Objections To Biblical Christian Polygyny

OBJECTIONS TO BIBLICAL AND GODLY POLYGYNY, CONCUBINES, & JESUS; Another Look for Christians. COPYRIGHT © JANUARY 14, 1995 All rights reserved. Copyright © 01/14/'95; 01/12/'96, 07/26/2003; 3/28/09 (Revised) This file, in its entirety, may be posted on or copied off of computer networks like Internet or WWW by anyone so inclined as long as it is not changed and the author is acknowledged. By L. Tyler P.O. Box 620763, San Diego, CA 92162-0763 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [NOTICE-------If you have found this file/post in an open to the public, you should assume that it has been corrupted and changed without my approval or consent. To obtain an accurate copy of my original you can go to these moderated sites to see and download it. Sorry about the inconvenience.] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PolyPolygamyPolygnyNJesus http://groups.google.com/group/BiblicalChristianPolygamyPolygyny If you want to skip to any of these segments, please use your "Finder" to locate it in this document. >>>>Is Polygyny Sexist and an Exploitation of Women? >>>>Gen.2 THE MONOGYNOUS ADAM & EVE IDEAL P. 1 >>>>>>Gen.3:6 Fallen Monogynous Adam and Eve and Polygyny >>>>GEN. 16-25 ABRAHAM, SARAH, HAGAR >>>>CONCUBINES, Abraham, Sarah, Hagar & Keturah >>>>Gen. 29-31: JACOB, HIS WIVES & CONCUBINE-WIVES. >>>>Ex 20, 21 JEHOVAH'S LAW RE POLYGYNY Leviticus 18 MARRYING TWO SISTERS De 17 MULTIPLYING WIVES TO YOURSELF Deut. 21 HAVING TWO WIVES DT 25 WIDOWS AND POLYGYNY >>>>>1 Samuel 18-2 Sam 20 ; David, his six wives and ten concubines >>>>>1 KINGS 11 SOLOMON Ezekiel 23 JEHOVAH AS A POLYGYNIST >>>>POYGYNY & SINAI LAW IN THE NEW TESTAMENT >>>>>Mat 19 BEING/BECOMING ONE FLESH 1 Cor 6 + 7 >>>>ROMANS 13 SUBMITTING TO THE AUTHORITIES 1 TIimothy 3 & TITUS 1 LEADERS WITH ONLY ONE WIFE >>>>>>Miscellaneous Objections >>>>>>The Economics and Sociology of Polygyny IN CONCLUSION==============

########################################## ############# >>>>>>Is Polygyny Sexist and an Exploitation of Women? <<[A] BIDJAN, Ivory Coast -- Tomam Constance Yai is on a crusade against polygamy. <> <> <> ///In the much of the Third World, the world of the impoverished, there are many impoverished Jesus believing single women, bereft women and widows who are failing to adequately control themselves and so are under command to marry (1 Cor 7:8,9; 1 Tim 5:10-14). Often in the Third World of Poverty, a single female aged 12 or above is forced into compromising sexual situations and often into outright prostitution because of the lack of food, clothing, shelter and income to the family. All one has to do is walk the streets of Tijuana, Mexico City, Calcutta, Bangkok, Cebu, Rio de Janero, Hong Kong etc to see females of all ages driven to sexual immorality and prostitution just to have food, clothing and shelter. In 1960s Tijuana alone I met one woman in her late teens who had dreams of going to college some day, but in the meantime she had to work in TJ strip clubs to help support her birth family, all of 8 of them living in a two room shack. In 1960s Tijuana a 14 year old big brother offered to me his 12 year old virgin sister for sex for $5 dollars for living expenses. In 1960s Tijuana three daughters, aged 8 - 24, and their grandfather offered their willing mother to me for sex for $5 inside a swapmeet kind of building. Such things ought not to be and broke my heart and I'm sure deeply grieved the heart of my Jesus. Polygyny WHICH IS NO WHERE CONDEMNED IN THE BIBLE, NEVER DECLARED TO BE SIN, NEVER FORBIDDEN BY GOD would be a much better alternative for these desperate people rather than pedophilia, public nudity, prostitution and fornication (having sex with one who is not your mate), adultery, lesbianism, sinful self-stimulation using memory or imagination or porn, bisexuality and/or lesbianism, ALL OF WHICH ARE CONDEMNED IN THE BIBLE, DECLARED TO BE SIN, FORBIDDEN BY GOD. I am sure that pedophilia, public nudity, prostitution and fornication

(having sex with one who is not your mate), adultery, lesbianism, sinful self-stimulation using memory or imagination or porn, bisexuality and/or lesbianism, ALL OF WHICH ARE CONDEMNED IN THE BIBLE, DECLARED TO BE SIN, FORBIDDEN BY GOD do much more "stunting of the lives of" these females than polygyny ever would, WHICH IS NO WHERE CONDEMNED IN THE BIBLE, NEVER DECLARED TO BE SIN, NEVER FORBIDDEN BY GOD. On the average in the local churches of the Third World of Poverty, there are 2 available mongynous men for every needy woman in her 20's, 3 available monogynous men for every needy woman in her 30s, 4 available monogynous men for every needy woman in her 40s, and 5 available monogynous men for every needy woman in her 50s. Since there are not enough single godly men available for each bereft woman and widow to have one for each, instead of obeying the command to marry by marrying in polygyny WHICH IS NO WHERE CONDEMNED IN THE BIBLE, NEVER DECLARED TO BE SIN, NEVER FORBIDDEN BY GOD; instead these esus believing bereft women and widows fall in to fornication (having sex with one who is not your mate), adultery, lesbianism, sinful self-stimulation using memory or imagination or porn, bisexuality and/or lesbianism, ALL OF WHICH ARE CONDEMNED IN THE BIBLE, DECLARED TO BE SIN, FORBIDDEN BY GOD. Indeed the teaching and commandment and traditions of religious men against polygyny, have made the Word of God of no effect for these needy women (Mark 7:1-15). 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. AugustineÕs point in the following:Ò . . . 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 . . Ó>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.] Remember Exodus 21: 7-11 and DEUT. 21:15-17. WHY DOESN'T GOD CONDEMN HIM FOR TAKING ANOTHER WIFE IF IT IS A SIN? 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: ÒThat the holy fathers of olden times after Abraham, and before him, to whom God gave His testimthat "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.Ó [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 selfdenying 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] From: "oldservant8" Date: Sat Jul 20, 2002 9:05 am Subject: expected economic role + striving for equality To:IslamicLady This discussion came up in a Yahoo economics group @yahoogroups.com >>> = A correspondent /// = oldservant8 ///You wrote--

>>>As, you well know, the media always exploits the pitfalls of poly relationships, especially with recent cases of welfare fraud surrounding children who are products of poly relationships, while, of course, ignoring the enormous poverty and fraud that occurs within serial monogamous relationships through divorce and unwed mothers. >>>Aside from your personal reasons for wanting a poly relationship, how do you envision your own family economically functioning as a poly unit? The number one question we have found from poly-curious single women is, what is their expected economic role in the relationship. What do you think? ///In a nutshell, I like the Biblical model the best. WEYActs 2:44 And all the believers kept together, and had everything in common. 45 They sold their lands and other property, and distributed the proceeds among all, according to every one's necessities. WEYActs 4:34 And, in fact, there was not a needy man among them, for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the money which they realised, 35 and gave it to the Apostles, and distribution was made to every one according to his wants. DBY2Cor8: 12 For if the readiness be there, a man is accepted according to what he may have, not according to what he has not. 13 For it is not in order that there may be ease for others, and for you distress, 14 but on the principle of equality; in the present time your abundance for their lack, that their abundance may be for your lack, so that there should be equality. 15 According as it is written, He who gathered much had no excess, and he who gathered little was nothing short. ///In one polygynous African tribe, the husband lives in the largest dwelling, each wife has her own littler dwelling, and the responsibilities are divided among all members, all working. Some took care of the babies, usually the last one to give birth and breast feeding. Some worked the gardens. Some took goods to market to sell. Some traveled to town to do work. All brought their gain to the family, and the family divided what they had according to each's need, striving for equality . ///In America it could take several forms. There could be the rich man who has a big six bedroom house, the husband in the master bedroom for together times with all in bed in one room, and each wife having her own bedroom, and the children having the rest. Some took care of the

babies, usually the last one to give birth and breast feeding. Some worked the gardens. Some took goods to markets to sell. Some traveled to town to do work. All brought their gain to the family, and the family divided what they had according to each's need, striving for equality . ///There could be the country farmer with 100 acres, a big house and several cottages. The husband in the master bedroom for together times with all in bed in one room, and each wife having her own cottage, and the children having the rest. Some took care of the babies, usually the last one to give birth and breast feeding. Some worked the gardens and the crops. Some took goods to markets to sell. Some traveled to town to do work. All brought their gain to the family, and the family divided what they had according to each's need, striving for equality. ///Then there is average Joe Blow who has a job that barely allows him to support one wife in a small two bedroom apartment. His three other wives each have their own two bedroom apartment for themselves and their children. The husband's living room is made into a master bedroom for together times with all in bed in one room, one bedroom made into a den, and the second bedroom for the kids. Each wife having her own apartment & bedroom, and the children having the second bedroom. One took care of the babies, usually the last one to give birth and breast feeding. One worked at a part time job to have time to help homeschool the children. Another wife worked at the local market. One traveled to town to work as an RN. All brought their gain to the family, and the family divided what they had according to each's need, striving for equality . Anyway, that's the view from here. Peace, Ron ++++++++++++++++++Part two++++++++++++++++++++++ Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 12:38:47 -0700 (PDT) From: IslamicLady Subject: Re: expected economic role + striving for equality >>> As salaamu alaiku, group >>>Some of the means of achieving economic harmony listed here

are quite clear and would indeed provide economic harmony within the family unit. However, the average person one causes me some concern. If the "average man" can barely support one wife and any children, who exactly would be paying the rent on the apartments of the other wives? ///It is common knowledge and all the statistics are in. The largest group in the working class of the poor is the group of working single mothers. The largest group of the working class poor with the worst record of escaping that poverty is the group of working single mothers. The largest group of working class children locked into poverty with the worst health and education record is the group of children of working single mothers. Single mothers and their children do not do as well as mothers who have a committed male in their lives who is helping them as a family. ///How could a low income working class polygynous family make it? They would pool their net income for the expenses, as described below, and as described above in the Acts 2 & 4 & 2 Cor 8 Scriptures. >>>Would they themselves be expected to continue working in order to maintain their own residences? ///All work, even the one that stays home to breast feed the babies and care for the children, but this one doesn't get a formal paycheck from an official employer. The work of the breast feeding mother is to care for the baby or babies being breast fed, and she is paid by the pooled resources of the other members of the family who are working. >>> If this is what is envisioned by this, then this certainly sounds unfair, because then the woman gains nothing but the company of a husband and may find that she needs to rely on public assistance in order to survive economically and that defeats one of the purposes of marriage. ///Even working poor monogynous families have to sometimes receive unemployment insurance, food stamps and/or medicare. The women and children in a working poor family receiving some form of assistance in their poverty are still doing better than the working poor single mothers. The women and their children gain the love, protection, care, affection, passion and attention of a man they love passionately, a man who loves them

passionately. Each wife has at least one hour alone with him every other night for intimacy and special attention. This allows each wife to have orgasmic passion three times a week without fear of HIV/ HCV/HPV. He has one hour a night with the kids. One hour a night with everybody during the dinner hour. As you see in the model below, their is no need for public cash assistance for this family of 13. >>>Otherwise, all of the cooperative options listed make sense, since each wife would bring her unique talent and gift to the marriage as a whole. oldservant8 wrote: expected economic role + striving for equality ///THE SPECIFICS OF THE John Doe FAMILY SITUATION ///Then there is average John Doe who has a job that barely allows him to support one wife, Betty, in a small two bedroom apartment. His three other wives each have their own two bedroom apartment for themselves and their children. Their apartments are less than one mile away from each other. The husband's living room is made into a living-roombedroom for together times, if so desired by all, with all in one large room. Because of antipolygyny laws and recent Supreme Court rulings, it is strongly advisable that the husband not be intimate with more than one wife at a time. One bedroom in is apartment would be made into a den, and the second bedroom for the kids. Each “wife” would have her own apartment & bedroom, her children having the second and or third bedroom. ///John works at Slurpo, the local soft dring company, as a union truck driver making a monthly net of $2400, working 30 hours a week. Betty works for the City as a meter reader, making a monthly net $2000 per month. Loulou took care of the babies, the last one to give birth and breast feeding. Fannie Mae works at a part time job, making a monthly net $800, to have time to help homeschool the children. The children are home schooled through the 8th grade. Daisy travels to town to work as an RN, making a monthly net $3200. All bring their gain to the family, and the family divides what they have according to each's need, striving for equality . Three of the older kids work at local restaurants and fast food outlets, making a net of $1630. Their monthly net family income is $10030. They have a total of 8

children, a family of 13 people. They all put their income into the common purse/account and in family conference decide together how the money should be spent. ///Their combined rents are $3200, in a blue collar neighborhood in So. Calif. Their food budget is $2600 per mo. They have car expenses of $1000 per month. Insurance runs $520. Medical and dental insurance for the full time and part time stay-home moms, $400. Utilities and phone runs at $160. That is an outflow of $7880. That leaves $2150 for everything else, including savings, investments. ///Because polygamy is illegal in the USA, he is legally married only to one of the “wives”, Betty, and was privately and solemnly covenanted with each of his other ladies. Loulou, Fannie Mae, Daisy. He attends Betty's pentecostal church Sunday mornings at 8:30, as her husband. He attends Loulou's AfroAm COGIC church at 10:30, as her backslidden man to avoid prosecution for polygamy. He attends FannieMae's African American Episcopalean church Sunday night, as her backslidden man, to avoid prosecution. He attends Daisy's lilly white Presbyterian church Wednesday nights, as her backslidden man, to avoid prosecution. Sunday afternoons they either barbecue at the beach or the park, where they picnic together and the children play. Anyway, that's the view from here +++++++++++++++++Part three++++++++++++++++++++++ From: IslamicLady Date: Sun Jul 21, 2002 6:28 am Subject: Re: expected economic role + striving for equality Clearly you have thought this through - a bit too much it would appear. And in the "average man" description, assumptions are made that should not be. All of the wives are non-Muslim so would they be accepting of such an arrangement? /// I believe the following answer that question in the affirmative. www.bfree.org http://bfree.org/ http://www.3coins.com/ http://www.etext.org/Religious.Texts/Polyamory http://communities.msn.com/OrthodoxBiblicalPolygamy

http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/OrthodoxBiblicalMarriagePo lygamy www.groups.aol.com/BiblicalMarriage&Polygamy http://www.smartgroups.com/group/OrthodoxBiblicalPolygyny >>>Also, it calls into account the need for the older children to work as well as all of the adults. /// 2 Thess 3: 10 “For also when we were with you we enjoined you this, that if any man does not like to work, neither let him eat. 11 For we hear that there are some walking among you disorderly, not working at all, but busybodies. 12 Now such we enjoin and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ, that working quietly they eat their own bread.” 12, 13 and 14 year old children are quite capable and should have some small job/jobs by which they can earn pocket change. Older children still attending school full time should have part time jobs of ten to 15 hours a week to pay for their own entertainment, transportation, clothing etc. /// That is an outflow of $7880. That leaves $2150 for everything else, including savings, investments. >>>Assuming the figures you gave above, the average rent on each of the 4 apartments would be $800; is the car expense amount for 4 cars or 5 - I mean each wife should have her own car, right? /// Good point. There would need to be a 5th car, unless one of the wives drove JohnDoe to and from work. >>> And utilities and phone combined are only $160 for 4 residences, that must indicate that each apartment has most of the utility amounts covered as part of the $800 rent payment (or the families are essentially living in darkness most of the time without air conditioners or even fans) ///Water and trash are included. Living in So. Calif. is cheap, given the mild Mediterranean climate. >>>and that no one uses the phone very often, especially to make long-distance calls; /// unlimited local use, email saves on the long distance calls.

>>>you mentioned insurance, which I assume is car insurance, and medical and dental insurance for the wives that stay at home - what about the rest of the family? /// The legal wife is covered by her husband's insurance through employment, and the wives who work out of the house have med and life insurance through their employment. >>>I stick to my original statement, such a situation means that each wife must work in order for the family unit as a whole to survive. ///Yes, everybody works, except for the children under 12 years. >>>And if Mr. Truck Driver is attending so many different churches, how is he remaining true to his own faith? /// All of those churches have compatable core beliefs, no serious conflicts. >>>Or are you describing this as an overall economic solution for both Muslims and non-Muslims? /// It would work for anyone, except there would be so many different churches, since the Muslims at the local Mosque would probably accept the polygyny of the family. >>>Perhaps this is where my confusion comes in. ///Not aware of any confusion. oldservant8 ========================================== = From: "a_human" = +++ Date: Sun Jul 21, 2002 11:26 am Subject: Re: expected economic role + striving for equality > ///All work, even the one that stays home to breast feed the babies > and care for the children, but this one doesn't get a paycheck. +++Oh, I get it. Taking care of kids isn't REAL work.

