biblical basis for diligent discretion in polygyny P. 9
4. Possible legal polygynous wedding covenants/contracts P. 14

INTRODUCTION

Bigamy is the "criminal offense of willfully and knowingly contracting
a second marriage (or going through the form of a second marriage)
while the first marriage, to the knowledge of the offender, is still
subsisting and undissolved.">a Bigamy is the "state of a man who has
two wives, or of a woman who has two husbands living at the same
time.">a

"A married person is guilty of bigamy, a misdemeanor, if he contracts
or purports to contract another marriage, unless at the time of the
subsequent marriage . . . . . the actor reasonably believes that he is
legally eligible to remarry." Model Penal Code #230.1 >a
[>a Deluxe Black's Law Dictionary, p. 163, West Publishing Co. St. Paul,
MN]

Polygamy: "A person is guilty of polygamy, a felony of the third degree
, if he marries or cohabits with more than one spouse at a time in
purported exercise
of the right of plural marriage. The offense is a continuing one until
all cohabitation and claim of marriage with more than one spouse
terminates. This section does not apply to parties to a polygamous
marriage, lawful in the country of which they are residents or
nationals, while they are in transit through or temporarily visiting this
state." Model Penal Code #230.1>b
[>b Deluxe Black's Law Dictionary, p. 1159, West Publishing Co. St.
Paul, MN]

The sticky issue in the WEST/OCCIDENT is that "a married person is
guilty of bigamy, a misdemeanor,"
a) if he signifies that he is contracting another marriage while he is still
married to another.
b) if he implies that he is contracting another marriage while he is still
married
c) if he claims or professes to be contracting another marriage while
still married
d) if he engages in a wedding/marriage given in other than the exact
words.

In the WEST/OCCIDENT, "person is guilty of polygamy, a felony of the
third degree , if he marries . . . more than one spouse at a time "
a) signifying that is exercising the right of plural marriage.
b) implying that he is exercising the right of plural marriage.
c) claiming/professing to be exercising the right of plural marriage.
d) engaging in the exercise of the right of plural marriage using other
than the exact words of marriage or of a wedding.

In the WEST/OCCIDENT, A "person is guilty of polygamy, a felony of
the third degree , if he . . . cohabits with more than one spouse at a
time"
a) signifying that is exercising the right of plural marriage.
b) implying that he is exercising the right of plural marriage.
c) claiming/professing to be exercising the right of plural marriage.
d) engaging in the exercise of the right of plural marriage using other
than the exact words of marriage or of a wedding.

I understand these provisions to mean that anyone who wants to
practice polygyny in the WEST/OCCIDENT must not
a) signify that he/she is contracting another marriage while still
married to another.
b) imply that he/she is contracting another marriage while still
married
c) claim or profess to be contracting another marriage while still
married
d) engage in a "wedding/marriage" given in other than the exact words
(see
the alternatives to the use of loaded words like "wedding/marriage" in
union celebrations or union ceremonies)
e) signify that he/she is exercising "the right of plural marriage."
f) imply that he/she is exercising "the right of plural marriage."
g) claim/profess to be exercising "the right of plural marriage."
h) engage in the exercise of "the right of plural marriage" using other
than the exact words of "marriage" or of a "wedding". (There must be
no claim to the right of plural marriage in the union celebration, no
claim to the right to exercise plural marriage in the union celebration,
no use of synonyms for "marriage" [matrimony, wedlock, etc.] or for
"wedding" [marriage, nuptials etc.].
i) cohabit with more than one spouse at a time, signifying that he/she
is exercising the right of plural marriage.
b) cohabit with more than one spouse at a time,implying that he is
exercising the right of plural marriage.
c) cohabit with more than one spouse at a time, claiming/professing to
be exercising the right of plural marriage.
d) cohabit with more than one spouse at a time, engaging in the
exercise of the right of plural marriage using other than the exact words
of marriage or of wedding for the relationship or event. (There must
be no claim to the right of plural marriage in the cohabitation, no claim
to the right to exercise plural marriage in the cohabitation, no use of
synonyms for "marriage" [matrimony, wedlock, etc.] or for "wedding"
[marriage, nuptials etc.] in the cohabitation.)

