DIVORCE,
REMARRIAGE,
CONCUBINES
&
POLYGYNISTS;
ANOTHER LOOK
for Monogamists.

All rights reserved.
Anyone may copy this in its entirety
off of, or post on to, computer networks like Internet.

BY
L. Tyler,  P.O. 620763,  San Diego, CA 92162-0763
P.O. Box 734, El Centro, CA 92244-0734
[email protected]


I. INTRODUCTION: PRIORITIES AND AN ANCIENT MARITAL
OPTION RECONSIDERED.
        The aim of this document is to show that both monogyny and
polygyny or concubinage may be acceptable options for those who have
a Judeo-Christian cultural background.  The writer believes that
monogyny is the best for most, but  for those who are called in or called
to polygyny or concubinage in this mortal life, there is a need to know
and understand that second-best is not bad socially, morally or ethically
--- even for those of a Judeo-Christian cultural background.
       Polygamy and polygyny are currently illegal or unpopular in
most of the world.   The Third World's and the Orient's  experience
with communism and their desire to enter the world of the "West", the
lifestyle of America, and the capitalism and technology of the 20th
century -- all of these have moved them away from a widespread
acceptance of polygamy.   Few educated and successful 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 mistresses on the side.  Two thirds of the world's
population live in societies where concubines and mistresses are
openly accepted in society and officially sanctioned, while the other
third (America, Europe etc.) lives in societies where mistresses and
common law wives are officially sanctioned but not openly accepted.
       The plight of most wives, concubines and mistresses are worse
now than when polygamy were legal because then at least they had
some security, often in law and social pressure, and commitment from
their mates even if they took additional wives, while now they are
dumped (divorced etc. with no legal recourse or rights) when the man
takes a new wife, mistress or concubine.         A man need make no
commitments to a mistress and in most of the world, mistresses have
no rights if there is no contractual agreement involved.  It is much
more to the advantage of the male to have a mistresses with no
commitments or legal obligations, than to have a concubine or
polygynous wife whose rights are protected by law or social pressure.
       Are polygyny and concubinage only for the benefit of males?  It
is 1995 and the women live in Somalia or Rawanda and Burundi,
Africa as refugees or survivors of famine and/or civil war.  Almost 50%
of them are widows and almost 50% of their marriageable men  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.  They can try to survive by prostitution but in Africa,
like California, that is usually a death sentence by HIV AIDS     They can
become the polygynous wives or concubines of one of the few
surviving stable and working males, coming under their society's
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 marriageable 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.
Approximately 1 out of every 25 black males is in prison.   Between
prison and death, there are significantly more Black females available
for marriage than Black males.   The vast majority of the Black males in
prison range in age from 20 - 40, with most in the 25-35 age group.
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>1c making it
the number one killer of Blacks in America.  That means
approximately 30,000 Blacks will be dying each year from HIV/AIDS, a
horrendous slaughter!  Condoms fail 33% of the time [see Doctor
Lorraine Day, MD], and then on stationary artificial genitals according
to federal test results, so they give very little protection.  But when you
add crack or speed or other mind altering drugs to the equation, so the
users can�t even think straight to appraise their risk or use them
carefully and correctly, then condoms can�t even give their miserable
little 66% protection.  And the AIDS rolls on through the urban Black
communities like the plague.

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

The Black population in America has increased very little in the last
twenty years, one % in twenty years, to the delight of the bigots.
Tragically all of the facts cited above (AIDS, Gangs, drugs, abortion)
mean that Blacks are killing more Blacks per year now than the
number of Blacks killed by Caucasian bigots and the KKK during any
one year from 1800 to 1940, to the delight of the bigots.  In 1880,
according to the census bureau, Blacks accounted for 13.1% of the total
population, whereas today Blacks account only for 12.5% of the total
population.  One hundred ten years later and the Black community has
not yet recovered from the 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.
[Footnote: >.1c  San Diego Union Tribune, ll/25/'95 page A-8, quoting
the US  Center Disease for Control and Prevention.]

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

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

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 girl 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 inquire 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.
       In the world-wide  community some of our ancestors practiced
polygyny (having more than one wife) until recent times.  Please read
about the historical background of, and precedents for, polygyny further
on in this article.  There were many abuses of women in those times
and their rights and interests were usually neither recognized nor
protected, but good marriages are the product of the efforts of a
minority in any society.  .  Most of the spiritual messengers told us that
our ancestors were wrong in their practice of polygyny, so most of us
stopped practicing it.
       I submit to you that, as most spiritual 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.  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 is one of those options available to followers of the
Compassionately Cherishing One today, that polygyny is neither wrong
nor displeasing to The Most High One, that polygyny may be The Most
High One's ideal/best for you, and that there is a way for the spiritual in
The Chosen Deliverer to live in polygyny that  today is acceptable to
The Most High One and allowed by society.  As with any controversial
thing #1.  in life, one must search out the will of The Most High One 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.
       Any child of The Most High One who feels led to consider
polygyny for his/her life and/or loved ones needs to determine what
kind of relationship he/she has with The Compassionately Cherishing
Deliverer.  Whatever we believe about marriage, divorce, remarriage,
monogyny or polygyny, our relationship with The Chosen Deliverer is
the paramount issue.
       What about polygyny ?  What is its history & practice?  I
understand that in Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Asian, Oriental, and
African societies, India and China, polygyny  is still being practiced. The
Mormon assembly so shocked America that they passed laws against
polygyny  in almost all of the states. The Spiritual  community takes
positions on polygyny  ranging from a flat out condemnation of it as
falling short of the standard to the position that it lies in the area of The
Most High One's permissive or second best will and it is not a falling
short of the standard though quite socially undesirable.  They all agree
it is not The Most High One's best for marriage and that a polygamist
should at least be excluded from assembly offices/positions (1 Tim. 3 &
Titus 1).  Most spiritual ambassadors 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/ Contracts 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 (1
Tim. 6).#2.   So there is a great deal of controversy and difference of
opinion about the Spiritual  and polygyny .
       What about polygyny ? Is its condemnation an error? Shall we
be like these: �And the Master says, Forasmuch as this people draw near
with their mouth, and honor me with their lips, but their heart is
removed far from me, and their fear of me is a commandment taught
of men;  14 therefore, behold, I will proceed to do marvelously with this
people, to do marvelously, even with wonder, and the wisdom of their
wise [men] shall perish, and the understanding of their intelligent ones
shall be hid.�? #3.  What does The Compassionately Cherishing
Deliverer say about such people?  �But he answering said to them, Well
did Esaias prophesy concerning you hypocrites, as it is written, This
people honor me with their lips, but their heart is far away from me.   7
But in vain do they worship me, teaching [as their] teachings
commandments of men.  8 [For], leaving the commandment of The
Most High One, you hold what is delivered by men [to keep] - . . . 9 And
he said to them, Well do you set aside the commandment of The Most
High One, that you may observe what is delivered by yourselves [to
keep]. . . . 13 making void the word of The Most High One by your
traditional teaching which you  have delivered; and many such like
things you  do.� #4.
       You may ask, �Pray tell, what commandment of men do most of
America�s spiritual leaders teach as doctrine?�  I submit that most of
America�s spiritual leaders teach as doctrine man�s commandment that
monogamy is the only marital way for the spiritual and that  polygyny
is evil and wrong for all people and cultures on the earth presently.  I
propose to show that this is the case, in terms of the writings of the
Most High.
               What about those who practice polygyny  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  is only the commandment and tradition of
men, dare we impose as Doctrine the commandment and tradition of
men about polygyny  as if it were the Word of The Most High One?
Will we not again make of no effect the Word of The Most High One in
the lives of these people who live where most of the people on earth
live if our teaching against polygyny  is only the tradition and
commandment of men?  I like what the 4th century messenger said
about it:
"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 faults against nature, and faults
against custom, and faults 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."1b

III.  POLYGYNY IN THE WRITINGS OF THE MOST HIGH  --- LET THE
WORD SPEAK!
       Let me share with you the way I understand the Most High's
record and please correct me with clear and specific the writings of the
Most High where and when I am in error. The first mention of
marriage in the writings of the Most High is where The Most High One
miraculously provided Eve to Adam in the Garden of The Most High
One.  The monogamists say that if The Most High One approved of
polygyny  The Most High One would have given Eve, 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 The
Most High One has ordained that the male leaders of his Assembly are
to have one wife#5.  , and that even in the Old Contract the leaders were
instructed not to �multiply� wives to themselves.  To be a valid
prefigure of The Most High's King (as �the first Adam�) you would
expect Adam to have one wife, just as The Most High's King, the �last
Adam�, has one wife the Assembly.
       In the Old Contract The Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer,
as The eternally self-existent One , presents Himself as the husband of
one wife remembering their wedding day and the exchange of the vows
at the mountain in the desert #6.  .  Reflecting the reality of the divisions
after Solomon died, The Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer (as The
eternally self-existent One#7.  ) presents Himself as the husband of two
wives. The Most High One never presents Himself as falling short of
the standard  to us except for when  The Most High's perfect King
became a falling-short-of-the-standard for us to bear all our short-
comings and die for them in our place so that if we accept his sacrificial
death in our behalf we wont have to pay the penalty of all our short-
comings.  Those falling short of the standard were His wives and He
was righteous as the husband of two wives#8.  .  It was only two wives in
accordance with His own Law that decreed that the ruler must not
multiply wives to himself. Even The Most High One�s polygyny is
NEVER labeled or declared to be falling short of the standard in the
writings of the Most High.
       Having one wife is said#9.  to significantly complicate one�s life
and distract one who is waiting on The Most High One, so of course we
understand that any spiritual man with more than one wife would be
significantly more distracted from waiting on The Most High One and
would have a significantly greater struggle in his spiritual life with The
Most High One. In the New Contract in accordance with His law for
assembly leaders, presents Himself to His people as  having only one
wife, the Assembly #10.  , because believing Jews and believing Non-Jews
were reconciled into one Body,  the Assembly, to be one unified and
united Bride to The Most High's King.
       But no where is this example made mandatory or commanded
by The Most High One.  Not all are called to be leaders of The Most
High One�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 the Writings#11.  knows that WIVES TAKE TIME if the marriage is to
be successful and spiritual.  A polygynist shouldn�t have time to be a
leader in the local assembly because of the time it takes him to be the
spiritual leader of his wives and his children in his own home.  The
polygynist has his service 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 writings of the Most High is in  a passage with  the
Cain cloud over it.28* where Lamech (Wild man) takes two wives 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."28c Some maintain that
polygamy was much less common in the Old Contract than is
frequently thought to be the case, though its practice usually seemed to
have a valid reason..{29.
       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 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
The Most High One and became the father of an important nation.[30.
       The same commentary also makes 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) The Most High One intervened and instructed
him so that he was assured that Ishmael's rights and his mother's
prospects were ensured.<31.
       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.  The Most High One intervened and sent Hagar
back into the marital situation with Abram and Sarai.31*. When The
Most High One next spoke to Abraham (17:1--) there was no
condemnation of his polygyny , but instead The Most High One blessed
him with an even greater blessing than before. In response to the
blessing he takes his son by Hagar and  circumcised  him (17:23-25).  But
a Western spiritual elder apparently maintains there was no blessing
from The Most High One on Abraham's polygamy, that the Most
High's record of it is a criticism of Abraham's conduct. <32.  He gives no
references so let's look at the record for ourselves.
       The Most High One blessed Sarah with fertility in  polygyny.32*
and The Most High One 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.32^    Abraham had another
concubine after Hagar, named Keturah.32a  by whom Abraham had six
children without any condemnation or denunciation by The Most High
One.  What about   a Western spiritual 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<32b. .   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 wrong works of the flesh and need to be dealt with
Spiritually, just like any other faults involving more than one person.
falling short of the standard and the flesh are the evils, not polygamy or
monogamy.
        Culturally it is interesting that Nahor, Abraham's brother, also
was a polygamist having a concubine (22:20-24). Abraham also had
concubines under The Most High One's blessing (25:1-6) although he
diligently protected the heir status of Isaac.  Hezron�s Caleb had two
concubines.32c .
       The only differences I can detect between a concubine and a wife
are: (1) that the wedding/marriage is confirmed by a solemn Contract
between the husband and concubine.32d  without a public wedding, (2)
the concubine�s rights were protected by The Most High One (see
below), and (3) their status as concubines spared them certain
penalties.32d.
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 the Most High's
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)..........@33
       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 even of the marriage of the parents....#34
       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.<35.  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./36.
       Both David and Abraham recognized all the rights and
responsibilities of the concubines as if they were official wives.  The
bottom line is what does The Most High One say and how does He
view concubines.   You see The Most High One calling and recognizing
as "wives" David�s concubines.36a .  If that is the way The Most High
One sees them, only a fool would treat them as less than a wife.36*.
        Lamech, the bad guy, and Abraham, the good guy, both marry
polygamously on their own initiative without The Most High One's
explicit leading or condemnation.  You cannot condemn the polygyny
because their kids turned out bad because so did 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.36^  was not condemned but his
unequal yoke was the point of grief to his mother.   Esau�s son had a
concubine (36:12).  A dear brother reminds us that the two wives of
Esau embittered life for his parents, especially his mother (26:35).  The
passage cited shows it was an in-law problem.  Again American divorce
courts and  sociological studies document that monogamy does very
well in producing wrong and carnal problems between mates and the
parents-in-law.  The  problem is still falling short of the standard and
the flesh, not monogamy or polygamy.
       Jacob marries Rachel and Leah.36` , and goes on to have children
by his concubines as well (35:22; 37:2) 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
(29:27,29) Jacob has no moral objection and nowhere does The Most
High One denounce the development.   Much later in the time of
Moses, The Most High One forbade  two sisters being wives to one
husband at one time and makes rivalry the issue.36~ . The Most High
One  deliberately involved Himself in the polygyny  of Jacob by blessing
Leah with fertility (29:31,32; 30:17).  The Most High One repeated
himself in this way with the mother of Samuel without denouncing
her polygyny.36� . The Most High One intervened and granted fertility
to Rachel (30:22).  The Most High One not only blesses Jacob with
fertility but also with miraculous prosperity (30:41-31:10). The Most
High One not only blessed Jacob in his polygyny  but also delivered him
from evil and harm as a polygynist (31:24, 29,42).
       Consider what Augustine of Hippo 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 faults against nature, and faults
against custom, and faults against the laws.  In which,
then, of these senses did Jacob falling short of the
standard 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."36b
       In spite of this The Most High's record of The Most High One's
blessings on Jacob, a brother  writes that Jacob experienced only
troublesome times with Rachel and Leah, and that they were angry,
envious, and hateful rivals.~37.  Only troublesome times?  What about
all of The Most High One's miraculous provision and prospering their
family experienced directly from The Most High One's intervention?
What about their cooperation and their love trust and loyalty for Jacob
when he was in conflict with their father and then with Esau?
       I wish I had some of that trouble in my life! What about the
rivalry?  The Most High One saw that and made the law that a
polygynist should not marry the sister of his wife.37a.   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 faults 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.
       Jacob�s son Ashur had two wives.37b , and his son, Manasseh,
had a concubine.37c .  Benjamin�s Shaharaim was also a polygamist.37d .
So what is the score?  The Most High One miraculously gives one wife
to Adam and another to Isaac.  The Most High One allows Lamech,
Abraham, Nahor, Esau and Jacob to marry polygamously and blesses
the ones who walk with Him in submission, polygyny  or no.
       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.37e and apparently
suffers the same fate because next we see Moses marry, after the giving
of the law, an Ethiopian Cushite.37f  in polygyny . Under The Most High
One's Law Moses gave instructions about polygyny.37g affording it the
full legal status of monogamy with no stigma or  denunciation.
The maidservant status of Hagar and Jacob's wives is
clothed in marital status in Ex. 21:7-9.  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 but 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.^38.
       Her owner could not sell her to foreigners because
he had "trifled" with her (see LXX),  "seeing he hath dealt
deceitfully with her."*39.
       The Most High One's Law instructed kings not to "multiply"
wives to himself.39a  without giving similar instructions to we non
kings.  It appears  The Most High One blessed kings of Israel that The
Most High One makes a distinction between multiplying wives to
yourself and adding wives to yourself.    The Most High One had
�given� him seven wives plus a number of concubines.39c .  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.
       The Most High One intervenes and acknowledges and
vindicates the second wife in a polygamous marriage where the falling
short of the standard of partiality  was being practiced.39d  . She is
vindicated not condemned.
       Dt. 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 the firstborn son be hers
that was hated;  16 then it shall be, in the day that he
makes his sons to inherit what he has  , that he may not
make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of
the hated, who is the firstborn;  17 but he shall
acknowledge as firstborn the son of the hated, by giving
him a double portion of all that is found with him; for
he is the firstfruits of his vigour: the right of the firstborn
is his.
       Gideon had many wives, was blessed and used of The Most
High One without any condem-nation/denunciation from The Most
High One about his polygyny.39e .  A dear brother apparently states, of
Gideon's (Jerubbaal's ) son Abimelech,  that polygamy actually lead to
murder (40.  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.  The Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer makes it clear
that murder comes from the murderer's heart.40a  or from the inner
working of the evil ones.40b, but not from monogamy or polygamy.
The problem is falling short of the standard and the weakness of the
flesh, not polygamy.
       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.
And it came to pass in those days, when there was no
king in Israel, that a certain Levite,  . . . took 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
some time, --four months.  3 And her husband rose up
and went after her, to speak kindly to her, 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;  .
..40c
SO A CONCUBINE IS NOT A HARLOT.  Just like any other wife, she can
become a harlot while married.40d.   HARLOTRY IS AN EVIL THAT EITHER A
WIFE OR A CONCUBINE CAN PRACTICE WHILE MARRIED.
       Hannah, the wife of polygamous Elkanah, received the same
intervention and blessing from The Most High One that Sarah, Rachel
and Leah received in their polygyny.40e.   Her problem with her co-wife
and her own infertility is quite similar to Abraham and Sarah's
experience.  The co-wife had a falling short of the standard problem,
and it was her problem, not a polygyny problem.  You find the same
wrong behavior today between sisters, brothers, wives in social groups,
wives socializing in assembly or work settings.  falling short of the
standard and the flesh are the problems, not polygyny.
       The situation made famous by Ruth.40f  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 The Most High One specifically condemns immorality,
immorality, homosexuality, sodomy, bestiality but nowhere condemns
polygyny  or concubinage.  King Saul had a concubine.40g.       David
is a fascinating case.  He marries Michal.40h.  Then, as the anointed
future king of Israel, David took to himself three additional wives .40i
and one is recognized by the Spirit for her grace and wisdom.  He does
this at a time of The Most High One's miraculous intervention and
blessing in his life.  The Most High One neither denounces or
condemns.  In the case of three or four wives you are still dealing with
addition, rather than the multiplying of.40j.    It is Michal who is
condemned and punished instead of her polygamous husband
David.40k .  By the time he becomes King in Judah he has 6 wives.40l and
is being blessed and prospered by The Most High One. At the time of
the wonderful Contract with David.40m, The Most High One specifically
blesses and contracts with polygamist David and his concubines and his
seven wives, as part of his house, receive a 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.40n .  David, the
polygamist, was declared to be loyal to The Most High One.40o . The
Most High One declares that David, the polygamist, fully followed The
Most High One.40p.
       In contrast to The Most High One's evaluation of David, we
have a beloved brother's evaluation that David was immoral, unjust,
favored some over others, and his sons became killers because he
didn't have the authority deal decisively with his heritage.41.  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 falling short of the
standard and the flesh are the problems, not polygyny.
       The Most High One conferred the status of wives on David's
concubines.41a  as we see how the prophecy, that his wives (including
concubines) would be incestuously violated, was played out.41b.  Again
the distinction between concubines and wives seems to be an issue on
man's end, not on The Most High One's end where it seems to be the
solemn vow/Contract.41c and not the wedding ceremony41c that makes
a woman a wife.41d (where we see Mary and Joseph called husband and
wife based on their betrothal/espousal alone and before the actual
wedding and cohabitation).
       Solomon's polygyny  was wrong first because He disobeyed The
Most High One�s command against a king multiplying wives to
himself.41e ;  and secondly because he married unbelievers and those
with whom The Most High One had specifically forbidden marriage.41f.
Too many wives and forbidden wives both had the same predicted
result, that they turned his heart away from The Most High One.
Solomon was declared to be disloyal to The Most High One in his
polygyny.41g  while David the polygamist was declared to be loyal to The
Most High One.41h .   The Most High One even declares that David fully
followed The Most High One.41i
       Evil king Rehoboam imitated Solomon and almost had 18
wives and 60 concubines.41j. Then Spiritual king Abijah, blessed and
prospered of The Most High One, also had fourteen wives.41k .  The
Spiritual High Priest Jehoida gave two wives to spiritual king Joash.41l ,
Spiritual queen Esther was a wife in polygyny, mightily blessed and
used by the Most High.41m . The Most High One Himself describes
Himself as a polygamist.41n .  The Compassionately Cherishing
Deliverer reaffirmed this Old Contract record of blessed polygynous
marriages and righteous concubines.41o.
       What a record!  Two authors of the Old Contract, David and
Solomon, possibly three if you count Moses, were uncondemned and
The Most High One-honored polygynists in their polygyny.  Four
spiritual patriarchs with whom The Most High One entered into special
and unique Contracts (Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon; five if you
count Moses) were polygynists at the time The Most High One
Contracted with them.  In every era of the Old Contract (Pre Law, Sinai
Law, Judges, Kingdom prophets, Dispersion prophets) you find The
Most High One�s people and leaders practicing polygyny and practicing
it according to The Most High One�s will or instructions.  Yet many
Western spiritual leaders agree with the brother that apparently
maintains that the writings of the Most High offers little defense for
polygamy in comparison to monogamy, that because of its
shortcomings polygamy cannot be tolerated as a form of marriage
willed by The Most High One.#42.  Perhaps that's why The Most High
One chose the polygamous marriage of Solomon and his Shulamite in
Song of Solomon to be the model for marriage in Israel and the
marriage model for His relationship to Israel.
       Were these Old Contract devout ones less Spiritual 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 The Most High One and
reflected a weakness in the character of those who participated in
polygyny?   Augustine of Hippo 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 consecrated
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
writings of the Most High 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 consecrated 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. . . ."42b [Bold mine for emphasis]
       Never by The Most High One or His prophets is polygyny
denounced, condemned or grouped with faults or carnal expressions of
the flesh.  The Most High One Himself portrays Himself as a
monogynist .42c  and then as polygynist.42d.  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 falling short of
the standard that which The Most High One never condemns as
wrong?  Why would we want to do such a thing?  Yes it is against the
law in some countries and we know that The Most High One wants us
to obey the laws of the land as long as it does not violate His Law.  So
we should not practice polygyny openly and publicly in those lands.42e.
So why don't they simply say that instead of teaching as doctrine the
tradition of spiritual men,  i.e. that polygyny is wrong?

