TOPICS: FOREVER MARRIAGES CROSS CULTURALLY, FORMAL
AND INFORMAL CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE, COMMON LAW
MARRIAGE, CHRISTIAN REMARRIAGE, CHRISTIAN
CONCUBINES, CHRISTIAN POLYGYNY (POLYGAMY), RACISM,
AND ETHNOCENTRICITY.
TITLE: CHRISTIAN POLYGYNY, CHRISTIAN CONCUBINES, &
JESUS; Another Look for Christians.
COPYRIGHT � JANUARY 14, 1995 All rights reserved.
Copyright � 01/14/'95; 01/12/�96 (Revised)
This file, in its entirety, may be posted on or copied off of
computer networks like Internet or WWW by anyone so
inclined.
This is an ASCII text only copy of a Macintosh
MicrosoftWord5 file made for non-Macintosh folks, so it is
very plain and basic in its form (footnotes, indentation and
page layout). The document is 6" wide and Palatino 12 plain
font in the original. So when your text only version comes
up with Palatino 14, just select all and change it to Palatino
12, Helvetica 12 or Geneva 10. This will make it much less
fragmented and much easier to read. There are no bold or
underline options. The distinctions between footnotes of
sources and footnotes of reference are lost. So please be
patient with the footnote numbering. The footnotes are put
at the end of the paragraphs instead of in the text itself,
making it more readable. Please be patient.
By L. Tyler P.O. Box 620763, SanDiego, CA 92162-0763
(ruth #1 lee#2) =
[email protected] =weekends
[email protected] =Sun aft- Thurs eve.
This is dedicated to all those who have suffered through
divorce and the complexities of remarriage, and to all of the
following:
1. The shattered African polygynist husbands and their
families who are made to feel like second class citizens in the
local church because of their polygyny, made to feel less
loved by Christ and made to feel less a child of God by the
local "Christians".
2. The broken hearted Chinese polygynist wives and their
children in their local churches who are shunned by the
proper members and made to feel less welcome and
spiritually inferior because of their polygynous families.
3. The devastated Burmese polygynist husbands who
believe in and have received the Lord Jesus Christ, but who
are rejected and shunned by the local "Christian"
church/leader because they love their wives too much to
divorce them.
4. The grieved, stumbled, offended and broken hearted
born-again and Spirit sealed Indian wives and children of
the born-again and Spirit sealed husband who loved his
wives and children too much to renounce and repudiate
them in order to be baptized and accepted by the
local"Christian' church, and so now live in Christ, denied
fellowship by their local congregation of "Christians".
5. The discouraged Mid-Eastern polygynist husbands who
genuinely wanted to know Christ and the fellowship of the
saints but who were embittered and kept from saving faith
by the campaign of "Christian" leaders/churches against
them and their polygyny. It would be no surprise if they
were the most active in the community in resisting the
Gospel and those who preach it. Talk about closing a door
and making an enemy of the Gospel!
6. The troubled Liberian polygynist wives and children who
genuinely wanted to know Christ and the fellowship of the
saints but who were embittered and kept from saving faith
by the campaign of "Christian" leaders/churches against
them and their polygyny. It would be no surprise if they
were the most active in the community in resisting the
Gospel and those who preach it. Talk about closing a door
and making an enemy of the Gospel!
7. The broken hearted, stumbled, offended and grieved
Kenyan polygynist wives and their children whose husbands
and fathers were forced to reject and renounce them in
order to be baptized and join the local "Christian" church.;
especially in the case where a carnal husband used the
church rule as an excuse to get rid of a wife and children he
didn't want.
8. The disconsolate Pakistani polygynist husbands who are
stumbled, grieved, offended and broken in their faith and
love for the Lord Jesus Christ because of how badly they and
their loved ones have been treated by the local "Christian"
leader/church.
9. The grief stricken Bengali polygynist wives and children
who are stumbled, grieved, offended and broken in their
faith and love for the Lord Jesus Christ because of how badly
they and their loved ones have been treated by the local
"Christian" leader/church.
10. The miserable Thai polygynist husbands who, with grave
doubts and troubled hearts, succumbed to "Christian"
pressure to renounce and reject (Malachi 2:13-17) all of their
wives except one to satisfy the demands of some misguided
"Christian" leader, or association of "Christians".
TABLE OF CONTENTS (These page numbers are correct with
Palatino 12, left and right margins of 1.25"each, and top and
bottom margins at 1" each.)
>I. AN ANCIENT MARITAL OPTION RECONSIDERED P. 3
>II. VARIETIES OF MARRIAGE IN THE BIBLE, OLD AND NEW
TESTAMENTS -- LET THE WORD SPEAK ABOUT POLYGYNY
AND CONCUBINES! P. 5
>III. WHAT DO CHRISTIAN LEADERS SAY ABOUT CONCUBINES
& POLYGYNY? P. 25
>IV. ADULTERY DEFINED: A SURPRISE! ISN�T POLYGYNY
ADULTERY? P. 38
>V. SO, WHAT ABOUT CONCUBINES & POLYGYNY TODAY IN
MY COUNTRY? P. 44
>VI. ARE POLYGYNISTS AND CONCUBINES LIVING IN ERROR
TODAY? P. 51
>VII. MARRIAGE, CONCUBINES, CIVIL LAW, PERSONAL
LIBERTY AND A LOVING CONSCIENCE! P. 55
>VIII. THE MARRIED MAN WHO WOULD ADD
WIVES/CONCUBINES TO HIS "HAREM". P. 58
>IX. ARE POLYGYNY & CONCUBINES OPTIONS FOR THE
ABANDONED MAN? P. 62
>X. POLYGYNISTS, CONCUBINES AND THE LEADERS OF GOD'S
PEOPLE. P. 64
>XI. POLYGYNY & CONCUBINES AND THE WESTERN
CHRISTIAN WOMAN.
P. 65
>XII. WHAT'S WRONG WITH POLYANDRY? P. 68
>XIII. HUSBAND RULE OVER THE WIFE? IF SERVANT-
TEACHERS RULE P. 70
>XIV. THREE CHEERS FOR MONOGAMY! THE BEST FOR MOST!
P. 74
>APPENDIX ONE -- WHAT MAKES A
WEDDING/MARRIAGE? - P. 77
>APPENDIX TWO: WHAT DO YOU THINK? THE FEEDING OF
TWO LEGGED OXEN. P.78
>APPENDIX THREE: POLYGYNY RESOURCES
BIBLIOGRAPHY P. 79
I. AN ANCIENT MARITAL OPTION RECONSIDERED
Polygamy, rather polygyny (in good dictionaries), is a red hot
issue that divides, excites, enrages and outrages Christians on
every continent today. Africa seems to have the best record,
in Christian circles, for trying to understand God's will for
polygynists and letting them live in peace. Even in Africa,
though, you have many European and American Christians
who feel it is their God given assignment to deliver Africans
from the "curse of polygamy". We will take a closer look at
how this issue divides Christians.
Is polygyny a dead and old issue? In January of '96 the New
York Times ran an article about more than 100,000
polygamists living in Paris alone. An e-mail correspondent
from Paris wrote to me telling me that reportedly a recent
Prime Minister of France was a practicing polygynist.
Americans practice what some call serial polygyny, with
their easy divorce and remarriage laws. In Asia, mistresses
have largely replaced concubines, because the men found it
better for themselves. Mistresses have much fewer rights
than formally recognized concubines, so the guys copied the
West so they could get the "goodies" with little or no
responsibility or commitment. The ladies lost that round in
the "war of the sexes". The Bible has a different idea of
concubines, recognizing them as wives (by solemn covenants
before God) and protecting their rights.
Polygamy, in one form or another, is being practiced on
every continent. The question is, "What do we do about it?"
On the one hand you have Christians like R. Rushdonney who
believe and teach something like the following:
1. One of God's purposes in creation was that the
marital standard for people be
monogyny.
2. One of the results of the fall of Adam and Eve was
polygyny.
3. Lev. 18:18 forbids polygyny.]
4. Since bishops must be monogynous, so must all of
the flock of God.
5. Deut. 17:17 condemns polygyny.
6."The two shall become one flesh" means monogynous
marriage.
7. 1 Corinth. 7:1-5 precludes polygyny and supports
monogyny.
8. Polygyny in inferior to monogyny, and so should be
avoided.
On the other hand, you have St. Augustine of Hippo, 4th
century Christian Patriarch,
who states the following of the Western Christian community
of his century:
"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......The only reason of its being a crime now to do
this, is because custom and the laws forbid it.>1. . . . That
the holy fathers of olden times . . . to whom God gave His
testimony that 'they pleased Him'. . . it was permitted to . .
them to have a pluraltiy of wives. . .>2 . . . the honorable
name of saint is given not without reason to men who
had several wives. . . nor did the number of their wives
make the patriarchs licentious.>3
[>1 A Select Library, vol. iv; p. 289; >2 A Select Library, Vol.
V; p. 267; >3 A Select Library, Vol. iv; p. 290]
Somewhere between these two extremes you find people on
middle ground. I understand Rev. Gerhard Jasper to make
the following points: (1) In Old Testament times a Jewish
polygynist's marriage was fully recognized as marriage,
protected by the Law and the elders; (2) the Jewish
polygynist's faith in or faithfulness to God was not
questioned because of his polygyny; (3) the polygyny of the
Jewish polygynist did not keep him from being admitted to
the congregation with full membership.>44. Moses did not
forbid polygamy but apparently it was unusual among
average people .>45.
" . . . Yet polygyny is adopted from the time of Lamech (Gn.
4:19), and is not forbidden in Scripture . . . Polygamy
continues to the present day among Jews in Moslem, Hindu,
Buddhist, Asian, Oriental, and African countries." >25
�Concubine. A secondary wife acquired by purchase or as a
war captive, and allowed in polygamous society such as
existed in the Middle east in biblical times. . . . 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)�>26
" . . . 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. . .�>27.
" . . . 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.' . . .
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.">28
[Footnotes: >44. Trobisch, MY WIFE MADE ME. . . P.18;
(AFRICAN THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL, Rev. Gerhard Jasper of
Lutheran Theological College in Makumira, Tanzania;
Februrary 1969, p. 41). >45. Please see Deut. 21:15,16 and
THE INTERNATIONAL BIBLE COMMENTARY; p. 407. >25
IVCF, Editor J.D.Douglas; 1962,W. B. Eerdmans Publishing,
p.787. >26 IVCF, Editor J.D.Douglas; 1962,W. B.
Eerdmans Publishing. >27 1986, Funk & Wagnalls NEW
ENCYCLOPEDIA. >28. HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE;
p.583ff.]]
So what are we to think? We have godly men on both sides
of the issue, and some apparently spread out between the
two. In all such cases the solution is to prayerfully go to
the Word of God and find out for ourselves the will of God.
Ultimately we have to answer to Him, so we need to go to
Him to find out His will. Having learned His will, we need to
go out and on and practice it. "Seek and you shall find." "If
any man lack wisdom, let him ask . . . "
II. VARIETIES OF MARRIAGE IN THE BIBLE --- LET THE
WORD SPEAK!
Let me share with you the way I understand the
Biblical record and please correct me with clear and specific
scriptures where and when I am in error. Any discussion of
divorce has to deal with the complexities of remarriage. I
believe the following discussion is necessary to understand
what the Bible has to say about adultery and remarriage.
Please read the following with an open mind withholding
judgment until the end of this section, because I believe the
following information is critical to understand what the Bible
has to say about adultery and remarriage.
The first mention of marriage in the Bible is where God
miraculously provided Eve to Adam in the Garden of God.
Monogamists say that if God approved of polygyny God
would have given Eve, Eyvette, Eva and Evellyn to Adam. On
the other hand, just like with you and I, if we have more
than one good option, we don�t need to exercise all of them,
just the one that is best at the time. There is no quarrel with
the fact that God has ordained that the male leaders of his
Church are to have one wife>33 , and that even in the Old
Testament the leaders were instructed not to �multiply�
wives to themselves. To be a valid prefigure of Christ (as
�the first Adam�) you would expect Adam to have one wife,
just as Christ, the �last Adam�, has one wife the Church.
[Footnote: >33 1 Tim. 3; Titus 1]
In the Old Testament Jesus, as Jehovah>34 , presents Himself
as the husband of one wife remembering their wedding day
and the exchange of the vows at Mt. Sinai in the desert>35 .
Reflecting the reality of how Israel and Judah divided after
Solomon died, Jesus (as Jehovah) presents Himself as the
husband of two wives in the following:
[Footnotes:>34 in Ezek. 16; >35 Exodus 19, 20,21
MKJV EZEKIEL 23: 1 � The word of the LORD came again to
me, 2 Son of man, there were two women, the daughters of
one mother. 3 And they fornicated in Egypt; they whored in
their youth, their breasts were handled, and there their
Oholibah, her sister. And they were Mine,
EZ 16:8 And I swore to you and entered into a covenant with
you, says the Lord Jehovah. And you became Mine, and they
bore sons and daughters. And their names: Samaria [is]
Oholah, and Jerusalem [is] Oholibah.
God never presents Himself as sin or sinner to us except for
when holy Christ became sin for us on the cross. In Ezek. 23,
the sinners were His wives and He was righteous as the
husband of two wives. It was only two wives in accordance
with His own Law that decreed that the ruler must not
multiply wives to himself. Polygyny , even God�s polygyny ,
is NEVER labeled or declared to be sin or sinful in the Bible.
For this paper a distinction is made between a mistress and a
concubine. I understand a mistress to mean a human female
who has sexual (breast &/or vagina) intimacy with another
human with whom she has no marital covenants/vows/
commitment. So a mistress is in the same category as a
whore, harlot, prostitue etc. except that she might be having
sexual intimacy with only one person during a specific
period. I attempt to show at length, later in the paper, that
in the Bible a concubine has the status of a wife, even though
it may be by informal marital covenants/vows/
commitments. And so, continuing the discussion . . . . ..
Having one wife/concubine is said to significantly complicate
one�s life and distract one who is waiting on God>37 , so of
course we understand that any godly man with more than
one wife/concubine would be significantly more distracted
from waiting on God and would have a significantly greater
struggle in his spiritual life with God. In the New Testament
in accordance with His law for church leaders, Jesus presents
Himself to His people as having only one wife, the Church>38
because believing Jews and believing Gentiles were
reconciled into one Body, the Church, to be one unified and
united Bride to Christ.
[Footnotes:>37 1 Cor. 7; >38 (1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1) ]
But no where is this example made mandatory or
commanded by God. Not all are called to be leaders of God�s
people. In fact most of us are called to be
followers/imitators of these leaders. Besides how can a
leader do a good job both of leading the believers and of
caring for his wives if he has more than one or a few wives?
Any married man and any reader of 1 Corinthians 7 knows
that WIVES (like one's children and best friends) TAKE TIME
if the marriage is to be successful and godly. A polygynist
shouldn�t have time to be a leader in the local church
because of the time it takes him to be the spiritual leader of
his wives/concubines and his children in his own home. The
polygynist has his ministry in his own home to his own
family.
Next we read that Cain knew his wife and she conceived. No
word of the wedding or the nature of the wedding. The first
mention of polygyny in the Bible is in a passage with the
Cain cloud over it where Lamech (Wild man) takes two
wives>39 but there is no denunciation of this in the context.
As Jerome (340-420AD) put it, "Lamech, a man of blood and
a murderer, was the first who divided one flesh between two
wives.">3 Some maintain that polygamy was much less
common in the Old Testament than is frequently thought to
be the case, though its practice usually seemed to have a
valid
reason >4.
[Footnotes:>39 MKJV GEN. 4: 19 � And Lamech took two
wives to himself. The name of the first one [was] Adah, and
the name of the other [was] Zillah; >.3 A Select Library
of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian
Church,Vol. VIII; p. 358. >4. Please see THE
INTERNATIONAL BIBLE COMMENTARY; p.119.]
One reason is the common belief held by many that a breast
feeding mother in primitive and rural settings would refrain
from intimacy until her baby is weaned for fear that if she
would become pregnant her milk flow would stop and she
would be unable to feed her baby and so lose it. Believing
this, the father also would not want his breast-feeding wife
to become pregnant and lose the nursing child for lack of her
milk. Knowing his own passion for vaginal sex with her
and the chance that in the heat of passion his reason might
not prevail over his desire for vaginal insertion, he would
not risk being intimate with her even for the satisfying of
her sexual needs by breast &/or clitoral stimulation. His
wife would self-stimulate herself to satisfy her sexual needs
rather than risk losing her milk for her nursing child.
Knowing that he would be subject to Satan's sexual
temptations by abstaining from sex with his breast-feeding
wife>40, for sexual fulfillment he turns to his other
wife/concubine who was not breast feeding. The sexual
needs of the husband and both of the wives could be met in
this way. So polygyny allows them to save and feed their
children and also meet their sexual needs in marriage.
Modern birth control techniques could make such an
arrangement unnecessary for some, but many people living
at or below the poverty level in underdeveloped nations still
face these problems without modern aids.
[Footnote: >40 1 Corint. 7:4,5]
Is guilt by association a valid condemnation of polygyny ? I
would think not, given that the next incident is where Sarai
gave her slave/maid "to her husband Abram to be his wife",
not concubine, but �wife�. Consider the following points that
appear to be made in one commentary: (1) It was Sarai's
idea>* ; (2) it was a common at the time for a wife to obligate
herself to get an heir by providing a slave girl to her
husband so he could have his heir by the slave girl; (3) this
was legal but left a tangle of emotions due to the
heartlessness of conventional law; (4) polygamous marriages
cause damage of
a psychological nature; (5) there is no reproof of Abram for
fathering Ishmael who, in his turn, was blessed of God and
became the father of an important nation.>5. By the way
there is no proof or documentation given that proves that
polygamous marriages cause psychological damage.
[Footnotes:>* MKJV GEN. 16: 2 And Sarai said to Abram,
Behold now, the LORD has kept me from bearing. I pray you,
go in to my slave woman. It may be that I may be built by
her. And Abram listened to the voice of Sarai. 3 And Sarai,
Abram's wife, took Hagar her slave woman, the Egyptian,
and gave her to her
husband Abram to be his wife (after Abram had lived ten
years in the land of Canaan); >5. THE INTERNATIONAL
BIBLE COMMENTARY; Editor, F.F.Bruce; pp. 126ff]
I understand the same commentary to make these points: (1)
Abraham was reluctant because of the customs and the laws
of his society, valid concerns about his reputation; (2) very
old documentation reveals that normally it was not correct
or legal to get rid of one's concubine and children in this
way; (3) God intervened and instructed him so that he was
assured that Ishmael's rights and his mother's prospects
were ensured.>6.
[Footnote: >6. THE INTERNATIONAL BIBLE COMMENTARY;
Editor, F.F.Bruce; p. 129]
Yes it is obvious that Sarai apparently acted on her own and
there was no divine guidance in this move, but there was
also no divine condemnation. God intervened and sent Hagar
back into the marital situation with Abram and Sarai>41
When God next spoke to Abraham>42 there was no
condemnation of his polygyny , but instead God blessed him
with an even greater blessing than before. In response to the
blessing he takes his son by Hagar and circumcised him>43 .
But I understand a Christian elder to maintain that there
was no blessing from God on Abraham's polygamy, that the
Biblical record of it is a criticism of Abraham's conduct. >7.
He gives no references so look at the Word for yourselves --
"in all things the Lord had blessed Abraham" (Gen. 24:1).
[Footnotes:>41 (Gen 16:9-16.); >42 (Gen. 17:1--); >43
(Gen. 17:23-25); >7. MY WIFE MADE ME. . . .p.20.]
Consider the following:
". . . a man's 'house' might consist of his mother; his wives
and the wives' children; his concbines and their children . . .
and slaves of both sexes. Polygamy was in part the cause of
the large size of the Hebrew household; in part thecause of it
may be found in the insecurity of early times, when safety
lay in numbers . . . Polygyny and bigamy were recognized
features of the family life. From the Oriental point of view
there was nothing immoral in the practice of polygamy. The
female slaves were in every respect the property of their
master and became his concubines; except in certain cases,
when they seem to have belonged exclusively to their
mistress . . . At all events, polygyny was an established and
recognized institution form the earliest times">8 HASTINGS
DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE; p.259.
God blessed Sarah with fertility in polygyny>44 and God
blessed Hagar and Ishmael even though she was cast out of
Sarah's house at Sarah's confirmed request because of the
question of an heir, not polygyny>45 . Abraham had
another concubine after Hagar, named Keturah>46 by whom
Abraham had six children without any condemnation or
denunciation by God. What about a Christian elder's
apparent assertion that polygamy is a breeding ground for
contemptuous, jealous, quarrelsome conduct in a marriage
resulting in alienation between wife and husband<9 Forgive
me if I sound a little naive (I'm only in my 50's and have
experienced marriage for only 24 years) but divorce court
records and sociological studies of divorce indicate that those
vices are quite common in monogamy in America today.
Does that make monogamy evil? I think not. Contempt,
jealousy, quarreling and estrangement
are sinful works of the flesh and need to be dealt with
Spiritually, just like any other sins involving more than one
person. Sin and the flesh are the evils, not polygamy or
monogamy.
[Footnotes:>44 (Gen 21:1-7); >45 (Gen. 21); >46 (1
Chron.1:32) ; >9. See Gen. 16 and 21 as well as HASTINGS
DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE;p.259]
Culturally it is interesting that Nahor, Abraham's brother,
also was a polygamist having a concubine>47. Abraham had
at least another concubine besides Keturah under God's
blessing>48 although he diligently protected the heir status
of Isaac. Hezron�s Caleb had two concubines>49.
[Footnotes:>47 (Gen. 22:20-24); >48 (Gen. 25:1-6); >48
(Gen. 25:1-6)]
In the Bible's reality is a concubine the same as a mistress?
In the following paragraphs I believe you will see that a
concubine has marital status in God's eyes even though
socially and culturally she doen't have as high a status as a
wife who was married publicly and according to the laws of
the culture. The difference between a wife and a concubine
is discussed in the next paragraph. On the other hand a
mistress is a female who lets "her man" relate to her
sexually by means of her breasts>50 and/or genitals>51
without them making or agreeing to any marital "for life"
commitments or covenants>52. So a mistress provides sex
and affection to her partner without marital commitments or
covenants.
[Footnotes:>50 Prov. 5:19,20,21; Ezek.23:3,8,21; >51 1 Cor.
6:15,16, 17,18; >52 Prov. 2:16,17,18,19; 5:3,4,5,6;
6:24,25,26; 7; Ezek. 16; 23]
The only differences I can detect between a concubine and a
wife are: (1) that the concubine's marriage is confirmed by a
solemn covenant between the husband and concubine>53
without a public wedding, (2) the concubine�s rights were
protected by God (see below), and (3) their status as
concubines spared them certain penalties>54 . The Holy
Spirit by the writer of Judges 19 declared the Levite to be
the concubine's "husband", declared the father of the
concubine to be the Levite's "father-in-law", and declared
the Levite to be the "son-in-law" of the concubine's father.
This is a very strong legitimization of
the husband-concubine marital status. It is the same
legitimization of the relationship that the Holy Spirit used in
Matthew 1, calling the espoused Mary "wife" and the
espoused Joseph "husband". If God so recognizes them and
describes them, then who are we to do any less. By the Holy
Spirit here in Judges 19 we see that a concubine had a
"husband" who was the "son-in-law" of her father, his
"father-in-law". A wife has a "husband" who is the "son-in-
law" of her father, her husband's "father-in-law".
[Footnotes:>53 (Ezek. 16 and Malachi 2); >54 (Lev. 19:20
vs. Deut. 22)]
Eerdmans' Douglas' New Bible Dictionary: �Concubine. A
secondary wife acquired by purchase or as a war captive,
and allowed in polygamous society such as existed in the
Middle east in biblical times....Where marriages produced no
heir, wives presented a slave concubine too their husbands
in order to raise an heir (Gen. 16). Handmaidens, given as a
marriage gift, were often concubines (Gen. 29:24,29).
Concubines were protected under Mosaic law (Exod. 21:7-11;
Dt. 21:10-14), though they were distinguished from wives
(Jdg. 8:31) and were more easily divorced (Gen.21:10-14)."
[Footnote: >10 1962, IVCF, Editor J.D.Douglas; W. B. Eerdmans
Publishing]
FUNK & WAGNALLS NEW ENCYCLOPEDIA: CONCUBINAGE,
�refers to the cohabitation of a man and a woman without
sanction of legal marriage. Specifically, concubinage is a
form of polygyny in which the primary matrimonial
relationship is supplemented by one or more secondary
sexual relationships. Concubinage was a legally sanctioned
and socially acceptable practice in ancient cultures, including
that of the Hebrews; concubines, however, were denied the
protection to which a legal wife was entitled. . .. In Roman
law, marriage was precisely defined as monogamous;
concubinage was tolerated, but the concubine's status was
inferior to that of a legal wife. Her children had certain
rights, including support by the father and legitimacy in the
event of the marriage of the parents� [>11 1986, Funk &
Wagnalls]
HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE: �The relative positions
of wives and concubines were determined mainly by the
husband's favour. The children of the wife claimed the
greater part, or the whole, of the inheritance; otherwise
there does not seem to have been any inferiority in the
position of the concubine as compared with that of the wife,
nor was any idea of illegitimacy, in our sense of the word,
connected with her children. . . . The female slaves were in
every respect the property of their master, and became his
concubines; except in certain cases, when they seem to have
belonged exclusively to their mistress, and could not be
appropriated by the man except by her suggestion or
consent (Gn 16:2,3). The slave-concubines were obtained as
booty in time of war (Jg 5:30), or bought from poverty-
stricken parents (Ex 21:7); or, possibly, in the ordinary slave
traffic with foreign nations.� >12
[Footnote: >12. HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE; p.259.]
� The difference between a wife and a concubine depended
on the wife's higher position and birth, usually backed by
relatives ready to defend her.� >13
[Footnote: >13. 1989, HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE;
p.585.]
Both David and Abraham recognized all the rights and
responsibili-ties of the concubines as if they were official
wives. The bottom line is what does God say and how does
He view concubines. Reflect on the following:
MKJV 2 Sam.12: 11 �So says the LORD, Behold, I will raise up
evil against you out of your own house, and I will take your
wives before your eyes and give [them] to your neighbor.
And he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun.�
MKJV 2 Sam 16: 21 �And Ahithophel said to Absalom, Go in
to your father's concubines, that he left to keep the house.
And all Israel shall hear that you are abhorred by your
father. And the hands of all who [are] with you will be
strong. 22 And they spread Absalom a tent on the top of the
house, and Absalom went in to his father's concubines in the
sight of all Israel.�
MKJV2Sam.20:3 �And David came to his house at Jerusalem.
And the king took the ten women, [his] concubines, whom he
had left to keep the house, and put them in ward, and fed
them but did not go in to them. And they were shut up till
the day of their death, living in widowhood.�
In these passages you see God calling and recognizing as
"wives" David�s concubines. If that is the way God sees them,
only a fool would treat them as less than a wife (Malachi 2).
Malachi 2 makes it pretty clear how God feels about those
who break their covenants with their concubines and wives.
Lamech, the bad guy, and Abraham, the good guy, both
marry polygamously on their own initiative without God's
explicit leading or condemnation. You cannot condemn the
polygyny because their kids turned out bad because so did
Adam's Cain, Isaac's Esau and Eli's kids in monogamy.
Next we have another bad guy polygamist, Esau, and a good
guy polygamist, Jacob. Esau's polygyny >55 was not
condemned but his unequal yoke was the point of grief to his
mother. Esau�s son had a concubine>56 . A dear brother
reminds us that the two wives of Esau embittered life for his
parents, especially his mothe>57 . The passage cited shows it
was a disobedience, parents and in-law problem. Again
American divorce courts and sociological studies document
that monogamy does very well in producing sinful and
carnal problems between mates and the parents-in-law. The
problem is still sin and the flesh, not monogamy or
polygamy.
[Footnotes:>55 (Gen. 26:34,35; 28:9); >56 (Gen. 36:12);
>57 (Gen. 26:35)]
Jacob marries Rachel and Leah>58 , and goes on to have
children by his concubines as well>59. Sure, treachery was
involved in the Rachel and Leah marriage, but it appears
that the treachery stands alone as the evil since at the first
mention of the polygyny option,>60 Jacob has no moral
objection and nowhere does God denounce the development.
Yes Lev. 18:18 shows that much later in the time of Moses,
God forbade two sisters being wives to one husband at one
time and makes rivalry the issue. God deliberately involved
Himself in the polygyny of Jacob by blessing Leah with
fertility>61. God
repeated himself in this way with the mother of Samuel
without denouncing her polygyny>62 . God intervened and
granted fertility to Rachel in her polygyny>63 . God not only
blesses Jacob with fertility but also with miraculous
prosperity in his polygyny> 64 . God not only blessed Jacob
in his polygyny but also delivered him from evil and harm
as a polygynist>65
[Footnotes:>58 in Gen 29 & 30; >59 (Gen. 35:22; 37:2);. >60
(Gn. 29:27,29). >61 (Gn. 29:31,32; 30:17); >62 (l Sam 1:1-
6); >63 (Gn. 30:22); >64 (Gn. 30:41-31:10); >65 (Gn. 31:24,
29,42)]
Consider what Saint Augustine said in the fourth century AD.
