TITLE: POLYGAMY, POLYGYNY, 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 , just Select All and change it to Palatino or
Geneva or Helvetic10.  This should clean it up considerably and
make it more readable.
By L. Tyler   P.O. Box 620763, SanDiego, CA 92162-0763
       [email protected]   or   [email protected]

This is dedicated to all those who have suffered through divorce
and the complexities of remarriage

*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.

*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>1. . Whoever despises>2. these
restraints, even though he uses his wives only to get children, still
commits sin>3. , 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>4. , except from an excess of lust>5. ; 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
[Footnotes: >1.  Whose custom and whose laws?  The customs of men
and the laws of men, not the customs and laws of God.  But God tells
us to obey the law and customs of our society (Rom.13), so in America
it is illegal to legally have more than one wife, but today in that same
America it is not illegal, not contrary to law, for a husband to have a
concubine (what the world would ignorantly call  a mistress or, in
Calif. courts, a "pal" as in "palimony").
>2.  One would despise the legal restraints by disobeying them.  There
is no despising of the law and customs of America when one has a
common-law  wife or a concubine, because such practices are not
contrary to or in violation of the laws and customs of America.  To
despise the monogynous marriage laws of America by trying to have
two wives simultaneously (bigamy) is a crime punishable under the
laws of America.
>3.  It is a sin to disobey the laws of one's society that are not in
conflict with the Word of God.  It is not in conflict with the Word of
God for America to say that a man can legally have only one wife.
Such a law must be obeyed according to Rom. 13.  However there is no
American law against a husband having a concubine, as  concubine is
defined in the Bible.
>4.  A godly  man can have no pleasure in peace before God when he
disobeys God.  Since it is against the laws of America and so contrary
to God's will in America for a man to try to legally have more than
wife, God's chastening and the sword of God's public servants would
put a quick end to such a man's efforts to have pleasure in illegal
polygamy.   A godly  man in America can legally have a concubine in
marital pleasure and in the blessing of God since concubinage violates
neither the laws of man nor the laws of God.
>5.  Lust, in the Word, is the desire for that  which is forbidden by God.
Concubinage is neither forbidden by God nor illegal in America.    To
desire a concubine is not a lust, nor a desire for that which is forbidden
by God.
>80 A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The
Christian Church,  Vol. iv; pp.289ff.]


*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]

*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]

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.]

*Please consider the points of view of an influential and significant
leader from the early church, St. Augustine :�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.
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.

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

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.

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 to
know 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.]

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.]

". . . 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.

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.]

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.]

� 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.]

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.

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.�


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".


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

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.]

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..]

From:   IN%"[email protected]"

After Polygamy Was Made A Sin:
The Social History of Christian Polygamy

John Cairncross, 1974

Published by Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd, London

"Orthodoxy in Western Europe, or for that matter in the Chri
stian world as a whole, has been fiercely opposed to polygam
y in any shape or form since at least A.D.600, and has shown
itself particularly ruthless in suppressing the hated monst
er whenever it raised its head in their
own ranks.  This constant opposition explains both why the C
hristian polygamists rarely put their views into practice an
d why their writings are often to be found in scarce, or out
-of-the-way editions."  PREFACE