"The showing of minimal numbers of prosecutions does not establish
an abandonment of the State's laws or an irrational revival of them
here. . . . . Mere failure to prosecute other offenders is no basis for a
finding of denial of equal protection." See U.S. v. Salazar, 1983. P. 1071
The courts follow the waves and tides of society. Right now it is
neither important , popular or cost efficient to prosecute bigamy/
polygyny cases now. The tide can turn at any time. If you believe in
the cycles of our culture as I do, you now how well the cultural tide can
turn. Consider the following:
1700- 1730, 1800 - 1830 and 1900- 1930 were times of majority rule and
the minorities be damned. If you were a woman or a minority, watch
out and step back. It was a time of heavy handed rule by the majority
for the majority. Many of the majority indulged themselves
excessively and the expense of the minorities. It was a cultural Catholic
and WASP world, a time of ghettos for the minorities, who were
thankful when the majority left them alone or ignored them.
THE PENDULUM HAD SWUNG TO FAR CONSERVATIVE SIDE.
1730 -1750, 1830 -1850 and 1930 - 1950 were periods when the
government faced a series of crises that kept it from dealing with
major wrongs in society. The government was doing well if it could
just keep the lid on the pot of society. It was not a time of minority
rights because women, Jews, minority races and ethnic minorities
essentially had no government recognized rights other than those for
all in the Constitution. The government was too busy coping with
wars, collapsing economies and a struggle to keep the country unified.
1750 - 1770, 1850-1870 and 1950-1970 were periods of great social turmoil
and dramatic cultural crises resulting in legislated reforms and
moves towards democratic goals.
THE PENDULUM HAD SWUNG TO THE LIBERAL SIDE.
1770 - 1790, 1870 - 1890 and 1970 - 1990 were periods of general malaise
and disillusionment with the reforms and democratic advances of the
'50's - '70's. The dreams died and many of the new and more
democratic laws suffered from "benign" neglect. An erosion of
personal liberties began, but things didn't as bad as they were before the
reforms. The people turn inward, more preoccupied with themselves
and their issues than the culture's issues. They are burnt out and tired
of cultural reforms and movements.
1790 - 1810, 1890 - 1910 and 1990 -2010, if the cycle continues to hold
true, will the rights of minorities almost totally neglected by an
exhausted and self-centered population AND THE PENDULUM WILL
SWING TO THE HARD CONSERVATIVE SIDE. The individual will
have to survive the best he can in a cold and uncaring world---unless
China or Russia ignite World War III and the great war of Revelations
Six ushers in the Tribulation, with one third of the world's population
dying within a month of the outbreak of The War.

Whatever the scenario, we who believe in polygyny, and especially
those who practice need think defensively and think survival in a
world that grows colder, harder, more insensitive and more evil day by
passing day. If I were practicing polygyny, especially if I were raising
children in polygyny, I would take every precaution, every defensive
measure and exercise every discretion to protect my loved ones and my
home from the packs of wolves and hyenas that are out there waiting
for us to make an unnecessary mistake that would expose and our
loved ones to their fangs, to the great pain and loss of our loved ones.
We must be wiser than serpents and foxes, yet harmless as doves and
sheep, remembering how easy doves and sheep die. Thank God that
we are doves and sheep indwelled and shepherded by the Lord Jesus
Christ, the thankful possessors of eternal life and the hope of living
eternally with the God who is Unselfish and Compassionate
Cherishing, Truth, Light, Life and the Way.

1. FEDERAL LAW AND THE PRACTICE OF POLYGYNY

Federal Law (Federal Reporter, 2d Series, #760, pp. 1065-1071):
"Utah was justified, by compelling interest, in upholding and enforcing
ban on plural marriage to protect monogamous marriage
relationships." (U.S.C.A. Const. Amends 1,14)
In Reynolds v. U.S., 98 US (8 otto) 145, 25, L.ED. 244 (1878; p. 1068), "the
Supreme Court affirmed a criminal conviction of a Mormon for
practicing polygamy, and rejected the argument that Congress'
prohibition of polygamy violated the defendant's right to the free
exercise of religion." In the 1972 Yoder case, "The Supreme Court
has recognized the continued validity of [the] REYNOLDS [case]."
In YODER (p.1069), the court cited REYNOLDS in support of the
proposition that it "is true that activities of individual's, even when
religiously based, are often subject to regulation by the states in the
exercise of this undoubted power to promote the .. . . . general welfare,
or the Federal Government in the exercise of its delegated powers."
The Reynolds case against polygyny/bigamy was reaffirmed in 1983
(Bob Jones Univ. v. U.S.).
>>The Court has already made up its mind that, in the USA, you
may not practice polygyny as a right in the free exercise of your religion.