"But here there is no ground for a criminal accusation:
for a plurality of wives was no crime when it was the
custom; and it is a crime now, because it is no longer the
custom. There are sins against nature, and sins against
custom, and sins against the laws. In which, then, of these
senses did Jacob sin in having a plurality of wives? As
regards nature, he used the women not for sensual
gratification, but for the procreation of children. For custom,
this was the common practice at that time in those countries.
And for the laws, no prohibition existed. The only reason of
its being a crime now to do this, is because custom and the
laws forbid it."
[Footnote: >.14 A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-
Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church, Vol. iv; p. 289]
I hope that dear brother Augustine is having a wonderful
time in Heaven. I also hope that Jesus has shared with Him
meaning of Prov. 5:18, 19----- a husband's sensual
gratification by and with his wife's breasts, being enraptured
and intoxicated with and by her lovemaking; the sensual
gratification of the marital joys of the Song of Solomon; the
joyful marital living of Eccles. 9:7,8,9; and the sensual
gratification of the blissful exchange of intimate marital
affection required in 1 Cor. 7:2,3,4,5. I don't understand how
he could have missed these obvious God given instructions to
blissfully and wholeheartedly love our mates in marriage.
In spite of this Biblical record of God's blessings on Jacob, I
understand a brother to write that Jacob experienced only
troublesome times with Rachel and Leah, and that they were
angry, envious, and hateful rivals.>15. Only troublesome
times? What about all of God's miraculous provision and
prospering their family experienced directly from God's
intervention? What about their cooperation, their love, trust
and loyalty for Jacob when he was in conflict with their
father and then with Esau? Maybe their polygyny lacked
the sweet bliss and loving harmony of Solomon's early
polygyny >66 , but there is no passage that Rachel and Leah
only had troublesome times.
[Footnotes:>15. Trobisch, MY WIFE MADE ME. . ; p. 20; >66
(Song of Songs 6:4-9)]
I wish I had some of that trouble in my life! What about the
rivalry? God saw the destructive potential of such sibling
rigalry and made the law that a polygynist should not marry
the sister of his wife >67 . He did not condemn the man for
being a polygynist, He just indicated that the man as
polygynist should not marry his wife's sister while she lived.
What about the hatred, envy and anger? Well folks, I don't
mean to be redundant, but we see those sins in monogamy,
between sisters, between brothers (Cain & Abel) and
between children and parents (Absalom and David) then and
today. If you aren't aware of that, then I have to ask you if
you were raised by Robinson
Crusoe on some island.
[Footnote: >67 (Lev. 18:18)]
Jacob�s son Ashur had two wives >68 , and his son,
Manasseh, had a concubine>69. Benjamin�s Shaharaim was
also a polygamist>70. So what is the score? God
miraculously gives one wife to Adam and another one to
Isaac. God allows Lamech, Abraham, Nahor, Esau and Jacob
to marry polygamously and blesses the ones who walk with
Him in submission, polygyny or no polygyny.
[Footnotes:>68 (1Chron. 4:5); >69 (1 Chron 7:14); >70 (1
Chron.8:8)]
The next occurrence is controversial but interesting. Before
the Law and in accordance with the principles of Genesis,
Moses marries Zipporah a Midianite. She seems to do a
Michal>71 and apparently suffers the same fate because
next we see Moses marry, after the giving of the law, an
Ethiopian Cushite>72 in polygyny . Under God's Law Moses
gave instructions about polygyny>73 affording it the full
legal status of monogamy with no stigma or denunciation.
[Footnotes:>71 (l Sam 6) in Ex. 4:23-26; >72 (Num 12:1-
10); >73 in Ex. 21:10,11]
The maidservant status of Hagar and Jacob's wives is clothed
in marital status>74 . It is a profound statement that in all of
the explicit moral injunctions of Lev. 18, 19, &20; Deut 12 &
27 there is not one denunciation of polygyny or
concubinage. Concubinage apparently, because it involved
maidservants, seems to have a lower status as reflected in
Ex. 21:7-9 with Lev. 19:20 in contrast to Deut. 22:23-26.
[Footnote: >74 in Ex. 21:7-9]
MKJV EXODUS 21: 7 �And if a man sells his daughter to be a
maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. 8
If she does not please her master, who has betrothed her to
himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no
power to sell her to a strange nation, since he has dealt
deceitfully with her. 9 And if he has betrothed her to his
son, he shall deal with her as with daughters. 10 If he takes
himself another [wife], her food, her clothing, and her duty of
marriage shall not be lessened. 11 And if he does not do
these three to her, then she shall go out free without money.�
MKJV LEVITICUS 19:20 �And whoever lies with a woman
with semen, and she is a slave-girl, betrothed to a husband
and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her, there shall
be an inquest. They shall not be put to death, because she
was not free.�
MKJV DEUT. 22: 23 �If a girl [who is] a virgin is engaged to a
husband, and a man finds her in the city and lies with her,
24 then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that
city, and you shall stone them with stones that they die; the
girl because she did not cry out in the city, and the man
because he has humbled his neighbor's wife. So you shall put
away evil from among you. 25 But if a man finds an engaged
girl in the field, and the man forces her and lies with her,
then only the man that lay with her shall die. 26 But you
shall do nothing to the girl. No sin [worthy] of death [is] in
the girl; for as when a man rises against his neighbor and
slays him, even so is this matter. 27 For he found her in the
field, the engaged girl cried out, but [there was] none to save
her.�
Perhaps Deut. was subsequent and current replacing Lev.
19:20. What about Ex. 21:7-9? It was expected that the
female slave would become her master's wife or concubine,
or become the wife or concubine of her master's son, and the
law protected her rights if he was unwilling to do so.>16.
Her owner could not sell her to foreigners because he had
"trifled" with her (see LXX), "seeing he hath dealt
deceitfully with her.">17.
[Footnotes:>16. Please see the discussion in THE
INTERNATIONAL BIBLE COMMENTARY; p.126ff & p.172ff.;
>17. Ex. 21:8; The Holy Scriptures according to the Masoretic
Text].
God's Law forbade a king from "multiplying" wives>.75 to
himself without making such a command to we nonkings.
It appears from later scripture about Godly and God blessed
kings of Israel that God makes a distinction between
MULTIPLYING wives & horses to yourself and adding wives
& horses to yourself. None of us object to King David having
more than one horse but many object to King David having
more than one wife, yet it is the same command "he shall not
multilply hoses . . . wives to himself." By 2 Samuel 5-12 God
had �given� him seven wives plus a number of concubines.
We see His implied blessing on David�s polygyny . This
implied blessing of his polygyny would have to mean that
David, with concubines and seven wives, had not yet
violated the prohibition against a king multiplying wives and
horses to himself.
[Footnotes:>75 De 17:15 �You shall only set him king over
you whom Jehovah your God will choose: from among your
brethren shall you set a king over you; . . . 16 Only he shall
not multiply horses to himself, . . . 17 Neither shall he
multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away;
neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.�
NO PROHIBITION FROM HAVING SOME HORSES , SOME WIVES
and some gold]
In Deut. 21:15-17 God intervenes and acknowledges and
vindicates the second wife in a polygamous marriage where
the sin of partiality >76 was being practiced. If polygyny
were sin why didn't God condemn it in this passage instead
of covering it with the dignity and holiness of His Law? The
wife is vindicated, not condemned.
[Footnote: >76 (James 2:1-7)]
Deut. 21:15 � �If a man have two wives, one beloved, and
one hated, and they have borne him children, [both] the
beloved and the hated, and [if] the first-born son be hers
that was hated; 16 then it shall be, in the day that he makes
his sons to inherit [that] which he has, [that] he may not
make the son of the beloved first-born before the son of the
hated, who is the first-born; 17 but he shall acknowledge as
first-born the son of the hated, by giving him a double
portion of all that he has; for he is the firstfruits of his
strength: the right of the firstborn is his.�
Gideon had MANY WIVES, was blessed and used of God
without any condemnation/denunciation from God about his
polygyny>77 . A dear brother apparently states, of Gideon's
(Jerubbaal's ) son Abimelech, that polygamy actually lead to
murder in Judg. 9:5 >18. Excuse me! With logic like that I
guess you would have to say that the monogamy of Adam
and Eve led Cain to murder Abel. I think not. Jesus makes it
clear that murder comes from the murderer's heart >78 or
from the inner working of the evil ones>79 , but not from
monogamy or polygamy. The problem is sin and the flesh,
not polygamy.
[Footnotes:>77 (Judges 8:29-32); >18. Trobisch; MY WIFE
MADE ME>.>.>.p. 20; >78 (Matt. 15:18,19); >79 (Eph. 2:1,2;
6:12)]
What about the Levite�s? These keepers of the tabernacle,
did they have special rules that kept them from polygyny?
Not according to the following, because when his concubine
was mercilessly murdered by rape, the nation of Israel rose
to vindicate him and avenge her murder.
Judges 19:1 � �And it came to pass in those days, when
[there was] no king in Israel, that there was a certain Levite,
. . who took to him a concubine out of Bethlehem-Judah. 2
And his concubine played the whore against him, and went
away from him to her father's house to Bethlehem-Judah,
and was there four whole months. 3 And HER HUSBAND rose
up and went after her, to speak friendly to her, [and] to
bring her again; . . . And she brought him into her father's
house; and when the father of the damsel saw him he
rejoiced to meet him. 4 And his FATHER-IN-LAW, the
damsel's father, retained him, and he abode with him three
days; . . .5 . . . And the damsel's father said to his SON-IN-
LAW, . .�
SO A CONCUBINE IS NOT A HARLOT. Just like any other wife,
she can become a harlot while married (Ezek. 16 and Hosea).
HARLOTRY IS AN EVIL THAT EITHER A WIFE OR A
CONCUBINE CAN PRACTICE WHILE MARRIED. Not only is a
concubine not a harlot, the Holy Spirit by the writer of the
book of Judges declared the Levite to be the concubine's
"husband", declared the father of the concubine to be the
Levite's "father-in-law", and declared the Levite to be the
"son-in-law" of the concubine's father. This is a very strong
legitimization of the husband-concubine marital status. It is
the same legitimization of the relationship that the Holy
Spirit used in Matthew 1, calling the espoused Mary "wife"
and the espoused Joseph "husband". If God so recognizes
them and describes them, then who are we to do any less.
By the Holy Spirit here in Judges 19 we see that a concubine
had a "husband" who was the "son-in-law" of her father, his
"father-in-law". A wife has a "husband" who is the "son-in-
law" of her father, her husband's "father-in-law".
Hannah, the wife of polygamous Elkanah, received the same
intervention and blessing from God that Sarah, Rachel and
Leah received in their polygyny>80 . Her problem with her
co-wife and her own infertility is quite similar to Abraham
and Sarah's experience. The co-wife had a sin problem, and
it was her problem, not a polygyny problem. You find the
same sinful behavior today between sisters, brothers, wives
in social groups, wives socializing in church or work settings.
Sin and the flesh are the problems, not polygyny.
[Footnote: >80 (l Sam. 1:1-19)]
The situation made famous by Ruth>81 involves the
potential for polygyny since the brother-in-law is not
exempted if he is already married. It is amazing, given the
specificity of the Law spread out over four books, that God
specifically condemns adultery, fornication, homosexuality,
sodomy, bestiality but nowhere condemns polygyny or
concubinage. King Saul had a
concubine>82.
[Footnotes:>81 , Deut. 25:5-10 (See l Tim 5:1-16); >82 2Sam
3:7] .
David is a fascinating case. He marries Michal in l Sam. 18.
Then, as the anointed future king of Israel, David took to
himself three additional wives in l Sam 25, and one is
recognized by the Spirit for her grace and wisdom. He does
this at a time of God's miraculous intervention and blessing
in his life. God neither denounces or condemns him or his
polygyny. In the case of three or four wives you are still
dealing with addition, rather than the multiplying of Deut.
MKJV DEUT. 17:16 �But he shall not multiply horses to
himself. . . . 17 Nor shall he multiply wives to himself, so that
his heart does not turn away. Nor shall he greatly multiply
silver and gold to himself.�
It is interesting that horses, silver and gold - AS WELL AS
WIVES - were not to be multiplied. I can't believe this was
meant to limit the king to ONE HORSE, or ONE SILVER OR
GOLD BAR, even so I can't believe it limits a king to one
wife.
In fact in 2 Sam 6, it is Michal who is condemned and
punished instead of her polygamous husband David. By the
time he becomes King in Judah he has 6 wives>83 and is
being blessed and prospered by God. At the time of the
wonderful Covenant with David in 2 Sam. 7, God specifically
blesses and covenants with polygamist David and his
concubines and his seven wives, as part of his house, receive
a blessing. God even said "I gave you . . . your master's
wives" >84 ". And Nathan said to David, you are the man!
Thus says Jehovah the God of Israel: I anointed you king
over Israel, and I delivered you out of the hand of Saul; 8
and I GAVE YOU YOUR MASTER'S HOUSE, AND YOUR
MASTER'S WIVES INTO YOUR BOSOM, and gave you the
house of Israel and of Judah; and if [that] had been too little,
I would moreover have given unto you such and such
things."
[Footnotes:>83 (2 Sam. 3); >84a 2Sa 12:7]
At this time God had �given� him seven wives plus a number
of concubines (1 Chronicles 3). God here condemns David�s
adultery and murder, but implies His blessing on David�s
polygyny . This implied blessing of his polygyny would
have to mean that David, with concubines and seven wives,
had not yet violated the prohibition against a king
multiplying wives to himself. >84b to David in his polygyny.
Apparently even concubines plus seven wives is not
"multiplying" wives to oneself. He had about 14 wives and
concubines at the end of his life>85. David the polygamist
was declared to be loyal to God>86. God declares that David,
the polygamist, fully followed God>87.
[Footnotes:>84b 2Sa 12:7; >85 (1 Chron 3); >86 ( l King
11:4); >87 (l King 11:6)]
In contrast to God's evaluation of David, we have a beloved
brother's evaluation that David was adulterous, unjust,
favored some over others, and his sons became killers
because he didn't have the authority deal decisively with his
heritage>19. Unless I'm mistaken, I believe that
monogamous Adam and Eve had a similar problem with Cain
and Abel, and monogamous Isaac and
Rebekah certainly had their share of "favoritism and
injustice. . . intrigues" in their parenting of Jacob and Esau
and Jacob's obtaining the blessing instead of Esau. Again and
again we see that sin and the flesh are the problems, not
polygyny.
[Footnote: >19. Trobisch; MY WIFE MADE ME. . . p.20.]
God conferred the status of wives on David's concubines in 2
Sam. 12:11 as we see how the prophecy was played out in 2
Sam. 16:21, 22; and 20:3. Again the distinction between
concubines and wives seems to be an issue on man's end, not
on God's end where it seems to be the solemn
vow/covenant>20 and not the wedding ceremony>21 that
makes a woman a wife even if society calls her a
concubine>88 .
[Footnotes:>.20 See appendix #4.; >.21 See appendix #4; >88
(Ezek. 16; Malachi 2; Eccles. 5:5-9;and Matt. 1:18-20 where
we see the Holy Spirit call Mary and Joseph husband and
wife based on their betrothal/ espousal alone and before the
actual wedding and cohabitation)]
Solomon's polygyny was sinful first because He disobeyed
God�s command against a king multiplying wives to
himself>89; and secondly because he married unbelievers
with whom God had specifically forbidden marriage>90. Too
many wives and forbidden wives both had the same
predicted result, that they turned his heart away from God.
Solomon was declared to be disloyal to God in his
polygyny>91 while David the polygamist was declared to be
loyal to God>92 . God even declares that polygynist David
fully followed God>93 .
[Footnote: >89 (Deut. 17:15-17); >90 (Nehemiah 13:23) ;
>91 (1 Kings 11:1,2,6, 11); >92 ( l King 11:4); >93 (l King
11:6)]
Evil king Rehoboam imitated Solomon and almost had 18
wives and 60 concubines in 2 Chron. 11 & 12. Then Godly
king Abijah, blessed and prospered of God, also had fourteen
wives>94 . The Godly High Priest Jehoida gave two wives to
godly king Joash in 2 Chron 24. Godly queen Esther was a
wife blessed by God in her polygyny . God Himself describes
Himself as a polygamist in Ezekiel 23. Jesus reaffirmed the
Old Testament teachings on polygamy and concubinage in
Matt. 23:2,3.
[Footnote: >94 (2 Chron. 13)]
MKJV MATT. 23:2 �. . . The scribes and the Pharisees sit in
Moses' seat. 3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe,
observe and do. But do not do according to their works; for
they say, and do not do.�
What a record! Two authors of the Old Testament, David and
Solomon, possibly three if you count Moses, were
uncondemned and God-honored polygynists in their
polygyny. Four godly patriarchs with whom God entered
into special and unique covenants (Abraham, Jacob, David,
Solomon; five if you count Moses) were polygynists at the
time God covenanted with them. In every era of the Old
Testament (Pre Law, Sinai Law, Judges, Kingdom prophets,
Dispersion prophets) you find God�s people and leaders
practicing polygyny and practicing it according to God�s will
or commands. Yet many Christian leaders agree with the
brother that apparently maintains that the Bible offers little
defense for polygamy in comparison to monogamy, that
because of its shortcomings polygyny cannot be tolerated as
a form of marriage willed by God.>22. Perhaps that's why
God chose the polygamous marriage of Solomon and his
Shulamite in The Song of Solomon to be the model for
marriage in Israel and the marriage model for His
relationship to Israel>95 .
[Footnotes:>22. Trobisch; MY WIFE MADE ME>.>..P.21; >95
(Ezekiel 23)]
Were these Old Testament saints less Godly than we? I think
not. But what of those who say that having more than one
wife in those days was a falling short of the will of God and
reflected a weakness in the character of those who
participated in polygyny? St. Augustine has a good word, as
follows:
"But those who have not the virtues of temperance must not
be allowed to judge of the conduct of holy men, any more
than those in fever of the sweetness and wholesomeness of
food. . . If our critics, then, wish to attain not a spurious and
affected, but a genuine and sound moral health, let them find
a cure in believing the Scripture record, that the honorable
name of saint is given not without reason to men who had
several wives; and that the reason is this, that the mind can
exercise such control over the flesh as not to allow the
appetite implanted in our nature by Providence to go beyond
the limits of deliberate intention. . . . the holy patriarchs in
their conjugal intercourse were actuated not by the love of
pleasure, but by the intelligent desire for the continuance of
their family. . . .nor did the number of their wives make the
patriarchs licentious. But why defend the husbands, to whose
character the divine word bears the highest testimony. . . ."
[Footnote: >.23 A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-
Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church, Vol. iv; p.290]
Never by God or His prophets is polygyny denounced,
condemned or grouped with sins or carnal expressions of the
flesh. God Himself portrays Himself as a monogynist in
Ezekiel 16 and then as polygynist in Ezekiel 23. It appears
He has no problem with the marriage styles he initiated,
legislated and in which He blessed His people. So who are
we to condemn as sin that which God never condemns as
sin? Why would we want to do such a thing? Yes it is
against the law in some countries and we know that God
wants us to obey the laws of the land as long as it does not
violate His Law. So we should not practice polygyny in those
lands in obedience to Romans 13 etc. So why not simply say
that instead of teaching as doctrine the tradition of religious
men, i.e. that polygyny is sinful?
POLYGAMY, JESUS, PAUL AND NEW TESTAMENT TIMES
Some might say all or most of those Old Testament passages
on marriage and morality were for the nation Israel under
the Law of Moses and not for Jesus' church under the Law of
LOVE in Christ. Bible history indicates quite clearly that
Jesus came not to destroy the Law but to fulfill it>96 . Jesus
showed that He was observing all the Law of Moses as an
adult when He said that whoever does the commandments
and teaches others to do the Law of Moses "shall be called
great in the kingdom of Heaven">~ . Over and over again in
the Gospels you see Jesus obeying the Law of Moses and
telling His followers to obey it>97 . Matt. 23:3, 4, and 23 are
the strongest statements of this expectation that His
followers were to be obeying the marriage and morality laws
of Moses when He was still visibly with them, and Jesus
made it soon before His death.
[Footnotes:>96 (Matt. 5:17,18); >~ (Matt. 5:19); >97
(Matt. 8:4; 12:11,12; 13:54; 15:3-6, 22-26; 17:24, 27; 19:17-
19; 21:12,13; 22:34-40; 23:3,4,23; 26:18,19; 26:63,64; etc.)]
Mat. 5:17 � �Think not that I am come to make void the law
or the prophets; I am not come to make void, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Until the heaven and the earth
pass away, one iota or one tittle shall in no wise pass from
the law till all come to pass. 19 Whosoever then shall do
away with one of these least commandments, and shall teach
men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of the heavens;
but whosoever shall practise and teach [them], *he* shall be
called great in the kingdom of the heavens.�
Matt. 23:1 � �Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his
disciples, 2 saying, The scribes and the Pharisees have set
themselves down in Moses' seat: 3 all things therefore,
whatever they may tell you, do and keep. But do not after
their works, for they say and do not, . . .�
Consider Hebrews 8, especially the Greek of verse 13:
�In that he says, �A new [covenant]�, he has made the
first [covenant] old. Now that which is becoming obsolete
and growing old is ready to vanish away.�
Consider The Greek of 2 Cor. 3:7,11:
�. . . the ministration of death, written [and]
engraved in stones, was glorious . . . How shall not the
ministration of the Spirit be more glorious? . . . For if what is
passing away [was] glorious, much more that which is
reamaining [is] glorious>..�
These passages show there was a period of transition (�is
becoming obsolete..growing old..is ready to vanish..is passing
away�) from the Sinai Law of Moses to the Calvary Law of
LOVE in Christ. The book of Acts is full of the apostles
keeping the Sinai Law of Moses after Pentecost. You see
them worshipping in the Temple regularly>98 , Peter refuses
to socialize with Gentiles according to the Sinai Law>99 ,
Peter refuses to eat the animals classified as unclean in the
Sinai Law>1 , Paul circumcises Timothy, Paul keeps the Law's
feasts>2 , Paul recognizes the authority of the Chief Priest,
the believing Gentiles are released from the Sinai Law of
Moses while the believing Jews are not released >3 .
[Footnotes:>98 (Acts 4, 12, 15, 21); >99 (Acts 10, 11, Gal. 1
& 2); >1 (Acts 10 & 11); >2 (Acts 21); >3 (Galatians, Acts
15 and see Acts 10; 11:8, 23; 15:5; 16:3; 18:18, 21;21:18-25;
24:18)]
So even after Acts' Pentecost and Acts 15 the apostles and
believing Jews in Acts 21 still believe that they are to obey
the Law of Moses including the laws about marriage
(including polygyny ) and morality. The only thing they
wrote about polygyny was that the elders/bishops/deacons
should have only
one wife at a time. Consider the following:
Acts 21:18 �And on the morrow Paul went in with us to
James, and all the elders came there. 19 And having saluted
them, he related one by one the things which God had
wrought among the nations by his ministry. 20 And they
having heard [it] glorified God, and said to him, You see,
brother, how many myriads there are of the Jews who have
believed, and all are zealous of the law. 21 And they have
been informed concerning you , that you teach all the Jews
among the nations apostasy from Moses, saying that they
should not circumcise their children, nor walk in the
customs. . . . 23 This do therefore that we say to you: We
have four men who have a vow on them; 24 take these and
be purified with them, and pay their expenses, that they
may have their heads shaved; and all will know that [of
those things] of which they have been informed about you
nothing is [true]; but that you yourself also walk orderly,
keeping the law. 25 But concerning [those of] the nations
who have believed, we have written, deciding that they
should [observe no such thing, only to] keep themselves both
from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from things
strangled, and from fornication. 26 Then Paul, taking the
men, on the next day, having been purified, entered with
them into the temple, signifying the time the days of the
purification would be fulfilled, until the offering was offered
for every one of them.�
So we see Paul, the Apostle of Grace to we non-Jews, purify
himself with four other Christian Jews under a vow, pay the
expenses of their being under the vow including the shaving
of their heads, and have an offering offered for them all so
that he could show the believing Jews that he walked
orderly, keeping the Sinai Law and its customs and telling
the believing Jews to circumcize their children and walk in
Moses' customs. These customs of Moses included the laws
given to Moses regulating and recognizing polygyny. So the
apostles and believing Jews were still keeping the Law, not
for salvation, but to obey Jesus in Mat. 23:1-3, and still they
do not condemn or reject the polygyny being practiced all
around them by both Jews and Romans (See the quotes
below).
In fact, it is not until after Acts 22 that the Spirit has Paul
write the following:
MKJV EPHES. 2: 14 � �For He is our peace, He making us
both one, and [He] has broken down the middle wall of
partition [between us], 15 having abolished in His flesh the
enmity (the Law of commandments [contained] in
ordinances) so that in Himself He might make the two into
one new man, making peace [between them]; 16 and so that
He might reconcile both to God in one body by the cross,
having slain the enmity in Himself.�
MKJV COLOS. 2:13 � �And you, being dead in your sins and
the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together
with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 blotting out
the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which
was contrary to us, and has taken it out of the way, nailing it
to the cross. 15 Having stripped rulers and authorities, He
made a show of them publicly, triumphing [over] them in it.
16 � Therefore let no one judge you in food or in drink, or in
respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the
sabbaths.�
MKJV 2 PETER 3:15 �And think of the long-suffering of our
Lord [as] salvation (as our beloved brother Paul also has
written to you according to the wisdom given to him 16 as
also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things; in
which are some things hard to be understood, which the
unlearned and unstable pervert, as also [they do] the rest of
the Scriptures, to [their] own destruction).�
Ephesians 2:14-18 and Colossians 2:11-17, confirmed by 2
Peter 3:15, show us that Jesus reveals and instructs us to
accept the end of the Law of Moses, finally releasing
believing Jews from having to obey the Law of Moses (as the
Gentiles were in Acts 15) and then not many years later
causes the Jerusalem Temple to be destroyed so that it
would be impossible to keep on obeying the Law of Moses
with its sacrifices and temple worship.
This means that the marriage and morality teachings of 1
Thess. 4 ; Romans 7; 1 Corinthians 5, 6 and 7 were written
before the time of Acts 21:16 while Paul and the believing
Jews, including the apostles, were still obeying and teaching
the marriage and morality laws of the Law of Moses,
discussed at length above including polygyny . The change of
significance was not that
polygyny was condemned or forbidden but that monogamy
was made a prerequisite for holding an official position of
leadership in the local church. The polygyny of the Jewish,
Greek and Roman world was not attacked, but the leadership
of the local churches was transformed by the monogamy
restriction, probably to prevent polygamous leaders from
getting involved in church service that would result in the
neglect of time with their own children and/or wives. What
was the actual status of polygamy in New Testament time,
the First Century AD? Christian elders agree that during
Jesus' physical and visible walk on earth, the Jews practiced
polygamy>24.�
[Footnote: >24. Trobisch; MY WIFE MADE ME..P. 23. ;
"Polygamy was not definitely forbidden among the Jews till
the time of R. Gershom (c. A.d. 1000), and then at first only
for France and Germany. In Spain, Italy,m and the East it
persisted for some time longer, as it does still among the
Jews in Mohammedan counties". HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF
THE BIBLE, p.584. ; A Select Library of the Nicene and
Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church, Vol. V, p. 267.;
A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of
The Christian Church, Vol. iv, p.290.; A Select Library
of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian
Church, Vol. VIII, p. 258. ; St. Augustin: On The
Trinity, p. 402.; HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE
BIBLE, p.259, 583ff.]
Let's look at the following evidence:
DOUGLAS� NEW BIBLE DICTIONARY : MARRIAGE: ."Monogamy
is implicit in the story of Adam and Eve, since God created
only one wife for Adam. Yet polygyny is adopted from the
time of Lamech (Gn. 4:19), and is not forbidden in Scripture .
..It is difficult toknow how far polygamy was practised, but
on economic grounds it is probable that it was found more
among the well-to-do than among the ordinary people.
Polygamy continues to the present day among Jews in
Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Asian, Oriental, and African
countries." >25
[>25 IVCF, Editor J.D.Douglas; 1962,W. B. Eerdmans
Publishing, p.787]
Eerdmans' Douglas' New Bible Dictionary: �Concubine. A
secondary wife acquired by purchase or as a war captive,
and allowed in polygamous society such as existed in the
Middle east in biblical times....Where marriages produced no
heir, wives presented a slave concubine too their husbands
in order to raise an heir (Gen. 16). Handmaidens, given as a
marriage gift, were often concubines (Gen. 29:24,29).