With this introduction, Mr. Cairncross launches into a very
scholarly, thoroughly researched, exposition on Christian po
lygamy, as can be attested to by the Bibliography of more th
an 90 references, some dating back as far as the 16th centur
y.  Ostensibly, Mr. Cairncross is a historian, merely laying
out the (albeit fascinating) accoun
t of a suprisingly large number of arguments made in favor o
f, and even attempts to introduce, polygamy, in the Protesta
nt world, some by well known theologians or authors.  But to
this, admittedly unbiased, reviewer, within the overview of
centuries of debate on this issue, it is possible to see a
pattern emerging: that of men who truly believe in the right
eousness of their cause, willing to take a stand for the Tru
th, to boldly express that which is often considered Heresy
by the powers that be.  Some of them would pay the ultimate
price for their vision. Their contribution is not lessened,
nor their Cause weakened, by the fact that a few who would t
ake up their arguments were merely interested in their own g
ratification or justification of their dubious lifestyles. M
ost of those who would pick up this standard were men above
reproach.
It is no coincidence that this issue was first brought to th
e fore in Europe, after a silence of many centuries, soon af
ter the beginning of the Protestant Reformation in the early
1500s.  It was at this time that men begin to really seek G
od for themselves, and to take His Word as a personal source
of Revelation, once again.  What many found there could not
be denied:  Their was nothing against polygamy in the Bible
, and indeed much to suggest it was one type of marriage tha
t God had ordained for his people.  "When the great Reformer
, Martin Luther nailed his protest against papal indulgences
to the church door in Wittenburg in 1517, he started an ear
thquake.  .the Catholic hierarchy was rapidly undermined, an
d in its place was set the Gospel. .both the Old and New Tes
to be literally inspired and deserving of
reverence."(pg.2)
Thus it was that in 1534, the "German city of Munster procla
imed polygamy as the ideal form of marriage.  The event is u
nique in the history of Christian Europe, and the reaction t
o this announcement explains why the experiment was never re
peated.  For it was greeted with a unanimous revulsion and h
orror."(pg.1)   Mr. Cairncross never adequately examines the
reason for this opposition, (perhaps because a purely histo
ric look would never be able to discover the true source), b
ut he makes it clear that this opposition was always present
(both from the Catholic church, and future Protestant leade
rs) to meet what ever person or group would dare to propose
such a thing.  The Munsterites were one radical group of a n
ew Protestant sect, the Anabaptists.  Much of the knowledge
we have of them, and their year-long polygamist experiment,
comes directly from the historians of their enemies, for the
y were besieged by Catholic and Protestant foes immediately,
and when they fell a year late!
Some were put to death. So whiliving men we
e
the accounts of this time are filled with vitriolic denunc
iations of the Musterites and their morals, "in fact, Munste
r under Anabaptist rule was a centre of extremely austere mo
rality. It's only crime, by orthodox standards, was to have
introduced polygamy, and a highly Puritan type at that!" (pg
24)   While this episode was over quickly, "Puritan polygam
y was not extinguished under the ashes of the ruined city.
The influence of the Munsterite ideas was profound." (pg.27)
  So it was that the stage was set for repeated serious for
ays into the debate on polygamy.
A few years later, "Phillip of Hesse felt impelled by his re
verence for the sacraments to mend his first marriage by con
tracting a second one even while his wife was alive.  And he
did so with the sanction of the Fathers of the Reformation.
The first palidin of German Protestantism (Phillip) was,
with Luther's and Melanchthon's permission, a bigamist. Prote
stant historians have never recovered from the shock." (pg.
31) Phillip debated this issue with the Reformer's for many
years before and after his (supposedly secret) 2nd marriage.
 "If, he asked, it should suddenly be possible to overthrow
the celibacy of the clergy, why should the institution of b
igamy be a priori excluded?  The only effective answer would
have been that polygamy is condemned by Christian doctrine.
 But this was a stand that Luther and his colleagues never
took - and for very good
reasons.  They could not.  They themselves did not believe t
hat polygamy was against divine or natural law." (pg. 48)  L
uther did state that "A Christian, before adopting polygamy,
must first have a calling from God." (pg. 49)  Fair enough.
 We should all hear from God before daring
to any God-ordained true "holy" matrimony.  Singu
lar or Plural.
ory of many later reformersthe st:

The Italian Ochino, a Franciscan until the age of 55, was
a fiery orator, and a "man distinguished by the sanctity of
his life, of a vast culture, venerable, white-haired, and t
all, of a majestic bearing".  It was only when Ochino left t
he Catholic church and "fled to Switzerland where he became
a Calvinist that the move towards Anabaptism began". (pg.65-
66) He wrote a brilliant thesis on polygamy that was "efferv
escent, witty, and convincing."  Many of the points containe
d in this paper are very similar to those found on God's Fre
e Men website.  He was eventually exiled for his teachings,
along with his four children, during winter 1563, by the Cit
y Fathers of Zurich.  3 of his children died as a result.
(Chapter IV.)
The Christian polygamist story moves eventually to France an
d England. European life, in many arguments for polygamy, is
contrasted unfavorably with that of primitive cultures, and
Islamic lands, where it is practiced. Prostitution, divorce
early unheard of in these place
s, but they flourish, and are implicitly approved of, in Eur
ope, where monogamy is the standard.  "Between about 1680 an
d 1750, the campaign for polygamy (in England) was in full s
wing, and plural marriage was almost as vigorously canvassed
as in Germany during the same period." (pg. 126)

ted author of Para

Milton, author of Paradise Lost, wrote a ma
nuscript in the 1650s, "Da Doctrina", a lengthy theological
document.   It was lost until 1825, when it was discovered a
nd translated, creating a pre-Victorian uproar in London.  T
he famous author had dared to justify polygamy!  His argumen
ts are lucid and concise: " Polygamy is prohibited to no one
, even under the gospel."  Milton "administers the coup de g
race to his opponents when he observed that God himself (in
Ezekiel 23:4) represents Himself as having `espoused two wiv
es' which would have been unthinkable had `the practice been
dishonourable or shameful'. On the contrary, he maintains,
polygamy is `lawful and honourable'." (pg.129)

