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

TITLE: DIVORCE, REMARRIAGE, CONCUBINES, & JESUS;
Another Look for Christians.

COPYRIGHT � JANUARY 14, 1995 All rights reserved.
Copyright � 01/14/'95; 01/12/�96  (Revised)
This file, in its entirety, may be posted on or copied
off of computer networks like Internet or WWW by
anyone so inclined.
This is an ASCII text only copy of a Macintosh
MicrosoftWord5 file made for non-Macintosh folks, so
it is very plain and basic in its form (footnotes,
indentation and page layout).  The document is 6"
wide and Palatino 12 plain font in the original.  So
when your text only version comes up with Palatino
14, just select all and change it to Palatino 12 or 10.
There are no bold or underline options.   The
distinctions between footnotes of sources and
footnotes of reference are lost.  So please be patient
with the footnote numbering. The footnotes are put at
the end of the paragraphs instead of in the text itself,
making it more readable.  You may find extra >�s and
some >�s where r�s should be.  Didn�t get to proof that
far yet. Please be patient.

By L. Tyler   P.O. Box 620763, SanDiego, CA 92162-
0763
  [email protected]

This work is dedicated with love and honor to Carol
Lynn McIntyre of Camelot (3/24/'49), Beverly
Landers Tyler(4/11/'52),  Keith Adams, Diane Tava
Lovelady, Lua Nguyen,  Marilyn Tyler (7/27/'49) and
Paula Dugas.

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 members 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/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!

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 local "Christian"
leader/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".

TABLE OF CONTENTS  ( Everybody's computer is
potentially different, and if you Select All Font to
"clean it up", reducing it to Palatino 12 or Geneva 10,
you should probably use Find to find, by chapter
number, any particular chapter/appendix  you are
interested in.)
I. INTRODUCTION:  PRIORITIES  RECONSIDERED.  P. 4
II. DIVORCE!  A PLAGUE AND ITS CONSEQUENCES.  P. 8
III. DIVORCE DEFINED.  P. 23
IV.  VARIETIES OF MARRIAGE  IN THE BIBLE, OLD
AND NEW         TESTAMENTS -- LET THE WORD SPEAK
ABOUT POLYGYNY  AND CONCUBINES!  P. 25
V. WHAT DO CHRISTIAN LEADERS SAY ABOUT
CONCUBINES      &       POLYGYNY?  P. 50
VI.  ADULTERY DEFINED:  A SURPRISE!  ISN�T
POLYGYNY        ADULTERY?   P. 66
VII. SO, WHAT ABOUT CONCUBINES & POLYGYNY
TODAY IN        MY      COUNTRY? P. 73
VIII. ARE POLYGYNISTS AND CONCUBINES LIVING  IN
       ERROR   TODAY?  P. 82
IX.  MARRIAGE, CONCUBINES, CIVIL LAW, PERSONAL
LIBERTY AND     A LOVING CONSCIENCE!  P. 87
X. DOES GOD FORGIVE BROKEN VOWS, DIVORCE AND
       ADULTERY?       P.      91
XI. CAN YOU COME BACK TOGETHER & REMMARY
AFTER   ADULTEROUS REMARRIAGE?  P. 99
XII.  WHAT ABOUT THE HEALTH QUESTIONS
INVOLVED IN     SUCH  REUNIONS? P. 108
XIII.  CAN ADULTERY, DIVORCE, VOWS AND
REPENTANCE      RESULT IN
POLYGYNY/CONCUBINAGE?  P. 112
XIV. ADULTERY, DIVORCE, CONCUBINES,  POLYGYNY
AND     THE     UNSAVED. P. 119
XV. THE MARRIED MAN WHO WOULD ADD
WIVES/CONCUBINES        TO      HIS "HAREM".  P. 121
XVI. ARE POLYGYNY & CONCUBINES  OPTIONS FOR THE
       ABANDONED       MAN?  P. 126
XVII. POLYGYNISTS,  CONCUBINES  AND THE LEADERS
OF      GOD'S  PEOPLE.  P. 129
XVIII. POLYGYNY &  CONCUBINES AND THE WESTERN
       CHRISTIAN WOMAN.  P. 130
XIX. WHAT'S WRONG WITH POLYANDRY?  P. 134
XX. HUSBAND RULE OVER THE WIFE? IF SERVANT-
TEACHERS RULE   .P. 137
XXI. THREE CHEERS FOR MONOGAMY!  THE BEST FOR
       MOST!  P. 141
XXII. LISTEN TO THE WORD!  P. 145
XXIII. BIBLIOGRAPHY  P. 147
APPENDIX ONE -- WHAT ABOUT INTERRACIAL  AND
       INTERETHNIC     MARRIAGE?  P.150
APPENDIX TWO -- WHAT DO YOU THINK? THE
FEEDING OF      TWO     LEGGED OXEN.  P.157
APPENDIX THREE -- A WEDDING COVENANT FOR
       NONSWEARERS -   P. 159
APPENDIX FOUR -- WHAT MAKES A
WEDDING/MARRIAGE? -     P. 161
APPENDIX FIVE -- MARRYING THE UNSAVED AND
"SAINTS"        LIVING IN ERROR. - P.163
APPENDIX SIX -- WHEN DO I HAVE TO MARRY? - P.
167
APPENDIX SEVEN -- THE ERRR OF SWEARING, OF
OATHS   AND     SWEARING OATHS. -P.182
APPENDIX EIGHT--BLACK POLYGYNY RESOURCES


I. INTRODUCTION: PRIORITIES  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?"

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 don�t 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
isn�t 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 doesn�t 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
God�s 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 . What�s
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.]

       Finally, why does God allow us to experience
such heart breaking and soul-rending experiences as
those that accompany divorce, separation, and
adultery?  Please consider the point about 1 Cor.
10:13.  He doesn't allow you to be tried more than you
can bear, because you are stronger, have a better
understanding of spiritual warfare and a deeper faith,
the trials will be greater--but never more than you
can bear.  Consider the  trials of John the Baptist and
all the apostles except John.  They all died violent
deaths at the hands of those who hate them, but
never more than they could bear.  An exercise is no
exercise if it doesn't challenge  you at the point where
you have to strain and go aerobic, sometimes  painful.
The same with "spiritual" muscles, the trial has  to
produce stress, strain and even pain for you to
become stronger, more capable, more useful and
fruitful.  The fruitful vine looks terrible when it is
pruned, and it would feel terrible if it could feel, but
because it is pruned it has the potential of being more
fruitful, and I know you want more fruit of the Spirit
in your life.  I know that you want to compassionately
cherish God and others even  more than you do now,
and that's how you get there.
       This life is boot camp and the war, which, thank
God, is shortened for our sakes.  Our resurrected life
with Jesus Christ is worth the struggle.  To rule the
earth with Him enthroned in Jerusalem for a 1000
years (Rev. 20: 2-7),  to walk around as His agents
enabled to raise the dead, open the eyes of the blind,
to bind up the broken limbs and hearts, to counsel the
broken hearted with wisdom inspired of God, to feed
the hungry, to clothe the naked, to teach in power the
lost how they can be found  etc etc etc etc.  I can
hardly wait!
       Please consider attending a Christian
divorce/grief recovery support group.  You are still
deeply grieving inside over your ex and those "saints"
that so deeply and carnally broke your heart.  I know
that I desperately needed and greatly benefited from
the free one I attended at Del Cerro So. Bapt. Church.
It was critical in my recovery and in my readiness to
be healed and in my learning how and where I
needed to grow, to  forgive my ex, and to prepare my
heart for my next.  Most denominations have free
support groups that are usually extremely helpful, it
taught by qualified staff and anointed of the Lord.
Please call around for times and places and pray
about attending and let the Lord minister to you
through the  saints.
       But  why does He allow us to suffer, to grieve so
deeply and have hearts so broken than you can feel
the  pain throughout your chest?  Here are some
reasons that I have become aware of and they are all
for our good. Please consider them and, in each, ask if
its goal was  accomplished in your life.
       WE HAVE SUFFERED ----
       1. So that we can know that we belong to Christ.
2 Tim 3:12; 1 Pet. 2:19,20; Mat. 13:21,22,23
       2. Because we are followers of Christ. John
15:19,20
       3. So that evil doers will not come to God just to
escape from Hell and suffering in this life. He wants
sinners to come to Him because they love Him who
first loved them, not because they forgot to join the
Noah's Ark Club. Noah's flood + Rev. 21:27
       4. So that we wont miss (be homesick, want to
look/go back like Lot's wife did) this social system
when we are in Heaven or ruling with Christ.  To love
the world's social system is to be God's enemy. 1 John
2:15; Heb. 11:l3- 19.
       5. So that we can know how and why to choose-
between the good and the evil. Deut. 30:15-20
       6. Because of our own sins. 1 Cor. 5 and 1 Cor.
11:30- 32; Hebrews 12.
       7. To cause us to learn to be humble. 2 Cor.
12:7-10
       8. To caution us against arrogant or ignorant
presumption in our prayers and to exhibit to us His
all-sufficiency in the affairs of our personal lives. 2
Cor.12: 7-10; Rom5:3,4
       9. To learn and acquire patience, experience and
hope  in the compassionate cherishing of God. Rom.
5:3,4
       10.  Because of His Name- Because of His Truth -
Because of His Life - Because of the shining Light of
His Truth, an honor to be counted worthy of suffering
with and for Him if God permits.  Acts 5:41; Rom 8:17
       11.  So that we may have the honor of being
glorified  together with Him. Rom. 8:17
       12. So that we may be perfected, completed, and
matured.   Heb. 2:10; 1 Pet. 5:10
       13. So that we may learn to Love Jesus and His
Way enough to obey Him even when it hurts. Heb.
5:8,9; Psalm  15:4
       14.  So that we may be established,
strengthened and  settled in Christ. 1  Peter 5:10
       15. Because they hated and killed Jesus they
will hate and try to kill the Jesus in us. Lk. 6:22; John
15:18,19
       16. To end the cycle of hate and violence in our
lives at us, we being shock absorbers for the evil
around us, so that it will stop at us and we will learn
not to pass it on.  He has called us to turn the cheek,
go the second mile and bless and pray for those who
curse and abuse us. Matt. 5;  Luke 6; Romans 12; 1
Cor. 6
       17. So that our enduring and genuine faith may
bring praise, honor and glory at His appearing in the
presence of all the angels, demons, cherubim,
seraphim and those with  Christ. 1 Pet. 1:7
       18. So that we could experience God's solutions
and faithfulness and comfort for our griefs and trials
so  we will have learned how to share His comforting
solutions with the others He leads us to who are
experiencing similar grievous trials.  It is preparation
for ministry now and  in the 1000 year reign of Christ
on earth. 2 Cor. 1:3-5 ; Revelation20:1-6


II.  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.]

In Matt. 5 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, but after Acts 1 there is the
command to separate (not divorce) yourself from a
saved mate who is snared in sexual sin>16.   Before
Acts 1 Jesus allowed divorce for the  hardness of
hearts >17.  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 goal of  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.
[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;    >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]

MKJV 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.
MKJV 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 and
tell the God of Love I divorced my wife for fornication
because of the hardness of my heart.  The motivation
of a hardened heart doesn't square with Eph. 4 or I
Cor. 13 or Romans 15.
MKJV EPHES. 4: 15 But that you, speaking the truth in
love, may in all things grow up to Him who is the
Head, [even] Christ;  . . 25 Therefore putting away
lying, let each man speak truth with his neighbor, for
we are members of one another.  26 Be angry, and do
not sin. Do not let the sun go down upon your wrath,
27 neither give place to the Devil.  . . . 30 And do not
grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you are sealed
until [the] day of redemption.  31 Let all bitterness
and wrath and anger and tumult and evil speaking be
put away from you, with all malice.  32 And be kind
to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another,
even as God for Christ's sake has 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.
MKJV ROMANS 15: 1 � Then we who are strong ought
to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please
ourselves.  2 Let every one of us please [his] neighbor
for [his] good, to building up.   3 For even Christ did
not please Himself; but as it is written, "The
reproaches of those who reproached You fell on Me."
4 For whatever things were written before were
written for our learning, so that we through patience
and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope.  5 �
And may the God of patience and consolation grant
you to be like minded toward one another according
to Christ Jesus,  6 so that with one mind [and] one
mouth you may glorify God, even the Father of our
Lord Jesus Christ. 7 � Therefore receive one another
as Christ also received us, to [the] glory of God.

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?  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.]
MKJV 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.
MKJV 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. 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.

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.

The particular case in point is the situation caused by
the plague of divorce among Christians.  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.
MKJV ROMANS 7: 2* For the married woman was
bound by law to the living husband. But if the
husband is dead, she is set free from the law of [her]
husband.  3* So then [if], while [her] husband lives,
she is married to another man, she shall be called an
adulteress. But if the husband dies, she is free from
the law, [so that] she is no adulteress by becoming
another man's wife.
MKJV 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.

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;
MKJV PSALM 45:10 � Listen, O daughter, and look;
and bow down your ear; and forget your own people
and your father's house. 11 And cause the King
greatly to desire your beauty, for He [is] your Lord,
and you shall worship Him. . . . 13 The king's daughter
[is] all glorious within; her clothing [is] trimmed with
gold. . . . 16 Your sons shall be in the place of your
fathers; you will make them princes in all the land. 17
I will make Your name to be remembered in all
generations; therefore the people shall praise You
forever and ever.

(2) Cleaving is the act of the will making marital
covenants and vows that bind them maritally  before
God>21;
[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 penetratio 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;    >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]

MKJV Romans 8: 27 And He searching the hearts
knows what [is] the mind of the Spirit, because He
makes intercession for the saints according to [the will
of] God.  28 And we know that all things work
together for good to those who love God, to those who
are called according to [His] purpose.
MKJV 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 . . .
MKJV Ephes. 1:10. . .  to head up all things in Christ,
both the things in Heaven, and the things on earth,
[even] in Him,  11 in whom also we have been chosen
to an inheritance, being predestinated according to
the purpose of Him who works all things according to
the counsel of His own will, . . .

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]
MKJV 1 CORINTHIANS 7:17 � 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.

So 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 Agap� 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 man�s tradition, making of
no effect the Word of God.:
MKJV 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.
MKJV 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 God�s 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?  Not the Jesus I know.

Yes Jesus allowed  the Jews under Moses to divorce
their mates (Mt. 5)  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
(1Cor.10).  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)]

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.

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.

Let's take another look at this.  What do you do about
your spouse who is snared in adultery, fornication,
lesbianism, sodomy, bestiality, incest or etc.? Consider
the following:
MKJV 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. . . .
       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.
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.
MKJV 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
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. . . .
        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 Christian
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)

MKJV 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.
MKJV 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.">h    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)

Later in this study we will deal with the issue of why
the Word does not say ".....whoever divorces her
husband, except for sexual immorality, and marries
another, commits adultery.......".

In the other cases presented in this chapter that
require a separation because of the misconduct of
one's mate, I believe the believing mate has to
avoid/withdraw from the erring spouse in such
activities and usually can do so without leaving their
house.  We'll see below that the avoidance/
withdrawal does not include marital intimacy and
affection (1 Cor. 7:1-15).  Dealing with the adulterous
mate is discussed below, so please be patient and read
on.

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 . . . .

The command is "Man must not put apart what God
has put together".   Even if they are
divorced/separated, people "must not put apart what
God has put together."  The genuine Christian wife is
maritally bound to her genuine Christian husband as
long as they both live>i .
[>h Mat.5:32; 19:9.        >i  (1Cor.7:39;Mark 10).]

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)]

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 sinful
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) ]

But wait a minute!  Wouldn't it be adultery for Elias to
remarry even if his Christian wife divorced him?  I
mean wasn't he still bound to her even if she dumped
him and never saw him again, living single in
separation?  Wouldn't Elias still be bound to his
departed and separated Christian wife (according to1
Corinthians 7:10,11,39) even though her departure for
other reasons than prayer and fasting  leaves him
subject to Satan's temptations due to his not having
the gift of celibacy (1Cor.7:5)?  Why is she allowed to
disobey 1 Cor. 7:5 by leaving him indefinitely (1 Cor.
7:10,11) for some other reason than prayer and
fasting?  To find the answers to these questions, let's
take a look at what the Bible says about the
institution of marriage in its various forms and over
time.