Concubines were protected under Mosaic law (Exod. 21:7-11;
Dt. 21:10-14), though they were distinguished from wives
(Jdg. 8:31) and were more easily divorced (Gen.21:10-14)�
[Footnote: >26 IVCF, Editor J.D.Douglas; 1962,W. B. Eerdmans
Publishing.]
FUNK & WAGNALLS NEW ENCYCLOPEDIA: CONCUBINAGE,
�Refers to the cohabitation of a man and a woman without
sanction of legal marriage. Specifically, concubinage is a
form of polygyny in which the primary matrimonial
relationship is supplemented by one or more secondary
sexual relationships. Concubinage was a legally sanctioned
and socially acceptable practice in ancient cultures, including
that of the Hebrews; concubines, however, were denied the
protection to which a legal wife was entitled. In Roman law,
marriage was precisely defined as monogamous; concubinage
was tolerated, but the concubine's status was inferior to that
of a legal wife. Her children had certain rights, including
support by the father and legitimacy in the event of the
marriage of the parents�.
[Footnote: >27 1986, Funk & Wagnalls NEW ENCYCLOPEDIA.]
In HASTING'S DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE we read "Being ..
apparently legalized, and having the advantage of precedent,
it was long before polygamy was formally forbidden in
Hebrew society, though practically it fell into disuse; the
feeling of the Rabbis was strongly against it. Herod had nine
wives at once. . . Its possibility is implied by the technical
continuance of the Levirate law," [Deut. 25:5-10] "and is
proved by the early interpretation of 1 Ti 3, whether correct
or not. Justin reproaches the Jews of his day" [A.D.] " with
having 'four or even five wives,' and marrying 'as they wish,
or as many as they wish.' The evidence of the Talmud shows
that in this case at least the reproach had some foundation.
Polygamy was not definitely forbidden among the Jews till
the time of R. Gershom (c. A.D. 1000), and then at first only
for France and Germany. In Spain, Italy, and the East it
persisted for some time longer, as it does still among the
Jews in Mohammedan countries."
[Footnote: >28. HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE;
p.583ff.]
Eugene Nida's (American Bible Society) book Customs and
Cultures>.29 . . documents the current practice of polygyny
by Christians in non Western countries, and how it is still
practiced in China, SE Asia, India, Africa and parts of South
America. Eugene Nida points out that when polygamists
become Christians they are told of their limitations in church
offices and are asked not to take any additional wives
because it stumbles western Christians (Rom 14, l Cor. 8 and
10). They are not usually asked to abandon their other wives
to a premature widowhood because of l Cor>. 7:1-15.
[Footnote: >.29 1954, Harper & Brothers, New York]
Tacitus, who died in 117 A.D., was a Roman historian who
provided us with one of the earliest detailed descriptions of
the Germans and their Germanic tribes, which later migrated
into western Europe and included the English and the French.
>30 These Germans of his time were unique. They strictly
observed the marital tie and were generally content with
one wife for each husband, in marked contrast to most of the
"barbarians" of the time who often practiced polygyny. The
few exceptions to this Germanic monogyny was when they
were sought for a polygynous marriage because of their high
birth>31
[Footnotes:>30 Source: Tr. Maurice Hutton, in Tacitus:
Dialogus, Agricola, Germania, Loeb Classical Library
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1914). WOMEN'S
LIVES IN MEDIEVAL EUROPE - A SOURCEBOOK; p. 36.;>31
WOMEN'S LIVES IN MEDIEVAL EUROPE - A SOURCEBOOK; p.
37.]
The New York Times News Service reported in Jan. '96 that
there were 200,000 individuals involved in polygamous
marriages in Paris France alone. These polygamous
individuals were reported to be mostly immigrants from SE
Asia, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Africa. This is
significant since England and Germany also have similar
immigrant populations with similar marriages. This is an
awesome mission field right in middle of Western Europe,
involving our NATO allies. Are we going to exclude them
from the Gospel message because of their polygamy? Are
we going to tell the husbands to disobey the Jesus who
condemns the breaking of marital covenants (Mal.2; Rom. 1)
by abandonning/divorcing all their wives but one. Are we
going to disobey the Jesus who tells new converts to stay in
the calling in which they were called (1 Cor.7:25-35) and tell
the husbands not to abide in the polygamous calling in which
they were called, but to dump and abandon their "extra"
wives, condemning them to widowhood, poverty and
prostitution?
It is incredible to think that Jesus and the apostles would say
nothing about such a widespread contemporary practice as
polygyny if it were indeed sinful, less than God's best, carnal
and reprobate to good works. God never said such a thing in
Old Testament times and He obviously never said such a
thing in New Testament times. When you consider how
specific God was in Lev. chaps. 18-22; Deut. chaps. 22-24;
Romans 1; 1 Cor. 6; 2 Cor. 6; Gal. 5 and etc., I can not believe
that God would "forget" to include polygyny if it is as bad as
most Christian leaders say it is. Let's take a look at what
most Christian leaders say about polygyny and concubines in
the next section.
III. WHAT DO MOST CHRISTIAN LEADERS SAY ABOUT
CONCUBINES & POLYGYNY TODAY?
FIRST, they say that one of God's purposes in creation was
that the marital standard for man be monogamy>32 even
though there is not one scripture, quoted or paraphrased,
that says that. Yet I understand a Christian elder and most
of the "leaders" to persist, apparently maintaining that there
is no doubt that God's indisputable will, as seen in the Old
Testament, is monogamy.>33.
[Footnotes:>.32 Please see THE INSTITUTES OF BIBLICAL
LAW, page 362, by R. Rushdonney.; >33. Trobisch, MY WIFE
MADE ME. . . P.21]
There is no question that the best form of marriage for most
is monogamy, since that is the gift>@ He has given most of
His children on earth and worldwide. But the point of 1 Cor.
7:7-27 -----
[Footnote: >@ (1 Cor. 7:7-27)]
MKJV 1 CORINTH. 7: 7 �For I would that all men were even
as I myself am. But each has his proper gift from God, one
according to this manner and another according to that. 8 I
say therefore to the unmarried and the widows, It is good
for them if they remain even as I. 9 But if they do not have
self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to
burn. 17 � But as God has distributed to each one, as the
Lord has called each one, so let him walk. And so I ordain in
all churches.18 [Was] any called having been circumcised? Do
not be uncircumcised. Was anyone called in uncircumcision?
Do not be circumcised. . . . 20 Let each one remain in the
calling in which he was called. 21 Were you called as a
slave? It does not matter to you, but if you are able to
become free, use [it] rather. . . . 24 Each in whatever way he
was called, brothers, in this remain with God.�
Whether or not it is the best form of marriage for each
individual depends on the gift and the leading (Rom. 8:1-14)
each individual receives from God. St. Augustine (4th
Century AD) had a gentler way of saying it that I feel more
reflects the God of Gen. 1 and 1 Cor. 13. Consider the
following: �That the good purpose of marriage, however, is
better promoted by one husband with one wife, than by a
husband with several wives, is shown plainly enough by the
very first union of a married pair, which was made by the
Divine Being Himself, with the intention of marriages taking
their beginning therefrom, and of its affording to them a
more honorable precedent. In the advance, however, of the
human race, it came to pass that to certain good men were
united a plurality of good wives, --- many to each; and from
this it would seem that moderation sought rather unity on
one side for dignity, while nature permitted plurality on the
other side for fecundity. For on natural principles it is more
feasible for one to have dominion over many, than for many
to have dominion over one.�
[Footnote: >..34 2b A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-
Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church; Vol. V; p. 267]
Not one verse, quoted or paraphrased, says that God's
purpose was that "monogamy be the standard for man" but
most of our relgious leaders teach this doctrine. They say
that Gen. 2:18-24 shows that "The normative marriage is
clearly monogamous.�
MKJV GENESIS 2: 18 � �And the LORD God said, [It is] not
good that the man should be alone. I will make a helper
suitable for him. 19 And out of the ground the LORD God
formed every animal of the field and every fowl of the air,
and brought [them] to Adam to see what he would call them.
And whatever Adam called [each] living creature, that [was]
its name. 20 And Adam gave names to all the cattle, and to
the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field. But
there was not found a suitable helper for Adam. 21 � And
the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he
slept. And He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh
underneath. 22 And the LORD God made the rib (which He
had taken from the man) into a woman. And He brought her
to the man. 23 And Adam said, This [is] now bone of my
bones and flesh of my flesh. [She] shall be called Woman
because [she] was taken out of man. 24 Therefore shall a
man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his
wife and they shall be one flesh. 25 And they were both
naked, the man and his wife; and they were not ashamed.�
First that passage says nothing about Gen 2 being normative,
and no other passage in the Bible says that. None of us are
commanded by God to emulate or imitate Adam. Adam had
to be unique as the first Adam just as Christ had to be
unique to be the �last Adam�>35. , and being unique it is no
surprise that both �Adams� have one unique wife (the first
Adam, Eve; the last Adam>36. Jesus, the Church). In the
Old Testament Jesus portrayed Himself as a polygynist>37 in
accordance with His own Law governing polygyny, and as
King of Kings He did not �multiply� wives to Himself. In the
New Testament as the Leader of the Church, He could have
only one wife in accordance with His own Law governing the
marital status of Church leaders>4
[Footnotes:>.35. 1 Cor. 15:45-49; Romans 5:12-21. >.36.
DITTO 1 Cor. 15:45-49; Romans 5:12-21. >.37 Ezekiel 23;
>.>4 Titus 1; 1 Timothy 3]
Douglas� New Bible Dictionary : MARRIAGE: ....."Monogamy is
implicit in the story of Adam and Eve, since God created only
one wife for Adam. Yet polygyny is adopted from the time
of Lamech (Gn. 4:19), and is not forbidden inScripture. . .
..Polygamy continues to the present day among Jews in
Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Asian, Oriental, and African
countries."
HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE: . �. . Elkanah, the
husband of Hannah and Peninnah, is an interesting example
of a man of no particular position who nevertheless had
more than one wife; this may be an indication that bigamy,
at least, if not polygamy, was not confined to the very
wealthy and exalted. At all events, polygyny was an
established and recognized institution from the earliest of
times.�>39
[Footnote: >39. HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE; p.259.]
�Polygamy meets us as a fact: e.g. Abraham, Jacob, the
Judges, David, Solomon; 1 Ch 7:4 is evidence of its
prevalence in Issachar; Elkanah (1 Sam.1:1ff) is significant as
belonging to the middle class; Jehoida (2 Ch 24:3) as a priest.
.Legislation . . . safeguarded the rights of various wives,
slave or free; and according to the Rabbinical interpretation
of Lv 21:13>40. . . .the high priest was not allowed to be a
bigamist. . . The marriage figure applied to the union of God
and Israel . . . implied monogamy as the ideal state. . . Being ..
apparently legalized, and having the advantage of precedent,
it was long before polygamy was formally forbidden in
Hebrew society, though practically it fell into disuse; the
feeling of the Rabbis was strongly against it. Herod had nine
wives at once. . . Its possibility is implied by the technical
continuance of the Levirate law, [Deut. 25:5-10] and is
proved by the early interpretation of 1 Ti 3, whether correct
or not. Justin reproaches the Jews of his day [A.D.] with
having 'four or even five wives,' and marrying 'as they wish,
or as many as they wish.' The evidence of the Talmud shows
that in this case at least the reproach had some foundation.
Polygamy was not definitely forbidden among the Jews till
the time of R. Gershom (c. A.D. 1000), and then at first only
for France and Germany. In Spain, Italy, and the East it
persisted for some time longer, as it does still among the
Jews in Mohammedan countries>41.
[Footnote: (>.(40. Septuagint Lev. 21:13 "He shall take for a
wife a virgin of his own tribe.". .>41. HASTINGS DICTIONARY
OF THE BIBLE; p.583ff.]
Eugene Nida's (American Bible Society) book Customs and
Cultures>42 documents the practice of polygyny by
Christians in non Western countries, and how it is still
practiced in China, SE Asia, India, Africa and parts of South
America. Eugene Nida points out that when polygamists
become Christians they are told of their limitations in church
offices and are asked not to take any additional wives
because it stumbles western Christians>5 . They are not
usually asked to abandon their other wives to a premature
widowhood because of l Cor. 7:1-15.
[Footnotes:>.42 1954, Harper & Brothers, New York; >5
(Rom 14, l Cor. 8 and 10)]
The unscriptural condemnation of polygyny/concubinage by
the Western Christian community has proven to be one of
the main obstacles for people in Eastern and third world
countries to accept the message of Christ, especially if
Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Asian, Oriental, or African,
fulfilling Christ's Word in Mark 7:13 "making the word of
God of no effect through your tradition which you have
delivered . . ." The Western �Christian� tradition against
polygyny hinders the spread of the Gospel of Christ in
Moslem and other polygynous societies.
What about all those third world folks, especially the
Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Asian, Oriental, and Africans, who
are practicing polygyny/ concubinage and are told that they
have to dump or abandon their extra wives in order to
become Christians? This requirement keeps many from
Christ and alienates many against Christ, being one of the
biggest obstacles for the Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Asian,
Oriental, and African communities. These "Christian" folks
who feel their own tradition about monogamy and polygyny
must be kept by Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Asian, Oriental,
and Africans and other third world polygamists for them to
become Christians, sound like the folks: Mat. 23:13 "� But
woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for you
shut up the kingdom of the heavens before men; for *you*
do not enter, nor do you suffer those that are entering to go
in."
The angels are waiting to rejoice over the conversion of one
polygamous Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Asian, Oriental, and
African or third worlder. "Christian legalists and
traditionalists" wont let them into their "Christian" churches
unless they sin by (1) "dealing treacherously">6 with their
wives by putting them away in repudiation, (2) disobeying
Christ's command not to leave their wives>7 , and (3) not
remaining in the marital condition in which they were called
to Christ, whether it be concubinage, polygyny or in
monogamy. I understand one source to make the point has
been made that it would be brutal for the Christian
community to force a polygamist to have to choose between
(1) being saved and then baptized, and (2) having his wives
in legally and sociably acceptable polygyny.>43.
[Footnotes:>6 Malachi 2; >7 1 Cor. 7:11,12,13,14; ^>.^43.
Trobisch, MY WIFE MADE ME. . . P.33; [Karl Barth, CHURCH
DOGMATICS, III/4, p. 203].
So what is the solution? What is God's solution? At the very
least the Spirit's Word in Paul tells us that if you, husband or
wife, are saved in polygyny/concubinage, then remain in
polygyny/concubinage and accept it as God's distribution for
each person involved in particular.
1 Cor.7: 17 � �However, as the Lord has divided to each, as
God has called each, so let him walk; and thus I ordain in all
the assemblies. . . . 20 Let each abide in that calling in
which he has been called. . . . 24 Let each, wherein he is
called, brethren, therein abide with God. . . . 26 I think then
that this is good, on account of the present necessity, that [it
is] good for a man to remain so as he is. 27 Are you bound
to a wife? Seek not to be loosed; are you free from a wife?
Do not seek a wife.�
SECONDLY, most of the "leaders" say that one of the products
of Adam and Eve's fall clearly was polygamy, appearing in a
sinful world>89 , even though no where in the Word of God
does the Word say this. God portrays Himself, in the fullness
of His holiness, as the polygamous husband of two wives in
Ezekiel 23. I believe God was not a victim of the fall, and
remains holy in a world of sin. If �polygamy clearly appears
as a product of the fall� then why isn�t there one scripture or
even one verse that says that? Since there isn�t, it seems to
be more men�s teaching. No where does polygyny appear, in
the Old or the New Testaments, in any list of sins, list of
fleshly works or list of abominations to God. I understand
Rev. Gerhard Jasper to make the following points: (1) In Old
Testament times a Jewish polygynist's marriage was fully
recognized as marriage, protected by the Law and the elders;
(2) the Jewish polygynist's faith in or faithfulness to God was
not questioned because of his polygyny; (3) the polygyny of
the Jewish polygynist did not keep him from being admitted
to the congregation with full membership.>44. Moses did not
forbid polygamy but apparently it was unusual among
average people .>45.
[Footnotes:>.f89 Please see p. 362, THE INTSTITUTES OF
BIBLICAL LAW, by R. Rushdonney. >44. Trobisch, MY
WIFE MADE ME. . . P.18; (AFRICAN THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL,
Rev. Gerhard Jasper of Lutheran Theological College in
Makumira, Tanzania; Februrary 1969, p. 41). >45. Please
see Deut. 21:15,16 and THE INTERNATIONAL BIBLE
COMMENTARY; p. 407.]
St. Augustine (4th Century AD) had a good word on this
subject. Consider the following:�That the holy fathers of
olden times after Abraham, and before him, to whom God
gave His testimony that "they pleased Him," [Heb. 11:4-6]
thus used their wives, no one who is a Christian ought to
doubt, since it was permitted to certain individuals amongst
them to have a plurality of wives, where the reason was for
the multiplication of their offspring, not the desire of varying
gratification. . .In the advance . . . of the human race, it came
to pass that to certain good men were united a plurality of
good wives, --- many to each; and from this it would seem
that moderation sought rather unity on one side for dignity,
while nature permitted plurality on the other side for
fecundity. For on natural principles it is more feasible for
one to have dominion over many, than for many to have
dominion over one.�>46
[Footnote: >46 A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene
Fathers of The Christian Church Vol. V; p. 267.]
THIRDLY, what about that which is implied by some in
Leviticus 18:18? Well, what about Lev. 18:18?�And thou
shalt not take a woman to her sister, to be a rival to her . . ..
beside the other in her lifetime.�>47
[Footnote: >.47 The Holy Scriptures, Masoretic Text]
�Thou shalt not take a wife in addition to her sister, as a rival
. in opposition to her, while she is yet living.�>48
[Footnote: >.48 The Septuagint Version, 1972]
�And you shall not take to wife a sister of your wife, to
distress her. . ..beside the other in her lifetime.�>49
[Footnote: >.49 The Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern
Manuscripts]
�And thou shalt not take a wife to her sister, to be a rival to
her , . . ...besides the other in her life-time.�>50
[Footnote: >.50 American Standard Version 1901 & 1929]
�You must not marry a woman in addition to her sister, to be
a rival to her. . . .when the first one is alive.�>51
[Footnote: >.51 Amplified Bible, 1965, Zondervan Publishing
House.]
The New King James Version agrees with the meaning of
those above.The New International Version agrees with the
meaning of those above. >53
[Footnote: >.53 HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION.]
EXCUSE ME! DID I MISS SOMETHING? I SEE A PROHIBITION
OF RACHEL+LEAH MARRIAGES INVOLVING TWO SISTERS
BEING MARRIED TO THE SAME HUSBAND, BUT WHERE IS THE
IMPLIED PROHIBITION OF POLYGYNY? It seems to me that
God is simply prohibiting a husband from marrying the
sister in-the-flesh of his wife.
Does it apply to sisters in the Spirit? The obediently
believing Israelite women were as much sisters in the Lord
as are the Christian women sisters in the Spirit and there
was no prohibition against them being in polygynist
marriages like King David�s. Are you willing to add to the
scripture to support the tradition of men?
FOURTHLY, What about 1 Timothy 3:2?
�1 Tim. 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of
one wife, A bishop: 1) an overseer
1a) a man charged with the duty of seeing that things to be
done by others are done rightly, any curator, guardian or
superintendent
1b) the superintendent, elder, or overseer of a Christian
church� >54
[Footnote: >.54 Strong�s Lexicon, Open Bible Online, Ken
Hammil]
Husband of one wife: Yes! Definitely! An
elder/overseer/bishop/
superintendent of a church must be the husband of only one
wife. Are we all elders/overseers/bishops/ superintendents?
Clearly not. The unmarried are not. The married who have
unruly children are not. Husbands with disrespectful,
uncooperative and defiant wives are not. The married and
unmarried who are unable to teach are not. All novices are
not. Those with a bad reputation, earned or unearned,
among the unsaved through slander or misunderstandings
are not. Those who don�t want a church leadership position
are not. That includes most of us, and most of us are not
covered by the injunction to be the husband of only one
wife.
There is the problem of the polygamous mentality. A man
who has learned to love passionately and maritally more
than one wife at one time would be more vulnerable to
sexual temptation in church ministry than a man who has
learned to love passionately and maritally only one wife at a
time. A ministering polygamist in a leadership position
would be more likely to be tempted to accept the advances/
propositions of an unmarried sister in the church who falls in
love with him and he with her. This could result in sex
outside of marriage (fornication) or yet another addition to
his polygamous "harem". This would stumble the saints and
would be a reproach to the unsaved. It would appear that a
godly polygamist would have to have a very low profile (no
leadership position) in the church, as the scripture requires.
FIFTHLY, most of the "leaders" maintain that Deut. 17:17 at
least implies a condemnation of polygyny because of its
command forbidding the king to multiply wives and horses
to himself>55 . Since interpretations belong to God, let's see
what God says in His Word. By the time David became King
in Judah he had 6 wives>9 and was being blessed and
prospered by God. At the time of the wonderful Covenant
with David in 2 Sam. 7, God specifically blesses and
covenants with polygamist David, husband to his concubines
and his seven wives. David�s wives, as part of his house,
benefited from God�s blessing. Apparently even concubines
plus seven wives is not "multiplying" wives to oneself. He
had about 14 wives and concubines at the end of his life>10
[Footnotes:>.55 Please see THE INSTITUTES OF BIBLICAL
LAW, by R. Rushdonney, p. 363. >9 (2 Sam. 3 & 5); >10 (1
Chron 3)]
I believe St. Augustine (4th Century AD) had a good word
here for such godly men. Consider the following:
"But those who have not the virtues of temperance must not
be allowed to judge of the conduct of holy men, any more
than those in fever of the sweetness and wholesomeness of
food. . . If our critics, then, wish to attain not a spurious and
affected, but a genuine and sound moral health, let them find
a cure in believing the Scripture record, that the honorable
name of saint is given not without reason to men who had
several wives; and that the reason is this, that the mind can
exercise such control over the flesh as not to allow the
appetite implanted in our nature by Providence to go beyond
the limits of deliberate intention. . . .the holy patriarchs in
their conjugal intercourse were actuated not by the love of
pleasure, but by the intelligent desire for the continuance of
their family. . . .nor did the number of their wives make the
patriarchs licentious. But why defend the husbands, to whose
character the divine word bears the highest testimony. . . ."
[Footnote: >.56 A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-
Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church, Vol. iv; p.290]
Was the High Priest commanded to marry only one wife in
Lev. 21:13,14 as some American religious leaders say? In
the vast majority of respected translations there is no such
�only one wife� command. Again we see the tradition of man
making of no effect the Word of God.
SIXTHLY, does Jesus statement �The two shall become one
flesh� mean that only one man and one woman should
become one flesh, as in monogamy>57 , as most of the
"leaders" maintain? The Spirit uses �The two shall become
one flesh� principle in 1 Corinth. 6 to show �that he who is
joined to a harlot is one body with her� , and then uses the
same �one flesh� principle in Eph. 5 about a husband and his
wife. Jerome (340-420AD) didn't indicate any problem
understanding the possibility when he wrote, "Lamech, a
man of
blood and a murderer, was the first who divided one flesh
between two wives.">58
[Footnotes:>.57 Please see THE INSTITUTES OF BIBLICAL
LAW, by R. Rushdonney, p. 363. >.58 A Select Library of
the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church,
Vol. VIII; p. 358.]
Since the harlot is one flesh with every fornicator she has
sexual union with and the husband is one flesh with his wife,
the �one flesh� principle is not unique to marriage and
cannot be an argument for monogamy or against polygyny .
The �one flesh� principle is physical reality that describes
only the result of sexual union, whether it involve a harlot, a
fornicator, a married couple or a polygamous marriage.
David, Israel and Abraham were �one flesh� with each of
their wives, just as the adulteress of Prov. 6 & 7 was one
flesh with each of her adulterers. Under the Law by Moses,
being �one flesh� could have been the basis for marriage>11
but not so for us after the Sinai Law of Moses was declared
voided in Eph. 2 and Col. 2, especially in the case of 1 Cor.
7:9; 1 Tm. 5:11-14. If we do not control ourselves today, we
are commanded to marry>12 , but who to marry is not
specified, only that your mate be saved>13 and godly>14.
[Footnotes: >11 (Deut. 22:22-30; Ex. 22:16,17). >12 1 Cor.
7:9,36; 1 Tim 5:14; Appendix Six of this document. >13. 2
Corinthians 6. .>14 1 Corinthians 5:9-11; 2 Thess. 3:6-14]
Being one flesh, as Eph. 5:22-33 shows, is one of the best
motives for the husband being good and godly to his wife. A
Christian elder apparently maintains that godly equality is
possible only in a monogamous marriage, and that polygamy
increases women's subordination.>59 He apparently believes
that the harmony and unity of Gen. 2:24 is unable to develop
in a polygamous marriage, and that monogamy best reflects
Christ's love to the Church>60. How did I miss that? Was it
the blissful and enraptured love the Shulamite had for her
Solomon who loved and adored her in their polygynous
marriage>15? Was it Abigail who gave up her wealthy
independence as Nabal's widow in order to be David's wife in
a polygynous marriage?
[Footnotes:>59. Trobisch; MY WIFE MADE ME A
POLYGAMIST; p21ff. >60. Trobisch; MY WIFE MADE ME. . . .
P. 25. >15 (Song of Sol. 6)]
No, but I think a Christian elder missed the point that a
tragic number husbands around the world have neglected,
been unloving to, abused and subordinated their wives in
monogamy. The women's movement for the right to vote,
the heart breaking of spousal abuse and neglect, the right to
have equal pay for equal tasks done by men, and the whole
affirmative action program for women shows that
monogamy proves to be a pretty effective context in which
women can be subordinated and treated quite unlovingly.
The problem, again, is that sin and the flesh are the problem,
not monogamy or polygyny. There is no question that
monogamy best reflects Christ's love to the Church, that is
why He chose it and modeled it for all the Church leaders>16
of whom He is the Chief leader. The real situation is that we
are all not Church leaders and we all have our "best", our
different "gifts" from God>17 .
[Footnotes:>16 (1 Tm. 3 & Ti. 1). >17 (1 Cor. 7:6,7,17-28)]
I understand a Christian elder to state that in monogamy
both leave and both cleave, becoming one flesh, and this is
only possible for two marital partners, therefore polygamy is
excluded by the Biblical idea of equality>61. He gives no
scripture reference for this position, and I don't believe he
would be able to do so. Statistics show that most Christian
monogamous marriages fail to maintain this harmonious
equality, and again because of sin and the flesh. There is no
claim that in polygyny three "become one", but indeed the
husband does become one flesh with each of his wives>18
and the fornicator becomes one flesh with each harlot with
whom he fornicates>19 . There is no reason why a
polygynist and his wives/concubines could not attain to the
level of the saints in the early church where they shared all
that they had, and had all things in common>20 in a sweet
and loving harmony. In the Lord any family, even a
polygynous family, can achieve that unity of the Spirit in the
bond of peace>21 .
[Footnotes:>61. Trobisch; MY WIFE MADE ME. . . >. P. 49ff.
>18 (Matt. 19). >19 (1 Cor. 6:12-20). >20 Acts 4.
>21 (Phil. 4:13;Eph. 4:1-5; Psalm 133 and Acts 3 & 4)]
SEVENTH, �. . . ..let each man have his own wife, and let each
wife have her own husband� is not an argument for
monogamy as most Christian leaders maintain>62 .
Whenever Abraham, David, Jacob, Joash or Gideon had one of
their own wives, he was having his own wife/concubine; and
each wife/concubine of these polygamists had her own
polygamous husband. This is also true of a man and his
concubine with whom he has maritally covenanted>22
honorably before God. David had his own Abigail and
Abigail had her own David. David had his own Abigail and
Bathsheeba, and Bathsheeba and Abigail both had their own
David. The polygynist has his own wife, and has each one of
them intimately and each one is his own wife. Each of the
polygynist's wives has her own husband and has him
intimately in their marriage. This passage does not rebuke,
demean or condemn polygyny. The passage addresses
marital faithfulness and excludes adultery, which involves a
husband having another�s wife and a wife having one who is
not her own husband. It restricts sexual �having� to
marriage with one�s own mate.
[Footnotes:>.62 Please see THE INSTITUTES OF BIBLICAL
LAW, by R. Rushdonney, p. 363. >22 Ezek. 16:8; Malachi
2:10-17; Neh. 9:38 with 1 Sam. 20:3-17; As in Matt. 1:18-24
and Luke 1 & 2, she was his "wife" by their covenant even
before their actual formal wedding.]
