TOPICS: FOREVER MARRIAGES CROSS CULTURALLY, FORMAL AND INFORMAL CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE, COMMON LAW MARRIAGE, CHRISTIAN DIVORCE, CHRISTIAN REMARRIAGE, CHRISTIAN CONCUBINES, CHRISTIAN POLYGYNY (POLYGAMY), RACISM, ETHNOCENTRICITY, AND THE SWEARING OF OATHS TITLE: DIVORCE, REMARRIAGE, CONCUBINES, & JESUS; Another Look for Christians. COPYRIGHT © JANUARY 14, 1995 All rights reserved. Copyright © 01/14/'95; 01/12/Õ96 (Revised) This file, in its entirety, may be posted on or copied off of computer networks like Internet or WWW by anyone so inclined. This is an ASCII text only copy of a Macintosh MicrosoftWord5 file made for non-Macintosh folks, so it is very plain and basic in its form (footnotes, indentation and page layout). The document is 6" wide and Palatino 12 plain font in the original. So when your text only version comes up with Palatino 14, just select all and change it to Palatino 12 or 10. There are no bold or underline options. The distinctions between footnotes of sources and footnotes of reference are lost. So please be patient with the footnote numbering. The footnotes are put at the end of the paragraphs instead of in the text itself, making it more readable. You may find extra >Õs and some >Õs where rÕs should be. DidnÕt get to proof that far yet. Please be patient. By L. Tyler P.O. Box 620763, SanDiego, CA 92162- 0763 polyboy@delphi.com This work is dedicated with love and honor to Carol Lynn McIntyre of Camelot (3/24/'49), Beverly Landers Tyler(4/11/'52), Keith Adams, Diane Tava Lovelady, Lua Nguyen, Marilyn Tyler (7/27/'49) and Paula Dugas. It is also dedicated to all those who have suffered through divorce and the complexities of remarriage, and to all of the following: 1. The shattered African polygynist husbands and their families who are made to feel like second class citizens in the local church because of their polygyny, made to feel less loved by Christ and made to feel less a child of God by the local "Christians". 2. The broken hearted Chinese polygynist wives and their children in their local churches who are shunned by the proper members and made to feel less welcome and spiritually inferior because of their polygynous families. 3. The devastated Burmese polygynist husbands who believe in and have received the Lord Jesus Christ, but who are rejected and shunned by the local "Christian" church/leader because they love their wives too much to divorce them. 4. The grieved, stumbled, offended and broken hearted born-again and Spirit sealed Indian wives and children of the born-again and Spirit sealed husband who loved his wives and children too much to renounce and repudiate them in order to be baptized and accepted by the local"Christian' church, and so now live in Christ, denied fellowship by their local congregation of "Christians". 5. The discouraged Mid-Eastern polygynist husbands who genuinely wanted to know Christ and the fellowship of the saints but who were embittered and kept from saving faith by the campaign of "Christian" leaders/churches against them and their polygyny. It would be no surprise if they were the most active in the community in resisting the Gospel and those who preach it. Talk about closing a door and making an enemy of the Gospel! 6. The troubled Liberian polygynist wives and children who genuinely wanted to know Christ and the fellowship of the saints but who were embittered and kept from saving faith by the campaign of "Christian" leaders/churches against them and their polygyny. It would be no surprise if they were the most active in the community in resisting the Gospel and those who preach it. Talk about closing a door and making an enemy of the Gospel! 7. The broken hearted, stumbled, offended and grieved Kenyan polygynist wives and their children whose husbands and fathers were forced to reject and renounce them in order to be baptized and join the local "Christian" church.; especially in the case where a carnal husband used the church rule as an excuse to get rid of a wife and children he didn't want. 8. The disconsolate Pakistani polygynist husbands who are stumbled, grieved, offended and broken in their faith and love for the Lord Jesus Christ because of how badly they and their loved ones have been treated by the local "Christian" leader/church. 9. The grief stricken Bengali polygynist wives and children who are stumbled, grieved, offended and broken in their faith and love for the Lord Jesus Christ because of how badly they and their loved ones have been treated by the local "Christian" leader/church. 10. The miserable Thai polygynist husbands who, with grave doubts and troubled hearts, succumbed to "Christian" pressure to renounce and reject (Malachi 2:13-17) all of their wives except one to satisfy the demands of some misguided "Christian" leader, or association of "Christians". TABLE OF CONTENTS ( Everybody's computer is potentially different, and if you Select All Font to "clean it up", reducing it to Palatino 12 or Geneva 10, you should probably use Find to find, by chapter number, any particular chapter/appendix you are interested in.) I. INTRODUCTION: PRIORITIES RECONSIDERED. P. 4 II. DIVORCE! A PLAGUE AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. P. 8 III. DIVORCE DEFINED. P. 23 IV. VARIETIES OF MARRIAGE IN THE BIBLE, OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS -- LET THE WORD SPEAK ABOUT POLYGYNY AND CONCUBINES! P. 25 V. WHAT DO CHRISTIAN LEADERS SAY ABOUT CONCUBINES & POLYGYNY? P. 50 VI. ADULTERY DEFINED: A SURPRISE! ISNÕT POLYGYNY ADULTERY? P. 66 VII. SO, WHAT ABOUT CONCUBINES & POLYGYNY TODAY IN MY COUNTRY? P. 73 VIII. ARE POLYGYNISTS AND CONCUBINES LIVING IN ERROR TODAY? P. 82 IX. MARRIAGE, CONCUBINES, CIVIL LAW, PERSONAL LIBERTY AND A LOVING CONSCIENCE! P. 87 X. DOES GOD FORGIVE BROKEN VOWS, DIVORCE AND ADULTERY? P. 91 XI. CAN YOU COME BACK TOGETHER & REMMARY AFTER ADULTEROUS REMARRIAGE? P. 99 XII. WHAT ABOUT THE HEALTH QUESTIONS INVOLVED IN SUCH REUNIONS? P. 108 XIII. CAN ADULTERY, DIVORCE, VOWS AND REPENTANCE RESULT IN POLYGYNY/CONCUBINAGE? P. 112 XIV. ADULTERY, DIVORCE, CONCUBINES, POLYGYNY AND THE UNSAVED. P. 119 XV. THE MARRIED MAN WHO WOULD ADD WIVES/CONCUBINES TO HIS "HAREM". P. 121 XVI. ARE POLYGYNY & CONCUBINES OPTIONS FOR THE ABANDONED MAN? P. 126 XVII. POLYGYNISTS, CONCUBINES AND THE LEADERS OF GOD'S PEOPLE. P. 129 XVIII. POLYGYNY & CONCUBINES AND THE WESTERN CHRISTIAN WOMAN. P. 130 XIX. WHAT'S WRONG WITH POLYANDRY? P. 134 XX. HUSBAND RULE OVER THE WIFE? IF SERVANT- TEACHERS RULE .P. 137 XXI. THREE CHEERS FOR MONOGAMY! THE BEST FOR MOST! P. 141 XXII. LISTEN TO THE WORD! P. 145 XXIII. BIBLIOGRAPHY P. 147 APPENDIX ONE -- WHAT ABOUT INTERRACIAL AND INTERETHNIC MARRIAGE? P.150 APPENDIX TWO -- WHAT DO YOU THINK? THE FEEDING OF TWO LEGGED OXEN. P.157 APPENDIX THREE -- A WEDDING COVENANT FOR NONSWEARERS - P. 159 APPENDIX FOUR -- WHAT MAKES A WEDDING/MARRIAGE? - P. 161 APPENDIX FIVE -- MARRYING THE UNSAVED AND "SAINTS" LIVING IN ERROR. - P.163 APPENDIX SIX -- WHEN DO I HAVE TO MARRY? - P. 167 APPENDIX SEVEN -- THE ERRR OF SWEARING, OF OATHS AND SWEARING OATHS. -P.182 APPENDIX EIGHT--BLACK POLYGYNY RESOURCES I. INTRODUCTION: PRIORITIES RECONSIDERED This study is the result of my own marital experience where I was divorced from my wife and both of us claimed sincerely and earnestly that we were born again believers in the Lord Jesus Christ. I was faced with the question, "What does a Christian do about his/her need to marry when in a divorced- from-one and wanting-to- marrry-another situation, and he believes that he/she and the Christian exmate are bound to each other maritally by the Lord until death parts them?" Or ---- "What does a Christian do in a divorced-from-one and remarried-to-another situation, and he/she believes that he/she and the Christian exmate are bound to each other maritally by the Lord until death parts them?" And the moral question: "Is it adultery or is it something else?" Our relationships with our mates and our children are second in importance and emotional intensity only to our relationship with Jesus. In San Diego's Union- Tribune several months ('95) ago they reported on a study of the effects of divorce that involved thousands and lasted over 20 years. The social scientists screened the participants so that they had two groups that basically differed as follows, one whose parents had divorced or separated and the other group whose parents did not divorce or separate. They found that the average life expectancy was five years longer for the group whose parents did not divorce. Divorce made a five year difference in the life expectancy of the two groups. Dr. Griffith Banning conducted a study of 800 Canadian children. It was reported that their parents' divorce, death or separation, resulting in the children's felt lack of love and affection, did greater damage to their growth and development than disease and all other factors combined.>a [>a Love, by Leo Buscaglia, Fawcett Crest, NY,1972,p.78 What we do with our marital relationships has a profound effect not only on us, but on our children, for a lifetime. We already know that a divorce, statistically, usually results in serious health problems ranging from ulcers and cardiovascular problems to hormonal and emotional problems. Divorce can devastate us and our loved ones. How can we afford to let our marriages, which Jesus intended to arenas filled with love and testimonies of His life changing all-sufficiency, become instead arenas of suffering, bitterness and hatred --- trophies for the enemy of our souls? Yet look at the relationship most of us have with our loved ones and our God. Most of us live our lives devoid of the life changing power and compassionate cherishing of our living and reigning God. Most of us are falling short of compassionately cherishing our mates and children. We wonder why we donÕt see the power of God in our lives. Yet how can Jesus bless us miraculously and and powerfully intervene in our lives when we have let ourselves become so entangled in the cares and affairs of our daily lives that the Spirit in us is chocked and rendered fruitless. It is not just a matter of seeking first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, which most of us fall short of by letting TV or other personal pleasures rob us of the time we could spend with Jesus. It goes even beyond that. For many of us the question is , ÒWhy is our relationship with our living and powerful God so lifeless and embarrassingly weak?Ó ÒWhy is there such a great discrepancy between the the life changing power of God we believe in, and the disastisfying mediocrity and ineffectiveness of most of our lives?Ó We know that if we walk in His will and do those things that are pleasing in His sight, He hears our prayers and supernaturally intervenes in our lives (1Jn3:21-24; 5:14,15), so when we fail to walk in His will and fail to do those things that are pleasing to Him we should not be surprised at the spiritually impotent lives and testimonies we have. What a tragedy to lose the battle for the souls of our children and loved ones because we stuck with bad or foolish choices. Specifically with this study I try to discover and share what I understand to be His will for us maritally. I try to show that an adulterous marriage, an adulterous remarriage, and or an adulterous divorce can gut our walk in the power of our God, leaving us with an impotent and sterile life and testimony that is bad enough in and of itself; but when you add the chastening of our God to an impotent and sterile life, it can be enough to break your heart and spirit. But isnÕt that why He sends the chastening of weakness and sickness (1 Cor. 11) or the chastening of poverty, strife, diseases and animal attacks (Ezek 14) ---- to break our stiff necks and hard hearts so He, as the potter, can remake us in our confession and repentance? Are you experiencing this chastening? Do you think it might be due to an ungodly divorce or marriage? Do you wonder what you should do about it? Please read this study. This study is written as a wake up call to Christians who have fallen into marriages, divorces and remarriages that are contrary to the will of God and now want to know what they should do. A child of God wants to do the will of God (1Jn2:3,4,5).We know that our God has told us in 1 Pet. 3 that if we fail to live wisely with our wives, our prayers will be hindered. He has told us that in Isaiah 59:1,2 that he wont hear our prayers if we fall into disobedience and fail to be Ambassadors of His Love. This study is for the person who is not sure about the will of God facing a divorce, marriage or remarriage. This study is for the divorced, the married and the remarried who find themselves in a situation that neither affords them the peace nor the joy of the God who longs to fill their lives with both. Hopefully this study will be used of God to shed some light on those heartbreaking and unfulfilling situations. Please hear the Word in this study, and be brave in the Lord to do His will, no matter what the cost. Dear reader, I exhort you to test, try, prove, examine, scrutinize and check against the Word every idea or concept in this document that seems questionable, doubtful or radical. Stay with what you understand the Word to say. What you will read is where I have arrived in the quest for His will. It is very controversial and I believe it is controversial because I came to this quest as a scholar, an anthro- pologist and a child of God who earnestly wants to know his Father's will. So "Here I stand!" ---- until further enlightenment from the Father. This study is based on the understanding of the Word of God that a godly marriage of two godly people is for life, and that they are bound by God to each other maritally until death dissolves the marriage. It is an attempt to catch the mind of the God who hates divorce and who hates the breaking of wedding covenants. It is an attempt to understand the marital will of the God who doesnÕt want us to be foolish vow breaking fools in whom he has no pleasure. This document is written from a "Christian", fundamental, evangelical, dispensationalist, etc. point of view for those who understand that point of view. The followers, or disciples, of Jesus Christ are called "Christians", and for them loving obedience to their Lord and King is the paramount issue in all matters of human life. What does "Christian" mean? Who is the God of one who is called a "Christian"? Jesus is God revealed in the flesh-blood-bone body, God's only incarnate Son, physically begotten of the virgin Mary, God's Mediator of the New Covenant, Savior and Redeemer of all who obediently believe, King of Kings, Lord of all soon to return visibly, Creator of all things that have ever existed (including Michael, Lucifer, Satan, Gabriel), and Judge of all humans soon to return visibly in His resurrected flesh and bone body. What is a "Christian"? Without controversy the Word is clear that we are saved and born again Spiritually as a result of the following: (1) His unearned compassion He had for us even before we know Him, which compassion moved Him to give His only begotten Son to bear our sins and die in our place. (2) His enlightening us about who He is, convincing us of our sins and His righteous judgment of sin, and constraining us to accept Him while we are still spiritually dead in our sins. [John 1:9,12; 16:7-11] (3) His giving us the gift of belief/faith in God (revealed as Jesus Christ, His miraculous birth, His holy life, His undeserved and substitutionary death, and His resurrection demonstrating His victory over death and sin) in spite of our spiritual blindness and death [James 1:17] (4) Our willingness >1 to accept and use His gift of belief is met with His enabling >2 us to have and exercise genuine faith in Him as our King, God and Savior in every area of our life. [>1 2 Corinth. 8.; >2 Phil. 2:13; 4:13.] (5) Since all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags there is no work or deed that we can do to earn GodÕs salvation. Our part is to genuinely believe in, accept and submit to His gracious gift in Jesus Christ. Okay, so that is what a Christian is . WhatÕs next? I believe that it is obvious that a Christian should not lean to his own understanding>3 and should not just do that which seems right to himself>4. I believe that those who are born of God are led by the Spirit of God Spiritually>5 and by the Word>6 I believe that the believer must acknowledge Christ's Lordship in every area of his/her life for Christ to be the real and actual LORD/KING of that believer>7. I agree with the Bible that a Christian's obedience is his birthmark, the vital and critical proof of having been truly born again of God>8 . Besides all of that, Jesus said that if I loved Him, I would obey Him, showing my love by my obedience>9 so of course I want to show my love for Him and show proof of my rebirth in Him by obeying Him. [Footnotes:>3 Prov. 3:5,6; >4 Prov. 16:24; >5 Romans 8:13,14.; >6 Psalm 119:9,11,24,32,72,89, 93,101, 104,105 ,166,167; >7 Prov. 3:5,6; Romans 12:1,2; 1 Cor. 6:19, 20 etc; >8 (1John 2:3,4,5; 3:10, 24; 5:2,3; Hebrews 5:8,9); >9 (John 14:15,21).] Yes, I realize that obeying Him is not necessarily obeying Christian leaders and teachers because if they teach the traditions and commandments of men>10 instead of or along with the commandments and traditions of God, they make the Way of God null, void and ineffective. Yes, I know that God can use godly men and Christian leaders/teachers to show us His Way>11 but surely it is our responsibility to be like the Bereans>12, testing-trying-examining- scrutinizing>13 all of their teachings and leadership to see if it conforms to the Word of God, holding fast to what we find to be true/good. We need to diligently search the Word to find the will of God, especially in the matter of controversial and questionable things. [Footnotes:>10 (Matthew 15:1-9; Mark 7:1-15); >11 (Hebrews 13:7; >12 of Acts 17:11.31; >13 1 John4:1-4 and 1 Thess. 5:21.] Finally, why does God allow us to experience such heart breaking and soul-rending experiences as those that accompany divorce, separation, and adultery? Please consider the point about 1 Cor. 10:13. He doesn't allow you to be tried more than you can bear, because you are stronger, have a better understanding of spiritual warfare and a deeper faith, the trials will be greater--but never more than you can bear. Consider the trials of John the Baptist and all the apostles except John. They all died violent deaths at the hands of those who hate them, but never more than they could bear. An exercise is no exercise if it doesn't challenge you at the point where you have to strain and go aerobic, sometimes painful. The same with "spiritual" muscles, the trial has to produce stress, strain and even pain for you to become stronger, more capable, more useful and fruitful. The fruitful vine looks terrible when it is pruned, and it would feel terrible if it could feel, but because it is pruned it has the potential of being more fruitful, and I know you want more fruit of the Spirit in your life. I know that you want to compassionately cherish God and others even more than you do now, and that's how you get there. This life is boot camp and the war, which, thank God, is shortened for our sakes. Our resurrected life with Jesus Christ is worth the struggle. To rule the earth with Him enthroned in Jerusalem for a 1000 years (Rev. 20: 2-7), to walk around as His agents enabled to raise the dead, open the eyes of the blind, to bind up the broken limbs and hearts, to counsel the broken hearted with wisdom inspired of God, to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to teach in power the lost how they can be found etc etc etc etc. I can hardly wait! Please consider attending a Christian divorce/grief recovery support group. You are still deeply grieving inside over your ex and those "saints" that so deeply and carnally broke your heart. I know that I desperately needed and greatly benefited from the free one I attended at Del Cerro So. Bapt. Church. It was critical in my recovery and in my readiness to be healed and in my learning how and where I needed to grow, to forgive my ex, and to prepare my heart for my next. Most denominations have free support groups that are usually extremely helpful, it taught by qualified staff and anointed of the Lord. Please call around for times and places and pray about attending and let the Lord minister to you through the saints. But why does He allow us to suffer, to grieve so deeply and have hearts so broken than you can feel the pain throughout your chest? Here are some reasons that I have become aware of and they are all for our good. Please consider them and, in each, ask if its goal was accomplished in your life. WE HAVE SUFFERED ---- 1. So that we can know that we belong to Christ. 2 Tim 3:12; 1 Pet. 2:19,20; Mat. 13:21,22,23 2. Because we are followers of Christ. John 15:19,20 3. So that evil doers will not come to God just to escape from Hell and suffering in this life. He wants sinners to come to Him because they love Him who first loved them, not because they forgot to join the Noah's Ark Club. Noah's flood + Rev. 21:27 4. So that we wont miss (be homesick, want to look/go back like Lot's wife did) this social system when we are in Heaven or ruling with Christ. To love the world's social system is to be God's enemy. 1 John 2:15; Heb. 11:l3- 19. 5. So that we can know how and why to choose- between the good and the evil. Deut. 30:15-20 6. Because of our own sins. 1 Cor. 5 and 1 Cor. 11:30- 32; Hebrews 12. 7. To cause us to learn to be humble. 2 Cor. 12:7-10 8. To caution us against arrogant or ignorant presumption in our prayers and to exhibit to us His all-sufficiency in the affairs of our personal lives. 2 Cor.12: 7-10; Rom5:3,4 9. To learn and acquire patience, experience and hope in the compassionate cherishing of God. Rom. 5:3,4 10. Because of His Name- Because of His Truth - Because of His Life - Because of the shining Light of His Truth, an honor to be counted worthy of suffering with and for Him if God permits. Acts 5:41; Rom 8:17 11. So that we may have the honor of being glorified together with Him. Rom. 8:17 12. So that we may be perfected, completed, and matured. Heb. 2:10; 1 Pet. 5:10 13. So that we may learn to Love Jesus and His Way enough to obey Him even when it hurts. Heb. 5:8,9; Psalm 15:4 14. So that we may be established, strengthened and settled in Christ. 1 Peter 5:10 15. Because they hated and killed Jesus they will hate and try to kill the Jesus in us. Lk. 6:22; John 15:18,19 16. To end the cycle of hate and violence in our lives at us, we being shock absorbers for the evil around us, so that it will stop at us and we will learn not to pass it on. He has called us to turn the cheek, go the second mile and bless and pray for those who curse and abuse us. Matt. 5; Luke 6; Romans 12; 1 Cor. 6 17. So that our enduring and genuine faith may bring praise, honor and glory at His appearing in the presence of all the angels, demons, cherubim, seraphim and those with Christ. 1 Pet. 1:7 18. So that we could experience God's solutions and faithfulness and comfort for our griefs and trials so we will have learned how to share His comforting solutions with the others He leads us to who are experiencing similar grievous trials. It is preparation for ministry now and in the 1000 year reign of Christ on earth. 2 Cor. 1:3-5 ; Revelation20:1-6 II. DIVORCE! A PLAGUE AND ITS CONSEQUENCES . St. Augustine (4th Cent AD) had a powerful way of stating the permanent nature of the marriage of two who married after being born again, lovingly obedient to Jesus and fruitful in the Spirit--- ÒTo such a degree is that marriage compact entered upon a matter of a certain sacrament, that it is not made void even by separation itself, since, so long as her husband lives, even by whom she hath been left, she commits adultery, in case she be married to another: and he who hath left her, is the cause of this evil. . . Seeing that the compact of marriage is not done away by divorce intervening; so that they continue wedded persons one to another, even after separation; and commit adultery with those, with whom they shall be joined, even after their own divorce, either the woman with a man, or the man with a woman. . . But a marriage once for all entered upon in the City of our god>14, where, even from the first union of the two, the man and the woman, marriage bears a certain sacramental character, can no way be dissolved but by the death of one of them. . . Therefore the good of marriage throughout all nations and all men stands in the occasion of begetting, and faith of chastity: but, so far as pertains unto the People of God, also in the sanctity of the sacrament, by reason of which it is unlawful for one who leaves her husband, even when she has been put away, to be married to another, so long as her husband lives, no not even for the sake of bearing children: . . . not even where that very thing, wherefore it takes place, follows not, is the marriage bond loosed, save by the death of the husband or wife.Ó>15 [Footnotes:>14 This footnote mark etc. is not St. Augustine's or Arthur Haddan's. I insert it just in case the reader is not aware of the fact that all marriages between real saints take place "in the City of our god" not according to St. Augustine, but according the the Holy Spirit in Hebrews 11:10,13-19, where they are already seated with Christ in the Heavenlies according to Eph. 1 & 2. >15 St. Augustin: On The Trinity; pp. 402, 406, 412.] In Matt. 5 Jesus made it plain divorce was permitted for the hardness of human hearts and Malachi 2 makes it plain that God hates the treacherous breaking of marital covenants that results in divorce. In Matt. 5 Jesus permits the husband to divorce his wife is she is guilty of fornication, but does not command it. There is no command to divorce one's mate for fornication, but after Acts 1 there is the command to separate (not divorce) yourself from a saved mate who is snared in sexual sin>16. Before Acts 1 Jesus allowed divorce for the hardness of hearts >17. The compassionate heart of the Spirit filled Christian would respond to a mate's fornication according to the Word>18. . The goal of such compassion for one's mate snared in sexual sin would be the goal of godly sorrow described in the following:2 Cor. 7 and 1 Corinthians 5:5 . . . deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction [ruin , damage] of the flesh, so that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. [Footnotes:>16. 1 Cor. 5:9-11; 2 Thes. 3:6-14; 1 Tim. 6:1-5; 2 Tim. 3:1-5; >17. Mat. 19:6-9; >18. 1 Corinth. 5:5-11; Matthew 18:15-18; Gal. 6:1; John 8: 1- 10; 1 Tim. 5:20,21; 2 Th. 3:6-14] MKJV 2 CORINTHIANS 2: 5 ¦ 6 This punishment by the majority [is] enough for such a one; 7 so that, on the contrary, you should rather forgive and comfort [him], lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overwhelming sorrow. 8 So I beseech you to confirm [your] love toward him. 9 For to this end I also wrote, that I might know the proof of you, whether you are obedient in all things. 10 But to whom you forgive anything, I also [forgive]. For if I forgave anything, for your sakes I forgave [it] to him in the person of Christ; 11 so that we should not be overreached by Satan, for we are not ignorant of his devices. MKJV 2 CORINTHIANS 7: 8 For even if I grieved you in the letter, I do not regret; if indeed I did regret; for I see that that letter grieved you for an hour. 9 Now I rejoice, not that you were grieved, but that you grieved to repentance. For you were grieved according to God, so that you might suffer loss by nothing in us. 10 For the grief according to God works repentance to salvation, not to be regretted, but the grief of the world works out death. 11 For behold this same thing (you being grieved according to God); how much it worked out earnestness in you; but [also] defense; but [also] indignation; but [also] fear; but [also] desire; but [also] zeal; but [also] vengeance! In everything you approved yourselves to be clear in the matter. 12 ¦ Then, though I wrote to you, [it was] not on account of the one who did wrong, nor on account of the one who suffered wrong, but for the sake of revealing our earnestness on your behalf, for you before God. Even though Jesus apparently allows a genuinely believing husband to divorce his wife snared in adultery and then go ahead and remarry, I wouldn't want to stand before the judgment seat of Christ and tell the God of Love I divorced my wife for fornication because of the hardness of my heart. The motivation of a hardened heart doesn't square with Eph. 4 or I Cor. 13 or Romans 15. MKJV EPHES. 4: 15 But that you, speaking the truth in love, may in all things grow up to Him who is the Head, [even] Christ; . . 25 Therefore putting away lying, let each man speak truth with his neighbor, for we are members of one another. 26 Be angry, and do not sin. Do not let the sun go down upon your wrath, 27 neither give place to the Devil. . . . 30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you are sealed until [the] day of redemption. 31 Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and tumult and evil speaking be put away from you, with all malice. 32 And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake has forgiven you. 1 CORINTH. 13: 4 ¦ Compassionate cherishing has patience, is kind; compassionate cherishing is not envious, is not vain, is not puffed up; 5 does not behave indecently, does not seek its own, is not easily provoked, thinks no evil. 6 Charity does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices in the truth, 7 quietly covers all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. 8 ¦ Compassionate cherishing never fails. MKJV ROMANS 15: 1 ¦ Then we who are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves. 2 Let every one of us please [his] neighbor for [his] good, to building up. 3 For even Christ did not please Himself; but as it is written, "The reproaches of those who reproached You fell on Me." 4 For whatever things were written before were written for our learning, so that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope. 5 ¦ And may the God of patience and consolation grant you to be like minded toward one another according to Christ Jesus, 6 so that with one mind [and] one mouth you may glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. 7 ¦ Therefore receive one another as Christ also received us, to [the] glory of God. Being forgiven by God for sins worthy of death (Rom. 1) how can we not forgive our mate if he/she falls in adultery and then repents? How can we say anything besides "Go on with your life and sin no more!">19 if the Godly repentance described in the following is evident? That's the example He left for us (1Pet.2:20,21). There is no greater Love than to lay down and deny your life/will for another's good. [>19. John 8:1-10.] MKJV 2 CORINTHIANS 7: 8 For even if I grieved you in the letter, I do not regret; if indeed I did regret; for I see that that letter grieved you for an hour. 9 Now I rejoice, not that you were grieved, but that you grieved to repentance. For you were grieved according to God, so that you might suffer loss by nothing in us.10 For the grief according to God works repentance to salvation, not to be regretted, but the grief of the world works out death. 11 For behold this same thing (you being grieved according to God); how much it worked out earnestness in you; but [also] defense; but [also] indignation; but [also] fear; but [also] desire; but [also] zeal; but [also] vengeance! In everything you approved yourselves to be clear in the matter. MKJV 2 CORINTHIANS 2: 6 This punishment by the majority [is] enough for such a one; 7 so that, on the contrary, you should rather forgive and comfort [him], lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overwhelming sorrow. 