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 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.  Black females are not sought for as wives by a significant number of non-Black males in America.       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?     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 thei

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.