///She doesn't get a paycheck because all of the other working members of the family put their income into the common account and money is drawn out by each according to their need and the family budget. Acts 2:44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common, 45 and sold their possessions and substance, and distributed them to all, according as any one might have need. Acts 4: 32 ¶ And the heart and soul of the multitude of those that had believed were one, and not one said that anything of what he possessed was his own, but all things were common to them; . . . 34 For neither was there any one in want among them; for as many as were owners of lands or houses, selling them, brought the price of what was sold 35 and laid it at the feet of the apostles; and distribution was made to each according as any one might have need. 2Cor8:13 For it is not in order that there may be ease for others, and for you distress, 14 but on the principle of equality; in the present time your abundance for their lack, that their abundance may be for your lack, so that there should be equality. 15 According as it is written, He who gathered much had no excess, and he who gathered little was nothing short. 2 thess 3: 10 For also when we were with you we enjoined you this, that if any man does not like to work, neither let him eat. 11 For we hear that there are some walking among you disorderly, not working at all, but busybodies. 12 Now such we enjoin and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ, that working quietly they eat their own bread. > ///Each wife has at least one hour alone with him every > other night for intimacy and special attention. This allows each >wife to have orgasmic passion three times a week without fear of >HIV/HCV/HPV. He has one hour a night with the kids. One hour a >night with everybody during the dinner hour. +++Wow, sounds like bliss! I can't imagine why women wouldn't JUMP at the chance of having 1 hour alone with her husband every 48 hours. /// The working class and poor single mother with no committed man has much less than that, in both quantity and quality. John Doe would spend one night of every four nights as well with each wife. Statistically John Doe's wives are have orgasmic sex two times more a week than the averge American wife. Statistically the average American couple spends much less time focused on each other than John and his wives. They are getting about twice as

much conscious focused attention than the average American wives. ///The war widows and HIV widows of Africa, Afghanistan, Albania, Sudan, Ethiopia, ERitrea would thank God if they could be in and have such a family and such attention from a husband of their own. The unmarried "surplus" women of SE Asia who are economically forced into prostitution and crime would thank God if they could be in and have such a family and such attention from a husband of their own. +++The kids too would be so fortunate to see their dad for an hour a day (and share him with the rest of the brood). What could be better than this? ///The statistics in America indicate that John's kids are getting three times as much focused and conscious attention as the average American kid. The orphans of Africa, Afghanistan, Albania, Sudan, Ethiopia, ERitrea would thank God if they could be in and have such a family and such attention from a stepdad of their own. The orphans of SE Asia who are economically forced into prostitution and crime would thank God if they could be in and have such a family and such attention from a step dad of their own. The SE Asian Muslim council decreed that polygyamy was the solution for dealing with the women and widows who have no man of their own, and for orphans who have no home or family. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The debate over the low income working class John Doe and his four wives continues. /// = my responses Tyler In a message [email protected] writes: << - Mar 2003 From: "U" <[email protected]> = \\\ Subject: Re: Re:two "wives" that live in separate houses \\\Surprise, surprise, surprise, I actually agree with you about 2 Thess 3: 10-14. A man should work. In biblical terms, (I cannot remember the verses), a man is the head of the house and as such he is responsible for his family. ///According to the Bible, every member of the family is responsible for themselves and each other, with the husband serving as the teacher/advisor/leader (not boss, tyrant or dictator), the wife as his helper/advisor/assistant and as teacher of her children etc etc etc.

\\\Here is where I start disagreeing :-) What you described below is a man that has four separate women to choose from. ///Maybe I didn't state it clearly enough, but John Doe and his wives are committed believers and followers of Jesus Christ, and are maritally committed to each other as long as each lives. Just as he is commanded to be sexually having his wives (1Cor7:2-5;Prov5:19,20) and has sexual authority over the sexual use of their bodies (1Cor7:25), the wives are commanded by God to be sexually having their own husband, and have sexual authority over the sexual use of his body. They are forbidden from sexually denying each other except for prayer and fasting that is mutually agreed upon and has a time limit. Any "choosing" being done in such a family should be done according to the above. \\\When there is trouble from one of the women he can go to another 'home' until the trouble blows over. ///If he is prepared to disobey Jesus and be subject to the sickness and or weakness of His chastening for disobeying Jesus. Jesus requires such a man to live wisely (1Pt3:7) with his wife/wives, and Jesus requires him to make a diligent and sincere effort restore the unity in a bond of peace (Eph 4:1-5). His mission is described as follows: 2Tm2:24* And a bondman of the Lord ought not to contend, but be gentle towards all; apt to teach; forbearing; 25* in meekness setting right those who oppose, if God perhaps may sometime give them repentance to acknowledgment of the truth, 26 and that they may awake up out of the snare of the devil, who are taken by him, for *his* will. Eph4: 1 ¶ *I*, the prisoner in the Lord, exhort you therefore to walk worthy of the calling wherewith ye have been called, 2 ¶ with all lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, bearing with one another in love; 3 using diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the uniting bond of peace. ///Just as he is commanded to be sexually having his wives (1Cor7:25;Prov5:19,20) and has sexual authority over the sexual use of their bodies (1Cor7:2-5), the wives are commanded by God to be sexually having their own husband, and have sexual authority over the sexual use of his body. They are forbidden from sexually denying each other except for prayer and fasting that is mutually agreed upon and has a time limit. \\\Where is his responsibility to any of them? According to your scenario each of the woman support themselves, with the older

children's help. ///In Africa, India, SE Asia and the Far East, poor polygynist families require the work of everyone able to work in order to survive. It would be unrealistic and unsupported by the Bible to require a poor husband to have to be able to fully support every wife he has, leaving the practice of polygyny to the rich only. As in the Third World, the John Doe and his wives are poor working class people, need everyone who can work to work (housekeeping, raising kids, holding full time jobs, part time jobs and assisting each other). Everyone is "responsible" to the family for its support, according to their ability. \\\He is living a lie. He goes to each of the women's church pretending to believe in that faith. This is deceit at its worst. These churches may all have "compatible core beliefs", I don't know. However, just by going to any of these churches Mr. John Doe is expressing a basic belief in that church's philosophy. So he goes and lives a lie. A good example he sets for his children. ///It is so hard to deal gently with the tone and content of your arrogant and ignorant assumptions. He has his own church and is a member ( but not an official) of it. He is forbidden to have an official leadership or service position (1Tm3). He visits his other wives churches NOT PRETENDING TO BELIEVE THEIR UNIQUE AND DISTINGUISHING BELIEFS, but as a believer in the Jesus and Bible they also hold to, as her own visiting man but not as a member of their church. He may not attend as her “husband” because that would violate America’s antipolygyny laws. John Does and I do this all the time. ///In my last main job I would attend up to four different churches, many of different denominations, on any one Sunday, enjoying the messages and the fellowship. THERE IS NO DECEIT. When John Does and/or I visit a Catholic, Pentecostal, Baptisit, Methodist, Messianic, AOG, Brethren etc church, we don't visit as deceitful nonCatholics, Pentecostals, Baptists, Methodists, AOGs, Messianic, Brethren, or etc.; but as believers in Jesus who have chosen to join them for fellowship at that time for that service. THERE IS NO LIE OR DECEIT, BUT AN AFFIRMATION THAT BELIEVERS IN JESUS MEET AND WORSHIP JESUS IN MANY DIFFERENT WAYS. \\\Where is his leadership? What kind of example does he set for his children? How does he stand by his women when all their belief systems are different from his. ///The leadership is where it belongs, first with Jesus, then with the husband and then with the wife. They lead their children in consistent

and faithful practice of their faith in Jesus. They set the example of the unity of all believers in Jesus who Love and serve each other as they are taught by Jesus to do so. Their core beliefs in Jesus are all the same, while the way they worship, baptize, have communion may vary significantly, being secondary beliefs \\\Sure they have a picnic on the weekends but that just proves he is a good party organizer. One of the women probably has that chore also. ///In such a family, just as all the funds and finances are shared, all the duties and responsibilities are shared, including the planning, doing and cleaning up of a picnic. \\\You brought up Muslims. Muslims set a good example with polygamy. A man cannot take another wife until he is fully able to support her and any children. Maybe if all these so called "bible believing", "God inspired" polygamists took their responsibilities more serious instead of collecting trophies there wouldn't be such an outcry against polygamy. Examples like yours justify the present mainstream mood against polygamy. ///You OBVIOUSLY know little of Muslim polygyny, especially African Muslim polygyny, where all work and pool their resources to help the family survive. Polygyny was never meant to be the privilege of only the rich and the powerful. \\\If Mr. John Doe really wanted to have a polygamist relationship he would find a house where his 'family' could live together. ///In the USA that would probably make him/them subject to felony bigamy/polygyny prosecution, fines and imprisonment. A stupid way to ruin one's family. ///In State v. Barlow (107 Utah 292-1944), "The Utah Supreme Court rejected the defendant's free exercise challenge and affirmed their convictions for cohabitating with more than one person of the opposite sex." The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the defendant's appeal of the Utah Supreme Court decision. p. 1070 "We find no authority for extending the Constitutional right to privacy so far that it would protect polygamous marriages. We decline to do so." 1985, see Roe v. Wade. p. 1070 ///The "Constitutional right of privacy prevents the state from criminalizing the non-prostitutional heterosexual activities of two unmarried consenting adults when such activities occur in privacy of home." Duling, 603 F. Supp. 960 (E.D. Va 1985). p. 1071 It behooves American polygynists that are legally married to be legally

UNMARRIED AND CONSENTING with any other covenanted sexual partners they may have, exercising their polygyny in the privacy of their home, sexually, verbally and editorially. ///To pracitce polygyny in California today, you must not: >> 1. Be legally married to more than one "wife" at the same time (CA Criminal Law #820) >> 2. Be married in an officially recognized ceremony to more than one "wife" at one time (CA Criminal Law 822; Fam Law #66)) >> 3. Be married in a state or publicly recognized common-law marriage to more than one wife at the same time (CL 822; Fam Law #65 & #66). Public here means the general public, not polygynous families who join you in a covenanting event. >> 4. Be married by state license to more than one mate at the same time (CL822) >> 5. Be solemnized in marriage to more than one wife at the same time by an official recognized by the state (CL822). If the polygynous "marriage" is "solemnized" by ceremony, rite or ritual, the words "wife", "husband" and "marriage" should be avoided carefully (a good thesaurus will help. See the appendix. See Fam Law#65). >> 6. Be authenticated in marriage to more than one wife at the same time (in polygyny) in any way acceptable to the state (CL822) >> 7. File the marriage certificate of registry with the state, for your polygynous marriage. (CL822) >> 8. Conclude in an official civil manner or legally your "marriage" in polygyny. (CL824) >> 9. Publicly cohabit as husband and wife, publicly and mutually, assuming marital rights, duties and obligations, including sexual relations with more than one wife at the same time.(CL825) [Public here is the general public, not one's polygynous associates. Even though they may not cohabit as husband and wife, they may cohabit as man and woman, man and his own woman, exclusive lovers, exclusive love/life partners, exclusively devoted lovers, a man and his covenant woman/lover/partner/pal, or viceversa for all the above (e.g. a woman and her own man).] >> 10. Have the reputation in a community of being married, nor deport yourselves in the neighborhood as husband and wife (Fam Law 61 & 62). Specifically you must not allow/permit/encourage common, general, uniform, and undivided repute among witnesses/ neigbors that you are married to more than one mate at the same time. (Fam Law#65, Re Estate of Gill; Hite v. Hite; Re Estate of Baldwin). The reputation of being a man with more than one woman/lover would be legal. >> 11. Have any one other than the actual parties of the polygynous

uniting present at the "uniting" ceremony (Fam Law 62), since every witness of the "uniting" is a possible "witness" of the polygynous uniting in a bigamy trial. See # 5 above. If they are willing to take the chance, there would be relative safety in having other polygynously "united" couples present. I don't see any problem with witnesses at a "covenant event", "union ceremony", or "bonding ceremony" (not wedding ceremony, see ch. 3). It would be foolish and risky to invite or inform the monogynous and/or the opponents of polygyny to any such uniting event. It only takes one witness to files criminal charges. \\\A couple of the women could concentrate on their careers enabling them to bring home more money. ///Night and weekend schools and correspondence courses would allow all the wives to do so, with each other helping out with each other's kids. \\\One could home school, providing the children a quality education. ///obviously you didn't read all of my post. Again --"///John works at Slurpo, the local soft drink company, as a union truck driver making a monthly net of $2400, working 30 hours a week. Betty works for the City as a meter reader, making a monthly net $2000 per month. Loulou took care of the babies, the last one to give birth and breast feeding. Fannie Mae works at a part time job, making a monthly net $800, to have time to help homeschool the children. The children are home schooled through the 8th grade. Daisy travels to town to work as an RN, making a monthly net $3200. All bring their gain to the family, and the family divides what they have according to each's need, striving for equality. Three of the older kids work at local restaurants and fast food outlets, making a net of $1630. Their monthly net family income is $10030. They have a total of 8 children, a family of 13 people." \\\With them all living in the same household over all expenses would go down and the older children would not have to go to work to help support the family, which is Mr. John Doe's responsibility. ///THERE IS NOT ONE SCRIPTURE IN THE WHOLE BIBLE THAT SAYS THAT THE HUSBAND IS REQUIRED TO BE SOLE PROVIDER AND THAT ALL ARE TO LIVE OFF OF HIS INCOME. YOU ARE TEACHING AS DOCTRINE YOUR OWN TEACHING INSTEAD OF GOD'S DOCTRINE. God's rule is made plain in 2 Cor 8 and 2 Cor 9. When necessary, all who can work should work (2 Thess 3:6-14).

\\\The children could concentrate on getting a better education, thereby ensuring a much better future for the children, which is another one of Mr. John Doe's responsibilities. ///ACCORDING TO YOUR MALE CHAUVINISTIC POINT OF VIEW. In the Bible's view the father/husband and wife/mother are jointly responsible for preparing their children for their futures. \\\In my opinion, Mr. John Doe has four separate monogamous relationships. Mr. John Doe is living the good life. He can go from woman to woman as he sees fit. He is keeping them down. The women would be better off if they banded together and got rid of Mr. John Doe. U ///No point in repeating the errors in U's reading and interpretations of my post. Getting rid of their John Doe would leave the women as single mothers with fatherless children, which in America today is the lowest and most poverty stricken level of living in America, with the children statistically doing worse in school and more likely to become involved in crime. Tom's idea sucks. John Doe and his wives avoid all these pitfalls and have the joy of living in loving and caring unity. __________________________________________________________ Date: Mar 2003 From: = --Subject: Re: Re: Re:two "wives" that live in separate houses ---Must agree Tom. Mr. John Doe seems to have all the good of relationships but none of the bad. Not even the responsibility. ///Sad to see that N did no better than U. John Doe shares with each of his wives the responsibility of parenting, teaching, caring and providing for their children. John Doe and his wives are committed believers and followers of Jesus Christ, and are maritally committed to each other as long as each lives. Just as he is commanded to be sexually having his wives (1Cor7:2-5;Prov5:19,20) and has sexual authority over the sexual use of their bodies (1Cor7:2-5), the wives are commanded by God to be sexually having their own husband, and have sexual authority over the sexual use of his body. They are forbidden from sexually denying each other except for prayer and fasting that is mutually agreed upon and has a time limit. He is responsible for unselfishly and compassionately cherishing his wives in Love, of submitting to the Word of God they speak to Him from the Bible, and his wives are responsible for following his lead, as long as doing so does not involve disobedience to Jesus, and for showing the respect due to him as the marital authority that God has

set over her (Rom 13; Ephes 5). ---It seems he is basically a "stud service" for these women in that aside from LouLou or whoever, everyone takes care of themselves. ///The women have the same sexual authority over him and are commanded to be sexually having him, just as he is commanded to do with them. He has an hour plus every evening with all the wives and the children, and an hour =/- with the children of the wife with whom he spends that night. Such a family that Loves Jesus shows that Love by Loving each other, so when they see each others need, they do what they can to meet that need (1 Jn3 Eph 4) ---While one woman who works as the meter maid gets no housework help while she is working, she is putting in a full week of work. The other women have much less to do. ///Fannie Mae's part time job plus home schooling is more than a full time job. Anyone who knows the work of an RN, knows that Daisy is earning the money she makes as a full time nurse. "Much less to do"? I don't think so. ///" Fannie Mae works at a part time job, making a monthly net $800, to have time to help homeschool the children. The children are home schooled through the 8th grade. Daisy travels to town to work as an RN, making a monthly net $3200. " ---While Mr. John Doe has least of all. He just goes to work his measly 30 hours and hops from house to house for food, showers and sex. ///Many workers, especially if they work for Vons, Wal*Mart, KMart etc are given only 30 a week by their employer, because the employers want to keep their costs down. This John Doe is working the most hours his employer allows him to work. Obviously you didn't read all of the post--"///The women gain the love, protection, care, affection, passion and attention of a man they love passionately, a man who loves them passionately. Each wife has at least one hour alone with him every other night for intimacy and special attention. This allows each wife to have orgasmic passion three times a week without fear of HIV/ HCV/HPV. He has one hour a night with the kids. One hour a night with everybody during the dinner hour. As you see in the model below, their is no need for public assistance for this family of 13." --- I can see why a man would want it this way, but I see Mr. John Doe

as a pig, as would most woman. N >> ///Then your husband must spend more that nine hours a week eye to eye and face to face with your/his kids; more that nine hours a week eye to eye and face to face with you; and must have sex with you every night. This makes both him and you exceptional people with an exceptional marriage and family. Most of the lower working class people and poverty level women and children I work with and assist as a social worker long for a father/husband who invest a fraction of that amount of time in them and their lives. ########################################## ############# >>>>Gen.2 THE MONOGYNOUS ADAM & EVE IDEAL • THE FIRST MARRIAGE >>>>Gen.2: 7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. 8 ¶ And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. . . . 15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. 16 ¶ And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. 18 ¶ And the LORD God said, [It is] not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. . . . 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. >>Is this an ideal setting for the first marriage? Yes. Do we have such a face to face relationship with God today? No. Had man been designated as her head/ruler yet? No. Had she been told by God yet that Adam would take the lead in their marriage? No. Weren't they

still perfectly equal partners still? Yes. Is it realistic to take this perfect marriage-in-paradise and hold it up as the norm and standard for us today who live in a fallen and sinful world? No. Wasn't it God Himself that changed the marital relationship when they were expelled from the Garden? Yes. Does God anywhere in His Word say that this marriagemade-in-Paradise is to be our model and standard for Godly marriage? No. Where? No where in the Bible. If He didn't make it the norm and the standard, dare we make it the standard (Mark 7)? No. >>Is there anything in this first marriage that clearly and specifically allows only monogyny? No. Is there anything in this first marriage that clearly and specifically forbids polygyny? No. Is there anything in this passage that indicates that God set monogyny up as the model we must follow? No. Is there anything in this passage that clearly and specifically instructs us to follow Adam's example of monogyny? No. >>>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 official male leaders in the local assemblies of his Church are to have one wife>33 , and that even in the Old Testament the kings were instructed not to “multiply” wives, horses or gold to themselves. Jehovah-Jesus described Himself in the Old Testament both as an monogynist >34 and as a polygynist >35. To be a valid prefigure of Christ (“the last Adam”) you would expect Adam, the first Adam, to have one wife, just as Christ, the “last Adam”, has one wife, the Church. [Footnotes: >33 1 Tim. 3; Titus 1; >34(Ezek 16); >35 (Ezek 23)] Gen.2: 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. >>>Does Jesus' statement “The two shall become one flesh” mean that only one man and one woman should become one flesh, as in monogamy>36 , as most of the "leaders" maintain? Doesn't 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 Mt. 19 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.">37 [Footnotes:>.36 Please see THE INSTITUTES OF BIBLICAL LAW, by R. Rushdonney, p. 363. >.37 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, how can the “one flesh” principle be unique to marriage and how can it be an argument for monogamy or against polygyny ? Doesn't the “one flesh” principle in physical reality describe only the result of sexual union, whether it involve a harlot, a fornicator, a married couple or a polygamous marriage? Weren't David, Israel and Abraham “one flesh” with each of their wives in marriage>38, just as the adulteress >39 was one flesh in adultery with each of her adulterers? Under the Law by Moses, being “one flesh” could have been the basis for marriage>40 but not so for we nonJews/nonIsraelites after Jesus' Spirit decreed through the Apostles>41 that nonJews, nonIsraelites are not required to keep the Sinai Law of Moses >42, right? If we do not control ourselves today, aren't we commanded to marry>43 , with who to marry not specified, only that your mate be saved>44 and godly>45?