8 So I beseech you to confirm [your] love toward him. 9 For to this end I also wrote, that I might know the proof of you, whether you are obedient in all things. 10 But to whom you forgive anything, I also [forgive]. For if I forgave anything, for your sakes I forgave [it] to him in the person of Christ; 11 so that we should not be overreached by Satan, for we are not ignorant of his devices. When I have approached Christian leaders here in my area, most of them fall back on a rationalization of scripture to defend or at least conform to the worldly norms of separation/divorce/ remarriage in contemporary society. So they accept divorces, where those put together by God are put apart by man, and remarry "believers" who have been divorced or separated from "believers". They are sincerely and earnestly concerned about stumbling the weak and are reluctant to ask of the saints what seems to the world's eyes to be impossible for many saints, to accept the Word that genuine believers are bound maritally as long as both live. The particular case in point is the situation caused by the plague of divorce among Christians. I understand the following scriptures to indicate that genuine believers in the Lord Jesus Christ who were free to marry each other in the Lord and did marry each other are bound maritally to each other as long as both live ------- 1 CORINTH. 7:10* ¦ And to the married I command (not I, but the Lord), a woman not to be separated from [her] husband. 11* But if she is indeed separated, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to [her] husband. And a husband is not to leave [his] wife. 12 But to the rest I speak, not the Lord, If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is pleased to dwell with him, do not let him put her away. 13 And the woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is pleased to dwell with her, do not let her leave him. . . .15 But if the unbelieving one separates, let [them] be separated. A brother or a sister is not in bondage in such [cases], but God has called us in peace. 39* ¦ The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband lives, but if her husband is dead, she is at liberty to be remarried to whom she will, only in the Lord. MKJV ROMANS 7: 2* For the married woman was bound by law to the living husband. But if the husband is dead, she is set free from the law of [her] husband. 3* So then [if], while [her] husband lives, she is married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress. But if the husband dies, she is free from the law, [so that] she is no adulteress by becoming another man's wife. MKJV MARK 10: 6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7 For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife. 8 And the two of them shall be one flesh. So then they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let not man put apart. . . . 11 And He said to them, Whoever shall put away his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. 12 And if a woman shall put away her husband and marries to another, she commits adultery. I believe they state that a Spiritually reborn man and a Spiritually reborn woman who are free to marry each other in the Lord and do marry each other are bound to each other by the Word of the Lord as long as both their bodies are alive. What is the case in the Bible? Gen. 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh.>20. There are three acts described here: [Footnote>.(20. The Holy Scriptures According to the Masoretic Text] (1) From the following it is clear that it means leaving the parents' presence, authority and control; MKJV PSALM 45:10 ¦ Listen, O daughter, and look; and bow down your ear; and forget your own people and your father's house. 11 And cause the King greatly to desire your beauty, for He [is] your Lord, and you shall worship Him. . . . 13 The king's daughter [is] all glorious within; her clothing [is] trimmed with gold. . . . 16 Your sons shall be in the place of your fathers; you will make them princes in all the land. 17 I will make Your name to be remembered in all generations; therefore the people shall praise You forever and ever. (2) Cleaving is the act of the will making marital covenants and vows that bind them maritally before God>21; [Footnote:>21 Ezekisl 16:7,8; Malachi 2; Matt. 1:18-25 where Mary and Joseph are declared to be husband and wife even before the actual wedding and cohabitation. "Cleave" in the Hebrew means "cling or adhere; . . . abide fast, cleave (fast together), follow close (hard after), be joined (together), keep (fast), overtake, pursue hard, stick, take." (Strong''s Exhaustive Concordance.) J. Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon says it means "to glue upon, glue to" ] (3) Becoming one flesh is the sexual act of coitis or sexual penetratio and one can become one flesh with one's wife or with an adulteress or with a harlot>22. Becoming one flesh is not what makes a relationship a marriage. For the permanence of the relationship of marriage the focus is on the word "cleave" which in the Hebrew means "cling or adhere; . . . abide fast, cleave (fast together), follow close (hard after), be joined (together), keep (fast), overtake, pursue hard, stick, take.">23. Thayer says it means "to glue upon, glue to">24. If God commands the husband to conduct himself as if he were being joined together with her, clinging, adhering, cleaving and glued to her in this manner towards his wife, then he had better do it if he wants a good future with God, because to disobey would be death>25 . Being under this command would certainly bind a man to his wife as long as both lived. [Footnotes:>22 1 Cor. 6:13-20; >23. Strong''s Exhaustive Concordance; >24. Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament; Joseph Henry Thayer, D.D.; American Book Co., New York, 1889; >25 Rom. 6:23; 1:31,32; Malachi 2:14-17.] The Jewish Septuagint (third century B.C.) for Gen. 2:24 uses the same word for "cleave" that Jesus uses in Matt. 19:5. The word used for cleave in the LXX's Gen. 2:24 and Jesus' Matt. 19:5 means the following: 1. According to Thayer --- "to join one's self to closely, cleave to, stick to"; and 2. According to Arndt & Gingrich ---"adhere closely to, be faithfully devoted to, join tini someone". The Greek tense in both is future indicative passive which means that this is what they shall have themselves doing in the future on a regular basis. Some say that it is not a command. Jesus seems to differ with them both in Malachi 2, where He says the husband who breaks his marital agreement with his wife is under His wrath, and in Matt 19:6 where Jesus says "So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, man must not separate." It is the marital commitments and covenants between the husband and wife that is the glue that binds them, and it is the solemn and disciplined honoring of those commitments that reinforces and maintins that glued bond that binds them. Every legal>26 and moral>27 marriage of two who are morally free in Christ to marry is ordained or allowed by God and takes place under His control>b, so indeed God has joined them, based on the truth of the following: [Footnote: >26 Legal= recognized and accepted as legal by one's culture and law enforcers Rom. 13; 1 Pet. 2:13-17; >27 moral= free from all others maritally and free in the Lord's kingdom to marry according to His Word. >b Eph. 1:11; Rom. 8:28] MKJV Romans 8: 27 And He searching the hearts knows what [is] the mind of the Spirit, because He makes intercession for the saints according to [the will of] God. 28 And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to [His] purpose. MKJV ROMANS 13: 1 ¦ Let every soul be subject to the higher authorities. For there is no authority but of God; the authorities that exist are ordained by God. 2 So that the one resisting the authority resists the ordinance of God . . . MKJV Ephes. 1:10. . . to head up all things in Christ, both the things in Heaven, and the things on earth, [even] in Him, 11 in whom also we have been chosen to an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His own will, . . . That's why we can trust God that we are to remain married to the person we are married to when we are saved. He gave Adam his Eve, and if you are His child, He worked in you to want to marry your mate>c, He lead you to marry your mate>d, and He worked all things so that you did marry you mate>e. So you can understand why 1 Cor. 7 speaks of the binding nature of marriage. [>c Phil. 2:12,13; Heb.13:20,21. >d Romans 8:9,14; Acts 16:6,7; Isa. 30:21. >e Eph. 1:11; Rom. 8:28; Mt. 10:29; Prov. 16:1,9; Isa. 46:9-13; Neh. 9:6] MKJV 1 CORINTHIANS 7:17 ¦ But as God has distributed to each one, as the Lord has called each one, so let him walk. And so I ordain in all churches. 18 [Was] any called having been circumcised? Do not be uncircumcised. Was anyone called in uncircumcision? Do not be circumcised. . . . 20 Let each one remain in the calling in which he was called. 21 Were you called as a slave? It does not matter to you, but if you are able to become free, use [it] rather. . . . 24 Each in whatever way he was called, brothers, in this remain with God. So Jesus makes binding>28 the cleaving >29 and the one flesh experience that we know as marriage. Since the only terms of divorce are given in Deut 24:1-4 (which were superseded by Matt. 19:1-15 and 1 Cor. 7:10-15,39), it is clear that marriage is a life long relationship based on the covenants of the couple and on God's command not to be put asunder or put asunder the relationship. Rather than abide by this believers-married-for-life principle, most Christian churches/ pastors today are telling their divorced and divorcing communicants that they should forget the things that have happened in the past trusting God's forgiveness to cover it all and press on into the future with their new mates and lives. [Footnotes:>28 (Mt. 19:6); >29 (Mt. 19:5) ] They say it would do more harm than good to tell Christian mates that they need to leave their new mates, married in adultery, and new kids and go back to the Christian mates they divorced contrary to the Word>f. I believe that we are to live by every Word of God, and not by unscriptural traditions of men that put asunder what God said must not be put asunder, that tell couples they are loosed from each other when God says they are bound for life>30 . How dare we say "You are loosed" when God Himself says she is "bound as long as her husband lives"? [Footnotes:>f in 1 Corinth. 7; Romans 7 and Mark 10 >30 (Matt. 19:5; Rom. 7:1-5; 1 Cor. 7:10,11,39)] What are the responsibilities of still being bound to someone when you have loosed yourself according to human law but remain bound according to the Law of Christ? Wouldn't they be responsible for parenting both their children by the mates to whom they are bound by the Lord, as well as their children by their adulterous>31 new marriage. Wouldn't they be responsible for keeping whatever promises they made and can keep in the Lord--that they made to their mates in the Lord and to their mates in adultery>32 ? They can't keep their adulterous promises of marital intimacy with their adulterous mates, but they can keep the promise to AgapŽ Love them, cherish them, honor and respect them, pray and fast earnestly and fervently for them, and clothe and feed them if they are destitute and in need. Jesus instructs us to do these things even to our enemies>g. There is no question that they are responsible for the parenting, provision and care of any children by their adultery, as God and man's law allow(Eph. 6; 1 Tim. 5:8; Heb. 12; 1Jn.3:16,17). [Footnotes:>31. Mark 10:11,12; >32 (Psalm 15:4; Ezek. 17:15;Eccles.5:1-7) >g Luke 6; Mt 5; Isa. 59; 1 tim. 2; James 2; 1 Peter 2,3,4] I submit that the commandment of God in Romans 7:1-3 and the following passage below (binding the saved husband to his saved wife until death separates them) is laid aside to hold manÕs tradition, making of no effect the Word of God.: MKJV MARK 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7 For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife. 8 And the two of them shall be one flesh. So then they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let not man put apart. . . . 11 And He said to them, Whoever shall put away his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. 12 And if a woman shall put away her husband and marries to another, she commits adultery. MKJV 1 CORINTH. 7: 4 The wife does not have authority over [her] own body, but the husband. And likewise also the husband does not have power [over his] own body, but the wife. 5 Do not deprive one another, unless [it is] with consent for a time, so that you may [give yourselves to] fasting and prayer. And come together again so that Satan does not tempt you for your incontinence. . . . 7 For I would that all men were even as I myself am. But each has his proper gift from God, one according to this manner and another according to that. 8 I say therefore to the unmarried and the widows, It is good for them if they remain even as I. 9 But if they do not have self- control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn. 10* ¦ And to the married I command (not I, but the Lord), a woman not to be separated from [her] husband. 11* But if she is indeed separated, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to [her] husband. And a husband is not to leave [his] wife. . . . 39* ¦ The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband lives, but if her husband is dead, she is at liberty to be remarried to whom she will, only in the Lord. I submit that those passages mean exactly what they say, that the obediently believing wife is bound by law as long as her obediently believing husband lives. No qualifiers! No exemptions! Instead many Christian leaders tell the saved divorced that if they just confess the sin of the divorce to God, God will forgive them and they are no longer bound to their departed saved mate so they can go on and remarry someone new. So they set aside GodÕs command to keep their own tradition. Can God bless and anoint with His miraculous power a person, a couple or a church sets aside His will and Word so they can keep their own tradition? Not the Jesus I know. Yes Jesus allowed the Jews under Moses to divorce their mates (Mt. 5) but it was for the hardness of their hearts and you can be sure that a just and holy God chastened the hard of heart. If I were an insurer, I sure wouldn't want to sell them any life insurance (1Cor.10). He never commanded a genuine believer to divorce a genuine believer. It just is not in the Word. He never commands His child to divorce His other child after He has put them together. But there is a commanded separation or standing back or break in fellowship that is required by Jesus when one's mate is snared in the sins described below ----- not a divorce, but some form of separation. Consider the following about sinners (for those married to the unsaved) and about "saints" snared in sin: MATTHEW 5: 32* But I say to you that whoever shall put away his wife, except for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery. And whoever shall marry her who is put away commits adultery. Romans 16: 17. . . mark them who cause divisions and causes of offense contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them. 1 Timothy 6:1-5 If any man. . . . consent not to . . . . the Words of our Lord Jesus . . . withdraw yourself from such. 2 Timothy 3:1-5: For men shall be lovers of their own selves.........avoid such. 1 CORINTH. 5: 9 ¦ I wrote to you in the letter not to associate intimately with fornicators; 10 yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then you must go out of the world. 11 But now I have written to you not to associate intimately, if any man called a brother [and is] either a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one not to eat. 2 THESSALONIANS 3:6 ¦ Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother who walks disorderly, and not after the teaching which he received from us. . . . 14 And if anyone does not obey our word by this letter, mark that one and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. 15 Yet do not count [him] as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother. Yes there is an avoiding or withdrawing from such spouses but we will see below how 1 Cor. 7:10-15 and Mark 10 etc. exclude the option of marital separation or divorce except under very specific conditions. He never said that they were no longer bound to each other as Christian husband and Christian wife according to the scriptures>33 . You and I know that a married couple can avoid or withdraw from each other in many ways without getting a divorce. They withdraw emotionally or socially. A saint can't join the sinning spouse in the sin, so right there is a withdrawal or avoidance. [Footnote: >33 (Matt. 19:5; Rom. 7:1-5; 1 Cor. 7:10,11,15,39)] According to 1 Cor. 5 it is a whole different ball game if the spouse is often doing, practicing, regularly or habitually doing any of the following: adultery, fornication, sexual perversion (sodomy, homosexuality, bestiality, incest), greediness or covetousness, the worship of false gods, reviling (verbal abuse), drunkeness or intoxication, robbing, swindling, and/or extorting. The saved spouse is under command NOT to associate, keep company or be intimate with a spouse who does the above and is claiming to be genuinely saved, a genuine believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, a born again child of God. This may take the form of the husband divorcing such a "believing" wife and remarrying (Matt: 19:9) or it may take the form of the wife chastely and maritally separating herself from such a "believing" spouse (1 Cor. 7:10,11). The reason for this difference in options will be discussed in the chapter dealing with adultery and its definition. I believe the saved wife of an unsaved husband, who is involved in the sins listed above in this section, has the same chaste separation option, from the context of 1 Cor. 7:10-15. I understand this kind of separation from such sinning mates involves the cessation of sexual intimacy, until either the sinning spouse repents as in 2 Cor 2 & 7 or the Lord takes the life of the sinning spouse so as to save his spirit. Let's take another look at this. What do you do about your spouse who is snared in adultery, fornication, lesbianism, sodomy, bestiality, incest or etc.? Consider the following: MKJV JOHN 8: 4 they said to Him, Teacher, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. 5 Now Moses in the law commanded us that such should be stoned. You, then, what do you say? . . . 7 But as they continued to ask Him, He lifted Himself up and said to them, He who is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her. . . . MATT.5:32* But I say to you that whoever shall put away his wife, except for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery. And whoever shall marry her who is put away commits adultery. 9 And hearing, and being convicted by conscience, they went out one by one, beginning at the oldest, until the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. 10. . . Did not one give judgment against you? 11 And she said, No one, Lord. And Jesus said to her, Neither do I give judgment. Go, and sin no more. MKJV 1 CORINTH. 5: 1 ¦ Everywhere [it is] reported [that there is] fornication among you, and such fornication as is not named among the nations, so as one to have [his] father's wife. . . . 3 For as being absent in body but present in spirit, I indeed have judged already [as though I were] present [concerning] him who worked out this thing; 4 in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, with my spirit; also, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ; 5 to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. . . . MATT. 5:32* But I say to you that whoever shall put away his wife, except for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery. And whoever shall marry her who is put away commits adultery. 7 ¦ Therefore purge out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, as you are unleavened. . . . 11 But now I have written to you not to associate intimately, if any man called a brother [and is] either a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one not to eat. 12 . . . Do you not judge those who are inside? 13 . . . Therefore put out from you the evil one. These show that such a separation can be an exercise in Church discipline, delivering the Christian offender's body for the destruction of the flesh (chastening) to the end that the erring saint should be effectively chastened and stop sinning and in godly sorrow repent of the fornication. The sinning saint is chastened>34 into weakness, sickness or sleep (death) by the Lord. If weakness or sickness results in godly sorrow and repentance, then the repentant one is restored as in the following: [Footnote: >34 (1 Cor. 5 &/or 11; Heb.12) MKJV 2 CORINTHIANS 7: 8 For even if I grieved you in the letter, I do not regret; if indeed I did regret; for I see that that letter grieved you for an hour. 9 Now I rejoice, not that you were grieved, but that you grieved to repentance. For you were grieved according to God, so that you might suffer loss by nothing in us. MKJV 2 CORINTHIANS 2: 6 This punishment by the majority [is] enough for such a one; 7 so that, on the contrary, you should rather forgive and comfort [him], lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overwhelming sorrow. 8 So I beseech you to confirm [your] love toward him. . . 10 But to whom you forgive anything, I also [forgive]. For if I forgave anything, for your sakes I forgave [it] to him in the person of Christ; 11 so that we should not be overreached by Satan, for we are not ignorant of his devices. They would both still be saved and both still be bound to each other maritaly no matter who else they married or how many kids they might have had in the meantime. There is nothing in scripture that would indicate the the marital bond between two genuine Christians is broken by sexual immorality. If adultery required a marital-bond breaking divorce/separation, then Matt 5:32 would read as follows: But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced for any other reason than sexual immorality commits adultery. This would imply that it would NOT be adultery to marry a woman divorced/separated for sexual immorality. But what did Jesus say to genuine believers? He said "... whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.">h He gives no qualifier or exception except for 1 Cor. 7:12-15 in the case of the believer divorced/ desserted by the unsaved mate. No matter what the reason for the divorce except 1 Cor. 7:15, including sexual immorality, "whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." "And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery." (Mk.10:12). It is adultery to marry a woman divorced from her legitimate husband except in the case of 1 Cor. 7:15, in which case God has loosed her from her husband. It is adultery to marry a genuinely believing woman divorced from her genuinely believing man if they were free to marry in the Lord when they married, because when they married they became maritally bound to each other until death parts them (1Cor. 7:39) Later in this study we will deal with the issue of why the Word does not say ".....whoever divorces her husband, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.......". In the other cases presented in this chapter that require a separation because of the misconduct of one's mate, I believe the believing mate has to avoid/withdraw from the erring spouse in such activities and usually can do so without leaving their house. We'll see below that the avoidance/ withdrawal does not include marital intimacy and affection (1 Cor. 7:1-15). Dealing with the adulterous mate is discussed below, so please be patient and read on. What should be the spouse's attitude be when married to one to whom she/he is commanded to be manifesting some form of avoidance or withdrawal? The key is in 2 Thess 3:15 above where we enjoined to "not count [him] as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother." or in 1 Pet. 3:1 where the wives are instructed to "be submissive to your own husbands so that, if any obey not the Word, they also may without a word be won by the behavior of the wives . . . . ". Consider the following: Luke 17:3 Take heed to yourselves. If your brother wrongs you, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him. Galatians 6:1 Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, you who are spiritual restore such a one in the Spirit of meekness . . . John 13:10-15 . . . . you also ought to wash each other's feet, for I have given you an example, that you should do as I have done to you. Ephes. 4:15 . . . speaking the Truth in Love . . . . Ephes 5:6-11 . . . because of these things comes the wrath of God upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore don't be partakers with them. . . .And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness but, rather, reprove [them]. 1 Tim. 5:20,21 Them that sin rebuke before all, that others may fear. . 2 Tim. 2:24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive, but be gentle unto all, able to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that oppose them . . . . . 1 Pet. 3:1 . . . be submissive to your own husbands so that, if any obey not the Word, they also may without a word be won by the behavior of the wives . . . . The command is "Man must not put apart what God has put together". Even if they are divorced/separated, people "must not put apart what God has put together." The genuine Christian wife is maritally bound to her genuine Christian husband as long as they both live>i . [>h Mat.5:32; 19:9. >i (1Cor.7:39;Mark 10).] There is a parallel in the relationship of the Body of Christ to Christ. When a brother becomes part of the Bride of Christ Jesus is bound by His own Word in the relationship, not to put apart what God has put together (John 17:2, 6, 9, 10, 20, 21).So when a brother stumbles into fornication>35, instead of cutting off the relationship and disowning him, Jesus Loves him and has promised to chasten him in that Love>36. There is a break in fellowship, a separation, in that Jesus doesn't respond to his usual prayers>37 and releases his body to Satan for the destruction of his body>38 in order to save his spirit>39. He still belongs to Jesus because he shows that his spirit will be saved even if the chastening doesn't result in repentance>40. No one, neither himself nor Jesus, can take him out of Jesus hand>41. So the brother is chastened>42 and genuinely repents>43, resulting in his restoration to good standing and fellowship in the Bride of Christ and with Jesus. [Footnote: >35. 1 Cor. 5; 2 Tim. 2:24,26. >36. 1 Cor.5; Hebrews 12. >37. Isaiah; Mat. 6:16; 1 Pet. 3:7; 1 Jn. 3:22,23. >38. 1 Cor. 5:5; 11:27-32; Heb. 12. >39. 1 Cor. 5:6; 11:27-32 >40. 1 Cor. 5:5; 11:27-32. >41. John 10:28,29. >42. 1 Cor. 5 & 2 Cor. 2. >43. 2 Cor. 2 and 7]. Another parallel is Jesus and the nation Israel. Israel became the bride of Jehovah/Jesus>44. When Israel misused their bodies/temple, Jehovah/Jesus allowed their bodies to suffer>45. He didn't end His relationship/promises with the nation Israel, even though He allowed many of them to suffer/die and allowed the temple to be destroyed. When Israel repented genuinely, He restored His fellowship and blessings to the genuinely repentant, even allowing them to rebuild the temple for full fellowship>46. Jehovah/Jesus' bond with the nation Israel was not annulled and broken by their sin nor the chastening He allowed>47. [Footnote: >44. (Ex. 20; Ezek. 16:7; 23:1-6). >45. 1Cor. 10:9,10 >46. Ezra, Nehemiah. >47. Ezekiel 16 and 23; Hosea] In American reality, because of the wretchedly poor Bible teaching today Christians, divorce and remarry almost as much as J.Q Public. The Christian wife divorces her Christian husbandand remarries in adultery reaping the chastening of the Lord until she dies>48 or repents in reconciliation or celibacy if she is genuinely born again. The Christian man divorces his Christian wife and remarries. If he really repudiates his Christian wife for another and marries another he commits adultery>49 and reaps the Lord's chastening. At this point we need to define our terms. [Footnotes:>48. (1 Cor 5 and 11:29-32); >49 (Mark 10, Luke 16, Matt 5, 1 Cor 7)] III. DIVORCE DEFINED. Let me try to clarify the word "divorce" at this point since it has so many definitions in our current culture. The Greek word apoluo >1 used by Jesus in Mark 10:11 & 12 means TO SEND OR PUT AWAY, DISMISS (FROM ONE'S PRESENCE), RELEASE AND REPUDIATE. It could be done informally or formally and legally as divorce. [Footnote: .>III.1 See also Matt. 1:19; 5:31; 19:3,7-9.] The Greek word choridzo >2 , used in Mark 10:9 of the saved couple and in 1 Cor. 7:10 &11 of the saved wife , and in v. 15 of the unsaved mate, means TO SEPARATE ONESELF FROM ANOTHER, BE SEPARATED; LEAVE, PART OR DEPART FROM, PUT ASUNDER AND DIVIDE. It could be done informally or formally as a divorce. God allows the Christian wife to choridzo her husband as second best but still affirms that she is bound maritally to her husband as in v. 39. [III. footnotes: >III.2. See also active: Matt. 19:6; Mark 10:9; Rom. 8;35,39;---passive: 1 Cor. 7:10,11,15;Acts 1:4; 18:2] The Greek word afeeaymee >141, used of the man in l Cor. 7:11 and 12 and of the woman in v. 13, means TO SEND AWAY, ASK TO GO AWAY OR LEAVE, TO RELEASE, AND TO LEAVE. This can be done informally or as a formal divorce. So the word divorce can mean many different things depending on one's culture, society, motivation, intent and purposes. But the bottom line is that the husband is commanded not to send his wife away, nor to ask his wife to leave, nor release her nor leave her. Even if she asks or commands him to leave, He is under the Lord's command not to leave. Even if she gets a court order, he is under God's order not to leave her voluntarily. If the marshals/officials remove him and his belongings, then he didn't leave voluntarily. He was removed, but he did not relase or leave her. Separate rooms, sleeping separately or etc. is not leaving or releasing her as long as he is obeying 1 Cor. 7:1-5 with her.l [Footnote: .^141 See also Mat. 13:36;; Mark 4:36.] In summary we see the following: (1) the Christian husband must not divorce/send away/release [See apoluo or afeeaymee above] his Christian wife to whom he is bound as long as they both live. 1 Cor. 5:10,11 and 2 Thess. 3:6 & 14 may require a separation that doesn't involve sending her away, asking her to go away or leave, releasing her from their marriage bond, or leaving her ---- but they are still bound for life. I experienced such a separation without leaving with the mother of my children. The last two years we were together we slept inthe same king size bed but she never let me touch her, kiss her, hold her or make love with her. Now that is separation without leaving. But for the male under 1 Cor. 5:ll and 2 Thess. 3:6,14 commands to "stand apart" from his sining wife would still be bound by the commands in 1 Cor. 7:2,3,4,5 which could require him to be maritally intimate with her, so the "separation" would have to be in other areas ---- always in the Spirit of 2 Tim. 2:24-26; Galat. 