"Since Yoder [1972], the Court has said that statutes "making bigamy a
crime surely cut into an individual's freedom to associate, but few
today seriously claim such statutes violate the First Amendment or any
Constitutional provision." p. 1069

In 1978, the Steward and J. & Powell decisions concurred in the
judgment that the "state may legitimately say that no one who has a
living husband or wife can marry. . . . the state has the undeniable
interest in insuring that its rules of domestic relations reflect widely
held values of its people. . . . . " p. 1069
Majority rule, or majority sentiment or majority values RULE and we
all know how the majority feels (especially the majority of women)
about bigamy and polygyny. Give this rule of law, it is futile to attempt
to get the Supreme Court, or any state, to change its provision.
Bigamists and polygynists are the minority, and neither a recognized
nor a protected minority. We must live our lives wisely in an hostile
environment, and not expect or ask for society's help or recognition.

"After Reynolds, though before Yoder, the Supreme Court upheld
Mann Act convictions for transporting at least one plural wife across
state lines either to cohabit with her or to aid another person in such a
project, despite a challenge based on the Free Exercise Clause." (See
Cleveland vs. U.S., 3294514, in 1946). p. 1070

In State v. Barlow (107 Utah 292-1944), "The Utah Supreme Court
rejected the defendant's free exercise challenge and affirmed their
convictions for cohabitating with more than one person of the opposite
sex." The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the defendant's appeal of the
Utah Supreme Court decision. p. 1070
"We find no authority for extending the Constitutional right to privacy
so far that it would protect polygamous marriages. We decline to do
so." 1985, see Roe v. Wade. p. 1070
>>>In such a state or where ever there exits a law against cohabiting
with more than one person of the opposite sex, wisdom would decree
that each wife would have to have her own studio/cottage/cabin
following the African polygyny model where the husband would make
the rounds visiting his wives dwelling in a fair and equitable manner
to fulfill his "duty of marriage" with each. With today's economy and
prices two female mates (of their own man) might go together and live
in a one bedroom or studio apartment. All could still come together
in one place for meals, fellowship, prayer and fun without violating
the laws against cohabiting with more than one woman. Again, I
believe all the taboo words must be religiously and conscientiously
avoided (wife, husband, marriage, wedding, spouse etc.) in such a
hostile environment.
The "Constitutional right of privacy prevents the state from
criminalizing the non-prostitutional heterosexual activities of two
unmarried consenting adults when such activities occur in privacy of
home." Duling, 603 F. Supp. 960 (E.D. Va 1985). p. 1071
It behooves American polygynists to be legally UNMARRIED AND
CONSENTING, exercising their polygyny in the privacy of their home,
sexually, verbally and editorially.

2. CALIFORNIA LAW AND THE PRACTICE OF POLYGYNY

California Law: (#284) "Every person who knowingly and willfully
marries the husband or wife of another . . . . is punishable by fine not
less than $5000 or by imprisonment in state prison." (7/1/'97)
Again the preference that all parties to a polygynous should be
legally single, not married. It is simply a precaution against this kind of
prosecution/persecution. State prison is Hell and is daily filled with
life threatening experiences, even on the less violent classification
levels.

"Bigamy is punishable by a fine not exceeding $10,000 or by
imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or in the state
prison." (#283 Calif. Penal Code; 9/27/'83; operative 1/1/'84)

One should not be so selfish and cavalier as to jeopardize their
family unity, their emotional, intimate and sexual union, for the
"cause" of polygyny. It is not worth the hardship of loss and separation
to you and your loved ones to be put in jail for practicing your belief in
polygyny that violates the specific laws of society. It is a wiser course
to practice one's faith, including polygyny, "striving to live peacably
with all men", seeking to give offense to no one, by practicing it as
instructed in Romans 14, i.e. privately , discretely and with great
discernment so as not to unnecessarily stumble or offend our weaker
brethren who are still bound by the laws and traditions of men.

To pracitce polygyny in California today, you must not:

1.    Be legally married to more than one "wife" at the same time


(CA Criminal Law #820)

1.    Be married in an officially recognized ceremony to more than


one "wife" at one time (CA Criminal Law 822; Fam Law #66))

1.    Be married in a state or publicly recognized common-law


marriage to more than one wife at the same time (CL 822; Fam Law
#65 & #66)

1.    Be married by state license to more than one mate at the same


time (CL822)

1.    Be solemnized in marriage to more than one wife at the same


time by an official recognized by the state (CL822). If the
polygynous "marriage" is "solemnized" by ceremony, rite or
ritual, the words "wife", "husband" and "marriage"
should be avoided carefully (a good thesaurus will help. See the
appendix. See Fam Law#65).