"In England of the 1730s, the disease had turned into an epi
an observed: `Pk dated 1737, an Irish clergyman,
polygamy is a doctrine daily defended in common conversation
and often in print by a great variety of plausible arguments
" (pg.141)
2 chapters on the Mormons, and their persecution because of
felt, "with mous beliefs, follow.  Mormon wives
considerable justification, that their conditions of life we
re far superior to those of the corresponding classes in the
counties from which they had come and indeed to those in mo
st parts of America". (pg. 193)  A huge home for Mormon poly
gamous wives, expected to provide a haven for those escaping
from their husbands' tyranny, was left without occupants.

In the nineteenth century, Protestant missions were expandin
g rapidly, and missionaries around the globe were confrontin
g polygamy among their new converts.  In 1844, a conference
of missionaries of various denominations "unanimously agreed
that `if a convert, before becoming a
Christian, has married more than wives than one, he shall be
permitted to keep them all; but such a person shall not be
ligible to any office in the church'." (pg.198)
An American traveler of this time propagated his polygamous
convictions in print in his home country, but chose to remai
n anonymous.  A "Christian Philanthropist", published in
186
y and
Philosophy of Marriage, o
r Polygamy and Monogamy Compared", it ran
to a 2nd edition and 1875 and apparently even to a third.  "
Like almost all of his predecessors, he does not realize tha
t he is part of a long tradition." (pg.198)  This work can b
e found elsewhere on this website.  It would appear that the
re is a common bond between many of these Christian polygami
sts that cannot be accounted for, since they were often unfa
miliar with each other's works.  Is it possible that there i
s a more subtle, more powerful force at work in these men's
lives, binding them together in a remarkable quest to restor
e a Divine plan to our Western society?

[Note: The above is also true of the author of this website.
All arguments in favor of polygamy found here were first di
scovered by direct inspection of God's Word - before any of
the earlier authors mentioned in this report were ever known
to the author of God's Free Men. Only after this truth was
first revealed from the Scriptures alone were the confirmati
ons of earlier writers discovered.]

Some Christian churches in Africa today allow polygamy.  A p
astor in Cameroon stated: "People have no right to condemn p
olygamy which even Christ did not condemn in the case of Abr
aham". (pg.214)

Cairncross sums up "for a long time to come, there will stil
l be an imbalance between the number of men and women able o
r willing to marry. Which may explain why, even now, some Ca
tholic theologians in Germany are reported to be giving cons
ideration to the possibility of sanctioning
polygamy."  He closes with a quote from Shaw: "Women will al
ways prefer a tenth share of a first-rate man to the exclusive claim
to a third
rate one." (pg.218)ir

Reviewed and contributed by: neb

XXIII.  BIBLIOGRAPHY of the mother file.

>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
>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]].
>14. HASTING'S DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE; 1989, Hendrickson
Publishers, Inc., Peabody, Mass;, Editor James Hastings, DD.,
>16. INTERNATIONAL BIBLE COMMENTARY, THE; Editor,
F.F.Bruce;
1979; Zondervan         Publishing House, Grand Rapids Michigan.
>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]].
>27.  NEW BIBLE DICTIONARY, THE; Editor J.D.Douglas Ph.D;
1962; W.
B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, Mich.
>31. OnLine Bible computer program of  "Online Bible f ", Ken
Hammil  1-908-741-4298; [E-Mail: [email protected]].
>33. St. Augustin: On The Trinity; translated by Arthur West
Haddan, B.D.; W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids Mich;
1956
>37. WOMEN'S LIVES IN MEDIEVAL EUROPE  - A
SOURCEBOOK;
Edited by Emile Amt;    Routledge, Chapman, Hall; NY, NY; 1993


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."
TYLER,P.O.Box 620763, San Diego, CA 92162-0763
AS THE LORD LEADS.

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