IV.  VARIETIES OF MARRIAGE  IN THE BIBLE  --- LET
THE WORD SPEAK!
       Let me share with you the way I understand
the Biblical record and please correct me with clear
and specific scriptures where and when I am in error.
Any discussion of divorce has to deal with the
complexities of remarriage.   I believe the following
discussion is necessary to understand what the Bible
has to say about adultery and remarriage.  Please
read the following with an open mind withholding
judgment until the end of this section, because I
believe the following information is critical to
understand what the Bible has to say about adultery
and remarriage.

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 don�t 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]

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 in the following:
[Footnotes:>34  in Ezek. 16; >35  Exodus 19, 20,21
MKJV 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,
EZ 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.

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 God�s polygyny , is NEVER
labeled or declared to be sin or sinful in the Bible.

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 one�s 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) ]

But no where is this example made mandatory or
commanded by God.  Not all are called to be leaders of
God�s people.  In fact most of us are called to be
followers/imitators of these leaders.  Besides how can
a leader do a good job both of leading the believers
and of caring for his wives if he has  more than one or
a few wives?  Any married man and any reader of 1
Corinthians 7 knows that WIVES (like one's children
and best friends) TAKE TIME if the marriage is to be
successful and godly.  A polygynist shouldn�t have
time to be a leader in the local church because of the
time it takes him to be the spiritual leader of his
wives/concubines and his children in his own home.
The polygynist has his ministry in his own home to
his own family.

Next we read that Cain knew his wife and she
conceived. No word of the wedding or the nature of
the wedding. The first mention of polygyny  in the
Bible is in  a passage with  the Cain cloud over it
where Lamech (Wild man) takes two wives>39 but
there is no denunciation of this in the context.  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  MKJV GEN. 4: 19 � And Lamech took
two wives to himself. The name of the first one [was]
Adah, and the name of the other [was] Zillah;        >.3
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.]

One reason 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]

Is guilt by association a valid condemnation of
polygyny ?  I would think not, given that the next
incident is where 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:>*  MKJV 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]

Culturally it is interesting that Nahor, Abraham's
brother, also was a polygamist having a concubine>47.
Abraham  had at least another concubine besides
Keturah under God's blessing>48   although he
diligently protected the heir status of Isaac.  Hezron�s
Caleb had two concubines>49.
[Footnotes:>47 (Gen. 22:20-24);   >48  (Gen. 25:1-6);
>48  (Gen. 25:1-6)]

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 concubine�s 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)]

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.]

Both David and Abraham recognized all the rights and
responsibili-ties of the concubines as if they were
official wives.  The bottom line is what does God say
and how does He view concubines.  Reflect on the
following:
MKJV 2 Sam.12: 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.�
MKJV 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.�
MKJV2Sam.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.�

In these passages you see God calling and recognizing
as "wives" David�s 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.

Lamech, the bad guy, and Abraham, the good guy,
both marry polygamously on their own initiative
without God's explicit leading or condemnation.  You
cannot condemn the polygyny  because their kids
turned out bad because so did  Adam's Cain, Isaac's
Esau and Eli's kids in monogamy.

Next we have another bad guy polygamist, Esau, and a
good guy polygamist, Jacob.  Esau's  polygyny >55 was
not condemned but his unequal yoke was the point of
grief to his mother.   Esau�s son had a concubine>56 .
A dear brother reminds us that the two wives of Esau
embittered life for his parents, especially his
mothe>57 .  The passage cited shows it was a
disobedience, parents and in-law problem.  Again
American divorce courts and  sociological studies
document that monogamy does very well in
producing sinful and carnal problems between mates
and the parents-in-law.  The  problem is still sin and
the flesh, not monogamy or polygamy.
[Footnotes:>55     (Gen. 26:34,35; 28:9); >56    (Gen.
36:12); >57    (Gen. 26:35)]

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)]

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.

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)]

Jacob�s son Ashur had two wives >68  , and his son,
Manasseh, had a concubine>69.  Benjamin�s Shaharaim
was also a polygamist>70.   So what is the score?  God
miraculously gives one wife to Adam and another one
to Isaac.  God allows Lamech, Abraham, Nahor, Esau
and Jacob to marry polygamously and blesses the
ones who walk with Him in submission, polygyny  or
no polygyny.
[Footnotes:>68  (1Chron. 4:5); >69  (1 Chron 7:14);  >70
(1 Chron.8:8)]

The next occurrence is controversial but interesting.
Before the Law and in accordance with the principles
of Genesis, Moses marries Zipporah a Midianite.  She
seems to do a Michal>71  and apparently suffers the
same fate because next we see Moses marry, after the
giving of the law, an Ethiopian Cushite>72  in
polygyny . Under God's Law Moses gave instructions
about polygyny>73  affording it the full legal status of
monogamy with no stigma or  denunciation.
[Footnotes:>71   (l Sam 6) in Ex. 4:23-26; >72    (Num
12:1-10);  >73    in Ex. 21:10,11]

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.
[Footnote: >74   in Ex. 21:7-9]
MKJV 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.�
MKJV LEVITICUS 19:20 �And whoever lies with a
woman with semen, and she is a slave-girl, betrothed
to a husband and not at all redeemed, nor freedom
given her, there shall be an inquest. They shall not be
put to death, because she was not free.�
MKJV DEUT. 22: 23 �If a girl [who is] a virgin is
engaged to a husband, and a man finds her in the city
and lies with her,  24 then you shall bring them both
out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them
with stones that they die; the girl because she did not
cry out in the city, and the man because he has
humbled his neighbor's wife. So you shall put away
evil from among you. 25 But if a man finds an
engaged girl in the field, and the man forces her and
lies with her, then only the man that lay with her
shall die.  26 But you shall do nothing to the girl. No
sin [worthy] of death [is] in the girl; for as when a
man rises against his neighbor and slays him, even so
is this matter. 27 For he found her in the field, the
engaged girl cried out, but [there was] none to save
her.�

Perhaps Deut. was subsequent and current replacing
Lev. 19:20.  What about Ex. 21:7-9?  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].

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 David�s 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]

In Deut. 21:15-17 God intervenes and acknowledges
and vindicates the second wife in a polygamous
marriage where the sin of partiality >76  was being
practiced.  If polygyny were sin why didn't God
condemn it in this passage instead of covering it with
the dignity and holiness of His Law?  The wife is
vindicated, not condemned.
[Footnote: >76  (James 2:1-7)]
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.�

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)]

What about the Levite�s?  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.
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, . .�

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".

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)]

The situation made famous by Ruth>81  involves the
potential for polygyny  since the brother-in-law is not
exempted if he is already married.  It is amazing,
given the specificity of the Law spread out over four
books, that God specifically condemns adultery,
fornication, homosexuality, sodomy, bestiality but
nowhere condemns polygyny  or concubinage.  King
Saul had a
concubine>82.
[Footnotes:>81  , Deut. 25:5-10 (See l Tim 5:1-16);  >82
2Sam 3:7] .

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.
MKJV 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 David�s adultery and murder, but implies
His blessing on David�s 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)]

Solomon's polygyny  was sinful first because He
disobeyed God�s 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)]

Evil king Rehoboam imitated Solomon and almost had
18 wives and 60 concubines in 2 Chron. 11 & 12. Then
Godly king Abijah, blessed and prospered of God, also
had fourteen wives>94  .  The Godly High Priest
Jehoida gave two wives to godly king Joash in 2 Chron
24.  Godly queen Esther was a wife blessed by God in
her  polygyny . God Himself describes Himself as a
polygamist in Ezekiel 23.  Jesus reaffirmed the Old
Testament teachings on polygamy and concubinage in
Matt. 23:2,3.
[Footnote: >94   (2 Chron. 13)]
MKJV MATT. 23:2  �. . . 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.�

What a record!  Two authors of the Old Testament,
David and Solomon, possibly three if you count Moses,
were uncondemned and God-honored polygynists in
their polygyny.  Four godly patriarchs with whom God
entered into special and unique covenants (Abraham,
Jacob, David, Solomon; five if you count Moses) were
polygynists at the time God covenanted with them.  In
every era of the Old Testament (Pre Law, Sinai Law,
Judges, Kingdom prophets, Dispersion prophets) you
find God�s people and leaders practicing polygyny and
practicing it according to God�s will or commands.  Yet
many Christian leaders agree with the brother that
apparently maintains that the Bible offers little
defense for polygamy in comparison to monogamy,
that because of its shortcomings polygyny cannot be
tolerated as a form of marriage willed by God.>22.
Perhaps that's why God chose the polygamous
marriage of Solomon and his Shulamite in The Song of
Solomon to be the model for marriage in Israel and
the marriage model for His relationship to Israel>95  .
[Footnotes:>22.  Trobisch; MY WIFE MADE ME>.>..P.21;
>95   (Ezekiel 23)]

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, 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
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]

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
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?

POLYGAMY,  JESUS,  PAUL AND   NEW TESTAMENT
TIMES

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.)]
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, .
.�
       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)]

So even after Acts' Pentecost and Acts 15 the apostles
and believing Jews in Acts 21 still believe that they
are to obey the Law of Moses including the laws about
marriage (including polygyny ) and morality.     The
only thing they wrote about polygyny was that the
elders/bishops/deacons should have only one wife at
a time.  Consider the following: Acts 21:18 �And on
the morrow Paul went in with us to James, and all the
elders came there.  19 And having saluted them, he
related one by one the things which God had wrought
among the nations by his ministry.  20 And they
having heard [it] glorified God, and said to him, You
see, brother, how many myriads there are of the Jews
who have believed, and all are zealous of the law.   21
And they have been informed concerning you  , that
you  teach all the Jews among the nations apostasy
from Moses, saying that they should not circumcise
their children, nor walk in the customs.   . . . 23 This
do therefore that we say to you: We have four men
who have a vow on them;  24 take these and be
purified with them, and pay their expenses, that they
may have their heads shaved; and all will know that
[of those things] of which they have been informed
about you nothing is [true]; but that you  yourself also
walk orderly, keeping the law.  25 But concerning
[those of] the nations who have believed, we have
written, deciding that they should [observe no such
thing, only to] keep themselves both from things
offered to idols, and from blood, and from things
strangled, and from fornication.  26 Then Paul, taking
the men, on the next day, having been purified,
entered with them into the temple, signifying the
time the days of the purification would be fulfilled,
until the offering was offered for every one of them.�

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 (See the quotes below).

In fact, it is not until after Acts 22 that the Spirit has
Paul write the following:
MKJV  EPHES. 2: 14 � �For He is our peace, He making
us both one, and [He] has broken down the middle
wall of partition [between us],  15 having abolished in
His flesh the enmity (the Law of commandments
[contained] in ordinances) so that in Himself He might
make the two into one new man, making peace
[between them];  16 and so that He might reconcile
both to God in one body by the cross, having slain the
enmity in Himself.�
MKJV COLOS. 2:13 � �And you, being dead in your sins
and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made
alive together with Him, having forgiven you all
trespasses, 14 blotting out the handwriting of
ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to
us, and has taken it out of the way, nailing it to the
cross. 15 Having stripped rulers and authorities, He
made a show of them publicly, triumphing [over]
them in it. 16 � Therefore let no one judge you in
food or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the
new moon, or of the sabbaths.�
MKJV 2 PETER 3:15 �And think of the long-suffering
of our Lord [as] salvation (as our beloved brother Paul
also has written to you according to the wisdom given
to him  16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them
of these things; in which are some things hard to be
understood, which the unlearned and unstable
pervert, as also [they do] the rest of the Scriptures, to
[their] own destruction).�

Ephesians 2:14-18 and Colossians 2:11-17, confirmed
by 2 Peter 3:15, show us that Jesus reveals and
instructs us to accept the end of the Law of Moses,
finally releasing believing Jews from having to obey
the Law of Moses (as the Gentiles were in Acts 15)
and then not many years later causes the Jerusalem
Temple to be destroyed so that it would be impossible
to keep on obeying the Law of Moses with its
sacrifices and temple worship.

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 21:16 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 . 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.
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.]

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.]

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.

V. WHAT DO MOST CHRISTIAN LEADERS SAY ABOUT
CONCUBINES & POLYGYNY TODAY?

FIRST, they 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]

There is no question that the best form of marriage
for most is monogamy, since that is the gift>@ He has
given most of His children on earth and worldwide.
But the point of 1 Cor. 7:7-27 -----
[Footnote: >@  (1 Cor. 7:7-27)]
MKJV 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.�

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.�
MKJV GENESIS 2: 18 � �And the LORD God said, [It is]
not good that the man should be alone. I will make a
helper suitable for him. 19 And out of the ground the
LORD God formed every animal of the field and every
fowl of the air, and brought [them] to Adam to see
what he would call them. And whatever Adam called
[each] living creature, that [was] its name.  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.  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.�

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]

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.]

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.�

SECONDLY, most of the "leaders" say that one of the
products of Adam and Eve's fall clearly was
polygamy, appearing in a sinful world>89 , even
though no where in the Word of God does the Word
say this.  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 isn�t
there one scripture or even one verse that says that?
Since there isn�t,  it seems to be more men�s 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.]

THIRDLY, what about that which is implied by some
in Leviticus 18:18? Well, what about Lev. 18:18?�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.]

EXCUSE ME!  DID I MISS SOMETHING?  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 David�s.  Are you
willing to add to the scripture to support the tradition
of men?

FOURTHLY, What about 1 Timothy 3:2?
�1 Tim. 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the
husband of one wife,  A bishop: 1) an overseer
  1a) a man charged with the duty of seeing that
things to be done by others are done rightly, any
curator, guardian or
superintendent
  1b) the superintendent, elder, or overseer of a
Christian church� >54
[Footnote: >.54 Strong�s Lexicon, Open Bible Online, Ken
Hammil]

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.

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.

FIFTHLY,  most of the "leaders" maintain that  Deut.
17:17 at least implies a condemnation of polygyny
because of its command forbidding the king to
multiply wives and horses to himself>55 .  Since
interpretations belong to God, let's see what God says
in His Word.  By the time David became King in Judah
he had 6 wives>9 and was 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,
husband to his concubines and his seven wives.
David�s wives, as part of his house, benefited from
God�s blessing. 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>10  .
[Footnotes:>.55  Please see THE INSTITUTES OF
BIBLICAL LAW, by R. Rushdonney, p. 363.  >9   (2
Sam. 3 & 5);   >10   (1 Chron 3)]

I believe St. Augustine (4th Century AD) had a good
word here for such godly men. Consider 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. . . ."
[Footnote: >.56  A Select Library of the Nicene and
Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church, Vol. iv;
p.290]

Was the High Priest commanded to marry only one
wife in Lev. 21:13,14 as some American religious
leaders say?  In the vast majority of respected
translations there is no such �only one wife�
command.  Again we see the tradition of man making
of no effect the Word of God.

SIXTHLY, 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?  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, the �one flesh� principle is not unique to
marriage and cannot be an argument for monogamy
or against polygyny .  The �one flesh� principle is
physical reality that describes only the result of
sexual union, whether it involve a harlot, a fornicator,
a married couple or a polygamous marriage.  David,
Israel and Abraham were �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 in Eph. 2 and Col. 2,
especially in the case of 1 Cor. 7:9; 1 Tm. 5:11-14.  If
we do not control ourselves today, we are commanded
to marry>12 , but who to marry is 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]

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)]


SEVENTH, �. . . ..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 another�s wife and a wife
having one who is not her own husband.  It restricts
sexual �having� to marriage with one�s own mate.
[Footnotes:>.62  Please see THE INSTITUTES OF
BIBLICAL  LAW, by R. Rushdonney, p. 363.    >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.]

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)]

EIGHTH:   According to some Christian leaders,
polygamous family living is described or rated as an
inferior type of family living, but a passable one>64 .
The right of the first born>30  ; the right of each wife
to food, clothing/ shelter and marital sex>31  ; and the
right for the whole polygamous family to be
Spiritually and materially blessed by God>32  is
preserved by God in these polygamous marriages just
as in monogamous marriages.  There is no scripture
that says a  wife in polygyny  is less of a wife than a
wife in monogamy.  There is no scripture that says a
husband in polygyny  is less of a husband than a
husband in monogamy.   Consider St. Augustine�s
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:>.64  Please see THE INSTITUTES OF
BIBLICAL  LAW, by R. Rushdonney, p. 364.      >30
(Deut. 21:15,16).     >31    (Ex. 21:10).   >32    (Genesis
30 and 2 Samuel 7).      >..65 St. Augustin: On The
Trinity; p. 406.]