[Footnotes: >38(Ex21:7-11; Deut 21:15,16; 2Sam 12:8); >39of Prov. 6 & 7; >40 (Deut. 22:22-30; Ex. 22:16,17). >41 (Acts 10 + 11 + 15 + 21); >42 (Eph. 2 and Col. 2, especially in the case of 1 Cor. 7:9; 1 Tm. 5:11-14) >43 1 Cor. 7:1,2,9,36; 1 Tim 5:14; Appendix Six of this document. >44. 2 Corinthians 6. .>45 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)] ========================================== ==== >>>>>Gen.3:6 Fallen Monogynous Adam and Eve and Polygyny >>>>>>Gen.3:6 ¶ And when the woman saw that the tree [was] good for food. and that it was pleasing to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make wise, she took of its fruit, and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. 7 And the eyes of both of them were opened. And they knew that they [were] naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made girdles for themselves. 8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day. And Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God in the middle of the trees of the garden. 9 ¶ And the LORD God called to Adam and said to him, Where [are] you? 10 And he said, I heard Your voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I [am] naked, and I hid

myself. . . . 16 ¶ To the woman He said, I will greatly increase your sorrow and your conception. In pain you shall bear sons, and your desire shall be toward your husband, and he shall rule over you. 17 ¶ And to Adam He said, Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree, of which I commanded you, saying, You shall not eat [of] it! The ground [is] cursed for your sake. In pain shall you eat of it all the days of your life. 18 It shall also bring forth thorns and thistles to you, and you shall eat the herb of the field. 19 In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you [are], and to dust you shall return. 20 ¶ And Adam called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living. 21 ¶ And for Adam and his wife the LORD God made coats of skins, and clothed them. 22 ¶ And the LORD God said, Behold, the man has become as one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever, 23 therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he had been taken. 24 And He drove out the man. And He placed cherubs at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life. >>>Monogamy was established in a sinless world with sinless people. Monogamy was established when Adam and Eve were still perfectly equal before Jesus, for Jesus didn't tell Eve that " he shall rule over you" until after they had sinned. Monogamy was established when Eve's desire had not yet been centered in Adam ("your desire shall be toward your husband"). Monogamy was established when there would have been no pain in childbirth ("In pain you shall bear sons"). Divorce and separation were inconceivable and impossible in the Garden before the sin and fall. This is not the condition of monogyny today. >>>Sin destroyed the cacoon, the paradise in which monogamy was conceived. Sin caused monogyny to be dramatically changed by Jesus. Jesus does not require us to experience and know monogyny as He established it in the Garden before the fall, so how dare we require others to experience and know monogyny as He originally established

it? We shouldn't for if we do so, we are guilty of vainly worshipping Jesus "teaching as their teachings commandments of men. . . leaving the commandment of God," to "hold what is delivered by men to keep --" setting " aside the commandment of God," to "observe what is delivered by yourselves to keep. . . "making void the word of God by your traditional teaching which ye have delivered; . . Mark 7 >>>The monogyny and polygyny the came into existence after the sin and fall and expulsion from the Garden reflect the nature of humans and marriage after the sin, fall and expulsion. The monogyny that came into being after the sin and fall was monogyny under THE CURSE OF SIN. >>> Aren't they now in a whole new "universe", under a curse, mortal, subject to sickness and weakness and a whole new way of relating to each other as a result of their sin? Isn't there a significant change in their relationship with each other and with God? Hadn't the ideal first marriage become a very different thing because of sin? Didn't their world become like ours is today? Isn't this the beginning of the changes that would take place in human matrimony? Is there anything in this first marriage that clearly and specifically allows only monogyny? Is there anything in this first marriage that clearly and specifically forbids polygyny? Is there anything in this passage that indicates that God set monogyny up as the model we must follow? Is there anything in this passage that clearly and specifically instructs us to follow Adam's example of monogyny? Leaders 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]

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.” 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 5:1221. >.36. DITTO 1 Cor. 15:45-49; Romans 5:1221. >.37 Ezekiel 23; >.>4 Titus 1; 1 Timothy 3] "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." [Douglas’ New Bible Dictionary : MARRIAGE: .....p.787] “. . 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 Moslems 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 Moslems 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." FURTHERMORE, 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 Òpolygamy clearly appears as a product of the fallÓ then why isnÕt there one scripture or even one verse that says that? Since there isnÕt, it seems to be more menÕs 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>8 (Dt. 21:15,16) >8 but apparently it was unusual among average people .>45. [Footnotes:>.f89 Please see p. 362, THE INTSTITUTES OF BIBLICAL LAW, by R. Rushdonney. >44.

Trobisch, MY WIFE MADE ME. . . P.18; (AFRICAN THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL, Rev. Gerhard Jasper of Lutheran Theological College in Makumira, Tanzania; Februrary 1969, p. 41). >45. Please see THE INTERNATIONAL BIBLE COMMENTARY; p. 407.] St. Augustine (4th Century AD) had a good word on this subject. Consider the following:ÒThat 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.Ó>46 [Footnote: >46 A Select Library of the Nicene and PostNicene Fathers of The Christian Church Vol. V; p. 267.] ========================================== >>>>• THE POLYGYNOUS PATRIARCH, ABRAHAM, SARAH AND HAGAR >>>>GEN. 16-25 >>>>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); The Holy Spirit declares that both were his wives <0802; 'ishshah ; n f: woman, wife, female> Gn 16:3 And Sarai, Abram’s wife Sarai, Abram’s wife<0802>, took Hagar her slave woman, the Egyptian, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife, took Hagar her slave woman, the Egyptian, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife<0802> . .

The useage of <0802 'ishshah> clearly indicates that Hagar became his wife, not his mistress or lover. Ge 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife<0802 'ishshah>: and they shall be one flesh. Ge 2:25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife<0802 'ishshah>, and were not ashamed. Ge 3:8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife<0802 'ishshah> When the Bible indicates that a woman belongs to a man, she is "his own woman"/wife/concubine; and when the Bible indicates a man belongs to a woman, he is "her own man"/husband. 1Cor7:1 ¶ But concerning the things of which ye have written to me: It is good for a man<444> not to be touching a woman<1135>; 2 but ON ACCOUNT OF SEX SINS, each<1538> should be having HIS OWN WOMAN<1135>, and each woman<1135> should be having HER OWN MAN<435>. 3 A man<435> should pay his wife<1135> her due, and a woman<1135> also should pay her husband<435> his [due]. 4 It is not the wife<1135>, but the husband<435>, who exercises power over her body; and so, too, it is not the husband<435>, but the wife<1135>, who exercises power over his body. <444 anthropos; n m: a human being, whether male or female <435 aner; n m: any male <1135 gune n f: a woman of any age >>>Gen 16:9 And the Angel of the LORD said to her [Hagar], Return to your mistress and submit yourself under her hands. 10 ¶ And the Angel of the LORD said to her, I will multiply your seed exceedingly, so that it shall not be numbered for multitude. 11 And the Angel of the LORD said to her, Behold, you are with child, and shall bear a son. And you shall call his name Ishmael, because the LORD has heard your affliction 12 And he will be a wild man. His hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him. And he shall live in the presence of all his brothers. 13 And she called the name of the LORD who had spoken to her, You [are] a God of vision! For she said, Even here have I looked after Him that sees me? 14 Therefore the well was called The Well of the Living One Seeing Me. Behold, [it is] between Kadesh and Bered. 15 ¶ And Hagar bore Abram a son. And Abram called his son's name, which Hagar bore, Ishmael. 16 And Abram [was] eighty-six years old when Hagar bore Ishmael to Abram.

17: 1 ¶ And when Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, I [am] the Almighty God! Walk before Me and be perfect. 2 And I will make My covenant between Me and you, and will multiply you exceedingly. 3 And Abram fell on his face. And God talked with him, saying, 4 ¶ As for Me, behold! My covenant is with you, and you shall be a father of many nations. 5 Neither shall your name any more be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham. For I have made you a father of many nations. 6 And I will make you exceedingly fruitful, greatly so, and I will make nations of you, and kings shall come out of you. 7 ¶ And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your seed after you in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God to you and to your seed after you. . . 10 This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your seed after you. Every male child among you shall be circumcised. >>>If polygyny is a sin, why does God bless both Abraham and his two wives in their polygny? Is there anything in this passage that specifically and clearly shows God's disapproval of and displeasure in Abraham's polygyny? 15 ¶ And God said to Abraham, As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her name Sarai, but her name [shall be] Sarah. 16 And I will bless her, and give you a son also of her. Yes, I will bless her, and she shall be [a mother] of nations, kings of people shall be from her. . . 19 And God said, Sarah your wife shall bear you a son indeed. And you shall call his name Isaac. And I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him. 20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard you. Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly. He shall father twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation. 21 But I will establish My covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this set time in the next year. 22 And He left off talking with him, and God went up from Abraham.

>>If polygyny is condemned by God and forbidden to man, then why does God bless Sarah who influenced Abraham to become a polygynist? If Abraham's polygyny was a sin, why did God bless the offspring of his polygyny? If Abraham's polygyny was a sin, why did God personally talk with him and bless him so richly? Where is the condemnation of Abraham's polygyny? GEN. 21:1 ¶ And the LORD visited Sarah as He had said. And the LORD did to Sarah as He had spoken. 2 For Sarah conceived and bore Abraham a son in his old age, at the set time of which God had spoken to him. 3 And Abraham called the name of his son that was born to him (whom Sarah bore to him) Isaac. 4 And Abraham circumcised his son Isaac when he was eight days old, as God had commanded him. >>>WHERE IS THE CONDEMNATION OF ABRAHAM'S POLYGYNY? WHERE IS THE DENUNCIATION OF THE CHILDREN OF HIS POLYGYNY? Gen. 21: 9 ¶ And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian (whom she had borne to Abraham) mocking. 10 And she said to Abraham, Cast out this slave woman and her son. For the son of this slave woman shall not be heir with my son, with Isaac. 11 And the thing was very evil in Abraham's sight, because of his son. 12 And God said to Abraham, Let it not be grievous in your sight because of the boy and because of your slave woman. In all that Sarah has said to you, listen to her voice. For in Isaac your Seed shall be called. 13 And also, I will make a nation of the son of the slave woman, because he [is] your seed. >>>WAS SHE KICKED OUT BECAUSE THEY BELIEVED THEIR POLYGYNY DISPLEASED GOD? WHAT IS THE REASON SARAH GAVE FOR THE EXPULSION OF HAGAR AND ISHMAEL? DID HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THEIR POLYGYNY? GEN. 21: 14 ¶ And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and took bread and a bottle of water, and gave [it] to Hagar, putting [it] on her shoulder. And he gave her the boy, and sent her away. And she departed and wandered in the wilderness of Beer-sheba. 15 And the water was gone

in the bottle, and she cast the boy under one of the shrubs. 16 And she went and sat down across from him, a good way off, about a bowshot. For she said, Let me not see the death of the boy. And she sat across from him, and lifted up her voice, and cried. 17 And God heard the voice of the boy, and the angel of God called to Hagar out of the heavens, and said to her, What ails you, Hagar? Do not fear, for God has heard the voice of the boy where he is. 18 Rise up, lift up the boy and hold him up with your hand, for I will make him a great nation. 19 And God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water; and she went and filled the bottle with water, and gave drink to the boy. 20 And God was with the boy, and he grew, and lived in the wilderness, and became an archer. 21 And he lived in the wilderness of Paran, and his mother took a wife for him out of the land of Egypt. >>>WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT GOD CONDEMNED OR PUNISHED HAGAR AND ISHMAEL FOR THEIR POLYGYNY? If their polygyny were a sin, why did God save their lives, take such good care of them and promise them such great blessings? ========================================== ======== >>>>CONCUBINES, Abraham, Sarah, Hagar & Keturah Gen.22: 20 ¶ And it happened after these things that it was told Abraham, saying, Behold Milcah! She also has borne children to your brother Nahor: . . . 23 And Bethuel fathered Rebekah. These eight Milcah bore to Nahor, Abraham's brother. 24 And his >>>concubine<<<, named Reumah, she also bore Tebah, and Gaham, and Thahash, and Maachah. Gen. 23: 19 And after this, Abraham buried Sarah his wife in the cave at the field of Machpelah before Mamre, which [is] Hebron, in the land of Canaan. Gen. 25: 1 ¶ Then again Abraham took a >>>WIFE,<<< and her name was Keturah. . . . 4 And the sons of Midian: Ephah and Epher and Hanoch and Abida and Eldaah. All these [were] the sons of Keturah. 5 And Abraham gave all that he had to Isaac. 6 But to the sons of the >>>CONCUBINES<<< which Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts. And he sent them away from Isaac his son while he

still lived, eastward to the east country. 1 Chronicles 1: 32 And the sons of Keturah, Abraham's >>>concubine<<<: She bore Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah. And the sons of Jokshan: Sheba and Dedan. >>>PLEASE NOTE that in Gen 25 the Spirit states that Keturah was Abraham's wife and then in 1 Chron 1 the Spirit states that Keturah was Abraham's concubine, just like the Spirit stated that David's concubines were his wives in Samuel 12. 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.” 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.” If God declares the concubines of His godly men to be their wives, should we do anything less that the same? Surely the concubines of His godly men today are considered by Him to be their wives, just as in times past. Where is God's denunciation of Abraham for having concubines? Where is God's denunciation of the concubines for marrying Abraham? Where is Abraham's confession of his sin, if polygyny is sinful as some say? Have you considered 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. 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 slaveconcubines 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.] 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) ] 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-inlaw". 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)] 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] • THE POLYGYNOUS PATRIARCH JACOB, HIS WIVES & CONCUBINES. 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 on that, 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] ========================================== == >>>>Gen. 29-31: JACOB, HIS WIVES & CONCUBINE-WIVES. >>>>Gen. 29: 21 And Jacob said to Laban, Give [me] my wife, for my days are fulfilled, so that I may go in to her. 22 And Laban gathered together all the men of the place, and made a feast. 23 And it happened in the evening, he took his daughter Leah and brought her to him. And he went in to her. 24 And Laban gave Zilpah his slave woman to his daughter Leah for a handmaid. 25 And it happened in the morning, behold, it [was] Leah! And he said to Laban, What [is] this you have done to me? Did I not serve with you for Rachel? Why then have you tricked me? 26 And Laban said, It must not be done so in our country, to give the younger before the first-born. 27 Fulfill her week, and we will give you this one also for the service which you shall serve with me still another seven years. 28 And Jacob did so, and fulfilled her week. And he gave him Rachel his daughter to wife also. 29 And Laban gave Bilhah his

slave woman to his daughter Rachel, to be her handmaid. 30 And he also went in to Rachel. He also loved Rachel more than Leah, and served with him still seven more years. Gen. 30:1 ¶ And when Rachel saw that she bore Jacob no children, Rachel envied her sister. And she said to Jacob, Give me sons, or else I will die. . . . 3 And she said, Behold my slave woman Bilhah; go in to her, and she shall bear upon my knees, and yea, let me be built up from her, me also. 4 And she gave him her slave woman Bilhah to >>>WIFE<<<. And Jacob went in to her. 5 And Bilhah conceived, and bore Jacob a son. . . . 9 When Leah saw that she had quit bearing, she took her slave woman Zilpah and gave her to Jacob to >>>WIFE<<<. 10 And Leah's slave woman Zilpah bore Jacob a son. . . . . Gen.31: 3 And the LORD said to Jacob, Return to the land of your fathers, and to your kindred, and I will be with you. >>>If polygyny is the sin that some say it is, why did God intervene to help Leah conceive? Why did God remember and bless Rachel when she influenced Jacob to have a third wife? Why did God listen to Leah's prayer after she influenced Jacob to have a fourth wife? If polygyny is unacceptable to God, then why did the Lord speak to Jacob and promise to bless him with His abiding presence? Gen 32: 1 ¶ And Jacob went on his way, and the angels of God met him. 2 And when Jacob saw them he said, This [is] God's camp. And he called the name of that place Refuge. . . . . . .24 ¶ And Jacob was left alone. And a Man wrestled there with him until the breaking of the day. . . .26 And He said, Let Me go, for the day breaks. And he said, I will not let You go except You bless me. 27 And He said to him, What [is] your name? And he said, Jacob. 28 And He said, Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel; for like a prince you have power with God and with men, and have prevailed. 29 And Jacob asked and said, I pray You, reveal Your name. And He said, Why do you ask after My name? And He blessed him there. 30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel; for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved. >>>Why would God allow his angels to meet