I understand a Christian elder to state that it is inadequate
to prescribe polygamy as a treatment for the problem of
adultery, because polygamy facilitates stepping into
adultery. Apparently he maintains that polygamous wives
are often driven to adultery by the sinful neglect)>23 of
their husbands, and may have to bribe their husbands away
from their other wives, resulting in very unsatisfying sexual
relations for the wives.>63. First of all, God is the only real
antidote against adultery, because He tells us that even in
monogyny spousal neglect can result in temptations to
adultery>24 . Secondly, whether it be the "inclusive sex-
partnership" of polygyny or the exclusive sex-partnership of
monogyny, the step to adultery depends entirely on the
individual's relationship to Jesus, obedience to Jesus and
level of commitment to both Jesus and the marriage.
Surveys show that monogamous America today steps easily
and frequently to adultery. Lastly, if the polygynist husband
was obeying Jesus by having his own wives >25 , defrauding
none of them>26 , loving them and laying down his life for
them>27 , showing no favoritism or partiality in his
behavior towards them>28 , by simply walking in the Spirit
his family would be very unlikely to experience the problem
described above by a Christian elder.
[Footnotes:>23 (1 Cor. 7:2-5. {>63. Trobisch; MY WIFE
MADE ME. . .. P. 31ff. >24 (1 Cor. 7:1-5). >25 (1Cor.7:1-
4). >26 (1Cor.7:5). >27 (Eph. 5). >28
(1Tim5:20,21)]
EIGHTH: According to some Christian leaders, polygamous
family living is described or rated as an inferior type of
family living, but a passable one>64 . The right of the first
born>30 ; the right of each wife to food, clothing/ shelter
and marital sex>31 ; and the right for the whole polygamous
family to be Spiritually and materially blessed by God>32 is
preserved by God in these polygamous marriages just as in
monogamous marriages. There is no scripture that says a
wife in polygyny is less of a wife than a wife in monogamy.
There is no scripture that says a husband in polygyny is less
of a husband than a husband in monogamy. Consider St.
Augustine�s point in the following:� . . . no one doubts . . .
who reads with careful attention what use they made of
their wives, at a time when also it was allowed one man to
have several, whom he had with more chastity than any now
has his one wife . . . But then they married even several
without any blame . . �>65
[Footnotes:>.64 Please see THE INSTITUTES OF BIBLICAL
LAW, by R. Rushdonney, p. 364. >30 (Deut. 21:15,16).
>31 (Ex. 21:10). >32 (Genesis 30 and 2 Samuel 7).
>..65 St. Augustin: On The Trinity; p. 406.]
I understand a Christian elder to maintain that Israel put
up with polygamy as a lesser evil, causing some of the Old
Testament writers embarrassment, and causing these writers
to criticize sharply, clearly and tirelessly showing the
negativity associated with polygamy.>66. Tolerated as a
lesser evil? Tolerated by whom? God did more than tolerate
it, He legislated it in the following:
[Footnotes: >66. W. Trobisch, MY WIFE MADE ME A
POLYGAMIST; p.19.]
Exodus 21: 7 "And if a man shall sell his daughter as a
handmaid, she shall not go out as the bondmen go out. 8 If
she is unacceptable in the eyes of her master, who had taken
her for himself, then shall he let her be ransomed: to sell her
unto a foreign people he has no power, after having dealt
unfaithfully with her. 9 And if he have appointed her unto
his son, he shall deal with her after the law of daughters. 10
If he take himself another, her food, her clothing, and her
conjugal rights he shall not diminish. 11And if he do not
these three things unto her, then shall she go out free
without money." WHY DOESN'T GOD CONDEMN HIM FOR
TAKING ANOTHER WIFE IF IT IS A SIN?
MKJV DEUT. 21:15 � If a man has two wives, one beloved
and another hated, and they have borne him sons, the
beloved and the hated; and [if] the first-born son was of her
that was hated, 16 then it shall be in the day when he makes
his sons to inherit what he has, he may not cause to [inherit]
the son of the beloved first-born before the son of the hated
one, he who [is truly] the first-born. 17 But he shall
acknowledge the son of the hated as the first-born by giving
him a double portion of all that he has. For he [is] the
beginning of his strength. The right of the first-born is his.
He legislated polygyny without one word or hint of
condemnation. If polygyny were sin, why didn't God
condemn it instead of putting the royal seal of His holy Law
on it? God's designated and anointed leaders freely and
openly practiced it (Abraham, Jacob, David, Jehoida the
priest, and God in Ezekiel 23). Where in the Bible does he
find an Old Testament writer embarrassed to report
polygamy? If you know of a single passage that clearly and
explicitly states that, please let me know. How can any Old
Testament writer be embarrassed of something God
sanctioned and legislated, and that His designated and
anointed leaders freely and openly practiced with God's
obvious and abundant blessing in their lives (see the next
section)? The Old Testament writers untiringly and
realistically show the negativity of polygamy? Abram and
Sarai, Rachel and Leah had problems, as did Hannah and so
did Solomon, but even with these four there is no untiring
and relentless criticism of polygamy? I couldn't find it. In
the next section, covering thousands of years and each major
period of Jewish history there is no such relentless criticism
of polygyny found in the Bible.
In fact if you accept the Song of Solomon as the story of
young Solomon and his Shulamite wife in a polygamous
marriage>34 , you have one of the most beautiful and
positive statements of good will and love between the
Shulamite and her co-wives as well as with the daughters of
Jerusalem, many of whom probably also became wives to
Solomon later in life when he went too far and disobeyed
God by multiplying wives to himself>35 . Let's look at the
record in the Word.
[Footnotes:>34 (Song of Sol. 6:8-10). >35 (Deut 17:15-
17)]
St. Augustine (4th Century AD) had the following good word
on this subject in the following:
�That the holy fathers of olden times after Abraham, and
before him, to whom God gave His testimony that "they
pleased Him," [Heb. 11:4-6] thus used their wives, no one
who is a Christian ought to doubt, since it was permitted to
certain individuals amongst them to have a plurality of
wives, where the reason was for the multiplication of their
offspring, not the desire of varying gratification. . .In the
advance . . . of the human race, it came to pass that to certain
good men were united a plurality of good wives, --- many to
each; and from this it would seem that moderation sought
rather unity on one side for dignity, while nature permitted
plurality on the other side for fecundity. For on natural
principles it is more feasible for one to have dominion over
many, than for many to have dominion over one.�
[Footnote: >..67 A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-
Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church, Vol. V; p. 267]
Are polygyny and concubinage a form of female abuse?
Without even
discussing cases like that of OJ Simpson's, there is a very well
documented serious and growing problem of spousal abuse
in monogamous America. There is still an internationally
known serious and abiding problem of males killing their
wives either to free them so they can get the dowry of a new
wife, or just because they don't love their wives, in India
where open polygyny has been illegal for some time. You
will find spousal abuse in every form of marriage known to
and practiced by humans because their sinful nature>3 or
because of the involvement of evil spiritual beings>4. The
problem is not the social form of the marriage. The problem
is in the humans who exercise that social form of marriage.
Mates will abuse mates whether it be polygyny or
monogyny.
[Footnote: >3 Rom 3:23. >4 Eph. 2:1,2; 6:12.]
Does it denote inferiority on the part of the woman? There is
nothing in the Bible that says women are inferior to men.
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor
free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in
Christ Jesus.">5 What does it mean to be in Christ Jesus?
"But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great Love with which
he Loved us, even when we were dead in sins, has made us
alive together with Christ . . . and has raised [us] up together,
and made [us] sit together in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus . .
for through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the
Father." >6 In terms of what is real, spiritually right now we
who are His children have a presence in His very presence
right now where sex is totally irrelevant and
inconsequential. "Therefore, from now on, we know no one
according to the flesh. . .">7 Our sexuallity is not a
legitimate basis for knowing each other or relating to each
other. Our sexuality is like a temporary "uniform" we wear
during a short period of our eternal life with God, or like an
instrument we temporarily play in God's orchestra.
[Footnote: >5 Gal 3:28. >6 Ephes. 2:1-18. >7 2 Cor.
5:16]
Our Father decided>8 which of us would wear female
"uniforms" and which would wear male "uniforms", which of
us would play female insturments and which of us would
play male instruments during our pilgrimage on earth. As
the Grand Conductor of his orchestra, He decides where we
should be and when we should play our "instrument" or
wear our "uniform". All are uniformed musicians in God's
orchestra and all are musicians with an instrument to play.
There are varying degrees of skill and varying degrees of
importance in His orchestra>9 We know that everyone in
the orchestra must be harmonious and unified in their effort
because it takes only one musician to make one sour note to
mess up the performance, so clearly all are important and
are all under the command of the Conductor.
[Footnote: >8 Eph. 1:11; Rom. 8:28. >9 Rom. 12; 1 Cor. 12.]
For some of us life means we are males, for some of us life
means we are females, all under the same Conductor. His
males and His females must be harmonious and unified in
their effort because it only take one member to be grieved
for the whole Body of Christ to be hurting>10 . The females'
part in the symphony of life is spelled out in Bible
passages>11 and the males' part in the symphony of life is
spelled out in Bible passages>12. They are not the same
parts, but under the grand Conductor the parts can and
should be harmonious and unified, blending to produce a
wonderful work for the benefit of all.
[Footnote: >10 Rom. 12:5; 1 Cor. 12:26,27. >11 Gen. 2; 1
Cor. 11:1-16; 14:34,35,36; Ephes. 5; 1 Tim. 2 & 5 and Titus 2.
>12 Gen. 2; 1 Cor. 11:1-16; Eph. 5; 1 Tim 3 & 5; Titus 1 & 2.]
If that means the Conductor wants the male to play the lead
violin and the female to play the lead viola in a duet
(marriage), then He knows best and can draw out of us in
that relationship beautiful harmonies for the delight and
benefit of all. The female is not inferior to the male, but
while they are male and female, He has laid down some rules
how we are to relate in His Church when we assemble in one
place, and He has laid down some rules when we come
together in marriage/sex. If we Love Him, we will obey His
rules in those settings>13 . If we love Him, we will
compassionately cherish each other, male and female, in
obedience to Him. Sacrificial and self-denying compassionate
cherishing results in no victims, not tyrants, no dictators, no
slaves and no abuse. It means seeking the best for the
object of such Love and cooperating with them to achieve
that best.
[Footnote: >13 John 14:15, 21; 1 John 2:1-5; Heb. 5:8,9]
Do polygyny and concubinage unfairly or unjustly give a
male the advantage over his women? The husband is still
commanded to live wisely and respectfully>14 with his wife
and we know that the beginning of wisdom is the fear of the
Lord resulting in obedience to the Lord>15 . The husband is
still commanded to compassionately cherish his wife as
Christ compassionately cherishes the Church. The advantage
over women? It sounds more like the male is given
additional and solemn responsibilities for the loving of his
woman.
[Footnote: >14 1 Peter 3:7. >15 Psalm 19:9; Prov. 1:7;
Hebrews 5:6,7,8,9; Prov. 4:20-22]
I submit to you that, as most Christian messengers have said,
monogyny is the ideal and preferable form of marriage for
most people. Most of us do not live in an ideal and preferred
world. Most of us do not have first class tickets for the trip
of life. Most of the Christian leaders told us that our
ancestors were wrong in their practice of polygyny, so most
of us stopped practicing it. In this document I submit that,
for us who find ourselves in such a less than perfect world,
we need to know our options and know them better. I try to
show in this paper, that polygyny and concubinage are
options available to followers of Christ today, that polygyny
and concubinage are neither sinful nor displeasing to God,
that polygyny or concubinage may be God's ideal/best for
you, and that there is a way for the godly in Christ Jesus to
live in polygyny or concubinage that today is acceptable to
God and allowed by society. As with any controversial
thing>16 in life, one must search out the will of God in the
matter and, with His wisdom and enabling, walk in it as He
leads and provides. Hopefully this paper will help you move
in that direction, if it is His will.
[Footnote: >16 Romans 14]
IV. ADULTERY DEFINED, A SURPRISE! ISN�T POLYGYNY
ADULTERY?
Some say �The same laws apply to both male and
female. This is an issue of nature, not role. Therefore all are
equal: male and female.� Some Bible interpreters are more
zealous for unisex doctrines and practices than the bleeding
heart liberals who encourage unisex restroom and coed
dorms. God made males and females very different for a
reason, and we miss the mark when we fail to recognize the
differences He made and instituted. Mary leave/divorces
Elias. Some say that this forsaken Elias commits adultery
when he marries Sally but the Biblical definition of
adultery>143 in Matt. 5:32 and 19:6-9; Mark 10:1-11; Luke
16:18; 1 Thess. 4:4-6 and Romans 7:1-3>143 plainly states
the double standard in the definition of adultery. There
really are different scriptural laws for men than for women
governing marriage and remarriage, and there are different
scriptural laws for men than for women defining adultery.
Adultery for the woman:
1. "Whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits
adultery">144. The reason being that she is still bound to
him as wife.>145.
[Footnote: >144 Mat. 5:32; 19:9; Luke 16:18; except in the
cases of 1 Cor. 7:12-15,39; 1 Tim. 5:14. >145. 1 Cor. 7:10,
11, 39; Romans 7:1-3. ]
2. The husband "causes her to commit adultery" when he
divorces her for any reason other than sexual
immorality>146. The reason being that she is still bound to
him as wife.>147 In 1 Corinth. 7:5 we see that her
husband "causes her to commit adultery" because her
husband is failing to meet her marital needs and the enemy
of her soul tempts in her burning need. (On the other hand:
The wife is not said to cause her husband to commit adultery
when she divorces him for any other reason than sexual
immorality, probably because he is free to be a polygynist.)
[Footnote: >146. Matt. 5:32; 19:9. >147 1 Cor. 7:10, 11, 39;
Romans 7:1-3.]
3. "And if a woman divorces her husband and marries
another, she commits adultery.">148. The adultery consists
of both divorce AND remarriage. The reason being that she
is still bound to him as wife.>149.
[Footnotes:>148. Mark 10:12. >149. 1 Cor. 7:10, 11, 39;
Romans 7:1-3.]
4. "if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she
will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is
free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she
has married another man.">150
[Footnote: >150. Romans 7:3.]
Adultery for the man:
1. "Whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits
adultery", obviously because she still is bound to the
husband from whom she is divorced.
[>.^151. Mat. 5:32; 19:9; except in the cases of 1 Cor. 7:12-
15,39; 1 Tim. 5:14.]
2. "Whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality,
and marries another, commits adultery." The adultery
consists of divorcing his wife for something else besides
sexual immorality AND then remarrying. If he stayed
married to his wife and married another, he became a
polygynist. On the other hand, it is implied here that if he
divorces his wife for sexual immorality and marries another,
he does not commit adultery. His divorcing her does not
cause her to commit adultery because she is already
immorally sexually involved with someone else. His refusal
to meet her sexual needs (1 Cor 7:2-5) does not cause her to
be immoral because she is already being immoral. He is
commanded not to be intimate with her (1Cor.5:11) but his
lack of her intimacy will cause him to be tempted (1 Cor.7:5).
If the temptations overcome him and he is faling to control
himself, burning with marital desire, he comes under
command to marry (1Cor.7:9) and so remarries in the Lord.
[Footnote: >152. Matt 19: 9: Mark 10:11; Luke 16:18.152.]
3. "You shall not covet your neighbor's wife.">153. "You
shall not lie carnally with your neighbor's wife�>154. "For
this is the will of God. . . ..that no one should take advantage
of and defraud/cheat his brother in this matter.�>155. A
genuine Christian wife is bound to her husband as long as he
lives and she becomes an adulteress when she marries
another while he still lives.
[Footnotes:>153. Exod. 20:17. >154. Leviticus18:20. >155. 1
Thess. 4:3-6.]
Adultery for the female is sexual intimacy with anyone else
besides her own husband/mate. Adultery for the male is
when (1) he is married to a new wife and had
left/rejected/divorced his former wife in order to marry this
new wife>99 . ; or (2) is sexually intimate with some one
else�s wife. It is this double standard that allowed Abraham,
Jacob, David and Joash to be godly polygamists, but declared
a woman to be an adulteress if she was intimate
with anyone but her own mate. It is a double standard for
the man and the woman, just like polygyny was/is a double
standard for the man and the woman. The same sin is
defined differently for the woman and differently for the
man. See more on this below.
[Footnotes:>99 It is the combination of divorcing one's mate
in order to marry another and then marrying that other. If
he both dutifully keeps his own wife and then marries
another woman, it is polygyny and not adultery. If the wife
dutifully keeps her own husband and marries another it is
adultery (Romans 7:3) The double standard is clearly laid
out in Matt. 5:32 and 19:6-9; Mark 10:1-11; Luke 16:18; 1
Thess. 4:4-6 and Romans 7:1-3; 1 Corinth. 7:39]
It is this double standard that results from the man being
the designated the head of the family (Gen 2; 1Cor. 11), that
results in what appears to be another inequity. In Mt. 5:32
Jesus apparently allows the genuinely believing husband to
divorce his wife because she is snared in sexual immorality.
Not only is he allowed to divorce her, he is allowed to
remarry. If she is genuinely saved, she is still bound
maritlly to him as wife before the Lord, even though she is
snared in sex sin and Jesus hasn't finished his Mat. 18;15-18
& 1 Cor. 5:5-11 work with her yet. He remarries with a free-
in-the-Lord-to-marry genuinely believing woman and is
now bound before the Lord to two wives. If the one involved
in sex sin survives 1 Cor . 5 and repents according to 2 Cor. 2
& 7, he must accept her back as his wife along with his new
wife, being bound to both as long as he and they all live. But
what about the genuinely saved wife whose "believing"
husband is involved in sex sin so she is commanded to
separate from and not be intimate with him.
Such a wife separates from him according to 1 Cor. 7:10,11
but after a while she finds herself being tempted according
to 1 Cor.7:5. Then she falls to the temptation and is afraid
she might fall to it again, finds herself maritally burning and
under command be married and have marital sex
(1Cor.7:5,9). Hopefully Jesus has finished his 1 Cor. 5:4,5-11
work and the guy has either died and his spirit is with the
Lord, if he were really saved, or he has repented according
to 2 Cor 2 & 7 and is ready to be reconciled to her. Or in the
case of Matt. 18:15-18 she has learned that she is to relate to
him as an unsaved person, an unsaved person who no longer
wants to live with her, no longer wants her as his
wife(1Cor7:13,15), so she is free from him and free to obey
the Lord and get married in the Lord.
Will God intervene in behalf of His fasting and praying but
maritally burning and sorely tempted daughter, who as wife
is separated from her husband because of his 1 Cor. 5 sin,
and because of that separation is burning with marital desire
and sorely tempted? If He took out the rich and unloving
believers in 1 Cor. 11 for the shabby way they stumbled and
offended their poorer brethren in the celebration of the
Lord's supper, don't you think He will give her a 1 Cor. 10:13
out or make a quick end the husband causing her the grief?
The God who promised 1 Cor. 10:13 and Phil. 4:6,7,13,18,19
will not break those promises.
Let's look at some hypothetical examples. Elias was
divorced/ rejected/abandoned by Jane (with his never
repudiating or rejecting Jane as wife) his new marriage to
free-to-marry Sally may violate no scripture, may not be
what the Bible calls adultery and may seem to put him in the
Old Testament position of having and being bound to more
than one wife. I understand he would still be bound by the
Lord to the saved wife who left him.
But the way is narrow. If saved Jane leaves/divorces her
saved Elias and marries Harry, it is adultery as long as both
Jane and Harry are married and Elias lives. If saved Elias
leaves/divorces saved Jane for Sally and marries saved Sally,
it is adultery as long as Jane lives and Elias and Sally are
married and repudiating Jane. If Elias's wife Sally is
sexually intimate with someone else it is adultery. If Elias is
sexually intimate with Pete's lawful wife, it is adultery. If
married Elias is sexually intimate with single/ unmarried
Susie who is playing the harlot (having sex without being
married), it is fornication>156 If American and legally
married-to-Jane Elias
also legally marries free-to-marry Betty, it is a sin because
Elias is under command>157 to obey the laws of the
government authorities which forbids official/legal bigamy
and polygyny and he would have to live with the legal
consequences.
[Footnotes:>156 (Ezekiel 16 and 23 and 1 Corinth. 6. >157
Romans 13; 1 Peter 2:12-14]
Mark 10 ; 1 Cor 7:10,11, 12, 13-15,39; and Rom 7 seem to
state rather clearly that a Christian marriage lasts and is
binding on both as long as both live. That being the case I
often wondered why God gave the Christian wife the second
best option of departing and remaining unmarried and
possibly being reconciled with her saved husband later. The
husband is given no such second best option. He must not
leave his wife, period! Because of spousal abuse I can
understand why God would allow a wife to separate herself
while still bound to the abuser in marriage in order to allow
the exercise of church discipline>158 to have an effect. But
what about that poor turkey of a husband who is warned by
God>159 that being deprived of his wife will result in Satanic
temptations to immorality and that he is explicitly forbidden
to leave her, send her away or ask her to leave>160. No
qualifications or exceptions. Why the double standard? See
below.
[Footnotes:>158 (Matt 18 and l Cor 5). >159 (1 Cor. 7:1-
5). >160 (Greek of l Cor. 7:11,12 and Mark 10)]
The scriptures above make it plain that if Jane Dovany
exercised her 1 Cor 7:11 repentance option, having
left/divorced Elias, and then Elias repudiated/ rejected Jane
in order to marry Sally, Elias's rejection/repudia-tion of Jane
coupled with his marriage to Sally constitutes Biblical
adultery. It would be adultery if saved Jane divorced/
rejected saved Elias and married Harry because Biblical
adultery in the scriptures above is saved Jane divorcing/
rejecting saved Elias and marrying some one else. According
to all of those scriptures, adultery for the male is either (1)
the act of marrying or being intimate with someone else's
wife, (2) or the act of leaving one wife and taking another
wife. Adultery for the wife is having sexual intimacy with
anyone else except her husband to whom she is married for
life. If you very carefully examine those scriptures you will
see that the Bible does not say it is adultery for Elias to
recognize AS WIFE his self-separated Jane and at the same
time take as wife another saved and free-to-marry
(unbound/ unmarried) sister. See the discussion on
polygyny.
Yes, that�s right, there is a double standard going all the way
back to Genesis. It was not adultery for a married man to
marry another woman free-to-marry under the laws of God
throughout the whole Old Testament. It was legal and
divinely permitted polygyny , if the scriptures are
understood correctly. Under the same Word of God, a
woman who was sexually intimate with another besides her
own husband was an adulteress. The double standard
started in Genesis 3:16, restated in 1 Corinth. 11 and 1
Timothy 2 appear to allow a godly man to be a polygamist
but does not allow a godly woman to be a polyandrist.
The woman's repentance option explains the �double
standard� and apparent inequity of 1 Corinthians 7:10,11
where it appears that the woman who has left her husband
has the repentance option of remaining single but the man
must never leave his wife. If a wife left her husband
according to 1 Cor. 7:11, he would immediately be put in the
hazardous position of 1 Corinth 7:1-5, being tempted to sin
because his wife will not give him the marital sexual outlet
since she is gone. It seemed to me to be quite unfair that she
could leave him and live unmarried, and he, knowing he is
still bound to her for life, has to struggle with the burning
temptations predicted in 1 Corinth. 7:1-5, 9 with no
legitimate sexual outlet.
Then I realized that 1 Corinth. 7:1-5 predicted his need of
marital intimacy, how Satan would use the wife's absence to
tempt him, how marital intimacy is the prescription to avoid
Satan's temptations, and then the command in verse 9
plainly commands the one to marry who is failing to have
successful self-control>100 . Then I realized that the
polygyny option balanced the equation. The wife could
leave her husband and remain single and the husband who
was still bound to such a departed wife seems to have had a
Biblical option of polygyny / concubinage, (depending on the
laws of his land) if he found himself tempted and burning as
in 1 Cor. 7:5, 9,12. She could leave and he could remarry
becoming a polygamist and the inequity was gone. She could
separate and remain single, and he could remarry as long as
he recognized that he was still bound to his separated wife.
[Footnote: >100 See Appendix Six.]
Now consider the case where the wife, claiming to be a
Christian, refuses for years to obey 1 Cor. 7:1-5 with her
saved husband and then finally leaves, abandons, rejects
,separates herself , and dismisses him from her presence.
She doesn't care about getting a formal divorce but feels free
to date and get involved with another man. Her abandoned
husband is faced with the question, "Is she saved and is it a
case of 1 Cor. 7:11 & 39 or is she unsaved
and is he free according to l Cor. 7:12 & 15?" Her abandoned
husband wants to do Matt. 18:15-17 to clarify the situation
and get an answer to his question but can find no Christian
body willing to do the following:
MKJV MKJV 1 CORINTH. 5: . . . �I indeed have judged already
[as though I were] present [concerning] him who worked out
this thing; 4 in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you
are gathered together, with my spirit; also, with the power of
our Lord Jesus Christ; 5 to deliver such a one to Satan for the
destruction of the flesh, so that the spirit may be saved in
the day of the Lord Jesus. . . . 11 But now I have written to
you not to associate intimately, if any man called a brother
[and is] either a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a
reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one not
to eat. 12 . . . Do you not judge those who are inside? 13 . . .
Therefore put out from you the evil one.�
MKJV MATTHEW 5:32* �But I say to you that whoever
shall put
away his wife, except for the cause of fornication,
causes her to commit adultery. And whoever shall
marry her who is put away commits adultery.�
MATTHEW 18: 15 � �But if your brother shall trespass
against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him
alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. 16 But
if he will not hear [you], take one or two more with you, so
that in [the] mouth of two or three witnesses every word
may be established. 17 And if he shall neglect to hear them,
tell [it] to the church. But if he neglects to hear the church,
let him be to you as a heathen and a tax-
collector.�
5:32*� But I say to you that whoever shall put away his
wife,
except for the cause of fornication, causes her to
commit
adultery. And whoever shall marry her who is put
away commits adultery. . . .�
18 �Truly I say to you, Whatever you shall bind on earth
shall occur, having been bound in Heaven; and whatever you
shall loose on earth shall occur, having been loosed in
Heaven.�
This means he is unable to clarify the status of both himself
and his departed wife. He is unable to determine if she is
unsaved and he is free to remarry>161, , or if she is saved
and he is bound maritally to her for life>162 So without
sending her away, dismissing , repudiating, leaving, releasing
or separating himself from her, he gets a legal divorce (on
the grounds of irreconcilable differences) for state and
federal tax and inheritance purposes but reaffirms in writing
to her what he believes may be the binding nature of their
relationship>163 .
[Footnotes>161 1 Cor. 7:12,13,14,15. >162 1 Cor.
7:10,11, 39; Mark 10; Rom. 7:1-5. >163 (1 Cor. 7:39)]
So the divorce is only a legal recognition of the wife's
departure and
unwillingness to be reconciled, while he still publicly
recognizes the binding nature of their relationship. Then he
remarries another Christian because his burning and his 1
Cor. 7:5 predicted failures to control himself bring him under
the command to marry in l Cor. 7:9,36 (NIV & Amplified
"they should marry"),
1 Cor. 7:36 (NIV "They should get married);
1 Tim 5:14 (NIV "So I counsel younger widows to marry.."
Amplified "So I would have younger [widows] marry..")
and
1 Thess 4:3-8 (NIV "that each of you should learn to control
his own body in a way that is holy and honorable . . ..") >101
[Footnote>101 Please see Appendix Six; NIV , NEW
INTERNA-TIONAL VERSION. ]
He has entered the realm of American polygyny . Legally
divorced and remarried but openly acknowledging his
marital ties to two "sisters-in-Christ", he is an American
polygamist. The departed wife could remarry in adultery or
remain single the rest of her life while he continues in his
new marriage. If she repents and opts for reconciliation
after he has married again, all of her rights and privileges as
in 1 Cor. 7:1-5 & 39 are in force and the husband faces the
complex dilemma described next. How do you have two
wives in America where it is illegal to officially and "legally"
have more than one wife of official public record with tax
and inheritance rights granted and protected by the
government? Please see the discussion of polygyny in
chapter 4.
V. SO, WHAT ABOUT CONCUBINES & POLYGYNY TODAY ?
The aim of this document is to show that both
monogyny and polygyny or concubinage may be acceptable
options for the followers of the Lord Jesus Christ, God
revealed in a human body and Savior of the world. It is
written from a Christian, orthodox, fundamenta-list,
dispensationalist, charismatic and evangelistic point of view
for any who are interested in a minority view of what the
Bible says about monogyny, polygyny, concubinage, divorce
and remarriage. The writer believes that monogyny is the
best for most, but that for those who are called in or called to
polygyny or concubinage in this mortal life -- their calling
may be exercised in a manner acceptable to God and
tolerated by their fellow man if they walk in the Spirit and
in Christ's law of Love.