I understand  a Christian elder to maintain that Israel
put up with polygamy as a lesser evil, causing some of
the Old Testament writers embarrassment, and
causing these writers to criticize sharply, clearly and
tirelessly showing the negativity associated with
polygamy.>66.  Tolerated as a lesser evil?  Tolerated
by whom?  God did more than tolerate it, He
legislated it in the following:
[Footnotes: >66.  W. Trobisch, MY WIFE MADE ME A
POLYGAMIST; p.19.]

Exodus 21: 7 "And if a man shall sell his daughter as a
handmaid, she shall not go out as the bondmen go out.
8 If she is unacceptable in the eyes of her master,
who had taken her for himself, then shall he let her
be ransomed: to sell her unto a foreign people he has
no power, after having dealt unfaithfully with her.  9
And if he have appointed her unto his son, he shall
deal with her after the law of daughters. 10 If he take
himself another, her food, her clothing, and her
conjugal rights he shall not diminish.  11And if he do
not these three things unto her, then shall she go out
free without money."   WHY DOESN'T GOD CONDEMN
HIM FOR TAKING ANOTHER WIFE IF IT IS A SIN?
MKJV DEUT. 21:15 � If a man has two wives, one
beloved and another hated, and they have borne him
sons, the beloved and the hated; and [if] the first-born
son was of her that was hated, 16 then it shall be in
the day when he makes his sons to inherit what he
has, he may not cause to [inherit] the son of the
beloved first-born before the son of the hated one, he
who [is truly] the first-born.  17 But he shall
acknowledge the son of the hated as the first-born by
giving him a double portion of all that he has. For he
[is] the beginning of his strength. The right of the
first-born is his.

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.

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)]

St. Augustine (4th Century AD) had the following good
word on this subject in 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.�
[Footnote: >..67 A Select Library of the Nicene and
Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church,  Vol. V;
p. 267]

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!   ISN�T
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 else�s 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.  But 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, that�s 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:
MKJV MKJV 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.�
       MKJV 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.�
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.�
       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.�

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
INTERNA-TIONAL 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.


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
females have 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>1d making it the number one killer of Blacks in
America.  The AIDS virus is currently responsible for
approximately on third of all deaths of all deaths of
Black men aged 25 to 44, and for approximately one
fifth of deaths of Black females aged 25 to 44,
according to the CDC.>1e   In terms of numbers that
means a death rate of 177.9 deaths per 100,000 Black
men (18 per 10,000; 2 per 1000), and a death rate of
51.2 deaths per 100,000 Black females (5 per 10,000;
one per 1000).>1e  That means approximately 30,000
Blacks will be dying each year from HIV/AIDS, a
horrendous slaughter far worse than Viet Nam or
WWII!  Condoms fail 30% of the time [see the book by
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 can�t even think straight to
appraise their risk or use them carefully and
correctly, then condoms can�t even give their
miserable little 60% protection.  One official in the
AIDS office of the County Health Dept. told me that
condoms have a documented 17% user-failure-rate
(failed to protect the user).  And the AIDS rolls on
through the urban Black communities like the plague.
[Footnote: >.1d  San Diego Union Tribune, ll/25/'95
page A-8, quoting the US  Center Disease for Control
and Prevention.     >1e Associated Press in the San
Diego Union 2/16/96]

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 1880�s 13.1% (of the total USA pop.) drop to
the 1895�s 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.

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>.1f  On 11/26/'95, Focus on
the Family's Michelle said that the Essence magazine
gave the figure of 40%>.1f.  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.
[Footnote: >.1f Focus on the Family  (American On
Line) ]

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 and marriageable males for monogynous
marriages so that leaves neurotic frustration, celibacy,
promiscuity, lesbianism or bisexuality for many Black
women.  Through ignorance, bigotry, fear of society,
and bad taste the grace, beauty, elegance, charm and
intelligence of Black women are NOT appropriately
esteemed, so you do not find most white, Hispanic,
Asian or Jewish males seeking them as wives.

Most white, Hispanic, Asian or Jewish males would
seek white, or Hispanic, or Asian, or Jewish wives
before they would consider seeking a Black wife.
Black women are, for the society as a whole, seen a
lovers and sex objects far more than they are seen as
wives and mothers.  A  saying in the white
community about Black Americans is, "Look, dream,
or fantasize but DON'T TOUCH!  If you touch, DON'T
MARRY!  Take them to bed but never bring one home
for dinner!"   It hasn't changed much since slavery.
The Black woman interested in marrying has a 40%
chance of never marrying, and the older they get, the
more children they have, the deeper their poverty,
the less chance they have of ever marrying.  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
marriageable stable and successful males, even in
America?

My Islamic and polygynist friend Rafiq shared that
the Holy Quran states:
"And if you fear that you will not be fair in dealing
with the orphans, then marry of women as may be
agreeable to you, two, or three, or four; and if you
fear you will not be able to deal justly, then marry
only one or what your right hands possess. That is the
nearest way for you to avoid injustice." (Sura 4 verse
4)."
Rafiq continues:"Sura 4:4 mentions the welfare of
orphans. To elaborate a bit further we can say that
Sura 4:4 deals with the welfare of the society.
Polygamy therefore should be encouraged when the
welfare of the society demands it.

"Another aspect of Sura 4:4 is that it mentions
polygamy as a natural way of life. It does NOT start
with 'marry ONE, or two, or three or four' but it
already starts with 'marry two...' From this fact it can
be clearly deducted that polygamy is considered
rather the norm and not the exception. One reason
therefore to seek to practice polygamy may be to
fulfill the personal purposes of marriage as mentioned
above. However, another aspect would be to
contribute to the health of the society as a whole.

"Most of the prophets of the bible have several wives.
Islam is in fact the only religion who has LIMITED
polygamy to only four permitted wives. This in order
to facilitate the first rule of polygamy in Islam: the
equal treatment of all wives.

"Several times in recent years the subject of marriage
was brought up in the International Shura
(Consultative Assembly) of the Ahmadiyya Muslim
Community. The reason was that most Communities
faced the problem of having a surplus of girls unable
to find husbands. The problem is/was of course more
serious with widows and divorcees but also exists
even with unmarried virgin girls. The fact that this
subject was brought up for consultation again and
again proves that in this respect the health of the
society could be/needed to be improved. During the
Assembly the Head of the worldwide Ahmadiyya
Muslim Community had inquired from various
delegates whether this problem existed in their local
communities. All representatives had to agree, with
the exception of the African representatives. As
Polygamy is practiced in Africa the communities there
did not face any problems in this respect.

"As many Hadith (sayings of the Holy Prophet
Mohammad (peace be on him) show it is of course a
great blessing to marry widows and divorcees.. . ."

If the situation necessitates it, if circumstances in the
Black community (as described above) require it, why
not in America too?  In Paris France they have over
100,000 thousand practicing polygynists, according to
the New York Times.  So why not America?  Why
couldn't a wife, of any race, whose best female friend
is a Black single mom, approach her husband with the
request that they as a couple include her best friend +
kids as part of their family, with her husband
becoming the adoptive father of the kids of the single
mom and becoming husband to the single mom in
concubinage (she becomes his concubine by informal
covenant and contract, in a ceremony of their own
design with the exchange of their covenants with his
wife as witness, instead of by civil or formal legal
means, since bigamy and polygamy are illegal in
America).   The kids of the single mom get a
committed and already successful father figure, and
the single mom gets a husband with whom she can
soul-bond and count on, plus she gets to see her best
friend a whole lot more.   Real love can overcome
jealousy and envy, if they selflessly work at the
marriage, as you would have to in any marriage.

A compassionately cherishing husband, who
consistently compassionately cherishes his own wife,
thus making her very secure with him, should be able
to come to his compassionate and generous wife and
ask her to thoughtfully consider  such a controversial
proposal as the following: "Darling, I'm very
concerned about our Black sister who is struggling as
a single mom and having a very hard time.  I believe
that the conditions in our own family would allow us
to be of considerable help to her in her crisis.  Please
think about us accepting her and her kids as part of
our family, with me as father-figure to her kids, with
me as husband to her and her as concubine to me----
with lifelong commitments for the sake of both her
and her children."  Of course this would follow the
husband and wife having thoroughly discussing and
considering the issue in general before any specific
action is taken.

It would take a very secure wife to share her
husband, but compassion has moved people to heroic
and selfless actions throughout history.  The real
needs of the fatherless children would be met.  The
real needs of an adult female who, having been
sexually loved may have a genuine sexual appetite
with no one to meet it in a context of soul-bonding,
commitment and genuine caring about her as a whole
person.   Other thinkers and writers have already
consisdered this option for the Black community and
have published their findings (See Appendix Eight).

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 Paul�s
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 America�s religious leaders teach as
doctrine>36 ?�  I submit that most of America�s
religious leaders teach as doctrine man�s
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 today�s religious
leaders of the Christian community are laying aside
God�s 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 man�s 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 God�s 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 men�s 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.]

Douglas� New Bible Dictionary>.77  : 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  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?

HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE: . . .  �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]


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 .]
MKJV 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.�
MKJV 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".
MKJV 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? �
MKJV 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.�
MKJV 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 America�s 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)]
MKJV 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:
MKJV 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.�
MKJV 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.�
DARBY 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.�
DARBY 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 ----
MKJV 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�
MJJV 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.
MKJV 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.�
MKJV 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.�
MKJV 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 can�t 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 aren�t.  Matt. 5:23,24 and 18:15-18 tell about
repentance�s 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 don�t 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
daughte>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?  Consider
the following:
[Footnote: >179 1 Corinth. 7:12,13,14,15]

�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.
[Footnote: (>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]

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.
[Footnote: >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 you�ve
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 God�s 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 Church�s 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
don�t stone to death adulterers and adulteresses.
Because of 1 Corinth 7:10-15,39; and Romans 7:1-5
we don�t 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 God�s
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.  Whatever the reason, it
wasn't just a defilement issue, 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. 7:15, 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
call for accepting back the repentant and believing
mate who fell in adultery and has heard Jesus say, "Go
and sin no more!"

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 30% of the time in
federal tests that involved no motion on an artificial penis>#.
The latex gloves that surgeons use offer some protection.
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)]

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 the se:
MKJV 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.�
MKJV 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?�
MKJV 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�.
KJV 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 ex�s 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 wife�s 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 God�s Law and the law of man to him>.
Under  God�s 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 don�t require us to
disobey God.  That is man�s tradition, not God�s.
[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 a genuinely
saved brother?  His vows
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, and
so finding himself burning and or failing to control
himself, he obeys God's command to marry 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 if Sophia 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 the file on oaths]

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?
Well he wont get off the ground in America unless he
is rolling in money and has found some like-minded
women.  Even then they can't formally or legally
marry.  He could only legally marry one as wife and
contract/covenant unofficially with the others as
concubines.

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" 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 � 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 � �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
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
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 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:
MKJV 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:  . �.
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 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.
MKJV 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.  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 exercise his liberty to
have a concubine in the manner of Romans 14.  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: >88    (1 John 3:14-18).      >89    (1 Cor.
7:2,3,4,5).      >90  (1 Cor. 7:9, see Appendix 6).
>.n89  See Appendix Six.        >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 the
protection and well being even of 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 STD�s, 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 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).]

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
didn�t 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.

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).]

MKJV 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 doesn�t
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:
MKJV 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 God�s 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 man�s
plan to marry her.  You don�t let the saint who seeks
God�s solution be destroyed because of a carnal saint
who resists or refuses compassion and God�s 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
Cornelius�s 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:
MKJV 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.�
MKJV 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, - - - -
MKJV 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,  - - - -
MKJV 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).]
MKJV 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.
MKJV 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 .
The women  described above would be comparable to
St. Augustine's man of
the following:
[Footnote:  >112(Gal. 5 and  Phil. 2:13 + 4:13).]
"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] �.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]

MKJV 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 than
one husband?  Because God has made it crystal clear
in the following:
MKJV GENESIS 1: 26 � �And God said, Let Us make
man in Our image, after our likeness. . . . 27 And God
created man in His image; in the image of God He
created him. He created them male and female. 28
And God blessed them. And God said to them, Be
fruitful, and multiply and fill the earth, and subdue it.
.�
MKJV GENESIS 2: 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. 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.�
MKJV GEN. 3:16 � �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.�
MKJV 1 CORINTH. 11: 1 � �Be imitators of me, even as
I also [am] of Christ.  2 But I praise you, brothers, that
you remember me in all things, and you keep the
doctrines as I delivered [them] to you. 3 But I would
have you know that the head of every man is Christ;
and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head
of Christ [is] God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying
with [his] head covered dishonors his Head. . . .  7 For
a man indeed ought not to have [his] head covered,
because he is the image and glory of God. But the
woman is [the] glory of [the] man.  8 For the man is
not of the woman, but the woman of the man.  9 Nor
was the man created for the woman, but the woman
for the man. . . . 11 But neither is the man without the
woman, 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 can
be polygamous, but not the female; 2. the wife can
separate herself chastely from her husband, but he
may not separate himself from his wife at all; 3. The
wife may not rule over the husband, but the husband
must take the lead as her servant and she must make
the choice whether or not to follow him)?
[Footnote: >114 (l Cor. 7:39 and Romans 7:1-5; Mark
10:1-20).]

This does not mean that women are second class
citizens in the Kingdom of
God, because the Word is clear>115, that even now in
the spiritual realm -
seated with Christ now in the heavens- there is no
difference between males
and females in their rights, privileges and
responsibilities. 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 the
heavens.  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 the
influence 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 body
was designed and created to help/assist man>118 .
Adam needed no spiritual companion because he had
spiritual communion with Jesus daily in the garden.
His body needed a  female body and the female body
needed a compatible spirit to be the kind of flesh-
spirit helper Jesus designed her to be.  They were
completely equal in the garden, like we will be in the
spiritual realm of the heavens with Christ, especially
when we reign on earth with Him for a thousand
years after the tribulation. But they failed to obey in
the garden and ruined that wonderful arrangement so
temporarily 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 idea
that 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 was
confronted by Christ.  Maybe that is why Jesus made
such a big deal in Luke 14 etc. that we must love Him
more than we love our loved ones.  See St.
Augustine>.n95  who makes the same points.
[Footnote: >.n95  A Select Library of the Nicene and
Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church, Vol. V;
W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., pp. 267ff.]

Yes there are some cultures in the world today where
they practice polyandry in matriarchal systems, but
that doesn't make it moral or right, no more than the
temple prostitutes of India's classical Hinduism makes
prostitution right or moral.  Pornographers in America
present the spectacle of three men having
simultaneous intercourse with one woman where the
number of the woman's lovers is only limited by  the
number 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 to
have more than one husband at a time.   Polyandry
may be a way that seems right to some, but the ends
thereof are the ways of death and alienation from the
God who created the wonder of woman.  The male
was the rough draft, the female is the masterpiece----
to be handled with tender loving care and
thanksgiving 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?
MKJV 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.�
MKJV 1 THESS. 4: 8 �Therefore he who despises does
not despise man, but God, who also has given us His
Holy Spirit.�
MKJV 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.�
MKJV 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?�
MKJV 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:
MKJV 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 . . .�
MKJV 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).]
MKJV 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.�
MKJV 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.�
MKJV 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.�
MKJV 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.�
MKJV 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)]

When her husband is verbally or physically abusive,
dictatorial, tyrannical, unkind, harsh and/or wicked,
the Godly wife FIRST>^ should fast and pray for her
husband who spitefully abuses her, do good to her
husband who hates her, bless him when he curses
her>^, humbly and meekly tell him privately what he
is doing that offends and grieves her>`,flee for her life
as she offers her cheek (from a safe distance) to the
dog-husband who strikes her>*; and SECONDLY get her
local fellowship group to do Matt. 18:15-20 and/or
1Cor.5:5-14.  Then she has to leave the results to the
Lord/Spirit if he is difficult and defiant.  Her business
and duty is to compassionately cherish him and show
respect to him even if he has failed the Matt. 18 test
and she now relates to him as to an unsaved person>�.
[Footnote: >^ Luke 6:27-42.  >` Matt.18:15-18;Gal.6:1;
2Tim.2:24-28. >*Matt. 10:23; 1Cor.7:10,11; Prov.1:10-
19; Prv. 2:10-22.  >� Eph.5:22-34; Matt.18:17]

What a shame most women have no idea of what the
average male's testosterone sex drive does to him.
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 exhausion.
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 uretha so they cannot urinate
normally and the effect on the brain is that those
males are so distracted and distractable, 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 distractable by anything that, as
with too much alcohol, their judment and thinking is
impaired and foolish (risky), dangerous (AIDS,HIV) or
irrational behaviour 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 don�t 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 can�t feast on her,
can�t 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 doesn�t 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.  If the smile and
expressions of delight on her face and the utterances
of fulfillment and ecstasy on her lips are not as
important to him as his hunger for and need of her,
then he is unworthy of her.  Perhaps such an
unworthy one could show genuine repentance (2Cor7)
and humble himself under the mighty hand of His God
and under the authority He has given his wife over
his body, and become a learner of how to please and
delight his woman.  A man who acts like Nabal with
his wife, will surely face the fate of a Nabal.