               Okay, that's polygamy B.C..  What's the story on
polygamy A.D. ?

       Some might say all or most of those Old Contract passages on
marriage and morality were for the nation Israel under the Law of
Moses and not for  The Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer'
assembly under the Law of LOVE in The Most High's King.  The
writings of the Most High history indicates quite clearly that The
Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer came not to destroy the Law but
to fulfill it.42f .  The Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer 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 the spiritual realm of the
Most High".42g.  Over and over again in the New Contract  you see The
Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer obeying the Law of Moses and
telling His followers to obey it.42h  Mt.. 23:3, 4, and 23 are the strongest
statement 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 The Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer made it soon
before His death.
       Even  a Western spiritual elder agrees that during The
Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer' physical and visible walk on
earth, the Jews practiced polygamy.<43.
       In the New Contract we read that the Old Contract �is becoming
obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away�.43a.  The New
Contract statement about the Old Contract,  �...if what is passing away
[was] glorious...�.43b, shows there was a period of transition (�is
becoming...growing old...is ready to...is passing away)  from the Old
Contract Sinai Law of Moses to the New Contract Law of
Compassionately Cherishing .  The book of Acts is full of the apostles
keeping the Old Contract Sinai Law of Moses after Pentecost. You see
them worshipping in the Temple regularly, Peter refused to socialize
with Non-Jews, Peter refused to eat the animals classified as unclean in
the Law, Paul circumcised Timothy, Paul kept the Law's feasts, Paul
recognized the authority of the Chief Priest.  The believing Non-Jews
are released from the Old Contract Sinai Law of Moses while the
believing Jews are not released.43c.
       So even after Acts' Pentecost and Acts 15 the apostles and
believing Jews still believe that they are to obey the Law of Moses
including the laws about marriage (including polygyny ) and morality,
and the only thing they wrote about polygyny was that the
elders/bishops/deacons should have only one wife at a time.43d .
       In fact, it is not until after Acts 22 when the Spirit has Paul write
that The Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer reveals and instructs
us to accept the end.43e of the Law of Moses, finally releasing believing
Jews from having to obey the Law of Moses (as the Non-Jews 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 the
New Covenant written before Acts 21:16 while Paul and the believing
Jews, including the apostles, were still obeying and teaching the
marriage and morality laws of the Old Contract Law of Moses, discussed
at length above and 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 assembly.  The polygyny  of the Jewish, Egyptian, Greek and
Roman world was not attacked, but the leadership of the local
assemblies was transformed by the monogamy restriction, probably to
prevent polygamous leaders from getting involved in assembly 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 Contract time,
the First Century AD?  Let's look at the evidence.
       MARRIAGE: ......"Monogamy is implicit in the
story of Adam and Eve, since The Most High One created
only one wife for Adam.  Yet polygyny  is adopted from
the time of Lamech (Gn. 4:19), and is not forbidden in
The writings of the Most High.......Polygamy continues to
the present day among Jews in Moslem, Hindu,
Buddhist, Asian, Oriental, and African countries.".44
       Eugene Nida's  book Customs and Cultures45. .
documents the current practice of polygyny  by
Monogynists 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 The Most High's children they are
told of their limitations in church offices and are asked
not to take any additional wives because it stumbles
western The Most High's Kingpins (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.
        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 the Most
High's 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)..........@46
       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 even of the marriage of the parents....#47
        "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 reproached
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."<48.
       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. <48b    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..<48c
       It is incredible to think that The Compassionately Cherishing
Deliverer and the apostles would say nothing about such a widespread
contemporary practice as polygyny if it were indeed sinful, less than
The Most High One's best, carnal and reprobate to good works.  The
Most High One never said such a thing in Old Contract times and He
obviously never said such a thing in New Contract times.  When you
consider how specific The Most High One was in the Old Contract.48w,  I
can not believe that The Most High One would "forget" to include
polygyny if it is as bad as most Western spiritual leaders say  it is.

IV.  ARE POLYGYNY  AND CONCUBINAGE  WRONG FOR
TODAY?

       Is polygyny  with wives and concubines a falling short of the
standard today?  St. Basil (4th Century AD) wrote that "On polygamy
the Fathers are silent, as being brutish and altogether inhuman.  The
faults seems to me worse than immorality."48z     "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."48e  Augustine of Hippo (4th Cent. AD) indicates that the
Roman Catholic Church was the power behind the move to not allow
polygyny among the assembly members of his time.48f    We know it is
still practiced today in parts of Utah, China, India, Asia, Africa, in all
Moslem nations, and among the Indians of Latin America.
Communism   greatly discouraged polygyny  in China among the
working class.  So roughly half of the people of the world live in a
society where some form polygyny  is practiced and accepted.
       So for Augustne of Hippo (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 wrong and he didn't say that the practice of polygyny
made these "good" people wrong doers.  This is the position of
Augustine of Hippo, a significant post-Pentecost leader in the 4th
Century AD Assembly, speaking in the era of the Assembly 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 Augustine of Hippo 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.
       Some spiritual leaders say �the purpose of The Most High One
in creation  was that monogamy be the standard for man� even though
there is not one the writings of the Most High, quoted or paraphrased,
that says that.  Yet I understand  a Western spiritual elder and most of
the "leaders" to persist, apparently maintaining that there is no doubt
that The Most High One's indisputable will, as seen in the Old Contract,
is monogamy.#2.
       Augustine of Hippo (4th Century AD) had a gentler way of
saying it that I feel more reflects the The Most High One  of Gen. 1 and 1
Cor. 13.  There is no question that the best form of marriage for most is
monogamy, since that is the gift (1 Cor. 7:7-27) He has given most of His
children on earth and worldwide.  But the point of 1 Cor. 1:7-27 is that
the best form of marriage for each individual depends on the gift and
the leading (Rom. 8:1-14) each individual receives from The Most High
One. 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.2b
        Douglas�  Dictionary6.   : MARRIAGE: ......"Monogamy is implicit
in the story of Adam and Eve, since The Most High One created only
one wife for Adam.  Yet polygyny  is adopted from the time of Lamech
(Gn. 4:19), and is not forbidden in The writings of the Most
High.......Polygamy continues to the present day among Jews in
Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Asian, Oriental, and African countries."






4/19/'96
P.O.Box  620763
SanDiego, CA 92162-0763

Editor
Players
8060 Melrose Ave.
Los Angeles, CA 90046

Dear Editor,
       I really appreciated your article on "Polygamy African
Style" by Odie Hawkins.
I believe that this is an important issue for the Black community
in America today, as I point out in part one of this essay.  I am
sending you only a portion of the whole document and it is a
religiously neutral version so that it can be read without offense
by people with Islamic, Jewish or Christian cultural
backgrounds.  The original document in on the Internet Web in
the Zines Archives.  Feel free to use this if you want to continue
the discussion of polygyny in your magazine.  Please let me
know if you would like to have the rest, and whether or not you
want it religiously neutral.   Would it be more appropriate in
your "Advice & Consent" section?
       I really miss your Lingerie publication.  I'm not
comfortable with "pussy shots" and
"spread explicit" photos of female models.  As far as I'm
concerened, most of a woman's body if far more prettier than
her "pussy", and I love my lady's "pussy".  If you ever publish
something like Lingerie again, where its not all "pussy shots",
please let me know. I would like to buy/subscribe.  Why don't
you give the Black community a choice with a swimsuit issue
that doesn't have any "pussy shots"?  Why give up the
swimsuit market to the white models and buyers?

       Sincerely,

                                                               Lee
Tyler












���������


Eugene A Nida, of the American The writings of the Most High Society
in his book Customs and Cultures    discusses how polygyny  is not a
falling short of the standard in and of itself, but that at the very least
New Contract rules disqualify any polygamist from being an elder,
bishop, overseer, deacon or official leader in the  spiritual assembly.
Why such a disqualification if polygyny  is not a falling short of the
standard in and of itself?
       There are several principles that are involved: too many wives
preoccupy, distract and turn a husband's heart from a whole hearted
love for, and attention to, the Master (Dt. 17:16,17);  a spiritual husband
of many wives earnestly seeks to please his wives so must spend a great
deal of time  on marital matters so he would have little or no time for
assembly service (1 Cor. 7:2-5, 32-35); and any physical/social/human act
(exercise, eating, sex, sleep, intellectualism, socializing) indulged in
excessively is usually harmful  a violation of the command to
moderation in all things, choking the believer's spiritual life like the
cares-of-the-world weeds choked the seed in the parable (Mt.13).
       The command that you should have no other The Most High
Ones before The eternally self-exitent One 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 The eternally
self-exitent One with his whole heart.  This ties in with 1 Cor. 7:32-35
which shows that wives distract one from serving the Master and too
many wives distract the husband too much for the family's spiritual
good. 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 The Most High One
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-assembly. A man who is
covetous of having many wives could be guilty of idolatry, loving
polygyny  more than The Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer (Eph.
5:5,6). We should be content with what we have maritally (1 Tim. 6:5-9
and 1 Cor. 7:9,26-35).  So polygyny  in and of itself is not a sin, unless
practiced in violation of men�s laws (Rom 13), or unless its practice is
abused by selfishness and sinfulness (Rom. 14).  The polygyny  of
concubinage is not illegal in modern society, but is bound by the
principles of Romans 14, 1 Cor 8 and 1 Cor 10.
       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.






II. WHAT DO MOST WESTERN SPIRITUAL LEADERS SAY ABOUT
POLYGYNY TODAY?

       FIRST, they say �the purpose of The Most High One in creation
was that monogamy be the standard for man� even though there is not
one the writings of the Most High, quoted or paraphrased, that says
that.  Yet I understand  a Western spiritual elder and most of the
"leaders" to persist, apparently maintaining that there is no doubt that
The Most High One's indisputable will, as seen in the Old Contract, is
monogamy.#2.
       Augustine of Hippo (4th Century AD) had a gentler way of
saying it that I feel more reflects the The Most High One  of Gen. 1 and 1
Cor. 13.  There is no question that the best form of marriage for most is
monogamy, since that is the gift (1 Cor. 7:7-27) He has given most of His
children on earth and worldwide.  But the point of 1 Cor. 1:7-27 is that
the best form of marriage for each individual depends on the gift and
the leading (Rom. 8:1-14) each individual receives from The Most High
One. 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.2b
        Douglas�  Dictionary6.   : MARRIAGE:
....."Monogamy is implicit in the story of Adam and Eve,
since The Most High One created only one wife for
Adam.  Yet polygyny  is adopted from the time of
Lamech (Gn. 4:19), and is not forbidden in The writings
of the Most High.......Polygamy continues to the present
day among Jews in Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Asian,
Oriental, and African countries."
    Eugene Nida's (American The writings of the Most
High Society) book Customs and Cultures7.   documents
the practice of polygyny  by renewed ones 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
Renewed ones they are told of their limitations in
assembly offices and are asked not to take any additional
wives because it stumbles western renewed ones (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.
       HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE THE
WRITINGS OF THE MOST HIGH: . . . 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.*8.
       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 S 1:1ff) is significant as
belonging to the middle class; Jehoida (2 Ch 24:3) as a
priest. . .Legislation (see below, % 6) safeguarded the
rights of various wives, slave or free; and according to
the Rabbinical interpretation of Lv 21:13(9. the high priest
was not allowed to be a bigamist. . . The marriage figure
applied to the union of The Most High One and Israel (%
10) 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.<10.
       The unscriptural condemnation of polygyny  by the Western
spiritual community has proven to be one of the main obstacles for
people in Eastern and third world  countries to accept the ways of the
West, especially if Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Asian, Oriental, and
African.   The Western � spiritual� tradition against polygyny hinders
the spread of the Western culture 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  and are told that they have to dump and abandon their extra
wives in order to become Monogynists, one of the biggest obstacles for
the Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Asian, Oriental, and African
communities?  These " spiritual" 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 Monogynists.

       SECONDLY, most of the "leaders" say that �polygamy clearly
appears as a product of the fall, in a world of sin.�, even though no
where in the Word of The Most High One does the Word say this.  The
Most High One portrays Himself, in the fullness of His holiness, as the
polygamous husband of two wives in Ezekiel 23.  I believe The Most
High One was not a victim of the fall, and remains consecrated in a
world of sin.  If �polygamy clearly appears as a product of the fall� then
why isn�t there one the writings of the Most High 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 Contracts, in any
list of sins, list of fleshly works or list of abominations to The Most
High One.  I understand  Rev. Gerhard Jasper to make the following
points: (1) In Old Contract 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 The Most High One
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.#12.  Moses did not forbid polygamy
(Dt. 21:15) but apparently it was unusual among average people (see de
Vaux, p. 25).^13.
       Augustine of Hippo (4th Century AD) had a good word on this
subject. Consider the following:
That the consecrated fathers of olden times after
Abraham, and before him, to whom The Most High One
gave His testimony that "they pleased Him," [Heb. 11:4-6]
thus used their wives, no one who is a The Most High's
Kingian 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. . . 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.13b

       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.�14.
�Thou shalt not take a wife in addition to her sister, as a
rival......in opposition to her, while she is yet living.�15.
�And you shall not take to wife a sister of your wife, to
distress her.......beside the other in her lifetime.�16.
�And thou shalt not take a wife to her sister, to be a rival
to her ,.....besides the other in her life-time.� 17.
�You must not marry a woman in addition to her sister,
to be a rival to her.....when the first one is alive.�18
The New King James Version agrees with the meaning
of those above.19.
The New International Version agrees with the meaning
of those above. 20.

        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
The Most High One 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 Master as are the Western
spiritual 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 the writings of the Most High to support the
tradition of men?

       FOURTHLY,
       Husband of one wife: Yes! Definitely! An
elder/overseer/bishop/ superintendent of a assembly 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.  A 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 unrenewed through
slander or misunderstandings are not.  Those who don�t want a
assembly 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 assembly
service than a man who has learned to love passionately and maritally
only one wife at a time.  A serving polygamist in a leadership position
would be more likely to be tempted to accept the advances/
propositions of an unmarried sister in the assembly who falls in love
with him and he with her.  This could result in sex outside of marriage
(immorality) or yet another addition to his polygamous "harem". This
would stumble the devout ones and would be a reproach to the
unrenewed. It would appear that a spiritual polygamist would have to
have a very low profile (no leadership position) in the assembly.

       FIFTHLY,  most of the "leaders" maintain that there is �at least
an implied condemnation of polygyny  in Deut. 17:17, which forbade
the king to �multiply wives�� [and horses] to himself.  Since
interpretations belong to The Most High One, let's see what The Most
High One says in His Word.  By the time David became King in Judah
he had 6 wives (2 Sam. 3 & 5) and was being blessed and prospered by
The Most High One. At the time of the wonderful Contract with David
in 2 Sam. 7, The Most High One specifically blesses and Contracts with
polygamist David, husband to his concubines and his seven wives.
David�s wives, as part of his house, benefited from The Most High
One�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 (1 Chron 3).
       I believe Augustine of Hippo (6th Century AD) had a good word
here for such spiritual men.
"But those who have not the virtues of temperance must
not be allowed to judge of the conduct of consecrated
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
The writings of the Most High 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 consecrated patriarchs in their conjugal intercourse
were actuated  . . .  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. . . ."21b [Bold print mine for
emphasis]

@#***********########@@@@@@@@@
       Was the High Priest commanded to marry only one wife in Lev.
21:13,14 as some American spiritual leaders say?  In any reputable
version there is no such �only one wife� command.  Again we see the
tradition of man making of no effect the Word of The Most High One.

       SIXTHLY, does The Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer
statement �The two shall become one flesh� mean only one man and
one woman become one flesh in monogamy, as the 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."21c
                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 (Deut. 22:22-30; Ex. 22:16,17) but not so
for us after Eph. 2 and Col. 2 in the case of 1 Cor. 7:9; 1 Tm. 5:11-14.  Now
if we do not control ourselves, we are commanded to marry, but who to
marry is not specified, only that your mate be saved22 and spiritual.23.
       Being one flesh, as Eph. 5:22-33 shows, is one of the best motives
for the husband being good and spiritual to his wife.  A Western
spiritual elder apparently maintains that spiritual equality is possible
only in a monogamous marriage, and that polygamy increases
women's subordination.<24.  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 The Most High's King's love to the
Church>25. 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(Song of Sol. 6)?   Was it Abigail who gave up her
wealthy independence as Nabal's widow in order to be David's wife in
a polygynous marriage?
        No, but I think  a Western spiritual 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 falling short of the standard and the flesh are the problem, not
monogamy or polygyny.  There is no question that monogamy best
reflects The Most High's King's love to the Assembly, that is why He
chose it and modeled it for all the Assembly leaders (1 Tm. 3 & Ti. 1) of
whom He is the Chief leader.  The real situation is that we are all not
Assembly leaders and we all have our "best", our different "gifts" from
The Most High One (1 Cor. 7:6,7,17-28).
       I understand  a Western spiritual 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 The Most High's idea of equality/26. He gives no the writings of
the Most High reference for this position, and I don't believe he would
be able to do so. Statistics show that most Western spiritual
monogamous marriages fail to maintain this harmonious equality, and
again because of falling short of the standard 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 (Matt. 19) and the
fornicator becomes one flesh with each harlot with whom he fornicates
(1 Cor. 6:12-20).  There is no reason why a polygynist and his wives
could not attain to the level of the devout ones in the early assembly
where they shared all that they had, and had all things in common
(Acts 4).  In the Master any family, even a polygynous family, can
achieve that unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (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.
Whenever Abraham, David, Jacob, Joash or Gideon had one of their
own wives, he was having his own wife; and each wife of these
polygamists had her own polygamous husband.  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 immorality, 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.
       I understand  a Western spiritual elder to state that it is
inadequate to prescribe polygamy as a treatment for the problem of
immorality, because polygamy facilitates stepping into immorality.
Apparently he maintains that polygamous wives are often driven to
immorality by the wrong neglect (1 Cor. 7:2-5) of their husbands, and
may have to bribe their husbands away from their other wives,
resulting in  very unsatisfying sexual relations for the wives.{27.  First of
all, The Most High One is the only real antidote against immorality,
because He tells us that even in monogyny spousal neglect can result in
temptations to immorality (1 Cor. 7:1-5).  Secondly, whether it be the
"inclusive sex-partnership" of polygyny or the exclusive sex-
partnership of monogyny, the step to immorality depends entirely on
the individual's relationship to The Compassionately Cherishing
Deliverer, obedience to The Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer and
level of commitment to both The Compassionately Cherishing
Deliverer and the marriage.  Surveys show that monogamous America
today steps easily and frequently to immorality. Lastly, if the polygynist
husband was obeying The Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer by
having his own wives (1Cor.7:1-4), defrauding none of them (1Cor.7:5),
loving them and laying down his life for them (Eph. 5), showing no
favoritism or partiality in his behavior towards them (1Tim5:20,21), by
simply walking in the Spirit his family would not experience the
problem described above by  a Western spiritual elder.