Polygamy and polygyny are currently illegal in most of the
world, the Third World's and the Orient's token sacrifice to
enter the world of the "West", the lifestyle of America, and
the captialism and technology of the 20th century. Few
educated and succesful Orientals, Asians or Third Worlders
would want to appear to be primitive and barbaric by
having more than one wife, especially when his peers will
instead admire him if he has concubines or
mistresses on the side. Two thirds of the world's population
live in societies where concubines and mistresses are
officially sanctioned and the other third lives in societies
where mistresses and common law wives are officially
sanctioned. The plight of most wives, concubines and
mistresses are worse now than when polygamy were legal
because then at least they had some security and
commitment from their mates even if they took additional
wives, while now they are dumped (divorced etc.) when the
man takes a new wife, mistress or concubine.
Are polygyny and concubinage only for the benefit of males?
It is 1995 and the women live in Somalia or Rawanda and
Burundi, Africa. Almost 50% of them are widows and almost
50% of the marriagable men in their tribe/nation have been
killed or have been missing for months. It is a patriarchal
society and the women do not want to be lesbians. They can
live as single widows suffering mind and heart breaking
hardships in a war ravaged poverty stricken land with no
protection against sexual attack by roving homeless males; or
they can become the polygynous wives or concubines of one
of the few surviving stable and working males, coming under
their societies patriarchal umbrella, becoming part of a
working family unit with all its support and having
protection against the vulnerability of living alone.
It is 1995 and the women living in Bosnia, Rawanda, Somalia,
Sri Lanka, Cambodia and in Black inner city ghettos are
facing the same critical shortage of marriagable males in a
patriarchal society where they want no part of lesbianism.
In 1990, it was found that 33% of all black males aged 20 -
29 were either incarcerated, on parole, or on probation.>1a.
I got more information from a local newspaper>1b. 1.)
Approximately 1 out of every 25 black males is in prison; 2.)
Between prison and death, there are significantly more Black
females available for marriage than Black males; 3.) The vast
majority of the Black males in prison range in age from 20 -
40, with most in the 25-35 age group; 4.) Most of the
imprisoned Black males will return to prison. Just this week
(12/1/�95) it was on national TV news and in the local paper
that 6.8% of all Black males are in prison. This means a very
significant number of Black males are unavailable for
marriage or parenting their children during the normally
most productive years (20-40) due to imprisonment or
death. Perhaps that is why only 30% of married Black
femaleshave their spouse present in their homes, half the
Caucasian/white rate (57%); while 9% of the married Black
females have spouses that are absent from the home (four
times the Caucasian/White 2% rate); and 39% of the Black
females never married >1c.
[Footnote: >1a The San Diego Union-Tribune, 10/5/'95, page
A-5, quoting from The Center on Juvenile and Criminal
Justice in San Francisco. >1b Parade 8/13/'95; Parade
Publications, 711 Third Ave., NY NY 10017. >1c Census
Bureau/World Almanac. ]
One out of every thousand Black people is dying of AIDS>1c
making it the number one killer of Blacks in America. That
means approximately 30,000 Blacks will be dying each year
from HIV/AIDS, a horrendous slaughter! Condoms fail 33%
of the time [see Doctor Lorraine Day, MD], and then on
stationary artificial genitals according to federal test results,
so they give very little protection. But when you add crack
or speed or other mind altering drugs to the equation, so the
users 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 parentsraising
a family without a present or stable father figure.
According to the Census Bureau and Focus on the Family
radio program, 39% of Black women never marry, and 46% of
Black men never marry>.1d On 11/26/'95, Michelle said that
the Essence magazine gave the figure of 40%>.1d. We still
live in a racist society 20 years after the death of M.L.King.
Due to ignorance, prejudice and incredibly bad taste the
awesome, rich and wondrous beauty of Black females is not
appreciated and so Black females are not sought for as wives
by most non-Black males in America.
Most non-Black males are cowards and for fear of social
censure and pressure they will date, make love to but rarely
marry the glorious Black beauties in their lives.
This leaves a significant number of marriagable Black
females with no suitable male to marry and help raise their
children. Normal young, Black females with affectionate and
passionate needs do not have enough suitable males for
monogynous marriages so that leaves neurotic frustration,
promiscuity, lesbianism or bisexuality. In America, bigamy
and polygyny are illegal. Why shouldn't ethically moral and
Biblically acceptable Christian concubinage be a viable option
for such a population (30 million Blacks in l990, 12.1% of
the total USA pop.) with an obvious shortage of stable and
successful males, even in America? A number of Black
thinkers and writers have studied and written about this
polygynous option for Black women (See Appendix Three).
It is 1995 and the women living in and around San Francisco
who want no part of lesbianism face the same critical
shortage of marriagable men. It is 1995 and there seems to
be a genuine shortage of godly, spirit-filled and born-again
men for the godly, spirit-filled and born-again women who
want to marry, especially for those who are burning and are
under God's command to marry>2 .
[Footnote: >.2 See appendix 6 .]
Patriarchies are not the problem. They are a social
institution that has usually worked for the protection of
women and children in most societies of the world, for most
of the history of the world. Yes there have been many
instances of abuse, but every social institution on earth has a
history of abuses because of the nature of humans>1 and the
involvement of evil spiritual powers>2. God's solution for
widows in Deut. 25 included the possibility of polygyny
since being married did not exempt a brother from the
command to marry his brother's widow. Given the shortage
of males in poor, rural, and primitive or war-ravaged lands,
patriarchal polygyny seems to be a realistic option for
widows and women facing a real shortage of males. I intend
by this document to show that polygyny or concubinage
should be viable options for society in general and born-
again and Spirit-filled Christians in particular.
[Footnote: >1 Rom. 3:23. >2 Eph. 2:1,2; 6:12.]
Any child of God who feels led to consider polygyny or
concubinage for his/her life and/or loved ones needs to
determine what kind of relationship he/she has with Jesus.
Whatever we believe about marriage, divorce, remarriage,
monogyny, concubinage or polygyny, our relationship with
Jesus Christ is the paramount issue.
God's laws about polygyny and concubinage in the Old
Testament were brought by Jesus into the New Testament
without being changed or nullified. During the transition
period (transition from the Law of Moses to the Royal Law of
Christ) we saw the following:
Mat. 5:17 � �Think not that I am come to make void the law
or the prophets; I am not come to make void, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Until the heaven and the earth
pass away, one iota or one tittle shall in no wise pass from
the law till all come to pass. 19 Whosoever then shall do
away with one of these least commandments, and shall teach
men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of the heavens;
but whosoever shall practise and teach [them], *he* shall be
called great in the kingdom of the heavens.�
Matt. 23:1 � �Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his
disciples, 2 saying, The scribes and the Pharisees have set
themselves down in Moses' seat: 3 all things therefore,
whatever they may tell you, do and keep. But do not after
their works, for they say and do not, . . .�
(Heb. 8:8*� For finding fault, he says to them, Behold, days
come, says the Lord, and I will consummate a new
covenant as regards the house of Israel, and as regards the
house of Juda; 9 not according to the covenant which I made
to their fathers in [the] day of my taking their hand to lead
them out of the land of Egypt; . . .13* In that he says New, he
has made the first old; but that which grows old and aged [is]
near disappearing.�)
Hebrews 8, especially the Greek of verse
13..........................
�In that he says, �A new [covenant]�, he has made
the first
[covenant] old. Now that which is becoming obsolete
and growing old is ready to vanish away.�
. . .and the Greek of 2 Cor. 3:7,11 .................................
�. . . the ministration of death, written [and]
engraved in stones, was glorious . . . How shall not the
ministration of the Spirit be more glorious? . . . For if
what is passing away [was] glorious, much more that
which is remaining [is] glorious
......show there was a period of transition (�is becoming
obsolete..growing old..is ready to vanish..is passing away�)
from the Sinai Law of Moses to the Calvary Law of LOVE in
Christ. The book of Acts is full of the apostles keeping the
Sinai Law of Moses after Pentecost. You see them
worshipping in the Temple regularly>1 , Peter refuses to
socialize with Gentiles according to the Sinai Law>2 , Peter
refuses to eat the animals classified as unclean in the Sinai
Law>3 , Paul circumcises Timothy >4, Paul keeps the Law's
feasts>5 , Paul recognizes the authority given to the elders
and Chief Priests under Moses' Sinai Law>6, the believing
Gentiles were released from the Sinai Law of Moses while
the believing Jews were not released ,>.68 , before the Law
of Moses was abolished after the Book of Acts was finished>.
69 , in Acts 15 and 21 we see the believing Jews (including
the apostles) keeping the law of Moses as Christians, and
part of that law was God's laws regulating and allowing
polygyny and concubinage.
[Footnote:>1 Acts 3 & 4. >2 Acts 10; Galat. 2. >3 Acts 10.
>4 Acts 16:1-5. >5 Acts 21 >6. Acts 4:1-22; 23:1-5
>68 Acts 15 & 21 >.69 Eph. 2:14 � �For *He* is our
peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the
middle wall of enclosure, 15 having annulled the enmity in
his flesh, the law of commandments in ordinances, that He
might form the two in Himself into one new man, making
peace; 16 and might reconcile both in one body to God by the
cross, having by it slain the enmity; . . . Colos. 2: 9 For in
Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily . . . 13 and
you . . . He has made alive together with Him . . . 14. Blotting
out the handwriting of decrees that was against us, which
was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to
His cross . . ]
Galatians is no problem, given a date of writing of Acts 14+/-
The Jewish believers were not keeping the law to be saved
or made righteous with God because they were just obeying
Jesus in Matthew 23:1,2,3 just like all believers obey Jesus in
John 14:15 and Matt. 28:19,20----- not for salvation but as a
RESULT salvation (1 John 2:2,3,4,5; Heb. 5:8,9; Phil 2:12,13).
The Legalists who were seducing Peter and the other
Galatian backsliders to require circumcision for salvationl
and righteousnes before God and fellowship with the
apostles, were the object of Paul�s wrath in Galatians. So we
have Paul and the apostles observing the Law of Moses,
including the laws on polygyny and concubinage, as
Christians and the only thing they wrote about polygyny
was that the elders/bishops/ deacons/overseers and church
superintendents should have only one wife at a time. NEVER
IN THE WORD OF GOD IS polygyny OR CONCUBINAGE
LABELED SIN, CALLED SIN, DENOUNCED AS SIN, PROHIBITED
FOR ALL SAINTS, CALLED A WORK OF THE FLESH, CALLED A
CARNAL ACT OR CALLED A SIGN OF SPIRITUAL WEAKNESS.
Yes Romans 13 make it crystal clear an American Christian
may not openly and officially practice polygyny in America
because we have to obey the laws of the land if they do not
violate the Word of God. But concubinage is neither against
the laws of God nor is it against the laws of the vast majority
of the United States of America. In fact the courts have
validated its legality in its palimony rulings.
You may ask, �Pray tell, what commandment of men do most
of America�s religious leaders teach as doctrine>36 ?� I
submit that most of America�s religious leaders teach as
doctrine man�s commandment that monogamy is the only
marital way for the godly, and that polygyny/concubinage
is evil and sinful for all people and cultures on the earth
presently. God Himself enacted laws regulating
polygyny/concubinage>.37 . God Himself gave wives in
polygyny to King David>38 Which commandment of God is
laid aside to hold their tradition, making the Word of God of
no effect?�
[Footnote: >36 Mark 7:6-13. >37 Exodus 21:7-11;
Leviticus 18:18; Deut. 17:15-17; Deut. 21:15-17. >38 2
Sam 12:7,8.]
I am attempting to show that most of today�s religious
leaders of the
Christian community are laying aside God�s Old Testament
Sinai Law commands>39 about polygyny, commands that
Christ, as seen above in the Gospels, commanded His
followers to keep>40 while He was on Earth. The apostles
commanded the believing Jews to keep>41 in the first
century church until they, like the believing Gentiles>42
were released from keeping the Sinai Law by God's Word>43
Jesus and the apostles commanded the believing Jews to
keep the Sinai laws governing polygyny through the book of
Acts period>44 . I propose to show that most Christian
religious leaders lay this fact aside for their tradition of
condemning polygyny/ concubinage as sin.
[Footnote: >39 Exodus 21:7-11; Leviticus 18:18; Deut. 17:15-
17; Deut. 21:15-17. >40 Matt. 5:17-19; 23:1-3; Acts
21:18-26. >41 Acts 15 & 21:18-26.>42 Acts 15. >43
in Eph. 2 and Col. 2. >44 Exodus 21:7-11; Leviticus
18:18; Deut. 17:15-17; Deut. 21:15-17; Matt. 5:17-19; 23:1-3;
Acts 21:18-26. ]
So what are you doing if you are condemning polygyny in
general as sin?Mark 7:8 �[For], leaving the commandment of
God, you hold what is delivered by men [to keep] --
washings of vessels and cups, and many other such like
things you do. 9 And he said to them, Well do you set
aside the commandment of God, that you may observe what
is delivered by yourselves [to keep]. . . . 13 making void the
word of God by your traditional teaching which you have
delivered; and many such like things you do�.
Pretty serious stuff, laying aside God's commands so
you can keep your own traditions and making God's Word
ineffective through your traditions. It wont look good for
those folks at the judgment seat of Christ. What about all
those third world folks, especially the Moslem, Hindu,
Buddhist, Asian, Oriental, and Africans, who are practicing
polygyny and are told that they have to dump and abandon
their extra wives &/or concubines in order to become
Christians, the biggest obstacle for the Moslem, Hindu,
Buddhist, Asian, Oriental, and African community? These
"Christian" folks who feel their own tradition about
monogamy and polygyny must be kept by Moslem, Hindu,
Buddhist, Asian, Oriental, and Africans and other third world
polygamists for them to become Christians sound like these
folks:
Mat.23:13 � �But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees,
hypocrites, for you shut up the kingdom of the heavens
before men; for *you* do not enter, nor do you suffer those
that are entering to go in.�
I understand that Rev. Joseph Conrad Wold>*, a Lutheran
missionary in Liberia, maintains the following points: 1.
Some missionaries have become like the Pharisees, knit
picking legalists; 2. For unbelievers it is more of a question
of who is or is not a polygamist rather than who is and who
isn't a Christian; 3. Rejecting polygamy has become the
rejecting of polygamists; 4. If Cornelious>45 could be born
again without circumcision, then surely
polygamists should be able to be born again without cutting
away their wives, breaking their solemn promises and
forcing their beloved and faithful wives into adultery for
survival; 5 Let the polygamist be lost because he refused to
love and obey Jesus, rather than because he loved his wives
too much to cause them to suffer, or was to virtuous to be a
hypocrite.>70 He makes such an impassioned case I hope
you take the time to read the original. Truly the
commandments of men, condemning as sin and forbidding
polygamy, make of no effect the commandments of God for
so many.
[Footnote: >*GOD'S IMPATIENCE IN LIBERIA, Rev. Joseph
Conrad Wold, pp. 179ff. >45 (Acts 10 & 11).
@>.@70 Trobisch, MY WIFE MADE ME. . . Pp.16 & 17;].
What about those who practice polygyny/concubinage
where most of the people on earth live, in China, India, SE
Asia, Africa and in parts of South America where it is legal
and a part of man�s tradition? If the condemnation of
polygyny/concubinasge is only the commandment and
tradition of men, dare we impose as Doctrine the
commandment and tradition of men about
polygyny/concubinage as if it were the Word of God? If our
teaching against polygyny is only the tradition and
commandment of men, will we not again make of no effect
the Word of God in the lives of these people who live where
most of the people on earth live ?
The angels are waiting to rejoice over the conversion of one
polygamous Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Asian, Oriental, and
African or third worlder and "Christian legalists and
traditionalists" wont let them in unless they sin by "dealing
treacherously">46 with their wives &/or concubines by
putting them away in repudiation, and sin by disobeying
Christ's command not to leave their wives>47 , and sin by
not remaining in the marital condition in which they were
called to Christ. According to the New York Times News
Service, there were 200,000 polygynists in Paris France
alone. Can we turn away such a mission field?
[Footnote: >46 (Malachi 2). >47 (1 Cor. 7:11)]
1 Cor.7: 17 � �However, as the Lord has divided to each, as
God has called each, so let him walk; and thus I ordain in all
the assemblies. . . 20 Let each abide in that calling in which
he has been called. . . . 24 Let each, wherein he is called,
brethren, therein abide with God. . . . 26 I think then that
this is good, on account of the present necessity, that [it is]
good for a man to remain so as he is. 27 Are you bound to a
wife? Seek not to be loosed; Are you free from a wife? Do
not seek a wife.�
Yes, that means if they were called in polygyny, they remain
in polygyny unless their polygyny violates the law>48 of the
land they are called in. If the law of the land prohibits their
polygyny, they cannot dump their wives since they are
bound by God to them in marriage since God�s Laws take
precedence over the laws of man>49 , so they must change
their formal polygyny to informal concubinage to live
without offense>50 .
[Footnote: >48 Romans13. >49 (Moses & Pharaoh, Daniel
and the lions, Shedrach and the fiery furnace, Acts 4). >50
Romans 13 & 14.]
Yes, that means that if they were called in concubinage, they
remain in concubinage unless (1) their informal concubinage
should become formal polygyny so as not to offend or
stumble the Church >51 , or (2) their open and public
concubinage must become personal, private, discrete and
secretive>52 so as not to stumble or offend the saints.
[Footnote: >51 Romans 14 & 15. >52 Romans 14 & 15, 1
Cor. 8 & 10]
So polygyny in and of itself is not a sin and was tolerated in
the Bible>71, unless practiced in violation of men�s laws>53 ,
or unless its practice is abused by offensive selfishness and
sinfulness>54. The polygyny of concubinage is not illegal in
modern society, but is bound by the principles of Liberated
Love in Romans 14, 1 Cor 8 and 10.
[Footnote: >.71 Please see THE INSTITUTES OF BIBLICAL
LAW, by R. Rushdonney, p. 364. HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF
THE BIBLE; 1989, p.259; p.583ff. >53 (Rom 13). >54
(Rom. 14) ]
VI. . ARE POLYGYNISTS AND CONCUBINES LIVING IN ERROR
TODAY?
The Mormon church so shocked America that they
passed laws against polygyny in almost all of the states. The
Christian community takes positions on polygyny ranging
from a flat out condemnation of it as sin to the position that
it lies in the area of God's permissive or second best will and
it is not a sin, though quite socially undesirable. Most agree
it is not God's best for marriage and that a polygamist should
at least be excluded from church offices/positions>55. Most
missionaries no longer demand a converted polygamist to
divorce/ abandon all of his wives except for the first wife,
recognizing the binding nature of the wedding vows/
covenants and the plight of the abandoned/divorced women.
They usually at least instruct him to take no new wives and
be content with what he has>56.
[Footnote: >55 (1 Tim. 3 & Titus 1). >56 (1 Tim. 6).]
We know polygyny/concubinage is still practiced today in
parts of Utah, China, India, SE Asia, Africa, in all Moslem
nations, and among the Indians of Latin America. There are
the 200,000 + polygynyist immigrants in France, mentioned
above. Communism greatly discouraged polygyny in China
among the working class but concubinage flourishes among
the powerful and the affluent. So roughly half of the people
of the world live in a society where some form polygyny or
concubinage is practiced and accepted.
That makes this issue a burning issue for missionary
outreach in these areas. I understand that Eugene A Nida,
of the American Bible Society in his book Customs and
Cultures discusses how polygyny is not a sin in and of
itself, but that at the very least I Timothy 3 and Titus 1
disqualify any polygamist from being an elder, bishop,
overseer, deacon or official leader in the Christian church. An
elder , or etc. , would be like the apostles in Acts 6:1-7 and
should not be tied up with the daily service to many wives
which would prevent him from being in the Word of God
enough to lead and feed the flock he has been placed over.
The polygamist would have his hands full leading, feeding
and serving his wives and children, essentially his family-
church.
Please consider the points of view of influential and
significant leaders from the early church:�That the holy
fathers of olden times after Abraham, and before him, to
whom God gave His testimony that "they pleased Him," [Heb.
11:4-6] thus used their wives, no one who is a Christian
ought to doubt, since it was permitted to certain individuals
amongst them to have a plurality of wives, where the reason
was for the multiplication of their offspring, not the desire of
varying gratification. . . . In the advance, however, of the
human race, it came to pass that to certain good men were
united a plurality of good wives, --- many to each; and from
this it would seem that moderation sought rather unity on
one side for dignity, while nature permitted plurality on the
other side for fecundity. For on natural principles it is more
feasible for one to have dominion over many, than for many
to have dominion over one.�>72
[Footnote: >..72 A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-
Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church, Vol. V; p. 267]
So for St. Augustine (4th century AD) ". . . good men were
united [to] a plurality of good wives. . ." in a "feasible" form
of polygyny that involved "moderation", "dignity" and
"fecundity". Clearly he didn't label it sin and he didn't say
that the practice of polygyny made these "good" people
sinners. This is the position of St. Augustine, a significant
post-Pentecost leader in the 4th Century AD church,
speaking in the era of the Church in which we live today.
Hear him again, in the following:
"But those who have not the virtues of temperance
must not be allowed to judge of the conduct of holy men, any
more than those in fever of the sweetness and
wholesomeness of food. . . If our critics, then, wish to attain
not a spurious and affected, but a genuine and sound moral
health, let them find a cure in believing the Scripture record,
that the honorable name of saint is given not without reason
to men who had several wives; and that the reason is this,
that the mind can exercise such control over the flesh as not
to allow the appetite implanted in our nature by Providence
to go beyond the limits of deliberate intention>. . . .the holy
patriarchs in their conjugal intercourse were actuated not by
the love of pleasure, but by the intelligent desire for the
continuance of their family. . . .nor did the number of their
wives make the patriarchs licentious. But why defend the
husbands, to whose character the divine word bears the
highest testimony. . . ." >73
[Footnote: >.73 A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-
Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church, Vol. iv; p.290]
Here we see St. Augustine describing most of the Bible's
polygynists as "holy patriarchs" who deserved the
"honorable name of saint" because their "character .. bears
the highest testimony", the Word of God. It sure doesn't
sound like they are a back slidden lot of fleshly saints! Quite
to the contrary! Any "elder" today would do well to be so
spoken of as these polygynous patriarchs.
Is polygyny with wives and concubines a sin today? St.
Basil (4th Century AD) wrote that "On polygamy the Fathers
are silent, as being brutish and altogether inhuman. The sins
seems to me worse than fornication.">74 "Herard of Tours,
A.D. 858, declares any greater number of wives than two to
be unlawful. . . Leo the Wise, Emperor of Constantinople, was
allowed to marry three wives without public remonstrance,
but was suspended from communion by the patriarch
Nicholas when he married a fourth.">75 St. Augustine (4th
Cent. AD) indicates that the Roman Catholic Church was the
power behind the move to not allow polygyny or
concubinage among the church members of his time..>76 So
even in the early church we find a wide diversity of
reactions to the polygyny and concubinage of the Bible. This,
in its own way, bears witness to the fact that there is no
clear scriptural teaching against polygyny and concubinage.
They obviously fall in the category of things discussed in
Rom. 14, 1 Cor. 8 and 1 Cor 10.
[Footnote: >.74 A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-
Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church, Vol. VIII; p. 258.
>.75 A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers
of The Christian Church, Vol. V; p. 267. >76 St. Augustin:
On The Trinity; p. 402.]
Douglas� New Bible Dictionary>.77 : MARRIAGE: ."Monogamy
is implicit in the story of Adam and Eve, since God created
only one wife for Adam. Yet polygyny is adopted from the
time of Lamech (Gn. 4:19), and is not forbidden in Scripture .
...Polygamy continues to the present day among Jews in
Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Asian, Oriental, and African
countries."
[Footnote: >.77 1962; W. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand
Rapids, Mich]
NOW CHECK THAT OUT! " . . . POLYGYNY . . . IS NOT
FORBIDDEN IN SCRIPTURE". SHALL WE ADD TO GOD'S WORD
AND FORBID IT?
HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE: . . . �At all events,
polygyny was an established and recognized institution from
the earliest of times.>78. Justin reproaches the Jews of his
day [A.D.] with having 'four or even five wives,' and
marrying 'as they wish, or as many as they wish.' The
evidence of the Talmud shows that in this case at least the
reproach had some foundation. Polygamy was not definitely
forbidden among the Jews till the time of R. Gershom (c. A.D.
1000), and then at first only for France and Germany. In
Spain, Italy, and the East it persisted for some time longer, as
it does still among the Jews in Mohammedan countries.�>79.
"POLYGAMY WAS NOT DEFINITELY FORBIDDEN AMONG THE
JEWS" DURING MOST OF THE POST PENTECOST CHURCH ERA.
SINCE JESUS COMMANDED HIS APOSTLES TO OBEY THE JEWS
(MT. 23:1-3) IN THEIR LAWS GOVERNING POLYGYNY, WHO
ARE WE TO SAY THAT THEY WERE CARNAL AND MISLED IN
OBSERVING POLYGYNY AND CONCUBINAGE ACCORDING TO
THE LAW OF MOSES?
[Footnote: >78. HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE; p.259.
<79. HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE;p.583ff.]
What does St. Augustine (4th Century AD) say about the
practice of polygyny and concubinage? Consider the
following:
"The only reason of its being a crime now to do this, is
because custom and the laws forbid it. Whoever despises
these restraints, even though he uses his wives only to get
children, still commits sin, and does an injury to human
society itself, for the sake of which it is that the procreation
of children is required. In the present altered state of
customs and laws, men can have no pleasure in a plurality of
wives, except from an excess of lust; and so the mistake
arises of supposing that no one could ever have had many
wives but from sensuality and the vehemence of sinful
desires. Unable to form an idea of men whose force of mind
is beyond their conception, they compare themselves with
themselves, as the apostle says [2 Cor. x. 12], and so make
mistakes. Conscious that, in their intercourse though with
one wife only, they are often influenced by mere animal
passion instead of an intelligent motive, they think it an
obvious inference that, if the limits of moderation are not
observed where there is only one wife, the infirmity must be
aggravated where there are more than one.">.80
[Footnote: >80 A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene
Fathers of The Christian Church, Vol. iv; pp.289ff.]
"But here there is no ground for a criminal accusation: for a
plurality of wives was no crime when it was the custom; and
it is a crime now, because it is no longer the custom. There
are sins against nature, and sins against custom, and sins
against the laws. As regards nature, [Jacob] used the women
not for sensual gratification, but for the procreation of
children. For custom, this was the common practice at that
time in those countries. And for the laws, no prohibition
existed. The only reason of its being a crime now to do this,
is because custom and the laws forbid it.">.81
[Footnote: >81 A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene
Fathers of The Christian Church, Vol. iv; p.289.]
Whose laws forbid it? A "a plurality of wives was no crime
when it was the custom". "NO PROHIBITION EXISTED." NOW
IT IS A CRIME ONLY BECAUSE OF Man's laws, not God's laws!
Mark 7 and Matt.13 give us a very good insight into how
godly man's laws are when they are made in the Name of
God. On the other hand it is living in error to live in
polygyny or concubinage where man's customs and laws
forbid it because we are to obey the laws of the land>57 if at
all possible>58 . It is NOT living in error to live in polygamy
or concubinage where man's customs and law permit it. The
vast majority of the world lives under laws that permit
concubinage. Some countries, mostly Moslem or Asian or
Oriental, still permit official and legal polygamy.
[Footnote: >57 Romans 13. >58 (Rom. 12:18; Acts 4:18-20;
Deut. 1:13-18; 17:8-13)]
Unofficial, discreet, private and personal>59 contractual
concubinage is legal in almost all countries, even in the
United States. American courts have given a positive legal
status to monogynous concubinage in the forms of palimony
and common law marriages, even in cases of serial
polygynous concubinage. They have not yet given such a
positive legal status to polygynous concubinage, but that
doesn't stop its widespread practice. Most
American concubines are only mistresses where there are no
long term commitments or relationships. Without marital
commitments a concubine is only a harlot or whore>60 .
We have already seen how God recognizes as wives
concubines who have covenanted/ contracted as wives with
their husbands before God and there is a significant number
of such honorable concubines even in America today,
especially in states where common law marriages are
recognized.
[Footnote: >59 (Romans 14:13-23). >60 1 Cor. 6; Prov. 5
& 6; Ezek. 16 & 23]
VII. MARRIAGE, CONCUBINES, CIVIL LAW, PERSONAL
LIBERTY AND A LOVING CONSCIENCE!
Surely Romans 13 and related passages apply. And certainly
the principles of Romans 14 and l Cor 8 & 10 apply. The
following is a brief summary of those principles:
1. Receive the weak in faith (their faith allows them very
little personal liberty) but not to dispute doubtful
things/points>61 . Doubtful things are things that the Bible
is not explicitly clear about leaving a gray area for
individuals to exercise their own judgment (e.g. eating meat
vs. vegetarianism, length of dress, courtship and
engagement, television, movies, computer use etc.)
2. Don't despise or condemn your brother/sister in Christ if
(1) they feel free to do doubtful things or (2) they don't feel
free to do doubtful things>62
3. Don't put a stumbling block, an occasion to take offense,
put an obstacle in the way>82 , give someone an opportunity
for sinning>63
4. Don't make your brethren uneasy>83 or hurt, injure or
damage others' feelings>84.