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?"
The obvious answer is marriage (1 Cor. 7:1,2,5,9) with
a wife 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.



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!  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..]

XXII.  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
practice
unseemly 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?


The document now under your consideration is an
appendix to the book  MY
LOVE IS A GARDEN OF DELIGHTS! , a commentary on
the Song of Solomon for Christian polygynists and
concubines.  $10 USA--$14 overseas/foreign/
Canada/Mexico --  for postage, copying and handling
of  MY LOVE IS A GARDEN OF DELIGHTS!



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: [email protected]].
>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. MKJV: 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:
[email protected]].
>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:
[email protected]].
>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. Strong�s 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: [email protected]].


The document now under your consideration is an
appendix to the book  MY
LOVE IS A GARDEN OF DELIGHTS! , a commentary on
the Song of Solomon for Christian polygynists and
concubines.  $10 USA--$14 overseas/foreign/Canada/
Mexico --  for postage, copying and handling of  MY
LOVE IS A GARDEN OF DELIGHTS!


APPENDIX ONE: WHAT ABOUT RACISM &
INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE?

       American racists  (like those in the KKK, the
White Citizens� Council,
the Aryan leagues, the Nazis, the Skinheads, a
surprising number of So. Bapt. ministers, certain race
supremists, etc.) have dared to use the Word of God to
validate and confirm their erroneous and
nonChristlike teachings that one  race is (or some
races are) inherently superior to another (or to
others)  and therefore some people have rights and
privilieges that other people don�t have ----- and for
sure they must never intermarry.   Well, we know
what these evil doers think, --let�s see if the Bible
agrees.

First of all, during the civil rights movement of the
1940�s -70�s, many Bible belters and So. Baptists
taught that all Blacks were ordained to servitude
and/or slavery by God because Noah cursed one of his
descendants to be �a servant of servants� to his
brethren, the rest of us, since only Noah and his
descendants survived the flood.  Gen. 9:22 makes it
crystal clear that Ham, Noah�s son, erred seeing his
father�s/parents� genitals.  Gen. 9:24, 25 makes it
equally clear that even though Ham is the one who
erred, it was Ham�s son Canaan --- NOT HAM ---that
was cursed to be �servant of servants� to the rest of
us.    If you check Gen. 10 with 1 Chronicles 1 and any
orthodox Bible atlas, you will see that Canaan settled
in Canaan (Surprise?!?!), aka the Promised Land,
which is part of the Mid East, not Africa.  I think even
the KKK admits that Africans/Blacks came from Africa
where THE REST of Ham�s children settled and
parented Africans.  So according to the Bible, it was
Canaanites, NOT AFRICANS, who were cursed to be
�servant of servants� to the rest of us.

Whether God honored Noah�s curse on Canaan, or
Noah�s curse was a prophecy,the point remains that in
the time of Moses and Joshua we see the Canaanites
under God�s curse of destruction.  Why?  Even in
Abraham�s time, the Canaanites manifested their
ungodly inclination in Sodom and Gomorrah with their
fornication, sodomy and homosexuality.  By the time
of Moses, the Canaanites peoples under God�s curse of
destruction had given themselves over to live human
infant sacrifices to their gods, sex with
temple/grove/high place prostitutes as  an act of
worship of their gods, sodomy, homosexuality,
witchcraft, sorcery, and attempts to contact the dead.
God would curse any people with destruction who did
such things (Romans 1:22-32).

It makes no difference to the spiritually blind and
hardened that modern ethnological biology confirms
what the  Bible tells us, that we are all descendants of
�Eve�, one ancestor, making us all kinfolks.   Only the
most ignorant and unlearned believe as fact that
Africans, like Moses�s wife -- Joseph�s wife, Solomon�s
Shulamite, Jeremiah�s Ethiopian Ebedmelech, Phillip�s
Ethiopian Eunech --- are not homo sapiens like Asians
and Caucasians.  The writings of Ashley Montagu and
Frederick S. Hulse alone document the fact that there
is no fixed or significant inherent difference between
the races (except for hair, face shape and skin color),
even Caucasian and Black/African.

It makes no difference to the spiritually blind and
hardened that �He has made of one blood all nations
of men to dwell on all the face of the earth. . .
Therefore, then, as we are the offspring/race of God. .
He has given assurance to all, in that He raised Him
from the dead.� [Acts 17:24-31; Rom. 9:21].   Science
had to wait until the 20th century to prove what the
Bible said almost 2000 years ago, that all nations of
men are made of one blood, with all its various types.

Is interracial marriage a sin?  Is it a "sexual
perversion" as some
preachers and teachers maintain (See the New Open
Bible's Topical Index
under "Abominations" by Wick  Broomall)?  Thomas
Nelson publishers of the
New Open Bible have put it in writing that they are
going to remove "Racial
intermarriage" from "Abominations" because the idea
of racial intermarriage being an abomination to God is
so inappropriate scripturally.

[I]  Interracial marriage, in and of itself, is never
described in the Bible,
defined or listed as a sin, trespass, transgression or an
evil.
       In the Old Testament Israel was commanded not
to marry   the pagan people of Palestine . . .the
Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and
the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, the
Jebusites, and certain peoples of Canaan, specifically
because they had been appointed to death for their
gross sins.   [Exodus 23:20-33;34:10-16; Deut. 7:1-3;
Ezra 9 & 10.  See also Ezra 9 and Nehemiah 9.]     In
the New Testament after Pentecost, the Church is
commanded not to marry sinners, saints snared in sin,
"saints" living in sin and unrepentant, and the
unsaved.  The Church was commanded not to marry
peoples based on the unsaved or undelivered spiritual
status of peoples, not based on any physical, racial or
ethnic criteria.  In fact, after Acts 10-15 and Galatians
2, Christ gave us Gal. 3:28; Colos. 3:10, 11; 2 Cor. 4:18
and 5:12,16.

Before Acts 10 the apostles were obeying Christ's
word in Matt. 23:1-3
and therefore they would not eat with, marry or
associate with non-Jews.  As long as they were Jews,
whether devout Ethiopians (Acts 8) or devout men
from every other nation under heaven (Acts2:5),
there was no social
discrimination based on race or ethnicity.  The world
dwelt in two camps
based on spiritual criteria, Jews and non-Jews.  Any
devout Jew of any race
or nation was free to marry any devout Jew of any
race or nation, except for
those few Palestinian nations condemned in Deut. 6,
Ezra 9 and Nehemiah 9.

After Acts 10 - 15 the world lay in two new camps,
those in Christ and
those outside of Christ, those in the Bride of Christ and
those outside of the
Bride of Christ. Christ tells us in Gal. 3:28 + Col. 3:10,11
terms of eternal reality, that there is neither Jew nor
Greek, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female,
neither barbarian nor Scythian.  The eternal reality of
our relationships is no longer based on our bodies, our
national origin, our race,  or our social status.  These
are not the factors that determine our behavior
towards each other, including marriage.  The factors
that determine our behavior towards each other,
including marriage, are unseen - invisible - spiritual.
[> 2 Corinth.
4:17,18; 10:7; Luke 16:15].

We no longer are to take pride in, have confidence in,
boast of, lift up or exalt that which appears, our
appearance; but we are to take pride in, have
confidence in, lift up and exalt the spiritual realities of
the regenerated heart
or soul [ 2 Corinth. 5:12; 10:7;Luke 16:15]  .   We pick
our mates based not
on their physical appearance or physical heritage, but
on the nature of their
regenerated hearts and souls.  We are commanded by
God Himself to NO
LONGER be acquainted with, stand in relationship to
or have knowledge [  2
Cor. 5:16; 10:7; Luke 16:15: See Arndt and Gingrich
Greek & English Lexicon p. 558.] of another human
being "on the physical plane" or "simply as a physical
being" [  2 Cor. 5:16; 10:7;Luke 16:15:  See Arndt &
Gingrich Greek & English Lexicon pp. 408, 409.]

We must look at and relate to each person in terms of
their soul and spirit
for therein lies the reality with which we are called
by Christ to deal. We
must not relate to or know anyone on the basis of
their physical appearance or physcial heritage.  That
means that a husband and wife should celebrate and
enjoy sex , a very physical act and experience, not on
the basis of the
attractiveness or unattractiveness of their physical
appearance or physical
ancestry, but on the basis that they are commanded
by God to sexually have
each other and be sexually affectionate  [1 Corinth.
7:2,3,4,5; Titus 2:4; Prov.
5:18,19; Song of Solomon].

Marital sex is as much a Spiritual God ordained
ministry as is feeding the hungry, clothing the naked
and giving drink to the thirsty.  Isn't it obvious that
the husband and wife should be as creative, zealous
and devoted in their sexual ministry to each other,
being sexually dependent on each other, as they
would be in their ministry to the thirsty, hungry and
unclothed who are dependent on them.  Since they
are called to do their sexual ministry to each other,
doing it as unto the Lord (meaning they would do
their very best in order to please Jesus), you would
expect excellence, creativity, originality and first class
performance.  That is an example of how a Spiritual
people who know each other in terms of the Spirit,
not in terms of their bodies or the visible, use the
opportunity of their bodies or the visible to serve
each other and the God who called them.

It is fairly common knowledge that we don't "wrestle
against flesh and
blood"  [ Ephes. 6:12; 2 Corinth. 10:3,4,5,6,7] in the
spiritual battles we fight daily and some of us see
ourselves in that struggle, but we also should daily
reckon ourselves to be "blessed with all spiritual
blessings" and seated  together in the spirtual realm
in Christ [ Ephes. 1:3-14; 2:5-10] because that IS the
reality of our daily lives and we miss mark and the
blessing when we live and act without that
awareness.

[II.] Marriage and/or engagement with certain specific
peoples was expressly and explicitly forbidden in the
Word of God
       [a]  Israelite marriage and/or engagement with
the people of the Land of Canaan, Palestine, was
expressly and explicitly forbidden.   Exodus 23:20-
33;34:10-16; Deut. 7:1-3; Ezra 9 & 10: the pagan
people of Palestine . . .the
Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and
the Canaanites, and the
Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites ...You
shall make no . . .
marriages with them ...  See also Ezra 9 and Nehemiah
9.
       [b] Marriage and/or engagement with people
who do not obediently believe in and submit to
Jehovah/Jesus was and is expressly and explicitly
forbidden in the Word of God .  2 Cor. 6:14-7:10;
Psalms 1:1-2;1 Cor. 5:9,11; 2 Thess. 3:6-14.
       [c] Christians are forbidden to marry or become
engaged to people of any race who hold or believe in
false doctrines, those which contradict and differ from
the Word of God (1 Tim. 6:3-5; 2 Tim. 3:1-5; 2 John 7-
11; 2 Cor. 6:14-7:1)
       [d] Christians are forbidden to marry or become
engaged to people of any race who are unsaved,
unregenerated and/or unbelieving (2 Cor. 6:14-7:10;
Psalms 1:1-2; Ezra; Nehemiah.
       [e] Christians are forbidden to marry or become
engaged to people of any race who are deliberately
and intentionally doing sin, trespass, transgression,
iniquity, ungodliness and/or uncleanness. 1 Cor.
5:9,11; 2 Thess. 3:6-14.

[III.] When people of Canaan became believers in
Jehovah and came under the covenant of Moses,
marriage was not forbidden or punished by God.  Two
actually became ancestors of Jesus in  His
birth/incarnation.
Mat. 1:5 Salmon begat Boaz, ancestor of David and
Christ, by Jericho�s Rahab.
Josh 6:25 And Joshua saved Rahab . . . , and ...she lives
in Israel to this day..
Heb 11:31 By faith the harlot Rahab did not perish  . .
  Jas 2:25  . . . was not
Rahab the harlot also justified by works . . . ?
Mt 1:5  . . . Boaz fathered Obed of Ruth, and Obed
fathered Jesse ...  Ru 1:4 . .
wives ... from the women of Moab. The name of the ...
other Ruth. ...
Deut. 23 :3 -6 discourages marriage to Moabites and
gives the reason, but  that diddid not stop Obed from
marrying Ruth, with God's blessings, Ruth the
Moabitess who had converted to faith in Jehovah and
become a Jew. SEE ALSO Ezra 1:1 & 2 and Nehemiah
13: 23 - 27
Deut. 23:7 , 8 ----�You shall not despise an Edomite . . .
You shall not despise
an Egyptian, . . .�   In Ezra 9 it was the people who
added Egyptians to the
forbidden list, and of course pagan Egyptian wives
would be as unacceptable
to God as pagan Israeli or pagan Cushite wives,
because they were pagans, not because of their race
or ethnic heritage.

[IV.] Marriage with the following people after they
became obedient believers in Jehovah/Jesus was
never forbidden or condemned: Edomites,
Egyptians,Philistines, Aramites, Asshurites, Cushites,
Ethiopians and
Joktanites.  In fact, except for those listed previously
above in [2], no other
races or ethnic groups were  named by God as
unacceptable for marriage after they became obedient
believers in Jehovah/Jesus.
       [4a] Abraham MARRIED Hagar, the Egyptian
descendant of Ham�s African Mizraim.  She was
acknowledged fully as his wife, not his mistress or
slave.  God never in Scripture condemned Abraham�s
marriage to Hagar, done in obedience to Sara.  If there
was any sin, it was not waiting on God, no the act of
marrying Hagar.  (Deut. 23:7,8)  Abraham approved of
marriage with Mesopotamians (Iraq, Syria, Turkey;
Gen 24:1-10)
       [4b] Gen. 28:1-5 shows Rebekah and Issac
approving of marriages with Syrians.
       [4c] Joseph married an Egyptian descendant of
Ham, with no condemnation or denunciation by God or
the prophets (Gen. 41:45, 50, 51, 52;   Deut 23:7,8)
       [4d] Moses married an Ethiopian Cushite and
God punished those who spoke against this interracial
marriage.  Numbers 12:1-16; Jeremiah 13:23.
       [4e] Mat. 1:5 Salmon begat Boaz, ancestor of
David and Christ, by Jericho�s Rahab the harlot, with
no condemnation or denunciation in scripture.  Heb
11:31 �By faith the harlot Rahab did not perish  . . .�
Jas 2:25  �. . . was not Rahab the harlot also justified
by works . . . ?�  She believed, therefore she acted ---
sincere and genuine faith results in God working His
works through her.
       [4f] Marriages with Moabites, like Ruth, were
not condemned but were greatly discouraged (Deut.
23:1-8)  Mt 1:5 � . . . Boaz fathered Obed of Ruth, and
Obed fathered Jesse ...� who fathered King David and
later came his offspring, the Virgin Mary and Jesus
Christ.
       [4g] Samson�s  Philistine marriage (Judges 14,
15; not Delilah) did not violate the letter of God�s law
(Ex. 23:23, 28,31,32; 34:14-16; Deut. 7:1-3) but it
certainly violated spiritual principles dear to his
parents, Abraham and Issac (Gen. 24:1-10; Gen.27:46-
28:1-9; Judges 14:3,4)
       [4h] Solomon married a black Shulamite.  She
was not just tanned.  The Hebrew word translated as
black in Song of Solomon 1:5 (�I [am] black, but
comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of
Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon.�) is the very same
Hebrew word to describe her husband's hair  (Song
5:11  �his locks [are] bushy, [and] black as a raven.�).
Now a raven is BLACK, GLOSSY BLACK, not tanned or
brown.  Not only is this obvious interracial marriage
in the Word of God, it is seen as a  picture of Jehovah
and Israel, Jesus and the Church.