       EIGHTH, no where in the writings of the Most High is
polygamous family life described or rated as a �lower form of family
life, but a tolerable one....�.  The right of the first born  (Deut. 21:15,16);
the right of each wife to food, clothing/ shelter and marital sex (Ex.
21:10); and the right for the whole polygamous family to be Spiritually
and materially blessed by The Most High One (Genesis 30 and 2 Samuel
7) is preserved by The Most High One in these polygamous marriages
just as in monogamous marriages.  There is no the writings of the Most
High that says a  wife in polygyny  is less of a wife than a wife in
monogamy.  There is no the writings of the Most High that says a
husband in polygyny  is less of a husband than a husband in
monogamy.
. . . 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 . . .27b
       I understand  a Western spiritual elder to maintain that Israel
put up with polygamy as a lesser evil, causing some of the Old Contract
writers embarrassment, and was clearly criticized sharply tirelessly
showing the negativity associated with polygamy.*28.  Tolerated as a
lesser evil?  Tolerated by whom?  The Most High One did more than
tolerate it, He legislated it in Deut 21:15ff and Exodus 21:7ff without one
word or hint of condemnation.  The Most High One's designated and
anointed leaders freely and openly practiced it (Abraham, Jacob, David,
Jehoida the priest, and The Most High One in Ezekiel 23).  Where in the
The writings of the Most High does he find an Old Contract 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
Contract writer be embarrassed of something The Most High One
sanctioned and legislated,  and that His designated and anointed leaders
freely and openly practiced with The Most High One's obvious and
abundant blessing in their lives (see the next section)? The Old Contract
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 besides these four husbands where is this untiring
and realistic showing of the negativity 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 pointing out in the The
writings of the Most High.
       In fact if you accept the Song of Solomon as the story of young
Solomon and his Shulamite wife in a polygamous marriage (Song of
Sol. 6:8-10),  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 The Most High One my multiplying wives to himself (Deut
17:15-17).  Let's look at the record in the Word.  Augustine of Hippo
(4th Century AD) had a good word on this subject. Consider the
following:
That the consecrated fathers of olden times after
Abraham, and before him, to whom The Most High One
gave His testimony that "they pleased Him," [Heb. 11:4-6]
thus used their wives, no one who is a The Most High's
Kingian 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.28b



V.  CIVIL LAW,  PERSONAL LIBERTY AND  A LOVING
CONSCIENCE!    P. 28

       Surely Romans 13 and related passages apply.  And certainly the
principles of Romans 14 and l Cor 8 & 10 apply.  But how?  Obviously it
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 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 Contract/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 Contracts, 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 The Most High One prescribes no "wedding ceremony",
ritual, vows or rite.Ap#4 to make two people married, leaving it to the
local assemblies to have their own redeemed local and indigenous
marital customsAp#4 .   The vows, Contracts, betrothals and prenuptial
contracts seem to be covered by The Most High One's standards in Ezek.
16:1-14; Malachi 2; Eccles 5:1-10; Psalm 15 and Romans 1:31.  It is the
treachery of Contract breaking that The Most High One condemns in
these passages and that which he hates. "Yes, I swore an oath to you and
entered into Contract with you, and you became Mine," says the Master
The Most High One (Ezek. 16:8).  We become a part of the bride of The
Most High's King in the same way.  The Spirit considered Mary and
Joseph as husband and wife on the basis of their espousal/betrothal/
Contracts even before the wedding and the coming together (Mat. 2
;Deut. 22:23-27).
       So why can't two Monogynists exchange espousal/betrothal
Contracts and become each other's without a formal marriage which
would be illegal?  Of course they can but should they?  We are bound by
our Contracts and The Most High One makes it clear He has no
pleasure in the fools who break them (Eccles. 5:5; Psalm 15).  We enter
into the gray zone of the liberty we have in The Most High's King
(Rom 14) that is limited by the cords of Agape love.  Yes two
Monogynists could exchange their vows/ Contracts without a
formal/legal wedding day but if they became involved in intimacy and
that intimacy became an offense or stumbling block to another devout
one it would be falling short of the standard and could destroy the work
of The Most High's King in another or embolden a weak one to be
intimate contrary to his/her conscience (l Cor. 8 & 10).  So is such
intimacy a falling short of the standard between two Monogynists who
have solemnly and formally Contracted before The Most High One that
they are maritally one flesh as long as they both live? It is neither illegal
nor wrong but it becomes falling short of the standard if it stumbles,
offends, grieves another in The Most High's King.
       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 The Most High One?  Happy is the one who does not
condemn himself in what he approves (Rom 14:22,23).  But woe to him
if he does it with doubts or offense to another in The Most High's King.
So it seems to be with post Contract but pre wedding 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 The Most High One.  Happy is the one who
does not condemn one's self in what he approves in the liberty of The
Most High's King. But he who practices/believes in polygyny
/concubinage with doubts is condemned if he/she indulges because
he/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 The Most
High's King.
       Foreign  spiritual polygynists visiting Western monogamous
societies encounter a special challenge.   Spiritual and Devoted
Monogynists would be able to handle it well and in the Master, but the
unrenewed, the carnal,  the Spiritual milk drinkers, the legalists, the
ignorant,  and those weak of conscience would all have varying
problems with a  spiritual polygynist and his wives visiting their
Western/Occidental assembly (1 Cor. 8 & 10; Rom. 14 & 15).   The
visiting  spiritual polygynist would 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.
       Hopefully mercy and compassion would move the  spiritual
polygynist to not flaunt his polygyny in the face of such "Monogynists"
even though they are so unlike The Most High's King.  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 devout ones.  Obviously the
polygynist would not be an official leader in the assembly and would
not be visiting local assemblies as a
leader/elder/deacon/bishop/overseer/etc. (1 Tim. 3 and Ti. 1).   Ideally
the local devout ones would be bearing the fruits of the Spirit and
receive such foreign visitors with mercy and compassion.  If they
agreed and were able (1 Cor. 7:5) for a short while to be separated, the
polygynist could visit the Western assembly 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. 7:5.

VI.  SO WHAT?  WHAT'S THE POINT?

       The Most High One's laws about polygyny  and concubinage in
the Old Contract were brought by The Compassionately Cherishing
Deliverer into the New Contract without being changed or nullified.
During the transition period
(Heb. 8:8* For finding fault, he says to them, Behold,
days come, says    the Master, and I will consummate a
new Contract as regards the house of Israel, and as
regards the house of Juda;  9 not according to the Contract
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.)
before the Law of Moses was abolished
{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 The Most High One
by the cross, having by it slain the enmity; . . ......}
we see the believing Jews in Acts 15 and 21 keeping the law of Moses as
Renewed ones, and part of that law was The Most High One's laws
regulating and allowing polygyny  and concubinage.
       So we have Paul and the apostles observing the Law of Moses,
including the laws on polygyny  and concubinage, as Renewed ones and
the only thing they wrote about polygyny  was that the
elders/bishops/deacons/overseers and assembly superintendents
should have only one wife at a time.  NEVER IN THE WORD OF THE
MOST HIGH ONE IS polygyny  OR CONCUBINAGE LABELED SIN,
CALLED SIN, DENOUNCED AS SIN, PROHIBITED FOR ALL DEVOUT
ONES, 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 Renewed one
may not practice polygyny  in America because we have to obey the
laws of the land if they do not violate the Word of The Most High One.
But concubinage is neither against the laws of The Most High One 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.
       So what are you doing if you are condemning polygyny  in
general as sin?
Mark 7:8 [For], leaving the commandment of The Most
High One, 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 The Most High One, that you
may observe what is delivered by yourselves [to keep]. . . .
13 making void the word of The Most High One by your
traditional teaching which you  have delivered; and
many such like things you  do.
       Pretty serious stuff, laying aside The Most High One's
commands so you can keep your own traditions and making The Most
High One's Word ineffective through your traditions.  It wont look
good for those folks at the judgment seat of The Most High's King.
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 in
order to become Monogynists, the biggest obstacle for the Moslem,
Hindu, Buddhist, Asian, Oriental, and African community?  These
"Renewed" 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
Western monogynists 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.
       The angels are waiting to rejoice over the conversion of one
polygamous Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Asian, Oriental, and African or
third worlder and "Spiritual legalists and traditionalists" wont let them
in unless they falling short of the standard by "dealing treacherously"
(Malachi 2) with their wives by putting them away in repudiation, and
falling short of the standard by disobeying The Most High's King's
command not to leave your wife (1 Cor. 7:11), and falling short of the
standard by not remaining in the marital condition in which you were
called to The Most High's King.
1 Cor.7: 17 � However, as the Master has divided to each,
as The Most High One 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 The Most High One. .  . . 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.

VII.  THE MARRIED MAN WHO WOULD ADD  WIVES TO HIS
�HAREM�.

       What about the married character who says that since polygyny
/concubinage is not a falling short of the standard 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
women of questionable judgment.  But 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 The Most High One 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 Master has divided to each,
as The Most High One 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,
she can exercise her second best option (1 Cor. 7:10,11,39) and separate
herself from him and remain separate or be reconciled to him at some
later date.
       If his present wife objects to his taking a concubine for himself,
how can he say to The Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer that he is
being kind to her, that he is not selfishly seeking his own by taking a
concubine?  The Most High One has promised to chasten (1 Cor. 11:30
weakness, sickness, death) those devout ones who deliberately sin, and
if he unkindly and selfishly takes on a concubine, then he is going to
get chastened.
       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 The Most High's King and chastening (Malachi 2;1 Cor.
11:30 Heb 12) is certain.  Certainly his prayers will be hindered (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 The
Most High's King died and for whom The Most High's King is the
Avenger (Rom. 14).
       Again, 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, bound to her as long as  she wishes to
house/dwell with him.  With this kind of wife, a devoted concubine
would 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 the writings of
the Most High 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] Master, 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 (1 Cor.7:3-5) he probably
would, at some point because of the secret concubine,  resist her sexual
authority (Romans 13:1-5) over his body and be chastened of The Most
High One, or he would get into a situation where he would have to lie
to get out of it, and be chastened of The Most High One.  If he keeps that
up, she might land up a widow and get to go again in the Master since
He liberated her from her Judas.
       What if his wife was uninterested in sex with him, passively
tolerated it with him while making him feel, without a word, that he is
imposing on her and being burdensome to her in the matter?  Well she
obviously is not doing 1 Cor 7:2,3,4,5 as unto the Master.  Seeing her
brother-husband in need she shuts up her feelings of compassion (1
John 3:14-18).  But in the meantime she has killed   his affections for
her by her words and deeds and his affection goes unanchored.  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 he would
have to have his concubine faith privately and discretely between
himself, her and The Most High One so as not to let his liberty offend
the Body of The Most High's King.
       What kind of sister would be concubine to such a brother?
Perhaps one who saw his need (1 Cor. 7:2-5) and was moved with
compassion and, having what he needs she lays down her life for him
to minister as wife-concubine to him (1 John 3:14-18).  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 The Most High's King.  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
The Most High One and the Body of The Most High's King (Rom14:28-
).  They would 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.  It would be a marriage fraught with self denial,
self sacrifice and self control.
       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, even kissing would have to be abstained from until
all test came back okay.
       What if it is a situation of real need and crisis?  What if she
decided to exercise her option to separate (1 Cor. 7:10,11) 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 The Most High One�s command to not leave or
divorce her (1 Cor. 7:10,11; Mark 10:9-11).  She is wife in name only and
he has no sexual partner.  She has sinfully set him up for The Evil One
(1 Cor.7:5) and his burning (1 Cor. 7:9; 1 Th.4:4,5) will compel him to
marry or be an adulterer.  If it is to marry, it would have to be with a
concubine, since bigamy is illegal in the USA.

VIII.    POLYGYNY, AN OPTION FOR THE ABANDONED MAN?

       What about the divorced Spiritual husband?  Could he just go
out and take another wife while his prior Renewed wife chooses to
remain chastely separated?  Would that be selfish? Those who are born
of the Spirit of The Most High One are led by the Spirit of The Most
High One, acknowledge Him as Master 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 The Most High One 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  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 Renewed widow or sister who
was burning (1 Cor. 7:9 and under command to marry 1 Tim  5:11-14)
who had no marital prospects except a  Renewed man divorced from a
chastely separated Renewed sister, no other brother wanting to marry
her.   The divorced Renewed man who would like to marry her could
be moved as in 1 John 3:17 by her plight and pray for an unencumbered
husband for her.  But if The Most High One 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 James 2:14-17, and he would seem to be compelled to
intervene, offering himself in marriage to her as he desires anyway, to
enable her to obey The Most High One�s solution for her problem (1
Cor. 7:1,2,3,9. This could even be the case if his chastely separated and
divorced "Renewed"� wife was carnal and too selfish/rebellious to be
moved by her plight and 1 John 3:17 to approve of her divorced
Renewed man�s plan to marry her.  You don�t let the devout one who
seeks The Most High One�s solution be destroyed because of a carnal
devout one who resists or refuses compassion and The Most High
One�s solutions.
       The Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer 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 Master and
righteousness when Peter fell into public falling short of the standard
in Galatians 2.  If a man is led by the Spirit in conformity with the
Word of The Most High One to remarry after �Renewed� divorce (let a
man examine himself, his motives, his desires, his obligations and
make sure they are of 1 John 3:17) 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. 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
The Most High One's authority  in Romans 13.
       Most of the The Most High Oneliest men who had the closest
and most blessed relationship with The Most High One in the Old
Contract were polygynists at some point in their lives.  A Devoted
polygynist is not an oxymoron.   A Devoted polygynist could be and
could have been The Most High One's man for that moment in history
since polygyny never excluded anyone from The Most High One's
miraculous blessing and intervention. I believe Augustine of Hippo
(6th 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 consecrated
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
The writings of the Most High 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 consecrated 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. . .
"48h [Bold mine for emphsis]

IX.  POLYGYNY  AND  THE  LEADERS  OF  THE MOST HIGH ONE'S
PEOPLE.

       Husband of one wife: Yes! Definitely! An
elder/overseer/bishop/ superintendent of a assembly 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.  A 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 unrenewed through
slander or misunderstandings are not.  Those who don�t want a
assembly 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 assembly
service than a man who has learned to love passionately and maritally
only one wife at a time.  A serving polygamist in a leadership position
would be more likely to be tempted to accept the advances/
propositions of an unmarried sister in the assembly who falls in love
with him and he with her.  This could result in sex outside of marriage
(immorality) or yet another addition to his polygamous "harem". This
would stumble the devout ones and would be a reproach to the
unrenewed. It would appear that a devoted polygamist would have to
have a very low profile (no leadership position) in the assembly.
       1 Cor. 7:33 and 34 with Eph. 5:22-32 show why an elder can have
only one wife, because only with one wife would he have the time to
invest in the needs of the local assembly under his care.  The local
assembly 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 assembly elder would fall short of Matt. 6:33 due to time
pressures, fall into disobedience of 1 Cor. 7:5 with his wives, his prayers
would be hindered according to 1 Pet. 3:7, and the assembly would be
poorly served due to his lack of time and energy.

X.  POLYGYNY AND THE WESTERN RENEWED WOMAN.

       Why would a Western/Occidental woman ever  consider
polygyny /concubi-nage?  It is clearly a falling short of the standard to
marry an unrenewed person (2 Cor. 6 & 7 etc.).  She knows she must
not marry an unrenewed man (2 Cor. 6:14-7:2) or a snared-in-sin
"devout one" (1 Cor. 5:10,11; 2 Thess. 3:6,14). If a Renewed woman in a
Western assembly finds the usual shortage of devoted brothers, yet
earnestly desires marriage or is commanded to marry (as in 1 Tim 5:14
or 1 Cor. 7:2,9 & 36, and 1 Thess. 4:4) she may consider marrying a
Renewed brother (1) whose �Renewed� wife has divorced him
exercising her option to be separate and chaste,  or (2) who sinfully
divorced his �Renewed� wife who now will not forgive him or be
reconciled to him, exercising her option to be separate and chaste.
       If this Western Renewed sister is burning with passion and not
successfully controlling her passions and/or imagination, she must
marry according to  the  the writings of the Most High cited above.  If
she finds herself in repeated defeat morally and spiritually and the only
Renewed brother who is available or interested is the one who is legally
divorced from a Renewed wife who wants chaste separation without
reconciliation,  the choice to marry in The Most High's polygyny
would be  more acceptable than continued burning moral defeat. It is
clearly a falling short of the standard to marry an unrenewedAp#5 or
backslidden Renewed one (l Cor. 5:11; 2 Thess 3:6,14) and it is not a
falling short of the standard to exercise personal liberty in The Most
High's King  in Contracted polygyny .
       What Renewed wife, �A�, would be willing to take the chance of
having to share her preciously rare devoted husband with a sister, �B�,
in The Most High's King who had previously been married to wife
�A�s� husband and now wanted reconciliation,  even if it had to be
informal, discreet and private?  Can l John 3:17 mean that wife �A�,
who has a devoted husband and sees her sister �B� in marital need
now, should not shut up her �A� heart from her �B�, according to the
Love of The Most High One abiding in her "A"�?  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. A devoted wife should
not be selfish, seek her own, but should seek the benefit of others (1 Cor
l3) and she who is strong should bear the burden of the weak one (Rom
15) as the Spirit and peace of The Most High One lead.  Consider St.
Augustine's thought:
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.48i
       Does the principle of the good Samaritan enter here? Would
devout wife �A� share her devout husband with the needy devout
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 The Most High One and he mandated that the brother, married
or not, had to marry her and meet her needs (Gen. 38: 9,10,11; Deut.25:5-
10; Ruth 4:1-11; Matt 22:24ff; Mark 12: 19ff;Lk. 20:28ff). The only similar
New Contract passages I know of are I Tim. 5:11-14-16 with I Cor. 7:9, 36,
39 where the widow is told to remarry in the Master but she isn't told
who to marry in the Master. 1 John 3:16,17 could enter here with a
Renewed brother seeing her marital need and marrying her to minister
and serve her as husband (like Ruth & Boaz).
       Are devout ones today capable of such mental and Spiritual
"self-control"? A Spirit filled and Spirit led devout one could rise to
such a level (Gal. 5 and  Phil. 2:13 + 4:13).  The women  described above
would be comparable to St. Augustine's man of the following:
"But those who have not the virtues of temperance must
not be allowed to judge of the conduct of consecrated
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
The writings of the Most High 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 consecrated 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 ."48j [Bold print mine for emphasis.]
       What if he and his wife know a widow or a "sister" abandoned
by her unrenewed husband who has come under the 1 Cor. 7:9; 1 Th.
4:3,4,5 and 1 Tim. 5:11-14 command to marry.  They 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 devout 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 The
Most High One abide in her? See Deuteronomy 25:5-10.   Or like the
movie where the wife was dying and knew her husband wouldn't
remarry without her intervention, leaving her baby and children
motherless, so 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 The Most High One.

XI.  WHAT�S WRONG WITH POLYANDRY?

       Why can't a Renewed woman have more than one husband?
Because The Most High One has made it crystal clear from Gen 1 & 3
and l Cor 11 that the wife is under the authority of the man even
though he is no better no The Most High Onelier than her.   If she joins
herself to another while he lives (l Cor. 7:39 and Romans 7:1-5; Mark
10:1-20) it is immorality, even if she has a perfectly legal divorce decree
from the government since The Most High One�s laws are the final
word.  So why then does The Most High One 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)?
       This does not mean that women are second class citizens in the
Kingdom of The Most High One, because the Word is clear in Galatians
3:26,27,28; Ephesians 2:6, 19-22 and Matthew 19:10-12 and 1 Peter 3:7, that
even now in the spiritual realm -seated with The Most High's King
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 The Most High One
mightily and effectively.
       So there is now no  difference between the sexes in spirit in The
Most High's King in the heavens.  But our spirits are also now in our
bodies on earth in the realm of The Evil One, the prince of the power of
the air, the spirit that now works in the sons of disobedience.  Our
reborn spirits, the Consecrated Spirit, now lives in our flesh and blood
bodies, which flesh and blood bodies cannot receive our inherit the
Kingdom of The Most High One and are at war (Romans 7:13- 8:11;
Galatians 5:16-26) with the Spirit in us. When our bodies are
transformed by The Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer they will
not have blood and they will obviously have transformed flesh no
longer under the influence of hormones, germs etc.
       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 (Colos. 3:5).  The woman's body was designed and created to
help/assist man (Gen.2:18; l Cor. 11:1-10). Adam needed no spiritual
companion because he had spiritual communion with The
Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer 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 The Compassionately Cherishing
Deliverer designed her to be.  They were completely equal in the
garden, like we will be in the spiritual realm of the heavens with The
Most High's King, 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�
       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 The Most High One 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 The
Most High's King.  Maybe that is why The Compassionately Cherishing
Deliverer made such a big deal in Luke 14 etc. that we must love Him
more than we love our loved ones.  See St. Augustine48k who makes
the same points.

XII.  HUSBAND  RULE  OVER THE WIFE?   IF SERVANT-TEACHERS
RULE . . .?
       The husband rule over the wife?!?!  "How primitive and
barbaric!"    1 Corinthians 14:37,38; 1 Thessalonians 4:8; Acts 7:51;
Romans 9:19; 2 Tim. 3:8 deal with such sentiments. l Peter 5:5; Luke
22:25,26 and l Timothy 2 show that the husband or wife should not
Master it over (exercise Mastership) or tyrannize/ suppress the wife or
husband, but the husband exercises his authority as head of the wife by
humbly teaching her what she should do/say and by being a good
example of how she should act/speak (Hebrews 13:7, 17,). 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 (Luke 22:25,26;1 Peter 5:5). He can
admonish and rebuke her humbly and gently according to Galatians 6:1;
2 Timothy 2:24,25,26; Luke 17:3; Matthew 18:15-20; 1 Corinthians 5:7-12;
but after having done that he has to leave the results to the
Master/Spirit even if she is difficult and defiant.  THE HUSBAND HAS
NO RIGHT TO COERCE OR INTIMIDATE HIS WIFE IN ORDER TO
MAKE HER GIVE  IN UNWILLINGLY  AND DO  WHAT HE WANTS
HER TO DO (Luke 22:25,26;1 Peter 5:5).