Jacob, since he was practicing polygyny with four wives? Why did Jesus wrestle with Jacob, and bless Him with a new and significant name, if Jacob was under God's judgment for practicing polygyny? Exactly where is God's denunciation and disapproval Jacob's polygyny expressed? Jacob marries Rachel and Leah>58 , and goes on to have children by his concubine-wives 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 to having more than one wife and nowhere does God denounce his having 2 wives. 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) 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)] ========================================== = >>>>Ex 20, 21 JEHOVAH'S LAW RE POLYGYNY • GOD GAVE MOSES RULES ABOUT POLYGYNY >>>>Exodus 20:22 ¶ And Jehovah said to Moses, Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel: Ye have seen that I have spoken with you from the heavens. . . . 21:1 ¶ And these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them. . . . 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. 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]. If polygyny is a sin, why doesn't God forbid the men from taking an additional wife? If polygyny is unacceptable to God, why does He instruct men what He requires of them if they take an additional wife? If polygyny is sin, where is His command that a woman not marry a man who already has a wife? >>>>Leviticus 18 MARRYING TWO SISTERS >>>>Leviticus 18: 17 The nakedness of a woman and her daughter shalt thou not uncover; thou shalt not take her son's daughter, nor her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness: they are her near relations: it is wickedness. 18 And thou shalt not take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness beside her, during her life. [darby] “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 lifetime.”>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.] "You are not to take a woman to be a rival with her sister and have sexual realtions with her while her sister is still alive.">52 [Footnote:>52 Complete Jewish Bible, Jewish New Testament Publications, Inc.; Jerusalem, Israel.] 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.] Can Lev. 18:18 be used to condemn polygyny, or does it forbid being married to two blood sisters at the same time? Is the issue here that of marrying sisters, or is the issue polygyny? 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? >>>>>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.” If this passage is used to make a case against polygyny, shouldn't it also be used to make a case that the king should have only one horse, only one bar of gold, and only one bar of silver?

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] 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. DavidÕs wives, as part of his house, benefited from GodÕs 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. >>>>>*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 firstborn 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 firstborn 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.”

If God condemns polygyny, why does he not only allow a man to have two wives, but he actually legislates the right of one wife's child over the right of the other wife's child? If the children are children of polygyny, why would God give them any rights at all, if it is such a sin as some say? I understand Rev. Gerhard Jasper to make the following points: (1) In Old Testament times a Jewish polygynist's marriage was fully recognized as marriage, protected by the Law and the elders; (2) the Jewish polygynist's faith in or faithfulness to God was not questioned because of his polygyny; (3) the polygyny of the Jewish polygynist did not keep him from being admitted to the congregation with full membership.>44. Moses did not forbid polygamy>8 (Dt. 21:15,16) >8 but apparently it was unusual among average people .>45. [Footnotes:>.f89 Please see p. 362, THE INTSTITUTES OF BIBLICAL LAW, by R. Rushdonney. >44. Trobisch, MY WIFE MADE ME. . . P.18; (AFRICAN THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL, Rev. Gerhard Jasper of Lutheran Theological College in Makumira, Tanzania; Februrary 1969, p. 41). >45. Please see THE INTERNATIONAL BIBLE COMMENTARY; p. 407.] 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. >>>>>Deut 25: 5 ¶ If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no son, the wife of the dead shall not marry a stranger abroad: her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him as wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother unto her. 6 And it shall be, that the firstborn that she beareth shall stand in the name of his brother who is dead, that his name be not blotted out from Israel. 1 Tim 5:11 But younger widows decline; for when they grow wanton against Christ, they desire to marry, . . . 14* I will therefore that the younger marry, bear children, rule the house, give no occasion to the adversary in respect of reproach. 1 Cor 7:8 But I say to the unmarried and to the widows, It is good for them that they remain even as I. 9* But if they have not control over themselves, they should marry; for it is better to marry than to burn. PLEASE NOTE that Dt. 25 reads as follows: "her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him as wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother unto her." PLEASE NOTE that Dt 25 DOES NOT READ AS FOLLOWS: THAT MEANS THAT "her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him as wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother unto her." WHETHER OR NOT HE IS MARRIED ALREADY. ======================================== >>>>>1 Samuel 18-2 Sam 20 ; David, His Six Wives and Ten Concubines DAVID'S SEVEN WIVES AND HIS TEN CONCUBINES.

>>>>>1 Samuel 18: 27 And David arose and went forth, he and his men. And [they] killed two hundred men of the Philistines. And David brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full number to the king so that he might be the king's son-in-law. And Saul gave him his daughter Michal for a wife. 28 And Saul saw and knew that the LORD [was] with David, and that Michal, Saul's daughter, loved him. 1 Samuel 25: 42 And Abigail hurried and arose, and rode on an ass, with five of her maidens who went after her. And she followed the messengers of David and became his WIFE. 43 David also took Ahinoam of Jezreel. And they became, both of them, his WIVES. 44 And Saul gave his daughter Michal, David's WIFE, to Phalti the son of Laish, who [was] of Gallim. 2 Samuel 3: 1 ¶ And there was a long war between the house of Saul and the house of David. But David [became] stronger and stronger, and the house of Saul became weaker and weaker. 2 And sons were born to David in Hebron. And his first-born [was] Amnon, [the son of] Ahinoam of Jezreel. 3 And his second was Chileab, of Abigail of Carmel, the former wife of Nabal. And the third [was] Absalom, the son of Maacah the daughter of Talmai king of Geshur. 4 And the fourth [was] Adonijah, the son of Haggith. And the fifth [was] Shephatiah, the son of Abital. 5 And the sixth [was] Ithream, by Eglah, David's WIFE. These were born to David in Hebron. 2 Samuel 6:16 And it happened [as] the ark of the LORD came to the city of David, Michal, Saul's daughter, looked through a window and saw king David leaping and dancing before the LORD. And she despised him in her heart. . . . . . 20 ¶ And David returned to bless his household. And Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David and said, How glorious was the king of Israel today, who uncovered himself today in the eyes of the handmaids of his servants, as one of the vain fellows shamelessly uncovers himself! 21 And David said to Michal, [It was] before the LORD, who chose me before your father, and before all his house, to appoint me ruler over the people of the LORD, over Israel. And I danced before the LORD. . . . 23 And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to the day of her death. If God made Michal childless because of her error, why didn't God punish David in some equally significant way,

since he had at least six wives by the time of this incident? If polygyny is sinful, why didn't God punish David instead of Michal, his first wife? 2 SAMUEL 7:4 ¶ And that night the word of the LORD came to Nathan saying, 5 Go and tell My servant David, So says the LORD, Shall you build Me a house for My dwelling? . . . . . . 8 And now so shall you say to My servant David, So says the LORD of hosts: I took you from the sheepcote, from following the sheep, to be ruler over My people, over Israel. 9 And I was with you wherever you went, and have cut off all your enemies out of your sight, and have made you a great name like the name of the great ones in the earth. . . . . . Also the LORD tells you that He will make you a house. 12 And when your days [are] fulfilled, and you shall sleep with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who shall come out of your bowels. And I will make his kingdom sure. 13 He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be his Father, and he shall be My son. If he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the sons of men. 15 But My mercy shall not leave him, as I took [it] from Saul, whom I put away before you. 16 And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before you. Your throne [shall be] established forever. >>>If polygyny is a sin like adultery, why did Jehovah confer such a great blessing, reward and heritage on a man with six wives and numerous concubines, without reproaching him once for being a polygynist? MKJV 2 Sam.12: 7 And Nathan said to David, You [are] the man! So says the LORD 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 to embrace*, and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah. [*to embrace* Complete Jewish Bible, Jewish New Testament Publications] Do I have a reading problem, or did God just say that He gave WIVES (plural) to David? Why is this giving of wives listed by God among the blessings that He gave to David, if polygyny is the sin that some say it is?]

2 Samuel 12:9 And if that [was] too little, I would have given to you such and such [things] besides. 9 Why have you despised the word of the LORD, to do evil in His sight? You have stricken Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and have taken his wife [to be] your wife, and have killed him with the sword of the sons of Ammon. 10 And therefore, the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised Me and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife.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.” 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.” 2Sam.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.” 1 Kings 11: 4 For it happened when Solomon was old, his wives turned away his heart after other gods. And his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as [was] the heart of David his father. . . . 6 and Solomon did evil in the sight of Jehovah, and did not [go] fully after the LORD like his father David. Why would God say that King David went "fully after the LORD", being blessed and commended by God, even though he had fallen into adultery and had many wives and concubines? Why would God say that David's heart was perfect with the Lord his God, when the Lord knew that David was a practicing polygynist, if polygyny is a sin as some say? Where do we see God blessing evil doers in their sin? Adultery is a sin and God exacted a severe punishment on David, so why didn't God punish David for his polygyny, if it is a sinful as some say? 1 Chronicles 3:1 ¶ And these were the sons of David, who

were born to him in Hebron. The first-born, Amnon, of Ahinoam of Jezreel. The second, Daniel, of >>>Abigail<<< of Carmel. 2 The third, Absalom the son of >>>Maachah<<< the daughter of Talmai king of Geshur. The fourth, Adonijah the son of >>>Haggith<<<. 3 The fifth, Shephatiah of >>>Abital.<<< The sixth was Ithream by >>>Eglah<<< his wife. 4 [These] six were born to him in Hebron. And there he reigned seven years and six months. And he reigned in Jerusalem thirtythree years. 5 And these were born to him in Jerusalem Shimea, and Shobab, and Nathan, and Solomon, four of >>>Bathsheba<<< the daughter of Ammiel 6 and Ibhar, and Elishama, and Eliphelet, 7 and Nogah, and Nepheg, and Japhia, 8 and Elishama, and Eliada, and Eliphelet, nine. 9 [These were] all the sons of David, besides the sons of the >>>CONCUBINES<<<, and Tamar their sister. >>> IF POLYGYNY IS THE SIN THAT SOME SAY IT IS, WHERE IS GOD'S CONDEMNATION OF THE SIX WIVES AND TEN CONCUBINES OF KING DAVID? WHY WOULD GOD REBUKE AND CHASTEN DAVID FOR HIS ADULTERY WITH BATHSHEBA, AND THEN TURN AND BLESS DAVID IN HIS MARRIAGE TO BATHSHEEBA AND HIS OTHER WIVES, IF POLYGYNY IS SIN AS SOME SAY? If you count his first wife, Michael, then he had eight wives when he died. 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. 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 TO EMBRACE, 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)] ========================================== == >>>>>1 KINGS 11 SOLOMON 1 ¶ But king Solomon >>>loved many foreign women<<<, besides the daughter of Pharaoh: women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, Hittites; 2* >>>of the nations of which Jehovah had said to the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in to you;<<< they would certainly turn away your heart after their gods: to these Solomon was attached in love. 3 And >>>he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines;<<< and his wives turned away his heart. 4 And it came to

pass when Solomon was old, that >>>his wives turned away his heart after other gods; and his heart was not perfect with Jehovah his God, as the heart of David his father.<<< 5 And Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites. 6 >>>And Solomon did evil in the sight of Jehovah, and followed not fully Jehovah, as David his father.<<< 7 Then did Solomon build a high place for Chemosh the abomination of the Moabites, on the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech the abomination of the children of Ammon. 8 And so he did for all his foreign wives, who burned incense and sacrificed to their gods. 9 ¶ And Jehovah was angry with Solomon, because >>>his heart was turned away from Jehovah the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice, 10 and had commanded him concerning this thing, not to go after other gods;<<< but he kept not what Jehovah had commanded. 11 And Jehovah said to Solomon, Forasmuch as this is done by thee, and thou hast not kept my covenant and my statutes which I commanded thee, I will certainly rend the kingdom from thee, and will give it to thy servant: 12 notwithstanding in thy days I will not do it, for David thy father’s sake; I will rend it out of the hand of thy son; Solomon's sins were three. First his sin was marrying unbelievers with whom marriage was forbidden by Jesus. **Malachi 2:10 ¶ Have we not all one father? Hath not one *God created us? Why do we deal unfaithfully every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers? 11* Judah hath dealt unfaithfully, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the sanctuary of Jehovah which he loved, and hath married <01166> the daughter of a strange *god. 12 Jehovah will cut off from the tents of Jacob the man that doeth this, him that calleth and him that answereth; and him that offereth an oblation unto Jehovah of hosts. >>>01166 ba`al ; v: to marry, be lord (husband) over **Deut 7: 1 ¶ When the Lord your God takes you into the land where you are going, which is to be your heritage, and has sent out the nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and stronger than you; 2 And when the Lord has given them up into your hands and you have overcome them, give them up to complete destruction: make no agreement with them, and have no mercy on them: 3 Do not take wives or husbands from among them; do not give your daughters to their sons, or take their daughters for your sons. 4 For through them your sons will be turned from me to the worship of other gods: and the Lord will be moved to wrath against you and send destruction on you quickly.

Secondly his sin was multiplying wives to himself in violation of Deut 7, "he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines;" De 17:15 “You shall only set him king over you whom Jehovah your God will choose: . . 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.” It is interesting to note that King Solomon's abuse of polygyny was judged and condemned by God, who at the same time held up David, the polygynist King, as the standard which Solomon had failed to meet. Solomon's "wives turned away his heart after other gods; and his heart was not perfect with Jehovah his God, as the heart of David his father. . . And Solomon did evil in the sight of Jehovah, and followed not fully Jehovah, as David his father." Thirdly, "his heart was turned away from Jehovah the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice, 10 and had commanded him concerning this thing, not to go after other gods. . . 5 And Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites." He fell into idolatry. JEHOVAH AS THE POLYGYNOUS HUSBAND OF TWO WIVES >>>>>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 virgin nipples were worked. 4 And their names [were] Oholah, the oldest, and Oholibah, her sister. And they were Mine, and they bore sons and daughters. And their names: Samaria [is] Oholah, and Jerusalem [is] Oholibah. 5 And Oholah whored under Me. And she lusted after her lovers, to [her] Assyrian neighbors, . . . . . . . . 35 So the Lord Jehovah says this: Because you have forgotten Me and cast Me behind your back, therefore bear also your wickedness and your adulteries. 36 ¶ And the LORD said to me: Son of man, will you judge Oholah and Oholibah, and declare to them their abominations, 37 that they have committed adultery, and blood [is] on their hands? 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 formal and public 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? ========================================= >>>>POYGYNY & SINAI LAW IN THE NEW TESTAMENT WHAT DID JESUS TELL HIS JEWISH FOLLOWERS TO DO ABOUT THE LAW OF MOSES, THE LAW THAT INCLUDED POLYGYNY? Matthew 23: 1 Then Jesus spoke to the crowd and to His disciples, 2 saying, 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.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; 22:3440; 23:3,4,23; 26:18,19; 26:63,64; etc.)] IF JESUS TOLD HIS FOLLOWERS TO BOTH KEEP THE LAW OF MOSES AND THE TEACHINGS OF THEIR RELIGIOUS LEADERS, WHY DON'T WE NON-