[V.]. Bias, discrimination, prejudice and bigotry are
sins and have no place in the Christians life, thoughts
or marriages.
THESE ARE ALL FROM DARBY'S VERSION UPDATED.
LEV. 19:15 You shall do no unrighteousness in
judgment; you shall not respect the person of the
lowly, nor honour the person of the great; in
righteousness shalt you judge your neighbour.
DEUT. 1: 17 You shall not respect persons in judgment:
you shall hear the small as well as the great; you shall
not be afraid of the face of man, for the judgment is
God's; and the matter that is too hard for you shall
youbring to me, that I may hear it.
PROV. 24:23 � These things also come from the wise.
It is not good to have respect of persons in judgment.
24 He that says  unto the wicked, You are  righteous,
peoples shall curse him, nations shall abhor him . . .
PROV. 28: 21 � To have respect of persons is not good;
but for a piece of bread will a man transgress.
ISAIAH 10:1 � Woe unto them that decree iniquitous
decrees, and to the writers that prescribe oppression,
2 to turn away the poor from judgment, and to take
away the right from the afflicted of my people . . .
ISAIAH 59:1 � Behold, Jehovah's hand is not
shortened that it cannot save, neither his ear heavy
that it cannot hear; 2 but your iniquities have
separated between you and your God, and your sins
have hid [his] face from you, that he does    not hear.
3 For your hands are stained with blood, and your
fingers with iniquity; your lips speak lies, your tongue
muttereth unrighteousness: 4 none calls for justice,
none pleads in truthfulness. They trust in vanity, and
speak falsehood; they conceive mischief, and bring
forth iniquity. 9 � Therefore is justice far from us,
and righteousness overtakes us not:  . .14 And
judgment is turned away backward, and
righteousness stands afar off; for truth stumbles in
the street, and uprightness cannot enter. 15 And truth
fails; and he that departs from evil makes himself a
prey. And Jehovah saw [it], and it was evil in his sight
that there was no judgment.
ACTS 10:15 And [there was] a voice again the second
time to him, What God has cleansed, do not *you*
make common.. . . 28. . . to *me* God has shewn to call
no man common or unclean.   15:8 And the heart-
knowing God bore them witness, giving [them] the
Holy Spirit as to us also, 9 and put no difference
between us and them, having purified their hearts by
faith.
ROMANS 2:9 tribulation and distress, on every soul of
man that works evil, both of Jew first, and of Greek;10
but glory and honour and peace to every one that
works good, both to Jew first and to Greek: 11 for
there is no acceptance of persons with God.
ROMANS 14:12 So then each of us shall give an
account concerning himself to God.13 Let us no longer
therefore judge one another; but judge you this
rather, not to put a stumbling-block or a fall-trap
before his brother. . . 15 For if on account of meat thy
brother is grieved, thou walkest no longer according
to love. Destroy not him with thy meat for whom
Christ has died. . . 19 So then let us pursue the things
which tend to peace, and things whereby one shall
build up another.
ROMANS 15:7 � Wherefore receive you one another,
according as the Christ also has received you to [the]
glory of God.
GALAT. 2:6 . . . it makes no difference to me: God does
not accept man's person . . .
1 TIM. 5:19 Against an elder receive not an accusation
unless where there are two or three witnesses. 20
Those that sin convict before all, that the rest also
may have fear.  21 I testify before God and Christ
Jesus and the elect angels, that thou keep these things
without prejudice, doing nothing by favour.
JAMES 2:1 � My brethren, do not have the faith of our
Lord Jesus Christ, [Lord] of glory, with respect of
persons: . . . 4 have you not made a difference among
yourselves, and become judges having evil thoughts? .
. 8 � If indeed you keep [the] royal law according to
the scripture, You shalt love your neighbour as
thyself, you do well.  9 But if you have respect of
persons, you commit sin, being convicted by the law
as transgressors.

Righteous, just and fair judgment and justice;
protection for the rights of the afflicted and the poor;
pursuit of that which promotes peace and personal
maturity/growth; acting without prejudice or bias; no
biased respect of persons, no intimidating biased
influences, no one is to be considered common or
unclean, no putting of stumbling blocks and fall-traps
in the way of another -----sounds like a pretty darn
good way to live.  It's a shame that so few countries in
the world even come close to this standard.  That
should not deter us, for we can, to the best of our
ability, struggle to achieve this in our own sphere of
influence and leave our microworld a better place
when we are finished.

What about those who do practice racism,
discrimination, partiality, bias and bigotry?  A
Christian has his marching orders on  how to deal
with them from Luke 6; Ephes. 5:7,11; Galat. 6:1;
1Tim.2:1-4; 5:20,21; Matt. 18:15-18; 2 Cor.5:18-20;
2Tim.2:24-26 and all the cross references of these
passages.  Warning!  If you set out to obey the truth
and principles in these passages, you may find
yourself nailed to a cross.   A minor problem for those
who have become children of God through faith in and
acceptance of Jesus Christ and His perfect work to
save us, for being nailed to a cross is followed by a
resurrection in to supernatural and eternal life with
Him who is Compassionate Cherishing, Truth, Eternal
Life, Perfect Light and the Way.

APPENDIX TWO: WHAT DO YOU THINK? THE FEEDING
OF TWO LEGGED OXEN.

        I am not trying to meddle or cause trouble.  I
just want to know if there are any mistakes in the
ideas above in terms of scripture alone, not in  terms
of the  condemned traditions and doctrines of people
(Mark 7).I really want to know what the Bible says
about the subjects discussed above.  I want to live by
every Word of God, not by the commandments and
traditions of man (Mat. 15, Mark 7 and Colos 2).

PLEASE ADVISE ME OF ANY AND ALL ERRORS (TYPOS,
DOCTRINAL, ETC.) THAT YOU FIND.  PLEASE GIVE ME
CLEAR AND EXPLICIT SCRIPTURES  DEALING WITH
THE  ERROR WHEN YOU WRITE.  I WANT THE WORD,
NOT OPINIONS AND PARADIGMS.
       Any and all donations are welcomed for the
furthering and the expense of this very controversial
ministry. Donations are welcome for the furthering of
this ministry. It has taken a great deal of time.  If the
information in this work has ministered to you, I
would appreciate your ministry to me to get this
information out and to the Church.  Otherwise I have
to "make tents".  If I  time from "making tents"
permits, this work will be revised monthly.  In the
next publication/distribution I hope to provide the
actual texts for all references.
Ro 15:27 Truly it has pleased them, and they are their
debtors. For if the
nations have been made partakers of their spiritual
things, their duty is also
to minister to them in carnal things.
1 Cor. 9:9 For it is written in the law of Moses, "You
shall not muzzle the
mouth of the ox treading out grain." Does God take
care for oxen? 10 Or does
He say [it] altogether for our sakes? It was written for
us, so that he who
plows should plow [in] hope, and so that he who
threshes [in] hope should be
partaker of his hope. 11 If we have sown to you
spiritual things, [is it] a great
thing if we shall reap your carnal things?  12 If others
have a share of [this]
authority [over] you, rather [should] not we? But we
have not used this
authority, but we endured all things lest we should
hinder the gospel of
Christ.
13 Do you not know that those who minister about
holy things live [of the things] of the temple? And
those attending the altar are partakers with the altar.
14 Even so, the Lord ordained those announcing the
gospel to live from the gospel.Galatians 6:6 But let him
who is taught in the Word share with the [one]
teaching in all good things.
1Ti 5:17 Let the elders who rule well be counted
worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in
word and doctrine. 18 For the Scripture says, "You
shall not muzzle the ox treading out grain," and, "The
laborer [is] worthy of his reward."
AS THE LORD LEADS.
This  document before you now is a preface to MY
LOVE IS A GARDEN OF DELIGHTS! (my commentary on
the Song of Solomon for concubines and  polygynists)
and is available in MacWrite or Microsoft Word on a
Mac DD 3.5  disk $5 ($7 overseas) for packaging,
postage and copying; At least $10 USA--$12
overseas/foreign/Canada/Mexico --  for postage,
copying and handling. Contact L. Tyler, P.O.Box
620763, SanDiego,CA 92162-0763; Internet E-Mail
address:  [email protected] , or [email protected].
Donations are welcome, for all the time it takes to
prepare and mail the items requested.  It costs about
$2 computer online time with my online service to
upload and Email this Divorce and Remarriage study.
Please feel free to donate more for the time and
expense of this ministry if the Lord has used it for
good in your life.

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), 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.

A WEDDING
AFFIRMATION***********************************

(Your name), will you have this (man, woman) to be
your (husband, wife) and will you , before God and
these witnesses, solemnly affirm and declare your
marital intentions and expectations 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 marriage?
(Answer, "I do" or "Yes").

I, (your name), take you, (the other's name), to be my
wedded (husband, wife); and I do solemnly affirm
and declare before God and these witnesses that I
intend and expect to be your loving and faithful
(husband, wife) 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 wed you; 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 husband and wife.  Do you have
something to declare to us?

(in unison) We covenant before God and all of you
present, that we are husband and wife 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 WEDDING
AFFIRMATION**************************

________, do you accept and acknowledge  ______ as
your husband? 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 marriage?              Yes/I
do______

          initials
Do you leave your parents and loyally bond with him
to be one in marriage submitting to each other in
reverence to God, sharing in common all that you
have and own?                       Yes/I do_______

          initials
Do you, ____________, commit yourself to him with all
your heart, to follow ________'s lead as unto the Lord
in all matters showing honor and respect?
Yes/I do______

           initials
__________, do you accept and acknowledge
___________as  your wife?_Yes/I do______
                     initials
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 marriage?             Yes/I
do_______

          initials
Do you leave your parents and loyally bond with her
to be one in marriage submitting to each other in
reverence to God, sharing in common all that you
have and own?                      Yes/I do ________

          initials
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_______
                                           initials

       _____________________________
                               The Couple's Signatures and
Date


       ______________________________


       ______________________________
                               The Witnesses' Signatures &
Date


ANOTHER WEDDING
COVENANT*****************************

I, ___________________, make a covenant with you
this day.  I take

you, ____________________,  as my wedded husband
before God and these witnesses. I acknowledge my
fervent desire and responsibility to faithfully cherish
you as my husband, 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.  All that I have
and own is now ours. 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 wedded wife
before God and these witnesses. I acknowledge my
fervent desire and responsibility to  faithfully cherish
you as my wife, 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. All that I have and own
is now ours. 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


       ______________________________


       ________________________________
                               The Witnesses' Signatures &
Date


APPENDIX FOUR: 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 haven�t
used the magic words �husband, wife, marriage�, if
you two have agreed to be faithful marital/sexual
partners to each other, to me that�s 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.)]




APPENDIX FIVE: Marrying the unsaved & "saints"
living in sin.
       What if I am thinking about maritally
committing to a guy who is or might be unsaved, not
believing in a risen from the dead and someday to
return in the clouds Son of God named Jesus?  What
does the Bible say?
2 Cor. 6:14  Be not unequally yoked>1 with
unbelievers; for what participation [is there] between
righteousness and lawlessness? or what
fellowship/communion of light with darkness?  15
and what accord/consent of Christ with Belial, or what
part for a believer along with an unbeliever? 16  and
what agreement has God's temple>2 with idols?. . .
[[Footnote: >1.  Any permanent and/or long term
commitment/obligation that limits/controls your
behavior or options, like marriage.  Jeremiah 27:8,11;
Jer. 28:2; Ezek. 30:18; Lev. 26:3; Malachi 2:14,15; Prov.
20:25; Jer.3:20;
Malachi 3:5;Mat. 11:29,30; Acts 15:10; Gal. 5:1;  1
Timothy 6:1-5.            >2.  �Or do you not know that
your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit..and you
are not your own?  For you were bought at a price;
therefore glorify God in your  body and in  your spirit,
which are God�s.� 1 Corinthians 6:19,20.a]

Consider the following:
Ex.34:14  For you shall worship no other God; for
Jehovah--Jealous is
his name--is a jealous God; 15  lest  you make a
covenant with the
inhabitants of the land, and then, when they [they are
unfaithful to God by
loving and serving] their gods.and you  [are unfaithful
to God by  loving
and serving] their gods
Psalm 1:1 � Blessed is the man that walks not in the
counsel of the wicked, and stands not in the way  of
sinners, and sits not in the seat of scorners. . .
Psalm 26:2  Prove me, Jehovah, and test me; try my
reins and my
heart: . . .4  I have not sat with idolatrous mortals,
neither have I gone in
with hypocrites 5  I have hated the congregation of
evil-doers, and I have not sat with the wicked.
       Proverbs 13:20 � He that walks with wise [men]
becomes wise; but a
companion of the foolish will be destroyed.  Proverbs
14:7 � Go from the
presence of a foolish man [one who says there is no
God, one who lives as if
there were no God], in whom you perceive not the lips
of  knowledge.
       Proverbs 24:1 � Be* not  envious of evil  men,
neither desire to be with
them; 2  for their heart studies destruction, and their
lips talk of
mischief/trouble making.
       Isaiah 30:1 � Woe to the rebellious children,
says Jehovah, who take
counsel, but not of me, and who make leagues, but not
by my Spirit, that they
may heap  sin upon sin . . . ..
       Isaiah 52:11  --Depart, depart, go out from
there, touch not what is
unclean; go out of the midst of her, be* clean, that
bear the vessels of
Jehovah.
       Amos 3:3  Shall two walk together except they
be agreed?
       1 Corinthians 10:20  But that which [the nations]
sacrifice they sacrifice
to demons, and not to God. Now I do not wish you to
be in communion with
demons.  21  You* cannot drink [the] Lord's cup, and
[the] cup of demons: you* cannot partake of [the]
Lord's table, and of [the] table of demons.  22  Do we
provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than
he?
       James 4:4 . . .know you* not that friendship with
the world  [human society] is enmity with God?
Whoever therefore is minded to be [the] friend of the
world [human society] is made an enemy of  God.
       Revelations 18:4  And I heard another voice out
of the heaven saying, Come out of her, my people, so
that you* have not fellowship in her sins, and so that
you* do not  receive of her plagues . . . ..a precedent
in the Bible to see what God means.

What about marriage, engagement and dating?
2 Corinthians 6:17b ..for you* are [the] living God's
temple�Or do you not know that your body is the
temple of the Holy Spirit..and you are not your own?
For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God
in your  body and in  your spirit, which are God�s.�
1 Corinthians 6:19,20.a        according as God has said,
I will dwell among them, and walk among [them]; and
I will be their God, and they shall be to me a people.
17  Wherefore come  out from the midst of them, and
be separated, says [the] Lord, and touch>5  not [what
is] unclean>6, and *I* will receive you; 18  and I will
be to you for a Father, and you* shall be to me  for
sons and daughters, says [the] Lord Almighty.
[Footnote: >5.   1 Corinth 7:1,2,3,4.a ;       [>6.  The
unsaved, those knowingly,willfully and deliberately
living in their sins without repentance,salvation and
forgiveness: John 13:8-20.a] ]

       What does the following say:
Ex.34:14  For you shall worship no other God;..15  lest
you make a
covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and then,
when they go a whoring5 after their gods,16  and you
take of their daughters unto your sons, and their
daughters go a  whoring6 after their gods, and make
your sons go a whoring  after their  gods.
       Deut. 7:3  And you shall make no marriages
with them: your daughter you shall not give unto his
son, nor take his daughter for your son; 4  for he will
turn away your son from following me, and they will
serve other gods, and the anger of Jehovah will be
kindled against you, and he will destroy  you quickly.
. . .6  For a holy people are you unto Jehovah your
God: Jehovah your God has chosen you to be unto him
a people for a possession, above all peoples that are
upon the face of the earth.
       Ezra 9:10  .. 12  Now therefore give not your
daughters to their sons,
       neither take their daughters to your sons, nor
seek their peace or their
prosperity for ever; that you may be strong, and eat
the good of the land, and leave it for an inheritance to
your children for ever. 13  And after all that is come
upon us for our evil deeds .. 14  should we again
break your
commandments, and join in affinity with the peoples
of these abominations?
would you not be angry with us till you had
consumed us, so that there should be no remnant nor
any to escape?
       Exodus 23:27  ..32  You shall make no covenant
with them, nor with their gods.  33  They shall not
dwell in your land, lest they make you sin against me;
for if you serve their gods, it is sure to be a snare 7.
unto you.
       Numbers 33: 51  .55  But if you will not
dispossess the inhabitants of the land from before
you, those that you let remain of them shall be thorns
in
your eyes, and pricks in your sides, and  they shall
harass you in the land
[marriage, contract, covenant, home]  in which you
dwell.
       Nehemiah 10:28  And the rest of the people,..
that we would not give our daughters to the peoples
of the land, nor take their daughters for our sons:
       Nehemiah 13:25  .. You shall not give your
daughters to their sons, nor take their  daughters for
your sons or for yourselves. 26  Did not Solomon king
of Israel sin by these things? Yet among the many
nations was there no king like him, who was beloved
of his God, and God made him king over all Israel; but
even him did foreign8. wives cause to sin.
       1 Kings 11:1 � But king Solomon loved many
foreign 8. ..women of  . . . . . . the nations of which
Jehovah had said to the children of Israel, Ye shall not
go in to them, neither shall they come in to you; they
would certainly turn
away your heart after their gods: to these Solomon
was attached in love. 3  . . . and his wives turned
away his heart.
       Malachi 2:11  .. Judah has profaned the
sanctuary9.  of Jehovah which he loved, and has
married the daughter of [one who  believes in] a
strange . god.  12  Jehovah will cut off from the tents
of  Jacob the man that does this,
       Isn�t this a record  about what God means?