XIII.  DIVORCE!  A PLAGUE  AND  ITS  CONSEQUENCES .
         In Matt. 5 The Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer made it
plain divorce was permitted for the hardness of human hearts and
Malachi makes it plain that The Most High One hates the treacherous
breaking of marital Contracts that results in divorce.  Matt. 5 permits
divorce for immorality, but does not command it.  There is no
command to divorce one's mate for immorality.  It's allowed for the
hardness of hearts ~49.  The compassionate heart of the Spirit filled
Renewed one would respond to a mate's immorality according to the
Word@50. .  The goal of such compassion for one's mate snared in
immorality would be the goal of 2 Cor. 2 and the devout sorrow of 2
Cor. 7.
       Of course if the immoral mate is not repentant then I Cor 5:9-11
and 2 Thess 3:6,14 mandate a separation, but not a divorce. I wouldn't
want to stand before the judgment seat of The Most High's King and
tell the The Most High One of Love I divorced my wife for immorality
because of the hardness of my heart.  That motivation doesn't square
with Eph. 4 or I Cor. 13 or Romans 15.  Being forgiven by The Most
High One for faults worthy of death how can we not forgive our mate if
he/she falls in immorality and then repents?  How can we say anything
besides "Go on with your life and falling short of the standard no
more!"#51. if the Devout repentance of 2 Cor 3 and 7 is evident?
       When I have approached Renewed  leaders here in my area,
most of them fall back on a rationalization of the writings of the Most
High to defend or at least conform to the worldly norms of
separation/divorce/remarriage in contemporary society.  They are
sincerely and earnestly  concerned about stumbling the weak and are
reluctant to ask of the devout ones what seems to the world's eyes to be
impossible for many devout ones.
       The particular case in point is the situation caused by the plague
of divorce among Western monogynists.  I hope you understand the
the writings of the Most High in 1 Corinth. 7:10,11,39; Romans 7:1-3 and
Mark 10:9,10,11 to state that a Spiritually reborn man and a Spiritually
reborn woman who are free to marry each other and do marry each
other are bound to each other by the Word of the Master as long as both
their bodies are alive.  What is the case?
       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.(52.  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.">53.  Thayer says it means "to glue
upon, glue to"{54. If The Most High One 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 The Most High One, because to disobey
would be death. Being under this command would certainly bind a
man to his wife as long as both lived.
       The Jewish Septuagint (third century B.C.) for Gen. 2:24 uses the
same word for "cleave" that The Compassionately Cherishing
Deliverer uses in Matt. 19:5.  The word used for cleave in the LXX's
Gen. 2:24 and The Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer' 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.  You say that it is not a command?  The Compassionately
Cherishing Deliverer 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 The Compassionately
Cherishing Deliverer says "So then, they are no longer two but one
flesh.  Therefore what The Most High One has joined together, man
must not separate."
       Based on the truth of Ephes. 1:11, every legal and moral
marriage is ordained or allowed by The Most High One and takes place
under His control, so indeed The Most High One has joined them.
That's why we can trust The Most High One 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 The Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer makes
binding (Mt. 19:6) the cleaving (Mt. 19:5) and the one flesh experience
that we know as marriage.  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 Contracts
of the couple and on The Most High One's command not to be put
asunder or put asunder the relationship.  Rather than abide by this
believers-married-for-life principle, most fundamental and evangelical
Renewed  assemblies/ pastors here are telling their divorced and
divorcing communicants that they should forget the things that have
happened in the past trusting The Most High One's forgiveness and
press on into the future with their new mates and lives.
       They say it would do more harm than good to tell  Renewed
mates that they need to leave their new mates, married in immorality,
and new kids and go back to the Renewed  mates they divorced contrary
to the Word in 1 Corinth. 7; Romans 7 and Mark 10.  I believe that we
are to live by every Word of The Most High One, and not by
unscriptural traditions of men that put asunder what The Most High
One said must not be put asunder, that tell couples they are loosed from
each other when The Most High One says they are bound for life (Matt.
19:5; Rom. 7:1-5; 1 Cor. 7:10,11,39).  How dare we say "You are loosed"
when The Most High One Himself says "She is bound as long as her
husband lives".   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 The Most High's King?
Wouldn't they  be responsible for parenting both their children by the
husband to whom they are bound by the Master, as well as their
children by their immoral#55. new marriage.   Wouldn't they  be
responsible for keeping whatever promises they made and can keep in
the Master--that they made to their mates in the Master and their mates
in immorality  (Psalm 15:4; Ezek. 17:15;Eccles.5:1-7).
               I  submit that the commandment of The Most High One in
Mark 10:9-11; Romans 7:1-3; 1 Cor. 7:10,11,39 (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 The Most High
One.  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
Spiritual leaders tell the saved divorced that if they just confess the
falling short of the standard of the divorce to The Most High One, The
Most High One 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 The Most High One�s command to keep their own
tradition.
       Yes The Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer allowed
"devout ones" to divorce their mates for immorality and other very
serious faults in Matthew 5, 1 Corinth. 5:9,10,11 and 2 Thess 3:6,14 but
He never said that they were no longer bound to each other as
Renewed husband and Renewed wife according to the the writings of
the Most High  (Matt. 19:5; Rom. 7:1-5;  1 Cor. 7:10,11,15,39).   John 8, 1
Corinthians 5:7-11; 2 Corinth. 2 & 7; Matt. 18:15-18 show that such a
divorce can be an exercise in Assembly discipline, delivering the
Renewed offender's body for the destruction of the flesh (chastening) to
the end that the erring devout one should be effectively chastened to
the end that the devout one would stop sinning and in devout sorrow
repent of the immorality.  The sinning devout one is chastened (1 Cor.
5 &/or 11) into weakness, sickness or sleep by the Master. If weakness or
sickness results in devout sorrow and repentance, then the repentant
one is restored as in 2 Corinth 2 and 7. They would both still be saved
and both still be bound to each other no matter who else they married
or how many kids they might have had in the meantime.
       In American reality because of the wretchedly poor The writings
of the Most High teaching today Western monogynists divorce and
remarry almost as much as J.Q Public.  The Renewed wife divorces her
Renewed husband and remarries in immorality reaping the chastening
of the Master until she dies(1 Cor 5 and 11:29-32) or repents in
reconciliation or celibacy if she is genuinely born again.  The Renewed
man divorces  his Renewed wife and remarries.  If he really repudiates
his Renewed wife for another and marries another then he commits
immorality (Mark 10, Luke 16, Matt 5, 1 Cor 7) and reaps the Master's
chastening. At this point we need to define our terms.

XIV.  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 @56
used by The Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer 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.
       The word  choridzo #57 , 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 unrenewed
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.  The Most High One allows the  Renewed wife to
choridzo  her husband as second best but still affirms that she is bound
maritally to her husband as in v. 39.
       The word afeeaymee ^58 , 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 motivation, intent and purposes.
       In summary we see the following:
       (1) the Renewed husband must not divorce/send away/release
[apoluo or afeeaymee]   his Renewed  wife to whom he is bound as long
as they both live except for the case in 1 Cor. 5:10,11 and 2 Thess. 3:6 &
14.
       (2) the saved husband must not divorce/send away/ask to
leave/leave [afeeaymee]  his unrenewed wife as long as she agrees or
consents or is willing to dwell/live /house with him.
       (3) the Renewed wife must not divorce/send
away/dismiss/repudiate[apoluo]  and should not (but may)
divorce/separate from/leave/put apart [choridzo]   her Renewed
husband. The saved wife must not divorce/send away/ask to
leave/leave [afeeaymee]   her unrenewed 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 unrenewed
husband in faithful separation, but still not divorce/send away/ask to
leave/leave [afeeaymee]   him,  in the event of spousal abuse,
immorality 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 The writings
of the Most High, it at least means �send away, release� 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 John Doe 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 (1 Cor. 7:11) would have to deal with the question, "Are
they still my wives in The Most High One'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 vowed to
forsake all others including their John Doe and to keep themselves
only to their new mates until death part them?  Their vows would be
the falling short of the standard because those vows would be
invalidated by The Most High One's statement in Mark 10:8-12 and 1
Corinth. 7 :11,39 that they are bound to John Doe as long as they both
live.

XV.  IMMORALITY DEFINED,  A  SURPRISE!

        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 The writings of the Most High interpreters are more
zealous for unisex doctrines and practices than the bleeding heart
liberals who encourage unisex restroom and coed dorms.  The Most
High One 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. Some say that this forsaken John Doe commits immorality
when he marries Sally but the The Most High's definition of
immorality 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 plainly state the double standard in the
definition of immorality.  There really are different scriptural laws for
men than women governing marriage and remarriage, and there are
different scriptural laws for men than women defining immorality.
               Immorality for the woman:
1. "Whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits
immorality"^59.  The reason being that she is still bound
to him as wife<60..
2.  "The husband causes his wife to commit immorality
when he divorces her for any reason other than sexual
immorality^61. "  The reason being that she is still bound
to him as wife<62.  and 1 Corinth. 7:5 shows why she will
probably become an adulteress. (On the other hand: The
wife is not said to cause her husband to commit
immorality when she divorces him for any other reason
than sexual immorality, probably because he is free to be
a polygynist.)
3. "And if a woman divorces her husband and marries
another, she commits immorality."+63.   The immorality
consists of both divorce AND remarriage.   The reason
being that she is still bound to him as wife<64.
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."~65.

       Immorality for the man:
1. "Whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits
immorality"^66.
2. "Whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual
immorality, and marries another, commits
immorality."*67.  The immorality consists of divorce
AND remarriage.
3. "You shall not covet your neighbor's wife."@68.    "You
shall not lie carnally with your neighbor's wife...."#69.
"For this is the will of The Most High One.....that no one
should take advantage of and defraud/cheat his brother
in this matter...."^70.
       Immorality for the female is sexual intimacy with anyone else
besides her own husband/mate. Immorality 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 wife71 . ; or (2) is sexually intimate with
some one else�s wife.   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 falling short of the standard is defined
differently for the woman and differently for the man.  See more on
this below.
       So since John Doe was divorced/rejected/ abandoned by Jane
(with his never repudiating or rejecting Jane as wife) his new marriage
to Sally may violate no the writings of the Most High, may not be what
the The writings of the Most High calls immorality and may seem to
put him in the Old Contract position of having and being bound to
more than one wife. I understand he would still be bound by the Master
to the saved wife who left him.
       But the way is narrow.  If saved Jane leaves/divorces her saved
John and marries Harry, it is immorality as long as both Jane and John
are alive.  If saved John leaves/divorces saved Jane for Sally and
marries saved Sally, it is immorality as long as John and Jane both live.
If John's wife Sally is sexually intimate with someone else it is
immorality.  If  John is sexually intimate with Pete's lawful wife, it is
immorality.  If married John is sexually intimate with
single/unmarried Susie who is playing the harlot (having sex without
being married), it is immorality (Ezekiel 16 and 23 and 1 Corinth. 6). If
American and legally married-to-Jane John legally marries free-to-
marry Betty, it is a falling short of the standard because John is under
command (Romans 13; 1 Peter 2:12-14) 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.
       Mark 10 ; 1 Cor 7:10,11, 12, 13-15,39; and Rom 7 seem to state
rather clearly that a Renewed marriage lasts and is binding on both as
long as both live. That being the case I often wondered why The Most
High One gave the Renewed 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 The Most High One would allow  such a separation of
two still bound in marriage in order to allow the exercise of assembly
discipline (Matt 18 and l Cor 5) to have an effect.  But what about that
poor turkey of a husband who is warned by The Most High One (1 Cor.
7:1-5) that being deprived of his wife will result in The Evil Oneic
temptations to immorality and that he is explicitly forbidden to leave
her, send her away or ask her to leave (Greek of l Cor. 7:11,12 and Mark
10). No qualifications or exceptions.  Why the double standard?  See
below.
       The the writings of the Most High above make it plain that if
Jane Doe exercised her 1 Cor 7:11 repentance option, having
left/divorced John, and then John Doe repudiated/ rejected Jane in
order to marry Sally, John's rejection/repudiation of Jane coupled with
marriage to Sally constitutes The Most High's immorality.  It would be
immorality if saved Jane divorced/ rejected saved John and married
Harry because The Most High's divorce in the the writings of the Most
High above is saved Jane divorcing/rejecting saved John and marrying
some one else.  According to all of those the writings of the Most High,
immorality 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.  Immorality for the wife is having sexual
intimacy with anyone else except her husband.  See the double standard
discussion further on. If you very carefully examine those the writings
of the Most High you will see that the The writings of the Most High
does not say it is a falling short of the standard for John Doe 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 and the double standard.
       Yes, that�s right, there is a double standard going all the way back
to Genesis.  It was not immorality for a married man to marry another
woman free-to-marry under the laws of The Most High One
throughout the whole Old Contract, it was legal and divinely permitted
polygyny , if the the writings of the Most High below are understood
correctly.  Under the same Word of The Most High One, 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 did appear to allow a devout man to be a
polygamist but does not allow a devout woman to have more than one
sexual partner/mate.  Please see the discussion further on about the
possible reasons and meanings of this.
       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 falling short
of the standard 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 The Evil One would use the wife's absence to tempt
him, how marital intimacy is the prescription to avoid The Evil One's
temptations, and then the command  in verse 9  plainly commands to
marry the one failing to have successful self-control .  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 The Most High's option of
polygyny / concubinage, (depending on the laws of his land) if he found
himself tempted and burning as in 1 Cor. 7:5, 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.
       Now consider the case where the  wife, claiming to be a
Renewed one, 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 wants to do Matt. 18:15-17 to clarify the
situation (is she saved and it is 1 Cor. 7:11 & 39 or is she unrenewed and
he is free according to l Cor. 7:12 & 15) but can find no Renewed  body
willing to do Matt. 18:17 or 1 Cor. 5:5-9.  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 reaffirming in
writing  to her what he believes may be the binding nature of their
relationship (1 Cor. 7:39).
       So the divorce is only a  legal recognition of the wife's departure
and unwillingness to be reconciled while still publicly recognizing  the
binding nature of their relationship.  Then he  remarries another
Renewed one because he comes under the l Cor. 7:9,36 (NIV &
Amplified "they should marry"),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
consecrated and honorable...") command to marry because of the
burning and failures predicted in 1 Cor 7:5.
       He has entered the realm of American polygyny .  Legally
divorced and remarried but openly acknowledging his marital ties to
two "Sisters", he is an American polygamist.  The departed wife could
remarry in immorality or remain single the rest of her life while he
continues in the current 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 included.

XVI. DOES THE MOST HIGH ONE FORGIVE BROKEN VOWS,
DIVORCE AND IMMORALITY?

       The issue here is does The Most High One forgive born again
Western monogynists when they fall into divorce and immorality?
The cornerstone of this issue is what is a born again Devout one?
Genuinely born again Western monogynists would be characterized by
the following: (1) They have believed and received The Chosen
Deliverer, The Most High One revealed in the flesh, as the Master of
their daily lives and as their Savior from the power of falling short of
the standard in their lives;  (2) They have a consistent public testimony
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 Renewed 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 changing 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
Master 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 2 Thess. 3:6-14; 1 Cor. 5: 7-11; 1 Tim. 5:20,21 and Gal. 6:1.  If they fail
the Matt. 18:15-18 procedure, then The Most High One tells us to treat
them as if they are unrenewed.  So we are talking about real, sincere
and genuine children of The Most High One who become involved in
divorce etc.
       Can a Renewed one divorce a Renewed mate, ask The Most
High One to forgive them, and then go on and marry another Renewed
one with The Most High One's blessing? In Matt. 5:23,24 The
Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer says you must not only ask
forgiveness but you must attempt to right the wrong for which you
seek forgiveness.  Zaccheus received The Compassionately Cherishing
Deliverer salvation because he not only confessed his falling short of
the standard but also righted his wrongs against others.  In Mark 10:11,
12 The Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer 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 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 The Most High One has joined
together, let not man separate. . . . 11 And he says to
them, Whosoever shall put away his wife and shall
marry another, commits immorality against her.  12 And
if a woman put away her husband and shall marry
another, she commits immorality.
       The immorality is not just that he married her in a wedding
ceremony, a single event, rather the immorality is that he continues to
be married to her and keeps on being married to her.  It's not a matter
of asking The Most High One to forgive you for the wedding ceremony
that resulted in you being married.  It is a matter of asking The Most
High One to forgive you for continuing and keeping on being married
to your  new immoral 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 immorality 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
immorality against her.  And if a woman divorces her
husband and marries another, she keeps on and
continues committing immorality."

       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 Contract keeping (Luke 16:1-18) The
Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer says that it is immorality to
repudiate (reject, dismiss, send away, abandon, etc.)  and marry another
and whoever marries the repudiated wife commits immorality. The
wrongs are repudiation with remarriage.  He who confesses and covers
repudiation with remarriage will not prosper, but whoever agrees with
The Most High One about repudiation and remarriage and forsakes the
repudiation and remarriage will have mercy from The Most High One
(Prov 28:13).  The omolego  confession of 1 John 1:9 means the one who
AGREES WITH THE MOST HIGH ONE ABOUT HIS falling short of
the standard  receives His faithful and just forgiveness.  To agree with
The Most High One about the falling short of the standard of
repudiation-with-remarriage immorality means to forsake the
repudiation-with-remarriage  immorality.   It doesn't mean saying
"OOPS! I'm so sorry!" and expecting The Most High One to forgive you
for repudiating/leaving your mate now that you have married another.
The falling short of the standard to be forsaken is the falling short of the
standard of repudiating/leaving/putting away the mate to whom you
are bound for life in the Master---and marrying another mate.
       Just because you confess that you repudiated (or etc.) your saved
wife doesn't change 1 Cor. 7:39; Rom. 7:3 and Luke 16:18 where it is
plainly stated that you are bound to her as long as you both live.  When
The Most High One 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 wrong 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
devout one in his falling short of the standard (1 Cor. 5:1-11) and when
he renounces and forsakes the falling short of the standard we forgive
and reconcile with him (2 Cor.2).
       2 Cor 7 makes it plain that worldly sorrow that results in no or
inadequate repentance brings judgment while devout sorrow that
works genuine repentance from  the  wrong and wrong act/deed/
thought results in deliverance.  We are to  diligently, zealously, angrily,
earnestly vindicate ourselves by clearing ourselves of the wrong and/or
wrong matter (immoral repudiation-with-remarriage).  We are to clear
ourselves of the repudiation-with-remarriage that is the immorality.
There is no way we can run to the The Most High One of Psalms 15,
Ecclesiastes 5:2-7; Malachi 2:10-17 and Romans 1:31,32  and say, "OOPS!
I'm so sorry I repudiated (or etc.) my wife for another and married her
and I know you'll forgive me for divorcing my former wife  and
breaking  my vows and promises to her so I can be blessed  by You with
my new wife!"   Romans 13:7-14 and l Cor.11:27-33 shows that The Most
High One holds us responsible to do His right things with those with
whom we have to do, and woe to us if we don't.
       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
immorality, 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
immorality 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 The Most High
One, 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 immorality 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 The Most High One, 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. 72a
       The aim of repentance is reconciliation with people and with
The Most High One.  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."72b The Most High One 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� (1 Cor. 5:9-12; 2 Thess. 3:6-14) and the
snared/dead/blind/foolish/ manipulated unrenewed (2 Tim. 2:25,26;
Ephes. 2:1,2; Psalm 1 and 14) reconciliation may not be possible just like
fellowship, communion, accord, and agreement(2Cor. 6:14,15) 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
The Most High One 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.
       Before The Most High One you must render that which is due
(Rom. 13:7-10; 1 Cor. 7:1-5) by Contract with your rejected wife.  If a
Renewed brother remarried in immorality, it seems that any vows/
Contracts he made with his new wife of immorality, 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
devout sorrow and repentance, any lawful and right Contracts he made
with the wife of his  immorality (and his children by her) that don�t
involve the immorality would still be binding on him and in honor he
would be bound by his nonimmoral Contracts with her and theirs.
Situations like these demand of our leaders the wisdom of Solomon
and bold and authoritative teaching from the Word of The Most High
One about these issues.
       What about conflicting vows and/or Contracts?  We are not our
own and we are bought with a price (1 Cor. 6) so we have no authority
to vow or Contract to do something contrary to the will of The Most
High One.  Even in the Old Contract the husband could void any vow
made by his wife that was unacceptable to him as her husband.  As a
member of the Bride of The Most High's King, as His bond slave, as His
child, He can and surely does void any vow or Contract that we might
make that is contrary to His will.  What if the vows or Contracts do not
involve sin, but they contradict each other?  Wouldn't the vow or
Contract made first take priority over any contradictory vow or Contract
made later---all other things being equal?  If a person made a set of
vows/Contracts and later  found that some of that set of
vows/Contracts were sinful, contrary to the will of The Most High One
or voided by another vow/Contract made earlier?  Wouldn't only
those few vows/Contracts that were wrong be voided by The Most High
One, leaving the rest of the vows/Contracts made standing? When it
comes to vows and Contracts we need to be very careful to obey James
5:12Ap#7 and James 4:13-17Ap#7 .  If we do stick our necks out in a
vow/Contract not according to James 4:15, then we need to know that
The Most High One has no pleasure in fools so we need to keep our
word (Eccles. 5:2-7; Psalm 116:14;; 66:13,14; 15:4; Ezek 17:15-20; Rom.
1:31).
       But you may say, "What about my new mate, and the children
we have had since I repudiated (or etc.) the other and married my
present mate?" The Most High One's grace and love is big enough for
the whole world, as well as our legal but wrong new mate and your
new children of immorality.  You are still under The Most High One's
command of Eph. 6 (etc.) to parent, love and provide for them. "But
what about the new wife of my immorality?" You know this happens
with professing Western monogynists  divorcing and remarrying
professing Western monogynists in America today! Well, what about
her?  If she is bound by The Most High One for life to another then just
like King David's Michal (who was "legally" divorced and remarried),
she has to return to the Renewed husband to whom she is bound for
life.  You may still love her and you have to parent your children, but
she is bound to the other as long as they both live (1 Cor. 7; Rom 7).  See
the discussion "Can you go home again".
Ezekiel 16:59 For thus says the Master The eternally self-
exitent One: I will even deal with thee as thou have
done, who have despised the oath, and broken the
Contract. . . .  17: 15 But he rebelled against him  . . .  Shall
he prosper? shall he escape that does such things? shall
he break the Contract, and yet escape? .  .  . 16 [As] I live,
says the Master The eternally self-exitent One, verily in
the place of the king that made him king, whose oath he
despised, and whose Contract he broke, even with him,
in the midst of Babylon, shall he die. . . .18 He despised
the oath, and broke the Contract; and behold, he had
given his hand, yet hath he done all these things: he
shall not escape.  19 Therefore thus says the Master The
eternally self-exitent One: [As] I live, verily, mine oath
which he hath despised, and my Contract 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; . . .