JEWS KEEP THE LAW OF MOSES TODAY, INCLUDING THOSE LAWS ABOUT POLYGYNY? Acts 15: 4 And arriving in Jerusalem, they were received by the church, and [by] the apostles and elders. And [they] declared all things that God had done with them. 5 But some of those from the sect of the Pharisees, having believed, rose up, saying, It was necessary to circumcise them and to command [them] to keep the law of Moses.. . . . . 7 And after much disputing, Peter rose up and said to them, Men, brothers, you recognize that from ancient days God chose among us [that] through my mouth the nations [should] hear the word of the gospel, and believe. 8 And God, who knows the hearts, bore them witness, giving them the Holy Spirit even as to us. 9 And He put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore why do you tempt God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples, a yoke which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11 But we believe that through the grace of [the] Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, according to which manner they also believed. . . . . 22 Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men from them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; Judas, whose last name was Barsabas; and Silas, chief men among the brothers. 23 And they wrote these things by their hand: The apostles and elders and brothers [send] greeting to the brothers, from [the] nations in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia. 24 Because we have heard that certain ones who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, Be circumcised and keep the law! (to whom we gave no such command); 25 it seemed [good] to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have given up their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 Therefore we have sent Judas and Silas, who will also announce [to you] the same things by word. 28 For it seemed [good] to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from meats offered to idols, and [from] blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which, if you keep yourselves, you shall do well. Be prospered. 30 Then indeed they being let go, they came to Antioch. And gathering the multitude, [they] delivered the letter. 31 And when they had read [it], they rejoiced at the comfort. WHY THIS DOUBLE STANDARD IN THE BOOKS OF ACTS? 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)] DO YOU REALLY THINK THE CHURCH WAS DIVIDED IN THE BOOK OF ACTS, WITH ONLY THE BELIEVING JEWS, INCLUDING THE APOSTLES, KEEPING LAW? ***Acts 10: 9 On the next day, as these went on [the] road, and drawing near the city, Peter went up on the housetop to pray, about [the] sixth hour. 10 And he became very hungry and desired to eat. But while they made ready, an ecstasy fell on him. 11 And he saw the heaven opened and a certain vessel like a sheet coming down to him, being bound at the four corners and let down to the earth; 12 in which were all the four-footed animals of the earth, and the wild beasts, and the reptiles, and the birds of the heaven. 13 And a voice came to him, saying, Rise, Peter! Kill and eat! 14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord, for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean. 15 And the voice [spoke] to him again the second [time], What God has made clean, you do not call common. 16 This happened three [times], and the vessel was received up again into the heaven. 17 And while Peter doubted within himself what the vision which he had seen might be, even behold, the men who were sent from Cornelius had asked for Simon's house and stood on the porch. 18 And they called and asked if Simon whose last name is Peter was staying there.19 And [while] Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said to him, Behold, three men are looking for you. 20 Therefore arise and go down and go with them without doubting, for I have sent them. . . . . . . 26 But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up! I also am a man myself. 27 And as he talked with

him, he went in and found many who had come together. 28 And he said to them, You know that it is an unlawful thing for a man, a Jew to keep company with or to come near to one of another nation. But God has shown me not to call any man common or unclean. ***Galatians 2: 11 But when Peter came to Antioch, I opposed [him] to his face, because he was to be blamed. 12 For before some came from James, he ate with the nations. But when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those of the circumcision. 1 3 And the rest of the Jews also dissembled with him, so as even Barnabas was led away with their dissembling. 14 But when I saw that they did not walk uprightly with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before all, If you, being a Jew, live as a Gentile, and not as the Jews, why do you compel [the] nations to judaize? ***Acts 16: 3 Paul wanted him to go with him, and taking [him he] circumcised him , because of the Jews who were in those places; for they all knew that his father was a Greek. 4 And as they passed through the cities, they delivered to them the commandments to keep, th e ones that were ordained by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem. ***Acts 18:18 And Paul having remained many days more, taking leave of the brothers, he sailed from there into Syria. And Priscilla and Aquila were with him. And Paul had shorn his head in Cenchrea, for he had a vow. 19 And he came to Ephesus and left them there. But he himself entered into the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews. 20 And they asking [him] to stay a longer time with them, he did not consent 21 but took leave of them, saying, I must by all means keep this feast that is coming in Jerusalem , but I will return again to you, God willing. And he sailed from Ephesus. ***Acts 21:18 And on the next [day] Paul went with us to James. And all the elders were present. 19 And having greeted them, he related one by one what things God had done among the nations by his ministry. 20 And hearing, they glorified the Lord, and said to him, You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are who believe, and they are all zealous of the law. 21 And they are informed concerning you, that you teach all the Jews who are among the nations to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise [their] children, nor to walk after the customs. 22 What is it therefore? At all events a multitude will come together, for they will hear that you have come. 23

Therefore do this, what we say to you: We have four men who have a vow on themselves; 24 taking them, be purified with them , and be at expense for them, so that they may shave [their] heads. And all may know that what they have been told about you is nothing, but you yourself also walk orderly and keep the Law. 25 And as to the nations who believe, we joined in writing, judging them to observe no such things, except only that they keep themselves from both idol sacrifice, and blood, and a thing strangled, and [from] fornication. 26 Then taking the men on the next day, being purified with them, Paul went into the temple, declaring the fulfillment of the days of the purification, until an offering should be offered for each of them. [ Doesn't this mean that the marriage and morality teachings of 1 Thess. 4 ; Romans 7; 1 Corinthians 5, 6 and 7, which 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 ? Doesn't that mean that all of their terms and definitions were in harmony and accord with the Law of Moses, which the apostles were still keeping since they were believing Jews? Isn't it amazing that when God made up and gave all the exhaustive lists of sins, both in the Sinai Law and in the New Testament, He never included polygyny? If He made sure to condemn sodomy, pederastery, homosexuality, lesbianism, incest, adultery and fornication, then why didn't He also make sure to condemn polygyny, if it is the sin that some say it is?] 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 WHY DON'T THE BELIEVING GENTILES/NONJEWS OF TODAY STILL KEEP

THE LAW OF MOSES, WITH ITS PROVISIONS FOR POLYGYNY? In fact, it is not until after Acts 22 that the Spirit has Paul write the following: ***DBY EPHES. 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; 17 and, coming, he has preached the glad tidings of peace to you who were afar off, and the glad tidings of peace to those who were nigh. ***DBY COLOS. 2:13* ¶ And you, being dead in offences and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, he has quickened together with him, having forgiven us all the offences; 14* having effaced the handwriting in ordinances which stood out against us, which was contrary to us, he has taken it also out of the way, having nailed it to the cross; 15 having spoiled principalities and authorities, he made a show of them publicly, leading them in triumph by it. 16* ¶ Let none therefore judge you in meat or in drink, or in matter of feast, or new moon, or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. ***DBY 2 PETER 3:14 Wherefore, beloved, as ye wait for these things, be diligent to be found of him in peace, without spot and blameless; 15 and account the longsuffering of our Lord to be salvation; according as our beloved brother Paul also has written to you according to the wisdom given to him, 16* as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; among which some things are hard to be understood, which the untaught and ill-established wrest, as also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. ======================================== >>>>>Mat 19 BEING/BECOMING ONE FLESH Matt 19:5 and said, On account of this a man shall leave father and mother, and shall be united to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh? 6 so that they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate. 1Cor 6:15 Do ye not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then, taking the members of the Christ, make them members of a harlot? Far be the thought. 16 Do ye not know that he that is joined to the harlot is one body? for the two, he says, shall be one flesh. 17 But he that is joined to the Lord is one Spirit. 18* Flee fornication

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? Doesn't 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? Do you recall the discussion of this issue in the section on Adam and Eve? 1Cor.7:2's “. . . ..each [man] is commanded to be having his own wife, and each [woman] is commanded to be having her own husband” . How can this be an argument for monogamy as most Christian leaders maintain>62? Whenever Abraham had Sarah, he had his own wife; and whenever Abraham had Hagar, he had his own wife, not someone else's wife,right? When David had Ahinoam, didn't he have his own wife? When David had Abigail, didn't he have his own wife? When David had Maacah, didn't he have his own wife? When David had Haggith, didn't he have his own wife, instead of having another's wife? When David had Abital, didn't he have his own wife? When he had Eglah, didn't he have his own wife, not someone else's wife? Each time Jacob, Joash or Gideon had one of their own wives in polygny, wasn't he having his own wife/concubine? Wasn't each wife/concubine of these polygamists having her own polygamous husband? Isn 't this also true of a man and his concubine with whom he has maritally covenanted>22 honorably before God? Doesn't each polygynist have his own wife, and have each one of them intimately and each one is his own wife? Doesn't each of the polygynist's wives have her own husband and have him intimately in their marriage. How does the passage above rebuke, demean or condemn polygyny? Doesn't the passage address marital faithfulness and exclude adultery, which involves a husband having another’s wife and a wife having one who is not her own husband? Doesn't it restrict sexual “having” to marriage with one’s own mate in monogyny or polygyny? “. . . ..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.] >>>>>Mat 19:9 IS POLYGYNY ADULTERY? ADULTERY DEFINED, A SURPRISE! The American definition of adultery is not the Bible's definition. 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 her exhusband 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. Mt5:32 But *I* say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except for cause of fornication, makes her commit adultery, and whosoever marries one that is put away commits adultery." 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. Ever wonder why? Ask me.) [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. If she divorced him and remained celibately single, acknowledging that she is still maritally bound to him, it is not adultery >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 His death releases her to remarry. [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 marrying the other woman. If he stayed married to his wife and became marital with another, according to this passage he has not committed adultery. What does that mean? Ask me. 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). He is under command to do Matt. 18: 15-18; 2 Thess. 3:6-14; and 1 Cor. 5 with her in the manner of 2 Tim. 2:24-28. Having done that, if the temptations overcome him and he is faling to control himself, burning with marital desire, he comes under command to marry (1Cor.7:1,2,3,5,9) and so marries in the Lord. If the wife he divorced for sexual immorality is a genuine believer, he is still maritally bound to her in the Kingdom of God and when she repents in godly sorrow there is to be reconciliation (1Cor 5; 2 Cor 2 & 7)[Footnote: >152. Matt 19: 9: Mark 10:11; Luke 16:18.152.] 3. "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her." Mark 10:11 Pretty clear, right? Divorcing your wife and marrying another woman is adultery, right? But please note that nowhere in the Bible does He say "Whoever remains married to his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her." Why? Adultery is divorcing one wife AND marrying another woman.Biblical polgyny includes KEEPING ONES WIFE and marrying another woman. But understand that if a man remains married to his wife and marries another in a civil/state recognized marriage, he has committed

the felony of bigamy and is sinful disobedience to Romans 13:1-5.If a man remains married to his wife and marries another in a discrete,private, and confidential covenanting according to Romans 14:21-23, he has committed no crime and no sin. Understand that if a man remains married to his wife and becomes maritally committed to another woman in violation of their wedding vows/covenant, then his sin is not that of adultery, but is the sin of breaking covenants (Eccles 5:4-6; Malachi 2:14-17; Rom 1:31 void of understanding, faithless covenant breakers, without natural affection, unmerciful; 32 who knowing the righteous judgment of God, that they who do such things are worthy of death, not only practise them, but have fellow delight in those who do them.) As with Joshua and the Gibeonites (Josh 9 etc), such a man must confess the sin of breaking the covenant and then keep the new covenant if to do so does not violate Scripture. 4. "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.] +++++++++++++++++++THE APPLICATION: 1. If a woman sends away, puts away, dismisses from her presence, releases and/or repudiates (apoluo) her husband and marries another man, Jesus says she is committing adultery. Mr 10:12; Rom 7:2,3 (Only one exception: 1 Cor 7:12-15). There is not one verse in the entire Bible that say or teaches that if she confesses her sin ( sending away, putting away, dismissing from her presence, releasing and/or repudiating (apoluo) her husband in order to marry another man), then she is free to marry another man. Confession of (agreeing with God about) one's sin must be coupled with repentance, the forsaking of that sin (Prov 28:13; 2 Cor 7:9-11). In this case it means the forsaking of and/or the ceasing from her sending away, putting away, dismissing from her presence, releasing and/or repudiating (apoluo) her absent husband. 2. If a man sends away, puts away, dismisses from his

presence, releases and/or repudiates (apoluo) his wife AND marries another woman, Jesus says he is committing adultery. Mt 5:32; Mt 19:9; Mr 10:12; Rom 7:2,3 (Only one exception: 1 Cor 7:12-15) There is not one verse in the entire Bible that say or teaches that if he confesses his sin ( sending away, putting away, dismissing from his presence, releasing and/or repudiating (apoluo) his wife in order to marry another woman), then he is free to marry another woman. Confession of (agreeing with God about) one's sin must be coupled with repentance, the forsaking of that sin (Prov 28:13; 2 Cor 7:9-11). In this case it means the forsaking of and/or the ceasing from his sending away, putting away, dismissing from his presence, releasing and/or repudiating (apoluo) his absent wife. If there was no breaking of covenants/vows, it was not a sin for him to take another wife, his repentance does not include leaving his new wife. He is bound by covenants to both, keeps his covenant with his new wife and keeps his covenant with the wife he forsook/abandonned/repudiated. 3. An adulterer is a man who marries a woman who has been sent away, put away, dismissed from her husband's presence, released from and/or repudiated by her husband. Mt 5:32; Mt 19:9; Luke 16:18 (Only one exception: 1 Cor 7:12-15). There is not one verse in the entire Bible that say or teaches that if he confesses his sin ( marrying a woman who has been sent away, put away, dismissed from her husband's presence, released from and/or repudiated by her husband), then he is free to marry another woman. Confession of (agreeing with God about) one's sin must be coupled with repentance, the forsaking of that sin (Prov 28:13; 2 Cor 7:9-11). In this case it means the forsaking of and/or the ceasing from being married to a woman who has been sent away, put away, dismissed from her husband's presence, released from and/or repudiated by her husband. 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 that is adultery. If he both dutifully keeps his own wife and then becomes martially committed to another woman, it is 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] 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. 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? Because God allowed men the option of polygyny. Polygyny is the God given way for a man to cope with a wife who has left him and he is not maritally free from her in the Kingdom of God. [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 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. Until I understood God's double standard about adultery and remarriage, 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. 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 according to Mt 5:32 " . . . . and whosoever marries her that is put away commits adultery."; 1 Cor 7:39 39 "¶ A wife is bound for whatever time her husband lives; . . ."; and Rom. 7: 2* "A wife, for instance, whose husband is living is bound to him by the Law; but if her husband dies the law that bound her to him has now no hold over her. 3 This accounts for the fact that if during her husband’s life she lives with another man, she will be stigmatized as an adulteress; . . . ." This is true even though she is snared in sex sin and Jesus hasn't finished his Mat. 18:15-18 & 1 Cor. 5:3-11 work with her yet. He remarries with a free-in-theLord-to-marry genuinely believing woman and is still bound before the Lord to his sinning exwife. If the one involved in sex sin survives 1 Cor . 5 and repents according to 2 Cor. 2 & 7, he must accept her back along with his new wife, being bound to both as long as he and they all live. There is a common teaching in the Christian community that says that since the penalty for adultery was death, if a genuinely believing woman commits adultery she is as good as dead in God's eyes. They say that this "as good as dead" status frees her by this "death" from her genuinely believing husband, leaving her free to remarry and releasing him from her. That is not what God says in Mt 5:32 " . . . . and whosoever marries her that is put away commits adultery." If her adultery rendered her "as good as dead" and free to remarry, her remarriage would not be the adultery Jesus says it would be.

1 Cor 7:39 39 "¶ A wife is bound for whatever time her husband lives; . . ." is stated as fact without qualification, clearly indicating that her adultery did not free genuinely believing her by "death" from being bound to her genuinely believing husband. Rom. 7: 2* "A wife, for instance, whose husband is living is bound to him by the Law; but if her husband dies the law that bound her to him has now no hold over her. 3 This accounts for the fact that if during her husband’s life she lives with another man, she will be stigmatized as an adulteress; . . . ." Here the Word clearly teaches that the genuinely believing wife is not freed from her genuinely believing husband by her adultery, but if she marries another while he lives she will be known as an adulteress. The common teaching in the Christian community that says that since the penalty for adultery was death, if a genuinely believing woman commits adultery she is as good as dead in God's eyes, IS A FALSE DOCTRINE. This false doctrine declares that this "as good as dead" status frees her by this "death" from her genuinely believing husband, leaving her free to remarry and releasing him from her. 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 sexpartnership 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)] ========================================== === >>>>>>ROMANS 13 + SUBMITTING TO THE AUTHORITIES 1 TIimothy 3 & TITUS 1 LEADERS TO HAVE ONLY ONE WIFE One wrote: >I know I read that we must abide by God's law and Man's law and the last I heard, ///Clearly God instructs us in many places inthe Bible to obey the laws and the lawmakers of the land, as long as those laws do not violate or contradict His Laws in His Word in the Kingdom of God. Heb 11 etc. declare that we believers have dual citizenship, USA by natural birth, Heaven and the New Jerusalem by rebirth in Jesus. The Kingdom of God is for eternity and the kingdom of man is temporary, so the Laws of the Kingdom of God take precedence, as Shedrach and Co. showed when they refused to obey their king and his laws that required them to bow to and worship a false god; as Daniel showed when he disobeyed the law of the land by continuing to pray to God; as Miriam and Moses showed in disobeying Pharaoh's orders to kill Israelites and keep enslaved Israel; As Johnathon did in disobeying the King to save David's life; as Michal did when she disobeyed her father and king to save David's life; as David disobeyed Saul as a fugitive from the King's "justice"; as Rahab did when she disobeyed her rulers in Jericho and saved the Israeli spies; as Esther did when she entered the King's presence without his permission to save the Israelis; as Joseph did when refused to have sex with her who was in authority over him; as Samson did when he disobeyed the Philistine occupation forces; as the Wise Men did when the disobeyed Herod and obeyed God's angel by not returning to Herod; as Peter did when he disobeyed the authorities in order to obey