6:1,2,3; and Luke 6 ---- like not eating together, not hanging out together, not dating, not socializing together , not spending your leisure time together or etc. (2) the saved husband must not divorce/send away/ask to leave/leave [See afeeaymee above] his unsaved wife as long as she agrees or consents or is willing to dwell/live /house with him. (3) the Christian wife must not divorce/send away/dismiss/repudiate[See apoluo above] and should not (but may) divorce/separate from/leave/put apart [See choridzo above] her Christian husband. The saved wife must not divorce/send away/ask to leave/leave [See afeeaymee above] her unsaved husband as long as he agrees or consents or is willing to dwell/live/house with her. Because of the definition and 1 Cor. 7:11 some believe that the saved wife also can divorce/separate from/leave/put apart [choridzo] her unsaved husband in faithful separation, but still not divorce/send away/ask to leave/leave [afeeaymee] him, in the event of spousal abuse, fornication or etc. These actions find many different legal and informal forms and expressions in many different cultures and subcultures. So when you see the word ÒdivorceÓ in your Bible, it at least means Òsend away, releaseÓ, "leave" or Òbe separated, put asunder, divideÓ informally or formally. If Mark 10:8-12; 1 Corinthians 7:10,11,39 and Romans 7:1-3 are taken quite literally, a genuinely saved Elias who legally married (with no vow of exclusivity such as Òforsaking all othersÓ & Òkeeping yourselves only to each other until death do you partÓ) and was legally divorced by several genuinely saved Jane Does who just wanted to live as singles again>142 would have to deal with the question, "Are they still my wives in God's eyes?". They all divorced him exercising their scriptural option and whatever he felt or wanted would be irrelevant in terms of 1 Cor. 7:11,39. What if these genuinely saved but carnal Jane Does became engaged to others and maritally vowed to forsake all others including their Elias and to keep themselves only to their new mates until death part them? It would be adultery and their vows would be sinful because those vows would be invalidated by God's statement in Mark 10:8-12 and 1 Corinth. 7 :11,39 that they are bound to Elias as long as they both live. [Footnote: >142 (1 Cor. 7:11) ] But wait a minute! Wouldn't it be adultery for Elias to remarry even if his Christian wife divorced him? I mean wasn't he still bound to her even if she dumped him and never saw him again, living single in separation? Wouldn't Elias still be bound to his departed and separated Christian wife (according to1 Corinthians 7:10,11,39) even though her departure for other reasons than prayer and fasting leaves him subject to Satan's temptations due to his not having the gift of celibacy (1Cor.7:5)? Why is she allowed to disobey 1 Cor. 7:5 by leaving him indefinitely (1 Cor. 7:10,11) for some other reason than prayer and fasting? To find the answers to these questions, let's take a look at what the Bible says about the institution of marriage in its various forms and over time. IV. VARIETIES OF MARRIAGE IN THE BIBLE --- LET THE WORD SPEAK! Let me share with you the way I understand the Biblical record and please correct me with clear and specific scriptures where and when I am in error. Any discussion of divorce has to deal with the complexities of remarriage. I believe the following discussion is necessary to understand what the Bible has to say about adultery and remarriage. Please read the following with an open mind withholding judgment until the end of this section, because I believe the following information is critical to understand what the Bible has to say about adultery and remarriage. The first mention of marriage in the Bible is where God miraculously provided Eve to Adam in the Garden of God. Monogamists say that if God approved of polygyny God would have given Eve, Eyvette, Eva and Evellyn to Adam. On the other hand, just like with you and I, if we have more than one good option, we donÕt need to exercise all of them, just the one that is best at the time. There is no quarrel with the fact that God has ordained that the male leaders of his Church are to have one wife>33 , and that even in the Old Testament the leaders were instructed not to ÒmultiplyÓ wives to themselves. To be a valid prefigure of Christ (as Òthe first AdamÓ) you would expect Adam to have one wife, just as Christ, the Òlast AdamÓ, has one wife the Church. [Footnote: >33 1 Tim. 3; Titus 1] In the Old Testament Jesus, as Jehovah>34 , presents Himself as the husband of one wife remembering their wedding day and the exchange of the vows at Mt. Sinai in the desert>35 . Reflecting the reality of how Israel and Judah divided after Solomon died, Jesus (as Jehovah) presents Himself as the husband of two wives in the following: [Footnotes:>34 in Ezek. 16; >35 Exodus 19, 20,21 MKJV EZEKIEL 23: 1 ¦ The word of the LORD came again to me, 2 Son of man, there were two women, the daughters of one mother. 3 And they fornicated in Egypt; they whored in their youth, their breasts were handled, and there their Oholibah, her sister. And they were Mine, EZ 16:8 And I swore to you and entered into a covenant with you, says the Lord Jehovah. And you became Mine, and they bore sons and daughters. And their names: Samaria [is] Oholah, and Jerusalem [is] Oholibah. God never presents Himself as sin or sinner to us except for when holy Christ became sin for us on the cross. In Ezek. 23, the sinners were His wives and He was righteous as the husband of two wives. It was only two wives in accordance with His own Law that decreed that the ruler must not multiply wives to himself. Polygyny , even GodÕs polygyny , is NEVER labeled or declared to be sin or sinful in the Bible. For this paper a distinction is made between a mistress and a concubine. I understand a mistress to mean a human female who has sexual (breast &/or vagina) intimacy with another human with whom she has no marital covenants/vows/ commitment. So a mistress is in the same category as a whore, harlot, prostitue etc. except that she might be having sexual intimacy with only one person during a specific period. I attempt to show at length, later in the paper, that in the Bible a concubine has the status of a wife, even though it may be by informal marital covenants/vows/ commitments. And so, continuing the discussion . . . . .. Having one wife/concubine is said to significantly complicate oneÕs life and distract one who is waiting on God>37 , so of course we understand that any godly man with more than one wife/concubine would be significantly more distracted from waiting on God and would have a significantly greater struggle in his spiritual life with God. In the New Testament in accordance with His law for church leaders, Jesus presents Himself to His people as having only one wife, the Church>38 because believing Jews and believing Gentiles were reconciled into one Body, the Church, to be one unified and united Bride to Christ. [Footnotes:>37 1 Cor. 7; >38 (1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1) ] But no where is this example made mandatory or commanded by God. Not all are called to be leaders of GodÕs people. In fact most of us are called to be followers/imitators of these leaders. Besides how can a leader do a good job both of leading the believers and of caring for his wives if he has more than one or a few wives? Any married man and any reader of 1 Corinthians 7 knows that WIVES (like one's children and best friends) TAKE TIME if the marriage is to be successful and godly. A polygynist shouldnÕt have time to be a leader in the local church because of the time it takes him to be the spiritual leader of his wives/concubines and his children in his own home. The polygynist has his ministry in his own home to his own family. Next we read that Cain knew his wife and she conceived. No word of the wedding or the nature of the wedding. The first mention of polygyny in the Bible is in a passage with the Cain cloud over it where Lamech (Wild man) takes two wives>39 but there is no denunciation of this in the context. As Jerome (340-420AD) put it, "Lamech, a man of blood and a murderer, was the first who divided one flesh between two wives.">3 Some maintain that polygamy was much less common in the Old Testament than is frequently thought to be the case, though its practice usually seemed to have a valid reason >4. [Footnotes:>39 MKJV GEN. 4: 19 ¦ And Lamech took two wives to himself. The name of the first one [was] Adah, and the name of the other [was] Zillah; >.3 A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church,Vol. VIII; p. 358. >4. Please see THE INTERNATIONAL BIBLE COMMENTARY; p.119.] One reason is the common belief held by many that a breast feeding mother in primitive and rural settings would refrain from intimacy until her baby is weaned for fear that if she would become pregnant her milk flow would stop and she would be unable to feed her baby and so lose it. Believing this, the father also would not want his breast-feeding wife to become pregnant and lose the nursing child for lack of her milk. Knowing his own passion for vaginal sex with her and the chance that in the heat of passion his reason might not prevail over his desire for vaginal insertion, he would not risk being intimate with her even for the satisfying of her sexual needs by breast &/or clitoral stimulation. His wife would self- stimulate herself to satisfy her sexual needs rather than risk losing her milk for her nursing child. Knowing that he would be subject to Satan's sexual temptations by abstaining from sex with his breast- feeding wife>40, for sexual fulfillment he turns to his other wife/concubine who was not breast feeding. The sexual needs of the husband and both of the wives could be met in this way. So polygyny allows them to save and feed their children and also meet their sexual needs in marriage. Modern birth control techniques could make such an arrangement unnecessary for some, but many people living at or below the poverty level in underdeveloped nations still face these problems without modern aids. [Footnote: >40 1 Corint. 7:4,5] Is guilt by association a valid condemnation of polygyny ? I would think not, given that the next incident is where Sarai gave her slave/maid "to her husband Abram to be his wife", not concubine, but ÒwifeÓ. Consider the following points that appear to be made in one commentary: (1) It was Sarai's idea>* ; (2) it was a common at the time for a wife to obligate herself to get an heir by providing a slave girl to her husband so he could have his heir by the slave girl; (3) this was legal but left a tangle of emotions due to the heartlessness of conventional law; (4) polygamous marriages cause damage of a psychological nature; (5) there is no reproof of Abram for fathering Ishmael who, in his turn, was blessed of God and became the father of an important nation.>5. By the way there is no proof or documentation given that proves that polygamous marriages cause psychological damage. [Footnotes:>* MKJV GEN. 16: 2 And Sarai said to Abram, Behold now, the LORD has kept me from bearing. I pray you, go in to my slave woman. It may be that I may be built by her. And Abram listened to the voice of Sarai. 3 And Sarai, Abram's wife, took Hagar her slave woman, the Egyptian, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife (after Abram had lived ten years in the land of Canaan); >5. THE INTERNATIONAL BIBLE COMMENTARY; Editor, F.F.Bruce; pp. 126ff] I understand the same commentary to make these points: (1) Abraham was reluctant because of the customs and the laws of his society, valid concerns about his reputation; (2) very old documentation reveals that normally it was not correct or legal to get rid of one's concubine and children in this way; (3) God intervened and instructed him so that he was assured that Ishmael's rights and his mother's prospects were ensured.>6. [Footnote: >6. THE INTERNATIONAL BIBLE COMMENTARY; Editor, F.F.Bruce; p. 129] Yes it is obvious that Sarai apparently acted on her own and there was no divine guidance in this move, but there was also no divine condemnation. God intervened and sent Hagar back into the marital situation with Abram and Sarai>41 When God next spoke to Abraham>42 there was no condemnation of his polygyny , but instead God blessed him with an even greater blessing than before. In response to the blessing he takes his son by Hagar and circumcised him>43 . But I understand a Christian elder to maintain that there was no blessing from God on Abraham's polygamy, that the Biblical record of it is a criticism of Abraham's conduct. >7. He gives no references so look at the Word for yourselves -- "in all things the Lord had blessed Abraham" (Gen. 24:1). [Footnotes:>41 (Gen 16:9-16.); >42 (Gen. 17:1--); >43 (Gen. 17:23-25); >7. MY WIFE MADE ME. . . .p.20.] Consider the following: ". . . a man's 'house' might consist of his mother; his wives and the wives' children; his concbines and their children . . . and slaves of both sexes. Polygamy was in part the cause of the large size of the Hebrew household; in part thecause of it may be found in the insecurity of early times, when safety lay in numbers . . . Polygyny and bigamy were recognized features of the family life. From the Oriental point of view there was nothing immoral in the practice of polygamy. The female slaves were in every respect the property of their master and became his concubines; except in certain cases, when they seem to have belonged exclusively to their mistress . . . At all events, polygyny was an established and recognized institution form the earliest times">8 HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE; p.259. God blessed Sarah with fertility in polygyny>44 and God blessed Hagar and Ishmael even though she was cast out of Sarah's house at Sarah's confirmed request because of the question of an heir, not polygyny>45 . Abraham had another concubine after Hagar, named Keturah>46 by whom Abraham had six children without any condemnation or denunciation by God. What about a Christian elder's apparent assertion that polygamy is a breeding ground for contemptuous, jealous, quarrelsome conduct in a marriage resulting in alienation between wife and husband<9 Forgive me if I sound a little naive (I'm only in my 50's and have experienced marriage for only 24 years) but divorce court records and sociological studies of divorce indicate that those vices are quite common in monogamy in America today. Does that make monogamy evil? I think not. Contempt, jealousy, quarreling and estrangement are sinful works of the flesh and need to be dealt with Spiritually, just like any other sins involving more than one person. Sin and the flesh are the evils, not polygamy or monogamy. [Footnotes:>44 (Gen 21:1-7); >45 (Gen. 21); >46 (1 Chron.1:32) ; >9. See Gen. 16 and 21 as well as HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE;p.259] Culturally it is interesting that Nahor, Abraham's brother, also was a polygamist having a concubine>47. Abraham had at least another concubine besides Keturah under God's blessing>48 although he diligently protected the heir status of Isaac. HezronÕs Caleb had two concubines>49. [Footnotes:>47 (Gen. 22:20-24); >48 (Gen. 25:1-6); >48 (Gen. 25:1-6)] In the Bible's reality is a concubine the same as a mistress? In the following paragraphs I believe you will see that a concubine has marital status in God's eyes even though socially and culturally she doen't have as high a status as a wife who was married publicly and according to the laws of the culture. The difference between a wife and a concubine is discussed in the next paragraph. On the other hand a mistress is a female who lets "her man" relate to her sexually by means of her breasts>50 and/or genitals>51 without them making or agreeing to any marital "for life" commitments or covenants>52. So a mistress provides sex and affection to her partner without marital commitments or covenants. [Footnotes:>50 Prov. 5:19,20,21; Ezek.23:3,8,21; >51 1 Cor. 6:15,16, 17,18; >52 Prov. 2:16,17,18,19; 5:3,4,5,6; 6:24,25,26; 7; Ezek. 16; 23] The only differences I can detect between a concubine and a wife are: (1) that the concubine's marriage is confirmed by a solemn covenant between the husband and concubine>53 without a public wedding, (2) the concubineÕs rights were protected by God (see below), and (3) their status as concubines spared them certain penalties>54 . The Holy Spirit by the writer of Judges 19 declared the Levite to be the concubine's "husband", declared the father of the concubine to be the Levite's "father-in-law", and declared the Levite to be the "son-in-law" of the concubine's father. This is a very strong legitimization of the husband-concubine marital status. It is the same legitimization of the relationship that the Holy Spirit used in Matthew 1, calling the espoused Mary "wife" and the espoused Joseph "husband". If God so recognizes them and describes them, then who are we to do any less. By the Holy Spirit here in Judges 19 we see that a concubine had a "husband" who was the "son-in-law" of her father, his "father-in-law". A wife has a "husband" who is the "son-in-law" of her father, her husband's "father-in-law". [Footnotes:>53 (Ezek. 16 and Malachi 2); >54 (Lev. 19:20 vs. Deut. 22)] Eerdmans' Douglas' New Bible Dictionary: ÒConcubine. 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, Òrefers 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 parentsÓ [>11 1986, Funk & Wagnalls] HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE: ÒThe relative positions of wives and concubines were determined mainly by the husband's favour. The children of the wife claimed the greater part, or the whole, of the inheritance; otherwise there does not seem to have been any inferiority in the position of the concubine as compared with that of the wife, nor was any idea of illegitimacy, in our sense of the word, connected with her children. . . . The female slaves were in every respect the property of their master, and became his concubines; except in certain cases, when they seem to have belonged exclusively to their mistress, and could not be appropriated by the man except by her suggestion or consent (Gn 16:2,3). The slave- concubines were obtained as booty in time of war (Jg 5:30), or bought from poverty-stricken parents (Ex 21:7); or, possibly, in the ordinary slave traffic with foreign nations.Ó >12 [Footnote: >12. HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE; p.259.] Ò 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.Ó >13 [Footnote: >13. 1989, HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE; p.585.] Both David and Abraham recognized all the rights and responsibili-ties of the concubines as if they were official wives. The bottom line is what does God say and how does He view concubines. Reflect on the following: MKJV 2 Sam.12: 11 ÒSo 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.Ó MKJV 2 Sam 16: 21 ÒAnd 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.Ó MKJV2Sam.20:3 ÒAnd 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.Ó In these passages you see God calling and recognizing as "wives" DavidÕs concubines. If that is the way God sees them, only a fool would treat them as less than a wife (Malachi 2). Malachi 2 makes it pretty clear how God feels about those who break their covenants with their concubines and wives. Lamech, the bad guy, and Abraham, the good guy, both marry polygamously on their own initiative without God's explicit leading or condemnation. You cannot condemn the polygyny because their kids turned out bad because so did Adam's Cain, Isaac's Esau and Eli's kids in monogamy. Next we have another bad guy polygamist, Esau, and a good guy polygamist, Jacob. Esau's polygyny >55 was not condemned but his unequal yoke was the point of grief to his mother. EsauÕs son had a concubine>56 . A dear brother reminds us that the two wives of Esau embittered life for his parents, especially his mothe>57 . The passage cited shows it was a disobedience, parents and in-law problem. Again American divorce courts and sociological studies document that monogamy does very well in producing sinful and carnal problems between mates and the parents-in-law. The problem is still sin and the flesh, not monogamy or polygamy. [Footnotes:>55 (Gen. 26:34,35; 28:9); >56 (Gen. 36:12); >57 (Gen. 26:35)] Jacob marries Rachel and Leah>58 , and goes on to have children by his concubines as well>59. Sure, treachery was involved in the Rachel and Leah marriage, but it appears that the treachery stands alone as the evil since at the first mention of the polygyny option,>60 Jacob has no moral objection and nowhere does God denounce the development. Yes Lev. 18:18 shows that much later in the time of Moses, God forbade two sisters being wives to one husband at one time and makes rivalry the issue. God deliberately involved Himself in the polygyny of Jacob by blessing Leah with fertility>61. God repeated himself in this way with the mother of Samuel without denouncing her polygyny>62 . God intervened and granted fertility to Rachel in her polygyny>63 . God not only blesses Jacob with fertility but also with miraculous prosperity in his polygyny> 64 . God not only blessed Jacob in his polygyny but also delivered him from evil and harm as a polygynist>65 [Footnotes:>58 in Gen 29 & 30; >59 (Gen. 35:22; 37:2);. >60 (Gn. 29:27,29). >61 (Gn. 29:31,32; 30:17); >62 (l Sam 1:1-6); >63 (Gn. 30:22); >64 (Gn. 30:41-31:10); >65 (Gn. 31:24, 29,42)] Consider what Saint Augustine said in the fourth century AD. "But here there is no ground for a criminal accusation: for a plurality of wives was no crime when it was the custom; and it is a crime now, because it is no longer the custom. There are sins against nature, and sins against custom, and sins against the laws. In which, then, of these senses did Jacob sin in having a plurality of wives? As regards nature, he used the women not for sensual gratification, but for the procreation of children. For custom, this was the common practice at that time in those countries. And for the laws, no prohibition existed. The only reason of its being a crime now to do this, is because custom and the laws forbid it." [Footnote: >.14 A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church, Vol. iv; p. 289] I hope that dear brother Augustine is having a wonderful time in Heaven. I also hope that Jesus has shared with Him meaning of Prov. 5:18, 19----- a husband's sensual gratification by and with his wife's breasts, being enraptured and intoxicated with and by her lovemaking; the sensual gratification of the marital joys of the Song of Solomon; the joyful marital living of Eccles. 9:7,8,9; and the sensual gratification of the blissful exchange of intimate marital affection required in 1 Cor. 7:2,3,4,5. I don't understand how he could have missed these obvious God given instructions to blissfully and wholeheartedly love our mates in marriage. In spite of this Biblical record of God's blessings on Jacob, I understand a brother to write that Jacob experienced only troublesome times with Rachel and Leah, and that they were angry, envious, and hateful rivals.>15. Only troublesome times? What about all of God's miraculous provision and prospering their family experienced directly from God's intervention? What about their cooperation, their love, trust and loyalty for Jacob when he was in conflict with their father and then with Esau? Maybe their polygyny lacked the sweet bliss and loving harmony of Solomon's early polygyny >66 , but there is no passage that Rachel and Leah only had troublesome times. [Footnotes:>15. Trobisch, MY WIFE MADE ME. . ; p. 20; >66 (Song of Songs 6:4-9)] I wish I had some of that trouble in my life! What about the rivalry? God saw the destructive potential of such sibling rigalry and made the law that a polygynist should not marry the sister of his wife >67 . He did not condemn the man for being a polygynist, He just indicated that the man as polygynist should not marry his wife's sister while she lived. What about the hatred, envy and anger? Well folks, I don't mean to be redundant, but we see those sins in monogamy, between sisters, between brothers (Cain & Abel) and between children and parents (Absalom and David) then and today. If you aren't aware of that, then I have to ask you if you were raised by Robinson Crusoe on some island. [Footnote: >67 (Lev. 18:18)] JacobÕs son Ashur had two wives >68 , and his son, Manasseh, had a concubine>69. BenjaminÕs Shaharaim was also a polygamist>70. So what is the score? God miraculously gives one wife to Adam and another one to Isaac. God allows Lamech, Abraham, Nahor, Esau and Jacob to marry polygamously and blesses the ones who walk with Him in submission, polygyny or no polygyny. [Footnotes:>68 (1Chron. 4:5); >69 (1 Chron 7:14); >70 (1 Chron.8:8)] The next occurrence is controversial but interesting. Before the Law and in accordance with the principles of Genesis, Moses marries Zipporah a Midianite. She seems to do a Michal>71 and apparently suffers the same fate because next we see Moses marry, after the giving of the law, an Ethiopian Cushite>72 in polygyny . Under God's Law Moses gave instructions about polygyny>73 affording it the full legal status of monogamy with no stigma or denunciation. [Footnotes:>71 (l Sam 6) in Ex. 4:23-26; >72 (Num 12:1-10); >73 in Ex. 21:10,11] The maidservant status of Hagar and Jacob's wives is clothed in marital status>74 . It is a profound statement that in all of the explicit moral injunctions of Lev. 18, 19, &20; Deut 12 & 27 there is not one denunciation of polygyny or concubinage. Concubinage apparently, because it involved maidservants, seems to have a lower status as reflected in Ex. 21:7-9 with Lev. 19:20 in contrast to Deut. 22:23-26. [Footnote: >74 in Ex. 21:7-9] MKJV EXODUS 21: 7 ÒAnd 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.Ó MKJV LEVITICUS 19:20 ÒAnd whoever lies with a woman with semen, and she is a slave-girl, betrothed to a husband and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her, there shall be an inquest. They shall not be put to death, because she was not free.Ó MKJV DEUT. 22: 23 ÒIf a girl [who is] a virgin is engaged to a husband, and a man finds her in the city and lies with her, 24 then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them with stones that they die; the girl because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he has humbled his neighbor's wife. So you shall put away evil from among you. 25 But if a man finds an engaged girl in the field, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man that lay with her shall die. 26 But you shall do nothing to the girl. No sin [worthy] of death [is] in the girl; for as when a man rises against his neighbor and slays him, even so is this matter. 27 For he found her in the field, the engaged girl cried out, but [there was] none to save her.Ó Perhaps Deut. was subsequent and current replacing Lev. 19:20. What about Ex. 21:7-9? It was expected that the female slave would become her master's wife or concubine, or become the wife or concubine of her master's son, and the law protected her rights if he was unwilling to do so.>16. Her owner could not sell her to foreigners because he had "trifled" with her (see LXX), "seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.">17. [Footnotes:>16. Please see the discussion in THE INTERNATIONAL BIBLE COMMENTARY; p.126ff & p.172ff.; >17. Ex. 21:8; The Holy Scriptures according to the Masoretic Text]. God's Law forbade a king from "multiplying" wives>.75 to himself without making such a command to we nonkings. It appears from later scripture about Godly and God blessed kings of Israel that God makes a distinction between MULTIPLYING wives & horses to yourself and adding wives & horses to yourself. None of us object to King David having more than one horse but many object to King David having more than one wife, yet it is the same command "he shall not multilply hoses . . . wives to himself." By 2 Samuel 5-12 God had ÒgivenÓ him seven wives plus a number of concubines. We see His implied blessing on DavidÕs 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 ÒYou 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.Ó NO PROHIBITION FROM HAVING SOME HORSES , SOME WIVES and some gold] In Deut. 21:15-17 God intervenes and acknowledges and vindicates the second wife in a polygamous marriage where the sin of partiality >76 was being practiced. If polygyny were sin why didn't God condemn it in this passage instead of covering it with the dignity and holiness of His Law? The wife is vindicated, not condemned. [Footnote: >76 (James 2:1-7)] Deut. 21:15 ¦ ÒIf a man have two wives, one beloved, and one hated, and they have borne him children, [both] the beloved and the hated, and [if] the first- born son be hers that was hated; 16 then it shall be, in the day that he makes his sons to inherit [that] which he has, [that] he may not make the son of the beloved first-born before the son of the hated, who is the first-born; 17 but he shall acknowledge as first- born the son of the hated, by giving him a double portion of all that he has; for he is the firstfruits of his strength: the right of the firstborn is his.Ó Gideon had MANY WIVES, was blessed and used of God without any condemnation/denunciation from God about his polygyny>77 . A dear brother apparently states, of Gideon's (Jerubbaal's ) son Abimelech, that polygamy actually lead to murder in Judg. 9:5 >18. Excuse me! With logic like that I guess you would have to say that the monogamy of Adam and Eve led Cain to murder Abel. I think not. Jesus makes it clear that murder comes from the murderer's heart >78 or from the inner working of the evil ones>79 , but not from monogamy or polygamy. The problem is sin and the flesh, not polygamy. [Footnotes:>77 (Judges 8:29-32); >18. Trobisch; MY WIFE MADE ME>.>.>.p. 20; >78 (Matt. 15:18,19); >79 (Eph. 2:1,2; 6:12)] What about the LeviteÕs? These keepers of the tabernacle, did they have special rules that kept them from polygyny? Not according to the following, because when his concubine was mercilessly murdered by rape, the nation of Israel rose to vindicate him and avenge her murder. Judges 19:1 ¦ ÒAnd it came to pass in those days, when [there was] no king in Israel, that there was a certain Levite, . . . who took to him a concubine out of Bethlehem-Judah. 2 And his concubine played the whore against him, and went away from him to her father's house to Bethlehem-Judah, and was there four whole months. 3 And HER HUSBAND rose up and went after her, to speak friendly to her, [and] to bring her again; . . . And she brought him into her father's house; and when the father of the damsel saw him he rejoiced to meet him. 4 And his FATHER-IN-LAW, the damsel's father, retained him, and he abode with him three days; . . .5 . . . And the damsel's father said to his SON-IN-LAW, . .Ó SO A CONCUBINE IS NOT A HARLOT. Just like any other wife, she can become a harlot while married (Ezek. 16 and Hosea). HARLOTRY IS AN EVIL THAT EITHER A WIFE OR A CONCUBINE CAN PRACTICE WHILE MARRIED. Not only is a concubine not a harlot, the Holy Spirit by the writer of the book of Judges declared the Levite to be the concubine's "husband", declared the father of the concubine to be the Levite's "father-in-law", and declared the Levite to be the "son-in-law" of the concubine's father. This is a very strong legitimization of the husband- concubine marital status. It is the same legitimization of the relationship that the Holy Spirit used in Matthew 1, calling the espoused Mary "wife" and the espoused Joseph "husband". If God so recognizes them and describes them, then who are we to do any less. By the Holy Spirit here in Judges 19 we see that a concubine had a "husband" who was the "son-in- law" of her father, his "father-in-law". A wife has a "husband" who is the "son-in-law" of her father, her husband's "father-in-law". Hannah, the wife of polygamous Elkanah, received the same intervention and blessing from God that Sarah, Rachel and Leah received in their polygyny>80 . Her problem with her co-wife and her own infertility is quite similar to Abraham and Sarah's experience. The co-wife had a sin problem, and it was her problem, not a polygyny problem. You find the same sinful behavior today between sisters, brothers, wives in social groups, wives socializing in church or work settings. Sin and the flesh are the problems, not polygyny. [Footnote: >80 (l Sam. 1:1-19)] The situation made famous by Ruth>81 involves the potential for polygyny since the brother-in-law is not exempted if he is already married. It is amazing, given the specificity of the Law spread out over four books, that God specifically condemns adultery, fornication, homosexuality, sodomy, bestiality but nowhere condemns polygyny or concubinage. King Saul had a concubine>82. [Footnotes:>81 , Deut. 25:5-10 (See l Tim 5:1-16); >82 2Sam 3:7] . David is a fascinating case. He marries Michal in l Sam. 18. Then, as the anointed future king of Israel, David took to himself three additional wives in l Sam 25, and one is recognized by the Spirit for her grace and wisdom. He does this at a time of God's miraculous intervention and blessing in his life. God neither denounces or condemns him or his polygyny. In the case of three or four wives you are still dealing with addition, rather than the multiplying of Deut. MKJV DEUT. 17:16 ÒBut 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.