1.    Be authenticated in marriage to more than one wife at the


same time (in polygyny) in any way acceptable to the state
(CL822)

1.    File the marriage certificate of registry with the state, for your


polygynous marriage. (CL822)

1.    Conclude officially or legally your "marriage" in polygyny.


(CL824)

1.    Publicly cohabit as husband and wife, publicly and mutually


assuming marital rights, duties and obligations, including
sexual relations with more than one wife at the same time.(CL825)

1.    Have the reputation in a community of being married, nor


deport yourselves in the neighborhood as husband and wife (Fam Law
61 & 62). Specifically you must not allow/permit/encourage common,
general, uniform, and undivided repute among witnesses/
neigborhood that you are married to more than one mate at the same
time. (Fam Law#65, Re Estate of Gill; Hite v. Hite; Re Estate of
Baldwin).

1.    Have any one other than the actual parties of the polygynous


marriage present at the "wedding" ceremony (Fam Law 62), since every
witness of the "wedding" is a possible "witness" of the polygynous
marriage in a bigamy trial. See # 5 above. I don't see any problem with
witnesses at "union ceremony", or "bonding ceremony" (not wedding
ceremony, see ch. 3)

A man and his women who practice polygyny in Calif. must
realize that the admissions of polygyny by one of his mates is hard
evidence for the state in a felony bigamy case. The "testimony by a
party to one of the marriages in issue" (People v. Van Wie/O'Neal/
Rauch) is hard evidence. The testimony of any witness to a polygynous
wedding is such evidence (People v. Stokes/ DuFault). The testimony
of witnesses of the polygynous mates' cohabitation and their
reputation of "being married" is such hard evidence (People
v. Beevers/DuFault). But all life is full risks and there is always the
possiblity of a Judas in the crowd in every gathering. For those who
feel led to enter into polygyny in California, they must do so at their
own risk and they must do it very prudently, counting the cost before
entering into it.

To be polygynous in California, your "marriages" must be
without benefit of the civil law, its protection and its requirements. It
is best if none of the members of a polygynous marriage is legally/
officially married to the husband of the family (Fam Law58). There is
no law against two or more single people living together and having
sex together, so a polygynous family can take on this appearance/
manifestation. The second or etc. wife in a polygynous marriage can
neither have nor seek protection or recognition of marital rights or
obligations by the state. The state must not know the true nature of the
polygynous relationship. Rights and responsibilities may be
drawn up and agreed to in a private, but witnessed contract, carefully
avoiding the use of words like "husband" or "wife" or "marriage".
Such a contract must not have any language that represents or presents
the parties involved as husband and wife or wives. Property rights,
money distribution, bill payment, financial responsibilities, child
rearing duties, sexual relations, inheritances, house keeping duties etc.
can all be covered by a witnessed (by God or by humans) contract
between the parites involved. I believe that every "wife"
in polygyny should be given the "power of attorney" in all matters of
her "husband" in the event of his incapacity or hospitalization, and
every "husband" in polygyny should be given the "power of attorney"
in all matters of each of his "wives". Of course all parties involved
should have carefully drawn up wills covering the disposition of their
property and children in the event of the death or incapacity.

There can be no state recognized ceremony or documents or
documentation. There can be no state recognized common law
marriage of the parties involved in the polygynous relationship. As
stated in Hebrews 11:13-16, our citizenship is in the heavenlies in the
spiritual realm and we await the City of God. So instead of being
licensed by the state, Christian polygynists must get the permission to
marry from their King, the Lord Jesus Christ. Instead of being
solemnized by the an official of the state, the polygynous
marriage must be solemnized by the presence of God, His angels and
His children. His Word that He hates covenant breaking (Malachi 2)
and that He hates the break up of marriages----that Word gives all the
necessary solemnity to a sincere exchange of marital covenants
between the polygynous husband and wife. The fact that
He knows our hearts, the thoughts and intents of our hearts, makes
Him the only One Who can really authenticate such a polygynous
marriage. Nothing needs to filed with God since He was there as
witness and every word said and every thought imagined are a matter
of record with Him.

To conclude your polygynous marriage with cohabitation
requires great discretion on the part of those involved. They may not
present themselves as husband and "wives" to society in general and
their neighbors in particular (Boyd v. Boyd, 1962, CrimLaw825). A
polygynous husband must not address his polygynous spouse as wife
in public, in introductions or even in writing to those not intimately
involved in the polygynous "marriage. Romans 14:16-23
makes it real clear that the practice of such controversial things
requires secrecy and discretion on the part of those who have the
liberty to practice it. To the world they may be only man and mistress,
or boy friend and girl friends shacking up. Only in the circles of their
confidants and supporters may they be known as "husband" and
"wife", even though those words are not used.

In California "It is no defense to a charge of bigamy that the
doctrines and practice of polygamy are a part of the religion of the
accused" (Reynolds v. U.S.; Davis v. Beason). Polygyny in California
may not take the form of Common Law marriage, nor may it involve
the public presentation of the parties involved as husband and
wife/wives.

