>Hi -
**Hi Sharon!  How are Hubby andthe kids?

>>**God didn't tell Jephthah to make the vow. It was a foolish
vvow. Jephthah
>>got caught up in his sense of duty to keep a bad vow.

>Then take Abraham's almost sacrifice of Isaac, then. Here God gave Abraham a direct order. Do any one of us even think that God wants us to do the same, just because someone else did that in the Bible?

**As you pointed out, the direct order was to Abraham, not to anyone else. Should we sin sexually like Samson just because Samson sinned sexually. I don't think so.

>>>What you say about polygamy because "it's in the Bible", should be re-examined, I think. Look at all the trouble Solomon and David got into because of their many wives.

>>**Abraham had two wives (Hagar and Sarah) when God was blessing him for his faith and made mighty covenants to him during that time.   God gave seven wives/concubines to David to be his
wives/concubines (2Sam. 12:7,8).

>I can think of a number of examples where God used disobedient people or people in sin to do great things. He gave us Jesus "while we were yet sinners." I don't think this can be used as proof either.

>If you want to go by what happens in a person's life, indeed, take these very people you mentioned as examples. Abraham took Hagar to bed (She was Sara's handmaid, BTW, and not Abraham's wife

**She was Abraham's wife according to Ge 16:3 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).

) and did what he
>did in DISOBEDIENCE

**The angel of God told Hagar, after she fled from Sarah, Gen. 16:9 And the Angel of the LORD said to her, Return to your mistress and submit yourself under her hands.
Gen. 16:15 � And Hagar bore Abram a son. And Abram called his son's name, which Hagar bore, Ishmael.
** Where is the disobedience? Hagar obeyed the angel and Abraham obeyed Sara in taking Hagar as wife. What command did Abraham disobey?

because God said that the SEED would be by Sara.
HHalf of the problems in the Middle East today are because of this one mistake.

**It was Sarah's idea in the first place and she gave Hagar to abraham as wife. It's the old Eve (Sarah) fell first and offered the fruit to Adam (Hagar to Abraham). Ofcourse trouble came out of it.

>As for David and Solomon, the Law of Moses in Deut. 17:17 very specifically details that if the people make a king for themselves, he should not "multiply wives to himself..." and the verses continue on to give the reasons why.

**Now that is a math lesson. God forbade multiplication, not addition. Deut. 17:16 But he shall not multiply horses to himself,

**So are you saying the King of Israel is supposed to have only one horse?

nor cause the people to return to Egypt, so as to multiply horses, because the LORD has said to you, You shall return no more that way from now on. 17 Nor shall he multiply wives to himself,

**This passage neither forbids the king to have more than one horse nor to have more than one wife. Read it again.

so that his heart does not turn away. Nor shall he greatly multiply silver and gold to himself

**According to you interpretaion the king of Israel is allowed to have one horse, one wife, and one cache of silver and gold. :-) Methinks such a king doesn't have much of a future in the real world.

>The Bible is very honest about the sins and foibles of man. Just because "it's in the Bible" doesn't mean God approves of it.

**But what God regulates and governs as acceptable behavior is, and as you read the following God regulated and governed it. 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.

**God specifically dealt with the situation where a man takes more than one wife and gave detailed instructions on how that behavior is to be regulated. Exod. 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.

As a
>matter of fact, the Law of Moses allows for divorce, for example. So you might think that this is OK and in God's plan and a man can "put his wife away with a bill of divorcement" if he wants. HOWEVER, Jesus has something else to say on the matter: See Matt. 19:3-11 "In the beginning it was not so" and "for the hardness of your hearts". The point is, that just because it is "allowed" or mentioned in the Bible, or even that the "Bible Greats" 'did it', doesn't mean that God APPROVES or encourages it. I really believe my proofs here are overwhelming.

**God's approval is understood in Exod. 21:7-11 and Deut 21:15-17 because He instructed people how to handle such situations, just like He gave specific instruction on the worship in the temple, the offering of sacrifices, and how to deal with sinners. He doesn't encourage it or discourage it. It just is. It IS so much, that He described Himself as having two wives in Ezek 23, and God never sins nor descries Himself as sinning.

**In Deut. 25 you see God not only encouraging polygyny but He actually commands it. No where in the following passage is it stated that the surviving male relative must be single. Whether or not he is single or married, he must marry the widow of his deceased male relative. 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. 6 And it shall be, the first-born whom she bears shall succeed in the name of his dead brother, so that his name may not be put out of Israel. 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.

>>>WHERE is there an example of 2 people covenenting just by
tthemselves to
>>>be husband and wife? There needs to be public recognition by
wwitnesses.