Ó It is interesting that horses, silver and gold - AS WELL AS WIVES - were not to be multiplied. I can't believe this was meant to limit the king to ONE HORSE, or ONE SILVER OR GOLD BAR, even so I can't believe it limits a king to one wife. In fact in 2 Sam 6, it is Michal who is condemned and punished instead of her polygamous husband David. By the time he becomes King in Judah he has 6 wives>83 and is being blessed and prospered by God. At the time of the wonderful Covenant with David in 2 Sam. 7, God specifically blesses and covenants with polygamist David and his concubines and his seven wives, as part of his house, receive a blessing. God even said "I gave you . . . your master's wives" >84 ". And Nathan said to David, you are the man! Thus says Jehovah the God of Israel: I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you out of the hand of Saul; 8 and I GAVE YOU YOUR MASTER'S HOUSE, AND YOUR MASTER'S WIVES INTO YOUR BOSOM, and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah; and if [that] had been too little, I would moreover have given unto you such and such things." [Footnotes:>83 (2 Sam. 3); >84a 2Sa 12:7] At this time God had ÒgivenÓ him seven wives plus a number of concubines (1 Chronicles 3). God here condemns DavidÕs adultery and murder, but implies His blessing on DavidÕs polygyny . This implied blessing of his polygyny would have to mean that David, with concubines and seven wives, had not yet violated the prohibition against a king multiplying wives to himself. >84b to David in his polygyny. Apparently even concubines plus seven wives is not "multiplying" wives to oneself. He had about 14 wives and concubines at the end of his life>85. David the polygamist was declared to be loyal to God>86. God declares that David, the polygamist, fully followed God>87. [Footnotes:>84b 2Sa 12:7; >85 (1 Chron 3); >86 ( l King 11:4); >87 (l King 11:6)] In contrast to God's evaluation of David, we have a beloved brother's evaluation that David was adulterous, unjust, favored some over others, and his sons became killers because he didn't have the authority deal decisively with his heritage>19. Unless I'm mistaken, I believe that monogamous Adam and Eve had a similar problem with Cain and Abel, and monogamous Isaac and Rebekah certainly had their share of "favoritism and injustice. . . intrigues" in their parenting of Jacob and Esau and Jacob's obtaining the blessing instead of Esau. Again and again we see that sin and the flesh are the problems, not polygyny. [Footnote: >19. Trobisch; MY WIFE MADE ME. . . p.20.] God conferred the status of wives on David's concubines in 2 Sam. 12:11 as we see how the prophecy was played out in 2 Sam. 16:21, 22; and 20:3. Again the distinction between concubines and wives seems to be an issue on man's end, not on God's end where it seems to be the solemn vow/covenant>20 and not the wedding ceremony>21 that makes a woman a wife even if society calls her a concubine>88 . [Footnotes:>.20 See appendix #4.; >.21 See appendix #4; >88 (Ezek. 16; Malachi 2; Eccles. 5:5-9;and Matt. 1:18-20 where we see the Holy Spirit call Mary and Joseph husband and wife based on their betrothal/ espousal alone and before the actual wedding and cohabitation)] Solomon's polygyny was sinful first because He disobeyed GodÕs command against a king multiplying wives to himself>89; and secondly because he married unbelievers with whom God had specifically forbidden marriage>90. Too many wives and forbidden wives both had the same predicted result, that they turned his heart away from God. Solomon was declared to be disloyal to God in his polygyny>91 while David the polygamist was declared to be loyal to God>92 . God even declares that polygynist David fully followed God>93 . [Footnote: >89 (Deut. 17:15-17); >90 (Nehemiah 13:23) ; >91 (1 Kings 11:1,2,6, 11); >92 ( l King 11:4); >93 (l King 11:6)] Evil king Rehoboam imitated Solomon and almost had 18 wives and 60 concubines in 2 Chron. 11 & 12. Then Godly king Abijah, blessed and prospered of God, also had fourteen wives>94 . The Godly High Priest Jehoida gave two wives to godly king Joash in 2 Chron 24. Godly queen Esther was a wife blessed by God in her polygyny . God Himself describes Himself as a polygamist in Ezekiel 23. Jesus reaffirmed the Old Testament teachings on polygamy and concubinage in Matt. 23:2,3. [Footnote: >94 (2 Chron. 13)] MKJV MATT. 23:2 Ò. . . 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.Ó What a record! Two authors of the Old Testament, David and Solomon, possibly three if you count Moses, were uncondemned and God-honored polygynists in their polygyny. Four godly patriarchs with whom God entered into special and unique covenants (Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon; five if you count Moses) were polygynists at the time God covenanted with them. In every era of the Old Testament (Pre Law, Sinai Law, Judges, Kingdom prophets, Dispersion prophets) you find GodÕs people and leaders practicing polygyny and practicing it according to GodÕs will or commands. Yet many Christian leaders agree with the brother that apparently maintains that the Bible offers little defense for polygamy in comparison to monogamy, that because of its shortcomings polygyny cannot be tolerated as a form of marriage willed by God.>22. Perhaps that's why God chose the polygamous marriage of Solomon and his Shulamite in The Song of Solomon to be the model for marriage in Israel and the marriage model for His relationship to Israel>95 . [Footnotes:>22. Trobisch; MY WIFE MADE ME>.>..P.21; >95 (Ezekiel 23)] Were these Old Testament saints less Godly than we? I think not. But what of those who say that having more than one wife in those days was a falling short of the will of God and reflected a weakness in the character of those who participated in polygyny? St. Augustine has a good word, as follows: "But those who have not the virtues of temperance must not be allowed to judge of the conduct of holy men, any more than those in fever of the sweetness and wholesomeness of food. . . If our critics, then, wish to attain not a spurious and affected, but a genuine and sound moral health, let them find a cure in believing the Scripture record, that the honorable name of saint is given not without reason to men who had several wives; and that the reason is this, that the mind can exercise such control over the flesh as not to allow the appetite implanted in our nature by Providence to go beyond the limits of deliberate intention. . . . the holy patriarchs in their conjugal intercourse were actuated not by the love of pleasure, but by the intelligent desire for the continuance of their family. . . .nor did the number of their wives make the patriarchs licentious. But why defend the husbands, to whose character the divine word bears the highest testimony. . . ." [Footnote: >.23 A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church, Vol. iv; p.290] Never by God or His prophets is polygyny denounced, condemned or grouped with sins or carnal expressions of the flesh. God Himself portrays Himself as a monogynist in Ezekiel 16 and then as polygynist in Ezekiel 23. It appears He has no problem with the marriage styles he initiated, legislated and in which He blessed His people. So who are we to condemn as sin that which God never condemns as sin? Why would we want to do such a thing? Yes it is against the law in some countries and we know that God wants us to obey the laws of the land as long as it does not violate His Law. So we should not practice polygyny in those lands in obedience to Romans 13 etc. So why not simply say that instead of teaching as doctrine the tradition of religious men, i.e. that polygyny is sinful? POLYGAMY, JESUS, PAUL AND NEW TESTAMENT TIMES Some might say all or most of those Old Testament passages on marriage and morality were for the nation Israel under the Law of Moses and not for Jesus' church under the Law of LOVE in Christ. Bible history indicates quite clearly that Jesus came not to destroy the Law but to fulfill it>96 . Jesus showed that He was observing all the Law of Moses as an adult when He said that whoever does the commandments and teaches others to do the Law of Moses "shall be called great in the kingdom of Heaven">~ . Over and over again in the Gospels you see Jesus obeying the Law of Moses and telling His followers to obey it>97 . Matt. 23:3, 4, and 23 are the strongest statements of this expectation that His followers were to be obeying the marriage and morality laws of Moses when He was still visibly with them, and Jesus made it soon before His death. [Footnotes:>96 (Matt. 5:17,18); >~ (Matt. 5:19); >97 (Matt. 8:4; 12:11,12; 13:54; 15:3-6, 22-26; 17:24, 27; 19:17-19; 21:12,13; 22:34-40; 23:3,4,23; 26:18,19; 26:63,64; etc.)] Mat. 5:17 ¦ ÒThink not that I am come to make void the law or the prophets; I am not come to make void, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Until the heaven and the earth pass away, one iota or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all come to pass. 19 Whosoever then shall do away with one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of the heavens; but whosoever shall practise and teach [them], *he* shall be called great in the kingdom of the heavens.Ó Matt. 23:1 ¦ ÒThen Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 saying, The scribes and the Pharisees have set themselves down in Moses' seat: 3 all things therefore, whatever they may tell you, do and keep. But do not after their works, for they say and do not, . . .Ó Consider Hebrews 8, especially the Greek of verse 13: ÒIn that he says, ÔA new [covenant]Õ, he has made the first [covenant] old. Now that which is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.Ó Consider The Greek of 2 Cor. 3:7,11: Ò. . . 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>..Ó These passages show there was a period of transition (Òis becoming obsolete..growing old..is ready to vanish..is passing awayÓ) from the Sinai Law of Moses to the Calvary Law of LOVE in Christ. The book of Acts is full of the apostles keeping the Sinai Law of Moses after Pentecost. You see them worshipping in the Temple regularly>98 , Peter refuses to socialize with Gentiles according to the Sinai Law>99 , Peter refuses to eat the animals classified as unclean in the Sinai Law>1 , Paul circumcises Timothy, Paul keeps the Law's feasts>2 , Paul recognizes the authority of the Chief Priest, the believing Gentiles are released from the Sinai Law of Moses while the believing Jews are not released >3 . [Footnotes:>98 (Acts 4, 12, 15, 21); >99 (Acts 10, 11, Gal. 1 & 2); >1 (Acts 10 & 11); >2 (Acts 21); >3 (Galatians, Acts 15 and see Acts 10; 11:8, 23; 15:5; 16:3; 18:18, 21;21:18-25; 24:18)] So even after Acts' Pentecost and Acts 15 the apostles and believing Jews in Acts 21 still believe that they are to obey the Law of Moses including the laws about marriage (including polygyny ) and morality. The only thing they wrote about polygyny was that the elders/bishops/deacons should have only one wife at a time. Consider the following: Acts 21:18 ÒAnd on the morrow Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders came there. 19 And having saluted them, he related one by one the things which God had wrought among the nations by his ministry. 20 And they having heard [it] glorified God, and said to him, You see, brother, how many myriads there are of the Jews who have believed, and all are zealous of the law. 21 And they have been informed concerning you , that you teach all the Jews among the nations apostasy from Moses, saying that they should not circumcise their children, nor walk in the customs. . . . 23 This do therefore that we say to you: We have four men who have a vow on them; 24 take these and be purified with them, and pay their expenses, that they may have their heads shaved; and all will know that [of those things] of which they have been informed about you nothing is [true]; but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the law. 25 But concerning [those of] the nations who have believed, we have written, deciding that they should [observe no such thing, only to] keep themselves both from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication. 26 Then Paul, taking the men, on the next day, having been purified, entered with them into the temple, signifying the time the days of the purification would be fulfilled, until the offering was offered for every one of them.Ó So we see Paul, the Apostle of Grace to we non-Jews, purify himself with four other Christian Jews under a vow, pay the expenses of their being under the vow including the shaving of their heads, and have an offering offered for them all so that he could show the believing Jews that he walked orderly, keeping the Sinai Law and its customs and telling the believing Jews to circumcize their children and walk in Moses' customs. These customs of Moses included the laws given to Moses regulating and recognizing polygyny. So the apostles and believing Jews were still keeping the Law, not for salvation, but to obey Jesus in Mat. 23:1-3, and still they do not condemn or reject the polygyny being practiced all around them by both Jews and Romans (See the quotes below). In fact, it is not until after Acts 22 that the Spirit has Paul write the following: MKJV EPHES. 2: 14 ¦ ÒFor He is our peace, He making us both one, and [He] has broken down the middle wall of partition [between us], 15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity (the Law of commandments [contained] in ordinances) so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, making peace [between them]; 16 and so that He might reconcile both to God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity in Himself.Ó MKJV COLOS. 2:13 ¦ ÒAnd you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and has taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross. 15 Having stripped rulers and authorities, He made a show of them publicly, triumphing [over] them in it. 16 ¦ Therefore let no one judge you in food or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbaths.Ó MKJV 2 PETER 3:15 ÒAnd think of the long-suffering of our Lord [as] salvation (as our beloved brother Paul also has written to you according to the wisdom given to him 16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable pervert, as also [they do] the rest of the Scriptures, to [their] own destruction).Ó Ephesians 2:14-18 and Colossians 2:11-17, confirmed by 2 Peter 3:15, show us that Jesus reveals and instructs us to accept the end of the Law of Moses, finally releasing believing Jews from having to obey the Law of Moses (as the Gentiles were in Acts 15) and then not many years later causes the Jerusalem Temple to be destroyed so that it would be impossible to keep on obeying the Law of Moses with its sacrifices and temple worship. This means that the marriage and morality teachings of 1 Thess. 4 ; Romans 7; 1 Corinthians 5, 6 and 7 were written before the time of Acts 21:16 while Paul and the believing Jews, including the apostles, were still obeying and teaching the marriage and morality laws of the Law of Moses, discussed at length above including polygyny . The change of significance was not that polygyny was condemned or forbidden but that monogamy was made a prerequisite for holding an official position of leadership in the local church. The polygyny of the Jewish, Greek and Roman world was not attacked, but the leadership of the local churches was transformed by the monogamy restriction, probably to prevent polygamous leaders from getting involved in church service that would result in the neglect of time with their own children and/or wives. What was the actual status of polygamy in New Testament time, the First Century AD? Christian elders agree that during Jesus' physical and visible walk on earth, the Jews practiced polygamy>24.Ó [Footnote: >24. Trobisch; MY WIFE MADE ME..P. 23. ; "Polygamy was not definitely forbidden among the Jews till the time of R. Gershom (c. A.d. 1000), and then at first only for France and Germany. In Spain, Italy,m and the East it persisted for some time longer, as it does still among the Jews in Mohammedan counties". HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE, p.584. ; A Select Library of the Nicene and Post- Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church, Vol. V, p. 267.; A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church, Vol. iv, p.290.; A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church, Vol. VIII, p. 258. ; St. Augustin: On The Trinity, p. 402.; HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE, p.259, 583ff.] Let's look at the following evidence: DOUGLASÕ NEW BIBLE DICTIONARY : MARRIAGE: ."Monogamy is implicit in the story of Adam and Eve, since God created only one wife for Adam. Yet polygyny is adopted from the time of Lamech (Gn. 4:19), and is not forbidden in Scripture . . ..It is difficult toknow how far polygamy was practised, but on economic grounds it is probable that it was found more among the well-to-do than among the ordinary people. Polygamy continues to the present day among Jews in Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Asian, Oriental, and African countries." >25 [>25 IVCF, Editor J.D.Douglas; 1962,W. B. Eerdmans Publishing, p.787] Eerdmans' Douglas' New Bible Dictionary: ÒConcubine. 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)Ó [Footnote: >26 IVCF, Editor J.D.Douglas; 1962,W. B. Eerdmans Publishing.] FUNK & WAGNALLS NEW ENCYCLOPEDIA: CONCUBINAGE, ÒRefers 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 parentsÓ. [Footnote: >27 1986, Funk & Wagnalls NEW ENCYCLOPEDIA.] In HASTING'S DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE we read "Being .. apparently legalized, and having the advantage of precedent, it was long before polygamy was formally forbidden in Hebrew society, though practically it fell into disuse; the feeling of the Rabbis was strongly against it. Herod had nine wives at once. . . Its possibility is implied by the technical continuance of the Levirate law," [Deut. 25:5-10] "and is proved by the early interpretation of 1 Ti 3, whether correct or not. Justin reproaches the Jews of his day" [A.D.] " with having 'four or even five wives,' and marrying 'as they wish, or as many as they wish.' The evidence of the Talmud shows that in this case at least the reproach had some foundation. Polygamy was not definitely forbidden among the Jews till the time of R. Gershom (c. A.D. 1000), and then at first only for France and Germany. In Spain, Italy, and the East it persisted for some time longer, as it does still among the Jews in Mohammedan countries." [Footnote: >28. HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE; p.583ff.] Eugene Nida's (American Bible Society) book Customs and Cultures>.29 . . documents the current practice of polygyny by Christians in non Western countries, and how it is still practiced in China, SE Asia, India, Africa and parts of South America. Eugene Nida points out that when polygamists become Christians they are told of their limitations in church offices and are asked not to take any additional wives because it stumbles western Christians (Rom 14, l Cor. 8 and 10). They are not usually asked to abandon their other wives to a premature widowhood because of l Cor>. 7:1-15. [Footnote: >.29 1954, Harper & Brothers, New York] Tacitus, who died in 117 A.D., was a Roman historian who provided us with one of the earliest detailed descriptions of the Germans and their Germanic tribes, which later migrated into western Europe and included the English and the French. >30 These Germans of his time were unique. They strictly observed the marital tie and were generally content with one wife for each husband, in marked contrast to most of the "barbarians" of the time who often practiced polygyny. The few exceptions to this Germanic monogyny was when they were sought for a polygynous marriage because of their high birth>31 [Footnotes:>30 Source: Tr. Maurice Hutton, in Tacitus: Dialogus, Agricola, Germania, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1914). WOMEN'S LIVES IN MEDIEVAL EUROPE - A SOURCEBOOK; p. 36.;>31 WOMEN'S LIVES IN MEDIEVAL EUROPE - A SOURCEBOOK; p. 37.] The New York Times News Service reported in Jan. '96 that there were 200,000 individuals involved in polygamous marriages in Paris France alone. These polygamous individuals were reported to be mostly immigrants from SE Asia, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Africa. This is significant since England and Germany also have similar immigrant populations with similar marriages. This is an awesome mission field right in middle of Western Europe, involving our NATO allies. Are we going to exclude them from the Gospel message because of their polygamy? Are we going to tell the husbands to disobey the Jesus who condemns the breaking of marital covenants (Mal.2; Rom. 1) by abandonning/divorcing all their wives but one. Are we going to disobey the Jesus who tells new converts to stay in the calling in which they were called (1 Cor.7:25-35) and tell the husbands not to abide in the polygamous calling in which they were called, but to dump and abandon their "extra" wives, condemning them to widowhood, poverty and prostitution? It is incredible to think that Jesus and the apostles would say nothing about such a widespread contemporary practice as polygyny if it were indeed sinful, less than God's best, carnal and reprobate to good works. God never said such a thing in Old Testament times and He obviously never said such a thing in New Testament times. When you consider how specific God was in Lev. chaps. 18-22; Deut. chaps. 22-24; Romans 1; 1 Cor. 6; 2 Cor. 6; Gal. 5 and etc., I can not believe that God would "forget" to include polygyny if it is as bad as most Christian leaders say it is. Let's take a look at what most Christian leaders say about polygyny and concubines in the next section. V. WHAT DO MOST CHRISTIAN LEADERS SAY ABOUT CONCUBINES & POLYGYNY TODAY? FIRST, they say that one of God's purposes in creation was that the marital standard for man be monogamy>32 even though there is not one scripture, quoted or paraphrased, that says that. Yet I understand a Christian elder and most of the "leaders" to persist, apparently maintaining that there is no doubt that God's indisputable will, as seen in the Old Testament, is monogamy.>33. [Footnotes:>.32 Please see THE INSTITUTES OF BIBLICAL LAW, page 362, by R. Rushdonney.; >33. Trobisch, MY WIFE MADE ME. . . P.21] There is no question that the best form of marriage for most is monogamy, since that is the gift>@ He has given most of His children on earth and worldwide. But the point of 1 Cor. 7:7-27 ----- [Footnote: >@ (1 Cor. 7:7-27)] MKJV 1 CORINTH. 7: 7 ÒFor I would that all men were even as I myself am. But each has his proper gift from God, one according to this manner and another according to that. 8 I say therefore to the unmarried and the widows, It is good for them if they remain even as I. 9 But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn. 17 ¦ But as God has distributed to each one, as the Lord has called each one, so let him walk. And so I ordain in all churches.18 [Was] any called having been circumcised? Do not be uncircumcised. Was anyone called in uncircumcision? Do not be circumcised. . . . 20 Let each one remain in the calling in which he was called. 21 Were you called as a slave? It does not matter to you, but if you are able to become free, use [it] rather. . . . 24 Each in whatever way he was called, brothers, in this remain with God.Ó 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: ÒThat 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.Ó [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.Ó MKJV GENESIS 2: 18 ¦ ÒAnd the LORD God said, [It is] not good that the man should be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him. 19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every animal of the field and every fowl of the air, and brought [them] to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called [each] living creature, that [was] its name. 20 And Adam gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field. But there was not found a suitable helper for Adam. 21 ¦ And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept. And He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh underneath. 22 And the LORD God made the rib (which He had taken from the man) into a woman. And He brought her to the man. 23 And Adam said, This [is] now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. [She] shall be called Woman because [she] was taken out of man. 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife and they shall be one flesh. 25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife; and they were not ashamed.Ó 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 Òlast AdamÓ>35. , and being unique it is no surprise that both ÒAdamsÓ 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 ÒmultiplyÓ wives to Himself. In the New Testament as the Leader of the Church, He could have only one wife in accordance with His own Law governing the marital status of Church leaders>4 [Footnotes:>.35. 1 Cor. 15:45-49; Romans 5:12-21. >.36. DITTO 1 Cor. 15:45-49; Romans 5:12-21. >.37 Ezekiel 23; >.>4 Titus 1; 1 Timothy 3] DouglasÕ New Bible Dictionary : MARRIAGE: ....."Monogamy is implicit in the story of Adam and Eve, since God created only one wife for Adam. Yet polygyny is adopted from the time of Lamech (Gn. 4:19), and is not forbidden inScripture. . . ...Polygamy continues to the present day among Jews in Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Asian, Oriental, and African countries." HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE: . Ò. . 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.Ó>39 [Footnote: >39. HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE; p.259.] ÒPolygamy 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 ÒChristianÓ tradition against polygyny hinders the spread of the Gospel of Christ in Moslem and other polygynous societies. What about all those third world folks, especially the Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Asian, Oriental, and Africans, who are practicing polygyny/ concubinage and are told that they have to dump or abandon their extra wives in order to become Christians? This requirement keeps many from Christ and alienates many against Christ, being one of the biggest obstacles for the Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Asian, Oriental, and African communities. These "Christian" folks who feel their own tradition about monogamy and polygyny must be kept by Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Asian, Oriental, and Africans and other third world polygamists for them to become Christians, sound like the folks: Mat. 23:13 "¦ But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for you shut up the kingdom of the heavens before men; for *you* do not enter, nor do you suffer those that are entering to go in." The angels are waiting to rejoice over the conversion of one polygamous Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Asian, Oriental, and African or third worlder. "Christian legalists and traditionalists" wont let them into their "Christian" churches unless they sin by (1) "dealing treacherously">6 with their wives by putting them away in repudiation, (2) disobeying Christ's command not to leave their wives>7 , and (3) not remaining in the marital condition in which they were called to Christ, whether it be concubinage, polygyny or in monogamy. I understand one source to make the point has been made that it would be brutal for the Christian community to force a polygamist to have to choose between (1) being saved and then baptized, and (2) having his wives in legally and sociably acceptable polygyny.>43. [Footnotes:>6 Malachi 2; >7 1 Cor. 7:11,12,13,14; ^>.^43. Trobisch, MY WIFE MADE ME. . . P.33; [Karl Barth, CHURCH DOGMATICS, III/4, p. 203]. So what is the solution? What is God's solution? At the very least the Spirit's Word in Paul tells us that if you, husband or wife, are saved in polygyny/concubinage, then remain in polygyny/concubinage and accept it as God's distribution for each person involved in particular. 1 Cor.7: 17 ¦ ÒHowever, 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.Ó SECONDLY, most of the "leaders" say that one of the products of Adam and Eve's fall clearly was polygamy, appearing in a sinful world>89 , even though no where in the Word of God does the Word say this. God portrays Himself, in the fullness of His holiness, as the polygamous husband of two wives in Ezekiel 23. I believe God was not a victim of the fall, and remains holy in a world of sin. If 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 Post- Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church Vol. V; p. 267.] THIRDLY, what about that which is implied by some in Leviticus 18:18? Well, what about Lev. 18:18?ÒAnd thou shalt not take a woman to her sister, to be a rival to her . . .. beside the other in her lifetime.Ó>47 [Footnote: >.47 The Holy Scriptures, Masoretic Text] ÒThou shalt not take a wife in addition to her sister, as a rival . . in opposition to her, while she is yet living.Ó>48 [Footnote: >.48 The Septuagint Version, 1972] ÒAnd you shall not take to wife a sister of your wife, to distress her. . ..beside the other in her lifetime.Ó>49 [Footnote: >.49 The Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts] ÒAnd thou shalt not take a wife to her sister, to be a rival to her , . . ...besides the other in her life- time.Ó>50 [Footnote: >.50 American Standard Version 1901 & 1929] ÒYou must not marry a woman in addition to her sister, to be a rival to her. . . .when the first one is alive.