5. Don't destroy your brethren's faith with your personal
liberty>64
6. Let not the personal liberty your faith allows be evil
spoken of>65
7. Do that which builds and helps the faith of your
brethren>66 .
8. Don't put a temptation to sin in someone's way>.85 , or do
that which leads another to sin>.86 .
9. Have your faith from the Word that allows you your
personal liberty privately, discretely and personally before
God and be happy in it>67
10. Don't do anything you have doubts about, doubts about
whether or not it is God's will for you to do, be or have)>68
11. If your faith is strong allowing you a great deal of
personal liberty, you should bear the weaknesses of those
whose faith allows little personal liberty, not pleasing
ourselves. Seek to please your brethren for their good,
growth and development in the Lord and Word>69 .
[Footnote: [>61 (Rm.14:1) >62 . (Rm. 14:3,4) >.82
Please see Arndt & Gingrich's Lexicon. >83 Please see
Thayer's Lexicon. >63 . (Rm. 14:13). >.84 Please see
Arndt & Gingrich's Lexicon. >64 . (Rm 14:15). >65
(Rm. 14:16,17). >66 (Rm. 14:18,19). >.85 (Rm.
14:13)Please see Arndt & Gingrich's Lexicon. >.86 Please
see Thayer's Lexicon. >67 (Rm.14:22). >68 . (Rm.
14:23). >69 . (Rm. 15:1-3)]
But how do these principles apply? Obviously polygyny or
concubinage is a felony to officially marry (by man's laws)
more than one woman in terms of the government's law,
public records, inheritance laws and divorce laws in most
Western or industrial nations. Obviously it is socially
acceptable, legal and not a felony in most Asian nations, the
Mid East, Africa and Indian tribes in the Americas. That is
as clear as black and white. But there is a great big gray
area. Many Western states recognize informal marriage
(concubinage) as common law marriages but as soon as they
become official they come under the monogamy laws. But
they can live for years in the morally acceptable informal
and unofficial common law status without any illegality.
Under Administrative Law in California, County Welfare
officials set up semi-official marriages with people who
live together without being married where one or both
parties could still be legally married to others.
Administrative Welfare law recognizes them as a semi-
married couple and will grant them AFDC aid and even help
them get divorces so they can eventually marry IF THEY
WISH. With the state's approval they live together as a
family sometimes for years, but they have no IRS rights, or
inheritance rights or marital tax status from the state as a
married couple. It is legal and approved of by state law.
California's courts have also established palimony rights
where they protect the covenant/contractual rights of people
living in unofficial marriage or concubinage. While they
have no official tax status or inheritance rights the courts
have established that a marital relationship and the
members of that relationship have protection under the law
in terms of their covenants, contracts, vows, espousal or
betrothal. The courts have awarded "palimony", property
and child custody rights in and from these relationships. The
new no-discrimination-against-one's-sexual-orientation laws
protect those who practice informal contractual polygyny or
concubinage.
Since God prescribes no "wedding ceremony", ritual, vows or
rite>87 to make two people married, leaving it to the local
churches to have their own redeemed local and indigenous
marital customs>88 . The vows, covenants, betrothals and
prenuptial contracts seem to be covered by God's standards
in the following:
[Footnote: >87 See appendix . >.88 See appendix .]
MKJV EZEKIEL 16: 3 �And say, So says the Lord Jehovah to
Jerusalem, . . . 8 And I passed by you and looked on you,
and, behold, your time [was] the time of love. And I spread
my skirt over you and covered your nakedness. And I swore
to you and entered into a covenant with you, says the Lord
Jehovah. And you became Mine.�
MKJV MALACHI 2:14 �Yet you say, Why? Because the LORD
has been witness between you and the wife of your youth,
against whom you have dealt treacherously; yet she [is] your
companion and your covenant wife. 15 And did He not make
[you] one? Yet the vestige of the Spirit [is in] him. And what
[of] the one? He was seeking a godly seed. Then guard your
spirit, and do not act treacherously with the wife of your
youth. 16 The LORD, the God of Israel, says He hates sending
away; and to cover [with] violence on his garment, says the
LORD of hosts. Then guard your spirit, and do not act
treacherously.� Here "act treacherously" means " break
covenant" or "fail to honor your covenant/commitment".
MKJV ECCLES. 5:4 �� When you vow a vow to God, do not
wait to pay it. For He has no pleasure in fools. Pay that which
you have vowed. 5 [it is] better that you should not vow,
than that you should vow and not pay. 6 Do not allow your
mouth to cause your flesh to sin; do not say before the angel
that it [was] an error. Why should God be angry at your voice
and destroy the work of your hands? �
MKJV PSALM 15:1 � �A Psalm of David. LORD, who shall
dwell in Your tabernacle? . . . 2 He who walks uprightly, and
works righteousness, and speaks the truth in his heart; . . .
[he] has sworn to his hurt, and does not change it; 5. . . He
who does these [things] shall not be moved forever.�
MKJV ROMANS 1:28 �And even as they did not think fit to
have God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a
reprobate mind, to do the things not right, 29 being filled
with all unrighteousness . . . 31 . . . covenant-breakers. . . 32
who, knowing the righteous order of God, that those
practicing such things are worthy of death, not only do them,
but have pleasure in those practicing [them].�
It is the treachery of breaking marital covenants that
God condemns in these passages and that which he hates.
"Yes, I swore an oath to you and entered into covenant with
you, and you became Mine," says the Lord God>70 . We
become a part of the bride of Christ in the same way. The
Spirit considered Mary and Joseph as husband and wife on
the basis of their espousal/betrothal/ covenants even before
the wedding and the coming together>71.
[Footnote: >70 (Ezek. 16:8). >71 (Mat. 1:18-25 ;Deut.
22:23-27)]
So why can't two Christians exchange espousal/betrothal
covenants and become each other's marital partners without
a formal marriage which would be illegal? Of course they
can since common law marriages are legally acceptable in
most of America�s states and in most of the countries of the
world. But should they? We are bound by our covenants
and God makes it clear He has no pleasure in the fools who
break them >72 . We enter into the gray zone of the liberty
we have in Christ>73 that is limited by the cords of Agape
love. Yes two Christians could exchange their vows/
covenants without a formal/legal wedding day but if they
became involved in intimacy and that intimacy became an
offense or stumbling block to another saint it would be sin
and could destroy the work of Christ in another or embolden
a weak one to be intimate contrary to his/her conscience>74
So is such intimacy a sin between two Christians who have
solemnly and formally covenanted before God that they are
maritally one flesh as long as they both live? It is neither
illegal nor sinful but it becomes sin if it stumbles, offends,
grieves another in Christ> 75 .
[Footnote: >72 (Eccles. 5:5; Psalm 15). >73 (Rom 14).
>74 (l Cor. 8 & 10). >75 (Rom. 14; 1 Cor. 8 & 10).]
But what about the command in Romans 14 that states that
if you have a solid controversial conviction from the Word,
have it to yourself before God? Happy is the one who does
not condemn himself in what he approves>76 . But woe to
him if he does it with doubts or offense to another in Christ.
So it seems to be with post covenant but pre-wedding day
intimacy. It seems to be the same case with polygyny /
concubinage. Do you practice/believe in polygyny
/concubinage? Have it and do so privately and very
discreetly before God. Happy is the one who does not
condemn one's self in what he approves in the liberty of
Christ. But she who practices/believes in polygyny
/concubinage with doubts is condemned if she indulges
because she does not practice it out of conviction from the
Spirit and the Word. polygyny/concubinage is indeed pure,
but it is evil to practice it if it stumble, offends,
grieves or weakens your brethren in Christ>77 .
[Footnote: >76 (Rom 14:22,23). >77 (Rom. 14; 1 Cor. 8
& 10)]
Foreign Christian polygynists visiting Western monogamous
societies encounter a special challenge. Spiritual and Godly
Christians would be able to handle it well and in the Lord,
but the unsaved, the carnal, the Spiritual milk drinkers, the
legalists, the ignorant, and those weak of conscience would
all have varying problems with a Christian polygynist and
his wives visiting their Western/Occidental church>78 . The
visiting Christian polygynist should do all within his power
to not let his liberty hinder the effectiveness of his
testimony and witness to these people, if they would be
willing to receive it.
[Footnote: >78 (1 Cor. 8 & 10; Rom. 14 & 15)]
Hopefully mercy and compassion would move the Christian
polygynist to not flaunt his polygyny in the face of such
"Christians" even though they are so unlike Christ. Mercy
would move the polygynist to not lay a heavier burden on
the weak than they can bear, not wanting their liberty to
cause their weak brethren to fall into sin. Compassion would
move the polygynists to be sensitive to the weakness and
doubts of the weak saints. Obviously the polygynist would
not be an official leader in the church and would not be
visiting local churches as a leader/elder/deacon/ bishop/
overseer/etc.>79 . Ideally the local saints would be bearing
the fruits of the Spirit and receive such foreign visitors with
mercy and compassion. If they agreed and were able>80 for
a short while to be separated, the polygynist could visit the
Western church bringing one or none of his wives so as to
reduce the controversy. The same would be true of a
polygynist wife visiting the West without her husband,
under the rule of 1 Cor. 7:4,5.
[Footnote: >79 (1 Tim. 3 and Ti. 1). >80 (1 Cor. 7:5)]
MKJV 1 CORINTH. 7: 4 �The wife does not have authority
over [her] own body, but the husband. And likewise also the
husband does not have power [over his] own body, but the
wife. 5 Do not deprive one another, unless [it is] with
consent for a time, so that you may [give yourselves to]
fasting and prayer. And come together again so that Satan
does not tempt you for your incontinence.�
VIII. THE MARRIED MAN WHO WOULD ADD WIVES TO HIS
�HAREM�.
What about the married character who says that since
polygyny /concubinage is not a sin he will just go ahead and
add a couple of new wives to his harem? Well he wont get
off the ground in America unless he is rolling in money and
has found some like-minded women. Even then they can't
formally or legally marry. He could only legally marry one
as wife and contract/covenant unofficially with the others as
concubines.
What about the married "brother" who knows a "sister" who
knows she can't
marry him because of the bigamy laws but they want to be
married so bad
that she is willing to be his "concubine" in polygyny , even
though she knows
his wife objects or doesn't even know?
The Spiritual fruit of contentment should prevail. A person
should be content with the mate they have. Selfishness is a
work of the flesh and anyone who wants a mate, or another
mate, or an additional mate, out of selfish reasons is out of
the will of God and snared in sin.
YLT=1 Tim. 6:5 "wranglings of men wholly corrupted in
mind, and destitute of the truth, supposing the piety to be
gain; depart from such; 6 � but it is great gain--the piety
with contentment; . . . 8 but having food and raiment--with
these we shall suffice ourselves; 9 and those wishing to be
rich [having more than they need], do fall into temptation
and a snare, and many desires, foolish and hurtful, that sink
men into ruin and destruction, . . ." [Young's Literal
Translation]
1Cor. 7:17 � �However, as the Lord has divided to each, as
God has called each, so let him walk; and thus I ordain in all
the assemblies.� [Darby]
If his present wife objects to his taking a concubine for
himself, can't she
exercise her second best option>81 and separate herself
from him and remain separate or be reconciled to him at
some later date?
[Footnote: >81 (1 Cor. 7:10,11,39)]
If his present wife objects to his taking a concubine for
himself, how can he
say to Jesus that he is being kind to her, that he is not
selfishly seeking his
own by taking a concubine? God has promised to chasten>82
those saints
who deliberately sin, and if he unkindly and selfishly takes
on a concubine,
then isn't he going to be chastened?
[Footnote: >82 (1 Cor. 11:30 weakness, sickness, death;
Ezekiel 14 famine, hurtful beasts, war or personal violence,
disease and pestilence)]
If his wife is innocently and sincerely grieved, stumbled and
offended by his
desire to have a concubine, experiencing a genuine sense of
loss or betrayal,
then he has broken all the principles of Love in Romans 14, 1
Cor. 8 & 10 by
using his liberty (to have a concubine) to the hurt of his
�sister� in the Body
of Christ and chastening>83 is certain. Certainly his prayers
will be
hindered>84.
[Footnote: >83 (Malachi 2;1 Cor. 11:30 Heb 12). >84 (1
Peter 3:7;Isa 59:1,2)]
What if her objections to his taking a concubine are selfish,
hateful, mean
spirited, unkind and spiteful? These are all works of the
flesh. If his taking
a concubine stumbled her into these vices, caused her to fall
into these vices,
then he is destroying one for whom Christ died and for
whom Christ is the
Avenger (Rom. 14)] .
What if she normally and naturally is selfish, hateful, mean,
unkind and
selfish? What if her objections to his taking a concubine are
selfish, hateful,
mean spirited, unkind and spiteful? These are all works of
the flesh. If she
was this way by her choice before the concubine became an
issue between
them, she has chosen to walk in the flesh, her salvation is
questionable at
best, and he is at least in a 1 Cor. 7:12,13 situation:
MKJV 1 CORINTH. �7:12 But to the rest I speak, not the Lord,
If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is
pleased to dwell with him, do not let him put her away. 13
And the woman who has a husband who does not believe, if
he is pleased to dwell with her, do not let her leave him. 14
For the
unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the
unbelieving wife is
sanctified by the husband; else your children would be
unclean, but now they
are holy. 15 But if the unbelieving one separates, let [them]
be separated. A
brother or a sister is not in bondage in such [cases], but God
has called us in
peace.�
He is bound to her as long as she wishes to house/dwell
with him. With
this kind of wife, wouldn't a godly concubine be his �corner
on the roof�, his
sanctuary from the strife of her spirit and her tongue?
What if she doesn't know about his taking on a "sister" as a
concubine (but the world would call her a mistress because
they don't believe in marital
commitment)? Well the following scriptures indicate that
there could be a
problem involving honesty:
Luke 8:15 �But that in the good ground, these are they who
in an honest and
good heart, having heard the word keep it, and bring forth
fruit with
patience.�
Rom. 12:17* �recompensing to no one evil for evil: providing
things honest
before all men: . �.
Eph. 4:25 �Wherefore, having put off falsehood, speak truth
every one with his neighbor, . . . 29 Let no corrupt word go
out of your mouth, but if [there be] any good one for needful
edification, that it may give grace to
those that hear [it].�
2 Cor. 8:21 �for we provide for things honest, not only before
[the] Lord, but also before men.�
There would have to be no communications or there would
have to be false
communications between a man and his wife if the man had
a secret
concubine on the side. As his wife exercised her authority
over his body for
affection and sex>86 he probably would, at some point
because of the secret
concubine, resist her sexual authority>87 over his body and
be chastened of
God, or he would get into a situation where he would have to
lie to get out of it, and be chastened of God. If he keeps that
up, couldn't she land up a widow and get to marry again in
the Lord since He liberated her from her Judas?
[Footnote: >86 (1 Cor.7:3-5). >87 (Romans 13:1-5)]
What if Theo is a devoted, loving and caring husband but
Safronia is
uninterested in sex with him, passively tolerating sex with
him while making
him feel, without a word, that he is imposing on her and
being burdensome to her in the matter? She refuses the
help available from counseling and support groups. Well she
obviously is not doing 1 Cor 7:2,3,4,5 as unto the Lord.
MKJV 1 CORINTH. 7: 2 �But, [to avoid] fornication, let each
have his [own]
wife, and let each have her own husband. 3 Let the husband
give to the wife
proper kindness, and likewise the wife also to the husband. 4
The wife does
not have authority over [her] own body, but the husband.
And likewise also the husband does not have power [over
his] own body, but the wife. 5 Do not
deprive one another, unless [it is] with consent for a time, so
that you may
[give yourselves to] fasting and prayer. And come together
again so that Satan does not tempt you for your
incontinence.�
Seeing her brother-husband in need, she shuts up her
feelings of
compassion>88 . But in the meantime she has killed his
affections for her
by her words and deeds and his affection goes unanchored
now. She refuses to welcome his affectionate and intimate
touch in disobedience to the Word>89 . As predicted, Theo
is being sexually tempted by Satan and Theo finds himself
burning and sometimes failing >90 to control himself when
exposed to things like pornography. Tempted, burning and
sometimes failing to control himself, Theo finds himself
under the command to marry (be having his own wife)>n89.
Safronia refuses to help him meet his needs, and he can't
divorce her because she claims to be saved >91 . Since she
cares not for affection with him, he might exercise his liberty
to have a concubine in the manner of Romans 14. If his faith
allows him to have a concubine but having a concubine
would grieve, offend and/or stumble someone, perhaps even
his Arctic wife, then wouldn't he have to exercise his faith's
personal liberty by having his concubine privately and
discretely between himself, her and God so as not to let his
liberty offend the Body of Christ.
[Footnote: >88 (1 John 3:14-18). >89 (1 Cor. 7:2,3,4,5).
>90 (1 Cor. 7:9, see Appendix 6). >.n89 See Appendix
Six. >91 (1 Cor.7:10,11,39; Mark 10:1-12).]
What kind of sister would be concubine to such a brother?
Perhaps one who
saw his need>92 and was moved with compassion and,
having what he needs she lays down her life for him to
minister as wife-concubine to him>93 . Perhaps she feels
called to be his good Samaritan concubine in his wounded
and neglected need. She would have to be of one mind and
one faith with him to be his concubine privately and
discreetly so as not to offend the Body of Christ. They would
have to agree to deny themselves the free and open exercise
of 1 Cor. 7:2-5 and exercise those rights and needs within the
limitations of privacy and discretion before God and the
Body of Christ>94 . Wouldn't they have to agree not to lie or
deceive while on the other hand they would have to agree to
obey Rom. 14:28ff in not breaking their commitment to
privacy and discretion, even if they have to say nothing
when asked? Wouldn't it be a marriage fraught with self
denial, self sacrifice and self control?
[Footnote: >92 (1 Cor. 7:2-5). >93 (1 John 3:14-18).
>94 (Rom14:28-).]
Anyone who did this would have to selflessly and unselfishly
seek the
protection and well being even of his cold and indifferent
wife. He would
have to do everything possible to make sure that any
concubine he would have would not bring harmful sexually
transmitted diseases (including HIV) into the germ pool of
their polygyny . That would mean genital cultures, blood
tests and abstaining from marital intimacy/ commitment and
waiting several months for repeated tests since HIV might
not show up for several months. Since STD�s, including HIV,
can be transmitted by bloody saliva in kissing, wouldn't they
have to abstain even from kissing until all tests came back
okay?
What if it is a situation of real need and crisis? What if she
decided to
exercise her option to separate>95 herself from her husband,
but not by
divorce but by separate beds or separate bedrooms and
allowed him no more
access to her body for his sexual needs? He is under God�s
command to not
leave or divorce her>96 . She is wife in name only and he
has no sexual
partner. Hasn't she sinfully set him up for Satan>97 and
burning>98 which will compel him to marry or be an
adulterer. If it is to marry, wouldn't it have to be with a
concubine, since bigamy is illegal in the USA?
[Footnote: >95 (1 Cor. 7:10,11). >96 (1 Cor. 7:10,11;
Mark 10:9-11). >97 (1 Cor.7:5). >98 (1 Cor. 7:9; 1
Th.4:4,5; Appendix 6).]
IX. ARE POLYGYNY & CONCUBINES OPTIONS FOR THE
ABANDONED MAN?
What about the divorced Christian husband? Could he just
go out and take
another wife while his prior Christian wife chooses to remain
chastely
separated? Would that be selfish? Those who are born of
the Spirit of God
are led by the Spirit of God, acknowledge Him as Lord in all
their ways and
love Him by obeying Him. Any act not led by the Spirit or
any act that is
contrary to the Word of God is sin. Exodus 21:10 states, "If he
takes another,
he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her
marriage rights." It
didn�t depend on her wanting or demanding them. He had to
be ready to give to her whether she wanted it or not. In l
Corinth. 7:1-4,10,11,39 the separated wife has authority
over his body in her right to sexual intimacy with him any
time she chooses reconciliation.
It is possible that he could know a Christian widow or sister
who was
burning>99 and under command to marry>100 who had no
marital prospects except a Christian man divorced from a
chastely separated Christian sister, no other brother wanting
to marry her. The divorced Christian man who would like to
marry her could be moved as in the following:
[Footnote: >99 (1 Cor. 7:9). >100 (1 Tim 5:11-14).]
MKJV 1 JOHN 3:16 �By this we have known the love [of God],
because He laid down His life for us. And we ought to lay
down [our] lives for the brothers. 17 But whoever has this
world's goods and sees his brother having need, and shuts up
his bowels from him, how does the love of God dwell in him?
18 My children, let us not love in word or in tongue, but in
deed and in truth. 19 And in this we shall know that we are
of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before Him.�
He could be moved by her plight and pray for an
unencumbered husband for her. But if God doesn�t provide
another and the sister is burning, having great trouble with
and almost succumbing to temptations, his continued prayer
alone would be empty piety like in the following:
MKJV JAMES 2: 14 � �My brothers, what profit [is it] if a man
says he has
faith and does not have works? Can faith save him?15 If a
brother or sister is
naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and if one of you says
to them, Go in
peace, be warmed and filled, but you do not give them those
things which are
needful to the body, what good [is it]? 17 Even so, if it does
not have works,
faith is dead, being by itself.�
He would seem to be compelled to intervene, offering
himself in marriage to her as he desires anyway, to enable
her to obey God�s solution for her problem>101 . This could
even be the case if his chastely separated and divorced
"Christian"� wife was carnal and too selfish/rebellious to be
moved by her plight and 1 John 3:17 to approve of her
divorced Christian man�s plan to marry her. You don�t let the
saint who seeks God�s solution be destroyed because of a
carnal saint who resists or refuses compassion and God�s
solutions.
[Footnote: >101 (1 Cor. 7:1,2,3,9; see Appendix Six).]
Jesus went ahead and pleased His Father to die for us while
his friends and
apostles either resisted or could not comprehend the idea.
Peter risked the
scorn of his fellow apostles when he went to Cornelius�s
house in Acts 10 &
11. Paul rebuked Peter before all and took his stand with
the Lord and
righteousness when Peter fell into public sin in Galatians 2.
If a man is led
by the Spirit in conformity with the Word of God to remarry
after �Christian� divorce (let a man examine himself>102 )
then he had better make sure to not forget that his divorced
and chastely separated wife is bound to him as wife as long
as they both live>103 . He would have to recognize her
authority over his body for marital intimacy with her if she
ever sought reconciliation. To act contrary to her authority
would be the resisting of God's authority in the following:
[Footnote: >102 , his motives, his desires, his obligations and
make sure they are of 1 John 3:17. >103 1 Cor. 7:11,39;
Rom. 7:1-5; Mark 10; Malachi 2.]
ROMANS 13: 1 � �Let every soul be subject to the higher
authorities. For there is no authority but of God; the
authorities that exist are ordained by God. 2 So that the one
resisting the authority resists the ordinance of God; and the
ones who resist will receive judgment to themselves. 3 For
the rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the bad. And
do you desire to be not afraid of the authority? Do the good,
and you shall have praise from it. 4* For it is a servant of
God to you for good. For if you practice evil, be afraid, for it
does not bear the sword in vain; for it is a servant of God, a
revenger for wrath on him who does evil. 5 Therefore [you]
must be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience'
sake.�
Most of the godliest men who had the closest and most
blessed relationship with God in the Old Testament were
polygynists at some point in their lives. A Godly polygynist
is not an oxymoron. A Godly polygynist could be and could
have been God's man for that moment in history since
polygyny never excluded anyone from God's miraculous
blessing and intervention. I believe St. Augustine (4th
Century AD) had a good word here for such a man.
"But those who have not the virtues of temperance
must not be allowed to
judge of the conduct of holy men, any more than those
in fever of the
sweetness and wholesomeness of food. . . If our critics,
then, wish to attain
not a spurious and affected, but a genuine and sound
moral health, let them
find a cure in believing the Scripture record, that THE
HONORABLE NAME OF SAINT IS GIVEN NOT WITHOUT
REASON TO MEN WHO HAD SEVERAL WIVES; and that the
reason is this, that the mind can exercise such control
over the flesh as not to allow the appetite implanted in our
nature by Providence to go beyond the limits of deliberate
intention. . . .the holy patriarchs in their conjugal
intercourse were actuated not by the love of pleasure, but
by the intelligent desire for the continuance of their family. .
NOR DID THE NUMBER OF THEIR WIVES MAKE THE
PATRIARCHS LICENTIOUS. But why defend the husbands,
to whose character the
divine word bears the highest testimony. . . .">.n90
[Footnote: >n90 The CAPS are Tyler's. A Select Library of
the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church,
Vol. iv; p.290. Yes it is understood that some of the
patriarchs, in their conjugal intercourse, might have actually
been motivated by the conjugal pleasure of Prov. 5:18,19;
Song of Solomon; Eccles. 9:9-------actually obeying God's
command.]
X. POLYGYNY, CONCUBINES AND THE LEADERS OF GOD'S
PEOPLE.
Husband of one wife: Yes! Definitely! An
elder/overseer/bishop/
superintendent of a church must be the husband of only one
wife. Are we all
elders/overseers/bishops/ superintendents? Clearly not.
The unmarried are
not. The married who have unruly children are not.
Husbands with
disrespectful, uncooperative and defiant wives are not. The
married and
unmarried who are unable to teach are not. All novices are
not. Those with a bad reputation, earned or unearned,
among the unsaved through slander or misunderstandings
are not. Those who don�t want a church leadership
position are not. That includes most of us, and most of us are
not covered by
the injunction to be the husband of only one wife.
1 Cor. 7:33 and 34 with Eph. 5:22-32 show why an elder can
have only one
wife:
MKJV 1 CORINTH. 7:33�But the [one] who is married cares for
the things of the world, how to please [his] wife. 34 The wife
and the virgin [are] different. The unmarried woman cares
for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body
and in spirit. But she who is married cares for the things of
the world, how she may please [her] husband.�
MKJV EPHES. 5:22 �Wives, submit yourselves to [your] own
husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of
the wife, even as Christ [is] the head of the church; and He is
the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject
to Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in
everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ
also loved the church and gave Himself for it . . . 28 So men
ought to love their wives as their [own] bodies. He who loves
his wife loves himself. 29 For no man ever yet hated his
[own] flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, even as the Lord
loves the church. . . . 33 But also let everyone of you in
particular so love his wife even as himself, and the wife that
she defers to her husband.�
With one wife would he have the time to invest in the needs
of the local church under his care. The local church would be
the equivalent of a second wife for him due to the time and
energy he would have to invest to do the work well. There
are only so many hours in the day and we all have only so
much strength and energy. Beyond that the work must fall
to some one else. A polygynist church elder would fall short
of Matt. 6:33 due to time pressures, - - - -
MKJV MATT. 6:33 �But seek first the kingdom of God and His
righteousness; and all these things shall be added to you.�
- - - - - -fall into disobedience of the following with his
wives, - - - -
MKJV 1 CORINTH. 7: 4 �The wife does not have authority
over [her] own body, but the husband. And likewise also the
husband does not have power [over his] own body, but the
wife. 5 Do not deprive one another, unless [it is] with
consent for a time, so that you may [give yourselves to]
fasting and prayer. And come together again so that Satan
does not tempt you for your
incontinence.�
- - - - his prayers would be hindered according to the
following - - - - -
DARBY 1 PETER 3: 7 �[Ye] husbands likewise, dwell with
[them] according to
knowledge, as with a weaker, [even] the female, vessel,
giving [them] honour, as also fellow-heirs of [the] grace of
life, that your prayers be not hindered.�
- - - - - - -and the church would be poorly served due to his
lack of time and
energy.
There is the problem of the polygamous mentality. A man
who has learned to love passionately and maritally more
than one wife at one time would be
more vulnerable to sexual temptation in church ministry
than a man who has learned to love passionately and
maritally only one wife at a time. A
ministering polygamist in a leadership position would be
more likely to be
tempted to accept the advances/ propositions of an
unmarried sister in the
church who falls in love with him and he with her. This
could result in sex
outside of marriage (fornication) or yet another addition to
his polygamous
"harem". This would stumble the saints and would be a
reproach to the
unsaved. It would appear that a godly polygamist would
have to have a very low profile (no leadership position) in
the church.
XI. POLYGYNY, CONCUBINES AND THE MODERN OR WESTERN
CHRISTIAN WOMAN.
Why would a Western/Occidental woman ever consider
polygyny/concubinage? It is clearly a sin to marry an
unsaved person> 104 . She knows she must not marry an
unsaved man>105 or a snared-in-sin "saint">106. If a
Christian woman in a Western church finds the usual
shortage of godly brothers, yet earnestly desires marriage or
is commanded to marry>91 she may consider marrying a
Christian brother (1) whose �Christian� wife has divorced
him exercising her option>107 to be separate and chaste, or
(2) who sinfully divorced his �Christian� wife who now will
not forgive him or be reconciled to him, exercising her option
to be separate and chaste.