XVII.  CAN YOU GO BACK TO HER? CAN YOU  GO "HOME"
AGAIN?

Ezekiel 16: 3 and say, Thus says the Master The eternally
self-exitent One unto Jerusalem: Thy birth and thy
nativity is of the land of the Canaanite: thy father was an
Amorite, and thy mother a Hittite.  8 And I passed by
thee, and looked upon thee, and behold, thy time was the
time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and
covered thy nakedness; and I swore unto thee, and
entered into a Contract with thee, says the Master The
eternally self-exitent One, and thou becamest mine.  . . .
15 � But thou did confide in thy beauty, and playedst the
harlot because of thy renown, and poured out thy
whoredoms on every one that passed by: his it was. . . . .
32 O immoral wife, that takes strangers instead of her
husband.  59 For thus says the Master The eternally self-
exitent One: I will even deal with thee as thou have
done, who have despised the oath, and broken the
Contract.   60 � Nevertheless I will remember my
Contract with thee in the days of thy youth, and I will
establish unto thee an everlasting Contract.  61 And thou
shalt remember thy ways, and be confounded,  . . .  I will
give them unto thee for daughters, but not by virtue of
thy Contract.   62 And I will establish my Contract with
thee, and thou shalt know that I [am] The eternally self-
exitent One;  63 that thou mayest remember, and be
ashamed, and no more open thy mouth because of thy
confusion, when I forgive thee all that thou have done,
says the Master The eternally self-exitent One.
       Should I go back to my devout mate from whom I, a born again
believer, was divorced while we were both in the Master? What does
the Word say?
Hosea 9: 1 � Rejoice not, Israel, exultingly, as the peoples;
for thou have gone a whoring from thy The Most High
One, thou 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 thee over,
Ephraim? [how] shall I deliver thee up, Israel? how shall
I make thee as Admah? [how] shall I set thee 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 The eternally self-exitent
One thy The Most High One; for thou have fallen by
your iniquity.  2 Take with you words, and turn to The
eternally self-exitent One; 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, [Thou art] our The Most High One;
because in thee 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 The eternally self-exitent One 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.(73.  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.">74.  Thayer says it means "to glue
upon, glue to"{75. If The Most High One 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 The Most High One, because to disobey
would be death. Being under this command would certainly bind a
man to his wife as long as both lived.
       The Jewish Septuagint (third century B.C.) for Gen. 2:24 uses the
same word for "cleave" that The Compassionately Cherishing
Deliverer uses in Matt. 19:5.  The word used for cleave in the LXX's
Gen. 2:24 and The Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer' 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"{75b .
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?  The Compassionately
Cherishing Deliverer 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 The Compassionately
Cherishing Deliverer says "So then, they are no longer two but one
flesh.  Therefore what The Most High One has joined together, man
must not separate." Based on the truth of Ephes. 1:11, every legal and
moral marriage is ordained or allowed by The Most High One and takes
place under His control, so indeed The Most High One has joined
them.  That's why we can trust The Most High One 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 The Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer makes
binding (Mt. 19:6) the cleaving (Mt. 19:5) and the one flesh experience
that we know as marriage.
       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 The Most High's King,
except in the case of the one who is saved while married to an
unrenewed  person (1 Cor. 7:12--27).  But what is the Word for those
Western monogynists 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:
       In the present modern tangle of marriage,
divorce, and remarriage the The Most High's Kingian
Church, in dealing with converts and repentant
members, is often compelled to accept the situation as it
is.75c
       In the NT divorce seems to be forbidden
absolutely. . . Our Master 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 re-marriage also closes the door
to reconciliation, which on The Most High's Kingian
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.75d
       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 immorality, 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 immorality 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 The Most
High One, 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 The Most High One, 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. 75e
       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 Contracts of the couple
and on The Most High One'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
devout couple from the binding nature of their relationship before The
Most High One?
Deut. 23:13 and thou shalt have a trowel on thy girdle;
and it shall come to pass when thou wouldest relieve
thyself abroad, that thou shalt dig with it, and shalt bring
back the earth and cover thy nuisance.  14 Because the
Master thy The Most High One walks in thy camp to
deliver thee . . . and thy camp shall be consecrated, and
there shall not appear in thee a disgraceful thing*76. , and
so  he shall turn away from thee. . .  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*. 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
Master thy The Most High One, and ye shall not defile
the land which the Master thy The Most High One gives
thee to inherit.~77.
Deut. 23:15.  . .  that He see no unseemly thing(78. in thee,
and turn away from thee.  Deut. 24:1-4 . . . because he
hath found some unseemly^79. thing(80. in her,  . . .@81.
       Deut. 23:14  . .  .  He must not see anything
indecent>82. among you lest He turn away from you. . .
Deut. 24:1-4 . . . he has found some indecency>82. in her. .
. . #83.
       Thank The Most High One 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 The Most
High One to be unconsecrated, a falling short of the standard or an
abomination.  In Deut 23 that includes human feces and excrement
which The Most High One 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 The Most High One  to
be unconsecrated 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 unconsecrated like idolatry and breaking the
commandments of The Most High One through Moses.
       The word rendered "indecency" in "he has found some
indecency"  means something expressly and explicitly declared by The
Most High One  to be unconsecrated 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 unconsecrated like idolatry and
breaking the commandments of The Most High One through Moses.
The word rendered "defiled" in " not allowed to take her again to be his
wife, since she has been defiled" is used by The Most High One of
sexual defilement (Gen. 34:5,13; Lev. 18:24; Num. 5:13-29), spiritual
defilement (Lev. 19:31; Ezek. 22:4; 23:7) defilement by death or bodily
emissions (Lev. 15:32; 21:1-3).
       This means that the "indecency" or "unseemliness" that led
him to divorce her could be the same "defilement" that makes the
situation so that he cannot remarry her.  Specifically, she could have
been an unbelieving Jewess or a Jewess with an abnormal external flow
of bodily fluids, both of which were unseemly, unconsecrated and
indecent according to the Sinai Law of Moses.   She was divorced for
this unconsecrated indecency, remarried still unconsecrated and
indecent and then divorced again or widowed-----still as an unbelieving
Jewess or a Jewess with the  abnormal external flow of bodily fluids.
The  problem that led him to divorce her is still her problem after the
remarriage and the divorce, a problem that makes her and marriage to
her unconsecrated, 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 The Most High One.  This fits well with the
after-Moses OT precedents found in Ezra and Nehemiah  where The
Most High One 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 The Most High One 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 The Most High One did not forbid marriage to
believing Egyptians (Joseph), Philistines (Samson), Syrians, Assyrians
or Ethiopian Cushites (Moses), etc.
       The same principles work in Assembly of today.  We know that
is unconsecrated and therefore unacceptable to marry a "devout one"
living in falling short of the standard (1 Cor. 5; 2 Thess. 3:6-14; 2 Tim.
3:5; 1 Tim. 6:5), or to marry an unbeliever (2 Cor. 6:14-7:1).   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 grounds to divorce her
according to Deut 24, but now under the Law of The Most High's King
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.  For me to remarry her still in her
"heathen" unholiness/defilement would be a falling short of the
standard in violation of the The writings of the Most High above in
this paragraph, and indeed would be an abomination to The Most High
One.
       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
devout brother to remarry his devout wife who,  in ignorance or in a
snare (by the enemy 2 Tim. 2:24-26; Gal. 6:1; 1 Cor. 5:5-11 + 2 Cor 2),
divorced him or was divorced by him and had gone on and remarried.
       If you understand the unconsecrated indecency of the woman in
Deut. 24 to be some specific violation of The Most High One's  Law of
Moses, an unconsecrated 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 Spiritually devout
ones today who, in ignorance or in a snare (by the enemy 2 Tim. 2:24-26;
Gal. 6:1; 1 Cor. 5:5-11 + 2 Cor 2), were divorced and had gone on and
remarried, but now, acknowledging the Word of The Most High One
that they are bound as husband and wife for life (1 Cor. 7 & Rm. 7), will
remarry in repentance.
       Some Western monogynists say you �cannot go back, once
you�ve remarried�84 .   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 The Most High One did keep the king
from defiling Abraham's Sarah.  But the same The Most High One
blessed the marriage of the very defiled harlot Rahab in her marriage so
that she became a direct ancestor of both King David and The
Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer.  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
The Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer.  The Compassionately
Cherishing Deliverer commands the assembly defiled-by-former-
husband widows to remarry in the Master in 1 Timothy 5.
       No where in the Word of The Most High One does it say that
your remarriage in immorality looses you from The Most High One�s
binding Renewed you to your Renewed mate for life.85.  The
Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer plainly states that Deut. 24:1-4
was given because of the hardness of their hearts (Matt. 19:8) not
because it was the best thing to do.  Western monogynists have been
given �new hearts� and were released from Deut. 24:1-4 by the Master
in Ephes. 2:14,15 and Colos.2:13,14.  So what do you do about the
Renewed mate Renewed you divorced and married another in
immorality86 , or about your Renewed mate who divorced Renewed
you and married another in immorality86 ?
               While still being bound to your Renewed mate, you may
have to separate from, or perhaps even divorce, your mate as part of
the Assembly�s discipline of your �Renewed� mate living in sin87
Since the purpose of Assembly discipline is to result in repentance and
reconciliation (2 Corinth 3 and 7), the separation/divorce should be
seen as a temporary measure, unless the sinning devout one is put to
�sleep� in death88 ,  or turns out to be an unbeliever89 So if there is
repentance by your immoral and remarried Renewed mate, should
there be reconciliation?  Since you two are bound maritally for life by
the Master, I would hope so.  What does The Most High One 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. . ."89b
       King David took his wife Michal back after she had been given
in marriage to another, with The Most High One�s blessing~90.  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@91..  That doesn't seem to
be the case with Michal because the Consecrated 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-immorality#92.  If he brought Michal
back but was not intimate with her there would have been no point to
The Most High One making her barren.  So apparently David was being
intimate with Michal after her immorality but The Most High One
made sure she was barren.
        Hosea the prophet was told by The Most High One to marry an
unfaithful woman and then to take back as wife his unfaithful wife.  In
Ezekiel 16 and 23 The Most High One presents Himself as a husband
who takes back his unfaithful wife.  So there is a place for reconciliation
and reunion of two obedient believers are bound for life but who
sinned by divorcing  and remarrying.  There are grounds for leaving an
immoral marriage and going  back to the Renewed 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? The Compassionately Cherishing
Deliverer tells us that Deut. 24:1-4 was given because of the hardness*93.
of their hearts, not because it was The Most High One's best for them.
The Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer overruled Deut. 24 and
restored His Law that made divorce itself just as much an
abomination^94.  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 The Most High One
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 falling short of the standard 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.  The Consecrated 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 Master", which at least means within the Master's explicit
will and marrying someone who is in the Master.  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 believing mate who fell in immorality and was
told by The Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer to go and falling
short of the standard no more!

XVIII.  WHAT ABOUT THE HEALTH QUESTIONS INVOLVED IN
SUCH REUNIONS?
       What if the saved mates want to reunite, acknowledging their
bound-for-life status before The Most High One, after they have sinfully
separated, been immoral, 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 The Most
High One 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 non-Jews (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 The Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer.  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-Master 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 devout one 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 assembly going  "Renewed" lady and then found
out that she had been a prostitute with over 100 other men, some in
refugee camps in utter poverty where her pay was food,  before they
met.  He worried about what he had exposed himself to just by kissing
her.
       Again, what does being bound-for-life-maritally-in-the-Master
mean when one or both have STD's?  If we really believe that the "wife
is bound by the law [of The Most High One] as long as her husband
lives" (1 Cor. 7:39), 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 devout repentance for his or
her
1 Cor. 5 offense against you and The Most High One?  The blessing is on
those who hear and obey.  The falling short of the standard lies at the
door of the one who knows to do right and does not do it.
       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  penicillin resistant gonorrhea?  Yes these are very
inconvenient and a genuine concern and the Old Contract 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 The Most High One 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.  You have what your
mate needs (1 Jn. 3:17) in marital intimacy, the precedents94b 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 (1 Jn. 3:16; Jn. 15:13; Rom.
16:4; Mk. 8:35). You may land up bearing the burden (Ga. 6:2; Rom. 15:1-
6) of the ailment with your mate but that is devout and
rewarded/blessed in the Master.  The one who seeks to save his life is
the one who looses it before the Master, whereas the one who lays
down his life for another is the one who receives it again anew forever
from the Master.
       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.
The latex gloves that surgeons use offer some protection. They both can
pray for wisdom and receive it from The Most High One on how to
wisely  meet their marital sex responsibilities to each other in a devout
and loving manner.  But the bottom line is that the love of The Most
High One constrains them both to meet each other's marital sex needs
to obey The Most High One and deliver their partner from dangerous
temptations (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 Master in fasting and prayer in this.  The
thought that comes to my mind is that of St. Francis of Assisi serving to
the lepers to the risk of himself and his beloved brethren.  I think again
of the beloved devout one 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 The Most High's King who fleshed Himself in this
world of leprous sin, lived with we spiritually leprous sinners, and
then voluntarily died taking all our leprous falling short of the
standard 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 (1 Peter 2:21,22,23,24)?  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 The Most High's King 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) to avoid the
deadly temptations (1Cor. 7:5) 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 (1 Cor.
10:13)?  Read your The writings of the Most High, Amy Carmichael's
Rose from Briar, Amy's Gold Cord, Corrie Ten Boom's writings!  Our
The Most High One 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
the writings of the Most High 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.
       Of course if the infected one 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 you medically lower your
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 you
need to do it with the doctor monitoring you we now know that
hormonal imbalances can result in tumors and cancers. But we each
have our gift (1 Cor. 7), and even AIDS doesn't change those marital
gifts which physically and mentally express themselves  powerfully as
aching needs and compelling appetites, as the practicers of Prov.
5:18,19,20 can tell you.

XIX. CAN IMMORALITY, DIVORCE , VOWS AND REPENTANCE
RESULT IN POLYGYNY?

       St. Augustine (6th 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 The Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer
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 immorality, 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 immorality 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 The Most
High One, 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 The Most High One, 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.94c
       If she divorces him so she can live alone (1 Cor. 7:11), and he
remarries a �sister� without rejecting/repudiating/denying/forsaking
her who divorced him (so there is no immorality 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 The Most
High One�s Law and the law of man to him..  Under  The Most High
One�s Law the two are bound to him as long as he lives.  There is
nothing in the writings of the Most High that contradicts this.  But isn�t
polygyny  a falling short of the standard and evil?  It is against the law
of America and a devout one must obey the laws of America (Rom. 13)
as long as they don�t require us to disobey The Most High One.  That is
man�s tradition, not The Most High One�s.
        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.  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.
       If American and legally married John legally marries free-to-
marry Betty, it is a falling short of the standard because John is under
command (Romans 13; 1 Peter 2:12-14) 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 Contracts he made with Betty.  The
Contracts he made could be under the principles of Psalms 15:4 and
Eccles. 5:1-7 and the Contracts that are not Contracts-to-sin could still be
binding for the two in the Master.  So bigamy is illegal, Western
monogynists divorce Western monogynists who are bound by the
Master to each other as long as both live, and Western monogynists go
on and marry others while still bound by the Master 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, immorality and/or immorality.
Please read on.
       In the Old Contract and New Contract times (4000 B.C. to 100
AD) polygyny  was 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 Contract
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 The Most High's terms because a concubine is maritally bound to her
husband by Contracts and by the same the writings of the Most High as
bind a wife to her husband while a mistress is what the The writings of
the Most High calls a harlot in Ezekiel 16 and 23. Please see the full
polygyny discussion enclosed.
       Keeping one's marital vows/Contracts can indeed result in
polygyny, especially if done in repentance to a wrong divorce or an
immoral remarriage on the  part of one or both of the saved marital
partners who abide by The Most High One's Word, that they are bound
by The Most High One maritally as long as both of them live.  The
foundation for this action would be the following: (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 Renewed 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.  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.
       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 Master, and they
vowed/Contracted 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 The Most High One,  honoring and keeping each other in
the consecrated bond of marriage.  Before The Most High One and other
witnesses they promised and Contracted 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 sin/repentance option of
leaving him and living chastely separated from him 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 The Most High One's command to marry and marries genuinely
saved Serena, who accepts him even though he and Serena both know
that he is still bound before the Master 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, immorality (Mark 10:11,12; Luke 16:18).  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 falling short of the standard 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 (see the pages
and the writings of the Most High just before the Bibliography).
       What if Sophia disobeyed The Most High One, left her husband,
Eli, and married Raj?  Since she is bound to Eli as long as he lives, she
has committed immorality (Mark 10:11,12; Luke 16:18; Rom.7:1-5).  She
makes the same vows to Raj as to Eli, in her immorality.  After
experiencing The Most High One's promised chastening (1 Cor. 11; Heb.
12) she repents, forsaking her marital relations with Raj and either
returns to marital relations with Eli or chastely lives alone.  Raj and
Serena would have to do the falling short of the standard of immorality
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 The Most High's King = 1 Cor. 6:19,20).    Their vows to cherish each
other in all honor, love, duty, service, faith and tenderness are not
wrong and therefore are not nullified but would have to be exercised
chastely and free of any immoral elements, at least in fervent
intercessory prayer. The same would hold true for Eli if he married
Poona, Sukkur's lawful wife, in a immorality and then repented of it,
forsaking his immorality and marital relations with Poona. Their vows
to cherish each other in all honor, love, duty, service, faith and
tenderness are not wrong and therefore are not nullified but would
have to be exercised chastely and free of any immoral elements, at least
expressed in fervent intercessory prayer.
       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, faults by separating herself
from Kure but repents by living chastely unmarried (1 Cor. 7:10, 11). 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
The Most High One's command to marry and marries genuinely saved
Kasai, who accepts him even though he and Toegu both know that he
is still bound before the Master to Toegu as husband.  But what about
his vow to forsake all others, keeping himself only to Toegu?  He finds
himself under The Most High One's command to keep his word
(Eccles. 5:1-5; Psa. 15), and he also finds himself under The Most High
One's command to marry (1 Cor. 7:5,9).  Toegu refuses to be wife to him
so he could beat the temptations by obeying 1 Cor. 7:2-5 with her.  He's
bound by their vow but, as predicted, he is being taken advantage of by
the Enemy, burning and failing to control himself.  I believe that Kure,
not his own but the purchased bond slave and member of the Bride of
The Most High's King is released by his Spiritual Master and Husband
from his "forsaking all others" vow and released (Numbers 30) to obey
The Most High One's Word (1 Cor. 7:4,5,9) to let the loving comfort of
marital intimacy drown his burning.
       Any vow to falling short of the standard 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 falling short of the standard on falling short of the
standard to obey wrong vows (Rom.6:1-5).  If it would be falling short of
the standard to keep a good vow,  for you have no authority to yield
your self to falling short of the standard no matter what the motive.
       The best plan is to obey The Compassionately Cherishing
Deliverer in Deut. 23:22; Eccles. 5:2,5; Matt. 5:33-37 and James 5:12Ap#7 .
Instead of such vows/promises/Contracts/swearings/oaths, we should
obey The Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer in James 4:13-17,
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 The Most High One and not to us.  Please see
the appendix for a sample of such marital declarations and
affirmations.
       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, immorality (Mark 10:11,12; Luke 16:18).
Acknowledging his marital bond with both Toegu and Kasai he
becomes a polygynist, not an adulterer.   He keeps all righteous vows to
both.
       If the saved husband has divorced his saved wife and married
another saved wife, his repentance for the immorality of both
divorcing his wife and marrying another -- should at least result in his
seriously trying be to reconciled to the wife he left (Prov. 28:13; 1 Cor.
7:11,39).   Then he would have to deal with the question of his
vows/Contracts (Psa. 15:4; Prov. 20:25;Ezek. 17:15; Malachi 2:13-17; Rom.
1:31) with his new saved wife.   He would have  to decide whether or
not his Contracts, if any, were binding and whether or not that results
in him being a polygynist with two wives before the Master (two wives,
or a wife and a concubine before his community).
       If the saved wife has gone through a divorce from her saved
husband and married another, her repentance should at least result in
her leaving her new mate in immorality to either be reconciled to her
saved husband or live in celibate separation from him (1 Cor.7:10,11,39).
If the saved wife exercised her second best option and gets a divorce
separating herself from her saved husband in celibacy (1 Cor. 7:11)
subjecting him to the temptations of 1 Cor. 7:5 so that the burnings and
failures to control of 1 Cor. 7:9,36 (1 Th. 4:3,4,5) brings him under The
Most High One's command to marry, then he has to remarry and is
now bound before The Most High One to two saved wives as long as
they both live (1 Cor. 7:39; Rom. 7:1-3.  If the one who divorced and
separated herself chooses to be reconciled to the husband to whom she
is bound by the Master but who has already remarried, then they have
to decide if they resume their  marital relationship with her being a
concubine in Western monogamous societies, or as either a concubine
or a second wife in non-Western polygynous societies.  So indeed,
immorality, divorce and repentance can result in polygyny.