>>**Even if there were an example, that would not mean that God
pprescribed it
>>or mandated it. Ezekiel 16 is the closest example I can think of.

>Sorry. I really think you've taken this out of context. The context here is God's talking to Ezekiel about Jerusalem (v. 3) and how she's "played the harlot" (v. 15), despite how He's wooed her and treated her like royalty. I don't see your comparison with the issue at hand AT ALL!

**In Mark 7 and Matt 15 we are commanded by Jesus to not add to His words, or teach our doctrines as His doctrines. Since He commanded no church or public wedding, who are we to do so? Since He commanded no certain set of vows or covenants, who are we do so? Since He gave no instructions for a wedding ceremony, who are we to say that He did.

**You say that we SHOULD have public/church weddings just because Jacob had one and the wedding feast of Cana, and then you say that WE SHOULD NOT have more than one wife just because most of the OT leaders had more than one wife. So we should have weddings because of examples, and we should not follow the examples of the OT leaders. That is not logically consistent and is a contradictory position.

>>Slavery is still being practiced on a
>>large scale in the mideast. Slavery is wrong for the USA because
oof Romans 13.

>That seems to be like backward reasoning.

**Slavery is no where called a sin in the Bible. It is no where forbidden in the Bible. God says in 1 Cor . 7 that if a slave can get free, then he should get free. If he can't, then God tells him to be content as a slave.

>Besides, reasoning like that
>is used to justify abortion (ie. because the Supreme Court said it was OK). Obeying the governmental authorities takes a back seat to the persuit of God's justice and serving God.

**Abortion is murder and murder is a clear and explicit sin. Thereis no comparison.

>If the government were to say
>that you are now forbidden to worship or have a Bible in your home, would you say "it's wrong for Americans to have Bible and worship God because of Romans 13"? I don't think so.

**In Acts 4 Godin Peter tells us we must obey God rather than men when men's laws are contrary to God's Word/Will.

>Slavery is wrong because it debases other humans who are just as much created in the image of God as you are. And really - there but for the Grace of God go all of us. The Law of Moses deals at length with the proper treatment of slaves, again taking into account the reality of the culture at the time. Since the Israelites were once slaves in Egypt, God didn't want anyone to forget how horrible it was to enslave or be enslaved.
>But NEVER, EVER look to ungodly governments to legislate morality to the believer. The government is NOT our authority on what is moral or godly. Yes, we should "pay to Caeser what is Caeser's" (give the goven't what they're due) but they are and always have been morally bankrupt.
>In sum, being a slave is not how God wants us to be or for us to treat eachother, even tho slavery appears in the Bible.

**There are Christians being sold as slaves today in Sudan. You can by aChristian female slave for less than $100 today this year. Such Christian slaves have all the commands of God in 1 Cor. 7; Eph. 6 etc. to live by and conduct themselve by today. Slavery is an evil, but God has instructed His people how to live if they are in that evil, even today.

>He has a different
>plan for His people. We are adopted sons and daughters, not slaves. We are Jesus' friends. (John 15:15). What I'm trying to say here is that once we are born again, we should be living as He has directed us to live - according to His Standard. Not according to what the world has decided is OK.

**Be not conformed to this world but rather be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Rom. 12

>Cultural standards differ from place to place and time
tto time, but God's Word transcends that. This is why it is a Standard for all nations. Just because some people in the Bible times had a multiplicity of wives, in no way means that that is God's ideal for the believer. I don't see how your quote of Rom. 13 applies here at all.

**Rom. 13 applies here because God therein commands the Sudanese Christian slaves to obey His Word in 1 Corinth. 7 and Ephes. 6 etc. 1 Cor. 7 makes it clear that God has different ideals for different people, some to be single, some to be married, some to be free, some to be slaves etc.

>>Later this week I hope to mail you a copy testimonials of
ppracticers ofmodern
>>polygyny in USA, Phillippines and Nigeria.

>I am aware that polygamy is practiced in different parts of the world. Like I said, it in no way can be concluded that this how Christians should live. By the way, who in the NT had more than 1 wife at a time? Did I miss something here?

**If we are to go only by what is in the NT text, then we must assume that Peter was the only apostle who had a wife, and that Priscilla and Aquila were an oddity and exceptions. God chose not to mention the wives of the apostles and the leading brethren in the Bible Most of the people mentioned in the NT were Church leaders, and God made it clear that Church leaders were to have only one wife (1 Tim 3 and Tit. 1).

>>If you have the chance tell me what you think of this polygynous
mministry and
>>web site: Patriarchy Website [ http://www.patriarchywebsite.com ]

>May you prosper as your soul prospers,
>Sharon

May the Love and Peace of Jesus fill you and your life. Ron