[Footnote: >104 (2 Cor. 6 & 7 etc.). >105 (2 Cor. 6:14-7:2).
>106 See Appendix five. >91 See Appendix Six.
>107 1 Cor 7:10.]
If this Western Christian sister is burning with passion and
not successfully
controlling her passions and/or imagination consistently, she
must marry>92. If she finds herself in repeated defeat
morally and spiritually and the only Christian brother who is
available or interested is the one who is legally divorced
from a Christian wife who wants chaste separation without
reconciliation, the choice to marry in Biblical polygyny
would be more acceptable than continued burning and
moral defeats. It is clearly a sin to marry an unsaved>#5 or
backslidden Christian>108 . It is not a sin to
exercise personal liberty in Christ in covenanted polygyny
Yes, the polygyny
of being married to a divorced Christian man who is bound
for life to his
former wife who left/ divorced him and refuses to be
reconciled to him,
exercising her option of chaste separation.
[Footnote: >92See Appendix Six. >#5 See Appendix #5.
>108 (l Cor. 5:11; 2 Thess 3:6,14).]
Would born-again Thusnelda be willing to take the chance of
having to share
her preciously rare godly husband with a sister-in-Christ
Felicia who had
previously been married to Thusnelda�s husband and who
now wants
reconciliation, even if it had to be informal, discreet and
private? Can l John
3:17 mean that Thusnelda, who has a godly husband and
sees her sister Felicia in marital need now, should not shut
up her own heart from Felicia, according to the Love of God
abiding in her? Sarai had a need and asked Abraham to
become a polygamist. Rachel had a need and asked
polygamist Jacob to take her maids as additional wives.
Then Leah did the same and the world got the twelve tribes
of Israel. A godly wife should not be selfish, seek her own,
but should seek the benefit of others>109 and she who is
strong should bear the burden of the weak one>110 as the
Spirit and peace of God lead. Consider St. Augustine's
thought:
�Clearly with the good will of the wife to take another
woman, that from her may be born sons common to both, by
the sexual intercourse and seed of the one, but by the right
and power of the other, was lawful among the ancient
fathers: whether it be lawful now also, I would not hastily
pronounce....�>n93
[Footnote: >109 (1 Cor l3). >110 (Rom 15). >n93 St.
Augustin: On The Trinity; p. 406.]
Does the principle of the good Samaritan enter here? Would
godly wife �A�
share her godly husband with the needy godly sister "B�,
essentially laying
down her own life and denying herself for the other? It is
definitely not
natural or carnal. The only precedents I'm aware of are like
the one that
involved Ruth, where the widow's need for a husband's care
and intimacy to
carry on the blood line was taken up by God and he
mandated that the brother, married or not, had to marry her
and meet her needs>111 The only similar New Testament
passages I know of are the following - - - - - - - - - - -
[Footnote: >111 (Gen. 38: 9,10,11; Deut.25:5-10; Ruth 4:1-11;
Matt 22:24ff; Mark 12: 19ff;Lk. 20:28ff).]
MKJV 1 CORINTH. 7: 8 �I say therefore to the unmarried and
the widows, It is good for them if they remain even as I. 9
But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is
better to marry than to burn. . . . 36 � But if anyone thinks
[it] behaving himself indecently toward his virginity (if he is
past [his] prime, and so it ought to be) let him do what he
will; he does not sin; let them marry. 37 But [he] who stands
steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but who has
authority over [his] own will (and has so judged in his heart
that he will keep his virginity) he does well. 38 So then he
who gives in marriage does well. But he who does not give in
marriage does better. 39* � The wife is bound by the law as
long as her husband lives, but if her husband is dead, she is
at liberty to be remarried to whom she will, only in the Lord.
MKJV 1 TIM. 5: 11 But refuse younger widows, for whenever
they grow lustful against Christ, they desire to marry . . .14
Therefore I want the younger ones to marry, bear children,
guide the house, giving no occasion to the adversary because
of reproach.�
Here the widow is told to remarry in the Lord but she isn't
told who to marry in the Lord. 1 John 3:16,17 could enter
here with a Christian brother seeing her marital need and
marrying her to minister and serve her as husband (like
Ruth & Boaz).
Are saints today capable of such mental and Spiritual "self-
control" and self
denial? A Spirit filled and Spirit led saint could rise to such a
level>112 .
The women described above would be comparable to St.
Augustine's man of
the following:
[Footnote: >112(Gal. 5 and Phil. 2:13 + 4:13).]
"But those who have not the virtues of temperance
must not be allowed to
judge of the conduct of holy men, any more than those
in fever of the
sweetness and wholesomeness of food. . . If our critics,
then, wish to attain
not a spurious and affected, but a genuine and sound
moral health, let them
find a cure in believing the Scripture record, that THE
HONORABLE NAME OF SAINT IS GIVEN NOT WITHOUT
REASON TO MEN WHO HAD SEVERAL WIVES; and that the
reason is this, that the mind can exercise such control
over the flesh as not to allow the appetite implanted in our
nature by Providence to go beyond the limits of deliberate
intention. . . .the holy patriarchs in their conjugal
intercourse were actuated not by the love of pleasure, but
by the intelligent desire for the continuance of their family. .
.nor did the number of their wives make the
patriarchs licentious. BUT WHY DEFEND THE HUSBANDS,
TO WHOSE CHARACTER THE DIVINE WORD BEARS THE
HIGHEST TESTIMONY, WHEN IT APPEARS THAT THE WIVES
THEMSELVES . . . WHEN THEY FOUND THEMSELVES
BARREN, THEY GAVE THEIR HANDMAIDS TO THEIR
HUSBANDS; SO THAT WHILE THE HANDMAIDS HAD THE
FLESHLY MOTHERHOOD, THE WIVES WERE MOTHERS IN
INTENTION .">.n94
[Footnote: >n94 The CAPS are Tyler's. A Select Library of
the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church,
Vol. iv; p.290.]
What if he and his wife know a widow or a "sister"
abandoned by her unsaved husband who has come under
the commands to marry >113 ? They and she cannot find a
"brother" for her and she is failing and burning and under
the command to marry. Does it become a 1 Jn 3:16,17
situation: [paraphrased] �.He laid down His life for us. And we
also ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. But
whoever has a godly husband and sees her sister in need,
shuts up her heart from her refusing to share her husband
with her in polygyny , how does the Love of God abide in
her?� See the following and note that the "brother" is not
exempted or excused from this law if he is already married:
[Footnote: >113 1 Cor. 7:9; 1 Th. 4:3,4,5 and 1 Tim. 5:11-14]
MKJV DEUT. 25: 5 � �If brothers live together, and one of
them dies and has no child, the wife of the dead shall not
marry outside to a stranger. Her
husband's brother shall go in to her and take her as a wife
for himself, and
perform the duty of a husband's brother to her. . . 7 And if
the man does not
want to take his brother's wife, then let his brother's wife go
up to the gate
to the elders and say, My husband's brother refuses to raise
up a name in
Israel to his brother. He will not perform my levirate. 8
Then the elders of
his city shall call him and speak to him. And [if] he stands
and says, I do not
desire to take her, 9 then his brother's wife shall come to
him in the presence
of his elders, and take off his shoe from his foot, and spit in
his face, and
shall answer and say, So shall it be done to that man who
will not build up his brother's house. 10 And his name shall
be called in Israel, The house of him who has his shoe taken
off.�
Like the movie, SUBSTITUTE WIFE (Farrah Fawcett), where
the wife was dying and knew her husband wouldn't remarry
without her intervention, leaving her baby and children
motherless, she went out and found a concubine for him and
brought her home to him before she died, whom he married
and loved after her death at his deceased's request. An
American, a normal woman, could only do such a thing by
the grace of God.
XII. WHAT�S WRONG WITH POLYANDRY?
Why can't a Christian woman have more than one
husband? Because God has made it crystal clear in the
following:
MKJV GENESIS 1: 26 � �And God said, Let Us make man in
Our image, after our likeness. . . . 27 And God created man in
His image; in the image of God He created him. He created
them male and female. 28 And God blessed them. And God
said to them, Be fruitful, and multiply and fill the earth, and
subdue it. . .�
MKJV GENESIS 2: 20 �And Adam gave names to all the cattle,
and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field.
But there was not found a suitable helper for Adam. 21 �
And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and
he slept. And He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh
underneath. 22 And the LORD God made the rib (which He
had taken from the man) into a woman. And He brought her
to the man. 23 And Adam said, This [is] now bone of my
bones and flesh of my flesh. [She] shall be called Woman
because [she] was taken out of man. 24 Therefore shall a
man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his
wife and they shall be one flesh.�
MKJV GEN. 3:16 � �To the woman He said, I will greatly
increase your sorrow and your conception. In pain you shall
bear sons, and your desire shall be toward your husband,
and he shall rule over you.�
MKJV 1 CORINTH. 11: 1 � �Be imitators of me, even as I also
[am] of Christ. 2 But I praise you, brothers, that you
remember me in all things, and you keep the doctrines as I
delivered [them] to you. 3 But I would have you know that
the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman
[is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God. 4 Every man
praying or prophesying with [his] head covered dishonors his
Head. . . . 7 For a man indeed ought not to have [his] head
covered, because he is the image and glory of God. But the
woman is [the] glory of [the] man. 8 For the man is not of
the woman, but the woman of the man. 9 Nor was the man
created for the woman, but the woman for the man. . . . 11
But neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman
without the man, in the Lord. 12 For as the woman [is] of the
man, even so the man [is] also by the woman; but all things
ofGod. �
Those passages make it very clear that the wife is under the
authority of the
man even though he is no better no godlier than her. If she
joins herself to
another while he lives >114 it is adultery, even if she has a
perfectly legal
divorce decree from the government since God�s laws are the
final word. So
why then does God allow men to have more than one wife
but allow a wife to have only one husband? Why the three
double standards (e.g>. 1. the male can be polygamous, but
not the female; 2. the wife can separate herself chastely from
her husband, but he may not separate himself from his wife
at all; 3. The wife may not rule over the husband, but the
husband must take the lead as her servant and she must
make the choice whether or not to follow him)?
[Footnote: >114 (l Cor. 7:39 and Romans 7:1-5; Mark 10:1-
20).]
This does not mean that women are second class citizens in
the Kingdom of
God, because the Word is clear>115, that even now in the
spiritual realm -
seated with Christ now in the heavens- there is no difference
between males
and females in their rights, privileges and responsibilities. In
terms of the
spiritual warfare and influence seen in Daniel 10 and
Ephesians 6:10-20,
females and males have equal opportunities to be used of
God mightily and
effectively.
[Footnote: >115 in Galatians 3:26,27,28; Ephesians 2:6, 19-22
and Matthew 19:10-12 and 1 Peter 3:7.]
So there is now no difference between the sexes in spirit in
Christ in the
heavens. But our spirits are also now in our bodies on earth
in the realm of
Satan, the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now
works in the
sons of disobedience. Our reborn spirits, the Holy Spirit, now
lives in our
flesh and blood bodies, which flesh and blood bodies cannot
receive our
inherit the Kingdom of God and are at war >116 with the
Spirit in us. When
our bodies are transformed by Jesus they will not have blood
and they will
obviously have transformed flesh no longer under the
influence of hormones, germs etc.
[Footnote: >116 (Romans 7:13- 8:11; Galatians 5:16-26).]
So being in the body now has its problems and limitations.
Being in the body
on earth is a real handicap in terms of the Spirit because we
daily have to
practice Romans 6:1-14, crucifying the flesh daily>117 . The
woman's body
was designed and created to help/assist man>118 . Adam
needed no spiritual companion because he had spiritual
communion with Jesus daily in the garden. His body needed
a female body and the female body needed a compatible
spirit to be the kind of flesh-spirit helper Jesus designed her
to be. They were completely equal in the garden, like we
will be in the spiritual realm of the heavens with Christ,
especially when we reign on earth with Him for a thousand
years after the tribulation. But they failed to obey in the
garden and ruined that wonderful arrangement so
temporarily we have the �double standards�.
[Footnote: >117 (Colos. 3:5). >118 (Gen.2:18; l Cor. 11:1-
10).]
Genesis 3 and l Corinthians 11 show the tragic consequences
of their sin.
Yes, their sin. I really like the radio preacher�s idea that
Adam knew that she
would die for eating that fruit, so being compelled by his
love and need for
her he decided to die with her rather than to lose her and so
he also ate the
fruit. His fear of God was still greater than his love for her,
yet not great
enough to keep him from eating the fruit, so he blamed her
when he was
confronted by Christ. Maybe that is why Jesus made such a
big deal in Luke 14 etc. that we must love Him more than we
love our loved ones. See St.
Augustine>.n95 who makes the same points.
[Footnote: >.n95 A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-
Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church, Vol. V; W.B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., pp. 267ff.]
Yes there are some cultures in the world today where they
practice polyandry in matriarchal systems, but that doesn't
make it moral or right, no more than the temple prostitutes
of India's classical Hinduism makes prostitution right or
moral. Pornographers in America present the spectacle of
three men having simultaneous intercourse with one woman
where the number of the woman's lovers is only limited by
the number of orifices in her body that allow penetration. I
don't think anyone, especially any godly woman, would
argue that this is justification for a woman to have more
than one husband at a time. Polyandry may be a way that
seems right to some, but the ends thereof are the ways of
death and alienation from the God who created the wonder
of woman.
XIII. HUSBAND RULE OVER THE WIFE? IF SERVANT-
TEACHERS RULE . . .?
The husband who is said to "rule" over his wife, is the same
husband who is commanded over and over again in Eph. 5 to
compassionately cherish her.
A ruler-husband who compassionately cherishes his wife?
Big words, but what do they mean? They mean that when he
"rules over" his wife he--------
1. Meekly (Spiritually controlling his superior strength so as
to be gentle) chersihes her without envy or jealousy.
2. Patiently bears ill treatment from her.
3. Is kind and gentle to her.
4. Mellows that which would be harsh or austere for her.
5. Does not brag or show off with her. He is not haughty to
her.
6. Does not act unbecomingly with her, free of arrogance or
bad manners.
7. Is unselfish and selfless with her, not insisting on his own
rights or way.
8. Does not become touchy, resentful, irritated, provoked,
exasperated, angry with her.
9. Does not take into account any evil she may do to him,
holding no grudges.
10. Does not take pleasure or delight in evil with her.
11. Rejoices with her in the truth.
12. Endures all her things.
13. Optimistically believes her and in her.
14. Hopes the best for and in her.
15. Courageously bears up under all her trying ways.
16. Is committed to let Christ's Love in him for her never
fail.
17. Intelligently and wisely conducts his home life with her.
18. Holds her in particular honor, considerately showing all
due respect.
19. Renders to her what Christ says is due her, recognizing
her sexual authority over his body, not denying her intimate
marital affection.
[Footnote: See Wuest's Expanded New Testament and the
Amplified Bible for 1 Cor.7, 13; Ephes. 5; Luke 22:25,26,27
and 1 Peter3:7]
THIS MAKES A GREAT CHECK LIST FOR SELF EVALUATION.
Such a ruler would be welcome in any sane and god-fearing
realm, with great enthusiasm by the subjects. If the
husband is like this to the wife, then the wife would be
encourage to behave similarly to her children, and then the
children would be encouraged to behave similarly to each
other ------ and the world would be a better place. Of
course any saint knowledgable in the Word knows that it is
impossible for us to generate this behavior on our own. As
we reckon our selves indeed to be dead to sin/evil, we yield
our minds and bodies to Him and trust Him to work His will
in us by His Holy Spirit, inspiring and enabling us to yield
ourselves to Him so He can rule and live that way in us
(Romans 6; Phil.2:12,13; 4:13; Heb. 13:290,21).
The husband "rule" over the wife?!?! "How primitive and
barbaric!" But didn't God say to the woman " your desire
shall be to your husband, and he shall rule over you"?
"That's just the Old Testament! It's irrelevant and out of
date, besides being primitive and barbaric!" -------- Well
what does God say about people who feel that way?
MKJV 1 CORINTH. 14:37 �If anyone thinks to be a prophet, or
a spiritual one, let him recognize the things I write to you,
that they are a commandment of the Lord. 38 But if any is
ignorant, let him be ignorant.�
MKJV 1 THESS. 4: 8 �Therefore he who despises does not
despise man, but God, who also has given us His Holy Spirit.�
MKJV ACTS 7:51 � �O stiff-necked and uncircumcised in
heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit. As your
fathers [did], so you do.�
MKJV ROMANS 9: 19 �You will then say to me, Why does He
yet find fault? For who has resisted His will? 20 No, but, O
man, who are you who replies against God? Shall the thing
formed say to Him who formed [it], Why have you made me
this way? 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay,
from the same lump to make one vessel to honor and
another to dishonor?�
MKJV 2 TIMOTHY 3: 8 �But as Jannes and Jambres withstood
Moses, so these also resist the truth, men of corrupt mind,
reprobate concerning the faith. 9 But they shall proceed no
further. For their foolishness shall be plain to all, as theirs
also became�.
The husband should not lord it over (exercise
lordship) or tyrannize/ suppress the wife, according to the
following:
MKJV 1 PETER 5: 5 � �Likewise, younger ones, be subject to
older ones, and all being subject to one another. Put on
humility. For God resists proud ones, but He gives grace to
the humble. 6 Therefore be humbled under the mighty hand
of God, so that He may exalt you in due time . . .�
MKJV LUKE 22: 25 �And He said to them, The kings of the
nations exercise lordship over them. And they who exercise
authority on them are called benefactors. 26 But you [shall]
not [be] so: but the greater among you, let him be as the
lesser, and he who governs, as [one] who serves.�
1 TIM. 2: 9� In the same way also, I desire that wives adorn
themselves in decent clothing, with modesty and
sensibleness, not [adorned] with braiding, or gold, or pearls,
or costly clothing, 10* but with good works, which becomes
wives professing godliness. 11* Let the wife learn in silence
with all subjection. 12* But I do not allow a wife to teach, or
to exercise authority [over] a husband, but to be in silence.
AND 1 CORINTH. 14:34 Have your wives keep silence >a in
the churches, for it is not permitted to them to speak >b , but
[they are commanded]to be subjecting >c themselves , as also
says the Law. 35. And if they will learn anything, have
them ask their husbands at home, for it is a shame for wives
to speak in the church.
[Footnote: See the Greek for this interpretation: wife and
woman is the same Greek word, man and husband is the
same Greek word, it is the context that shows what the word
means. >a See l Cor. 14:28,30; Acts 12:17; 15:12 for the
Greek usage. >b See 1 Cor. 14:27,28,29; Eph. 5:19; Acts
26:26; John 8:44; 9:21. >c See Arndt & Gingrich and
Thayer Lexicons]
A wife should not obey her husband if and when he tells her
to do something that is contrary to the explicit, plain and
uncontested Word of God. By "explicit, plain, and
uncontested" I mean that the majority of fundamental,
orthodox, evangelical and traditional Christian Bible
teachers/preachers/ authors agree on the meaning of that
portion of scripture, e.g. "Honor your parents!". I don't mean
those portions of scripture that are characterized by
parables, allegories or symbolism where you find so much
disagreement. I mean that if her husband tells her to steal,
lie, fornicate or blaspheme, she knows that such conduct is
contrary to the will of God for her so she doesn't obey him.
On what grounds?
Throughout the Bible God makes it plain that we are to obey
our parents and the social/civil authorities over us>^. God
makes it very plain that if our parents or the social/civil
authorities over us tell us to disobey the clear and explicit
will of God, we must disobey>* them in order to obey God.
This is true of the state over the citizen, parents over
children, and husbands over wives. If the one occupying
your culture's place of authority over you tells you to do
that which is contrary to the clear, explicit and plain Word of
God, then you must disobey the one in authority in order to
obey God. So the husband who tells his wife not to go to
church, pray or read her Bible-----that husband has to be
disobeyed, with all due respect, humility, grace and
amiability and without preaching, teaching or lecturing>``.
[Footnote: >^=(Romans 13; Heb. 13:7,21 etc.). >*Ezek.
20:17,18; Daniel 3:13-18; 5:21; 6:7-11; Deut. 1:13-18; 17:8-
13; Acts 4:15-21; 5:20,29,40,42; 23:5. >`` (Luke 6:27-36;
Galat. 6:1; 2Tim.2:24-26 and 1 Peter 3:1-6).
The husband exercises his authority as "head" of the wife by
humbly
teaching>119 her what she should do/say and by being a
good example of how she should act/speak >120 . THE
HUSBAND HAS NO RIGHT TO MAKE HIS WIFE DO WHAT HE
WANTS HER TO DO AND HE HAS NO SCRIPTURAL RIGHT TO
BOSS OR ORDER HER ABOUT>121 . If his wife resists his lead
and authority, or just rebels outright, he can compassionately
but firmly admonish and rebuke her humbly and gently
according to the following:
[Footnote: >119 2 Tim. 2:24-26. >120 (Hebrews 13:7, 17,).
>121 (Luke 22:25,26;1 Peter 5:5).]
MKJV GALATIANs 6: 1 � �Brothers, if a man is overtaken in
a fault, you the
spiritual ones restore such a one in the spirit of meekness,
considering
yourself, lest you also be tempted. 2 Bear one another's
burdens, and so you
will fulfill the law of Christ.�
MKJV 2 TIMOTHY 2:24 �But the servant of [the] Lord must
not strive, but to be gentle to all, apt to teach, patient, 25 in
meekness instructing those who
oppose, if perhaps God will give them repentance to the
acknowledging of
[the] truth, 26 and [that] they awake out of the snare of the
Devil, having been taken captive by him, so as to do the will
of that one.�
MKJV LUKE 17: 3 �Take heed to yourselves. If your brother
trespasses against you, rebuke him. And if he repents,
forgive him. 4 And if he trespasses against you seven times
in a day, and seven times in a day turns again to you, saying,
I repent, you shall forgive him.�
MKJV MATTHEW 18: 15 � �But if your brother shall trespass
against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him
alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. 16 But
if he will not hear [you], take one or two more with you, so
that in [the] mouth of two or three witnesses every word
may be established. 17 And if he shall neglect to hear them,
tell [it] to the church. But if he neglects to hear the church,
let him be to you as a heathen and a tax-collector.�
MKJV 1 CORINTH. 5: 3 �For as being absent in body but
present in spirit, I
indeed have judged already [as though I were] present
[concerning] him who
worked out this thing; 4 in the name of our Lord Jesus
Christ, when you are
gathered together, with my spirit; also, with the power of our
Lord Jesus
Christ; 5 to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of
the flesh, so
that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. 8
Therefore let us
keep [the] feast; not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of
malice and
wickedness, but with the unleavened [bread] of sincerity and
truth. . . 11 But
now I have written to you not to associate intimately, if any
man called a
brother [and is] either . . . or an idolater, or a reviler, . . . with
such a one not
to eat.�
After having done all of the above, when his wife is
uncooperative or
rebellious, he has to leave the results to the Lord/Spirit even
if she is
difficult and defiant. THE HUSBAND HAS NO RIGHT OR
AUTHORITY FROM GOD TO FORCE, COERCE OR INTIMIDATE
HIS WIFE IN ORDER TO MAKE HER GIVE IN UNWILLINGLY
AND DO WHAT HE WANTS HER TO DO>122 His business and
duty is to compassionately cherish her.
[Footnote: >122 (Luke 22:25,26;1 Peter 5:5; Eph. 6:9; Col.
4:1)]
What a shame most women have no idea of what the
average male's testosterone sex drive does to him. Granted
about half of males have low mid-range to low testosterone
levels as well as nocturnal emission, so they have little or no
problem turning off or on their sex lives. The low
testosterone level males may have a great deal of difficulty
turning on their sex lives.
Women have no idea that the sex drive in that half of the
male who have mid to high testosterone levels in their blood
is as strong and compelling as the hunger drive when the
stomach is growling and cramping for lack of food; or as the
thirst drive when the tongue, throat and mouth are so dry it
is even difficult to talk; as the rest drive when it is
impossible to keep the eyes open or the body erect due to
utter exhausion. These same women would not normally
ignore such hunger/thirst signs, nor say that they would
take cold showers and exercise to overcome such
hunger/thirst signs. If they chose to fast, go without food
and drink, by the second day they would be too weak to do
their daily work and chores, and by the third day they
would be too weak walk far or stand for long periods of time.
As one who has fasted and prayed three days without food
or drink, I know.
Yet they fault the mid to high testosterone blood level male
for not being able to ignore his compelling sex drive and do
without.
When the men who are not blessed with natural nocturnal
emission (wet dreams) have gone without sexual release for
several days, the prostrate becomes so congested that it
begins to squeeze shut the uretha so they cannot urinate
normally and the effect on the brain is that those males are
so distracted and distractable, especially by anything female,
that quite literAlly their minds could be said to be weakened
in that it is very difficult to concentrate or focus on
necessary tasks. If women could think of their nasal sinuses
being so congested that they cannot breath, or of the
problems with urination that a woman has with urination
when 8 or 9 months pregnant, then maybe they could
understand the problems prostrate congestion can cause.
Without release, ejaculation, they could become so distracted
and distractable by anything that, as with too much alcohol,
their judment and thinking is impaired and foolish (risky),
dangerous (AIDS,HIV) or irrational behaviour results.
To help his wife or daughter understand the effect of
testosterone on a male in relationship with his woman whom
he loves and desires passionately, a man might do the
following. (1) Take his lady out to eat her favorite meal.
Order the meal, talking it up to maximize her anticipation
and desire for it (2). When the meal is served, ask her take
a minute to look carefully at each item (how it is arranged,
how it appears). Ask her to smell each item. Ask her to take
one fork/spoon serving of each item and eat it, one at a time.
Ask her if she is pleased and still wants it (3). If she replies
that she is ready and eager to eat and wants no more delay,
then gently, sweetly, carefully ask/beg/entreat her to trust
you in what you are about to do and that she go along with
what you are about to do. If she will cooperate, ask the
waiter/waitress to doggy bag the meal(4). She will
probably need a lot of reassurance at this point, so tell her
that if she will go along with you it will significantly improve
her marriage. Hopefully she will believe you, reluctantly.
Ask her to carry the bagged food in the car on her lap, or on
the floor at her feet. Turn on the heater of your car with a
little floor heat so the smell of the food will rise to her
face(5). When you get home, ask her to carry it and put it in
the refrigerator (6). She will probably need more
encouragement to do this. Ask/beg/entreat her to trust you
and cooperate. Ask her if she likes the way that the evening
has gone so far. Ask her how she feels about her favorite
meal, cooling off in the refrigerator. Sit her down and gently,
compassionately and wisely explain to her what follows next.
The �favorite meal� to him is HER (1). He approaches,
anticipates, and awaits her with eager expectation(2). Tell
her that everytime he sees, smells, hears, touches and/or
tastes her lips/skin, it is what she felt above (3). Explain
that the bagging of the food in front of her (4) is what he
feels when she says to him �Honey! Not tonight.�, �I have a
headache and I just don�t feel like it right now.�, �All you
think of is sex! Chill out baby! Not tonight!�, �What have you
done lately to deserve it, baby?�. Explain to her that the
carrying of the pleasantly aromatic food home on her lap in
the car is like when he is near her but can�t feast on her,
can�t fully enjoy her(5). Explain that her putting the nice
warm and delicious food in the refrigerator is what he
experiences when he has to go to bed or part from her
without having had the honor, the privilege, the delightful
pleasure, the soul fulfilling experience of feasting on her and
her many delectables (6).
Explain patiently and gently and that for him his sexual
drive is an appetite, and his appetite is for her - his favorite
feast. Explain that to be near her is like ordering and
receiving his favorite meal, her. Explain that when he is
denied his compelling hunger and thirst for her, it is painful
and hard to bear. Explain that it is a soul wrenching
experience. Explain that he NEEDS he even more than he
WANTS her. Appeal to her experience with the deferred
meal to understand how frustrating and emotionally
troubling it is to be denied her. If nothing else, lay the Word
on her----how it is the will of God for her to feed the hungry,
and seeing his need and her ability to meet it -- pray that
she will be moved with compassion and meet his need. And
explain that his responsibility is to receive the wonderful
and gracious gift that she is and has, is to gently and kindly
and thoughtfully enjoy her---seeking to give her as much
pleasure as possible. If he doesn�t do that, then he is the
swine that had pearls thrown before him, the fool who has
no idea of the value of his precious possession and hides it
away from all, even from himself. If the smile and
expressions of delight on her face and the utterances of
fulfillment and ecstasy on her lips are not as important to
him as his hunger for and need of her, then he is unworthy
of her. Perhaps such an unworthy one could show genuine
repentance (2Cor7) and humble himself under the mighty
hand of His God and under the authority He has given his
wife over his body, and become a learner of how to please
and delight his woman. A man who acts like Nabal with his
wife, will surely face the fate of a Nabal.