Does this  �be separate . . . .don�t touch� principle
apply to people who call
themselves Christians but don�t act like followers of
Christ?

       1 Corinthians 5:9 I wrote to you in my epistle
not to keep company>8
with sexually immoral>9     people. . . ..11. But now I
have written to you not to keep company with anyone
named a brother, who is a fornicator>10 , or covetous,
or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an
extortioner --
not even to  eat with such a person.
[Footnote: >.8   hang around with,  be companions
with/to,.a .       >.9. breast pressing, petting,caressing
and/or genital contact (Ezekiel 23:3,8,21; Prov. 5.)
with someone else besides your mate/spouse.    >.10
one who does breast pressing, petting,caressing
and/or genital contact (Ezekiel 23:3,8,21; Prov. 5.)
with someone else besides your mate/spouse.]

       1 Thessalonians3:6 But we command you,
brethren, in the name of our  Lord Jesus Christ, that
you withdraw from every brother who walks
disorderly and not according to the tradition which he
received from us.
       1 Timothy 6:3 If anyone teaches otherwise and
does not consent to
wholesome words, the words of our Lord Jesus Christ,
and to the doctrine
which is according to godliness, he is proud, knowing
nothing. . . . .From such withdraw yourself.
               2 Corinthians 7:1 � Having therefore these
promises, beloved, let us purify ourselves from every
pollution of flesh and spirit, perfecting
holiness in  God's fear. The Bible tells us what this
means:
2 Timothy 2:19 � Yet the firm foundation of God
stands, having this
seal, [The] Lord knows those that are his; and, Let
every one who names the
name of [the] Lord withdraw from iniquity.  20  But in
a great house there are
not only gold and silver vessels, but also wooden and
earthen; and some to
honor, and some to dishonor.  21  If therefore one
shall have purified himself
from these, [in separating himself from them], he shall
be a vessel to honor,
sanctified, serviceable to the Master, prepared for
every good work.22 � But
youthful lusts flee, and pursue righteousness, faith,
love, peace, with those
that call upon the Lord out of a pure heart.
       Hebrews 5:5  Thus the Christ also has not
glorified himself . . . . . ..7  Who in the days of his
flesh, having offered up both supplications and
entreaties to him who was able to save him out of
death, with strong crying and tears; (and having been
heard because of his piety;) 8  though he were Son, he
learned obedience from the things which he suffered;
9  and having been perfected, became to all them that
obey him, author of eternal salvation;
       John 14:15 � If you love me, keep my
commandments. 16  And I will beg the Father, and he
will give you another Comforter, that he may be with
you for ever, 17  the Spirit of truth . . . . . ...
       1 John 2:1 � My children, these things I write to
you in order that you* may not sin; and if any one sin,
we have a patron/advocate with the Father, Jesus
Christ [the] righteous;  . . . . . 3 � And hereby we know
that we know him, if we keep his commandments.  4
He that says, I know him, and does not keep his
commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; 5
but whoever  keeps his word, in him verily the love
of God is perfected. Hereby we know that we are in
him.  6  He that says he abides in him ought, even as
*he* walked, himself also [so] to walk.  21  He that has
my commandments and keeps them, he it is that
loves me; but he that loves me shall be loved by my
Father, and I will love him and will manifest myself
to him.


APPENDIX SIX: When do I have to marry?   WHEN
MUST WE MARRY?

Before we look at when we  must marry, let�s find out
the meaning of �sexual immorality� or �fornication�
which god by paul indicates is the main reason for the
need of marriage (1 COR. 7:1,2).

JESUS AND THE APOSTLES TOOK THE  SAME OLD
TESTAMENT HEBREW AND GREEK (LXX) WORDS FOR
IMMORALITY/FORNICA-TION AND USED THEM IN THE
NEW TESTAMENT GREEK WITHOUT CHANGING THEIR
MEANINGS. HE DID CHANGE THEIR PENALTIES/
PUNISHMENTS IN THIS LIFE ON EARTH.  Matt. 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,

***Sexual sin includes the following: (1)
Pressing/handling/embracing the genitals, a breast
and/or breast-nipple of a female who is not your wife
or by a male who is not your husband; (2)
Coition/genital-to-genital connection with someone
who is not your husband/wife;(3) Genital connection
with orgasm with someone who is not your
husband/wife; (4) A "lover/ paramour" seeing the
genitals of the female he is involved with and she is
not his wife.
Ezekiel 23:2  "Son of man, there were two women,
daughters of one mother. 3  And they did sexual sin
in Egypt; they did sexual sin in their youth: there
were their breasts pressed, and there were handled
the nipples of their virginity. . . . .  8  Neither left she
her sexual sin [brought] from Egypt; for in her youth
they had lain with her, and had handled the breasts
of her virginity, and poured their fornication upon
her. 21  And you did look back to the lewdness of
your youth, in the handling of your nipples by the
Egyptians, for the breasts of your youth.  Proverbs
5:18  Let your fountain be blessed: and rejoice with
the wife of your youth.  19  [Let her be as] the loving
hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy you at
all times; and be ravished [enraptrured/intoxicated]
always with her [erotic] love. 20  And why will you,
my son, be ravished [enraptrured/intoxicated] with
some other woman, and embrace the bosom of an
alien stranger?  21  For the ways of man [are] before
the eyes of the LORD, and he ponders all his goings. 22
His own iniquities shall take the wicked himself, and
he shall be held with the cords of his sins."
Please read all of Ezekiel 16, Ezekiel 23 with 1
Corinthians 6.

***Pressing/handling/embracing a female's breast
and/or breast-nipple, coition/genital-to-genital
connection,  genital connection with orgasm OUTSIDE
OF YOUR OWN MARRIAGE IS UNACCEPTABLE TO GOD
AND ETERNAL LIFE. Exodus 22:16 � And if a man
seduce a virgin who is not covenanted-to-marry, and
lie [in genital connection] with her, he shall certainly
endow her to be his wife. 17  If her father utterly
refuse to give her unto him [as wife], he shall weigh
money according to the dowry of virgins.
Deut. 22:25  But if a man find a covenanted-to-marry
young woman in the field, and the man force her, and
lie [in genital connection] with her; then the man only
that lay [in genital connection] with her shall die: 26
But unto the young woman you shall do nothing;
[there is] in the young woman no sin [worthy] of
death; for as when a man rises against his neighbour,
and slays him, even so [is] this matter: 27  For he
found her in the field, [and] the covenanted-to-marry
young woman cried, and [there was] no one to save
her. 28  If a man find a young woman [who is] a
virgin, who is not covenanted-to-marry, and lay hold
on her, and lie [in genital connection] with her and
they be found [by man or God]; 29  Then the man who
lay [in genital connection] with her shall give unto the
young woman's father fifty [shekels] of silver, and she
shall be his wife; because he  humbled her, he may
not put her away all his days.
PROVERBS 5, 6, &7 on premarital &/or extramarital
sex.
Lev. 18:20  And you shall not lie [in genital
connection] with your neighbour's wife, to become
unclean [by orgasm/adultery] with her.
1 Corinthians 6:9 � Do you not know that unrighteous
[persons] shall not inherit [the] kingdom of God? Do
not err: neither fornicators >*, nor idolaters, nor
adulterers >~ , ...shall inherit [the] kingdom of God. . . .
13  ... the body [is] not for sexual sin, but for the Lord,
and the Lord for the body. 15  Do you not know that
your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then,
taking the members of the Christ, make [them]
members of a female who does sexual sin? Far be the
thought. 16  Do you not know that he [that is] joined
to the female who does sexual sin is one body? for the
two, he says, shall be one flesh. 17  But he that [is]
joined to the Lord is one Spirit. 18  Flee sexual sin.
Every sin which a man may practice is without the
body, but he that commits sexual sin, sins against his
own body...
[Footnotes>*=those who press/handle/embrace a
female's breast and/or breast-nipple,  and/or have
coition/genital-to-genital connection,  and/or genital
connection with orgasm OUTSIDE OF/WITHOUT
MARRIAGE .
>~=males who press/handle/embrace the
breast/nipple of another male's female, and/or have
genital connection  with another male's female;  or
females who let another male besides her own male
press/handle/embrace their breast/nipple and or
have genital connection with them]

1 Thess 4:1 � Furthermore, then, my brothers, we
beseech you and exhort
[you] in [the] Lord Jesus, that, as you have received of
us how you ought to walk and to please God, so you
would abound more [and more].  2 For we know what
commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus.  3 For
this is the will of God, your sanctification, that you
should abstain from fornication>^,  4 each one of you
should know how to know how to possess his vessel.
[Footnote:>^=Pressing/handling/embracing a female's
breast and/or breast-nipple, coition/genital-to-genital
connection,  genital connection with orgasm OUTSIDE
OF YOUR OWN MARRIAGE]

OTHER  POSSIBLE TRANSLATIONS PUT FORTH BY
OTHERS :
       1:  . . .�know that he is to  procure his own
vessel [wife] in  [personal]
holiness and honor, not in the passion of inordinate
desire . . .�
       2. ..� learn to control his own body .. or . .�learn
to live with his
own wife; or . . .�learn to acquire a wife . . .
       3.   � know how to possess [control, manage] his
own  body (in
purity, separated from things progfane, and) in
consecration and honor.".1b in sanctification and
honor  5 (not in the passion of lust, even as the
nations
who know not God) ,  6 not to go beyond and defraud
>1c        his brother in this 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 unto sanctification.  8 He,
therefore, who despises, does not despise man but
God, who also has given unto us His Holy Spirit.
[Footnote: >1c This probably refers to adultery,
defrauding your brother by
adultery with his wife.]

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.

>>>1Co.7:9a BUT IF THEY CANNOT contain, let them
marry.<<<<<<<

<Strong�s 3756>12 Strong's exhaustive concordance;
Baker Book House;
Grand Rapids, Mich.12---------�3756 ou {oo} ..
a primary word, the absolute negative [cf 3361]
adverb;
particle
1) no, not; in direct questions expecting an affirmative
answer�
So Strong's shows us that 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
strives 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.

>>>1Co.7:9b- But if they cannont CONTAIN , let them
marry.<<<<<<<<

[Strong�s<1467> (5736)],
       Strong�s1467 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

>>>1Co.7:9c- But if they cannot contain, LET THEM
MARRY <<<<<<<<

[Strong�s <1060> (5657)]:
�Strong�s 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
2) to give a daughter in marriage
Strong�s 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 the
action.
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 [who is] to perform� the action of
marrying in this
passage?  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."

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
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 marry" by the order and authority of the one
commanding (The Holy Spirit in Paul); or simply,
�they are commanded to marry.�  Who is commanded
to marry? Those who don�t  exercise self-control.
THERE IS NO INDICATION  AS TO WHO THEY SHOULD
MARRY.  IN THE OLD TESTAMENT THE "WHO"  WAS
INDENTIFIED  (See Deut. 22 and Ex. 22) BUT WE ARE
NO LONGER BOUND BY THOSE LAWS  (Acts 15; Eph. 2;
Col. 2).  We know that He does not want us to marry
the unsaved (2 Cor. 6) or saints living in sin (2 Th.
3:6-14; 1 Cor. 5:9-11; 1 Tim. 6:1-5; 2 Tim. 3:1-5).  It's
obvious that He wants us to marry "in the Lord".

>>>1 Cor.7:9----FOR IT IS BETTER TO MARRY THAN TO
BURN.<<<<

What a shame most women have no idea of what the
average male's testosterone sex drive does to him,
how it can make him burn.  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 burning 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
exhausion.  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 burning and
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 uretha so they cannot
urinate normally and the effect on the brain is that
those males are so distracted and distractable,
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 distractable by
anything that, as with too much alcohol, their judment
and thinking is impaired and foolish (risky),
dangerous (AIDS,HIV) or irrational behaviour
resultswhich results in burns.

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?"
The obvious answer is marriage (1 Cor. 7:1,2,5,9) with
a wife 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,
except for the women of the next paragraph, 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.

The widow who is left burning for the sexual affection
and attention of her departed husband (1Cor.7:5;
1Tim.5:11-14), has a very real and intense sex drive,
not fueled by testosterone, but by an
emotional/affectionate need created by the wonderful
addiction to marital sex with her husband, now
departed.    She can actually feel, in her memory, the
stimulation of her whole body or particular erotic
zones that love making with her husband activated.
Those affectionate and erogenous memories create an
intense aching longing for that whole body experience
she had in orgasm with her husband.

Even a formerly promiscuous woman who knew no
other love than that she had in sex with "tricks/Johns"
or just guys,  feeling such an aching and yearning
desire for affectionate attention, can burn with desire
for that sexual affection and attention.  Mind,
emotional and heart addictions can generate such a
desperate burning that their judgment is impaired,
their reasoning clouded, and their mind so distracted
that they are capable of doing very foolish and life
threatening things.

AND THE LORD SAID IT IS BETTER TO MARRY THAN
TO BURN.

1 Corinthians 7:9a in various versions:

DBY1>.13  Darby�s.3  "But if they have not control over
themselves, "
NEB1>.14  New English Bible (version 2) 1970.4  "if
they cannot control
themselves, "(So also NIV)
YLT1>.15  Young�s  Literal Translation.5  and "if they
have not continence--"
NKJV1>.16  New King James Version, 1984: This
version uses the word "cannot" with refernce to the
exercise of self-control, "cannot exercise self-control"
MKJV1>.17  OnLine Bible�s Modern King James
Version: This version uses "do not" with reference to
having self-control.
ASV1>.18  American Standard Version, 1901.8 "But if
they have not continency, "
LP1>.19  Lamsa�s Peshitta, 1957.9 "But if they cannot
endure it, "
AB2>.20  Amplified Bible, 1965.0 "But if they have not
self-control (restraint
of their passions), "
WNT2>.21  Wuests�s New Testament, 1961.1 "But
assuming that they are not able to exercise self-
control in the realm of the continent life, "........

1 Cor. 7:9b invarious versions continued:

DBY  " let them marry; "  (so also LP)
NEB "they should marry."  (so also NIV)
ASV  "let them marry"   (so also YLT, MKJV, WNT  &
NKJV)
AB they should marry.

1 Cor. 7:9c in various translations cont.:

DBY   "for it is better to marry than to burn."  (so also
ASV, MKJV
NEB "Better be married than burn with vain desire."
YLT      "for it is better to marry than to burn;"
LP" for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
" (So also NIV, NKJV
AB "For it is better to marry than to 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}"

So the way this writer gets it is a modified DBY:   �But
if they have not control over themselves,  they should
marry;  For it is better to marry than to burn.�
Now if the mighty God of the universe tells me I
should marry, just being thankful in Christ that He
has taken the time to know me and deal with me, I
would be asking �Who� and �When�.  Now I know I
need to obey my Lord Jesus (Heb.5:8,9;
1John2:1-5), and since He has told me I NEED
to/SHOULD marry and promised to supply all my
needs according to His riches, then I need to prepare
myself forWHOEVER of the saints He provides (seek
and ye shall find), knowing that He will LEAD  that
saint to be willing to marry me ----- and shame on
me if I am too selfish and particular to accept the one
He provides!