XX. IMMORALITY, DIVORCE, POLYGYNY AND THE UNRENEWED

       Okay, I know that The Most High One doesn't want
saved/believing me to marry one who is unrenewed/unbelievingAp#5 ,
but what if I am/was married to an unrenewed person?  There is no
question in the writings of the Most High about the permanence of the
marriage of two Renewed ones, but what if you are a Renewed one and
your mate is not a Renewed one, or at least you are not sure if your
mate is a Renewed one because, even though the mate professes to be
born-again, the mate's behavior is so wrong you doubt your mate's
salvation.  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 The Most High One shows that he doesn't know The Most
High One.  First John 2:19 shows that a mate who professed to be saved
and then rejected The Most High's King and Renewed ones 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.
       So what if you have a mate who is plainly unrenewed or one
who has been found to be unrenewed by the Matt. 18:15-18 procedure.
The the writings of the Most High in 1 Corinth. 7:12,13,14,15 plainly
state that as long as the unrenewed mate wants to live/house with you,
you should not leave the unrenewed mate.  It appears that the saved
wife with the unrenewed 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 passages make
it clear that (1) if the unrenewed no longer wants to
live/dwell/cohabit94d  with the saved, the saved mate may leave the
unrenewed mate but not be free to remarry; and (2) if the unrenewed
leaves/abandons/ divorces the saved mate, the saved mate may
leave/divorce the unrenewed mate and be free to remarry.
       What if a believer sinned (1 Corinthians 7:12-15) and left/
divorced her/his unrenewed mate who wanted to live with and
remain married to him/her? 2 Corinthians 7 and Prov. 28:13 would
seem to say that the believer's repentance of the falling short of the
standard (being a believer and as a believer leaving the unrenewed
mate who still wants to live with the believer who left)  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 immorality.  What if the
unrenewed mate was abusive and cruel to the believer so the believer
left/divorced the unrenewed to live as unmarried?  Would the
believer still be morally bound to the abusive unbeliever who sincerely
still wants to live/house with her like the devout ones in 1 Cor. 7:11?  I
don't know but it would appear  to be the case as in 1 Cor. 7:11.  Intense
believing prayer can be a big part of the solution for a saved but
separated sister whose unrenewed husband is both abusive and
desirous of living with her.  The devout ones should stand with her in
this travail of prayer.
       Because of Prov. 28:13 and 2 Corinth. 7 and Philemon I can't
believe that she can just say to The Most High One, "I goofed and I'm
sorry and I know You give the option of separation without marriage to
another (1 Cor. 7:11) but I don't want to be involved with my abusive
unrenewed husband so I want you to forgive me for disobeying Your
will by leaving my unrenewed husband who still wants to live/house
with me and then marrying somebody else".
       There is no the writings of the Most High 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 believing wife
to marry someone else if her unrenewed mate still wants to live/
house with her and has not left/abandoned her.  If I were in that
situation I would take the safest course possible in the absence of any
clear the writings of the Most High and consider myself morally and
maritally bound to my unrenewed mate as long as my unrenewed mate
sincerely wants to live/house with me and has not left/abandoned me.
As soon as the unbeliever leaves/ abandons/divorces me OR no longer
sincerely wants 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.

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

       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 The Most High's King loves
the Assembly.  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 The Most High's King, not many
would have the ability to love more than one wife well and in a
manner well pleasing to The Most High's King.  If you had a choice, a
realistic and hard working parent would prefer monogamy simply for
the reduced needs and demands.    The Renewed 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 The
Most High One wont be answering his prayers (1Pet.3:7;1 Jn 3:22), is
probably not going to live long since The Most High One going to be
faithful to chasten him with weakness, sickness or death for his
insensitive and unwise conduct towards her (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
John Doe 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
disappoint 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 devout 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 bottom line for the child, being led by the Spirit who works
in him to will and do His good pleasure (Rm.8:14; Ph 2:13), is that
celibacy, marriage or polygamy is not really up to him if he
acknowledges The Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer as Master.
The Master is the Master and He gives the gifts.  Celibacy, marriage, or
polygamy are gifts from the Master and the obedient and loving child of
The Most High One waits on his Father and Master to give His servant
the appropriate gift (1 Cor. 7:7,8,9,17-27).  If he is called to marriage, The
Most High One 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 Master, then his wives will also be
called to polygyny.
       Since devout polygyny really requires the Spiritual fruits of
unity (Ep. 4:1-5) and sharing (Acts 4:32-37; 2 Cor. 8 & 9) even more so
than monogyny, the Spiritual challenge of walking in the Spirit would
be even greater requiring a close walk with the Master.  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 The Most High's King (Ph. 4:13).
There is no dispute that marital harmony, sharing and unity would be
much easier in monogamy.  It's easy to see why The Most High One
ordained that elders, deacons, bishops, assembly overseers, deacons etc.
had to be monogynists, since they have to deal with all the people and
issues in their care in the Assembly.  Polygynists have their hands full
with the people and the issues of the assembly in their home.
       "If a man desires the position of a bishop/overseer, he desires a
good work"  (1 Tm 3:1).  Part of that "good work" is a monogamous
marriage.  We are to follow/imitate their faith (Heb. 13:7) and part of
their faith is that they believe they were called to be a Assembly leader
and as such, 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.
       So each one of us needs to wait on our Master for his leading
(Rom. 8:14), His gifts (1 Cor.7:7,8,9 etc.), and His enabling (Ph.2:13;4:13).
Our assembly leaders are monogamous.
The Most High's King presents Himself as the Assembly's Overseer as
the monogamous husband of one wife.  In the Old Contract He
portrayed Himself as both monogamous (Ezek. 16) and polygamous
(Ezek. 23) as husband to Israel.  He knows what He can do in us, and
being the The Most High One of 1 Cor. 10:13 and Ph. 4:13, He knows
how much we can handle so He gives the gifts and leadings
accordingly.  Our responsibility is obedience and contentment.  For His
blessing to be upon us, we must walk in obedience to His calling and
leading (Heb. 5:8,9; Jn. 14:15).  For us to be blessed by Him in our walk,
we must be content with what He gives and how He leads (1 Tm. 6:3-
19).  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.
Noah, Isaac, and Joseph had only one wife, and domestic
happiness in the The writings of the Most High is always
connected with monogamy94e (2 K 4, Ps 128, Pr 31, Sir
25,,,). The marriage figure applied to the union of The
Most High One 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, though practically it fell
into disuse; the feeling of the Rabbis was strongly against
it...95
       Monogamy is implicit in the story of Adam and
Eve, since The Most High One created only one wife for
Adam.  Yet polygamy is adopted from the time of
Lamech (Gn. iv. 19), and is not forbidden in The writings
of the Most High.  It would seem that The Most High
One left it to man to discover by experience that His
original institution of monogamy was the proper
relationship. . . .96

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
Master 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
Master will".  Vows and Contracts 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/Contract]Ap#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 The Most High One makes it real
clear we have no business making solemn promises, vows
or Contracts without the "If the Master will".  But what if
we observe the tradition of men and have the traditional
wedding vows and Contracts?

Psalm 15:1 �  The eternally self-exitent One, 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/Contracted/vowed] to his own hurt, changes it
not; . .
       If you solemnly promised, vowed or Contracted to do
something that is not contrary to the will of The Most High
One as expressed in the The writings of the Most High,
better stick to it and keep it because each time you don't,
there is falling short of the standard on your head.

Eccles. 5:2 Be not rash with your mouth, and let not your
heart be hasty to utter anything before The Most High
One: for The Most High One 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 The Most High One, 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 The Most High One 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 The Most High One in the The writings
of the Most High. 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 Master The eternally self-
exitent One: I will even deal with thee as thou have
done, who has despised the oath, and broken the
Contract. . . . 17: 15 But he rebelled against him  . . .  Shall
he prosper? shall he escape that does such things? shall
he break the Contract, and yet escape? .  .  . 16 [As] I live,
says the Master The eternally self-exitent One, verily in
the place of the king that made him king, whose oath he
despised, and whose Contract he broke, even with him,
in the midst of Babylon, shall he die. . . .18 He despised
the oath, and broke the Contract; and behold, he had
given his hand, yet hath he done all these things: he
shall not escape.  19 Therefore thus says the Master The
eternally self-exitent One: [As] I live, verily, mine oath
which he hath despised, and my Contract 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
The eternally self-exitent One 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 Contract.  15 And did not one make
[them]? and the remnant of the Spirit was his. And
wherefore the one? He sought a seed of The Most High
One. Take heed then to your spirit, and let none deal
unfaithfully against the wife of his youth, 16 (for I hate
putting away, says The eternally self-exitent One the The
Most High One of Israel;) and he covers with violence
his garment, says    The eternally self-exitent One of
hosts: take heed then to your spirit, that you  deal not
unfaithfully.
       The unfaithfulness here is the unfaithfulness to the
wedding vows/ Contracts which takes the form of putting
away (divorcing) one's mate.

Romans 1:28 And according as they did not think good to
have The Most High One in [their] knowledge, The Most
High One gave them up to a reprobate mind to practice
unseemly things;   .  .  . 31 void of understanding,
faithless [Contract breaking, undutiful], without natural
affection, unmerciful; 32 who knowing the righteous
judgment of The Most High One, 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
. .  The Most High One,  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/Contracts/vows?  In case you missed it, they
were death, wrath and The Most High One's personal
indignation.  It is in your own self interest to abide by you
marital affirmations/cove-nants/vows.  Why be a fool and
get burned for it?




















XXIII.  BIBLIOGRAPHY

A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The The Most
High's Kingian Church, Vol.     IV;edited by Philip Schaff (D.d.,
LL.D.);  W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand    Rapids Mich; 1956
A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The The Most
High's Kingian Church, Vol.     V;edited by Philip Schaff (D.d.,
LL.D.); ; W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand   Rapids Mich; 1956; p.
267
A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The The
Most High's Kingian 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
A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The The
Most High's Kingian 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
Amplified The writings of the Most High, The; 1965, Zondervan
Publishing House
ANALYTICAL GREEK LEXICON, THE: Harper & Brothers, New York
Arndt & Gingrich: A GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON OF THE NEW
TESTAMENT and   Other Early The Most High's Kingian Literature  ;
By W.F.Arndt & F. W. Gingrich; The Univ. of     Chicago Press,
Chicago, Ill.; Cambridge at the Univ. Press.; 1957
ASV: The Consecrated The writings of the Most High, American
Standard Version 1901 & 1929; Thomas Nelson & Sons,     New York
CUSTOMS AND CULTURES, Anthropology for The Most High's
Kingian Missions, by Eugene A.
       Nida1954, Harper & Brothers, New York
Darby's translation: Most of the the writings of the Most High quoted
in this work, if not otherwise
       indicated, are from the a modernized version of Darby's
translation, the  OnLine        The
writings of the Most High computer program of  "Online The writings
of the Most High f ", Ken Hammil  1-908-741-4298; [E-   Mail:
[email protected]].
DIVORCE, John Murray, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co.
See also G.
       Duty's book on divorce and remarriage , Downers Grove, Ill.
HASTING'S DICTIONARY OF THE THE WRITINGS OF THE MOST
HIGH; 1989, Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., Peabody,      Mass;,
Editor James Hastings, DD.,
I LOVED A GIRL;  Walter Trobisch,  Inter-Varsity Press, Downers
Grove, Ill.
INTERNATIONAL THE WRITINGS OF THE MOST HIGH
COMMENTARY, THE; Editor, F.F.Bruce; 1979; Zondervan
       Publishing House, Grand Rapids Michigan.
       Jay Adam's� book on divorce and remarriage
JEWISH: The Consecrated The writings of the Most High according to
the Masoretic Text,  1955, The Jewish   Publication Society.
KINSHIP & MARRIAGE, Robin Fox, 1967,  Penguin Books, Inc., USA
& England
LAMSA: The Consecrated The writings of the Most High from Ancient
Eastern Manuscripts, 1940, Holman Co., by G.    Lamsa.
MARRIAGE EAST AND WEST; David & Vera Mace, 1960, Dolphin
Books, Double   Day & Co., Inc. Garden City, NY
MARRYING AGAIN; David Hocking, 1977, Fleming H. Revell Co.
MY WIFE MADE ME A POLYGAMIST; Walter Trobisch, 1971, Inter-
Varsity Press,
NASB: Consecrated The writings of the Most High New American
Standard; Broadman & Holman Publishers,         Nashville Tenn.;
The Lockman Foundation, 1977
NEB: NEW ENGLISH THE WRITINGS OF THE MOST HIGH, 1970;
Oxford/Cambridge University Press
NEW THE WRITINGS OF THE MOST HIGH DICTIONARY, THE;
Editor J.D.Douglas Ph.D; 1962; W. B. Eerdmans
       Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, Mich.
NEW TESTAMENT GREEK FOR BEGINNERS, By, J. Gresham
Machen, D.D, Litt.      D.,1959
NIV:  "The writings of the Most High taken from the CONSECRATED
THE WRITINGS OF THE MOST HIGH, NEW INTERNATIONAL
VERSION.        Copyright @ 1973, 1978, 1984 International The writings
of the Most High Society." Used as required by  Zondervan The
writings of the Most High Publishers.
NKJV:  New King James Version, 1984, Thomas Nelson, Inc.
OnLine The writings of the Most High computer program of  "Online
The writings of the Most High f ", Ken Hammil  1-908-741-4298; [E-
       Mail: [email protected]].
PLEASE HELP ME! PLEASE LOVE ME!; Walter Trobisch,  Inter-Varsity
Press,
St. Augustin: On The Trinity; translated by Arthur West Haddan, B.D.;
W.B. Eerdmans   Publishing Co., Grand Rapids Mich; 1956
Strong�s Lexicon, Open The writings of the Most High "Online The
writings of the Most High f", Ken Hammil  1-908-741-4298.  Also Baker
       Book House, Grand Rapids, Mich.
Thayer: Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament; Joseph Henry
Thayer, D.D.;   American Book Co., New York, 1889
The Septuagint of the Old Testament and Apocrypha With an English
Translation;
WOMEN'S LIVES IN MEDIEVAL EUROPE  - A SOURCEBOOK;  Edited
by Emile Amt;   Routledge, Chapman, Hall; NY, NY; 1993
       Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan; 1972;
Samuel Bagster &        Sons, Ltd. London
Wuest's THE NEW TESTAMENT, An Expanded Translation, Kenneth
S. Wuest, 1961

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 the
writings of the Most High alone, not in  terms of man's
condemned traditions (Mark 7).  I really want to know what the
The writings of the Most High says about the subjects discussed
above.  I want to live by every Word of The Most High One, not
by the commandments and traditions of man (Mat. 15, Mark 7
and Colos 2).  Any and all donations are welcomed for the
furthering and the expense of this very controversial service.
Donations are welcome for the furthering of this service. It has
taken a great deal of time.
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 The Most
High One 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 The Most High's
King.
13 Do you not know that those who minister about consecrated
things live [of the things] of the temple? And those attending
the altar are partakers with the altar. 14 Even so, the Master
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 The writings of the Most High says, "You shall not
muzzle the ox treading out grain," and, "The laborer [is] worthy
of his reward."

APPENDIX THREE: Marriage by Contract.

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 Contracts 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 Contracts 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 The Most High One 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
The Most High One, in the consecrated  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 The Most
High One 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 b
oth shall live.

       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
Consecrated Spirit  who lives and abides in us.  Amen    (both repeat in
unison)

       I now pronounce you husband and wife.  Do you have
something to say to us?

       (in unison) We Contract before The Most High One and all of
you present, that we are husband and wife bound together to be one
flesh in the Master until death part us.  We Contract before The Most
High One that it is our responsibility to compassionately cherish each
other according to His Word, the Consecrated The writings of the Most
High, to His glory and honor.  Pray for us.

ANOTHER WEDDING
AFFIRMATION*************************************************

________, do you accept ______ to be 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 The Most High One, in the consecrated bond of marriage?______
    Do you leave your parents and loyally bond with him to be one in
marriage submitting to each other in reverence to The Most High
One?_______
    Do you, ____________, commit yourself to him with all your
heart, to follow ________'s lead as unto the Master in all matters
showing honor and respect?

__________, do you accept ___________to be your wife?_Yes/I
do______
    Do you accept your responsibility to be faithful to her, in all virtue
and honor, in all duty and service, in all faithfulness and tenderness, to
live with her and compassionately cherish her according to the Word
of The Most High One, in the consecrated bond of marriage? _______
    Do you leave your parents and loyally bond with her to be one in
marriage submitting to each other in reverence to The Most High One?
________
    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?
_______

                            OUR WEDDING CONTRACT

I, ___________, make a Contract with you this day.  I take you
___________ as my wedded husband before The Most High One 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.  I make this Contract, not boasting  of or counting
on my own ability to keep it, but trusting in The Most High One for His
Spirit's enabling and motivating, and His gift of length of days to honor
Him in the keeping of this Contract.

I, ___________, make a Contract with you this day.  I take you
___________ as my wedded wife before The Most High One 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. I make this Contract not boasting of or trusting in my own
ability to keep it, but trusting in The Most High One for His Spirit's
enabling and motivating, and His gift of length of days to honor Him in
the keeping of this Contract
_________________________
       _________________________________
The Witnesses' Signatures & Date                The Couple's Signatures
and Date


APPENDIX FOUR: What makes a
wedding/ marriage?
       From many passages in the The writings of the Most High
(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
Contract/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
The writings of the Most High and there is no wedding ceremony
prescribed in the The writings of the Most High.
       When you study how they married in the Old Contract you see
that the basis was either their Contract to be husband and wife to each
other, or they accepted their parents� Contract for them to be married.
The strongest statement I know of is the one in Matthew 1:18,19,20
where, based on their Contract/betrothal (v.18) the Consecrated Spirit
calls Joseph her husband (v.19) and the angel called Mary  his wife
(v.20) before  (Luke 1:26,34) their official wedding and cohabitation
(v.24).  This agrees with the great weight The Most High One gives our
solemn word in such passages as Psalms 15:4 and Ecclesiastes.
            All of this is to say that if you and your guy have agreed
seriously to be faithful to each other in and for marital/sexual intimacy
as husband and wife, then I believe that makes you husband and wife.
Even if you haven�t used the magic words �husband, wife, marriage�, if
you two have agreed to be faithful sexual partners to each other, to me
that�s the same thing as agreeing to be faithful marital partners since, in
The Most High One�s Kingdom, only husbands and wives are faithful
sexual partners to each other.  Sexual intimacym1a with anyone else
besides your mate is immorality, sexual sin.  If you are maritally
committed to each other and you genuinely have received The Chosen
Deliverer as your Master and Ruler to be obeyed and as Savior to
deliver you from the penalty of your sins, then I believe you find
yourself in the situation described in 1 Corinthians 7:12,13,14,15, the
saved mate of an unrenewed guy.

APPENDIX FIVE: Marrying the unrenewed
& "devout ones" living in sin.
       What if I am thinking about maritally committing to a guy who
is or might be unrenewed, not believing in a risen from the dead and
someday to return in the clouds Son of The Most High One named The
Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer?  What does the The writings of
the Most High say?
2 Cor. 6:14  Be not unequally yoked1b 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 The
Most High's King with Belial, or what part for a believer
along with an unbeliever? 16  and what agreement has
The Most High One's temple2a with idols?. . .
Consider the 3a precedents in the The
writings of the Most High to see what The
Most High One means.
       What about marriage, engagement and
dating?
2 Corinthians 6:17b ...for you* are [the] living The Most High One's
temple4a ; according as The Most High One has said, I will dwell among
them, and walk among [them]; and I will be their The Most High One,
and they shall be to me a people.  17  Wherefore come out from the
midst of them, and be separated, says [the] Master, and touch5a not
[what is] unclean6a , 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]
Master Almighty.
       What does the 7a record say about what The Most High
One means?

Does this  �be separate....don�t touch� principle apply to people
who call themselves Renewed ones but don�t act like followers
of The Most High's King?