Ó>51 [Footnote: >.51 Amplified Bible, 1965, Zondervan Publishing House.] The New King James Version agrees with the meaning of those above.The New International Version agrees with the meaning of those above. >53 [Footnote: >.53 HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION.] EXCUSE ME! DID I MISS SOMETHING? I SEE A PROHIBITION OF RACHEL+LEAH MARRIAGES INVOLVING TWO SISTERS BEING MARRIED TO THE SAME HUSBAND, BUT WHERE IS THE IMPLIED PROHIBITION OF POLYGYNY? It seems to me that God is simply prohibiting a husband from marrying the sister in-the-flesh of his wife. Does it apply to sisters in the Spirit? The obediently believing Israelite women were as much sisters in the Lord as are the Christian women sisters in the Spirit and there was no prohibition against them being in polygynist marriages like King DavidÕs. Are you willing to add to the scripture to support the tradition of men? FOURTHLY, What about 1 Timothy 3:2? Ò1 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 churchÓ >54 [Footnote: >.54 StrongÕs Lexicon, Open Bible Online, Ken Hammil] Husband of one wife: Yes! Definitely! An elder/overseer/bishop/ superintendent of a church must be the husband of only one wife. Are we all elders/overseers/bishops/ superintendents? Clearly not. The unmarried are not. The married who have unruly children are not. Husbands with disrespectful, uncooperative and defiant wives are not. The married and unmarried who are unable to teach are not. All novices are not. Those with a bad reputation, earned or unearned, among the unsaved through slander or misunderstandings are not. Those who donÕt want a church leadership position are not. That includes most of us, and most of us are not covered by the injunction to be the husband of only one wife. There is the problem of the polygamous mentality. A man who has learned to love passionately and maritally more than one wife at one time would be more vulnerable to sexual temptation in church ministry than a man who has learned to love passionately and maritally only one wife at a time. A ministering polygamist in a leadership position would be more likely to be tempted to accept the advances/ propositions of an unmarried sister in the church who falls in love with him and he with her. This could result in sex outside of marriage (fornication) or yet another addition to his polygamous "harem". This would stumble the saints and would be a reproach to the unsaved. It would appear that a godly polygamist would have to have a very low profile (no leadership position) in the church, as the scripture requires. FIFTHLY, most of the "leaders" maintain that Deut. 17:17 at least implies a condemnation of polygyny because of its command forbidding the king to multiply wives and horses to himself>55 . Since interpretations belong to God, let's see what God says in His Word. By the time David became King in Judah he had 6 wives>9 and was being blessed and prospered by God. At the time of the wonderful Covenant with David in 2 Sam. 7, God specifically blesses and covenants with polygamist David, husband to his concubines and his seven wives. 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 Òonly one wifeÓ command. Again we see the tradition of man making of no effect the Word of God. SIXTHLY, does Jesus statement ÒThe two shall become one fleshÓ mean that only one man and one woman should become one flesh, as in monogamy>57 , as most of the "leaders" maintain? The Spirit uses ÒThe two shall become one fleshÓ principle in 1 Corinth. 6 to show Òthat he who is joined to a harlot is one body with herÓ , and then uses the same Òone fleshÓ principle in Eph. 5 about a husband and his wife. Jerome (340-420AD) didn't indicate any problem understanding the possibility when he wrote, "Lamech, a man of blood and a murderer, was the first who divided one flesh between two wives.">58 [Footnotes:>.57 Please see THE INSTITUTES OF BIBLICAL LAW, by R. Rushdonney, p. 363. >.58 A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church, Vol. VIII; p. 358.] Since the harlot is one flesh with every fornicator she has sexual union with and the husband is one flesh with his wife, the Òone fleshÓ principle is not unique to marriage and cannot be an argument for monogamy or against polygyny . The Òone fleshÓ principle is physical reality that describes only the result of sexual union, whether it involve a harlot, a fornicator, a married couple or a polygamous marriage. David, Israel and Abraham were Òone fleshÓ with each of their wives, just as the adulteress of Prov. 6 & 7 was one flesh with each of her adulterers. Under the Law by Moses, being Òone fleshÓ could have been the basis for marriage>11 but not so for us after the Sinai Law of Moses was declared voided in Eph. 2 and Col. 2, especially in the case of 1 Cor. 7:9; 1 Tm. 5:11-14. If we do not control ourselves today, we are commanded to marry>12 , but who to marry is not specified, only that your mate be saved>13 and godly>14. [Footnotes: >11 (Deut. 22:22-30; Ex. 22:16,17). >12 1 Cor. 7:9,36; 1 Tim 5:14; Appendix Six of this document. >13. 2 Corinthians 6. .>14 1 Corinthians 5:9-11; 2 Thess. 3:6-14] Being one flesh, as Eph. 5:22-33 shows, is one of the best motives for the husband being good and godly to his wife. A Christian elder apparently maintains that godly equality is possible only in a monogamous marriage, and that polygamy increases women's subordination.>59 He apparently believes that the harmony and unity of Gen. 2:24 is unable to develop in a polygamous marriage, and that monogamy best reflects Christ's love to the Church>60. How did I miss that? Was it the blissful and enraptured love the Shulamite had for her Solomon who loved and adored her in their polygynous marriage>15? Was it Abigail who gave up her wealthy independence as Nabal's widow in order to be David's wife in a polygynous marriage? [Footnotes:>59. Trobisch; MY WIFE MADE ME A POLYGAMIST; p21ff. >60. Trobisch; MY WIFE MADE ME. . . . P. 25. >15 (Song of Sol. 6)] No, but I think a Christian elder missed the point that a tragic number husbands around the world have neglected, been unloving to, abused and subordinated their wives in monogamy. The women's movement for the right to vote, the heart breaking of spousal abuse and neglect, the right to have equal pay for equal tasks done by men, and the whole affirmative action program for women shows that monogamy proves to be a pretty effective context in which women can be subordinated and treated quite unlovingly. The problem, again, is that sin and the flesh are the problem, not monogamy or polygyny. There is no question that monogamy best reflects Christ's love to the Church, that is why He chose it and modeled it for all the Church leaders>16 of whom He is the Chief leader. The real situation is that we are all not Church leaders and we all have our "best", our different "gifts" from God>17 . [Footnotes:>16 (1 Tm. 3 & Ti. 1). >17 (1 Cor. 7:6,7,17-28)] I understand a Christian elder to state that in monogamy both leave and both cleave, becoming one flesh, and this is only possible for two marital partners, therefore polygamy is excluded by the Biblical idea of equality>61. He gives no scripture reference for this position, and I don't believe he would be able to do so. Statistics show that most Christian monogamous marriages fail to maintain this harmonious equality, and again because of sin and the flesh. There is no claim that in polygyny three "become one", but indeed the husband does become one flesh with each of his wives>18 and the fornicator becomes one flesh with each harlot with whom he fornicates>19 . There is no reason why a polygynist and his wives/concubines could not attain to the level of the saints in the early church where they shared all that they had, and had all things in common>20 in a sweet and loving harmony. In the Lord any family, even a polygynous family, can achieve that unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace>21 . [Footnotes:>61. Trobisch; MY WIFE MADE ME. . . >. P. 49ff. >18 (Matt. 19). >19 (1 Cor. 6:12-20). >20 Acts 4. >21 (Phil. 4:13;Eph. 4:1-5; Psalm 133 and Acts 3 & 4)] SEVENTH, Ò. . . ..let each man have his own wife, and let each wife have her own husbandÓ 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 anotherÕs wife and a wife having one who is not her own husband. It restricts sexual ÒhavingÓ to marriage with oneÕs own mate. [Footnotes:>.62 Please see THE INSTITUTES OF BIBLICAL LAW, by R. Rushdonney, p. 363. >22 Ezek. 16:8; Malachi 2:10-17; Neh. 9:38 with 1 Sam. 20:3-17; As in Matt. 1:18-24 and Luke 1 & 2, she was his "wife" by their covenant even before their actual formal wedding.] I understand a Christian elder to state that it is inadequate to prescribe polygamy as a treatment for the problem of adultery, because polygamy facilitates stepping into adultery. Apparently he maintains that polygamous wives are often driven to adultery by the sinful neglect)>23 of their husbands, and may have to bribe their husbands away from their other wives, resulting in very unsatisfying sexual relations for the wives.>63. First of all, God is the only real antidote against adultery, because He tells us that even in monogyny spousal neglect can result in temptations to adultery>24 . Secondly, whether it be the "inclusive sex-partnership" of polygyny or the exclusive sex- partnership of monogyny, the step to adultery depends entirely on the individual's relationship to Jesus, obedience to Jesus and level of commitment to both Jesus and the marriage. Surveys show that monogamous America today steps easily and frequently to adultery. Lastly, if the polygynist husband was obeying Jesus by having his own wives >25 , defrauding none of them>26 , loving them and laying down his life for them>27 , showing no favoritism or partiality in his behavior towards them>28 , by simply walking in the Spirit his family would be very unlikely to experience the problem described above by a Christian elder. [Footnotes:>23 (1 Cor. 7:2-5. {>63. Trobisch; MY WIFE MADE ME. . .. P. 31ff. >24 (1 Cor. 7:1-5). >25 (1Cor.7:1-4). >26 (1Cor.7:5). >27 (Eph. 5). >28 (1Tim5:20,21)] EIGHTH: According to some Christian leaders, polygamous family living is described or rated as an inferior type of family living, but a passable one>64 . The right of the first born>30 ; the right of each wife to food, clothing/ shelter and marital sex>31 ; and the right for the whole polygamous family to be Spiritually and materially blessed by God>32 is preserved by God in these polygamous marriages just as in monogamous marriages. There is no scripture that says a wife in polygyny is less of a wife than a wife in monogamy. There is no scripture that says a husband in polygyny is less of a husband than a husband in monogamy. Consider St. 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.] Exodus 21: 7 "And if a man shall sell his daughter as a handmaid, she shall not go out as the bondmen go out. 8 If she is unacceptable in the eyes of her master, who had taken her for himself, then shall he let her be ransomed: to sell her unto a foreign people he has no power, after having dealt unfaithfully with her. 9 And if he have appointed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the law of daughters. 10 If he take himself another, her food, her clothing, and her conjugal rights he shall not diminish. 11And if he do not these three things unto her, then shall she go out free without money." WHY DOESN'T GOD CONDEMN HIM FOR TAKING ANOTHER WIFE IF IT IS A SIN? MKJV DEUT. 21:15 ¦ If a man has two wives, one beloved and another hated, and they have borne him sons, the beloved and the hated; and [if] the first-born son was of her that was hated, 16 then it shall be in the day when he makes his sons to inherit what he has, he may not cause to [inherit] the son of the beloved first-born before the son of the hated one, he who [is truly] the first-born. 17 But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated as the first-born by giving him a double portion of all that he has. For he [is] the beginning of his strength. The right of the first-born is his. He legislated polygyny without one word or hint of condemnation. If polygyny were sin, why didn't God condemn it instead of putting the royal seal of His holy Law on it? God's designated and anointed leaders freely and openly practiced it (Abraham, Jacob, David, Jehoida the priest, and God in Ezekiel 23). Where in the Bible does he find an Old Testament writer embarrassed to report polygamy? If you know of a single passage that clearly and explicitly states that, please let me know. How can any Old Testament writer be embarrassed of something God sanctioned and legislated, and that His designated and anointed leaders freely and openly practiced with God's obvious and abundant blessing in their lives (see the next section)? The Old Testament writers untiringly and realistically show the negativity of polygamy? Abram and Sarai, Rachel and Leah had problems, as did Hannah and so did Solomon, but even with these four there is no untiring and relentless criticism of polygamy? I couldn't find it. In the next section, covering thousands of years and each major period of Jewish history there is no such relentless criticism of polygyny found in the Bible. In fact if you accept the Song of Solomon as the story of young Solomon and his Shulamite wife in a polygamous marriage>34 , you have one of the most beautiful and positive statements of good will and love between the Shulamite and her co-wives as well as with the daughters of Jerusalem, many of whom probably also became wives to Solomon later in life when he went too far and disobeyed God by multiplying wives to himself>35 . Let's look at the record in the Word. [Footnotes:>34 (Song of Sol. 6:8-10). >35 (Deut 17:15-17)] St. Augustine (4th Century AD) had the following good word on this subject in the following: 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 [Footnote: >..67 A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church, Vol. V; p. 267] Are polygyny and concubinage a form of female abuse? Without even discussing cases like that of OJ Simpson's, there is a very well documented serious and growing problem of spousal abuse in monogamous America. There is still an internationally known serious and abiding problem of males killing their wives either to free them so they can get the dowry of a new wife, or just because they don't love their wives, in India where open polygyny has been illegal for some time. You will find spousal abuse in every form of marriage known to and practiced by humans because their sinful nature>3 or because of the involvement of evil spiritual beings>4. The problem is not the social form of the marriage. The problem is in the humans who exercise that social form of marriage. Mates will abuse mates whether it be polygyny or monogyny. [Footnote: >3 Rom 3:23. >4 Eph. 2:1,2; 6:12.] Does it denote inferiority on the part of the woman? There is nothing in the Bible that says women are inferior to men. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.">5 What does it mean to be in Christ Jesus? "But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great Love with which he Loved us, even when we were dead in sins, has made us alive together with Christ . . . and has raised [us] up together, and made [us] sit together in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus . . . for through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father." >6 In terms of what is real, spiritually right now we who are His children have a presence in His very presence right now where sex is totally irrelevant and inconsequential. "Therefore, from now on, we know no one according to the flesh. . .">7 Our sexuallity is not a legitimate basis for knowing each other or relating to each other. Our sexuality is like a temporary "uniform" we wear during a short period of our eternal life with God, or like an instrument we temporarily play in God's orchestra. [Footnote: >5 Gal 3:28. >6 Ephes. 2:1-18. >7 2 Cor. 5:16] Our Father decided>8 which of us would wear female "uniforms" and which would wear male "uniforms", which of us would play female insturments and which of us would play male instruments during our pilgrimage on earth. As the Grand Conductor of his orchestra, He decides where we should be and when we should play our "instrument" or wear our "uniform". All are uniformed musicians in God's orchestra and all are musicians with an instrument to play. There are varying degrees of skill and varying degrees of importance in His orchestra>9 We know that everyone in the orchestra must be harmonious and unified in their effort because it takes only one musician to make one sour note to mess up the performance, so clearly all are important and are all under the command of the Conductor. [Footnote: >8 Eph. 1:11; Rom. 8:28. >9 Rom. 12; 1 Cor. 12.] For some of us life means we are males, for some of us life means we are females, all under the same Conductor. His males and His females must be harmonious and unified in their effort because it only take one member to be grieved for the whole Body of Christ to be hurting>10 . The females' part in the symphony of life is spelled out in Bible passages>11 and the males' part in the symphony of life is spelled out in Bible passages>12. They are not the same parts, but under the grand Conductor the parts can and should be harmonious and unified, blending to produce a wonderful work for the benefit of all. [Footnote: >10 Rom. 12:5; 1 Cor. 12:26,27. >11 Gen. 2; 1 Cor. 11:1-16; 14:34,35,36; Ephes. 5; 1 Tim. 2 & 5 and Titus 2. >12 Gen. 2; 1 Cor. 11:1-16; Eph. 5; 1 Tim 3 & 5; Titus 1 & 2.] If that means the Conductor wants the male to play the lead violin and the female to play the lead viola in a duet (marriage), then He knows best and can draw out of us in that relationship beautiful harmonies for the delight and benefit of all. The female is not inferior to the male, but while they are male and female, He has laid down some rules how we are to relate in His Church when we assemble in one place, and He has laid down some rules when we come together in marriage/sex. If we Love Him, we will obey His rules in those settings>13 . If we love Him, we will compassionately cherish each other, male and female, in obedience to Him. Sacrificial and self- denying compassionate cherishing results in no victims, not tyrants, no dictators, no slaves and no abuse. It means seeking the best for the object of such Love and cooperating with them to achieve that best. [Footnote: >13 John 14:15, 21; 1 John 2:1-5; Heb. 5:8,9] Do polygyny and concubinage unfairly or unjustly give a male the advantage over his women? The husband is still commanded to live wisely and respectfully>14 with his wife and we know that the beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord resulting in obedience to the Lord>15 . The husband is still commanded to compassionately cherish his wife as Christ compassionately cherishes the Church. The advantage over women? It sounds more like the male is given additional and solemn responsibilities for the loving of his woman. [Footnote: >14 1 Peter 3:7. >15 Psalm 19:9; Prov. 1:7; Hebrews 5:6,7,8,9; Prov. 4:20-22] I submit to you that, as most Christian messengers have said, monogyny is the ideal and preferable form of marriage for most people. Most of us do not live in an ideal and preferred world. Most of us do not have first class tickets for the trip of life. Most of the Christian leaders told us that our ancestors were wrong in their practice of polygyny, so most of us stopped practicing it. In this document I submit that, for us who find ourselves in such a less than perfect world, we need to know our options and know them better. I try to show in this paper, that polygyny and concubinage are options available to followers of Christ today, that polygyny and concubinage are neither sinful nor displeasing to God, that polygyny or concubinage may be God's ideal/best for you, and that there is a way for the godly in Christ Jesus to live in polygyny or concubinage that today is acceptable to God and allowed by society. As with any controversial thing>16 in life, one must search out the will of God in the matter and, with His wisdom and enabling, walk in it as He leads and provides. Hopefully this paper will help you move in that direction, if it is His will. [Footnote: >16 Romans 14] VI. ADULTERY DEFINED, A SURPRISE! ISNÕT POLYGYNY ADULTERY? Some say ÒThe same laws apply to both male and female. This is an issue of nature, not role. Therefore all are equal: male and female.Ó Some Bible interpreters are more zealous for unisex doctrines and practices than the bleeding heart liberals who encourage unisex restroom and coed dorms. God made males and females very different for a reason, and we miss the mark when we fail to recognize the differences He made and instituted. Mary leave/divorces Elias. Some say that this forsaken Elias commits adultery when he marries Sally but the Biblical definition of adultery>143 in Matt. 5:32 and 19:6-9; Mark 10:1-11; Luke 16:18; 1 Thess. 4:4-6 and Romans 7:1-3>143 plainly states the double standard in the definition of adultery. There really are different scriptural laws for men than for women governing marriage and remarriage, and there are different scriptural laws for men than for women defining adultery. Adultery for the woman: 1. "Whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery">144. The reason being that she is still bound to him as wife.>145. [Footnote: >144 Mat. 5:32; 19:9; Luke 16:18; except in the cases of 1 Cor. 7:12-15,39; 1 Tim. 5:14. >145. 1 Cor. 7:10, 11, 39; Romans 7:1-3. ] 2. The husband "causes her to commit adultery" when he divorces her for any reason other than sexual immorality>146. The reason being that she is still bound to him as wife.>147 In 1 Corinth. 7:5 we see that her husband "causes her to commit adultery" because her husband is failing to meet her marital needs and the enemy of her soul tempts in her burning need. (On the other hand: The wife is not said to cause her husband to commit adultery when she divorces him for any other reason than sexual immorality, probably because he is free to be a polygynist.) [Footnote: >146. Matt. 5:32; 19:9. >147 1 Cor. 7:10, 11, 39; Romans 7:1-3.] 3. "And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.">148. The adultery consists of both divorce AND remarriage. The reason being that she is still bound to him as wife.>149. [Footnotes:>148. Mark 10:12. >149. 1 Cor. 7:10, 11, 39; Romans 7:1-3.] 4. "if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man.">150 [Footnote: >150. Romans 7:3.] Adultery for the man: 1. "Whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery", obviously because she still is bound to the husband from whom she is divorced. [>.^151. Mat. 5:32; 19:9; except in the cases of 1 Cor. 7:12-15,39; 1 Tim. 5:14.] 2. "Whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery." The adultery consists of divorcing his wife for something else besides sexual immorality AND then remarrying. If he stayed married to his wife and married another, he became a polygynist. On the other hand, it is implied here that if he divorces his wife for sexual immorality and marries another, he does not commit adultery. His divorcing her does not cause her to commit adultery because she is already immorally sexually involved with someone else. His refusal to meet her sexual needs (1 Cor 7:2-5) does not cause her to be immoral because she is already being immoral. He is commanded not to be intimate with her (1Cor.5:11) but his lack of her intimacy will cause him to be tempted (1 Cor.7:5). If the temptations overcome him and he is faling to control himself, burning with marital desire, he comes under command to marry (1Cor.7:9) and so remarries in the Lord. [Footnote: >152. Matt 19: 9: Mark 10:11; Luke 16:18.152.] 3. "You shall not covet your neighbor's wife.">153. "You shall not lie carnally with your neighbor's wifeÓ>154. "For this is the will of God. . . ..that no one should take advantage of and defraud/cheat his brother in this matter.Ó>155. A genuine Christian wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives and she becomes an adulteress when she marries another while he still lives. [Footnotes:>153. Exod. 20:17. >154. Leviticus18:20. >155. 1 Thess. 4:3-6.] Adultery for the female is sexual intimacy with anyone else besides her own husband/mate. Adultery for the male is when (1) he is married to a new wife and had left/rejected/divorced his former wife in order to marry this new wife>99 . ; or (2) is sexually intimate with some one elseÕs wife. It is this double standard that allowed Abraham, Jacob, David and Joash to be godly polygamists, but declared a woman to be an adulteress if she was intimate with anyone but her own mate. It is a double standard for the man and the woman, just like polygyny was/is a double standard for the man and the woman. The same sin is defined differently for the woman and differently for the man. See more on this below. [Footnotes:>99 It is the combination of divorcing one's mate in order to marry another and then marrying that other. If he both dutifully keeps his own wife and then marries another woman, it is polygyny and not adultery. If the wife dutifully keeps her own husband and marries another it is adultery (Romans 7:3) The double standard is clearly laid out in Matt. 5:32 and 19:6-9; Mark 10:1-11; Luke 16:18; 1 Thess. 4:4-6 and Romans 7:1-3; 1 Corinth. 7:39] It is this double standard that results from the man being the designated the head of the family (Gen 2; 1Cor. 11), that results in what appears to be another inequity. In Mt. 5:32 Jesus apparently allows the genuinely believing husband to divorce his wife because she is snared in sexual immorality. Not only is he allowed to divorce her, he is allowed to remarry. If she is genuinely saved, she is still bound maritlly to him as wife before the Lord, even though she is snared in sex sin and Jesus hasn't finished his Mat. 18;15-18 & 1 Cor. 5:5-11 work with her yet. He remarries with a free-in-the-Lord-to-marry genuinely believing woman and is now bound before the Lord to two wives. If the one involved in sex sin survives 1 Cor . 5 and repents according to 2 Cor. 2 & 7, he must accept her back as his wife along with his new wife, being bound to both as long as he and they all live. But what about the genuinely saved wife whose "believing" husband is involved in sex sin so she is commanded to separate from and not be intimate with him. Such a wife separates from him according to 1 Cor. 7:10,11 but after a while she finds herself being tempted according to 1 Cor.7:5. Then she falls to the temptation and is afraid she might fall to it again, finds herself maritally burning and under command be married and have marital sex (1Cor.7:5,9). Hopefully Jesus has finished his 1 Cor. 5:4,5-11 work and the guy has either died and his spirit is with the Lord, if he were really saved, or he has repented according to 2 Cor 2 & 7 and is ready to be reconciled to her. Or in the case of Matt. 18:15-18 she has learned that she is to relate to him as an unsaved person, an unsaved person who no longer wants to live with her, no longer wants her as his wife(1Cor7:13,15), so she is free from him and free to obey the Lord and get married in the Lord. Will God intervene in behalf of His fasting and praying but maritally burning and sorely tempted daughter, who as wife is separated from her husband because of his 1 Cor. 5 sin, and because of that separation is burning with marital desire and sorely tempted? If He took out the rich and unloving believers in 1 Cor. 11 for the shabby way they stumbled and offended their poorer brethren in the celebration of the Lord's supper, don't you think He will give her a 1 Cor. 10:13 out or make a quick end the husband causing her the grief? The God who promised 1 Cor. 10:13 and Phil. 4:6,7,13,18,19 will not break those promises. Let's look at some hypothetical examples. Elias was divorced/ rejected/abandoned by Jane (with his never repudiating or rejecting Jane as wife) his new marriage to free-to-marry Sally may violate no scripture, may not be what the Bible calls adultery and may seem to put him in the Old Testament position of having and being bound to more than one wife. I understand he would still be bound by the Lord to the saved wife who left him. But the way is narrow. If saved Jane leaves/divorces her saved Elias and marries Harry, it is adultery as long as both Jane and Harry are married and Elias lives. If saved Elias leaves/divorces saved Jane for Sally and marries saved Sally, it is adultery as long as Jane lives and Elias and Sally are married and repudiating Jane. If Elias's wife Sally is sexually intimate with someone else it is adultery. If Elias is sexually intimate with Pete's lawful wife, it is adultery. If married Elias is sexually intimate with single/ unmarried Susie who is playing the harlot (having sex without being married), it is fornication>156 If American and legally married-to- Jane Elias also legally marries free-to-marry Betty, it is a sin because Elias is under command>157 to obey the laws of the government authorities which forbids official/legal bigamy and polygyny and he would have to live with the legal consequences. [Footnotes:>156 (Ezekiel 16 and 23 and 1 Corinth. 6. >157 Romans 13; 1 Peter 2:12-14] Mark 10 ; 1 Cor 7:10,11, 12, 13-15,39; and Rom 7 seem to state rather clearly that a Christian marriage lasts and is binding on both as long as both live. That being the case I often wondered why God gave the Christian wife the second best option of departing and remaining unmarried and possibly being reconciled with her saved husband later. The husband is given no such second best option. He must not leave his wife, period! Because of spousal abuse I can understand why God would allow a wife to separate herself while still bound to the abuser in marriage in order to allow the exercise of church discipline>158 to have an effect. But what about that poor turkey of a husband who is warned by God>159 that being deprived of his wife will result in Satanic temptations to immorality and that he is explicitly forbidden to leave her, send her away or ask her to leave>160. No qualifications or exceptions. Why the double standard? See below. [Footnotes:>158 (Matt 18 and l Cor 5). >159 (1 Cor. 7:1-5). >160 (Greek of l Cor. 7:11,12 and Mark 10)] The scriptures above make it plain that if Jane Dovany exercised her 1 Cor 7:11 repentance option, having left/divorced Elias, and then Elias repudiated/ rejected Jane in order to marry Sally, Elias's rejection/repudia-tion of Jane coupled with his marriage to Sally constitutes Biblical adultery. It would be adultery if saved Jane divorced/ rejected saved Elias and married Harry because Biblical adultery in the scriptures above is saved Jane divorcing/ rejecting saved Elias and marrying some one else. According to all of those scriptures, adultery for the male is either (1) the act of marrying or being intimate with someone else's wife, (2) or the act of leaving one wife and taking another wife. Adultery for the wife is having sexual intimacy with anyone else except her husband to whom she is married for life. If you very carefully examine those scriptures you will see that the Bible does not say it is adultery for Elias to recognize AS WIFE his self-separated Jane and at the same time take as wife another saved and free-to-marry (unbound/ unmarried) sister. See the discussion on polygyny. Yes, thatÕs right, there is a double standard going all the way back to Genesis. It was not adultery for a married man to marry another woman free-to-marry under the laws of God throughout the whole Old Testament. It was legal and divinely permitted polygyny , if the scriptures are understood correctly. Under the same Word of God, a woman who was sexually intimate with another besides her own husband was an adulteress. The double standard started in Genesis 3:16, restated in 1 Corinth. 11 and 1 Timothy 2 appear to allow a godly man to be a polygamist but does not allow a godly woman to be a polyandrist. The woman's repentance option explains the Òdouble standardÓ and apparent inequity of 1 Corinthians 7:10,11 where it appears that the woman who has left her husband has the repentance option of remaining single but the man must never leave his wife. If a wife left her husband according to 1 Cor. 7:11, he would immediately be put in the hazardous position of 1 Corinth 7:1-5, being tempted to sin because his wife will not give him the marital sexual outlet since she is gone. It seemed to me to be quite unfair that she could leave him and live unmarried, and he, knowing he is still bound to her for life, has to struggle with the burning temptations predicted in 1 Corinth. 7:1-5, 9 with no legitimate sexual outlet. Then I realized that 1 Corinth. 