Jesus' command to preach Him resurrected; as Jesus did when He disobeyed the rulers of Israel by healing on the Sabbath, gleaning and eating the gleanings on the Sabbath, and by exposing the sins of the rulers of Israel contrary to their law; as Dr. ML King did when he integrated nonviolently churches, buses, stores etc which were segregated legally, exposing and confronting the sins of bias, prejudice, partiality and injustice according to 2 Tim 2:22-24 and Ephes 5:7,11. Dear Saints, We who believe in the polygny of the Bible must be prepared to suffer persecution, to suffer evil and harm at the hands of the state. What about the state and the citizen of the Kingdom of God? I have struggled much with this issue. Let's deal with civil disobedience. Gen 39: 7 ¶ And it came to pass after these things, that his master’s wife cast her eyes on Joseph, and said, Lie with me! 8 But he refused, and said to his master’s wife, Behold, my master takes cognizance of nothing with me: what is in the house, and all that he has, he has given into my hand. Slaves were commanded to obedient to their masters and slaves were considered to acceptable sex objects for their masters (Ex 21:7-11), yet Joseph obeyed God rather than man, and refused to have sex with her who owned him. Daniel 3:15 Now if you are ready, at the time you hear the sound of the horn, the pipe, zither, the lyre, harp, and bagpipe, and all kinds of music, fall down and worship the image which I have made. But if you do not worship, in that moment you shall be thrown into the middle of a burning fiery furnace. And who is that god who shall deliver you out of my hand? 16 Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego answered and said to the king, O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to return a word to you on this matter. 17 If it is so that our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, then He will deliver us out of your hand, O king. 18 But if not, let it be known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods nor worship the golden image which you have set up. ///God's servants defied and disobeyed the commands of men when those commands were in conflict with the commands of God, their eternal King of their eternal homeland -Heb 11:9 By faith he sojourned as a stranger in the land of promise as a foreign country, having dwelt in tents with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise; 10 for he waited for the city which has

foundations, of which God is the artificer and constructor. Daniel 6:13 Then they answered and said before the king, Daniel, who is of the exiled sons of Judah, has not respected you, O king, nor the ban that you have signed, but makes his prayer three times a day. 14 Then the king, when he heard the word, was very much displeased with himself. And he set his heart on Daniel to deliver him. And he labored until sundown to deliver him. 15 Then these men met before the king and said to the king, Know, O king, that the law of the Medes and Persians is that no ban nor law which the king establishes may be changed. 16 Then the king commanded, and they brought Daniel and threw him into the lions’ den. The king answered and said to Daniel, Your God, whom you always serve, will deliver you. ///God's servants defied and disobeyed the commands of men when those commands were in conflict with the commands of God, their eternal King of their eternal homeland -Heb 11:9 By faith he sojourned as a stranger in the land of promise as a foreign country, having dwelt in tents with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise; 10 for he waited for the city which has foundations, of which God is the artificer and constructor. Acts 4:18 And having called them, they charged them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. 19 But Peter and John answering said to them, If it be righteous before God to listen to you rather than to God, judge ye; 20 for as for us *we* cannot refrain from speaking of the things which we have seen and heard. 21 But they, having further threatened them, let them go, finding no way how they might punish them, on account of the people, because all glorified God for what had taken place; ///God's servants defied and disobeyed the commands of men when those commands were in conflict with the commands of God, their eternal King of their eternal homeland -Heb 11:9 By faith he sojourned as a stranger in the land of promise as a foreign country, having dwelt in tents with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise; 10 for he waited for the city which has foundations, of which God is the artificer and constructor. Second century Tertullian argued that holding public office and being a soldier would inevitably require actions forbidden to Christians; in his view, "It is more permissible to be killed than to kill." Hippolytus thought that Christians should not join the army; but if they were already in the army, they must disobey orders to kill. (Swift) So what about godly civil disobedience and polygyny? First of all our

obedience and loyalty is to King Jesus and the Kingdom of God. If King Jesus commands a widow or single woman to marry because she is failing to sexually control herself, she is to seek marriage with great diligence, indignation at vengeance with her failures, fear of chastening, ardent and zealous desire to obey and marry. 2 Cor 7:11 For, behold, this same thing, your being grieved according to God, how much diligence it wrought in *you*, but what excusing of yourselves, but what indignation, but what fear, but what ardent desire, but what zeal, but what vengeance: in every way ye have proved yourselves to be pure in the matter. 1 Cor 7: 8 But I say to the unmarried and to the widows, It is good for them that they remain even as I. 9* But if they are not having<5736> control<1467> over themselves, they should marry; for it is better to marry than to burn. 1 Cor 7:9 . . . . , let them marry; . . .(KJV, NKJV, Darby) ---"they should get married." (Complete Jewish Bible) ---"they should marry" (NIV, NCV, NAB, NEB, AB) ---"they should go ahead and marry" (NLT) ---"go ahead and get married" (CEV, ---"they should by all means go ahead and get married" (Message ---"get married" (Beck ---" cásense;" (RV) +++So the passage is much more correctly understood as saying "2 but because of cases of immorality every man should have his own wife, . . . . .3. The husband should fulfill his duty toward his wife . . . 8 But I say to the unmarried and to the widows, It is good for them that they remain even as I. 9. But if they are not exercising self-control they should marry. . . ." So under King Jesus' command that she should marry, and there is no godly single Christian brother available and willing to marry her but there is a godly married Christian brother available and willing to marry her, and the laws of the land forbid polygyny, then she must marry in polygyny but do it in the way described below according to Rom 14 etc. So under King Jesus' command that she should marry, and a godly single Christian brother is available to marry her and the Spirit leads him to marry her, as one who sees a godly need and is moved by the LOVE of God to meet that need (Rom 8:14;1Jn3:16,17,18; 2Cor 8:14ff; 2 Cor 9:14ff), then they should marry. So under King Jesus' command that she should marry,but there is only a godly married Christian brother available and willing and led to marry her (Rom 8:14;1Jn3:16,17,18; 2Cor 8:14ff; 2 Cor 9:14ff), and the laws

of the land forbid polygyny, then she must marry in polygyny but do it in the way described below according to Rom 14 etc. It is clear that where polygyny is illegal or offensive, if it is practiced it must be practiced according to 1 Cor 8, Rom 14 and 1 Cor 10. [PARAPHRASED] for application: ***1Cor 8: 8 It is true that a particular kind of [marriage] will not bring us into God’s presence; we are neither inferior to others if we abstain from [polygyny], nor superior to them if we [practice] it. 9 But take care lest this liberty of yours should prove a hindrance to the progress of weak believers. 10 For if any one were to see you, who know the real truth of this matter, [practicing polygyny], would not his conscience (supposing him to be a weak believer) be emboldened to [practice polygyny as well but with doubts]? 11 Why, your knowledge becomes the ruin of the weak believer--your brother, for whom Christ died! 12 Moreover when you thus sin against the brethren and wound their weak consciences, you are, in reality, sinning against Christ. 13 Therefore if [my polygyny] causes my brother to fall, never again to the end of my days will I [openly and publically practice polygyny], for fear I should cause my brother to fall. [Derived from 1 Cor 8:8-13] ***1Cor 10: 23 ¶ Everything is allowable, but not everything is profitable. Everything is allowable, but everything does not build others up. 24 No one should be for ever seeking his own good, but each should seek that [good] of his fellow man. 25 Any [form of marriage practiced in the world, is good for marrying,] and ask no questions for conscience’ sake; 26 for 27 If an unbeliever gives you an invitation and you are disposed to accept it, [accept it in the form of marriage that you please], and ask no questions for conscience’ sake. 28 But if any one tells you, “This [form of marriage is wrong and evil];” abstain from [manifesting] it--out of respect for him who warned you, and, as before, for conscience’ sake. 29 But now I mean his conscience, not your own. “Why, on what ground,” you may object, “is the question of my liberty of action to be decided by a conscience not my own? 30 If, so far as I am concerned, I partake [ of the form of marriage I please] with a grateful heart, why am I to be found fault with in regard to a thing for which I give thanks?” 31 Whether, then, you are [marrying or not marrying], or whatever you are doing, everything should be done to the glory of God. 32 Do not [let your form of marriage] be causes of stumbling either to Jews or to Gentiles, nor to the Church of God. 33 That is the way that I also seek in everything the approval of all men, not aiming at my own profit, but at that of the many, in the hope that they may be saved.

Rom 14:16 Let not then your [conviction that polygyny is] good be evil spoken of; 17 for the kingdom of God is not [polygyny] and [monogyny], but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18 For she that in this [controversy about polygyny] serves the Christ is acceptable to God and approved of men. 19 So then let us pursue the things which tend to peace, and things whereby one shall build up another. 20 For the sake of [polygyny] do not destroy the work of God. All things [including polygyny] indeed are pure; but it is evil to that woman who [becomes polygynous] while stumbling [in sin] because of her doubts about its rightness. 21 It is right not to [take a second wife], nor [take a third wife], nor do anything in which thy brother [or sister] stumbles [striking the toe of one's conscience against an obstacle inducing one to sin by acting in doubt], or is offended [ or stumbles or is enticed to act without faith or think unfavourably or unjustly of another and so displesed and indignant], or is made weak [morally feeble, without strength, powerless]. 22 Have you faith [to believe polygyny is right and so practice it]? Have that conviction to yourself before God. Blessed is the one who does not judge oneself in what [belief or practice of polygyny] one allows [with a firm and convinced faith in its rightness]. 23 But one that doubts [about the rightness of polygyny], if [that] one [becomes polygynous], [that one] is condemned; because that one became polygynous not because of faith [in its rightness]; but whatever [behavior or thought does not originate from] faith [in its rightness before God] is sin.

>>>>>1 TIimothy 3: 1* ¶ Faithful [is] the word: If anyone reaches out to overseership, he desires a good work. 2* Then it behooves the overseer to be without reproach, husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, wellordered, hospitable, apt at teaching, 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 StrongÕs Lexicon, Open Bible Online, Ken Hammil] >>> 2Tim 3:8 ¶ Likewise the deacons [are to be] reverent, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of ill gain, 9

having the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. 10 And let these also first be tested, then let them [use the office of a deacon], being blameless. 11 Even so [their] wives are to [be] reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. 12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling [their] children and households well. >>>>Titus 1: 6 ¶ if anyone is blameless, husband of one wife, having believing children, not accused of loose behavior, or disobedient. 7 For an overseer must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not full of passion, not given to wine, not quarrelsome, not greedy for ill gain; 8 but hospitable, a lover of good, discreet, just, holy, temperate 9 holding fast the faithful word according to the doctrine, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and to convict the gainsayers. Are these requirements only for elders,overseers and deacons, or are they for all of us in Christ? Aren't we all supposed to be without reproach, temperate, sensible, well-ordered, not drinkers, not quarrelsome, not greedy of ill gain, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous, reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, having the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience, being blameless, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. having a good report from those on the outside? Doesn't 1 Corinth. 12 and Ephes. 4 make it plain that we all have different gifts so that some [but not all] are hospitable, some [but not all] are able to teach, some [but not all] rule their own house well, some [but not all] have their children in subjection with all honor, (For if one does not know to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)? Since novices are not expected to be able or qualified to be an elder, overseer or deacon, doesn't that also mean that they are therefore not expected to be mongynous? Since all believers are not required to have the gift of hospitality, of teaching, of ruling well and effectively their children, and since all believers are novices at one point in their spiritual lives, then isn't it obvious that not all believers have the gift (1 Cor. 7) of monogyny? If these standards (especially monogyny) are to be required of all believers, then what about those believers Paul

encourages to never marry at all so that they can wait on God without distraction in times of persecution? Isn't it clear that these requirements are required only of those who seek to qualify for such positions? 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. ======================================== >>>>>>Miscellaneous Objections The critic writes:

<<So we see that God allowed Abraham to have plural wives, but we also see that he had to live with the consequences of such an arrangement and we still today see the consequences of this arrangement when we see the trouble in the Middle East between the Muslims and the Jews. It has even hit our soil as we see what happened on Sept. 11, 2001. The Muslims come from the line of Ishmael, the son of Hagar. We see in Gen. 29:25-35, 30:1-24 the story of Jocob and his two wives. He originally was supposed to marry Rachel, but Laban tricked him and gave him Leah. Jacob then was able to get Rachel later as wife. But we see in the above reference the story of that plural marriage. Rachel was a favorite wife,but Leah was able to conceive and have children while Rachel was barren in the beginning. It was a constant source of hard feelings and discord between the two women. Once again, we see the consequences of polygamy.>> ///Partiality, favoritism and bias are sins for anyone, monogynous or polygynous. 1 Tim 5:20,21; James 2:1-10; Acts 10. His standard for us, monogynous or polygynous, is "to walk worthy of the calling wherewith ye have been called, 2 ¶ with all lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, bearing with one another in love; 3 using diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the uniting bond of peace."Eph 4. Rivalry, emulation and strife are sins for anyone, monogynous or polygynous. 3 for ye are yet carnal. For whereas there are among you emulation and strife, are ye not carnal, and walk according to man? 1Cor 3 Often in monogyny there is rivalry, emulation, fruitfulness contrasted with barrenness, hard feelings and discord between the husband and the wife. Polygyny is not the cause of the sin, but it is the product of society, the flesh principle and/or the evil ones. <> ///Rivalry, contention, strife, self-assertion and selfishness are sins for anyone, monogynous or polygynous. His standard for us, monogynous or polygynous, is "to walk worthy of the calling wherewith ye have been called, 2 ¶ with all lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, bearing with one another in love; 3 using diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the uniting bond of peace."Eph 4. Rivalry, emulation and strife are sins for anyone, monogynous or polygynous.

3 for ye are yet carnal. For whereas there are among you emulation and strife, are ye not carnal, and walk according to man? 1Cor 3 Often in monogyny there is rivalry, emulation, fruitfulness contrasted with barrenness, hard feelings and discord between the husband and the wife. Polygyny is not the cause of the sin, but it is the product of society, the flesh principle and/or the evil ones. <<We see yet another sad story in the life of David. 2 Chron.13 records the story of Tamar, the full sister of Absalom and the half sister of Amnon. Amnom raped Tamar, his half sister and Absalom her full brother killed him for it. Had David only married one wife, this would not have had to happen. So here we see another unhappy consequence of a plural marriage.>> ///Incest is a sin that God has condemned for all, monogynous or polygynous, since Moses (Lev 18 and 20). Polygyny does not cause incest, but it is the product of society, the flesh principle and/or the evil ones. <<We see in these stories from the Old Testament that the fruit of polygamy is less than ideal. . . It looks like God allowed polygamy, although it was not His ideal for marriage. >> ///The ideal for marriage was found in the Garden with Adam and Eve before they sinned and came under the curse. The ideal was Adam and Eve completely equal, no wifely subjection required, no decreed husband leadership/headship, and no pain in childbirth. All of that from the ideal monogynouos marriage was lost with sin, the fall and the curse. Since then there has been no ideal marriage, since all marriages are found under and suffering from the fall, sin and the curse. << I guess my only questions would be this. Why is polygamy so important to you? Why is this such an all consuming issue for you? Are there not more important Biblical issues at stake?>> ///Because the USA is full of genuine believers living in adultery, putting them under the chastening of God, because they have believed the lie instead of the Word of God, believing that when they divorced, or were divorced by, their genuinely believing mates all they had to do to return to God's favor was to pray, "Oh dear God, I am so sorry for divorcing (or being divorced by) my genuinely believing mate and marrying another genuinely believing mate. Please forgive me, in Jesus Name." They are then allowed by American Christianity to go on in their new marriage, even though Jesus makes it clear it is adultery and that they are living in adultery, in good fellowship with the local church, DENYING OR IGNORING THE FACT THAT GOD DECLARED THAT

THE GENUINELY BELIEVING HUSBAND AND WIFE ARE MARITALLY BOUND TO EACH OTHER IN THE KINGDOM OF GOD UNTIL DEATH SEPARATES THEM (1Cor7:10,11,39;Rom 7:1-3; Mark 10:1-12; Mat 19:112). The man's adultery was not that he married another wife, since God makes it clear in Ex 21:7-11 and Dt 21:15,16 and Ezek 23:1-5 that is is not a sin for a man to have more than one wife. The Jesus' believing man's adultery was divorcing/abandonning his wife, putting apart what God had put together, and anyone who married genuinely believing her who was so divorced/abandonned committed adultery (1Cor7:10,11,39;Rom 7:1-3; Mark 10:1-12; Mat 19:1-12). The believing man's repentance is to take back as wife his rejected believing wife and keep his covenants to both of them to the best of God's enabling. This is one reason polygyny is so important to me, such an all consuming issure for me. ///In the USA there are many Jesus believing bereft women and widows who are failing to adequately control themselves and so are under command to marry (1 Cor 7:8,9; 1 Tim 5:10-14). On the average in the local churches there are 3 available monogynous men for every needy woman in her 30s, 4 available monogynous men for every needy woman in her 40s, and 5 available monogynous men for every needy woman in her 50s. Since there are not enough single godly men available for each bereft woman and widow to have one for each, instead of obeying the command to marry by marrying in polygyny WHICH IS NO WHERE CONDEMNED IN THE BIBLE, NEVER DECLARED TO BE SIN, NEVER FORBIDDEN BY GOD; instead these esus believing bereft women and widows fall in to fornication (having sex with one who is not your mate), adultery, lesbianism, sinful self-stimulation using memory or imagination or porn, bisexuality and/or lesbianism, ALL OF WHICH ARE CONDEMNED IN THE BIBLE, DECLARED TO BE SIN, FORBIDDEN BY GOD. Indeed the teaching and commandment and traditions of religious men against polygyny, have made the Word of God of no effect for these needy women (Mark 7:1-15). <> ///"19 My brethren, if any one among you err from the truth, and one bring him back, 20 let him know that he that brings back a sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death and shall cover a multitude of sins." James 5. Turning the wrongfully divorced and remarried believers away from their adultery and into repentant Godly polygyny, turning those belieiving bereft and widowed women away from their fornication (having sex with one who is not your mate), adultery, lesbianism, sinful self-stimulation using memory or imagination or porn, bisexuality and/or lesbianism," brings back a

sinner from the error of his way" and saves "a soul from death and shall cover a multitude of sins." <> ///What kind of testimony do you think the adulterous Christians described above have? What kind of testimony do those believing bereft and/or widowed women have who in their struggle to sexually control themselves are failing to accept God's solution of marriage (a solution being denied to them by the religious leaders of the local churches condeming polygyny) and so are intermittently falling into fornication (having sex with one who is not your mate), adultery, lesbianism, sinful self-stimulation using memory or imagination or porn, bisexuality and/or lesbianism." I personally know for a fact that it is quite possible to practice polygyny according to Rom 14 in America today and have a good testimony and ministry in local churches. ====================================== >>>>>>>>The Economics and Sociology of Polygyny for the Working Class Poor. From: "oldservant8" Date: Sat Jul 20, 2002 9:05 am Subject: expected economic role + striving for equality To:IslamicLady This discussion came up in a Yahoo economics group @yahoogroups.com >>> = A correspondent /// = oldservant8 ///You wrote->>>As, you well know, the media always exploits the pitfalls of poly relationships, especially with recent cases of welfare fraud surrounding children who are products of poly relationships, while, of course, ignoring the enormous poverty and fraud that occurs within serial monogamous relationships through divorce and unwed mothers. >>>Aside from your personal reasons for wanting a poly relationship, how do you envision your own family economically functioning as a poly unit? The number one question we have found from poly-curious single women is, what is their expected economic role in the relationship. What do you think?