       1Tim. 5:11-15 show us another circumstance
where God inspires the
expression of His will that someone marry, whether or
not they want.  1 Cor. 7:5 shows why she cannot
remain unmarried, Satan tempting her because of her
lack of self-control.  1 Cor. 7:9 and 1 Tim. 5:11-15
show us God's will when we fail to have or exercise
self-control, it is better to marry than to burn."Who"
they should marry is not indicated, as it used to be in
the Old Testament, but certainly they should marry
"in the Lord".

The next  passage is seen in two ways, has three
possible translations, 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, that
it applies to a fianc�
and his fiancee (engaged but not married), or a couple
in some kind of relationship where they both agree
that she is "his virgin". The first and second
translations are very much like 1 Cor. 7:9 and 1 Tim.
5:11-15, the people involved come  under God's
command to marry.  In the case of the fianc� and
fianc�e, the "who to marry" is clear and indicated. The
third translation, applies to a father and his virgin
daughter, may or may not involve the daughter's
failure to exercise self-control, and may involve other
factors.  If the father's virgin daughter is burning and
failing to control herself, the father would behave
"unseemly" with regard to his daughter if she has
come under God's command to marry and he refuses
to let her marry.   Refusing to let her marry would be
to cast a stumbling block (Rom.14) in her way, setting
her up for the disgrace and dishonor of failing to
control herself in her "burning".  If the father's saved
virgin daughter was
burning and failing ot control-self with her saved
sweetheart, the obvious
command to the father is "let them marry", i.e. they
are commanded to marry (1 Co. 7.9).

>>>1 Cor. 7:36 � BUT IF ANY ONE THINK THAT HE
BEHAVES UNSEEMLY. . <<<<<<<<<<<
       [Young's Literal Translation:  1 Cor. 7:36 � and if
any one doth think [it] to be unseemly2>.22c
       [Arndt & Gingrich: behave disgracefully,
dishonorably, indecently  . . .  1 Cor. 13:5 . . . if anyone
thinks he  is behaving dishonorably toward his
maiden  7:36.
       [Thayer: to act unbecomingly . . .  1 Co. xiii.5; . . .
contextually, to prepare disgrace for her, 1 Co. vii.  36.
       [ Harper & Brothers The Analytical Greek
Lexicon:  to behave in an
unbecoming manner, or indecorously,   1 Co. 13.5;  to
behave in a manner open to censure,1 Co. 7:36.2c to
his virgin]

>>>1 Co. 7:36  TO HIS VIRGINITY, IF HE BE BEYOND
THE FLOWER OF HIS AGE. . .  <<<<<<<<<<<<
       [Arndt & Gingrich:  . . .  it may apply either to
the woman past one's prime, past marriageable age,
past the bloom of youth  . . .  or to the man . . . with
strong passions.     Thayer: . . . 2.  overripe, plump and
ripe,  (and soin greater danger of
defilement): of a virgin ]
       [R.V. past the flower of  her age ], 1 Co. vii. 36
       [( Harper & Brothers:  past the bloom of life)

>>>1 Cor. 7:36  AND SO IT MUST B E, LET HIM DO
WHAT HE WILL, HE DOES NOT SIN: LET THEM MARRY.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Does "let them marry" mean "You let/permit/allow
them to marry"?  Is
�You� the �hearer [who is] to perform� the action of
marrying in this
passage?  See  the  J. Gresham Machen, D.D., Litt.D,
quote above in the 1 Cor. 7:9 discussion. 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
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 marry" by the order and authority of the one
commanding (The Holy Spirit in Paul); or simply,
�they are commanded to marry.�

Agreeing  with the KJV and RV Greek meaning that
�they are commanded to
marry�   you have the NIV, Wuest's EXPANDED NEW
TESTAMENT, NEW KING  JAMES VERSION, AMPLIFIED
BIBLE, THE NEW ENGLISH BIBLE (1970), the
AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION (1901), Berry's
INTERLINEAR.

The NIV agrees with the fianc� and fianc�e meaning,
as do the AMPLIFIED BIBLE, THE NEW ENGLISH BIBLE
(1970), THE NEW KING JAMES VERSION, the footnote
of the AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION (1901),

Agreeing with the father and his virgin daughter
meaning are WUESTS
EXPANDED NEW TESTAMENT,  the footnote in the NEW
KING JAMES VERSION, Lamsa's HOLY BIBLE, the NEW
AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE (1977), the footnote  of
THE NEW ENGLISH BIBLE (1970),  the AMERICAN
STANDARD VERSION (1901),  Lamsa's HOLY BIBLE.

if she may be beyond the bloom of age, and it ought
so to be, what he willeth let him do; he doth not sin--
let him marry = Darby.  This is Darby's Online Bible
19th Cent. version, and Berry's  Interlinear agrees
with Darby that this is about one's  own virginity.
The Amplified  indicates that v.37 is about one and
his own virginity. The American Standard Version
gives this "one and his own virginity" as an option in
its notes

According to Harper & Brothers Analytical Greek, this
is the  "3 per. pl. pres.
imper. act." [of gameeo] so its pronoun would have to
be "they".  The
imperative means that the third person, "they", are
commanded to marry.
Lockman's NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE, 1977,
and Lamsa's Holy Bible, change the "them" of "let
them marry" to  "her" so that the meaning is changed
to mean that the virgin daughter is commanded to
marry, she is commanded to  marry.  This writer,
Tyler, believes it is �let them marry� or �they should
marry�.

Modern King James Version (Greene's OnLine Bible)
and The New King James Version gives this meaning
in its main text.  .The Amplified combines the two
indicating that v.37 is about one and his own
virginity. The American Standard Version gives this
"one and his own virginity" as an option in its notes.

1 Cor.7:37  And he who hath stood stedfast in the
heart--not having necessity--and hath authority over
his own will, and this he hath determined in his
heart--to keep his own virgin--doth well;  38 so that
both he who is  giving in marriage doth well, and he
who is not giving in marriage doth better.          KJV
The New King James Version gives this meaning as an
option in its notes. The American Standard Version,
Lamsa�s Peshitta, Young�s Literal Translation seem to
prefer this interpretation. The Amplified  gives verses
36,38 this meaning.   Wuest�s  seems to prefer  the
father & virgin daughter meaning.The NEB gives the
father daughter option in its notes.The  NEB & NIV
seem to prefer the man and his fiance interpretation.

I believe that this is a shotgun verse, taking a number
of valid targets.  I believe it is up to the saint to be
led by the Spirit in the Word to see which application,
if any , applies to his or her case.  If you find you or
your loved one under the command to marry, then
you should show Jesus your Love for Him and have a
marriage  (John14:15-21).  If you find you and your
loved one under His command to marry, it becomes a
"need" on your part that He has promised to fill and
your part is the "ask-knock-seek" part under the
Spirit's leading.

1 Corinthians 7:1 Now concerning the things about
which you wrote to me, [it is] good for a man not to be
touching a woman.  2. Nevertheless, [to avoid] sex sin
every man is to be having his own woman and every
woman is to be having her own man.....8.I say
therefore, to the unmarried and widows, It is good for
them if they abide [unmarried] even as I.  But if they
do not abstain [from touching/having one], they are
[commanded] to marry.   For it is better to marry than
to burn  [lustfully/passionately]......36. But if anyone
think that he behaves himself improperly toward his
virgin, if she  has become marriageable,  and so it
must be, he is [commanded]  to do what he wishes; he
does not sin; they are [commanded] to marry.  37.
Nevertheless he who stands steadfast in his heart,
having no necessity, but has power over his own will,
and so has determined in his heart that he will keep
[as is] his virgin, does well. [See 1 Thessalonians 4:1-
8.]  1 Timothy 5:11 But refuse [to enroll] younger
widows; for when they have sensuous impulses
contrary to Christ, they wish to marry.... 14. Therefore
I desire that younger [widows] marry, bear children,
manage the house,  give no occasion to the adversary
to speak reproachfully.
[The difference between the old testament commands
to marry (see above) and the New Testament
commands to marry is that in the Old Testament God
tells the one who erred WHO he must marry, and in
the New Testament He just commands the
uncontrolled one to marry and leaves it up to the
uncontrolled one to find out WHO to marry by Phil.
4:6,7,8 & Romans 8:14.  In other words, now, an
uncontrolled saint might be sinfully intimate
intermittently without commitment/covenant with an
unsaved person, all the while under great conviction.
That puts the uncontrolled saint under command
(1Cor.7:9) to marry, but that saint is also under
command not to marry the unsaved (2 Cor.6:14-7:3),
so the uncontrolled saint must marry ---but not to the
unsaved one of the intermittent intimacy without
commitment/covenant. ]

So there are two parts to the solution for a believer
whose struggle with
sex sin has more failures than bearable; 1. First  do
1Jn1:9 with 2 Cor. 7;   2.
Secondly marry the Spirit filled believer walking in
the Spirit that God provides, and have enough sense
to drop your own personal and preconceived
prerequisites  e.g. bodily appearance, education, social
status, ethnic/racial status, economic status) if they
aren�t met by the one God provides.

SOME SCRIPTURAL GUIDELINES
       1. God makes it very clear in His Word  that He,
as our Heavenly Father, instructs us not to �go with�,
become engaged to, or marry anyone who is not a
believer who is obeying the Word of God>#1.  Being
the Loving Father our God is, and the all wise King
that Jesus is, God instructs us for our own well being
that an obedient believer should not �go with�,
become engaged to, or marry any �believer� who is
disobeying God�s instructions, or any �believer� who
believes or teaches things that contradict or are in
conflict with God�s teachings in the Bible>#2.  Yes, that
really narrows the way for finding a godly mate and
drastically reduces the number of eligible people but
those who have been down the road can tell you that
it is better to marry right than wrong, and that it is
better not to marry than to marry wrong.  It just
makes the miracle of God�s provision even more
miraculous, like Elijah pouring all that water over the
sacrifice to be burned before God sent the consuming
fire from Heaven. You have to have Faith in God to
walk with God. You have to really trust Him before
you can turn your hopes and dreams over to Him for
His decision.
[#1  2 Corinthians 6:11-7:1; 1 Corinthians 15:33; James
4:4; Exodus 34:12; 23:33; 1 Kings 11:1,2; Ezra 9:11,12;
Nehemiah 10:25-30;Psalms 1:1; 26:4,5; Prov.
12:26;13:20; 14:7; 24:1; Amos 3:3.
#2    1 Corinthians 5:9-11; 2 Thessalonians 3:6-14;
Ephesians 5:7,11; NKJV 1 Timothy6:3-5; Romans
16:17; 3 John 10,11; 2 Timothy 3:1-5]


2. If you have no need of marital affectionate/sexual
intimacy, a gift from God, you have the wonderful
opportunity to serve God with fewer "distractions", to
spend much more time with Him in the Word and
prayer, and with others in ministry.  David Hocking's
book on singles beautifully explains 1 Corinthians
7:1,7,,20,25-35 and the great opportunity the single
life presents to those who want more fully to seek
and follow God with their whole heart.  Singles groups
for such people are fellowship opportunities, and
provide the opportunity to bond with friends and
minister to the Body of Christ.

3. If your calling and gift is to marry, how do you
seek and find that partner?  First of all you have to
have your priorities right because marriage can
become an idol just like anything else on earth can.
You have to make very sure that Matthew 6:33,34;
Proverbs 3:1-8; Psalms 37:1-6; and 2 Timothy 2 are
daily very real or else even our prayers are in vain (1
John 3:22,23 and 1 John 5:14,15).

Next we have to come to the place of Luke 22:42 and
Romans 6:4,11, 12,13----the place of death to self and
resurrection to Love which seeks not its own
way/things---SO THAT WE ARE READY TO ACCEPT
WHOEVER HE GIVES TO US, EVEN IF HIS CHOICE
SEEMS TO FALL FAR SHORT OF OUR DREAMS AND
FANTASIES.  With our "seed" dead in the ground, He
can raise us to a new life of marriage in His will. You
literally have to die to your wants and tastes in
physical appearance, personality, color hair or eyes,
height, talents, income, status etc. and be ready to
accept whoever He gives to you and you will have
doubt-free peace of heart and mind if you are ready
and accepting the one  He gives to you.  Your only
concern should be that your prospective mate meets
God's requirements in the Bible for a godly, Spirit-led
and Spirit-filled man/woman.

Jesus said seek and you shall find. Seeking one's mate
can be as active a process as Ruth's and Queen
Esther's or it can be as privately surprising as Adam's
awakening to Eve for the first time. You can count on
God to lead you according to His word (Proverbs 3:5,6;
Romans 8:14). You can trust Him to put His
ideas/desires in your heart/mind and the
opportunities to act on them (Philippians 2:13;
Hebrews 13:20,21).  Like Adam, you can wake up to
her in your life in His time.  Like Issac, a parent figure
can help you find God's choice for you.  You can just
be going about your daily activities like Rebekah and,
in a moment of compassionate assistance to a
stranger, you can find your mate.

Like Ruth, you can commit yourself to God's service,
make a Godly decision to step out of one situation and
into another and in that new situation be led and
advised to do what seems like an ordinary work day
decision but which results in your meeting your mate
quite unexpectedly.   Following wise and Godly
counsel of Godly counselors like Ruth, you might be
led to offer yourself as wife to a Godly man who
obviously cares for and admires you but for some
reason feels unworthy to ask you to be his wife.  Like
David meeting Abigail, you could just be going about
your daily walk in the Lord, meet a godly woman you
admire and respect but who seems unavailable just to
quite unexpectedly find that she is both available and
ready to marry you.  Like Abigail, you could find
yourself in a trying and difficult situation with no
relief in sight, but by living wisely and Godly in that
situation impress and build a relationship with the
one you will eventually marry.

With today�s laws about sexual harassment, any wise
male will think long and hard before he compliments
a female on her female beauty or appearance, long
and hard before he will let her know he likes her and
is interested in getting to know her personally, long
and hard before he will ask or suggest that they go
out on a date.  Because of the sexual harassment laws
the only way a woman might know a man is
interested in her is by what his eyes show, and it is
now virtually up to the woman to tell the man that if
he is interested, she would like to get to know him
better and get together to talk. This is very hard for a
woman because of the chance of misreading his eyes
and being rejected and embarrassed.  That�s why men
and women more than ever need Christian singles�
and couples� agencies and fellowship groups, as the
Lord leads.

THE KEY IS IN GENESIS 24:27.  Being in His way, doing
His things, saying His Words He leads you to the
where and the who of your future. It may even seem
like blind faith but it has to be absolute trust in His
working all things together according to the counsel of
His own will (Ephes. 1:11; Phil. 4:6,7) free of worry,
anxiety and fretting, with a soul at rest and in peace
knowing that your Shepherd-King will take care of
the need for you in His time with the person of His
choice, not necessarily of your choice. YOU MUST
TRUST HIM TO USE HIS WORD AND THE TRUTH OF
ROMANS 14:22,23 WITH PHILIPPIANS 4:6,7 to guide
you.  He can bring scriptures to mind to guide and
direct you.

The final test is the Spirit's gift of doubt-free peace of
heart and mind.  Move and rest in that peace.
Consider every doubt and uneasiness of spirit to be
God's Romans 14 and Phil. 4 signal to you that you
shouldn't do the thing in question because either it is
the wrong thing and you don't realize it yet, or it is
the right thing but you shouldn't do it yet.  So you
don't say it or do it until your consciousness is filled
with His doubt-free peace and rest of spirit about
it/him/her and the Word of God in Scripture.

APPENDIX SEVEN: The error of swearing ,  oaths,
solemn promises and  swearing oaths.

       It is obvious that certification can be comprised
of oaths, swearings,
covenants and contracts.  For example government
documents requiring
certification consist of at least an assertion about the
future, if not a
promise or prediction about the future.  A Calif.
Highway  Patrol ticket has
the statement, "Without admitting guilt, I promise to
appear at the time and
place checked below.  Signature___________".  The
promise or assertion
about the future is made  binding by the maker's
signature.  In legal terms, the signature functions as
an oath, making the promise/agreement binding on
the maker, so the entire statement becomes a sworn
statement (a solemn promise made binding by an
oath).

Phrases like "I promise that I will  . . . .", "I agree that
I will provide . . . .",
"I will also cooperate . . . .", "I agree that I will inform .
. ." are all
predictions or promises about one;s future behavior.
When certified or signed with one's signature, the
signature functions as an oath, making them binding
and the maker punishable for failure to fulfill his
predictions/ promises.