To practice polygyny in California, you may not publicly address your
polygynous spouse(s) as wife and she (they) should not publicly address
you as husband. But what is in the word "wife"? Isn't it the
relationship, the covenants that make the marriage, and not the words
"husband and wife"? If a wife in polygyny knows that her husband is
an honorable man before the Lord, a man of integrity, a man who
honors his word and his commitments, then she will feel just as much
his wife when he introduces her as, or calls her "my Beloved", "my
Darling", "my Lover", "my Lady", "my darling Helpmeet", "Blessed
Companion", "the Queen of my heart", etc. instead of
"my wife". If a husband in polygyny knows that his mate in polygyny
is an honorable woman before the Lord, a woman of integrity, a
woman who honors her word and her commitments, then he will feel
just as much her husband when she introduces him as, or calls him
"My Man", "My Mate", "Beloved", "my Companion' etc. instead of
"my husband". There are many names for a wife and a husband other
than "wife" and "husband". Love and creativity can join forces to
develop names that are uniquely yours in your marriage that speak to
you of the intimate and confidential nature of your polygynous
marriage. It is the covenant before God that makes the marriage,
not the names or titles.


3. THE BIBLICAL BASIS FOR DILIGENT DISCRETION IN POLYGYNY
(From my Divorce & Polygyny file)
IX. MARRIAGE, CONCUBINES, CIVIL LAW, PERSONAL
LIBERTY AND A LOVING CONSCIENCE!

Surely Romans 13 and related passages apply. And
certainly the principles of Romans 14 and l Cor 8 & 10
apply. The following is a brief summary of those
principles:
1. Receive the weak in faith (their faith allows them
very little personal liberty) but not to dispute
doubtful things/points>61 . Doubtful things are things
that the Bible is not explicitly clear about leaving a
gray area for individuals to exercise their own
judgment (e.g. eating meat vs. vegetarianism, length
of dress, courtship and engagement, television,
movies, computer use etc.)
2. Don't despise or condemn your brother/sister in
Christ if (1) they feel free to do doubtful things or (2)
they don't feel free to do doubtful things>62
3. Don't put a stumbling block, an occasion to take
offense, put an obstacle in the way>82 , give someone
an opportunity for sinning>63
4. Don't make your brethren uneasy>83 or hurt,
injure or damage others' feelings>84.
5. Don't destroy your brethren's faith with your
personal liberty>64
6. Let not the personal liberty your faith allows be
evil spoken of>65
7. Do that which builds and helps the faith of your
brethren>66 .
8. Don't put a temptation to sin in someone's way>.85 ,
or do that which leads another to sin>.86 .
9. Have your faith from the Word that allows you
your personal liberty privately, discretely and
personally before God and be happy in it>67
10. Don't do anything you have doubts about, doubts
about whether or not it is God's will for you to do, be
or have)>68
11. If your faith is strong allowing you a great deal of
personal liberty, you should bear the weaknesses of
those whose faith allows little personal liberty, not
pleasing ourselves. Seek to please your brethren for
their good, growth and development in the Lord and
Word>69 .
[Footnote: [>61 (Rm.14:1) >62 . (Rm. 14:3,4)
>.82 Please see Arndt & Gingrich's Lexicon. >83
Please see Thayer's Lexicon. >63 . (Rm. 14:13).
>.84 Please see Arndt & Gingrich's Lexicon. >64 .
(Rm 14:15). >65 (Rm. 14:16,17). >66 (Rm.
14:18,19). >.85 (Rm. 14:13)Please see Arndt &
Gingrich's Lexicon. >.86 Please see Thayer's
Lexicon. >67 (Rm.14:22). >68 . (Rm. 14:23).
>69 . (Rm. 15:1-3)]

But how do these principles apply? Obviously
polygyny or concubinage is a felony to officially
marry (by man's laws) more than one woman in
terms of the government's law, public records,
inheritance laws and divorce laws in most Western or
industrial nations. Obviously it is socially acceptable,
legal and not a felony in most Asian nations, the Mid
East, Africa and Indian tribes in the Americas. That is
as clear as black and white. But there is a great big
gray area. Many Western states recognize informal
marriage (concubinage) as common law marriages but
as soon as they become official they come under the
monogamy laws. But they can live for years in the
morally acceptable informal and unofficial common
law status without any illegality.