7:1-5 predicted his need of marital intimacy, how Satan would use the wife's absence to tempt him, how marital intimacy is the prescription to avoid Satan's temptations, and then the command in verse 9 plainly commands the one to marry who is failing to have successful self- control>100 . Then I realized that the polygyny option balanced the equation. The wife could leave her husband and remain single and the husband who was still bound to such a departed wife seems to have had a Biblical option of polygyny / concubinage, (depending on the laws of his land) if he found himself tempted and burning as in 1 Cor. 7:5, 9,12. She could leave and he could remarry becoming a polygamist and the inequity was gone. She could separate and remain single, and he could remarry as long as he recognized that he was still bound to his separated wife. [Footnote: >100 See Appendix Six.] Now consider the case where the wife, claiming to be a Christian, refuses for years to obey 1 Cor. 7:1-5 with her saved husband and then finally leaves, abandons, rejects ,separates herself , and dismisses him from her presence. She doesn't care about getting a formal divorce but feels free to date and get involved with another man. Her abandoned husband is faced with the question, "Is she saved and is it a case of 1 Cor. 7:11 & 39 or is she unsaved and is he free according to l Cor. 7:12 & 15?" Her abandoned husband wants to do Matt. 18:15-17 to clarify the situation and get an answer to his question but can find no Christian body willing to do the following: MKJV MKJV 1 CORINTH. 5: . . . ÒI indeed have judged already [as though I were] present [concerning] him who worked out this thing; 4 in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, with my spirit; also, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ; 5 to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. . . . 11 But now I have written to you not to associate intimately, if any man called a brother [and is] either a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one not to eat. 12 . . . Do you not judge those who are inside? 13 . . . Therefore put out from you the evil one.Ó MKJV MATTHEW 5:32* ÒBut I say to you that whoever shall put away his wife, except for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery. And whoever shall marry her who is put away commits adultery.Ó MATTHEW 18: 15 ¦ ÒBut if your brother shall trespass against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he will not hear [you], take one or two more with you, so that in [the] mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell [it] to the church. But if he neglects to hear the church, let him be to you as a heathen and a tax- collector.Ó 5:32*Ó But I say to you that whoever shall put away his wife, except for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery. And whoever shall marry her who is put away commits adultery. . . .Ó 18 ÒTruly I say to you, Whatever you shall bind on earth shall occur, having been bound in Heaven; and whatever you shall loose on earth shall occur, having been loosed in Heaven.Ó This means he is unable to clarify the status of both himself and his departed wife. He is unable to determine if she is unsaved and he is free to remarry>161, , or if she is saved and he is bound maritally to her for life>162 So without sending her away, dismissing , repudiating, leaving, releasing or separating himself from her, he gets a legal divorce (on the grounds of irreconcilable differences) for state and federal tax and inheritance purposes but reaffirms in writing to her what he believes may be the binding nature of their relationship>163 . [Footnotes>161 1 Cor. 7:12,13,14,15. >162 1 Cor. 7:10,11, 39; Mark 10; Rom. 7:1-5. >163 (1 Cor. 7:39)] So the divorce is only a legal recognition of the wife's departure and unwillingness to be reconciled, while he still publicly recognizes the binding nature of their relationship. Then he remarries another Christian because his burning and his 1 Cor. 7:5 predicted failures to control himself bring him under the command to marry in l Cor. 7:9,36 (NIV & Amplified "they should marry"), 1 Cor. 7:36 (NIV "They should get married); 1 Tim 5:14 (NIV "So I counsel younger widows to marry.." Amplified "So I would have younger [widows] marry..") and 1 Thess 4:3-8 (NIV "that each of you should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and honorable . . ..") >101 [Footnote>101 Please see Appendix Six; NIV , NEW INTERNA-TIONAL VERSION. ] He has entered the realm of American polygyny . Legally divorced and remarried but openly acknowledging his marital ties to two "sisters-in- Christ", he is an American polygamist. The departed wife could remarry in adultery or remain single the rest of her life while he continues in his new marriage. If she repents and opts for reconciliation after he has married again, all of her rights and privileges as in 1 Cor. 7:1-5 & 39 are in force and the husband faces the complex dilemma described next. How do you have two wives in America where it is illegal to officially and "legally" have more than one wife of official public record with tax and inheritance rights granted and protected by the government? Please see the discussion of polygyny in chapter 4. VII. SO, WHAT ABOUT CONCUBINES & POLYGYNY TODAY ? The aim of this document is to show that both monogyny and polygyny or concubinage may be acceptable options for the followers of the Lord Jesus Christ, God revealed in a human body and Savior of the world. It is written from a Christian, orthodox, fundamenta-list, dispensationalist, charismatic and evangelistic point of view for any who are interested in a minority view of what the Bible says about monogyny, polygyny, concubinage, divorce and remarriage. The writer believes that monogyny is the best for most, but that for those who are called in or called to polygyny or concubinage in this mortal life -- their calling may be exercised in a manner acceptable to God and tolerated by their fellow man if they walk in the Spirit and in Christ's law of Love. Polygamy and polygyny are currently illegal in most of the world, the Third World's and the Orient's token sacrifice to enter the world of the "West", the lifestyle of America, and the captialism and technology of the 20th century. Few educated and succesful Orientals, Asians or Third Worlders would want to appear to be primitive and barbaric by having more than one wife, especially when his peers will instead admire him if he has concubines or mistresses on the side. Two thirds of the world's population live in societies where concubines and mistresses are officially sanctioned and the other third lives in societies where mistresses and common law wives are officially sanctioned. The plight of most wives, concubines and mistresses are worse now than when polygamy were legal because then at least they had some security and commitment from their mates even if they took additional wives, while now they are dumped (divorced etc.) when the man takes a new wife, mistress or concubine. Are polygyny and concubinage only for the benefit of males? It is 1995 and the women live in Somalia or Rawanda and Burundi, Africa. Almost 50% of them are widows and almost 50% of the marriagable men in their tribe/nation have been killed or have been missing for months. It is a patriarchal society and the women do not want to be lesbians. They can live as single widows suffering mind and heart breaking hardships in a war ravaged poverty stricken land with no protection against sexual attack by roving homeless males; or they can become the polygynous wives or concubines of one of the few surviving stable and working males, coming under their societies patriarchal umbrella, becoming part of a working family unit with all its support and having protection against the vulnerability of living alone. It is 1995 and the women living in Bosnia, Rawanda, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Cambodia and in Black inner city ghettos are facing the same critical shortage of marriagable males in a patriarchal society where they want no part of lesbianism. In 1990, it was found that 33% of all black males aged 20 - 29 were either incarcerated, on parole, or on probation.>1a. I got more information from a local newspaper>1b. 1.) Approximately 1 out of every 25 black males is in prison; 2.) Between prison and death, there are significantly more Black females available for marriage than Black males; 3.) The vast majority of the Black males in prison range in age from 20 - 40, with most in the 25-35 age group; 4.) Most of the imprisoned Black males will return to prison. Just this week (12/1/Õ95) it was on national TV news and in the local paper that 6.8% of all Black males are in prison. This means a very significant number of Black males are unavailable for marriage or parenting their children during the normally most productive years (20-40) due to imprisonment or death. Perhaps that is why only 30% of married Black females have their spouse present in their homes, half the Caucasian/white rate (57%); while 9% of the married Black females have spouses that are absent from the home (four times the Caucasian/White 2% rate); and 39% of the Black females never married >1c. [Footnote: >1a The San Diego Union-Tribune, 10/5/'95, page A-5, quoting from The Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice in San Francisco. >1b Parade 8/13/'95; Parade Publications, 711 Third Ave., NY NY 10017. >1c Census Bureau/World Almanac. ] One out of every thousand Black people is dying of AIDS>1d making it the number one killer of Blacks in America. The AIDS virus is currently responsible for approximately on third of all deaths of all deaths of Black men aged 25 to 44, and for approximately one fifth of deaths of Black females aged 25 to 44, according to the CDC.>1e In terms of numbers that means a death rate of 177.9 deaths per 100,000 Black men (18 per 10,000; 2 per 1000), and a death rate of 51.2 deaths per 100,000 Black females (5 per 10,000; one per 1000).>1e That means approximately 30,000 Blacks will be dying each year from HIV/AIDS, a horrendous slaughter far worse than Viet Nam or WWII! Condoms fail 30% of the time [see the book by Doctor Lorraine Day, MD], and then on stationary artificial genitals according to federal test results, so they give very little protection. But when you add crack or speed or other mind altering drugs to the equation, so the users canÕt even think straight to appraise their risk or use them carefully and correctly, then condoms canÕt even give their miserable little 60% protection. One official in the AIDS office of the County Health Dept. told me that condoms have a documented 17% user-failure-rate (failed to protect the user). And the AIDS rolls on through the urban Black communities like the plague. [Footnote: >.1d San Diego Union Tribune, ll/25/'95 page A-8, quoting the US Center Disease for Control and Prevention. >1e Associated Press in the San Diego Union 2/16/96] The second major killer of Blacks in America, especially the males, is Black-on-Black homicide. The third major killer of blacks in America today is abortion, where more Black babies are being killed/aborted than are being born. According to Beverly LaHaye of Concerned Women for America, the original founder of Planned Parenthood had as her original purpose the use of government funded abortion to keep the minority populations small, especially the Black population. The Black population in America has increased very little in the last twenty years, one % in twenty years, to the delight of the bigots. Tragically all of the facts cited above (AIDS, Gangs, drugs, abortion) mean that Blacks are killing more Blacks per year now than the number of Blacks killed by Caucasian bigots and the KKK during any one year from 1800 to 1940, to the delight of the bigots. In 1880, according to the census bureau, Blacks accounted for 13.1% of the total population, whereas today Blacks account only for 12.5% of the total population. One hundred ten years later and the Black community has not yet recovered from the 1880Õs 13.1% (of the total USA pop.) drop to the 1895Õs 9.5% (of the total USA pop.) that lynchings, Jim Crow, and Western-Canadian-Mexican migrations caused in the Black community. More than a fourth of the Black population just dropped off the census charts during that time and the Black community has never made it back up to 13.1% of the total USA population. Not much chance give the present circumstances. This means a very significant number of Black males are unavailable for marriage or parenting their children during the normally most productive years (20-40) due to imprisonment or death. This results in significantly more Black females than males being available for marriage and parenting children, many of whom are single parentsraising a family without a present or stable father figure. According to the Census Bureau and Focus on the Family radio program, 39% of Black women never marry, and 46% of Black men never marry>.1f On 11/26/'95, Focus on the Family's Michelle said that the Essence magazine gave the figure of 40%>.1f. We still live in a racist society 20 years after the death of M.L.King. Black females are not sought for as wives by a significant number of non-Black males in America. [Footnote: >.1f Focus on the Family (American On Line) ] This leaves a significant number of marriagable Black females with no suitable male to marry and help raise their children. Normal young, Black females with affectionate and passionate needs do not have enough suitable and marriageable males for monogynous marriages so that leaves neurotic frustration, celibacy, promiscuity, lesbianism or bisexuality for many Black women. Through ignorance, bigotry, fear of society, and bad taste the grace, beauty, elegance, charm and intelligence of Black women are NOT appropriately esteemed, so you do not find most white, Hispanic, Asian or Jewish males seeking them as wives. Most white, Hispanic, Asian or Jewish males would seek white, or Hispanic, or Asian, or Jewish wives before they would consider seeking a Black wife. Black women are, for the society as a whole, seen a lovers and sex objects far more than they are seen as wives and mothers. A saying in the white community about Black Americans is, "Look, dream, or fantasize but DON'T TOUCH! If you touch, DON'T MARRY! Take them to bed but never bring one home for dinner!" It hasn't changed much since slavery. The Black woman interested in marrying has a 40% chance of never marrying, and the older they get, the more children they have, the deeper their poverty, the less chance they have of ever marrying. In America, bigamy and polygyny are illegal. Why shouldn't ethically moral and Biblically acceptable Christian concubinage be a viable option for such a population (30 million Blacks in l990, 12.1% of the total USA pop.) with an obvious shortage of marriageable stable and successful males, even in America? My Islamic and polygynist friend Rafiq shared that the Holy Quran states: "And if you fear that you will not be fair in dealing with the orphans, then marry of women as may be agreeable to you, two, or three, or four; and if you fear you will not be able to deal justly, then marry only one or what your right hands possess. That is the nearest way for you to avoid injustice." (Sura 4 verse 4)." Rafiq continues:"Sura 4:4 mentions the welfare of orphans. To elaborate a bit further we can say that Sura 4:4 deals with the welfare of the society. Polygamy therefore should be encouraged when the welfare of the society demands it. "Another aspect of Sura 4:4 is that it mentions polygamy as a natural way of life. It does NOT start with 'marry ONE, or two, or three or four' but it already starts with 'marry two...' From this fact it can be clearly deducted that polygamy is considered rather the norm and not the exception. One reason therefore to seek to practice polygamy may be to fulfill the personal purposes of marriage as mentioned above. However, another aspect would be to contribute to the health of the society as a whole. "Most of the prophets of the bible have several wives. Islam is in fact the only religion who has LIMITED polygamy to only four permitted wives. This in order to facilitate the first rule of polygamy in Islam: the equal treatment of all wives. "Several times in recent years the subject of marriage was brought up in the International Shura (Consultative Assembly) of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. The reason was that most Communities faced the problem of having a surplus of girls unable to find husbands. The problem is/was of course more serious with widows and divorcees but also exists even with unmarried virgin girls. The fact that this subject was brought up for consultation again and again proves that in this respect the health of the society could be/needed to be improved. During the Assembly the Head of the worldwide Ahmadiyya Muslim Community had inquired from various delegates whether this problem existed in their local communities. All representatives had to agree, with the exception of the African representatives. As Polygamy is practiced in Africa the communities there did not face any problems in this respect. "As many Hadith (sayings of the Holy Prophet Mohammad (peace be on him) show it is of course a great blessing to marry widows and divorcees.. . ." If the situation necessitates it, if circumstances in the Black community (as described above) require it, why not in America too? In Paris France they have over 100,000 thousand practicing polygynists, according to the New York Times. So why not America? Why couldn't a wife, of any race, whose best female friend is a Black single mom, approach her husband with the request that they as a couple include her best friend + kids as part of their family, with her husband becoming the adoptive father of the kids of the single mom and becoming husband to the single mom in concubinage (she becomes his concubine by informal covenant and contract, in a ceremony of their own design with the exchange of their covenants with his wife as witness, instead of by civil or formal legal means, since bigamy and polygamy are illegal in America). The kids of the single mom get a committed and already successful father figure, and the single mom gets a husband with whom she can soul-bond and count on, plus she gets to see her best friend a whole lot more. Real love can overcome jealousy and envy, if they selflessly work at the marriage, as you would have to in any marriage. A compassionately cherishing husband, who consistently compassionately cherishes his own wife, thus making her very secure with him, should be able to come to his compassionate and generous wife and ask her to thoughtfully consider such a controversial proposal as the following: "Darling, I'm very concerned about our Black sister who is struggling as a single mom and having a very hard time. I believe that the conditions in our own family would allow us to be of considerable help to her in her crisis. Please think about us accepting her and her kids as part of our family, with me as father-figure to her kids, with me as husband to her and her as concubine to me---- with lifelong commitments for the sake of both her and her children." Of course this would follow the husband and wife having thoroughly discussing and considering the issue in general before any specific action is taken. It would take a very secure wife to share her husband, but compassion has moved people to heroic and selfless actions throughout history. The real needs of the fatherless children would be met. The real needs of an adult female who, having been sexually loved may have a genuine sexual appetite with no one to meet it in a context of soul-bonding, commitment and genuine caring about her as a whole person. Other thinkers and writers have already consisdered this option for the Black community and have published their findings (See Appendix Eight). It is 1995 and the women living in and around San Francisco who want no part of lesbianism face the same critical shortage of marriagable men. It is 1995 and there seems to be a genuine shortage of godly, spirit-filled and born-again men for the godly, spirit- filled and born-again women who want to marry, especially for those who are burning and are under God's command to marry>2 . [Footnote: >.2 See appendix 6 .] Patriarchies are not the problem. They are a social institution that has usually worked for the protection of women and children in most societies of the world, for most of the history of the world. Yes there have been many instances of abuse, but every social institution on earth has a history of abuses because of the nature of humans>1 and the involvement of evil spiritual powers>2. God's solution for widows in Deut. 25 included the possibility of polygyny since being married did not exempt a brother from the command to marry his brother's widow. Given the shortage of males in poor, rural, and primitive or war-ravaged lands, patriarchal polygyny seems to be a realistic option for widows and women facing a real shortage of males. I intend by this document to show that polygyny or concubinage should be viable options for society in general and born-again and Spirit-filled Christians in particular. [Footnote: >1 Rom. 3:23. >2 Eph. 2:1,2; 6:12.] Any child of God who feels led to consider polygyny or concubinage for his/her life and/or loved ones needs to determine what kind of relationship he/she has with Jesus. Whatever we believe about marriage, divorce, remarriage, monogyny, concubinage or polygyny, our relationship with Jesus Christ is the paramount issue. God's laws about polygyny and concubinage in the Old Testament were brought by Jesus into the New Testament without being changed or nullified. During the transition period (transition from the Law of Moses to the Royal Law of Christ) we saw the following: Mat. 5:17 ¦ ÒThink not that I am come to make void the law or the prophets; I am not come to make void, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Until the heaven and the earth pass away, one iota or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all come to pass. 19 Whosoever then shall do away with one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of the heavens; but whosoever shall practise and teach [them], *he* shall be called great in the kingdom of the heavens.Ó Matt. 23:1 ¦ ÒThen Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 saying, The scribes and the Pharisees have set themselves down in Moses' seat: 3 all things therefore, whatever they may tell you, do and keep. But do not after their works, for they say and do not, . . .Ó (Heb. 8:8*Ó For finding fault, he says to them, Behold, days come, says the Lord, and I will consummate a new covenant as regards the house of Israel, and as regards the house of Juda; 9 not according to the covenant which I made to their fathers in [the] day of my taking their hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; . . .13* In that he says New, he has made the first old; but that which grows old and aged [is] near disappearing.Ó) Hebrews 8, especially the Greek of verse 13........ ÒIn that he says, ÔA new [covenant]Õ, he has made the first [covenant] old. Now that which is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.Ó .. . .and the Greek of 2 Cor. 3:7,11 ................................. Ò. . . the ministration of death, written [and] engraved in stones, was glorious . . . How shall not the ministration of the Spirit be more glorious? . . . For if what is passing away [was] glorious, much more that which is remaining [is] glorious .......show there was a period of transition (Òis becoming obsolete..growing old..is ready to vanish..is passing awayÓ) from the Sinai Law of Moses to the Calvary Law of LOVE in Christ. The book of Acts is full of the apostles keeping the Sinai Law of Moses after Pentecost. You see them worshipping in the Temple regularly>1 , Peter refuses to socialize with Gentiles according to the Sinai Law>2 , Peter refuses to eat the animals classified as unclean in the Sinai Law>3 , Paul circumcises Timothy >4, Paul keeps the Law's feasts>5 , Paul recognizes the authority given to the elders and Chief Priests under Moses' Sinai Law>6, the believing Gentiles were released from the Sinai Law of Moses while the believing Jews were not released ,>.68 , before the Law of Moses was abolished after the Book of Acts was finished>. 69 , in Acts 15 and 21 we see the believing Jews (including the apostles) keeping the law of Moses as Christians, and part of that law was God's laws regulating and allowing polygyny and concubinage. [Footnote:>1 Acts 3 & 4. >2 Acts 10; Galat. 2. >3 Acts 10. >4 Acts 16:1-5. >5 Acts 21 >6. Acts 4:1-22; 23:1-5 >68 Acts 15 & 21 >.69 Eph. 2:14 ¦ ÒFor *He* is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of enclosure, 15 having annulled the enmity in his flesh, the law of commandments in ordinances, that He might form the two in Himself into one new man, making peace; 16 and might reconcile both in one body to God by the cross, having by it slain the enmity; . . . Colos. 2: 9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily . . . 13 and you . . . He has made alive together with Him . . . 14. Blotting out the handwriting of decrees that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to His cross . . ] Galatians is no problem, given a date of writing of Acts 14+/-. The Jewish believers were not keeping the law to be saved or made righteous with God because they were just obeying Jesus in Matthew 23:1,2,3 just like all believers obey Jesus in John 14:15 and Matt. 28:19,20----- not for salvation but as a RESULT salvation (1 John 2:2,3,4,5; Heb. 5:8,9; Phil 2:12,13). The Legalists who were seducing Peter and the other Galatian backsliders to require circumcision for salvationl and righteousnes before God and fellowship with the apostles, were the object of PaulÕs wrath in Galatians. So we have Paul and the apostles observing the Law of Moses, including the laws on polygyny and concubinage, as Christians and the only thing they wrote about polygyny was that the elders/bishops/ deacons/overseers and church superintendents should have only one wife at a time. NEVER IN THE WORD OF GOD IS polygyny OR CONCUBINAGE LABELED SIN, CALLED SIN, DENOUNCED AS SIN, PROHIBITED FOR ALL SAINTS, CALLED A WORK OF THE FLESH, CALLED A CARNAL ACT OR CALLED A SIGN OF SPIRITUAL WEAKNESS. Yes Romans 13 make it crystal clear an American Christian may not openly and officially practice polygyny in America because we have to obey the laws of the land if they do not violate the Word of God. But concubinage is neither against the laws of God nor is it against the laws of the vast majority of the United States of America. In fact the courts have validated its legality in its palimony rulings. You may ask, ÒPray tell, what commandment of men do most of AmericaÕs religious leaders teach as doctrine>36 ?Ó I submit that most of AmericaÕs religious leaders teach as doctrine manÕs commandment that monogamy is the only marital way for the godly, and that polygyny/concubinage is evil and sinful for all people and cultures on the earth presently. God Himself enacted laws regulating polygyny/concubinage>.37 . God Himself gave wives in polygyny to King David>38 Which commandment of God is laid aside to hold their tradition, making the Word of God of no effect?Ó [Footnote: >36 Mark 7:6-13. >37 Exodus 21:7-11; Leviticus 18:18; Deut. 17:15-17; Deut. 21:15-17. >38 2 Sam 12:7,8.] I am attempting to show that most of todayÕs religious leaders of the Christian community are laying aside GodÕs Old Testament Sinai Law commands>39 about polygyny, commands that Christ, as seen above in the Gospels, commanded His followers to keep>40 while He was on Earth. The apostles commanded the believing Jews to keep>41 in the first century church until they, like the believing Gentiles>42 were released from keeping the Sinai Law by God's Word>43 Jesus and the apostles commanded the believing Jews to keep the Sinai laws governing polygyny through the book of Acts period>44 . I propose to show that most Christian religious leaders lay this fact aside for their tradition of condemning polygyny/ concubinage as sin. [Footnote: >39 Exodus 21:7-11; Leviticus 18:18; Deut. 17:15-17; Deut. 21:15-17. >40 Matt. 5:17-19; 23:1-3; Acts 21:18-26. >41 Acts 15 & 21:18-26.>42 Acts 15. >43 in Eph. 2 and Col. 2. >44 Exodus 21:7-11; Leviticus 18:18; Deut. 17:15-17; Deut. 21:15-17; Matt. 5:17-19; 23:1-3; Acts 21:18-26. ] So what are you doing if you are condemning polygyny in general as sin?Mark 7:8 Ò[For], leaving the commandment of God, you hold what is delivered by men [to keep] --washings of vessels and cups, and many other such like things you do. 9 And he said to them, Well do you set aside the commandment of God, that you may observe what is delivered by yourselves [to keep]. . . . 13 making void the word of God by your traditional teaching which you have delivered; and many such like things you doÓ. Pretty serious stuff, laying aside God's commands so you can keep your own traditions and making God's Word ineffective through your traditions. It wont look good for those folks at the judgment seat of Christ. What about all those third world folks, especially the Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Asian, Oriental, and Africans, who are practicing polygyny and are told that they have to dump and abandon their extra wives &/or concubines in order to become Christians, the biggest obstacle for the Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Asian, Oriental, and African community? These "Christian" folks who feel their own tradition about monogamy and polygyny must be kept by Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Asian, Oriental, and Africans and other third world polygamists for them to become Christians sound like these folks: Mat.23:13 ¦ ÒBut 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.Ó I understand that Rev. Joseph Conrad Wold>*, a Lutheran missionary in Liberia, maintains the following points: 1. Some missionaries have become like the Pharisees, knit picking legalists; 2. For unbelievers it is more of a question of who is or is not a polygamist rather than who is and who isn't a Christian; 3. Rejecting polygamy has become the rejecting of polygamists; 4. If Cornelious>45 could be born again without circumcision, then surely polygamists should be able to be born again without cutting away their wives, breaking their solemn promises and forcing their beloved and faithful wives into adultery for survival; 5 Let the polygamist be lost because he refused to love and obey Jesus, rather than because he loved his wives too much to cause them to suffer, or was to virtuous to be a hypocrite.>70 He makes such an impassioned case I hope you take the time to read the original. Truly the commandments of men, condemning as sin and forbidding polygamy, make of no effect the commandments of God for so many. [Footnote: >*GOD'S IMPATIENCE IN LIBERIA, Rev. Joseph Conrad Wold, pp. 179ff. >45 (Acts 10 & 11). @>.@70 Trobisch, MY WIFE MADE ME. . . Pp.16 & 17;]. What about those who practice polygyny/concubinage where most of the people on earth live, in China, India, SE Asia, Africa and in parts of South America where it is legal and a part of manÕs tradition? If the condemnation of polygyny/concubinasge is only the commandment and tradition of men, dare we impose as Doctrine the commandment and tradition of men about polygyny/concubinage as if it were the Word of God? If our teaching against polygyny is only the tradition and commandment of men, will we not again make of no effect the Word of God in the lives of these people who live where most of the people on earth live ? The angels are waiting to rejoice over the conversion of one polygamous Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Asian, Oriental, and African or third worlder and "Christian legalists and traditionalists" wont let them in unless they sin by "dealing treacherously">46 with their wives &/or concubines by putting them away in repudiation, and sin by disobeying Christ's command not to leave their wives>47 , and sin by not remaining in the marital condition in which they were called to Christ. According to the New York Times News Service, there were 200,000 polygynists in Paris France alone. Can we turn away such a mission field? [Footnote: >46 (Malachi 2). >47 (1 Cor. 7:11)] 1 Cor.7: 17 ¦ ÒHowever, 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.