       1 Corinthians 5:9 I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company8a . with
sexually immoral9b.     people.....11. But now I have written to you not to keep
company with anyone named a brother, who        is a fornicator10 , or covetous,
or an
idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner -- not even    to  eat with
such
a person.
       1 Thessalonians3:6 But we command you, brethren, in the name of our
Master
The Chosen Deliverer, 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 Master The Chosen Deliverer, and to the doctrine
which
is according to The Most High Oneliness, 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      The Most High One's fear. The
The writings of the Most High tells us what this
11a means.

APPENDIX SIX: When do I have to marry?

1 Thess 4:1 � Furthermore, then, my brothers, we beseech you and
exhort [you] in [the]
Master The Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer, that, as you have
received of us how you ought to walk and to please The Most High
One, so
you would abound more [and more].  2 For we know what
commandments we gave you by the Master The Compassionately
Cherishing Deliverer.  3 For this is the will of The Most High One, your
sanctification, that you should abstain from immorality,  4 each one of
you should know how to know how to possess his vessel11a in
sanctification and honor  5 (not in the passion of lust, even as the
nations who know not The Most High One)11a ,  6 not to go beyond and
defraud11b his brother in this matter, because the Master [is the] avenger
concerning all these, as we also have forewarned you and testified.  7
For The Most High One has not called us to uncleanness, but unto
sanctification.  8 He, therefore, who despises, does not despise man but
The Most High One, who also has given unto us His Consecrated Spirit.

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

9 But if they cannot <Strong�s 3756>..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.

contain [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

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, The Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer' phrase, "Repent ye,
and believe the gospel" (Mk.1:15)is not at all an "invitation," but an
absolute command requiring full obedience on the part of all hearers.�
               Does "let them marry" mean "You let/permit/allow
them to marry"?  Is �You� the �hearer to perform� the action of
marrying in this passage?
       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 perform a certain
action (marry) by the order and authority of the one commanding�
(The Consecrated 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 CONTRACT 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 unrenewed (2 Cor. 6) or
devout ones living in falling short of the standard (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 Master".

1 Corinthians 7:9 in various versions:

DBY13  But if they have not control over themselves,
NEB14  if they cannot control themselves, (So also NIV)
YLT15  and if they have not continence--
NKJV16 cannot
MKJV17  do not
ASV18 But if they have not continency,
LP19 But if they cannot endure it,
AB20 But if they have not self-control (restraint of their
passions),
WNT21 But assuming that they are not able to exercise self-
control in      the realm of the continent life,

1 Cor. 7:9 invarious versions continued:

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

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

DBY   for it is better to marry than to burn.
NEB     Better be married than burn with vain desire.
YLT      for it is better to marry than to burn;
ASV     for it is better to marry than to burn.  (So also MKJV)
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}

       1Tim. 5:11-15 show us another circumstance where The Most
High One inspires the expression of His will that someone marry,
whether or not they want.  1 Cor. 7:5 shows why she cannot remain
unmarried, The Evil One tempting her because of her lack of self-
control.  1 Cor. 7:9 and 1 Tim. 5:11-15 show us The Most High One'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 Contract, but certainly they should marry "in the Master".

       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). The first and second translations are very much like 1 Cor. 7:9
and 1 Tim. 5:11-15, the people involved come  under The Most High
One's command to marry.  In the case of the fianc� and fianc�e, the
"who to marry" is clear and indicated. The third, that applies to a father
and his virgin daughter, may or may not 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 The Most High One's command to marry and he refuses to let
her marry.  If the father's savved 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).
       Darby22. 1 Cor. 7:36 � But if any one think that he
behaves unseemly22a. to his virginity, if he be beyond the flower
of his age.22b , and so it must be, let him do what he will, he does
not sin: let them marry.  37 But he who stands firm in his heart,
having no need, but has authority over his own will, and has
judged this in his heart to keep his own virginity, he does well.
38 So that he that marries himself does well; and he that does
not marry does better.
       Young's Literal Translation:  1 Cor. 7:36 � and if any one
doth think [it] to be unseemly22c to his virgin.22d , 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.23 [KJV24 =let them
marry].  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.          KJV25

       So there are two parts to the solution for a believer whose
struggle with sex falling short of the standard has more failures than
bearable; 1. First  do 1Jn1:9 with 2 Cor. 7;   2. Secondly marry a Spirit
filled believer walking in the Spirit.

APPENDIX SEVEN: The falling short of the standard of swearing , of
oaths and of swearing oaths.

       It is obvious that certification can be comprised of oaths,
swearings, Contracts 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 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 Master . . .
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 Consecrated The writings of the
Most High is obvious from the following the writings of the Most High:
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.  The passages, like Mt. 26:74,
where people think that it means profanity or cussing or "taking the
Master's Name in vain", i.e. that Peter was using profanity to deny  that
he knew The Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer, instead mean  "in
swearing to call a person or thing as witness, to invoke"   where
Peter called on The Most High One to curse him/his if what he was
saying (that he didn't know The Compassionately Cherishing
Deliverer) was untrue.  The cursing was invoking The Most High
One's curses on him if what he was affirming under oath was untrue,
that he did not know The Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer.  The
Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer is not talking about cursing,
profanity, cussing or taking the Master's Name in vain in Matt. 5 or
James 5.
       Some of the oaths people swear by are The Most High One (Gen.
24:3), one's self (Ex. 32:13), The Most High One'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 a curse on one's self if what you say isn't true or if you
fail to do what you swear you will do, like Peter when he swore and
cursed denying The Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer (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
Assembly's fathers Jerome, St. Ambrose and Basil all agreed with this
definition of swearing#30
       The Consecrated The writings of the Most High 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 Master 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
The Most High One 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 recipient of such promises, oaths or predictions about our
future  the idea 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 The Most High
One for swearing (promising/predicting with an oath), and then for the
failure to truthfully keep their promise (the Contract breaking of Rom.
1:31,32).  The The Most High One 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 The Most High's King, declares that
all I can give to promises or predictions about my future is simply "If
the Master 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
spiritual preface such as "In case The Most High's King 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 spiritual
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 spiritual statement.
       In A Commentary on the New Contract .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 The Most High's Kingian
must lead such a life and demonstrate such a character
that no  one will ever dream of asking an oath from
them. . . ."
In A commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew.33 we read
the following:
"Since in all of life man is dealing with The Most High
One, he is always obligated to complete integrity in word
and act.  Therefore the use of oaths is misleading; sear
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, The Evil One, the "Father of Lies" . . .
and dishonesty (Jn *:44)."
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 The
Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer, e.g. to promises
rather than affirmations.20*  . . . Hence the ["Swear not at
all"] applies to all oaths, whether in daily life or in
judicial cases. . . The Essenes rejected the oath
unconditionally. . . The Compassionately Cherishing
Deliverer 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 "The
Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer 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).

IF YOU HAVE DECIDED THAT THE THE WRITINGS OF THE MOST
HIGH AND TRUTHS OF THIS APPENDIX APPLY TO YOU AND YOU
DO NOT WISH TO USE TRADITIONAL WEDDING VOWS AND
CONTRACTS, PLEASE SEE APPENDIX THREE.
       This work is dedicated to the following victims of the
"Spiritual" campaign against polygynists:
1. The broken hearted polygynist husbands and their families who
are made to feel like second class citizens in the local assembly
because of their polygyny, made to feel less loved by The Most
High's King and the devout ones, made to feel less a child of The
Most High One by the local "Monogynists".
2.  The broken hearted polygynist husbands who, with grave
doubts and troubled hearts, succumbed to "Spiritual" pressure to
renounce and reject (Malachi 2:13-17) all of their wives except
one to satisfy the demands of some misguided "Spiritual" leader,
or association of "Monogynists".
3.  The broken hearted polygynist husbands who believe in and
have received the Master The Chosen Deliverer, but who are
rejected and shunned by the local "Spiritual" assembly/leader
because he loves his wives too much to divorce them.
4. The broken hearted polygynist husbands who are stumbled,
grieved, offended and broken in their faith and love for the
Master The Chosen Deliverer because of how badly they and their
loved ones have been treated by the local "Spiritual"
leader/assembly.
5. The broken hearted polygynist husbands who genuinely wanted
to know The Most High's King and the fellowship of the devout
ones but who were embittered and kept from saving faith by the
campaign of "Spiritual" leaders/assemblyes 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 broken hearted polygynist wives and their children in their
local assemblyses who are shunned  by the proper members and
made to feel less welcome and spiritually inferior because of their
polynynous families.
7. The broken hearted, stumbled, offended and grieved 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 "Spiritual" assembly.; especially in the case where a carnal
husband used the assembly rule as an excuse to get rid of a wife
and children he didn't want.
8. The broken hearted, stumbled, offended and grieved born-again
and Spirit sealed 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"Spiritual' assembly, and so now live in The Most High's
King, denied fellowship by their local congregation of
"Monogynists".
9. The broken hearted polygynist wives and children who are
stumbled, grieved, offended and broken in their faith and love for
the Master The Chosen Deliverer because of how badly they and
their loved ones have been treated by the local "Spiritual"
leader/assembly.
10. The broken hearted polygynist wives and children who
genuinely wanted to know The Most High's King and the fellowship
of the devout ones but who were embittered and kept from saving
faith by the campaign of "Spiritual" leaders/assemblies 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!
       Table of Contents
I. INTRODUCTION:  PRIORITIES AND AN ANCIENT MARITAL OPTION
RECONSIDERED.  P. 4
II. WHAT DO SPIRITUAL LEADERS SAY ABOUT POLYGAMY/POLYGYNY?  P. 8
III. POLYGYNY IN THE THE WRITINGS OF THE MOST HIGH, OLD AND NEW
CONTRACTS -- LET THE WORD SPEAK!  P. 16
IV.  ARE POLYGYNY  AND CONCUBINAGE  falling short of the standard TODAY?
P. 26
V.  CIVIL LAW, PERSONAL  LIBERTY AND A LOVING CONSCIENCE!  P. 29
VI. SO WHAT! WHAT'S THE POINT FOR US TODAY?  P. 31
VII. THE MARRIED MAN WHO WOULD ADD WIVES TO HIS "HAREM".  P. 32
VIII. POLYGYNY, AN OPTION FOR THE ABANDONED MAN?  P. 34
IX. POLYGYNY AND THE LEADERS OF THE MOST HIGH ONE'S  PEOPLE.  P. 35
X. POLYGYNY AND THE WESTERN SPIRITUAL WOMAN.  P. 36
XI. WHAT'S WRONG WITH POLYANDRY?  P. 38
XII. HUSBAND RULE OVER THE WIFE? IF SERVANT-TEACHERS RULE . . . . P. 39
XIII. DIVORCE!  A PLAGUE AND ITS CONSEQUENCES.  P. 39
XIV. DIVORCE DEFINED.  P. 42
XV.  IMMORALITY DEFINED:  A SURPRISE!  P. 43
XVI. DOES THE MOST HIGH ONE FORGIVE BROKEN VOWS, DIVORCE AND
IMMORALITY?  P. 46
XVII. CAN YOU COME BACK TOGETHER AND REMMARY AFTER IMMORAL
REMARRIAGE?  P. 50
XVIII.  WHAT ABOUT THE HEALTH QUESTIONS INVOLVED IN SUCH
REUNIONS? P. 56
XIX. CAN IMMORALITY, DIVORCE, VOWS AND REPENTANCE RESULT IN
POLYGYNY?  P. 58
 XX. IMMORALITY, DIVORCE AND POLYGYNY AND THE UNRENEWED. P. 62
XXI. THREE CHEERS FOR MONOGAMY!  THE BEST FOR MOST!  P. 63
XXII. LISTEN TO THE WORD!  P. 65
XXIII. BIBLIOGRAPHY  P. 68
APPENDIX TWO -- WHAT DO YOU THINK? THE FEEDING OF TWO LEGGED
OXEN.  P. 69
APPENDIX THREE -- A WEDDING CONTRACT FOR  NONSWEARERS - P.70
APPENDIX FOUR -- WHAT MAKES A WEDDING/MARRIAGE? - P.71
APPENDIX FIVE -- MARRYING THE UNRENEWED AND "DEVOUT ONES"
LIVING IN SIN. - P.72
APPENDIX SIX -- WHEN DO I HAVE TO MARRY? - P. 74
APPENDIX SEVEN -- THE falling short of the standard OF SWEARING, OF OATHS
AND SWEARING OATHS. - 79

I believed Jesus was real, but I sure didn't think that He Loved
me, and I was actively considering  a suicidal life style or suicide itself
because I  didn't care to live in a world that only had selfish and
conditional "love".  I didn't believe that any human really LOVED any
other human.
 The proof that persuaded me that God not only could but actually
did Love me was that Christ died for me.  I could argue with most
other points, but I couldn't deny that Jesus died.   Even unbelievers
believed Jesus lived and died.  To me that was a historical fact that few
disputed.  So when I saw that I had solid historical evidence that Jesus
died, I was ready to seriously consider that just maybe He Loved me
enough to really  die for me.

I respected and believed the Bible, so when she showed me book after
book, chapter after chapter, verse after verse that plainly stated that the
reason Jesus died (that solid historical fact), was because God so Loved
me
and the world and because He
wanted to Love me as Father, as Shepherd, as King, as Deliverer in a
very intimate and personal relationship,  - - - -  my eyes began to see,
my mind to understand my heart wanted that Love.  When she
showed me why He let them kill Him, that it was His choice, that He
died to take my place in the court of Divine Justice------- well she had
me.  I couldn't deny that he died, and she persuaded that God so Loved
me that He sent His only begotten Son to die in my place so that I could
be His child ------- Eureka!  Yahoo! I had discovered the Love I was
looking for, a Love that I could live for, a Love to give my life to and
for.    I already had believed that He rose from the dead and was coming
back, but now I could have a Father-son relationship with the GOD
who
was Love.

I believed her, accepted Him and got all excited.  I told her that I
had to check all of this out with the youth sponsor, Chuck Hill, to
make sure that all that she told me was right on.   After Chuck
confirmed
everything the woman had told me, I thanked him and went up the
other
hill side to pray my prayer of thanks, believing, receiving and trusting
Jesus as my God, my King and Saviour.  I was such a babe I didn't
realize
that I had been born again as soon as I talked to Chuck, because I
believed
Jesus and had faith in Jesus alone to bring me into right relationship
with
God, as soon a Chuck confirmed it all.  I believed, received Him and
was
born again even before I made my big formal acceptance prayer.

Talk about a radical life change in a few weeks! Within a month
(during my 8th
grade year (Oct. or Nov.) my grades rose from D+ to an average of "B".
Instead ofbeing the expelled disrupter of my youth group, I became a
leader in my church youth group, my school's Bible club (the girls had a
hard time believing I had changed).  Instead of letting my twisted and
dysfunctional family pull me downwith them, I determined to do what
I
could do for my messed up family, especially my mom and dad.

I would like to share with you the many miracles that Jesus has done in
my life
to save my life, but only if you want me to do so. If you do, please let
me know.
Today, as a Christian social activist and reformer I find myself in the
midst of controversy.  I readily acknowledge that I know "nothing yet
as" I
"ought to know", that I have an imperfect understanding and my
mentality
is finite.   Yet I have web and ftp sites (see below)  where my cross
cultural  files  are an attempt on my part to deal with real and
contemporary life-issues within a Judeo-Christian context as I have
experienced them, and I believe that they have validity and relevance
no
matter what the reader's marital status, culture, status, race or
nationality might be.

The only "culture" advocated and endorsed is the
Judeo-Christian "culture", no love here for the status quo.  The
ultimate
authority accepted here is the God-breathed Word of God as found in
the
Old and New Testaments of the Holy Bible.   I have been called an
extremist
and informed that I am in a very small minority because of the beliefs
expressed in these my files.  Like Luther, I have to live by what I
believe,
so here I stand depending on the sovereignty of God and His unending
mercy to show me my error or use my vision to help another pilgrim
who
has found that the "average American Christian life" is lukewarm and
thus
grossly inadequate to deal with today's issues and circumstances.

PART ONE: FILE TITLES, DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE

� Abortion, Malicious Bias, & Genocide
� Angels, Demons, Spirits & You
� Biblical Insights on Sex, Morality & Pornography
� Black Families' Crisis
� Camelot, a Tale of Tragic Love
� Cherishing Your Women
� Christian Divorce and Remarriage
� Christians and the Tithe
� Common Law & Informal Marriages
� Crisis Resolution in the Unity of the Spirit
� Disciples and Their Suffering
� Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, Adultery and Those Bound in
Marriage
by Jesus Until Death Parts Them.
� Easter Insights
� How and When to Marry
� How to Survive Divorce
� Husband Wife Relations
� Husbands Rule Wives?
� Interracial/Interethnic Marriage
� Is Jesus Jehovah God?
� Keeping One's Word
� Keys to Loving Unity in Families and Fellowships
� The "Let" command of 1 Corinthians 7:9
� Man's Need Of Woman
�The Marriage of the Godly Lasts Until Death Separates
� Marital Intimacy Manual for Contributors
� Matchmaker Resources
� Me In Christ, What Does It All Mean Really?
� Me In This World, Why?
� Oaths, Swearings, Promises vs Jesus
� Plight Of the Black Family
� Plight Of the Black Female
� Pornography, Homosexuality, Concubines and Erotica
� Power Of Female Beauty
� Prayers for Loved Ones,Paraphrased Bible Prayers
� Prisoner Abuse
� Racism, Nationalism and Bigotry vs Jesus
� The Myth of Safe Sex
� Sex and Dependent  Jesus-believing Singles
� Song Of Solomon Part1
� Spiritual Warfare
� The Suffering of the Innocent
� The Tithe & Christians
� Truth vs Falsehoods
� Underage Sexual Burning and 1 Corinth. 10:13
� Unequal Yokes, Interfaith Marriages
� Wedding Covenants vs. Wedding Vows.
� Who is Tyler?
� Why Do I Believe Jesus?
� Why Only One Husband?
� Why Do "Good" People Suffer?
� Polygamy/Polygyny in the Scriptures
� Polygamy/Polygyny in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
� Can Ungodly Divorce/Separation of the Godly Result in a Repentance
That Involves Christian Polygamy/Polygyny?

These documents are available at
[email protected]   or [email protected]
or [email protected]
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/6916/MFile_Index99.txt
http://www.mindspring.com/users/~oldservant
http://www.mindspring.com/~oldservant/
ftp.mindspring.com; User: Anonymous; Password: your email address;
Directory: /users/oldservant
http://www.etext.org/Religious.Texts/Polyamory
http://www.etext.org/Religious.texts/Polyamory
ftp: www.etext.org; User: Anonymous; Password: Your email add

PLEASE DO NOT BUY PRODUCTS MADE IN SUDAN, ESPECIALLY
BY NOT
BUYING SOFT DRINKS AND JUICE DRINKS THAT CONTAIN
ESTER GUM
ROSIN OR ESTER OF WOOD ROSIN, BECAUSE THEY ARE
SYSTEMATICALLY TORTURING, RAPING, ENSLAVING AND
KILLING
SUDANESE BELIEVERS IN CHRIST SOLELY BECAUSE OF THEIR
FAITH.
THERE IS ACTIVE ISLAMIC JIHAD PERSECUTION OF CHRISTIANS
IN MANY
MOSLEM NATIONS, LIKE EGYPT, SAUDI ARABIA, PAKISTAN,
AND MOST
NORTH AFRICAN ISLAMIC NATIONS.
What am I talking about? Marshall's book of modern martyrs, "Their
Blood
Cries Out" 1-800-2299673).