Under Administrative Law in California, County
Welfare officials set up semi-official marriages with
people who live together without being married
where one or both parties could still be legally
married to others. Administrative Welfare law
recognizes them as a semi-married couple and will
grant them AFDC aid and even help them get divorces
so they can eventually marry IF THEY WISH. With
the state's approval they live together as a family
sometimes for years, but they have no IRS rights, or
inheritance rights or marital tax status from the state
as a married couple. It is legal and approved of by
state law.

California's courts have also established palimony
rights where they protect the covenant/contractual
rights of people living in unofficial marriage or
concubinage. While they have no official tax status or
inheritance rights the courts have established that a
marital relationship and the members of that
relationship have protection under the law in terms of
their covenants, contracts, vows, espousal or
betrothal. The courts have awarded "palimony",
property and child custody rights in and from these
relationships. The new no-discrimination-against-
one's-sexual-orientation laws protect those who
practice informal contractual polygyny or
concubinage.

Since God prescribes no "wedding ceremony", ritual,
vows or rite>87 to make two people married, leaving
it to the local churches to have their own redeemed
local and indigenous marital customs>88 . The vows,
covenants, betrothals and prenuptial contracts seem
to be covered by God's standards in the following:
[Footnote: >87 See appendix #4 . >.88 See appendix
#4 .]
**** EZEKIEL 16: 3 And say, So says the Lord
Jehovah to Jerusalem, . . . 8 And I passed by you and
looked on you, and, behold, your time [was] the time
of love. And I spread my skirt over you and covered
your nakedness. And I swore to you and entered into
a covenant with you, says the Lord Jehovah. And you
became Mine.
**** MALACHI 2:14 Yet you say, Why? Because the
LORD has been witness between you and the wife of
your youth, against whom you have dealt
treacherously; yet she [is] your companion and your
covenant wife. 15 And did He not make [you] one? Yet
the vestige of the Spirit [is in] him. And what [of] the
one? He was seeking a godly seed. Then guard your
spirit, and do not act treacherously with the wife of
your youth. 16 The LORD, the God of Israel, says He
hates sending away; and to cover [with] violence on
his garment, says the LORD of hosts. Then guard your
spirit, and do not act treacherously. Here "act
treacherously" means " break covenant" or "fail to
honor your covenant/commitment".
**** ECCLES. 5:4 When you vow a vow to God, do
not wait to pay it. For He has no pleasure in fools. Pay
that which you have vowed. 5 [it is] better that you
should not vow, than that you should vow and not
pay. 6 Do not allow your mouth to cause your flesh to
sin; do not say before the angel that it [was] an error.
Why should God be angry at your voice and destroy
the work of your hands?
**** PSALM 15:1 A Psalm of David. LORD, who
shall dwell in Your tabernacle? . . . 2 He who walks
uprightly, and works righteousness, and speaks the
truth in his heart; . . . [he] has sworn to his hurt, and
does not change it; 5. . . He who does these [things]
shall not be moved forever.
**** ROMANS 1:28 And even as they did not think
fit to have God in [their] knowledge, God gave them
over to a reprobate mind, to do the things not right,
29 being filled with all unrighteousness . . . 31 . . .
covenant-breakers. . . 32 who, knowing the righteous
order of God, that those practicing such things are
worthy of death, not only do them, but have pleasure
in those practicing [them].

It is the treachery of breaking marital
covenants that God condemns in these passages and
that which he hates. "Yes, I swore an oath to you and
entered into covenant with you, and you became
Mine," says the Lord God>70 . We become a part of
the bride of Christ in the same way. The Spirit
considered Mary and Joseph as husband and wife on
the basis of their espousal/betrothal/ covenants even
before the wedding and the coming together>71.
[Footnote: >70 (Ezek. 16:8). >71 (Mat. 1:18-25
;Deut. 22:23-27)]

So why can't two Christians exchange
espousal/betrothal covenants and become each
other's marital partners without a formal marriage
which would be illegal? Of course they can since
common law marriages are legally acceptable in most
of Americas states and in most of the countries of the
world. But should they? We are bound by our
covenants and God makes it clear He has no pleasure
in the fools who break them >72 . We enter into the
gray zone of the liberty we have in Christ>73 that is
limited by the cords of Agape love. Yes two Christians
could exchange their vows/ covenants without a
formal/legal wedding day but if they became
involved in intimacy and that intimacy became an
offense or stumbling block to another saint it would
be sin and could destroy the work of Christ in another
or embolden a weak one to be intimate contrary to
his/her conscience>74 . So is such intimacy a sin
between two Christians who have solemnly and
formally covenanted before God that they are
maritally one flesh as long as they both live? It is
neither illegal nor sinful but it becomes sin if it
stumbles, offends, grieves another in Christ> 75 .
[Footnote: >72 (Eccles. 5:5; Psalm 15). >73 (Rom
14). >74 (l Cor. 8 & 10). >75 (Rom. 14; 1 Cor.
8 & 10).]