Ó Yes, that means if they were called in polygyny, they remain in polygyny unless their polygyny violates the law>48 of the land they are called in. If the law of the land prohibits their polygyny, they cannot dump their wives since they are bound by God to them in marriage since GodÕs Laws take precedence over the laws of man>49 , so they must change their formal polygyny to informal concubinage to live without offense>50 . [Footnote: >48 Romans13. >49 (Moses & Pharaoh, Daniel and the lions, Shedrach and the fiery furnace, Acts 4). >50 Romans 13 & 14.] Yes, that means that if they were called in concubinage, they remain in concubinage unless (1) their informal concubinage should become formal polygyny so as not to offend or stumble the Church >51 , or (2) their open and public concubinage must become personal, private, discrete and secretive>52 so as not to stumble or offend the saints. [Footnote: >51 Romans 14 & 15. >52 Romans 14 & 15, 1 Cor. 8 & 10] So polygyny in and of itself is not a sin and was tolerated in the Bible>71, unless practiced in violation of menÕs laws>53 , or unless its practice is abused by offensive selfishness and sinfulness>54. The polygyny of concubinage is not illegal in modern society, but is bound by the principles of Liberated Love in Romans 14, 1 Cor 8 and 10. [Footnote: >.71 Please see THE INSTITUTES OF BIBLICAL LAW, by R. Rushdonney, p. 364. HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE; 1989, p.259; p.583ff. >53 (Rom 13). >54 (Rom. 14) ] VIII. . ARE POLYGYNISTS AND CONCUBINES LIVING IN ERROR TODAY? The Mormon church so shocked America that they passed laws against polygyny in almost all of the states. The Christian community takes positions on polygyny ranging from a flat out condemnation of it as sin to the position that it lies in the area of God's permissive or second best will and it is not a sin, though quite socially undesirable. Most agree it is not God's best for marriage and that a polygamist should at least be excluded from church offices/positions>55. Most missionaries no longer demand a converted polygamist to divorce/ abandon all of his wives except for the first wife, recognizing the binding nature of the wedding vows/ covenants and the plight of the abandoned/divorced women. They usually at least instruct him to take no new wives and be content with what he has>56. [Footnote: >55 (1 Tim. 3 & Titus 1). >56 (1 Tim. 6).] We know polygyny/concubinage is still practiced today in parts of Utah, China, India, SE Asia, Africa, in all Moslem nations, and among the Indians of Latin America. There are the 200,000 + polygynyist immigrants in France, mentioned above. Communism greatly discouraged polygyny in China among the working class but concubinage flourishes among the powerful and the affluent. So roughly half of the people of the world live in a society where some form polygyny or concubinage is practiced and accepted. That makes this issue a burning issue for missionary outreach in these areas. I understand that Eugene A Nida, of the American Bible Society in his book Customs and Cultures discusses how polygyny is not a sin in and of itself, but that at the very least I Timothy 3 and Titus 1 disqualify any polygamist from being an elder, bishop, overseer, deacon or official leader in the Christian church. An elder , or etc. , would be like the apostles in Acts 6:1-7 and should not be tied up with the daily service to many wives which would prevent him from being in the Word of God enough to lead and feed the flock he has been placed over. The polygamist would have his hands full leading, feeding and serving his wives and children, essentially his family-church. Please consider the points of view of influential and significant leaders from the early church: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, 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.Ó>72 [Footnote: >..72 A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church, Vol. V; p. 267] So for St. Augustine (4th century AD) ". . . good men were united [to] a plurality of good wives. . ." in a "feasible" form of polygyny that involved "moderation", "dignity" and "fecundity". Clearly he didn't label it sin and he didn't say that the practice of polygyny made these "good" people sinners. This is the position of St. Augustine, a significant post- Pentecost leader in the 4th Century AD church, speaking in the era of the Church in which we live today. Hear him again, in the following: "But those who have not the virtues of temperance must not be allowed to judge of the conduct of holy men, any more than those in fever of the sweetness and wholesomeness of food. . . If our critics, then, wish to attain not a spurious and affected, but a genuine and sound moral health, let them find a cure in believing the Scripture record, that the honorable name of saint is given not without reason to men who had several wives; and that the reason is this, that the mind can exercise such control over the flesh as not to allow the appetite implanted in our nature by Providence to go beyond the limits of deliberate intention>. . . .the holy patriarchs in their conjugal intercourse were actuated not by the love of pleasure, but by the intelligent desire for the continuance of their family. . . .nor did the number of their wives make the patriarchs licentious. But why defend the husbands, to whose character the divine word bears the highest testimony. . . ." >73 [Footnote: >.73 A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church, Vol. iv; p.290] Here we see St. Augustine describing most of the Bible's polygynists as "holy patriarchs" who deserved the "honorable name of saint" because their "character .. bears the highest testimony", the Word of God. It sure doesn't sound like they are a back slidden lot of fleshly saints! Quite to the contrary! Any "elder" today would do well to be so spoken of as these polygynous patriarchs. Is polygyny with wives and concubines a sin today? St. Basil (4th Century AD) wrote that "On polygamy the Fathers are silent, as being brutish and altogether inhuman. The sins seems to me worse than fornication.">74 "Herard of Tours, A.D. 858, declares any greater number of wives than two to be unlawful. . . Leo the Wise, Emperor of Constantinople, was allowed to marry three wives without public remonstrance, but was suspended from communion by the patriarch Nicholas when he married a fourth.">75 St. Augustine (4th Cent. AD) indicates that the Roman Catholic Church was the power behind the move to not allow polygyny or concubinage among the church members of his time..>76 So even in the early church we find a wide diversity of reactions to the polygyny and concubinage of the Bible. This, in its own way, bears witness to the fact that there is no clear scriptural teaching against polygyny and concubinage. They obviously fall in the category of things discussed in Rom. 14, 1 Cor. 8 and 1 Cor 10. [Footnote: >.74 A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church, Vol. VIII; p. 258. >.75 A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church, Vol. V; p. 267. >76 St. Augustin: On The Trinity; p. 402.] DouglasÕ New Bible Dictionary>.77 : MARRIAGE: ."Monogamy is implicit in the story of Adam and Eve, since God created only one wife for Adam. Yet polygyny is adopted from the time of Lamech (Gn. 4:19), and is not forbidden in Scripture . . ...Polygamy continues to the present day among Jews in Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Asian, Oriental, and African countries." [Footnote: >.77 1962; W. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, Mich] NOW CHECK THAT OUT! " . . . POLYGYNY . . . IS NOT FORBIDDEN IN SCRIPTURE". SHALL WE ADD TO GOD'S WORD AND FORBID IT? HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE: . . . ÒAt all events, polygyny was an established and recognized institution from the earliest of times.>78. Justin reproaches the Jews of his day [A.D.] with having 'four or even five wives,' and marrying 'as they wish, or as many as they wish.' The evidence of the Talmud shows that in this case at least the reproach had some foundation. Polygamy was not definitely forbidden among the Jews till the time of R. Gershom (c. A.D. 1000), and then at first only for France and Germany. In Spain, Italy, and the East it persisted for some time longer, as it does still among the Jews in Mohammedan countries.Ó>79. "POLYGAMY WAS NOT DEFINITELY FORBIDDEN AMONG THE JEWS" DURING MOST OF THE POST PENTECOST CHURCH ERA. SINCE JESUS COMMANDED HIS APOSTLES TO OBEY THE JEWS (MT. 23:1-3) IN THEIR LAWS GOVERNING POLYGYNY, WHO ARE WE TO SAY THAT THEY WERE CARNAL AND MISLED IN OBSERVING POLYGYNY AND CONCUBINAGE ACCORDING TO THE LAW OF MOSES? [Footnote: >78. HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE; p.259. <79. HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE;p.583ff.] What does St. Augustine (4th Century AD) say about the practice of polygyny and concubinage? Consider the following: "The only reason of its being a crime now to do this, is because custom and the laws forbid it. Whoever despises these restraints, even though he uses his wives only to get children, still commits sin, and does an injury to human society itself, for the sake of which it is that the procreation of children is required. In the present altered state of customs and laws, men can have no pleasure in a plurality of wives, except from an excess of lust; and so the mistake arises of supposing that no one could ever have had many wives but from sensuality and the vehemence of sinful desires. Unable to form an idea of men whose force of mind is beyond their conception, they compare themselves with themselves, as the apostle says [2 Cor. x. 12], and so make mistakes. Conscious that, in their intercourse though with one wife only, they are often influenced by mere animal passion instead of an intelligent motive, they think it an obvious inference that, if the limits of moderation are not observed where there is only one wife, the infirmity must be aggravated where there are more than one.">.80 [Footnote: >80 A Select Library of the Nicene and Post- Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church, Vol. iv; pp.289ff.] "But here there is no ground for a criminal accusation: for a plurality of wives was no crime when it was the custom; and it is a crime now, because it is no longer the custom. There are sins against nature, and sins against custom, and sins against the laws. As regards nature, [Jacob] used the women not for sensual gratification, but for the procreation of children. For custom, this was the common practice at that time in those countries. And for the laws, no prohibition existed. The only reason of its being a crime now to do this, is because custom and the laws forbid it.">.81 [Footnote: >81 A Select Library of the Nicene and Post- Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church, Vol. iv; p.289.] Whose laws forbid it? A "a plurality of wives was no crime when it was the custom". "NO PROHIBITION EXISTED." NOW IT IS A CRIME ONLY BECAUSE OF Man's laws, not God's laws! Mark 7 and Matt.13 give us a very good insight into how godly man's laws are when they are made in the Name of God. On the other hand it is living in error to live in polygyny or concubinage where man's customs and laws forbid it because we are to obey the laws of the land>57 if at all possible>58 . It is NOT living in error to live in polygamy or concubinage where man's customs and law permit it. The vast majority of the world lives under laws that permit concubinage. Some countries, mostly Moslem or Asian or Oriental, still permit official and legal polygamy. [Footnote: >57 Romans 13. >58 (Rom. 12:18; Acts 4:18-20; Deut. 1:13-18; 17:8-13)] Unofficial, discreet, private and personal>59 contractual concubinage is legal in almost all countries, even in the United States. American courts have given a positive legal status to monogynous concubinage in the forms of palimony and common law marriages, even in cases of serial polygynous concubinage. They have not yet given such a positive legal status to polygynous concubinage, but that doesn't stop its widespread practice. Most American concubines are only mistresses where there are no long term commitments or relationships. Without marital commitments a concubine is only a harlot or whore>60 . We have already seen how God recognizes as wives concubines who have covenanted/ contracted as wives with their husbands before God and there is a significant number of such honorable concubines even in America today, especially in states where common law marriages are recognized. [Footnote: >59 (Romans 14:13-23). >60 1 Cor. 6; Prov. 5 & 6; Ezek. 16 & 23] IX. MARRIAGE, CONCUBINES, CIVIL LAW, PERSONAL LIBERTY AND A LOVING CONSCIENCE! Surely Romans 13 and related passages apply. And certainly the principles of Romans 14 and l Cor 8 & 10 apply. The following is a brief summary of those principles: 1. Receive the weak in faith (their faith allows them very little personal liberty) but not to dispute doubtful things/points>61 . Doubtful things are things that the Bible is not explicitly clear about leaving a gray area for individuals to exercise their own judgment (e.g. eating meat vs. vegetarianism, length of dress, courtship and engagement, television, movies, computer use etc.) 2. Don't despise or condemn your brother/sister in Christ if (1) they feel free to do doubtful things or (2) they don't feel free to do doubtful things>62 3. Don't put a stumbling block, an occasion to take offense, put an obstacle in the way>82 , give someone an opportunity for sinning>63 4. Don't make your brethren uneasy>83 or hurt, injure or damage others' feelings>84. 5. Don't destroy your brethren's faith with your personal liberty>64 6. Let not the personal liberty your faith allows be evil spoken of>65 7. Do that which builds and helps the faith of your brethren>66 . 8. Don't put a temptation to sin in someone's way>.85 , or do that which leads another to sin>.86 . 9. Have your faith from the Word that allows you your personal liberty privately, discretely and personally before God and be happy in it>67 10. Don't do anything you have doubts about, doubts about whether or not it is God's will for you to do, be or have)>68 11. If your faith is strong allowing you a great deal of personal liberty, you should bear the weaknesses of those whose faith allows little personal liberty, not pleasing ourselves. Seek to please your brethren for their good, growth and development in the Lord and Word>69 . [Footnote: [>61 (Rm.14:1) >62 . (Rm. 14:3,4) >.82 Please see Arndt & Gingrich's Lexicon. >83 Please see Thayer's Lexicon. >63 . (Rm. 14:13). >.84 Please see Arndt & Gingrich's Lexicon. >64 . (Rm 14:15). >65 (Rm. 14:16,17). >66 (Rm. 14:18,19). >.85 (Rm. 14:13)Please see Arndt & Gingrich's Lexicon. >.86 Please see Thayer's Lexicon. >67 (Rm.14:22). >68 . (Rm. 14:23). >69 . (Rm. 15:1-3)] But how do these principles apply? Obviously polygyny or concubinage is a felony to officially marry (by man's laws) more than one woman in terms of the government's law, public records, inheritance laws and divorce laws in most Western or industrial nations. Obviously it is socially acceptable, legal and not a felony in most Asian nations, the Mid East, Africa and Indian tribes in the Americas. That is as clear as black and white. But there is a great big gray area. Many Western states recognize informal marriage (concubinage) as common law marriages but as soon as they become official they come under the monogamy laws. But they can live for years in the morally acceptable informal and unofficial common law status without any illegality. Under Administrative Law in California, County Welfare officials set up semi-official marriages with people who live together without being married where one or both parties could still be legally married to others. Administrative Welfare law recognizes them as a semi-married couple and will grant them AFDC aid and even help them get divorces so they can eventually marry IF THEY WISH. With the state's approval they live together as a family sometimes for years, but they have no IRS rights, or inheritance rights or marital tax status from the state as a married couple. It is legal and approved of by state law. California's courts have also established palimony rights where they protect the covenant/contractual rights of people living in unofficial marriage or concubinage. While they have no official tax status or inheritance rights the courts have established that a marital relationship and the members of that relationship have protection under the law in terms of their covenants, contracts, vows, espousal or betrothal. The courts have awarded "palimony", property and child custody rights in and from these relationships. The new no-discrimination-against- one's-sexual-orientation laws protect those who practice informal contractual polygyny or concubinage. Since God prescribes no "wedding ceremony", ritual, vows or rite>87 to make two people married, leaving it to the local churches to have their own redeemed local and indigenous marital customs>88 . The vows, covenants, betrothals and prenuptial contracts seem to be covered by God's standards in the following: [Footnote: >87 See appendix #4 . >.88 See appendix #4 .] MKJV EZEKIEL 16: 3 ÒAnd say, So says the Lord Jehovah to Jerusalem, . . . 8 And I passed by you and looked on you, and, behold, your time [was] the time of love. And I spread my skirt over you and covered your nakedness. And I swore to you and entered into a covenant with you, says the Lord Jehovah. And you became Mine.Ó MKJV MALACHI 2:14 ÒYet you say, Why? Because the LORD has been witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously; yet she [is] your companion and your covenant wife. 15 And did He not make [you] one? Yet the vestige of the Spirit [is in] him. And what [of] the one? He was seeking a godly seed. Then guard your spirit, and do not act treacherously with the wife of your youth. 16 The LORD, the God of Israel, says He hates sending away; and to cover [with] violence on his garment, says the LORD of hosts. Then guard your spirit, and do not act treacherously.Ó Here "act treacherously" means " break covenant" or "fail to honor your covenant/commitment". MKJV ECCLES. 5:4 ¦Ó When you vow a vow to God, do not wait to pay it. For He has no pleasure in fools. Pay that which you have vowed. 5 [it is] better that you should not vow, than that you should vow and not pay. 6 Do not allow your mouth to cause your flesh to sin; do not say before the angel that it [was] an error. Why should God be angry at your voice and destroy the work of your hands? Ò MKJV PSALM 15:1 ¦ ÒA Psalm of David. LORD, who shall dwell in Your tabernacle? . . . 2 He who walks uprightly, and works righteousness, and speaks the truth in his heart; . . . [he] has sworn to his hurt, and does not change it; 5. . . He who does these [things] shall not be moved forever.Ó MKJV ROMANS 1:28 ÒAnd even as they did not think fit to have God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do the things not right, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness . . . 31 . . . covenant-breakers. . . 32 who, knowing the righteous order of God, that those practicing such things are worthy of death, not only do them, but have pleasure in those practicing [them].Ó It is the treachery of breaking marital covenants that God condemns in these passages and that which he hates. "Yes, I swore an oath to you and entered into covenant with you, and you became Mine," says the Lord God>70 . We become a part of the bride of Christ in the same way. The Spirit considered Mary and Joseph as husband and wife on the basis of their espousal/betrothal/ covenants even before the wedding and the coming together>71. [Footnote: >70 (Ezek. 16:8). >71 (Mat. 1:18-25 ;Deut. 22:23-27)] So why can't two Christians exchange espousal/betrothal covenants and become each other's marital partners without a formal marriage which would be illegal? Of course they can since common law marriages are legally acceptable in most of AmericaÕs states and in most of the countries of the world. But should they? We are bound by our covenants and God makes it clear He has no pleasure in the fools who break them >72 . We enter into the gray zone of the liberty we have in Christ>73 that is limited by the cords of Agape love. Yes two Christians could exchange their vows/ covenants without a formal/legal wedding day but if they became involved in intimacy and that intimacy became an offense or stumbling block to another saint it would be sin and could destroy the work of Christ in another or embolden a weak one to be intimate contrary to his/her conscience>74 . So is such intimacy a sin between two Christians who have solemnly and formally covenanted before God that they are maritally one flesh as long as they both live? It is neither illegal nor sinful but it becomes sin if it stumbles, offends, grieves another in Christ> 75 . [Footnote: >72 (Eccles. 5:5; Psalm 15). >73 (Rom 14). >74 (l Cor. 8 & 10). >75 (Rom. 14; 1 Cor. 8 & 10).] But what about the command in Romans 14 that states that if you have a solid controversial conviction from the Word, have it to yourself before God? Happy is the one who does not condemn himself in what he approves>76 . But woe to him if he does it with doubts or offense to another in Christ. So it seems to be with post covenant but pre-wedding day intimacy. It seems to be the same case with polygyny / concubinage. Do you practice/believe in polygyny /concubinage? Have it and do so privately and very discreetly before God. Happy is the one who does not condemn one's self in what he approves in the liberty of Christ. But she who practices/believes in polygyny /concubinage with doubts is condemned if she indulges because she does not practice it out of conviction from the Spirit and the Word. polygyny/concubinage is indeed pure, but it is evil to practice it if it stumble, offends, grieves or weakens your brethren in Christ>77 . [Footnote: >76 (Rom 14:22,23). >77 (Rom. 14; 1 Cor. 8 & 10)] Foreign Christian polygynists visiting Western monogamous societies encounter a special challenge. Spiritual and Godly Christians would be able to handle it well and in the Lord, but the unsaved, the carnal, the Spiritual milk drinkers, the legalists, the ignorant, and those weak of conscience would all have varying problems with a Christian polygynist and his wives visiting their Western/Occidental church>78 . The visiting Christian polygynist should do all within his power to not let his liberty hinder the effectiveness of his testimony and witness to these people, if they would be willing to receive it. [Footnote: >78 (1 Cor. 8 & 10; Rom. 14 & 15)] Hopefully mercy and compassion would move the Christian polygynist to not flaunt his polygyny in the face of such "Christians" even though they are so unlike Christ. Mercy would move the polygynist to not lay a heavier burden on the weak than they can bear, not wanting their liberty to cause their weak brethren to fall into sin. Compassion would move the polygynists to be sensitive to the weakness and doubts of the weak saints. Obviously the polygynist would not be an official leader in the church and would not be visiting local churches as a leader/elder/deacon/ bishop/ overseer/etc.>79 . Ideally the local saints would be bearing the fruits of the Spirit and receive such foreign visitors with mercy and compassion. If they agreed and were able>80 for a short while to be separated, the polygynist could visit the Western church bringing one or none of his wives so as to reduce the controversy. The same would be true of a polygynist wife visiting the West without her husband, under the rule of 1 Cor. 7:4,5. [Footnote: >79 (1 Tim. 3 and Ti. 1). >80 (1 Cor. 7:5)] MKJV 1 CORINTH. 7: 4 ÒThe wife does not have authority over [her] own body, but the husband. And likewise also the husband does not have power [over his] own body, but the wife. 5 Do not deprive one another, unless [it is] with consent for a time, so that you may [give yourselves to] fasting and prayer. And come together again so that Satan does not tempt you for your incontinence.Ó X. DOES GOD FORGIVE BROKEN VOWS, DIVORCE AND ADULTERY? The issue here is does God forgive born again Christians when they fall into divorce and adultery? The cornerstone of this issue is "What is a born again Christian?" Genuinely born again Christians would be characterized by the following: (1) They have believed and received Jesus Christ, God revealed in the flesh, as the Master of their daily lives and as their Savior from the penalties and power of sin in their lives; (2) They have a consistent public testimony by word and deed of their salvation; (3) They live in obedience to the Word at home and away from home; (4) They are compassionately and effectively involved in nurturing and shepherding Christian fellowship; (5) They are characterized by the fruits of the Spirit instead of the works of the flesh; (6) They are faithfully in the Word in a life building way; and (7) They are faithfully in prayer on a regular basis. If any of these is missing, you should not feel comfortable about their status with the Lord and it would be a mistake to assume that they are really saved. We don't have to decide if someone is saved, all we have to do is decide if their life lines up with the Word, and if it doesn't, then we are to do the following: MKJV 1 TIMOTHY 5:19 ÒDo not receive an accusation against an elder except before two or three witnesses. 20 Those who sin, rebuke before all, so that the rest also may fear. 21 I charge [you] before God and [the] Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that you guard these things without prejudice, doing nothing by partiality.Ó MKJV GALA. 6: 1 ¦ ÒBrothers, if a man is overtaken in a fault, you the spiritual ones restore such a one in the spirit of meekness, considering yourself, lest you also be tempted. 2 Bear one another's burdens, and so you will fulfill the law of Christ.Ó DARBY MATT. 18:15 ¦ ÒBut if thy brother sin against thee, go, reprove him between thee and him alone. If he hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. 16 But if he do not hear [thee], take with thee one or two besides, that every matter may stand upon the word of two witnesses or of three. 17 But if he will not listen to them, tell it to the assembly; and if also he will not listen to the assembly, let him be to thee as one of the nations and a tax-gatherer.Ó DARBY 1 CORINTH.5:3 ÒFor *I*, [as] absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged as present, 4 [to deliver,] in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ (ye and my spirit being gathered together, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ), him that has so wrought this: 5 to deliver him, [I say,] [being] such, to Satan for destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.Ó DBY 2 THESS. 3: 6 ¦ ÒNow we enjoin you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw from every brother walking disorderly and not according to the instruction which he received from us. . . .14 But if any one obey not our word by the letter, mark that man, and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed of himself; 15 and do not esteem him as an enemy, but admonish [him] as a brother.Ó If they fail the Matt. 18:15-18 procedure, then God tells us to treat and relate to them as if they were unsaved. This would be very important for a Christian married to someone of whose salvation he/she is not sure. This uncertainty should be resolved so the Christian could know if his/her instructions are those of 1 Cor. 7:10,11,39 or 1 Cor. 7:12-15. So we are talking about real, sincere and genuine children of God who become involved in divorce etc. and need to know God's will for them. Can a Christian divorce a Christian mate, ask God to forgive them, and then go on and marry another Christian with God's blessing? In Matt. 5:23,24 Jesus says you must not only ask forgiveness but you must attempt to right the wrong for which you seek forgiveness. Zaccheus received Jesus salvation because he not only confessed his sin but also righted his wrongs against others. In Mark 10:11, 12 Jesus did not say, Whoever divorces his wife, asks forgiveness for divorcing his wife and then marries another may be blessed. Not at all, and quite to the contrary. Mark 10:7 ÒFor this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, 8 and the two shall be one flesh; so then they are no longer two but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate. . . . 11 And he says to them, Whosoever shall put away his wife and shall marry another, commits adultery against her. 12 And if a woman shall put away her husband and shall marry another, she commits adultery.Ó The adultery is not just that he married her in a wedding ceremony, a single event, rather the adultery is that he continues to be married to her and keeps on being married to her. It's not a matter of asking God to forgive you for the wedding ceremony that resulted in you being married. It is a matter of asking God to forgive you for continuing and keeping on being married to your new adulterous mate. The Greek verb is present tense indicative which indicates an on going and continuing condition. The one who put away the other and marries yet another keeps on and continues committing adultery against the one put away as long as the one put away remains put away. So He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another keeps on and continues committing adultery against her. And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she keeps on and continues committing adultery." Matt. 21:28-32 reveals it is the one who regrets the wrong and rights the wrong that does the will of his father. In the context of faithfulness, trustworthiness and covenant keeping >164 Jesus says that it is adultery to repudiate (reject, dismiss, send away, abandon, etc.) and marry another and whoever marries the repudiated wife commits adultery. The wrongs are repudiation with remarriage. He who confesses and covers repudiation with remarriage will not prosper, but whoever agrees with God about repudiation and remarriage and forsakes the repudiation and remarriage will have mercy from God>165 . [Footnotes:>164(Luke 16:1-18). >165 (Prov 28:13)] The omolego confession of 1 John 1:9 means the one who AGREES WITH GOD ABOUT HIS SIN receives His faithful and just forgiveness. To agree with God about the sin of repudiation-with-remarriage adultery means to forsake the repudiation-with-remarriage adultery. It doesn't mean saying "OOPS! I'm so sorry!" and expecting God to forgive you for repudiating/ leaving your mate now that you have married another. The sin to be forsaken is the sin of repudiating/leaving/ putting away the mate to whom you are bound for life in the Lord---and marrying another mate. Just because you confess that you repudiated (or etc.) your saved wife doesn't change the following scriptures ---- MKJV MALACHI 2: 14 ÒYet you say, Why? Because the LORD has been witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously; yet she [is] your companion and your covenant wife. 15 And did He not make [you] one? Yet the vestige of the Spirit [is in] him. And what [of] the one? He was seeking a godly seed. Then guard your spirit, and do not act treacherously with the wife of your youth. 