PLEASE BOYCOTT PRODUCTS MADE IN CHINA BECAUSE  (1) THEY
SYSTEMATICALLY TORTURE AND KILL  BORN-AGAIN BELIEVERS
IN
CHRIST FOR THEIR FAITH, (2) THEY SYSTEMATICALLY EXECUTE
PRISONERS FOR NON CAPTIAL CRIMES TO HARVEST THEIR
BODY
ORGANS FOR SALE ABROAD,  (3) THEY FORCE
MOTHERS/FAMILIES TO
ABORT ALL OF THEIR UNBORN INFANTS EXCEPT FOR ONE PER
FAMILY,
AND FEMALE UNBORN INFANTS ARE THE MOST COMMON
VICTIMS, (4)
GOVERNMENT AGENTS KILL FULLY BORN INFANTS THAT
EXCEED A
FAMILY'S QUOTA OF ONE CHILD.
The Chinese Communists have killed more Christians in fifty years
than
the Romans killed in the first four hundred years of the Church age
(Paul
Marshall's  "Their Blood Cries Out"   1-800-2299673 ).
Table of Contents
I. INTRODUCTION:  PRIORITIES AND AN ANCIENT MARITAL OPTION
RECONSIDERED.  P. 4
II. WHAT DO THE MOST HIGH'S KINGIAN LEADERS SAY ABOUT
POLYGAMY/POLYGYNY?  P. 8
III. POLYGYNY IN THE THE WRITINGS OF THE MOST HIGH, OLD AND NEW
TESTAMENTS -- LET THE WORD SPEAK!  P. 16
IV.  ARE POLYGYNY  AND CONCUBINAGE  falling short of the standard TODAY?
P. 26
V.  CIVIL LAW, PERSONAL  LIBERTY AND A LOVING CONSCIENCE!  P. 28
VI. SO WHAT! WHAT'S THE POINT FOR US TODAY?  P. 29
VII. THE MARRIED MAN WHO WOULD ADD WIVES TO HIS "HAREM".  P. 31
VIII. POLYGYNY, AN OPTION FOR THE ABANDONED MAN?  P. 33
IX. POLYGYNY AND THE LEADERS OF THE MOST HIGH ONE'S  PEOPLE.  P. 34
X. POLYGYNY AND THE WESTERN THE MOST HIGH'S KINGIAN WOMAN.  P. 34
XI. WHAT'S WRONG WITH POLYANDRY?  P. 36
XII. HUSBAND RULE OVER THE WIFE? IF SERVANT-TEACHERS RULE . . . . P. 37
XIII. DIVORCE!  A PLAGUE AND ITS CONSEQUENCES.  P. 37
XIV. DIVORCE DEFINED.  P. 39
XV.  IMMORALITY DEFINED:  A SURPRISE!  P. 40
XVI. DOES THE MOST HIGH ONE FORGIVE BROKEN VOWS, DIVORCE AND
IMMORALITY?  P. 43
XVII. CAN YOU COME BACK TOGETHER AND REMMARY AFTER IMMORAL
REMARRIAGE?  P. 47
XVIII.  WHAT ABOUT THE HEALTH QUESTIONS INVOLVED IN SUCH
REUNIONS? P. 53
XIX. CAN IMMORALITY, DIVORCE, VOWS AND REPENTANCE RESULT IN
POLYGYNY?  P. 55
 XX. IMMORALITY, DIVORCE AND POLYGYNY AND THE UNRENEWED. P. 58
XXI. THREE CHEERS FOR MONOGAMY!  THE BEST FOR MOST!  P. 59
XXII. LISTEN TO THE WORD!  P. 61
XXIII. BIBLIOGRAPHY  P. 68
APPENDIX TWO -- WHAT DO YOU THINK? THE FEEDING OF TWO LEGGED
OXEN.  P. 69
APPENDIX THREE -- A WEDDING CONTRACT FOR  NONSWEARERS - P.70
APPENDIX FOUR -- WHAT MAKES A WEDDING/MARRIAGE? - P.70
APPENDIX FIVE -- MARRYING THE UNRENEWED AND "DEVOUT ONES"
LIVING IN SIN. - P.71
APPENDIX SIX -- WHEN DO I HAVE TO MARRY? - P. 73
APPENDIX SEVEN -- THE falling short of the standard OF SWEARING, OF OATHS
AND SWEARING OATHS. - 78

*******************BIBLIOGRAPHY******************************
***************ALL JUDEO-CHRISTIAN TERMS PARAPHRASED TO BE
UNDERSTOOD BY THE NEW AGE AUDIENCE***********************
#1.  (Romans14)        Ecclesiastical or church words paraphrased by Tyler.
#2.   Please see Eugene A. Nida�s Customs and Cultures, a BIOLA text in 1960.
#3.  [Isa. 29:13,14 paraphrased]
#4.  [Mk 7:6-13 paraphrased]

1b   Ecclesiastical or church words paraphrased by Tyler.
 St. Augustine.     A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The
Christian Church, edited by Philip Schaff
(D.d., LL.D.); Vol. iv; W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids Mich; 1956; p.289
#5.   (1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1)
#6.  (in Ezekiel 16 & Exodus 19,20,21)
#7.   in Ezekiel 23
#8.  In Ezek. 23
#9.  (1 Cor. 7)
#10.   In Ephesians 5 and Ezekiel 16
#11.  1 Corinthians 7
28*  Gen. 4:19
28c  Ecclesiastical or church words paraphrased by Tyler.
A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church,
edited by Philip Schaff (D.d., LL.D.) and
Henry Wace (D.D.) ; Vol. VIII; W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids Mich;
1956 p. 358
{29.   Ecclesiastical or church words paraphrased by Tyler.
  THE INTERNATIONAL BIBLE COMMENTARY; Editor, F.F.Bruce; 1979; Zondervan
Publishing House, Grand Rapids
Michigan. p.119
[30.   Ecclesiastical or church words paraphrased by Tyler.
    THE INTERNATIONAL BIBLE COMMENTARY; Editor, F.F.Bruce; pp. 126ff
<31.   Ecclesiastical or church words paraphrased by Tyler.
    THE INTERNATIONAL BIBLE COMMENTARY; Editor, F.F.Bruce; p. 129
31*  Gen. 16:9-16
<32.  Ecclesiastical or church words paraphrased by Tyler.
     MY WIFE MADE ME........p.20
32*  Gen. 21:1-7
32^  Gen. 17:20-27
32a  1 Chron. 1:32
<32b. ditto, as in Gen. 16 and 21
32c   1 Chron. 2:46,48
32d  Ezek. 16 and Malachi 2
32d  Lev. 19:20 vs. Dt. 22
@33  Ecclesiastical or church words paraphrased by Tyler.
     1962, Eerdmans' Douglas' New Bible Dictionary: IVCF, Editor J.D.Douglas; W. B.
Eerdmans Publishing
#34 1986, Funk & Wagnalls
<35.  Ecclesiastical or church words paraphrased by Tyler.
     HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE; 1989, Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.,
Peabody, Mass;, Editor James Hastings, DD,
p.259
/36.   Ecclesiastical or church words paraphrased by Tyler.
    1989, HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE; Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.,
Peabody, Mass;, Editor James Hastings, DD;
p.585
36a  When you line up 2 Samuel 12:11 with 2 Samuel 16:21,22;
36*  Malachi 2
36^  Gen. 26:34,35; 28:9
36`  in Gen. 29 & 30
36~  Lev. 18:18
36�  1 Sam 1:1-6
36b  Ecclesiastical or church words paraphrased by Tyler.
  A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church,
edited by Philip Schaff (D.d., LL.D.); Vol.
iv; W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids Mich; 1956; p. 289
~37.  Ecclesiastical or church words paraphrased by Tyler.
    Trobisch, MY WIFE MADE ME.....; p. 20
37a  Lev. 18:18
37b  1 Chron. 4:5
37c  1 Chron. 7:14
37d  1 Chron. 8:8
37e  (l Sam 6) in Ex. 4:23-26
37f  Num 12:1-10
37g  in Ex. 21:10,11
^38.   Ecclesiastical or church words paraphrased by Tyler.
      THE INTERNATIONAL BIBLE COMMENTARY; Editor, F.F.Bruce; p.172
*39. Ex. 21:8;  Ecclesiastical or church words paraphrased by Tyler.
     The Holy Scriptures according to the Masoretic Text,  1955, The Jewish
Publication Society.
39a  Deut. 17:15-17
39c  2 Samuel 5-12
39d  Deut 21:15-17; see also James 2:1-7 on partiality
39e  Judges 8:29-32
(40.  in Judg. 9:5;  Ecclesiastical or church words paraphrased by Tyler.
    Trobisch; MY WIFE MADE ME......p. 20
40a Matt. 15:18,19
40b  Eph. 2:2
40c   Judges 19:1
40d  Ezek. 16
40e  1 Sam. 1:1-19
40f  Deut. 25:5-10 (See 1 Tim. 5:1-16)
40g  2 Sam. 3:7
40h  in  1 Sam. 18
40i  1 Sam. 25
40j  Deut.17:17
40k  2 Sam 6
40l  2 Sam. 3
40m  in Sam. 7
40n  1 Chron.3
40o  1 Kings 11:4
40p  1 Kings 11:6
41a  in 2Sam. 12:11
41b  in 2 Sam 16:21,22; and 20:3
41b See appendix #4
41c See appendix #4
41d  Ezek. 16; Malachi 2;  Eccles. 5:5-9; Matt. 1:18-20
41e  Deut. 17:15-17
41f  Nehemiah 13:23
41g 1 Kings 11:1,2,6,11
41h  1 Kings 11:4
41i  (l King 11:6).
41j  2 Chron. 11 &  12
41k  2 Chron. 13
41l    2 Chron. 24
41m   see the book of Esther
41n  Ezekiel 23
41o  see Matt. 23:2,3
#42.    Ecclesiastical or church words paraphrased by Tyler.
   Trobisch; MY WIFE MADE ME.....P.21
42b   Ecclesiastical or church words paraphrased by Tyler.
     A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church,
edited by Philip Schaff (D.d., LL.D.); Vol.
iv; W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids Mich; 1956 p.290
42c  Ezekiel 16
42d  Ezekiel 23
42e  in obedience to Romans 14
42f  Matt. 5:17,16; 23:2,3
42g  Matt. 5:19
42h  (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.).
                 Mt. 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 The Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer 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, . . .
<43.  Ecclesiastical or church words paraphrased by Tyler.
  Trobisch; MY WIFE MADE ME.....P. 23
43a  Hebrews 8, especially the Greek of verse 13
43b   and the Greek of 2 Cor. 3:11
43c   (Galatians, Acts 15 and see Acts 10; 11:8, 23; 15:5; 16:3;  18:18, 21;21:18-25;
24:18)
43d   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
The Most High One had wrought among the nations by his ministry.  20 And they
having heard [it] glorified The Most High One, 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 immorality.  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.

43e  Ephesians 2:14-18 and Colossians 2:11-17, confirmed by Peter (2 Peter 3:15),
44   Ecclesiastical or church words paraphrased by Tyler.
  Douglas' New Bible Dictionary;1962; W. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids,
Mich.
45. 1954, Harper & Brothers, New York
@46   Ecclesiastical or church words paraphrased by Tyler.
 Eerdmans' Douglas' Bible  Dictionary:  1962, IVCF, Editor J.D.Douglas; W. B.
Eerdmans Publishing
#47 1986, Funk & Wagnalls NEW ENCYCLOPEDIA
<48.  Ecclesiastical or church words paraphrased by Tyler.
   HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE; 1989, Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.,
Peabody, Mass;, Editor James Hastings, DD;
p.583ff
<48b  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;
Edited by Emile Amt; Routledge,
Ckhhapman, Hall; NY, NY; 1993; p. 36
<48c WOMEN'S LIVES IN MEDIEVAL EUROPE  - A SOURCEBOOK;  Edited by Emile
Amt; Routledge, Ckhhapman, Hall; NY,
NY; 1993; p. 37
48w  Lev. chaps. 18-22; Deut. chaps. 22-24; Romans 1; 1 Cor. 6; 2 Cor. 6; Gal. 5 and
etc
48z   Ecclesiastical or church words paraphrased by Tyler.
   A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church,
edited by Philip Schaff (D.d., LL.D.) and
Henry Wace (D.D.) ; Vol. VIII; W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids Mich;
1956 p. 258
48e  Same as 48b
48f  Ecclesiastical or church words paraphrased by Tyler.
   St. Augustin: On The Trinity; translated by Arthur West Haddan, B.D.; W.B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids Mich;
1956; p. 402
#2. Trobisch, MY WIFE MADE ME. . . P.21
2b A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church,
edited by Philip Schaff (D.d., LL.D.); Vol.
V; W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids Mich; 1956; p. 267
6.  1962; W. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, Mich.
#2. Trobisch, MY WIFE MADE ME. . . P.21
2b A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church,
edited by Philip Schaff (D.d., LL.D.); Vol.
V; W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids Mich; 1956; p. 267
6.  1962; W. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, Mich.
7.   1954, Harper & Brothers, New York
*8.  HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE; 1989, Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.,
Peabody, Mass;, Editor James Hastings, DD;
p.259
(9. Septuagint Lev. 21:13 "He shall take for a wife a virgin of his own tribe."
<10.  HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE;1989, Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.,
Peabody, Mass;, Editor James Hastings, DD;
p.583ff
#12.  Trobisch, MY WIFE MADE ME. . . P.18; [AFRICAN THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL, Rev.
Gerhard Jasper of Lutheran
Theological College in Makumira, Tanzania; Februrary 1969, p. 41]
^13.  THE INTERNATIONAL BIBLE COMMENTARY; Editor, F.F.Bruce; 1979; Zondervan
Publishing House, Grand Rapids
Michigan. p. 407
13b  A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian
Church, edited by Philip Schaff (D.d., LL.D.);
Vol. V; W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids Mich; 1956; p. 267

14.  The Holy Scriptures according to the Masoretic Text,  1955, The Jewish
Publication Society.
15.  The Septuagint Version, 1972,  Zondervan Publishing House
16. The Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts, 1940, Holman Co., by G.
Lamsa.
17.  The Holy Bible, American Standard Version 1901 & 1929; Thomas Nelson &
Sons, New York
18.  Amplified Bible, 1965, Zondervan Publishing House
19.  New King James Version, 1984, Thomas Nelson, Inc.
20. "Scripture taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION.
Copyright @ 1973, 1978, 1984 International
Bible Society." Used as required by Zondervan Bible Publishers.
21b A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church,
edited by Philip Schaff (D.d., LL.D.); Vol.
iv; W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids Mich; 1956 p.290
21c A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church,
edited by Philip Schaff (D.d., LL.D.) and
Henry Wace (D.D.) ; Vol. VIII; W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids Mich;
1956 p. 358
22  2 Corinthians 6
23.  1 Corinthians 5:9-11; 2 Thess. 3:6-14
<24.  Trobisch; MY WIFE MADE ME A POLYGAMIST; 1971; Inter-Varsity Press,
Downers Grove, Ill; p21ff
>25. Trobisch; MY WIFE MADE ME........ P. 25
/26. Trobisch; MY WIFE MADE ME........ P. 49ff
{27. Trobisch; MY WIFE MADE ME........ P. 31ff
27b St. Augustin: On The Trinity; translated by Arthur West Haddan, B.D.; W.B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids Mich;
1956; p. 406
*28.  W. Trobisch, MY WIFE MADE ME A POLYGAMIST; 1971; Inter-Varsity Press,
Downers Grove, Ill; p.19
28b  A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian
Church, edited by Philip Schaff (D.d., LL.D.);
Vol. V; W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids Mich; 1956; p. 267
Ap#4 See appendix #4
Ap#4 See appendix #4
48h  A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian
Church, edited by Philip Schaff (D.d., LL.D.);
Vol. iv; W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids Mich; 1956 p.290
Ap#5  See Appendix #5
48i St. Augustin: On The Trinity; translated by Arthur West Haddan, B.D.; W.B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids Mich;
1956; p. 406
48j  A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church,
edited by Philip Schaff (D.d., LL.D.); Vol.
iv; W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids Mich; 1956 p.290
48k  A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian
Church, edited by Philip Schaff (D.d., LL.D.);
Vol. V; W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids Mich; 1956; pp. 267ff
~49.  Mat. 19:6-9
@50. 1 Corinth. 5:5-11; Matthew 18:15-18; Gal. 6:1 and John 8: 1-10
#51.  John 8:1-10
(52. The Holy Scriptures According to the Masoretic Text
>53.  Strong''s Exhaustive Concordance
{54. Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament; Joseph Henry Thayer, D.D.;
American Book Co., New York, 1889
#55. Mark 10:11,12
@56  See also Matt. 1:19; 5:31; 19:3,7-9
#57  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
^58 See also Mat. 13:36;; Mark 4:36
^59.  Mat. 5:32; 19:9; Luke 16:18; except in the cases of 1 Cor. 7:12-15,39; 1 Tim.
5:14
<60.  1 Cor. 7:10, 11, 39; Romans 7:1-3
^61.  Matt. 5:32; 19:9
<62.  1 Cor. 7:10, 11, 39; Romans 7:1-3
+63.  Mark 10:12
<64.  1 Cor. 7:10, 11, 39; Romans 7:1-3
~65.  Romans 7:3
^66. Mat. 5:32; 19:9; except in the cases of 1 Cor. 7:12-15,39; 1 Tim. 5:14
*67.  Matt 19: 9: Mark 10:11; Luke 16:18
@68.  Exod. 20:17
#69.  Leviticus18:20
^70.  1 Thess. 4:3-6
71    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.
72a St. Augustin: On The Trinity; translated by Arthur West Haddan, B.D.; W.B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids Mich;
1956; pp. 402, 406, 412
72b A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church,
edited by Philip Schaff (D.d., LL.D.) and
Henry Wace (D.D.) ; Vol. VIII; W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids Mich;
1956 p.353
Ap#7 See Appendix #7
Ap#7  See Appendix #7
(73. King James Version. The Holy Scriptures According to the Masoretic Text
agrees with the meaning.
>74.  Strong''s Exhaustive Concordance
{75. Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament; Joseph Henry Thayer, D.D.;
American Book Co., New York, 1889
{75b 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
75c The New Bible Dictionary, J.D. Douglas Ph.D Organizing Editor, William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co.,Grand Rapids Mich.;
p.790
75d  HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE; 1989, Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.,
Peabody, Mass;, Editor James Hastings, DD;
p. 586
75e St. Augustin: On The Trinity; translated by Arthur West Haddan, B.D.; W.B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids Mich;
1956; pp. 402, 406, 412
*76. underlines mine; same Hebrew words in both Dt. 23:14 as in Dt 24:3 in LXX
*76. ditto
~77. The Septuagint Version; 1972; Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids,
Mich.;
Samuel Bagster & Sons, Ltd. London;
(78.  underlines mine; same Hebrew word in Deut 23:15 as in Deut 24:1
^79. "unseemly thing" = American Standard Version; Thomas Nelson; 1901
(80.  underlines mine; same Hebrew word in Deut 23:15 as in Deut 24:1
@81.  The Holy Scriptures According to the Masoretic Text; Jewish Publication
Society of America; Philadelphia
>82. underlines mine; same Hebrew word in Deut 23:14 as in Deut 24:1
>82. ditto
#83.  Holy Bible New American Standard; Broadman & Holman Publishers,Nashville
Tenn.;
The Lockman Foundation, 1977
84  Deut. 24:1-4; Matt. 5:17-20; Luke 16:17
85.  Romans 7:1-5; 1 Corinth. 7:3-11,39
86  Mark 10:11,12; Luke 16:18; 1 Cor. 7:10,11
86  ditto
87  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
88  1 Corinth. 5:4-8; 11:28-32;
89  Matthew 18:15-18
89b A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church,
edited by Philip Schaff (D.d., LL.D.) and
Henry Wace (D.D.) ; Vol. XIV; W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids Mich;
1956 p. 493
~90.  1 Sam. 25:44; 2 Sam. 3:13-16.
@91.  2 Sam 16:21,22; 19:5; 20:3
#92.   1 Sam 25; 2 Sam 6:16-23.
*93.  Matthew 19:1-19
^94.  Malachi 2
94b  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
94c St. Augustin: On The Trinity; translated by Arthur West Haddan, B.D.; W.B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids Mich;
1956; pp. 402, 406, 412
Ap#7  See Appendix #7
Ap#5  See Appendix #5
94d  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�
94e 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.
95 HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE; 1989, Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.,
Peabody, Mass;, Editor James Hastings, DD;
pp. 583-587
96  The New Bible Dictionary, J.D. Douglas Ph.D Organizing Editor, William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co.,Grand Rapids Mich.;
p.787
Ap#7  See Appendix #7
m  see footnote #9b,c:breast pressing, petting,caressing and/or genital contact
(Ezekiel 23:3,8,21; Prov. 5.)
1b.  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.
2a . �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
3a  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..........
4a  See 2a above
5a  1 Corinth 7:1,2,3,4
6a  The unsaved, those knowingly,willfully and deliberately living in their sins
without repentance,salvation and forgiveness:
John 13:8-20
7a  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...
8a   hang around with,  be companions with/to,
9b. 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 9b
11a  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 command-
ments, 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.
11a 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."
11a  See above
11b This probably refers to adultery, defrauding your brother by adultery with his
wife.
12 Strong's exhaustive concordance; Baker Book House; Grand Rapids, Mich.
13  Darby�s
14  New English Bible (version 2) 1970
15  Young�s  Literal Translation
16  New King James Version, 1984: This version uses the word "cannot" with
refernce to the exercise of self-control
17  OnLine Bible�s Modern King James Version: This version uses "do not" with
reference to having self-control
18  American Standard Version, 1901
19  Lamsa�s Peshitta, 1957
20  Amplified Bible, 1965
21  Wuests�s New Testament, 1961
22.  This is Darby's Online Bible 19th Cent. version, and Berry's  Interlinear agrees
with Darby that this is about one 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.
22a. 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
22b  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.
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
22d 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
23 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.
       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
24  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.
25  King James Version.  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 prefers this interpretation.
Wuest�s prefers the father & virgin daughter
meaning.The NEB gives the father daughter option in its notes.The Amplified  gives
verses 36,38 this meaning.  The  NEB &
NIV seem to prefer the man and his fiance interpretation.
26 Arndt & Gingrich Greek English Lexicon; p. 568ff
27 Arndt & Giungrich; p. 585
28 Thayer Greek Lexicon; p. 444
29  Thayer; p.453
#30The  Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, 1954, Erdman's
Publish Co.' pp. 63, 386, 248.
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
33  Filson, Dean and Professor of N.T. lit.and Hist.; McCormick Theological Seminary,
Chicago, Harper and Bros. Prss, 1960; p.
89
34 edited by G. Friedrich G. Kittel, Eerdmans Publishers, 1967, Vol. 5; pp. 176ff and
page 183
20*  See the reference
35  Argyle, Cambridge, 1963; p.52

You are viewing proxied material from infinitelyremote.com. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.