The signature, or witnessed statement,  is that which
(1) attests to the
credibility of the predictions and promises, (2) makes
the promises or
predictions binding on the applicant/recipient/maker,
and (3) enables the
courts to punish the applicant/recipient/ maker if he
fails to fulfill his
words.  According to almost all legal and college level
dictionaries, those
three characteristics of such a signature makes that
signature an oath that
completes and confirms the swearing  (promises or
predictions) that precede it.  Almost all legal and
college level dictionaries define swearing as promising
or predicting with an oath.  The government's Loyalty
Oath is a
perfect example, i.e. promises or predictions made
with a witnessed raised
right hand and/or a witnessed signature (i.e. name).

Arndt & Gingrich Greek Lexicon render the word
"swear" (Mt. 5:34) as
"swear, take an oath   w. acc. of the pers. or the thing
by which one swears . . warning against any and all
oaths as early as Choerilus Epicus[V BC]">.26  ;  and
the word "oath" (Mt. 5:33) as  "swear to someone with
an oath  . . . perform oaths to the Lord . . . guarantee
by means of an oath . . .">27.    Thayer's Greek Lexicon
renders "swear" (Mt. 5:34) as " to swear; to affirm,
promise, threaten, with an oath: . . . .in swearing to
call a person or thing as witness, to invoke, swear by
. .">28;  and renders the word "oath" (Mt. 5:33) as
"an oath . . . that which has been pledged   or
promised with an oath; plur. vows . . .">29.   That this
is the definition of swearing and oaths in the
HolyBible is obvious from the following scriptures:
Gen. 21:23, 24 (19th Cent. BC);
Gen. 31:44, 52, 53 (18th Cent, BC);
Josh. 2:12, 13, 14, 20; Josh 9:11-20 (14th Cent. BC);
Judg. 21:1 (11th Cent. BC);
1 Kg 1:29,30 (10th Cent. BC);
Ezek. 17:12-19 (6th Cent. BC);
Luke 1:73,74,75 (1st Cent. BC);
Matt. 5:34-37 & 14:7,8,9 (1st Cent. AD); Acts 7:17 (1st
Cent AD); Acts 2:29-31 with 2 Sam. 7:11-16; Heb.
3:10,11 with Num. 14; Heb. 6:13-17 with Gen.
22:16,17; Heb. 7:20,21 with Psa. 110:4; and see also
Isa. 62:7; Jer. 44:6,26; Matt. 23:18; Heb. 3:18.
[Footnote: >.26 Arndt & Gingrich Greek English
Lexicon; p. 568ff.   >.27 Arndt & Giungrich; p. 585.
>.28 Thayer Greek Lexicon; p. 444.        >.29  Thayer;
p.453.]

Passages, like Mt. 26:74, lead people to think that
'swearing' means
profanity or cussing or "taking the Lord's Name in
vain", i.e. that Peter was
using profanity to deny  that he knew Jesus. Instead
of that Mat. 26:74 means  "in swearing to call a person
or thing as witness, to invoke"   where Peter called on
God to curse him/his if what he was saying (that he
didn't know Jesus) was untrue.  The cursing was
invoking God's curses on him if what he was affirming
under oath was untrue, that he did not know Jesus.
Jesus is not talking about cursing, profanity, cussing
or taking the Lord's Name in vain in Matt. 5 or James
5.

Some of the oaths people swear by are God (Gen.
24:3), one's self (Ex.
32:13), God's holiness (Amos 4:2), the raised or
unraised right hand or arm
(Isa. 62:8; Rev. 10:5,6), one's name (Jer. 44:26; Lev.
19:12; Deut. 6:13),
something greater than you (Heb. 6:16), and some
swear  a curse on one's self if what one says isn't true
or if one fails to do what one swears  you will do, like
Peter when he swore - invoking curses on himself --
while denying Jesus (2 Sam. 3:35; 13:35; 1 Kg 2:23;
Matt. 26:74).  I see my signature attesting
to/vouching for and guaranteeing (certifying)
promises and predictions as an oath, just like
swearing by my name or swearing by myself.
Today the "curse" you swear on yourself if you are
lying or fail to do what you promised is jail (perjury,
fraud) or civil suit.  The fourth century AD Church
fathers Jerome, St. Ambrose and Basil all agreed with
this definition of swearing (promises or predictions
confirmed with one's signature, name or hand)>.30 ,
that it is not profanity, cussing or using the Lord's
Name coarsely.
[#>30The  Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers of the
Christian Church, 1954, Erdman's  Publish Co.' pp. 63,
386, 248.]

The Holy Bible in Matthew 5:33-37, James 4 and
James 5:12, declares that
we don't know our future, not even tomorrow or even
the next hour.  Therefore it is a presumptuous
assertion to say that we will do this or that in our
future.  He tells us to recognize and admit our finite
knowledge and our mortality by saying, "If the Lord
wills and we live, we also shall do this or that."  To
make presumptuous assertions about your future is
prideful
boasting and contrary to His will.  See James
4:13,14,15 and Prov. 27:1.

This is not an attempt to be dishonest or evasive since
this same God of
Truth commands us to be honest, to give that which is
due to others, and to
conscientiously submit to the civil authorities
(Romans 13 and 1 Pt. 2).  While He wants us to be
honest and give that which is due, he takes into
consideration our human frailty, finite knowledge and
mortal nature and so
holds us liable only for our intent, will and
expectations about the future.

From James 4:13-17 & 5:12 we see that there is
nothing that we can give
that will honestly and absolutely attest to the
credibility and fulfillment of
our promises or predictions about our own future.
We have absolute and
perfect control or authority over not one thing.  To
give the idea to the
recipient of such promises, oaths or predictions about
our  future --- that we can be expected to perfectly
and completely fulfill such statements is to give the
recipient a false expectation of (and false confidence
in) our fulfillment of such swearings/oaths. Such
dishonesty is contrary to the Truth of the word since
or life is like a vapor or a blade of grass and disasters,
disabilities, incapacities, death or etc. could  keep us
from fulfilling our sworn oaths.

People who give their signatures, handshakes,
property and etc. as oaths in
promissory notes of indebtedness, or contracts or
other such documented
promises or predictions not only fall into the
condemnation of man when they fail to fulfill their
sworn promises or predictions, but they face the
double condemnation of God for swearing
(promising/predicting with an oath), and then for the
failure to truthfully keep their promise (the covenant
breaking of Rom. 1:31,32).  The God of Truth does not
want His followers to suffer for doing wrong, or to
keep on doing that which is wrong.

Truth, Who was revealed as Christ, declares that all I
can give to promises
or predictions about my future is simply "If the Lord
wills", or a simple "Yes", i.e. an affirmation of my will,
a declaration of my intent, an expression of my
expectation, an evidence of my good and honest
intentions and an expression of my optimistic hope
for the future fulfillment of my intentions or
expectations.  No oaths.  Such an affirmation attests to
and is confirmation of nothing but that described in
this  paragraph's first sentence.  It is proof of my
sincere desire and intention to fulfill the
declaration/affirmation/intention.  The recipient of
such an affirmation knows that he has been given no
profound absolute and mighty guarantee.  Such an
affirmation is a reflection of our finite, mortal and
frail human nature.

       Laurence Geller, a Calif. Administrative Law
Referee/Judge ruled against San Diego County  and
Calif. and for my petition, on 8/5/'75, stating: "It is
the claimant's conviction that before he may affix his
signature to any document, his signing must b e
qualified by a religious preface such as �In case Christ
wills and I live.�  Claimant testified that his desire to
so qualify his signature is in no way an attempt or
subterfuge to not meet his reporting responsibilities.
Claimant simply desires the qualification so that the
placing of his signature would be in conformity with
his religious convictions which appear to require an
affirmation of the finite  nature of the claimant's
existence. . . .San Diego County shall rescind its July 1,
1975 denial  . . .Further, the county shall permit the
claimant to sign his application and qualify his
signature with the religious statement.�

In A COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPELS>31 we read "The
citizen of the New Kingdom . . .is also too frank and
truthful to need the use of oaths; his word is his
bond."  In THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW>32 we read the
following:
"Matthew 5:33-37 . . . This passage concludes with the
commandment that
when a man has to say yes, he should say yes, and
nothing more; and when he has to say no, he should
say no, and nothing more. The ideal is that a man
should never need an oath to buttress or guarantee
the truth of anything he
may say. . . Clement of Alexandria insisted that
Christian must lead such a
life and demonstrate such a character that no  one
will ever dream of asking
an oath from them. . . ."
[>.31  By Ronald Knox, 1952, N.Y. Shed and Ward,
Imprimatur, Richard J. Cushing, Archbishop of
Boston. >.32  Vol. 1, Barclay, Professor of Divinity
at the Univ. of Glasgow, Westminister Press, 1958; p.
158.]

In A  COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO
SAINT MATTHEW>33 we read the following:
"Since in all of life man is dealing with God, he is
always obligated to
complete integrity in word and act.  Therefore the use
of oaths is misleading; swear not at all; simply say
"Yes" or "No" . . . The use of solemn-sounding oaths
instead of simple, truthful speech is a concession to a
double standard and comes from the Evil One, Satan,
the "Father of Lies" . . . and dishonesty (Jn :44)."
[>.33  Filson, Dean and Professor of N.T. lit.and Hist.;
McCormick Theological Seminary, Chicago, Harper and
Bros. Prss, 1960; p. 89.]

In the THEOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF THE NEW
TESTAMENT>34  we read the following:
". . . oaths and vows had to be kept. . . . Attempts have
been made to limit
["swear not at all"] of Jesus, e.g. to promises rather
than affirmations.. . .  . . . Hence the ["Swear not at all"]
applies to all oaths, whether in daily life or in judicial
cases. . . The Essenes rejected the oath
unconditionally. . . Jesus does not merely attach the
misuse of the oath; He rejects it altogether. . .  He who
already belongs to the kingdom . . . must be truthful
in all things; hence he stands under the requirement
not to sear at all. . .  ["swear" Mt. 5:34] means to
swear, to affirm (confirm) by an oath. . ."
In THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW>35 we read
that "Jesus would abolish oaths altogether as
unnecessary for those who habitually tell the truth as
his disciples are expected to do.   This radical rejection
of oaths is paralleled in the Damascus Document  of
the Dead Sea Scrolls (XIX, 1).
[>.34 edited by G. Friedrich G. Kittel, Eerdmans
Publishers, 1967, Vol. 5; pp. 176ff and page 183.
       >.35  Argyle, Cambridge, 1963; p.52.]

The Holy Bible in Matthew 5:33-37, James 4 and
James 5:12, declares that
we don't know our future, not even tomorrow or even
the next hour.  Therefore it is a presumptuous
assertion to say that we will do this or that in our
future.  He tells us to recognize and admit our finite
knowledge and our mortality by saying, "If the Lord
wills and we live, we also shall do this or that."  To
make presumptuous assertions about your future is
prideful
boasting and contrary to His will.  See James
4:13,14,15 and Prov. 27:1.

This is not an attempt to be dishonest or evasive since
this same God of
Truth commands us to be honest, to give that which is
due to others, and to
conscientiously submit to the civil authorities
(Romans 13 and 1 Pt. 2).  While He wants us to be
honest and give that which is due, he takes into
consideration our human frailty, finite knowledge and
mortal nature and so
holds us liable only for our intent, will and
expectations about the future.

From James 4:13-17 & 5:12 we see that there is
nothing that we can give
that will honestly and absolutely attest to the
credibility and fulfillment of
our promises or predictions about our own future.
We have absolute and
perfect control or authority over not one thing.  To
give the idea to the
recipient of such promises, oaths or predictions about
our  future --- that we can be expected to perfectly
and completely fulfill such statements is to give the
recipient a false expectation of (and false confidence
in) our fulfillment of such swearings/oaths. Such
dishonesty is contrary to the Truth of the word since
or life is like a vapor or a blade of grass and disasters,
disabilities, incapacities, death or etc. could  keep us
from fulfilling our sworn oaths.

People who give their signatures, handshakes,
property and etc. as oaths in
promissory notes of indebtedness, or contracts or
other such documented
promises or predictions not only fall into the
condemnation of man when they fail to fulfill their
sworn promises or predictions, but they face the
double condemnation of God for swearing
(promising/predicting with an oath), and then for the
failure to truthfully keep their promise (the covenant
breaking of Rom. 1:31,32).  The God of Truth does not
want His followers to suffer for doing wrong, or to
keep on doing that which is wrong.

Truth, Who was revealed as Christ, declares that all I
can give to promises
or predictions about my future is simply "If the Lord
wills", or a simple "Yes", i.e. an affirmation of my will,
a declaration of my intent, an expression of my
expectation, an evidence of my good and honest
intentions and an expression of my optimistic hope
for the future fulfillment of my intentions or
expectations.  No oaths.  Such an affirmation attests to
and is confirmation of nothing but that described in
this  paragraph's first sentence.  It is proof of my
sincere desire and intention to fulfill the
declaration/affirmation/intention.  The recipient of
such an affirmation knows that he has been given no
profound absolute and mighty guarantee.  Such an
affirmation is a reflection of our finite, mortal and
frail human nature.

There have been laws passed at various levels of
government, as well as written policies made by
creditors as part of their loan agreement, that
acknowledge human frailty and the uncertain future
of any human.  Legal bankruptcy is offered to and
available for debtors who are unable to pay what
they had bound themselves to pay.  Bankruptcy laws
protect the debtor from the creditor, but also warns
future creditors of the debtors behavior.
The law and the courts can release the debtor from
his debt to the creditor and protect him from a
creditor�s legal actions, but it cannot release the child
of God from the responsibility before God to honor
and fulfil his/her word/promise/pledge/contract with
the creditor.  So even if it is �pennies� a month
repayment of the money/service owed, the child of
God should make every realistic effort to honor
his/her word/signature/hand-shake and pay/do that
which was agreed upon or promised-------even if
released by bankruptcy court or by human law.

It would appear that if a creditor/contractor would
accept your signature/ word/hand-shake as binding
but with the acceptance/recognition of your
finite human nature, with its possibilty of failure to
be able to do what was promised/contracted,-----
then you would appear to have a James 4:13-17
contract instead of the forbidden James 5:12 type of
contract.  Just a thought.

APPENDIX EIGHT----BLACK POLYGYNY RESOURCES
Here are summaries of some articles dealing with the
subjects of blacks and polygamy.
--------------------------------------------------------
----------------
TITLE: Can Mr. Mombasa Keep All his Wives?
AUTHOR: Tim Stafford
SOURCE: Christianity Today, 35:33-34 Feb 11, 1991
This article deals with a conflict in the Christian
church in Kenya, wheremany blacks who are
converted have several wives. Originally the
churchwould not baptize them, but allowed them to
participate in the church.Later, the church and some
members broke away from their leadership and
began baptizing black polygamous men.

--------------------------------------------------------
----------------
TITLE: Thinking the unthinkable: man-sharing: a
startling report from those who do, don't, will, won't.
AUTHOR: Laura B. Randolph
SOURCE: Ebony 46:136+, Jan 1991
The book Man Sharing: Dilemma or Choice, by Audrey
Chapman, says that man sharing is common in the
black community. This article discusses the emotional
impact of man-sharing on black women, and says that
many black women do chose this life-style because of
the shortage of black men.
--------------------------------------------------------
----------------
TITLE: Shortage of Black Men may Force Alternative
to Traditional Family
SOURCE: Jet 69:33, Feb 3, 1986
This article discusses the shortage of single, employed
black men, and suggests that women may have to
consider polygamy as an alternative.
--------------------------------------------------------
----------------
TITLE: Woman Leader Sparks Furor about Polygamy
Saving Black Families
SOURCE: Jet 69: 38-39 Feb 17, 1986
Hortense G. Canady, who is the leader of Sigma Theta
Sorority, has created a controversy by stating that
black women may have to live polygamy because of
the shortage of marriagable black men in the
community.
--------------------------------------------------------
----------------
Other polygyny resources:
http://etext.org/  then locate Etext Archives  and look under
pub/essays/polyamory  and pub/politics/essays/polyamory
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Hezekia
h/polygamy.html
http://www.mainelink.net/~bfree/men.html
[email protected]
Mormon and Moslem: [email protected]/ Lanove Homepage
/Web Searchers



footnotes done to *********
CHANGED  29,30,31,78,79

App[endiox three