But what about the command in Romans 14 that
states that if you have a solid controversial conviction
from the Word, have it to yourself before God?
Happy is the one who does not condemn himself in
what he approves>76 . But woe to him if he does it
with doubts or offense to another in Christ. So it
seems to be with post covenant but pre-wedding day
intimacy. It seems to be the same case with polygyny
/ concubinage. Do you practice/believe in
polygyny /concubinage? Have it and do so privately
and very discreetly before God. Happy is the one who
does not condemn one's self in what he approves in
the liberty of Christ. But she who practices/believes in
polygyny /concubinage with doubts is condemned if
she indulges because she does not practice it out of
conviction from the Spirit and the Word.
polygyny/concubinage is indeed pure, but it is evil to
practice it if it stumble, offends,
grieves or weakens your brethren in Christ>77 .
[Footnote: >76 (Rom 14:22,23). >77 (Rom. 14; 1
Cor. 8 & 10)]

Foreign Christian polygynists visiting Western
monogamous societies encounter a special challenge.
Spiritual and Godly Christians would be able to handle
it well and in the Lord, but the unsaved, the carnal,
the Spiritual milk drinkers, the legalists, the ignorant,
and those weak of conscience would all have varying
problems with a Christian polygynist and his wives
visiting their Western/Occidental church>78 . The
visiting Christian polygynist should do all within his
power to not let his liberty hinder the effectiveness of
his testimony and witness to these people, if they
would be willing to receive it.
[Footnote: >78 (1 Cor. 8 & 10; Rom. 14 & 15)]

Hopefully mercy and compassion would move the
Christian polygynist to not flaunt his polygyny in the
face of such "Christians" even though they are so
unlike Christ. Mercy would move the polygynist to
not lay a heavier burden on the weak than they can
bear, not wanting their liberty to cause their weak
brethren to fall into sin. Compassion would move the
polygynists to be sensitive to the weakness and
doubts of the weak saints. Obviously the
polygynist would not be an official leader in the
church and would not be visiting local churches as a
leader/elder/deacon/ bishop/ overseer/etc.>79 .
Ideally the local saints would be bearing the fruits of
the Spirit and receive such foreign visitors with
mercy and compassion. If they agreed and were
able>80 for a short while to be separated, the
polygynist could visit the Western church bringing
one or none of his wives so as to reduce the
controversy. The same would be true of a polygynist
wife visiting the West without her husband, under the
rule of 1 Cor. 7:4,5.
[Footnote: >79 (1 Tim. 3 and Ti. 1). >80 (1 Cor.
7:5)]
**** 1 CORINTH. 7: 4 The wife does not have
authority over [her] own body, but the husband. And
likewise also the husband does not have power [over
his] own body, but the wife. 5 Do not deprive one
another, unless [it is] with consent for a time, so that
you may [give yourselves to] fasting and prayer. And
come together again so that Satan does not tempt you
for your incontinence.

4. POSSIBLE POLYGYNOUS UNION/BONDING
COVENANTS/CONTRACTS
(Adapted from Divorce & Polygyny)
APPENDIX THREE: Marriage by covenant.
If you have decided that Mat. 5:33-37, James 4:13-17
and James 5;12 don't allow you to use the traditional
wedding vows and covenants because they involve
swearing and/or oaths (SEE APPENDIX SEVEN) and you are
consideringa polygynous wedding, then you might be interested in
using and adapting the following to your own needs. Also these
covenants are suitable for legal weddings, common law weddings, and
a wedding in concubinage. Make sure that you carefully avoid
violating any Federal, state or local laws in the event of a polygynous
wedding. Jail is a lousy honeymoon.

A UNION (WEDDING) AFFIRMATION**********************

(Your name), will you have this (man, woman) to be your (mate,lover,
intimate companion) and will you , before God and these witnesses,
solemnly affirm and declare your intentions and expectations in this
union to (him, her), in all honor and love, in all service and duty, in
all faith and tenderness, to live with (him, her), to comfort, keep
(him/her), and cherish (him/her), according to the ordinance of God,
in the holy bond of marital chastity?
(Answer, "I do" or "Yes").

I, (your name), take you, (the other's name), to be my own (mate, lover,
intimate companion, beloved, etc.); and I do solemnly affirm and
declare before God and these witnesses that I intend and expect to be
your own loving and faithful (mate, lover, intimate companion,
beloved, etc.) to love and to cherish each other; in plenty and in want;
in joy and grief; in health and infirmity; as long as we both shall live.
All that I own and have is now ours.