As a male with mid to high testosterone and no nocturnal
emission when I was in high school, my Urologist (Vital
Haynes,MD), told me I had a few options to prevent my
recurring prostrate congestion. He said that I, at age 17,
could either get married and be intimate frequently, be
promiscuous frequently, self-stimulate quite frequently,
become homosexual (the penis in the anus squeezes the
seminal fluid out of the prostrate), or come into his office
two to three times a week for him to massage/press the
seminal fluid out of my prostrate (too expensive and
embarassing). Cold showers, exercise and being spiritual
just did not empty the prostrate so I could urinate normally
and have my mind clear of testosterone distractions. For the
mid to high testosterone male, sexual release is just as much
as physical need as food, drink, and sleep.
The question such men have to deal with is, "How can I have
the testosterone release I need so I can take care of daily
business and be acceptable to Jesus?" The obvious answer is
marriage (1 Cor. 7:1,2,5,9) with a wife who understands his
sexual needs and is committed to ministering to him in his
need in Christ, and as unto Christ (Matt. 25:34,35,36), so that
his physical need of the release/ejaculation can be met and
they can get on with their lives. The closest the female
comes to this experience is in her PMS where her mind is
bombarded with hormones etc. making many to be quite
distracted and temporarily not their normal selves. It is
extremely difficult for a woman to understand that
testosterone can make a godly man REALLY NEED (not just
want) the physical marital love making of a godly wife. It is
not just a matter of the will and the mind, just like the
physical needs for food, drink and sleep.
XIV. THREE CHEERS FOR MONOGAMY!! THE BEST FOR MOST!!
�That the good purpose of marriage, however, is better
promoted by one
husband with one wife, than by a husband with several
wives, is shown
plainly enough by the very first union of a married pair,
which was made by
the Divine Being Himself, with the intention of marriages
taking their
beginning therefrom, and of its affording to them a more
honorable
precedent.� >n128
[Footnote: >.n128 A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-
Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church,Vol. V; p. 267.]
Monogamy is not monotony, no matter what the world may
say. Those that
maintain that monogamy is monotony seem to have no idea
of loving one's
wife wisely or as Christ loves the Church. If one's love for
one's wife is
limited to the physical, the sexual and only a superficial
understanding of her personality, then monogamy could be
monotonous. That monotony is an
indictment of an uninspired and unloving lover. If you
studied your mate,
learned her learning style, mastered her personality type,
determined her
spiritual gifts and their possible applications, studied her
body's erogenous
zones, mastered personal body massage where she likes it
best, perfected
your skills in bringing her to climax, with creativity explored
the perfumes
and scented massage oils that delight her, meditated on her
goals and needs
and helped her in quest to meet them, diligently listened and
questioned her
so as to be able to more effectively pray and intercede for
her, fasted and
prayed for her where she is experiencing serious problems
or personal defeat, and zealously sought how the two of you
can more effectively deal with the household chores, then I
doubt seriously that your monogamy will be monotonous.
But that brings up another advantage of monogyny, because
we have only so
much time and only so much energy and only so much
mental ability. If it is
such a formidable challenge to love one wife well and in a
manner well
pleasing to Christ, not many would have the ability to love
more than one wife well and in a manner well pleasing to
Christ. If you had a choice, a realistic and hard working
parent would prefer monogamy simply for the reduced
needs and demands. The Christian male who thinks of
women, and specifically his own wife, only in terms of sex
and erotic pleasures is probably not going to have much of a
prayer life since God wont be answering his prayers>233 , is
probably not going to live long since God going to be faithful
to chasten her with weakness, sickness or death for his
insensitive and unwise conduct towards her>234
[Footnote: >233 (1Pet.3:7;1 Jn 3:22). >234 (1 Cor. 11:27-
32).]
Look at the energy expended by Solomon and the Shulamite!
Right out of the honey moon manual, but only the leisurely
rich and famous could have the time to maintain that on an
ongoing basis. Most wives would be delighted to be loved in
this manner, and once they've experienced it there remains
an appetite for it. Your average Elias might be able to pull it
off for a while, with more than one wife even, but even if it
is only with one wife that peak activity will decline, if from
nothing else but fatigue, and then there will be
disappointment felt by the wife, and possible frustration and
a sense of inadequacy for the husband. These negative
emotions don't make for a happy marriage. If a godly man
finds himself in a polygamous situation, I'm sure that the 2
Cor. 8 & 9 principle of being accepted based on one's
willingness instead of on one's possessions would hold here,
and hopefully his wives would be spiritual enough to
understand and allow for it, giving him credit for doing the
best he can do.
The command that you should have no other gods before
Jehovah seems to be one reason from Deut. 17:17 where it is
stated that too many wives will
cause the heart of such a lover of many wives to turn away
from following
Jehovah with his whole heart. This ties in with 1 Cor. 7:32-
35 which shows
that wives distract one from serving the Lord and too many
wives distract
the husband too much for the family's spiritual good. A man
who is covetous
of having many wives could be guilty of idolatry, loving
polygyny more than
Jesus>235 . We should be content with what we have
maritally>236 .
[Footnote: >235 (Eph. 5:5,6). >236 (1 Tim. 6:5-9 and 1
Cor. 7:9,26-35).]
The bottom line for the child, being led by the Spirit who
works in him to will
and do His good pleasure>237 , is that celibacy, marriage or
polygamy is not
really up to him if he acknowledges Jesus as Lord. The Lord
is the Lord and He gives the gifts. Celibacy, marriage, or
polygamy are gifts from the Lord and the obedient and
loving child of God waits on his Father and Lord to give His
servant the appropriate gift>238 . If he is called to marriage,
God will also call one of His daughters to marry the blessed
bloke, also giving her the gift of marriage. If he is called to
polygyny, if that is his gift from his Father and Lord, then his
wives will also be called to polygyny. God's grace will be
sufficient if he is called/saved in monogyny or in polygyny.
He doesn't give us impossible callings, since nothing is
impossible for Him as He works out His will in us.
[Footnote: >237 (Rm.8:14; Ph 2:13). >238 (1 Cor.
7:7,8,9,17-27).]
Since godly polygyny really requires the Spiritual fruits of
unity>239 and
sharing>240 even more so than monogyny, the Spiritual
challenge of walking in the Spirit would be even greater
requiring a close walk with the Lord. If it weren't His gift
and calling for each member of the polygynist family, it
would be completely impossible to maintain on a voluntary
basis. With His gift and calling, they can do all things in
Christ>241 . There is no dispute that marital harmony,
sharing and unity would be much easier in monogamy. It's
easy to see why God ordained that elders, deacons, bishops,
church overseers, deacons etc. had to be monogynists, since
they have to deal with all the people and issues in their care
in the Church. Polygynists have their hands full with the
people and the issues of the church in their home.
[Footnote: >239 (Ep. 4:1-5). >240 (Acts 4:32-37; 2 Cor. 8
& 9). >241 (Ph. 4:13).]
"If a man desires the position of a bishop/overseer, he
desires a good
work">242 . Part of that "good work" is a monogamous
marriage. We are to follow/imitate their faith>243 and part
of their faith is that they believe
they were called to be a Church leader and as such, called to
have a
monogamous marriage. We are to support and imitate their
walk of faith,
their walk in their calling, and their trust in His leading.
[Footnote: >242 (1 Tm 3:1). >243 (Heb. 13:7).]
So each one of us needs to wait on our Lord for his
leading>244 , His
gifts>245 , and His enabling>246 . Our church leaders are
monogamous.
Christ presents Himself as the Church's Overseer as the
monogamous husband of one wife. In the Old Testament He
portrayed Himself as both monogamous >247 and
polygamous >248 as husband to Israel. He knows what He
can do in us, and being the God of 1 Cor. 10:13 and Ph. 4:13,
He knows how much we can handle so He gives the gifts and
leadings accordingly.
[Footnote: >244 (Rom. 8:14). >245 (1 Cor.7:7,8,9 etc.).
>246 (Ph.2:13;4:13).>247 (Ezek. 16) . >248 (Ezek. 23).]
Our responsibility is obedience and contentment. For His
blessing to be upon
us, we must walk in obedience to His calling and leading>249
For us to be
blessed by Him in our walk, we must be content with what
He gives and how
He leads>250 . To go beyond and get more than His will is to
trespass and He is faithful to chasten. To know to do right
and then not do it is sin, and He is faithful to chasten. Strait
is the way and narrow. Few there be that find it.
[Footnote: >249 (Heb. 5:8,9; Jn. 14:15). >250 (1 Tm. 6:3-
19).]
�Noah, Isaac, and Joseph had only one wife, and domestic
happiness in the
Bible is always connected with monogamy>.n129 (2 K 4, Ps
128, Pr 31, Sir
25,,,). The marriage figure applied to the union of God and
Israel. . . .. implied monogamy as the ideal state. Polygamy
is, in fact, always an unnatural development from the point
of view both to religion and of anthropology; 'monogamy is
by far the most common form of human marriage; it was so
also amongst the ancient peoples of whom we have any
direct knowledge' (Westermarck, Hum. Marr. p. 459). Being,
however, apparently legalized, and having the advantage of
precedent, it was long before polygamy was formally
forbidden in Hebrew society >n130 , though practically it fell
into disuse; the feeling of the Rabbis was strongly against
it.�>n131
[Footnotes:>.n129 Always? What about the divorce statistics
in our modern
and monogamous America? Also, Solomon and the
Shulamite seemed to have a great deal of domestic happiness
in their polygamy according to the Song of Solomon 6.
>.n130 "Polygamy was not definitely forbidden among the
Jews till the time of R. Gershom (c. A.d. 1000), and then at
first only for France and Germany. In Spain, Italy,m and the
East it persisted for some time longer, as it does still among
the Jews in Mohammedan counties". HASTINGS DICTIONARY
OF THE BIBLE; p.584. >..n131 HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF
THE BIBLE; pp. 583-587.]
�Monogamy is implicit in the story of Adam and Eve, since
God created only
one wife for Adam. Yet polygamy is adopted from the time
of Lamech (Gn. iv. 19), and is not forbidden in Scripture. It
would seem that God left it to man to discover by experience
that His original institution of monogamy was the proper
relationship. . .� >n132
[Footnote: >..n132 The New Bible Dictionary, J.D. Douglas Ph.D
; p.787.]
�The gradual evolution in the OT of monogamy as the ideal is
therefore of the highest interest. The earliest codes attempt
in various ways to regulate the custom of polygyny. The
Deut. code in particular actually forbids kings to multiply
wives (Dt 17.17); this is the fruit, apparently of the
experience of
Solomon's reign.�>n133
[Footnote: >.n133 HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE;
p.259..]
APPENDIX ONE: What makes a wedding &/or a marriage?
From many passages in the Bible (including Ezekiel
16:8, Exodus chapters 19 & 20, and Malachi 2:14,15) it
appears clear to me that marriage of a couple is based on
their covenant/solemn agreement to be husband and wife to
each other in a relationship of marital/ sexual intimacy, - -
whether or not they do it legally or officially. Adam and Eve
had no formal or official wedding and exchanged no formal
vows but they accepted each other as husband and wife and
lived accordingly. There is no wedding formula in the Bible
and there is no wedding ceremony prescribed in the Bible.
When you study how they married in the Old Testament you
see that the
basis was either their covenant to be husband and wife to
each other, or they accepted their parents� covenant for them
to be married. The strongest statement I know of is the one
in Matthew 1:18,19,20 where, based on their
covenant/betrothal (v.18), the Holy Spirit callED Joseph her
husband (v.19) and the angel called Mary his wife (v.20)
before (Luke 1:26,34) their official wedding and
cohabitation (v.24). God and His messengers call Mary and
Joseph wife and husband before their wedding and solely on
the basis of their covenants to be husband and wife to each
other. This agrees with the great weight God gives our
solemn word in such passages as DBY PSALM 15: Jehovah,
who shall sojourn in thy tent? . . . 2 He that walketh
uprightly, . . .who, if he have sworn to his own hurt, changeth
it not; . . .
YLT ECCLES 5:4 � When thou vowest a vow to God, delay not
to complete it, for there is no pleasure in fools; that which
thou vowest--complete. 5 Better that thou do not vow, than
that thou dost vow and dost not complete. 6 Suffer not thy
mouth to cause thy flesh to sin, nor say before the
messenger, that `it [is] an error,' why is God wroth because of
thy voice, and hath destroyed the work of thy hands?
All of this is to say that if you and your mate have agreed
seriously
to be faithful to each other in and for marital/sexual
intimacy as husband and wife, then I believe that makes you
husband and wife. Even if you haven�t used the magic words
�husband, wife, marriage�, if you two have agreed to be
faithful marital/sexual partners to each other, to me that�s
the same thing as Ezekiel 16:14 where God shows that
marriage is by covenant. In Malachi 2 God shows again that
a woman becomes a wife by covenant, and to break that
covenant is to deal treacherously with you mate. Sexual
intimacy>m with anyone else besides your mate is
fornication, sexual sin. If you are maritally committed to
each other and then you yourself --- but not your mate-----
genuinely received Jesus Christ as your Lord and Ruler to be
obeyed and as Savior to deliver you from the penalty of your
sins- - but your guy hasn't, then I believe you find yourself
in the situation described in 1 Corinthians 7:12,13,14,15, the
saved mate of an unsaved person.
[>.m see footnotes on breast pressing, petting,caressing
and/or genital contact (Ezekiel 23:3,8,21; Prov. 5.)]
APPENDIX TWO: WHAT DO YOU THINK? THE FEEDING OF TWO
LEGGED OXEN.
I am not trying to meddle or cause trouble. I just
want to know if there are any mistakes in the ideas above in
terms of scripture alone, not in terms of the condemned
traditions and doctrines of people (Mark 7).I really want to
know what the Bible says about the subjects discussed
above. I want to live by every Word of God, not by the
commandments and traditions of man (Mat. 15, Mark 7 and
Colos 2).
PLEASE ADVISE ME OF ANY AND ALL ERRORS (TYPOS,
DOCTRINAL, ETC.) THAT YOU FIND. PLEASE GIVE ME CLEAR
AND EXPLICIT SCRIPTURES DEALING WITH THE ERROR
WHEN YOU WRITE. I WANT THE WORD, NOT OPINIONS AND
PARADIGMS.
Any and all donations are welcomed for the furthering
and the expense of this very controversial ministry.
Donations are welcome for the furthering of this ministry. It
has taken a great deal of time. If the information in this
work has ministered to you, I would appreciate your
ministry to me to get this information out and to the Church.
Otherwise I have to "make tents". If I time from "making
tents" permits, this work will be revised monthly. In the
next publication/distribution I hope to provide the actual
texts for all references.
Ro 15:27 Truly it has pleased them, and they are their
debtors. For if the
nations have been made partakers of their spiritual things,
their duty is also
to minister to them in carnal things.
1 Cor. 9:9 For it is written in the law of Moses, "You shall not
muzzle the
mouth of the ox treading out grain." Does God take care for
oxen? 10 Or does
He say [it] altogether for our sakes? It was written for us, so
that he who
plows should plow [in] hope, and so that he who threshes [in]
hope should be
partaker of his hope. 11 If we have sown to you spiritual
things, [is it] a great
thing if we shall reap your carnal things? 12 If others have
a share of [this]
authority [over] you, rather [should] not we? But we have
not used this
authority, but we endured all things lest we should hinder
the gospel of
Christ.
13 Do you not know that those who minister about holy
things live [of the things] of the temple? And those attending
the altar are partakers with the altar. 14 Even so, the Lord
ordained those announcing the gospel to live from the
gospel.Galatians 6:6 But let him who is taught in the Word
share with the [one] teaching in all good things.
1Ti 5:17 Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of
double honor, especially those who labor in word and
doctrine. 18 For the Scripture says, "You shall not muzzle the
ox treading out grain," and, "The laborer [is] worthy of his
reward."
AS THE LORD LEADS.
This document before you now is a preface to MY LOVE IS A
GARDEN OF DELIGHTS! (my commentary on the Song of
Solomon for concubines and polygynists) and is available in
MacWrite or Microsoft Word on a Mac DD 3.5 disk $5 ($7
overseas) for packaging, postage and copying; At least $10
USA--$12 overseas/foreign/Canada/Mexico -- for postage,
copying and handling. Contact L. Tyler, P.O.Box 620763,
SanDiego,CA 92162-0763; Internet E-Mail address:
[email protected] , or
[email protected]. Donations are
welcome, for all the time it takes to prepare and mail the
items requested. It costs about $2 computer online time
with my online service to upload and Email this Divorce and
Remarriage study. Please feel free to donate more for the
time and expense of this ministry if the Lord has used it for
good in your life.
APPENDIX --POLYGYNY RESOURCES
Here are summaries of some articles dealing with the
subjects of blacks and polygamy.
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------
TITLE: Can Mr. Mombasa Keep All his Wives?
AUTHOR: Tim Stafford
SOURCE: Christianity Today, 35:33-34 Feb 11, 1991
This article deals with a conflict in the Christian church in
Kenya, wheremany blacks who are converted have several
wives. Originally the churchwould not baptize them, but
allowed them to participate in the church.Later, the church
and some members broke away from their leadership and
began baptizing black polygamous men.
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------
TITLE: Thinking the unthinkable: man-sharing: a startling
report from those who do, don't, will, won't.
AUTHOR: Laura B. Randolph
SOURCE: Ebony 46:136+, Jan 1991
The book Man Sharing: Dilemma or Choice, by Audrey
Chapman, says that man sharing is common in the black
community. This article discusses the emotional impact of
man-sharing on black women, and says that many black
women do chose this life-style because of the shortage of
black men.
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------
TITLE: Shortage of Black Men may Force Alternative to
Traditional Family
SOURCE: Jet 69:33, Feb 3, 1986
This article discusses the shortage of single, employed black
men, and suggests that women may have to consider
polygamy as an alternative.
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------
TITLE: Woman Leader Sparks Furor about Polygamy Saving
Black Families
SOURCE: Jet 69: 38-39 Feb 17, 1986
Hortense G. Canady, who is the leader of Sigma Theta
Sorority, has created a controversy by stating that black
women may have to live polygamy because of the shortage
of marriagable black men in the community.
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Hezekiah/poly
gamy.html
http://www.mainelink.net/~bfree/men.html
[email protected]
[email protected]/ Lanove Homepage /Web Searchers
BIBLIOGRAPHY
>1. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of
The Christian
Church, Vol. IV; edited by Philip Schaff (D.d., LL.D.); W.B.
Eerdmans
Publishing Co., Grand Rapids Mich; 1956
>2. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of
The Christian
Church, Vol. V; edited by Philip Schaff (D.d., LL.D.); ; W.B.
Eerdmans
Publishing Co., Grand Rapids Mich; 1956; p. 267
>3. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of
The Christian
Church, Vol. VIII; edited by Philip Schaff (D.d., LL.D.) and
Henry Wace (D.D.) ; W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand
Rapids Mich; 1956
>4. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of
The Christian
Church, Vol. XIV; edited by Philip Schaff (D.D., LL.D.) and
Henry Wace (D.D.) ; W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand
Rapids Mich; 1956
>5. Amplified Bible, The; 1965, Zondervan Publishing House
>6. ANALYTICAL GREEK LEXICON, THE: Harper & Brothers,
New York
>7. Arndt & Gingrich: A GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON OF THE
NEW TESTAMENT and Other Early Christian Literature ; By
W.F.Arndt & F. W. Gingrich; The Univ. of Chicago Press,
Chicago, Ill.; Cambridge at the Univ. Press.; 1957
>8. ASV: The Holy Bible, American Standard Version 1901 &
1929; Thomas
Nelson & Sons, New York
>9. Gold Cord, by Amy Carmichael, Christian Literature
Crusade, Fort Worthington, Penna.; London's Society for the
Promotion of Christian Knowledge, Holy Trinity Church,
Marylebone Rd., N.W. (N.Y. The Macmillan Company).
>10. CUSTOMS AND CULTURES, Anthropology for Christian
Missions, by Eugene A. Nida1954, Harper & Brothers, New
York
>11. Darby's 1890 translation: Most of the scriptures quoted
in this work, if
not otherwise indicated, are from the a modernized version
of J. N. Darby's
translation, the OnLine Bible computer program of "Online
Bible f ", Ken
Hammil 1-908-741-4298; [E-Mail:
[email protected]].
>12. DIVORCE, John Murray, Presbyterian and Reformed
Publishing Co. \
>13. G. Duty's book on divorce and remarriage , Downers
Grove, Ill.
>14. HASTING'S DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE; 1989,
Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., Peabody, Mass;, Editor James
Hastings, DD.,
>15. I LOVED A GIRL; Walter Trobisch, Inter-Varsity Press,
Downers Grove, Ill.
>16. INTERNATIONAL BIBLE COMMENTARY, THE; Editor,
F.F.Bruce; 1979; Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids
Michigan.
>17. Jay Adam's� book on divorce and remarriage
>18. JEWISH: The Holy Scriptures according to the Masoretic
Text, 1955, The Jewish Publication Society.
>19. KINSHIP & MARRIAGE, Robin Fox, 1967, Penguin Books,
Inc., USA & England
>20. LAMSA: The Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern
Manuscripts, 1940, Holman Co., by G. Lamsa.
>21. MARRIAGE EAST AND WEST; David & Vera Mace, 1960,
Dolphin Books, Double Day & Co., Inc. Garden City, NY
>22.MARRYING AGAIN; David Hocking, 1977, Fleming H.
Revell Co.
>23. MKJV: MODERN KING JAMES VERSION, 1993, by Jay P.
Green Sr., in Online Bible 2.5.1; the OnLine Bible computer
program of "Online Bible f ", Ken Hammil 1- 908-741-
4298; [E-Mail:
[email protected]].
>24. MY WIFE MADE ME A POLYGAMIST; Walter Trobisch,
1971, Inter-Varsity Press,
>25. NASB: Holy Bible New American Standard; Broadman &
Holman Publishers, Nashville Tenn.; The Lockman
Foundation, 1977
>26. NEB: NEW ENGLISH BIBLE, 1970; Oxford/Cambridge
University Press
>27. NEW BIBLE DICTIONARY, THE; Editor J.D.Douglas Ph.D;
1962; W. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, Mich.
>28. NEW TESTAMENT GREEK FOR BEGINNERS, By, J. Gresham
Machen, D.D, Litt. D.,1959
>29. NIV: "Scripture taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW
INTERNATIONAL VERSION. Copyright @ 1973, 1978, 1984
International Bible Society." Used as required by Zondervan
Bible Publishers.
>30. NKJV: New King James Version, 1984, Thomas Nelson,
Inc.
>31. OnLine Bible computer program of "Online Bible f ", Ken
Hammil 1-908-741-4298; [E-Mail:
[email protected]].
>32. PLEASE HELP ME! PLEASE LOVE ME!; Walter Trobisch,
Inter-Varsity Press,
>33. St. Augustin: On The Trinity; translated by Arthur West
Haddan, B.D.; W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids
Mich; 1956
>34. Strong�s Lexicon, Open Bible "Online Bible f", Ken Hammil
1-908-741-
4298. Also Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Mich.
>35. Thayer: Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament;
Joseph Henry Thayer, D.D.; American Book Co., New York,
1889
>36. The Septuagint of the Old Testament and Apocrypha
With an English
Translation; Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids,
Michigan; 1972;
Samuel Bagster & Sons, Ltd. London
>37. WOMEN'S LIVES IN MEDIEVAL EUROPE - A
SOURCEBOOK; Edited by Emile Amt; Routledge, Chapman,
Hall; NY, NY; 1993
>38. Wuest's THE NEW TESTAMENT, An Expanded
Translation, Kenneth S. Wuest, 1961
>39. YLT; Young's Literal Translation, 1898: OnLine Bible
computer program of "Online Bible f ", Ken Hammil 1-908-
741-4298; [E-Mail:
[email protected]].
TOPICS: FOREVER MARRIAGES CROSS CULTURALLY, FORMAL
AND INFORMAL CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE, COMMON LAW
MARRIAGE, CHRISTIAN DIVORCE, CHRISTIAN REMARRIAGE,
CHRISTIAN CONCUBINES, CHRISTIAN POLYGYNY
(POLYGAMY), RACISM, ETHNOCENTRICITY, AND THE
SWEARING OF OATHS
TITLE: DIVORCE, REMARRIAGE, CONCUBINES, & JESUS;
Another Look for Christians.
COPYRIGHT � JANUARY 14, 1995 All rights reserved.
Copyright � 01/14/'95; 01/12/�96 (Revised)
This file, in its entirety, may be posted on or copied off of
computer networks like Internet or WWW by anyone so
inclined.
This is an ASCII text only copy of a Macintosh
MicrosoftWord5 file made for non-Macintosh folks, so it is
very plain and basic in its form (footnotes, indentation and
page layout). The document is 6" wide and Palatino 12 plain
font in the original. So when your text only version comes
up with Palatino 14, just select all and change it to Palatino
12 or 10. There are no bold or underline options. The
distinctions between footnotes of sources and footnotes of
reference are lost. So please be patient with the footnote
numbering. The footnotes are put at the end of the
paragraphs instead of in the text itself, making it more
readable. You may find extra >�s and some >�s where r�s
should be. Didn�t get to proof that far yet. Please be patient.
By L. Tyler P.O. Box 620763, SanDiego, CA 92162-0763
[email protected]
TABLE OF CONTENTS (These page numbers are correct with
Palatino 14 ,left and right margins of 1.25"each, and top and
bottom margins at 1" each.)
I. INTRODUCTION: PRIORITIES RECONSIDERED. P. 4
II. DIVORCE! A PLAGUE AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. P. 8
III. DIVORCE DEFINED. P. 23
IV. VARIETIES OF MARRIAGE IN THE BIBLE, OLD AND NEW
TESTAMENTS -- LET THE WORD SPEAK ABOUT
POLYGYNY AND CONCUBINES! P. 25
V. WHAT DO CHRISTIAN LEADERS SAY ABOUT CONCUBINES
& POLYGYNY? P. 50
VI. ADULTERY DEFINED: A SURPRISE! ISN�T POLYGYNY
ADULTERY? P. 66
VII. SO, WHAT ABOUT CONCUBINES & POLYGYNY TODAY IN
MY COUNTRY? P. 73
VIII. ARE POLYGYNISTS AND CONCUBINES LIVING IN
ERROR TODAY? P. 82
IX. MARRIAGE, CONCUBINES, CIVIL LAW, PERSONAL
LIBERTY AND A LOVING CONSCIENCE! P. 87
X. DOES GOD FORGIVE BROKEN VOWS, DIVORCE AND
ADULTERY? P. 91
XI. CAN YOU COME BACK TOGETHER & REMMARY AFTER
ADULTEROUS REMARRIAGE? P. 99
XII. WHAT ABOUT THE HEALTH QUESTIONS INVOLVED IN
SUCH REUNIONS? P. 108
XIII. CAN ADULTERY, DIVORCE, VOWS AND REPENTANCE
RESULT IN POLYGYNY/CONCUBINAGE? P. 112
XIV. ADULTERY, DIVORCE, CONCUBINES, POLYGYNY AND
THE UNSAVED. P. 119
XV. THE MARRIED MAN WHO WOULD ADD
WIVES/CONCUBINES TO HIS "HAREM". P. 121
XVI. ARE POLYGYNY & CONCUBINES OPTIONS FOR THE
ABANDONED MAN? P. 126
XVII. POLYGYNISTS, CONCUBINES AND THE LEADERS OF
GOD'S PEOPLE. P. 129
XVIII. POLYGYNY & CONCUBINES AND THE WESTERN
CHRISTIAN WOMAN. P. 130
XIX. WHAT'S WRONG WITH POLYANDRY? P. 134
XX. HUSBAND RULE OVER THE WIFE? IF SERVANT-TEACHERS
RULE .P. 137
XXI. THREE CHEERS FOR MONOGAMY! THE BEST FOR
MOST! P. 141
XXII. LISTEN TO THE WORD! P. 145
XXIII. BIBLIOGRAPHY P. 147
APPENDIX ONE -- WHAT ABOUT INTERRACIAL AND
INTERETHNIC MARRIAGE? P.150
APPENDIX TWO -- WHAT DO YOU THINK? THE FEEDING OF
TWO LEGGED OXEN. P.157
APPENDIX THREE -- A WEDDING COVENANT FOR
NONSWEARERS - P. 159
APPENDIX FOUR -- WHAT MAKES A WEDDING/MARRIAGE? -
P. 161
APPENDIX FIVE -- MARRYING THE UNSAVED AND "SAINTS"
LIVING IN ERROR. - P.163
APPENDIX SIX -- WHEN DO I HAVE TO MARRY? - P. 167
APPENDIX SEVEN -- THE ERRR OF SWEARING, OF OATHS
AND SWEARING OATHS. -P.182