///In a nutshell, I like the Biblical model the best. WEYActs 2:44 And all the believers kept together, and had everything in common. 45 They sold their lands and other property, and distributed the proceeds among all, according to every one's necessities. WEYActs 4:34 And, in fact, there was not a needy man among them, for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the money which they realised, 35 and gave it to the Apostles, and distribution was made to every one according to his wants. DBY2Cor8: 12 For if the readiness be there, a man is accepted according to what he may have, not according to what he has not. 13 For it is not in order that there may be ease for others, and for you distress, 14 but on the principle of equality; in the present time your abundance for their lack, that their abundance may be for your lack, so that there should be equality. 15 According as it is written, He who gathered much had no excess, and he who gathered little was nothing short. ///In one polygynous African tribe, the husband lives in the largest dwelling, each wife has her own littler dwelling, and the responsibilities are divided among all members, all working. Some took care of the babies, usually the last one to give birth and breast feeding. Some worked the gardens. Some took goods to market to sell. Some traveled to town to do work. All brought their gain to the family, and the family divided what they had according to each's need, striving for equality . ///In America it could take several forms. There could be the rich man who has a big six bedroom house, the husband in the master bedroom for together times with all in bed in one room, and each wife having her own bedroom, and the children having the rest. Some took care of the babies, usually the last one to give birth and breast feeding. Some worked the gardens. Some took goods to markets to sell. Some traveled to town to do work. All brought their gain to the family, and the family divided what they had according to each's need, striving for equality . ///There could be the country farmer with 100 acres, a big house and several cottages. The husband in the master bedroom for together times with all in bed in one room, and each wife having her own cottage, and

the children having the rest. Some took care of the babies, usually the last one to give birth and breast feeding. Some worked the gardens and the crops. Some took goods to markets to sell. Some traveled to town to do work. All brought their gain to the family, and the family divided what they had according to each's need, striving for equality. ///Then there is average Joe Blow who has a job that barely allows him to support one wife in a small two bedroom apartment. His three other wives each have their own two bedroom apartment for themselves and their children. The husband's living room is made into a master bedroom for together times with all in bed in one room, one bedroom made into a den, and the second bedroom for the kids. Each wife having her own apartment & bedroom, and the children having the second bedroom. One took care of the babies, usually the last one to give birth and breast feeding. One worked at a part time job to have time to help homeschool the children. Another wife worked at the local market. One traveled to town to work as an RN. All brought their gain to the family, and the family divided what they had according to each's need, striving for equality . Anyway, that's the view from here. Peace, Ron ++++++++++++++++++Part two++++++++++++++++++++++ Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 12:38:47 -0700 (PDT) From: IslamicLady Subject: Re: expected economic role + striving for equality >>> As salaamu alaiku, group >>>Some of the means of achieving economic harmony listed here are quite clear and would indeed provide economic harmony within the family unit. However, the average person one causes me some concern. If the "average man" can barely support one wife and any children, who exactly would be paying the rent on the apartments of the other wives? ///It is common knowledge and all the statistics are in. The largest group in the working class of the poor is the group of working single mothers. The largest group of the working class poor with the worst

record of escaping that poverty is the group of working single mothers. The largest group of working class children locked into poverty with the worst health and education record is the group of children of working single mothers. Single mothers and their children do not do as well as mothers who have a committed male in their lives who is helping them as a family. ///How could a low income working class polygynous family make it? They would pool their net income for the expenses, as described below, and as described above in the Acts 2 & 4 & 2 Cor 8 Scriptures. >>>Would they themselves be expected to continue working in order to maintain their own residences? ///All work, even the one that stays home to breast feed the babies and care for the children, but this one doesn't get a formal paycheck from an official employer. The work of the breast feeding mother is to care for the baby or babies being breast fed, and she is paid by the pooled resources of the other members of the family who are working. >>> If this is what is envisioned by this, then this certainly sounds unfair, because then the woman gains nothing but the company of a husband and may find that she needs to rely on public assistance in order to survive economically and that defeats one of the purposes of marriage. ///Even working poor monogynous families have to sometimes receive unemployment insurance, food stamps and/or medicare. The women and children in a working poor family receiving some form of assistance in their poverty are still doing better than the working poor single mothers. The women and their children gain the love, protection, care, affection, passion and attention of a man they love passionately, a man who loves them passionately. Each wife has at least one hour alone with him every other night for intimacy and special attention. This allows each wife to have orgasmic passion three times a week without fear of HIV/ HCV/HPV. He has one hour a night with the kids. One hour a night with everybody during the dinner hour. As you see in the model below, their is no need for public cash assistance for this family of 13. >>>Otherwise, all of the cooperative options listed make sense, since each wife would bring her unique talent and gift to the marriage as a whole.

oldservant8 wrote: expected economic role + striving for equality ///THE SPECIFICS OF THE John Doe FAMILY SITUATION ///Then there is average John Doe who has a job that barely allows him to support one wife, Betty, in a small two bedroom apartment. His three other wives each have their own two bedroom apartment for themselves and their children. Their apartments are less than one mile away from each other. The husband's living room is made into a living-roombedroom for together times, if so desired by all, with all in one large room. Because of antipolygyny laws and recent Supreme Court rulings, it is strongly advisable that the husband not be intimate with more than one wife at a time. One bedroom in is apartment would be made into a den, and the second bedroom for the kids. Each “wife” would have her own apartment & bedroom, her children having the second and or third bedroom. ///John works at Slurpo, the local soft dring company, as a union truck driver making a monthly net of $2400, working 30 hours a week. Betty works for the City as a meter reader, making a monthly net $2000 per month. Loulou took care of the babies, the last one to give birth and breast feeding. Fannie Mae works at a part time job, making a monthly net $800, to have time to help homeschool the children. The children are home schooled through the 8th grade. Daisy travels to town to work as an RN, making a monthly net $3200. All bring their gain to the family, and the family divides what they have according to each's need, striving for equality . Three of the older kids work at local restaurants and fast food outlets, making a net of $1630. Their monthly net family income is $10030. They have a total of 8 children, a family of 13 people. They all put their income into the common purse/account and in family conference decide together how the money should be spent. ///Their combined rents are $3200, in a blue collar neighborhood in So. Calif. Their food budget is $2600 per mo. They have car expenses of $1000 per month. Insurance runs $520. Medical and dental insurance for the full time and part time stay-home moms, $400. Utilities and phone runs at $160. That is an outflow of $7880. That leaves $2150 for everything else, including savings, investments.

///Because polygamy is illegal in the USA, he is legally married only to one of the “wives”, Betty, and was privately and solemnly covenanted with each of his other ladies. Loulou, Fannie Mae, Daisy. He attends Betty's pentecostal church Sunday mornings at 8:30, as her husband. He attends Loulou's AfroAm COGIC church at 10:30, as her backslidden man to avoid prosecution for polygamy. He attends FannieMae's African American Episcopalean church Sunday night, as her backslidden man, to avoid prosecution. He attends Daisy's lilly white Presbyterian church Wednesday nights, as her backslidden man, to avoid prosecution. Sunday afternoons they either barbecue at the beach or the park, where they picnic together and the children play. Anyway, that's the view from here +++++++++++++++++Part three++++++++++++++++++++++ From: IslamicLady Date: Sun Jul 21, 2002 6:28 am Subject: Re: expected economic role + striving for equality Clearly you have thought this through - a bit too much it would appear. And in the "average man" description, assumptions are made that should not be. All of the wives are non-Muslim so would they be accepting of such an arrangement? /// I believe the following answer that question in the affirmative. www.bfree.org http://bfree.org/ http://www.3coins.com/ http://polyamory.meetup.com/389/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Poly_Polygamy_Polygny_And_Jesus http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OrthodoxBiblicalMarriagePolygamy http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PolyPolygamyPolygnyNJesus http://groups.google.com/group/BiblicalChristianPolygamyPolygyny http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OrthodoxBiblicalMarriagePolygamy2 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LynnAndLossRecovery http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PolyOption4ChristiansWithSTDs/ http://community.eons.com/groups/group/women-sharing-one-manmaritally http://groups.myspace.com/BiblicalChristianPoly http://www.hi5.com/friend/group/3901734-Biblical_Christian_Polygamy_Po--front-html

http://en.netlog.com/clan/PolygamyPolygynyJesus ttp://polygynouschristians.multiply.com/ http://biblicalpolygamy.multiply.com/ http://en.groups.zorpia.com/group/biblical_polygamy_polygyny >>>Also, it calls into account the need for the older children to work as well as all of the adults. /// 2 Thess 3: 10 “For also when we were with you we enjoined you this, that if any man does not like to work, neither let him eat. 11 For we hear that there are some walking among you disorderly, not working at all, but busybodies. 12 Now such we enjoin and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ, that working quietly they eat their own bread.” 12, 13 and 14 year old children are quite capable and should have some small job/jobs by which they can earn pocket change. Older children still attending school full time should have part time jobs of ten to 15 hours a week to pay for their own entertainment, transportation, clothing etc. /// That is an outflow of $7880. That leaves $2150 for everything else, including savings, investments. >>>Assuming the figures you gave above, the average rent on each of the 4 apartments would be $800; is the car expense amount for 4 cars or 5 - I mean each wife should have her own car, right? /// Good point. There would need to be a 5th car, unless one of the wives drove JohnDoe to and from work. >>> And utilities and phone combined are only $160 for 4 residences, that must indicate that each apartment has most of the utility amounts covered as part of the $800 rent payment (or the families are essentially living in darkness most of the time without air conditioners or even fans) ///Water and trash are included. Living in So. Calif. is cheap, given the mild Mediterranean climate. >>>and that no one uses the phone very often, especially to make long-distance calls; /// unlimited local use, email saves on the long distance calls.

>>>you mentioned insurance, which I assume is car insurance, and medical and dental insurance for the wives that stay at home - what about the rest of the family? /// The legal wife is covered by her husband's insurance through employment, and the wives who work out of the house have med and life insurance through their employment. >>>I stick to my original statement, such a situation means that each wife must work in order for the family unit as a whole to survive. ///Yes, everybody works, except for the children under 12 years. >>>And if Mr. Truck Driver is attending so many different churches, how is he remaining true to his own faith? /// All of those churches have compatable core beliefs, no serious conflicts. >>>Or are you describing this as an overall economic solution for both Muslims and non-Muslims? /// It would work for anyone, except there would be so many different churches, since the Muslims at the local Mosque would probably accept the polygyny of the family. >>>Perhaps this is where my confusion comes in. ///Not aware of any confusion. oldservant8 ========================================== = From: "a_human" = +++ Date: Sun Jul 21, 2002 11:26 am Subject: Re: expected economic role + striving for equality > ///All work, even the one that stays home to breast feed the babies > and care for the children, but this one doesn't get a paycheck. +++Oh, I get it. Taking care of kids isn't REAL work.

///She doesn't get a paycheck because all of the other working members of the family put their income into the common account and money is drawn out by each according to their need and the family budget. Acts 2:44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common, 45 and sold their possessions and substance, and distributed them to all, according as any one might have need. Acts 4: 32 ¶ And the heart and soul of the multitude of those that had believed were one, and not one said that anything of what he possessed was his own, but all things were common to them; . . . 34 For neither was there any one in want among them; for as many as were owners of lands or houses, selling them, brought the price of what was sold 35 and laid it at the feet of the apostles; and distribution was made to each according as any one might have need. 2Cor8:13 For it is not in order that there may be ease for others, and for you distress, 14 but on the principle of equality; in the present time your abundance for their lack, that their abundance may be for your lack, so that there should be equality. 15 According as it is written, He who gathered much had no excess, and he who gathered little was nothing short. 2 thess 3: 10 For also when we were with you we enjoined you this, that if any man does not like to work, neither let him eat. 11 For we hear that there are some walking among you disorderly, not working at all, but busybodies. 12 Now such we enjoin and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ, that working quietly they eat their own bread. > ///Each wife has at least one hour alone with him every > other night for intimacy and special attention. This allows each >wife to have orgasmic passion three times a week without fear of >HIV/HCV/HPV. He has one hour a night with the kids. One hour a >night with everybody during the dinner hour. +++Wow, sounds like bliss! I can't imagine why women wouldn't JUMP at the chance of having 1 hour alone with her husband every 48 hours. /// The working class and poor single mother with no committed man has much less than that, in both quantity and quality. John Doe would spend one night of every four nights as well with each wife. Statistically John Doe's wives are have orgasmic sex two times more a week than the averge American wife. Statistically the average American couple spends much less time focused on each other than John and his wives. They are getting about twice as

much conscious focused attention than the average American wives. ///The war widows and HIV widows of Africa, Afghanistan, Albania, Sudan, Ethiopia, ERitrea would thank God if they could be in and have such a family and such attention from a husband of their own. The unmarried "surplus" women of SE Asia who are economically forced into prostitution and crime would thank God if they could be in and have such a family and such attention from a husband of their own. +++The kids too would be so fortunate to see their dad for an hour a day (and share him with the rest of the brood). What could be better than this? ///The statistics in America indicate that John's kids are getting three times as much focused and conscious attention as the average American kid. The orphans of Africa, Afghanistan, Albania, Sudan, Ethiopia, ERitrea would thank God if they could be in and have such a family and such attention from a stepdad of their own. The orphans of SE Asia who are economically forced into prostitution and crime would thank God if they could be in and have such a family and such attention from a step dad of their own. The SE Asian Muslim council decreed that polygyamy was the solution for dealing with the women and widows who have no man of their own, and for orphans who have no home or family. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The debate over the low income working class John Doe and his four wives continues. /// = my responses Tyler In a message [email protected] writes: << - Mar 2003 From: "U" <[email protected]> = \\\ Subject: Re: Re:two "wives" that live in separate houses \\\Surprise, surprise, surprise, I actually agree with you about 2 Thess 3: 10-14. A man should work. In biblical terms, (I cannot remember the verses), a man is the head of the house and as such he is responsible for his family. ///According to the Bible, every member of the family is responsible for themselves and each other, with the husband serving as the teacher/advisor/leader (not boss, tyrant or dictator), the wife as his helper/advisor/assistant and as teacher of her children etc etc etc.