In token of our solemn affirmations and declarations, with this ring I
become your own (mate, lover, intimate companion, beloved, etc.); in
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit who
lives and abides in us.
Amen (both repeat in unison)

I now pronounce you one, bound and covenanted together for life
before God and these witnesses. Do you have something to declare to
us?

(in unison) We covenant before God and all of you present, that we are
bound together to be one flesh in the Lord until death part us. We
covenant before God that it is our responsibility to compassionately
cherish each other according to His Word, the Holy Bible, to His glory
and honor. Pray for us.

_________________________
The Couple's Signatures and Date

------------------------------------------------------------------------


------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Witnesses' Signatures & Date


ANOTHER UNION/BONDING AFFIRMATION/COVENANT
_________, do you accept and acknowledge _______ as your
own (mate, lover, intimate companion, beloved, etc.)? Yes, I do!
> Do you accept your responsibility to be faithful to him, in all
virtue and honor, in all duty and service, in all faithfulness and
tenderness, to live with him and compassionately cherish him
according to the Word of God, in the holy bond of these your
covenants?
Yes, I do!
> Do you accept your responsibility to be faithful to him, not
having any other lover, not leaving him for another lover;
and not dismissing, releasing or repudiating him as your
own (mate, lover, intimate companion, beloved, etc.)? Yes, I do!
> Do you accept your responsibility to not separate from him,
be separated from him, leave him, or put yourself apart from
him unless it is to be alone and celibate with the hope
reconciliation? Yes, I do!
> Do you leave your parents and loyally bond with him to be
one in this your union, submitting to each other in reverence to God?
Yes, I do!
> ______, do you commit yourself to _______ with all your
heart, to follow _______'s lead, as unto the Lord, in all matters
showing honor and respect? Yes, I do!


______, do you accept and acknowledge _______ as your own
(mate, lover, intimate companion, beloved, etc.)?
Yes/I do!
> Do you accept your responsibility to be faithful to her, in all
virtue and honor, in all duty and service, in all faithfulness and
tenderness, to live with her and compassionately cherish her
according to the Word of God, in the holy bond of these your
covenants?
Yes/I do!
> Do you accept your responsibility to be faithful to her, not leaving
her for another lover; not sending or puting her away, not maritally
dismissing , releasing or repudiating her? Yes, I do!
> Do you accept your responsibility to be faithful to her, not separating
yourself from her, not allowing yourselves to be separated, not leaving
or depart from her, not putting her apart from you? Yes, I do!
> Do you accept your responsibility to be faithful to her, not
sending her away, not asking her to go away or leave, not
releasing her from your covenants or leaving her? Yes, I do!
> Do you leave your parents and loyally bond with her to be one in the
union of these covenants, submitting to each other in reverence to
God? Yes/I do!
> _____, do you commit yourself to her with all your heart to live
wisely with her; respectfully, compassionately and sacrificially
cherishing her, feeding her the Word, taking care of her and leading
her by your example?
Yes/I do!

With God's enabling and leading it is our solemn desire and intent to
> lovingly cherish each other in good times and bad times
> unselfishly cherish each other in all conditions and under all
circumstances
> sincerely show honor and respect always to each other
> keep our covenanted union pure, free from adultery and fornication
> do everything in our power to be to each other what each of us needs
SO HELP US GOD!

I, __________, make a covenant with you, __________, this day.
I take you as my own (mate, lover, intimate companion, beloved, etc.)
before God and these witnesses. I acknowledge my fervent desire and
responsibility to faithfully cherish you as my own (mate, lover,
intimate companion, beloved, etc.), to love you and honor you in
plenty and in want, in joy and in sorrow, in sickness and in health, all
the days of my life. I make this covenant, not boasting of or counting
on my own ability to keep it, but trusting in God for His Spirit's
enabling and motivating, and His gift of length of days to honor
Him in the keeping of this covenant.

I, _________, make a covenant with you, __________, this day.
I take you as my own (mate, lover, intimate companion, beloved, etc.)
before God and these witnesses. I acknowledge my fervent desire and
responsibility to faithfully cherish you as my own (mate, lover,
intimate companion, beloved, etc.), to love you and honor you in
plenty and in want, in joy and in sorrow, in sickness and in health, all
the days of my life. I make this covenant not boasting of or trusting in
my own ability to keep it, but trusting in God for His Spirit's enabling
and motivating, and His gift of length of days to honor Him in the
keeping of this covenant.

_______________________________
The Couple's Signatures and Date

Witnessed by God and ______________________________
The Witnesses' Signatures & Date