\\\Here is where I start disagreeing :-) What you described below is a man that has four separate women to choose from. ///Maybe I didn't state it clearly enough, but John Doe and his wives are committed believers and followers of Jesus Christ, and are maritally committed to each other as long as each lives. Just as he is commanded to be sexually having his wives (1Cor7:2-5;Prov5:19,20) and has sexual authority over the sexual use of their bodies (1Cor7:25), the wives are commanded by God to be sexually having their own husband, and have sexual authority over the sexual use of his body. They are forbidden from sexually denying each other except for prayer and fasting that is mutually agreed upon and has a time limit. Any "choosing" being done in such a family should be done according to the above. \\\When there is trouble from one of the women he can go to another 'home' until the trouble blows over. ///If he is prepared to disobey Jesus and be subject to the sickness and or weakness of His chastening for disobeying Jesus. Jesus requires such a man to live wisely (1Pt3:7) with his wife/wives, and Jesus requires him to make a diligent and sincere effort restore the unity in a bond of peace (Eph 4:1-5). His mission is described as follows: 2Tm2:24* And a bondman of the Lord ought not to contend, but be gentle towards all; apt to teach; forbearing; 25* in meekness setting right those who oppose, if God perhaps may sometime give them repentance to acknowledgment of the truth, 26 and that they may awake up out of the snare of the devil, who are taken by him, for *his* will. Eph4: 1 ¶ *I*, the prisoner in the Lord, exhort you therefore to walk worthy of the calling wherewith ye have been called, 2 ¶ with all lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, bearing with one another in love; 3 using diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the uniting bond of peace. ///Just as he is commanded to be sexually having his wives (1Cor7:25;Prov5:19,20) and has sexual authority over the sexual use of their bodies (1Cor7:2-5), the wives are commanded by God to be sexually having their own husband, and have sexual authority over the sexual use of his body. They are forbidden from sexually denying each other except for prayer and fasting that is mutually agreed upon and has a time limit. \\\Where is his responsibility to any of them? According to your scenario each of the woman support themselves, with the older

children's help. ///In Africa, India, SE Asia and the Far East, poor polygynist families require the work of everyone able to work in order to survive. It would be unrealistic and unsupported by the Bible to require a poor husband to have to be able to fully support every wife he has, leaving the practice of polygyny to the rich only. As in the Third World, the John Doe and his wives are poor working class people, need everyone who can work to work (housekeeping, raising kids, holding full time jobs, part time jobs and assisting each other). Everyone is "responsible" to the family for its support, according to their ability. \\\He is living a lie. He goes to each of the women's church pretending to believe in that faith. This is deceit at its worst. These churches may all have "compatible core beliefs", I don't know. However, just by going to any of these churches Mr. John Doe is expressing a basic belief in that church's philosophy. So he goes and lives a lie. A good example he sets for his children. ///It is so hard to deal gently with the tone and content of your arrogant and ignorant assumptions. He has his own church and is a member ( but not an official) of it. He is forbidden to have an official leadership or service position (1Tm3). He visits his other wives churches NOT PRETENDING TO BELIEVE THEIR UNIQUE AND DISTINGUISHING BELIEFS, but as a believer in the Jesus and Bible they also hold to, as her own visiting man but not as a member of their church. He may not attend as her “husband” because that would violate America’s antipolygyny laws. John Does and I do this all the time. ///In my last main job I would attend up to four different churches, many of different denominations, on any one Sunday, enjoying the messages and the fellowship. THERE IS NO DECEIT. When John Does and/or I visit a Catholic, Pentecostal, Baptisit, Methodist, Messianic, AOG, Brethren etc church, we don't visit as deceitful nonCatholics, Pentecostals, Baptists, Methodists, AOGs, Messianic, Brethren, or etc.; but as believers in Jesus who have chosen to join them for fellowship at that time for that service. THERE IS NO LIE OR DECEIT, BUT AN AFFIRMATION THAT BELIEVERS IN JESUS MEET AND WORSHIP JESUS IN MANY DIFFERENT WAYS. \\\Where is his leadership? What kind of example does he set for his children? How does he stand by his women when all their belief systems are different from his. ///The leadership is where it belongs, first with Jesus, then with the husband and then with the wife. They lead their children in consistent

and faithful practice of their faith in Jesus. They set the example of the unity of all believers in Jesus who Love and serve each other as they are taught by Jesus to do so. Their core beliefs in Jesus are all the same, while the way they worship, baptize, have communion may vary significantly, being secondary beliefs \\\Sure they have a picnic on the weekends but that just proves he is a good party organizer. One of the women probably has that chore also. ///In such a family, just as all the funds and finances are shared, all the duties and responsibilities are shared, including the planning, doing and cleaning up of a picnic. \\\You brought up Muslims. Muslims set a good example with polygamy. A man cannot take another wife until he is fully able to support her and any children. Maybe if all these so called "bible believing", "God inspired" polygamists took their responsibilities more serious instead of collecting trophies there wouldn't be such an outcry against polygamy. Examples like yours justify the present mainstream mood against polygamy. ///You OBVIOUSLY know little of Muslim polygyny, especially African Muslim polygyny, where all work and pool their resources to help the family survive. Polygyny was never meant to be the privilege of only the rich and the powerful. \\\If Mr. John Doe really wanted to have a polygamist relationship he would find a house where his 'family' could live together. ///In the USA that would probably make him/them subject to felony bigamy/polygyny prosecution, fines and imprisonment. A stupid way to ruin one's family. ///In State v. Barlow (107 Utah 292-1944), "The Utah Supreme Court rejected the defendant's free exercise challenge and affirmed their convictions for cohabitating with more than one person of the opposite sex." The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the defendant's appeal of the Utah Supreme Court decision. p. 1070 "We find no authority for extending the Constitutional right to privacy so far that it would protect polygamous marriages. We decline to do so." 1985, see Roe v. Wade. p. 1070 ///The "Constitutional right of privacy prevents the state from criminalizing the non-prostitutional heterosexual activities of two unmarried consenting adults when such activities occur in privacy of home." Duling, 603 F. Supp. 960 (E.D. Va 1985). p. 1071 It behooves American polygynists that are legally married to be legally

UNMARRIED AND CONSENTING with any other covenanted sexual partners they may have, exercising their polygyny in the privacy of their home, sexually, verbally and editorially. ///To pracitce polygyny in California today, you must not: >> 1. Be legally married to more than one "wife" at the same time (CA Criminal Law #820) >> 2. Be married in an officially recognized ceremony to more than one "wife" at one time (CA Criminal Law 822; Fam Law #66)) >> 3. Be married in a state or publicly recognized common-law marriage to more than one wife at the same time (CL 822; Fam Law #65 & #66). Public here means the general public, not polygynous families who join you in a covenanting event. >> 4. Be married by state license to more than one mate at the same time (CL822) >> 5. Be solemnized in marriage to more than one wife at the same time by an official recognized by the state (CL822). If the polygynous "marriage" is "solemnized" by ceremony, rite or ritual, the words "wife", "husband" and "marriage" should be avoided carefully (a good thesaurus will help. See the appendix. See Fam Law#65). >> 6. Be authenticated in marriage to more than one wife at the same time (in polygyny) in any way acceptable to the state (CL822) >> 7. File the marriage certificate of registry with the state, for your polygynous marriage. (CL822) >> 8. Conclude in an official civil manner or legally your "marriage" in polygyny. (CL824) >> 9. Publicly cohabit as husband and wife, publicly and mutually, assuming marital rights, duties and obligations, including sexual relations with more than one wife at the same time.(CL825) [Public here is the general public, not one's polygynous associates. Even though they may not cohabit as husband and wife, they may cohabit as man and woman, man and his own woman, exclusive lovers, exclusive love/life partners, exclusively devoted lovers, a man and his covenant woman/lover/partner/pal, or viceversa for all the above (e.g. a woman and her own man).] >> 10. Have the reputation in a community of being married, nor deport yourselves in the neighborhood as husband and wife (Fam Law 61 & 62). Specifically you must not allow/permit/encourage common, general, uniform, and undivided repute among witnesses/ neigbors that you are married to more than one mate at the same time. (Fam Law#65, Re Estate of Gill; Hite v. Hite; Re Estate of Baldwin). The reputation of being a man with more than one woman/lover would be legal. >> 11. Have any one other than the actual parties of the polygynous

uniting present at the "uniting" ceremony (Fam Law 62), since every witness of the "uniting" is a possible "witness" of the polygynous uniting in a bigamy trial. See # 5 above. If they are willing to take the chance, there would be relative safety in having other polygynously "united" couples present. I don't see any problem with witnesses at a "covenant event", "union ceremony", or "bonding ceremony" (not wedding ceremony, see ch. 3). It would be foolish and risky to invite or inform the monogynous and/or the opponents of polygyny to any such uniting event. It only takes one witness to files criminal charges. \\\A couple of the women could concentrate on their careers enabling them to bring home more money. ///Night and weekend schools and correspondence courses would allow all the wives to do so, with each other helping out with each other's kids. \\\One could home school, providing the children a quality education. ///obviously you didn't read all of my post. Again --"///John works at Slurpo, the local soft drink company, as a union truck driver making a monthly net of $2400, working 30 hours a week. Betty works for the City as a meter reader, making a monthly net $2000 per month. Loulou took care of the babies, the last one to give birth and breast feeding. Fannie Mae works at a part time job, making a monthly net $800, to have time to help homeschool the children. The children are home schooled through the 8th grade. Daisy travels to town to work as an RN, making a monthly net $3200. All bring their gain to the family, and the family divides what they have according to each's need, striving for equality. Three of the older kids work at local restaurants and fast food outlets, making a net of $1630. Their monthly net family income is $10030. They have a total of 8 children, a family of 13 people." \\\With them all living in the same household over all expenses would go down and the older children would not have to go to work to help support the family, which is Mr. John Doe's responsibility. ///THERE IS NOT ONE SCRIPTURE IN THE WHOLE BIBLE THAT SAYS THAT THE HUSBAND IS REQUIRED TO BE SOLE PROVIDER AND THAT ALL ARE TO LIVE OFF OF HIS INCOME. YOU ARE TEACHING AS DOCTRINE YOUR OWN TEACHING INSTEAD OF GOD'S DOCTRINE. God's rule is made plain in 2 Cor 8 and 2 Cor 9. When necessary, all who can work should work (2 Thess 3:6-14).

\\\The children could concentrate on getting a better education, thereby ensuring a much better future for the children, which is another one of Mr. John Doe's responsibilities. ///ACCORDING TO YOUR MALE CHAUVINISTIC POINT OF VIEW. In the Bible's view the father/husband and wife/mother are jointly responsible for preparing their children for their futures. \\\In my opinion, Mr. John Doe has four separate monogamous relationships. Mr. John Doe is living the good life. He can go from woman to woman as he sees fit. He is keeping them down. The women would be better off if they banded together and got rid of Mr. John Doe. U ///No point in repeating the errors in U's reading and interpretations of my post. Getting rid of their John Doe would leave the women as single mothers with fatherless children, which in America today is the lowest and most poverty stricken level of living in America, with the children statistically doing worse in school and more likely to become involved in crime. Tom's idea sucks. John Doe and his wives avoid all these pitfalls and have the joy of living in loving and caring unity. __________________________________________________________ Date: Mar 2003 From: = --Subject: Re: Re: Re:two "wives" that live in separate houses ---Must agree Tom. Mr. John Doe seems to have all the good of relationships but none of the bad. Not even the responsibility. ///Sad to see that N did no better than U. John Doe shares with each of his wives the responsibility of parenting, teaching, caring and providing for their children. John Doe and his wives are committed believers and followers of Jesus Christ, and are maritally committed to each other as long as each lives. Just as he is commanded to be sexually having his wives (1Cor7:2-5;Prov5:19,20) and has sexual authority over the sexual use of their bodies (1Cor7:2-5), the wives are commanded by God to be sexually having their own husband, and have sexual authority over the sexual use of his body. They are forbidden from sexually denying each other except for prayer and fasting that is mutually agreed upon and has a time limit. He is responsible for unselfishly and compassionately cherishing his wives in Love, of submitting to the Word of God they speak to Him from the Bible, and his wives are responsible for following his lead, as long as doing so does not involve disobedience to Jesus, and for showing the respect due to him as the marital authority that God has

set over her (Rom 13; Ephes 5). ---It seems he is basically a "stud service" for these women in that aside from LouLou or whoever, everyone takes care of themselves. ///The women have the same sexual authority over him and are commanded to be sexually having him, just as he is commanded to do with them. He has an hour plus every evening with all the wives and the children, and an hour =/- with the children of the wife with whom he spends that night. Such a family that Loves Jesus shows that Love by Loving each other, so when they see each others need, they do what they can to meet that need (1 Jn3 Eph 4) ---While one woman who works as the meter maid gets no housework help while she is working, she is putting in a full week of work. The other women have much less to do. ///Fannie Mae's part time job plus home schooling is more than a full time job. Anyone who knows the work of an RN, knows that Daisy is earning the money she makes as a full time nurse. "Much less to do"? I don't think so. ///" Fannie Mae works at a part time job, making a monthly net $800, to have time to help homeschool the children. The children are home schooled through the 8th grade. Daisy travels to town to work as an RN, making a monthly net $3200. " ---While Mr. John Doe has least of all. He just goes to work his measly 30 hours and hops from house to house for food, showers and sex. ///Many workers, especially if they work for Vons, Wal*Mart, KMart etc are given only 30 a week by their employer, because the employers want to keep their costs down. This John Doe is working the most hours his employer allows him to work. Obviously you didn't read all of the post--"///The women gain the love, protection, care, affection, passion and attention of a man they love passionately, a man who loves them passionately. Each wife has at least one hour alone with him every other night for intimacy and special attention. This allows each wife to have orgasmic passion three times a week without fear of HIV/ HCV/HPV. He has one hour a night with the kids. One hour a night with everybody during the dinner hour. As you see in the model below, their is no need for public assistance for this family of 13." --- I can see why a man would want it this way, but I see Mr. John Doe

as a pig, as would most woman. N >> ///Then your husband must spend more that nine hours a week eye to eye and face to face with your/his kids; more that nine hours a week eye to eye and face to face with you; and must have sex with you every night. This makes both him and you exceptional people with an exceptional marriage and family. Most of the lower working class people and poverty level women and children I work with and assist as a social worker long for a father/husband who invest a fraction of that amount of time in them and their lives. >>>>>IN CONCLUSION============== So Biblical polygamy, as believed or practiced by the Patriarchs, Luther's associates, John Milton, and St. Augustine is a sin only when it is against the law of the land of those who would practice it (Rom 13). So we come to His Word regarding the marrige of two genuine believers (He has another Word for believer-unbeliever marriages in 1 Cor 7:12-15). Mk 10: 11* And he says to them, Whosoever shall divorce his wife AND shall marry another, commits adultery against her. Lu 16:18* Every one who divorces his wife AND marries another commits adultery; and every one that marries one put away from a husband commits adultery. Mt 19:9* But I say unto you, that whosoever shall divorce his wife, not for fornication, AND shall marry another, commits adultery; and he who marries one so divorced commits adultery. The adultery equation is: Adultery = (1) divorcing one's wife +++PLUS+++ (2) marrying another Adultery against one's ex wife (1) The divorcing of a wife is sin in its violation of the commands, but in and of itself is not adultery. >>>>>>Mt 19: 6 So that they are no longer two, but one. What God himself, then, has yoked together man must not separate.” >>>>>>1 Cor 7:11, 39 . . . a man is not to divorce his wife. . . 39* ¶ A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives; . . . (2) Marrying another, if not contrary to the laws of the land [Rm 13] while keeping one's wife is polygyny, is not adultery. If polygyny is against the law of man, in that land marrying another wife while keeping the first is a Rom 13 sin. Since Biblical polygyny is never declared to be sin by God, when a genuine believer marries another

genuine believer, while honoring his marital covenants to the prior wife without violating Rom 13 (see below), it is polygyny in the spirit realm of the Kingdom of God, not adultery. (3) Having put away one's wife and marrying another, simply asking God to forgive the adulterous new marriage does not meet the "confess and forsake" rule (Prov 28:13; 2 Cor 7:5-11; 1 John 1:9) for forgiveness, because the sinning couple continue in their adulterous relationship of being with the new wife and being separated from the exwife. What is the appropriate repentance? Is the man to "forsake" his new wife and their adulterous relationship, divorcing her and breaking his marital covenants with her, and reuniting with his exwife? (4) His marrying the new wife was a sin only because he divorced the prior wife, if the laws of the land accept polygyny. If he had kept his wife and married another it would be polygyny, if the laws of the land accept polygyny. His repentance would appear to be to stop being divorced from the ex wife while being married to his new wife, making him a polygynist, if the laws of the land accept polygyny. What if the laws of the land don't accept polygyny? (5) All genuine believers are citizens of the new Jerusalem and are bound by its laws (Eph 2:19;Ph 3:20). On the higher plane of the Kingdom of God, the genuinely believing man is still maritally bound to the genuinely believing wife even though by the laws of man he divorced her. In the Kingdom of God, Biblical polygyny is not a sin, never called or labeled than in the entire Bible. So in the Kingdom of God the genuinely believing man who divorced his genuinely believing wife and maritally covenanted with another genuinely believing wife is maritally bound until parted by death, and his repentance is to stop being divorced from his exwife. In a land where polygyny is sin he may not "remarry" her but he is still bound to her by all of his marital covenants and must honor and abide by those covenants even if it must be done without benefit of a legal remarriage, because to break those marital covenants is a sin worthy of death (Le 5:4; Nu 30:2; Psalm 15:4 Ezek 17:13, 15, 16, 18,19; De 7:2 with Josh 9:18-20; 2 Sam 21:1-9; Rom 1:31,32). (6) What about the conflicting marital vows in such cases of a man who has divorced one wife and taken another, for often the wedding vows include a phrase stating that each forsakes all others and pledge to keep each other to each other alone and only? I believe the JoshuaGibeonite incident explains this. Even though the polygyny of the Biblical patriarchs was never condemned in Scripture, the breaking of marital covenants is condemned many times (Le 5:4; Nu 30:2; Psalm 15:4 Ezek 17:13, 15, 16, 18,19; De 7:2 with Josh 9:18-20; 2 Sam 21:1-

9; Rom 1:31,32) as a sin worthy of death. The Joshua-Gibeonite incident shows that the subsequent covenant takes precedence over the prior covenant where the two are in conflict, i.e. having made covenant with the Gibeonites Joshua could not obey the covenantcommand of God to kill the Gibeonites. This tells me that where the man's marital covenant with his second wife is in conflict with his marital covenant with the first wife, the second wife covenant takes precedence over the first wife covenant where the two are in conflict, i.e. having made covenant with his second wife the man could not keep his first wife covenant of forsaking all others and keeping himself maritally her only. The appropriate repentance for such three people in America today where polygyny is illegal, and so a Rom 13 sin, seems to me to be that he would stay legally married to his present wife while privately and discretely (Rom 14:22) [#1] repent by diligently keeping his marital covenants to the wife he had divorced and [#2] privately and discretely obey 1 Cor 7:2-5 with his exwife.

Peace, Tyler [NOTICE-------If you have found this file/post in an open to the public, you should assume that it has been corrupted and changed without my approval or consent. To obtain an accurate copy of my original you can go to these moderated sites to see and download it. Sorry about the inconvenience. http://polyamory.meetup.com/389/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Poly_Polygamy_Polygny_And_Jesus http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OrthodoxBiblicalMarriagePolygamy http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PolyPolygamyPolygnyNJesus http://groups.google.com/group/BiblicalChristianPolygamyPolygyny http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OrthodoxBiblicalMarriagePolygamy2 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LynnAndLossRecovery http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PolyOption4ChristiansWithSTDs/ http://community.eons.com/groups/group/women-sharing-one-manmaritally http://groups.myspace.com/BiblicalChristianPoly http://www.hi5.com/friend/group/3901734-Biblical_Christian_Polygamy_Po--front-html http://en.netlog.com/clan/PolygamyPolygynyJesus ttp://polygynouschristians.multiply.com/ http://biblicalpolygamy.multiply.com/ http://en.groups.zorpia.com/group/biblical_polygamy_polygyny