16 The LORD, the God of Israel, says He hates sending away; and to cover [with] violence on his garment, says the LORD of hosts. Then guard your spirit, and do not act treacherouslyÓ MJJV LUKE 16: 15 ÒAnd He said to them, You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts. For that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God. . . .18 Everyone putting away his wife and marrying another commits adultery; and everyone marrying her who is put away from [her] husband commits adultery.Ó DBY MARK 10: 6 but from [the] beginning of [the] creation God made them male and female. 7 For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be united to his wife, 8 and the two shall be one flesh: so that they are no longer two but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate. . . . 11 And he says to them, Whosoever shall put away his wife and shall marry another, commits adultery against her. 12 And if a woman put away her husband and shall marry another, she commits adultery.Ó DBY ROMANS 7:1 ¦ ÒAre ye ignorant, brethren, (for I speak to those knowing law,) that law rules over a man as long as he lives? 2* For the married woman is bound by law to her husband so long as he is alive; but if the husband should die, she is clear from the law of the husband: 3* so then, the husband being alive, she shall be called an adulteress if she be to another man; but if the husband should die, she is free from the law, so as not to be an adulteress, though she be to another man.Ó DBY 1 CORINTH. 7: 4 ÒThe wife has not authority over her own body, but the husband: in like manner also the husband has not authority over his own body, but the wife. 5 Defraud not one another, unless, it may be, by consent for a time, that ye may devote yourselves to prayer, and again be together, that Satan tempt you not because of your incontinency. . . . 10* ¦ But to the married I enjoin, not *I*, but the Lord, Let not wife be separated from husband; 11* (but if also she shall have been separated, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband;) and let not husband leave wife. . . . 39* ¦ A wife is bound for whatever time her husband lives; but if the husband be fallen asleep, she is free to be married to whom she will, only in [the] Lord.Ó These plainly state that you are bound to born-again mate as long as you both live. When God forgives us he washes us and accepts us while at the same time condemning and denouncing the wrong that we did. The confession with forgiveness doesn't undo the sinful deed, but rights the sinner and frees him from the eternal consequences of his sin. In like manner we are told to submit to judgment the sinning saint in his sin >166 and when he renounces and forsakes the sin we forgive and reconcile with him>167 . [Footnontes: >166 (1 Cor. 5:1-11). >167 (2 Cor.2)] 2 Cor 7 makes it plain that worldly sorrow which results in no or inadequate repentance brings judgment while godly sorrow that works genuine repentance from the wrong and sinful act/deed/ thought results in deliverance. We are to diligently, zealously, angrily, earnestly vindicate ourselves by clearing ourselves of the wrong and/or sinful matter (adulterous repudiation-with- remarriage). We are to clear ourselves of the repudiation-with-remarriage that is the adultery. There is no way we can run to the God of the following passages and expect Him to favor and bless the one who breaks his engagement and/or wedding vows, covenants, oaths and promises. MKJV PSALM 15: 1 ¦ ÒA Psalm of David. LORD, who shall dwell in Your tabernacle? . . .2 He who walks uprightly, and works righteousness, and speaks the truth in his heart; . . . [he] has sworn to his hurt, and does not change it; 5 . . . He who does these [things] shall not be moved forever.Ó MKJV ECCLES. 5:4 ¦ ÒWhen you vow a vow to God, do not wait to pay it. For He has no pleasure in fools. Pay that which you have vowed. 5 [it is] better that you should not vow, than that you should vow and not pay. 6 Do not allow your mouth to cause your flesh to sin; do not say before the angel that it [was] an error. Why should God be angry at your voice and destroy the work of your hands?Ó DBY MALACHI 2:14 ÒYet ye say, Wherefore? Because Jehovah hath been a witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt unfaithfully: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. 15 And did not one make [them]? and the remnant of the Spirit was his. And wherefore the one? He sought a seed of God. Take heed then to your spirit, and let none deal unfaithfully against the wife of his youth, 16 (for I hate putting away, saith Jehovah the God of Israel;) and he covereth with violence his garment, saith Jehovah of hosts: take heed then to your spirit, that ye deal not unfaithfully.Ó MKJV ROMANS 1:28 ÒAnd even as they did not think fit to have God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do the things not right, 29 . . .[becoming] . . ., haters of God, insolent, covenant-breakers, . . . 32 who, knowing the righteous order of God, that those practicing such things are worthy of death, not only do them, but have pleasure in those practicing [them].Ó You canÕt run to this God of integrity and honor and say, "OOPS! I'm so sorry I repudiated (or etc.) my wife, Carlita, for Sonia and went on and married Sonia. I know you'll forgive me for divorcing my Carlita and breaking my vows and promises to her so I can be blessed by You with my Sonia!" Romans 13:7-14 and l Cor.11:27-33 shows that God holds us responsible to do His right things with those with whom we have to do, and woe to us if we don't. The fouth century's St. Augustine states the seriousness of this situation powerfully in the following: ÒTo such a degree is that marriage compact entered upon a matter of a certain sacrament, that it is not made void even by separation itself, since, so long as her husband lives, even by whom she hath been left, she commits adultery, in case she be married to another: and he who hath left her, is the cause of this evil. . . Seeing that the compact of marriage is not done away by divorce intervening; so that they continue wedded persons one to another, even after separation; and commit adultery with those, with whom they shall be joined, even after their own divorce, either the woman with a man, or the man with a woman. . . But a marriage once for all entered upon in the City of our God, where, even from the first union of the two, the man and the woman, marriage bears a certain sacramental character, can no way be dissolved but by the death of one of them. For the bond of marriage remains, although a family [i.e. children], for the sake of which it was entered upon, do not follow through manifest barrenness; so that, when now married persons know that they shall not have children, yet it is not lawful for them to separate even for the very sake of children, and to join themselves unto others. And if they shall so do, they commit adultery with those unto whom they join themselves, but themselves remain husbands and wives [to each other] . . Therefore the good of marriage throughout all nations and all men stands in the occasion of begetting, and faith of chastity: but, so far as pertains unto the People of God, also in the sanctity of the sacrament, by reason of which it is unlawful for one who leaves her husband, even when she has been put away, to be married to another, so long as her husband lives, no not even for the sake of bearing children: . . . not even where that very thing, wherefore it takes place, follows not, is the marriage bond loosed, save by the death of the husband or wife.Ó [Footnote: >. n102 St. Augustin: On The Trinity; pp. 402, 406, 412] The aim of repentance is reconciliation with people and with God. St. Jerome (340-420 A.D.) stated that "a wife who has been put away, may not, so long as her husband lives, be married to another, or at all events that her duty is to be reconciled to her husband.">103 God is Love and forgiveness, and most people arenÕt. Matt. 5:23,24 and 18:15-18 tell about repentanceÕs reconciliation and how to do it, but when dealing with so-called sinning Òbrothers/sisterÓ>168 and the snared/dead/blind/foolish/ manipulated unsaved>169 reconciliation may not be possible just like fellowship, communion, accord, and agreement>170 are not usually possible or sometimes not even desired with such folks. You repent and right the wrong if possible for your sake and the name of God whether or not reconciliation ever takes place. Your repentance does not depend on the cooperation, or lack of it, of the victim/witness. If they wont cooperate, then you are responsible to do the right you know to do, and you are not responsible to do the right you are unable to do if it requires the cooperation of someone who is unwilling to cooperate. [Footnotes:>.n103 A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church,Vol. VIII; p.353. >168 (1 Cor. 5:9-12; 2 Thess. 3:6-14). >169 (2 Tim. 2:25,26; Ephes. 2:1,2; Psalm 1 and 14). >170 (2Cor. 6:14,15).] Before God you must render that which is due >171 by covenant with your rejected wife. If a Christian brother remarried in adultery, it seems that any vows/ covenants he made with his new wife of adultery, if she were indeed free to marry him, would still be as binding as those he made with any creditor, employer or neighbor. Remarried to his rejected wife in godly sorrow and repentance, any lawful and right covenants he made with the wife of his adultery (and his children by her) that donÕt involve the adultery would still be binding on him and in honor he would be bound by his nonadulterous covenants with her and theirs. Situations like these demand of our leaders the wisdom of Solomon and bold and authoritative teaching from the Word of God about these issues. [Footnote: >171 (Rom. 13:7-10; 1 Cor. 7:1-5)] What about conflicting vows and/or covenants? We are not our own and we are bought with a price >172 so we have no authority to vow or covenant to do something contrary to the will of God. Even in the Old Testament the husband could void any vow made by his wife that was unacceptable to him as her husband, and the father of a daughter could void any vow made by his daughte>173 . As a member of the Bride of Christ, as His bond slave, as His child, He can and surely does void any vow or covenant that we might make that is contrary to His will. [Footnotes:>172 (1 Cor. 6). >173 Numbers 30:1-16] What if the vows or covenants do not involve sin, but they contradict each other? Wouldn't the vow or covenant made first take priority over any contradictory vow or covenant made later---all other things being equal? What if a person made a set of vows/covenants and later found that some of that set of vows/covenants were sinful, contrary to the will of God or voided by another vow/covenant made earlier? Wouldn't only those few vows/ covenants that were wrong be voided by God, leaving standing the rest of the vows/covenants made? When it comes to vows and covenants we need to be very careful to obey James 5:12A>.Ap#7 If we do stick our necks out in a vow/covenant not according to James 4:15, then we need to know that God has no pleasure in fools so we need to keep our word>174 [Footnotes: >.Ap#7 See Appendix #7.p#7 and James 4:13-17A. >174 (Eccles. 5:2-7; Psalm 116:14;; 66:13,14; 15:4; Ezek 17:15-20; Rom. 1:31)] But Gorki may say, "What about my new mate, Lara, and the children we have had since I repudiated (or etc.) Slavania and married Lara?" God's grace and love is big enough for the whole world, as well as his legal but new mate-in-sin Lara and his new children-in- adultery. Gorki is still under God's command of Eph. 6 (etc.) to parent, love and provide for them. But what about Lara?" You know this happens with professing Christians divorcing and remarrying professing Christians in America today! Well, what about Lara? If she is bound by God for life to Stanislavski, then just like King David's Michal (who was "legally" divorced and remarried), she has to return to her Christian husband, Stanislavski, to whom she is bound for life. Gorki may still love Lara and he may have to parent his own children, but Lara is bound to Stanislavski as long as they both live>175 . See the discussion "Can you go home again". [Footnote: >175 (1 Cor. 7; Rom 7)] Ezekiel 16:59 ÒFor thus says the Lord Jehovah: I will even deal with you as you have done, WHO HAVE DESPISED THE OATH, AND BROKEN THE COVENANT. . . . 17: 15 But he rebelled against him . . . Shall he prosper? shall he escape that does such things? SHALL HE BREAK THE COVENANT, AND YET ESCAPE? . . . 16 [As] I live, says the Lord Jehovah, verily in the place of the king that made him king, WHOSE OATH HE DESPISED, AND WHOSE COVENANT HE BROKE, even with him, in the midst of Babylon, shall he die. . . .18 HE DESPISED THE OATH, AND BROKE THE COVENANT; and behold, he had given his hand, yet has he done all these things: he shall not escape. 19 Therefore thus says the Lord Jehovah: [As] I live, verily, MINE OATH WHICH HE HAS DESPISED, AND MY COVENANT WHICH HE HAS BROKEN, EVEN IT WILL I RECOMPENSE UPON HIS HEAD. 20 AND I WILL SPREAD MY NET UPON HIM, AND HE SHALL BE TAKEN IN MY SNARE; . . Ò. XI. CAN YOU COME BACK TOGETHER AND REMARRY AFTER ADULTEROUS REMARRIAGES? Ezekiel 16: 3 . . . ÒThus says the Lord Jehovah unto Jerusalem: Your birth and Your nativity is of the land of the Canaanite: your father was an Amorite, and your mother a Hittite. 8 And I passed by you, and looked upon you, and behold, your time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt over you, and covered your nakedness; and I SWORE UNTO YOU, AND ENTERED INTO A COVENANT WITH YOU says the Lord Jehovah, and you became mine. . . . 15 ¦ But you did confide in your beauty, and played the harlot because of your renown, and poured out your whoredoms on every one that passed by: his it was. . . . . 32 O adulterous wife, that takes strangers instead of her husband. 59 For thus says the Lord Jehovah: I will even deal with you as you have done, WHO HAVE DESPISED THE OATH, AND BROKEN THE COVENANT. 60 ¦ Nevertheless I will remember MY COVENANT with you in the days of your youth, and I will establish unto you an everlasting covenant. 61 And you shall remember your ways, and be confounded, . . . I will give them unto you for daughters, but not by virtue of YOUR COVENANT. 62 And I will establish MY COVENANT WITH YOU, and you shall know that I [am] Jehovah; 63 that you may remember, and be ashamed, and no more open your mouth because of your confusion, when I forgive you all that you have done, says the Lord Jehovah.Ó Should I go back to my godly mate from whom I, a born again believer, was divorced while we were both in the Lord? What does the Word say? Consider God's example, the model he sets for us. Hosea 9: 1 ¦ ÒRejoice not, Israel, exultingly, as the peoples; for you have gone a whoring from your God, you have loved harlot's hire upon every corn- floor. 11: 7 Yea, my people are bent upon backsliding from me: though they call them to the Most High, none at all exalts [him]. 8 ¦ How shall I give you over, Ephraim? [how] shall I deliver you up, Israel? how shall I make you as Admah? [how] shall I set you as Zeboim? My heart is turned within me, my repentings are kindled together. 9 I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger . . . 14:1 ¦ O Israel, return unto Jehovah your God; for you have fallen by your iniquity. 2 Take with you words, and turn to Jehovah; say unto him, Forgive all iniquity, and receive [us] graciously; so will we render the calves of our lips. . . . neither will we say any more to the work of our hands, [You are] our God; because in you the fatherless finds mercy. 4 ¦ I will heal their backsliding, I will love them freely; for mine anger is turned away from him. 5 I will be as the dew unto Israel: he shall blossom as the lily, and cast forth his roots as Lebanon. . . . 7 They shall return and sit under his shadow; they shall revive [as] corn, and blossom as the vine: . . . 9 Who is wise, and he shall understand these things? intelligent, and he shall know them? For the ways of Jehovah are right, and the just shall walk in them; but the transgressors shall fall therein.Ó Gen. 2:24 ÒTherefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh.>104. For the permanence of the relationship the focus is on the word "cleave" which in the Hebrew means "cling or adhere; . . . abide fast, cleave (fast together), follow close (hard after), be joined (together), keep (fast), overtake, pursue hard, stick, take.">105. Thayer says it means "to glue upon, glue to">106. If God commands the husband to conduct himself in this manner towards his wife, then he had better do it if he wants a good future with God, because to disobey would be death>176 . Being under this command would certainly bind a man to his wife as long as both lived. [Footnotes>104. King James Version. The Holy Scriptures According to the Masoretic Text agrees with the meaning. >105. Strong''s Exhaustive Concordance. >106. Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament; Joseph Henry Thayer, D.D.; American Book Co., New York, 1889 . >176 Rom. 1:28-32; 1 Cor. 5:5-11; 11:30,31,32.] The Jewish Septuagint (third century B.C.) for Gen. 2:24 uses the same word for "cleave" that Jesus uses in Matt. 19:5. The word used for cleave in the LXX's Gen. 2:24 and Jesus' Matt. 19:5 means the following: 1. According to Thayer --- "to join one's self to closely, cleave to, stick to"; and 2. According to Arndt & Gingrich ---"adhere closely to, be faithfully devoted to, join ÒtiniÓ someone">107 . The Greek tense in both is future indicative passive which means that this is what they shall have themselves doing in the future on a regular basis. You say that it is not a command? Jesus seems to differ with you both in Malachi 2, where He says the husband who breaks his marital agreement with his wife is under His wrath, and in Matt 19:6 where Jesus says "So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, man must not separate." Based on the truth of Ephes. 1:11 (He "works all things according to the counsel of His own will") and Rom. 13:1-3 ("For there is no power but of God; the authorities that be are ordained by God"), every legal and moral marriage is ordained or allowed by God and takes place under His control, so indeed God has joined them. That's why we can trust God with 1 Cor. 7:17- 28, that we are to remain married to the person we are married to when we are saved. So in this case, even 1 Cor. 7 speaks of the binding nature of marriage. So Jesus makes binding >177 the cleaving>178 and the one flesh experience that we know as marriage. [Footnotes:{>.{n107 A GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT and Other Early Christian Literature ; By W.F.Arndt & F. W. Gingric. >177 (Mt. 19:6). >178 (Mt. 19:5).] What do the experts say? There is no controversy that marriages, divorces, and remarriages that happened before one was saved are not binding on the new convert to Christ. The case of the one who is saved while married to an unsaved person has some controversy>179 . But what is the Word for those Christians who have married, divorced and remarried all since they were genuinely and fruitfully saved and walking in loving obedience to the Savior? Consider the following: [Footnote: >179 1 Corinth. 7:12,13,14,15] ÒIn the present modern tangle of marriage, divorce, and remarriage the Christian Church, in dealing with converts and repentant members, is often compelled to accept the situation as it is.Ó>108 [Footnote: >..n108 The New Bible Dictionary, J.D. Douglas Ph.D. p..790.] ÒIn the NT divorce seems to be forbidden absolutely. . . Our Lord teaches that the OT permission was a concession to a low moral standard, and was opposed to the ideal of marriage as an inseparable union of body and soul. . . But remarriage also closes the door to reconciliation, which on Christian principles ought always to be possible; cf. the teaching of Hosea and Jer. 3; Hermas [2nd Cent. AD] (Mand. iv.1) allows no re-marriage, and lays great stress on the taking back of a repentant wife.Ó>109 [Footnote: >..n109 HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE; p. 586.] ÒTo such a degree is that marriage compact entered upon a matter of a certain sacrament, that it is not made void even by separation itself, since, so long as her husband lives, even by whom she hath been left, she commits adultery, in case she be married to another: and he who hath left her, is the cause of this evil. . . Seeing that the compact of marriage is not done away by divorce intervening; so that they continue wedded persons one to another, even after separation; and commit adultery with those, with whom they shall be joined, even after their own divorce, either the woman with a man, or the man with a woman. . . But a marriage once for all entered upon in the City of our god, where, even from the first union of the two, the man and the woman, marriage bears a certain sacramental character, can no way be dissolved but by the death of one of them. . . Therefore the good of marriage throughout all nations and all men stands in the occasion of begetting, and faith of chastity: but, so far as pertains unto the People of God, also in the sanctity of the sacrament, by reason of which it is unlawful for one who leaves here husband, even when she has been put away, to be married to another, so long as her husband lives, no not even for the sake of bearing children: . . . not even where that very thing, wherefore it takes place, follows not, is the marriage bond loosed, save by the death of the husband or wife.Ó>75 [Footnote: >. 75 St. Augustin: On The Trinity; pp. 402, 406, 412. ] Since the only terms of divorce are given in Deut 24:1-4 which was superseded by Matt. 19:1-15 and 1 Cor. 7:10-15,39, it is clear that marriage is a life long relationship based on the covenants of the couple and on God's command not to be put asunder or put asunder the relationship. What about Deut. 24:1-5? Does it set some kind of precedent or establish some kind of principle that would loose a godly couple from the binding nature of their relationship before God? Deut. 23:13 = Òand you shall have a trowel on your girdle; and it shall come to pass when you would relieve yourself abroad, that you shall dig with it, and shall bring back the earth and cover your {nuisance}. 14 Because the Lord your God walks in your camp to deliver you . . . and your camp shall be holy, and there shall not appear in you A {DISGRACEFUL THING}>111. , and so he shall turn away from you. . . Ò [Footnote: >111. {caps mine}; same Hebrew words in both Dt. 23:14 as in Dt 24:3 in LXX.] Deut. 24:3= ÒAnd if any one should take a wife, and should dwell with her, then it shall come to pass if she should not have found favour before him, because he has found some {UNBECOMING THING} >111. in her, that he shall write for her a bill of divorcement and give it into her hands, and he shall send her away out of his house. 4. And if she should go away and be married to another man; 5. and the last husband should hate her, and write for her a bill of divorcement; and should give it into her hands, and send her away out of his house, and the last husband should die, who took here to himself for a wife; 6. the former husband who sent her away shall not be able to return and take her to himself for a wife, after she has been defiled; because it is an abomination before the Lord your God, and you shall not defile the land which the Lord thy God gives you to inherit.Ó>112. [Old English updated] [Footnote: *>111. ditto: caps mine; same Hebrew words in both Dt. 23:14 as in Dt 24:3 in LXX. >112. Please see The Septuagint Version; 1972; Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Mich.] Deut. 23:15. . . Ò that He see no {UNSEEMLY THING}>113. in thee, and turn away from thee.Ó Deut. 24:1-4 . . . Òbecause he hath found some {UNSEEMLY>114. THING}>115. in her, . . .Ó>116. [Footnote: (>113. caps mine; same Hebrew word in Deut 23:15 as in Deut 24:1. >114. "unseemly thing" = American Standard Version; Thomas Nelson; 1901. >115. {caps mine}; same Hebrew word in Deut 23:15 as in Deut 24:1. >116. The Holy Scriptures According to the Masoretic Text] Deut. 23:14 . . . ÒHe must not see anything {INDECENT}>117. among you lest He turn away from you. . .Ó Deut. 24:1-4 . . . Òhe has found some {INDECENCY}>118. in her. . Ò>119. [Footnote: >117. {caps} mine; same Hebrew word in Deut 23:14 as in Deut 24:1. >118. ditto:{caps} mine; same Hebrew word in Deut 23:14 as in Deut 24:1. . . >119. Holy Bible New American Standard; 1977.] Thank God for the originals so that we can see that the Hebrew word used in Deut 23 is the same as used in Deut. 24, and that it apparently means anything deemed or decreed by God to be unholy, a sin or an abomination. In Deut 23 that includes human feces and excrement which God made know by law to His people that it was unclean and defiling in His eyes. Using the Word the way the Spirit used the Word would enable us to understand that whatever the husband found in the wife that was "unseemly" or "indecent", was something expressly and explicitly declared by God to be unholy and defiling in His Word. This included any of the bodily ailments that resulted in an unnatural excretion or flow of bodily fluids, things like leprosy, running sores, and figurative things that made you unholy like idolatry and breaking the commandments of God through Moses. The word rendered "indecency" in the phrase "he has found some indecency" means something expressly and explicitly declared by God to be unholy and defiling in His Word, including any of the bodily ailments that resulted in an unnatural excretion or flow of bodily fluids, things like leprosy, running sores, and figurative things that made you unholy like idolatry and breaking the commandments of God through Moses. The word rendered "defiled" in the phrase " not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled" is used by God of sexual defilement>180 , spiritual defilement >181 defilement by death or bodily emissions>182 . [Footnote: >180 (Gen. 34:5,13; Lev. 18:24; Num. 5:13- 29). >181 (Lev. 19:31; Ezek. 22:4; 23:7). >182 (Lev. 15:32; 21:1-3).] This means that the "indecency" or "unseemliness" that led Benhadad to divorce Lohana could be the same "defilement" that makes the situation so that he cannot remarry her. Specifically, Lohana could either have been an unbelieving Jewess or a Jewess with an abnormal external flow of bodily fluids, both of which were unseemly, unholy and indecent according to the Sinai Law of Moses. If Lohana was divorced by Benhadad for this unholy indecency, remarried Abdullah while still unholy and indecent and then divorced again or widowed by Abdullah-- ---still all the while an unbelieving Jewess or a Jewess with the abnormal external flow of bodily fluids. The problem that led Benhadad to divorce Lohana is still her problem after the remarriage and the divorce, a problem that makes her and marriage to her unholy, unseemly and/or indecent according to the Law of Moses. For him to remarry her would be the fulfillment of Prov. 26:11 and 2 Pt. 2:22 where " . . . 'A dog returns to his own vomit', and, 'a sow, having washed, to her wallowing in the mire.'". This is not and would not be acceptable to God. This fits well with the after-Moses OT precedents found in Ezra and Nehemiah where God commanded that the people divorce those whom they disobeyed Him to marry, who were idolaters and lived in disobedience to His Word, people with whom God had forbidden marriage. For a Jew to have remarried one of these wives would have been the unholiness of flagrant disobedience. That the disqualifying thing in these wives was their spiritual heritage rather than their race is obvious by the fact that God did not forbid marriage to believing Egyptians (Joseph), Philistines (Samson), Syrians, Assyrians or Ethiopian Cushites (Moses), etc. The same principles work in the Church of today. We know that it is unholy and therefore unacceptable to marry a "saint" living in sin>183 , or to marry an unbeliever>184 . Now if I married someone who called herself a believer, but because of problems that surfaced after the wedding we had to do Matt. 18:15-17-20 and she turned out to be a "heathen", I would have had grounds to divorce her in OT times according to Deut 24, but now under the Law of Christ in 1 Cor. 7: 12-15 I am not free to divorce her unless she is unwilling to live with me or has left me. If she became unwilling to live with me and then left me, I would be free from her maritally and free to remarry. For me to remarry her still in her "heathen" unholiness/defilement would be a sin in violation of the Scriptures120 , and an abomination to God. [Footnote: >183 1 Cor. 5; 2 Thess. 3:6-14; 2 Tim. 3:5; 1 Tim.6:5. >184 (2 Cor. 6:14-7:1). >.n120 Please see Appendix Five.] If you can accept the preceding understanding of Deut. 23 & 24, a woman divorced for unholiness is not to be taken back by her husband in her unholiness, then there is no problem from these passages for a godly brother to remarry his godly wife who, in ignorance or in a snare by the enemy >185, divorced him or was divorced by him and had gone on and married someone else. [Footnote: >185 2 Tim. 2:24-26; Gal. 6:1; 1 Cor. 5:5-11 + 2 Cor 2).] If you understand the unholy indecency of the woman in Deut. 24 to be some specific violation of God's Law of Moses, an unholy indecency which caused her to be divorced and forbids her former husband from remarrying her because such a remarriage would violate some specific Law of Moses ----- then there is no application of this passage to two born again and godly saints today who, in ignorance or in a snare by the enemy>186 , were divorced and had gone on and remarried others, but now, acknowledging the Word of God that they are bound as husband and wife for life (1 Cor. 7 & Rm. 7), want to remarry in repentance. [Footnote: >186 2 Tim. 2:24-26; Gal. 6:1; 1 Cor. 5:5-11 + 2 Cor 2)] Some Christians say you Òcannot go back, once youÕve remarriedÓ>187 . They cite Deuteronomy 24:1-4 as their proof text. First of all, we know that we are not under that command according to Ephesians 2:14,15,16; Colossians 2:13-17 and Acts 15. Secondly, it cannot be argued that it is a "higher-than-the-law- of-Moses" principle of defilement and uncleanness. Yes God did keep the king from defiling Abraham's Sarah. But the same God blessed the marriage of the very defiled harlot Rahab so that she became a direct ancestor of both King David and Jesus. His Word in Deut. 24:1-4 is followed by his Word in Deut. 25:5-10 that the defiled-by-former-husbands widows were to be married to their brother-in-laws etc>. Ruth, a defiled-by-former-husband widow, was blessed in her marriage with Boaz so that she also became a direct ancestor of King David and Jesus. Jesus commands the church defiled-by-former-husband widows to remarry in the Lord in 1 Timothy 5. [Footnote: >187 Deut. 24:1-4; Matt. 5:17-20; Luke 16:17. No where in the Word of God does it say that your remarriage in adultery looses you from GodÕs binding Christian-you to your Christian mate for life>188. Jesus plainly states that Deut. 24:1-4 was given because of the hardness of their hearts>189 not because it was the best thing to do. Christians have been given Ònew heartsÓ and were released from Deut. 24:1-4 by the Lord in Ephes. 2:14,15 and Colos.2:13,14. So what do Christian-you do about the Christian mate that Christian-you divorced and you married another in adultery>190 , or about your Christian mate who divorced Christian- you and then married another in adultery>191 ? [Footnote: >188. Romans 7:1-5; 1 Corinth. 7:3-11,39. >189 (Matt. 19:8). >190 Mark 10:11,12; Luke 16:18; 1 Cor. 7:10,11. >191 Mark 10:11,12; Luke 16:18; 1 Cor. 7:10,11.] While still being bound to your Christian mate, you may have to separate from, or perhaps even divorce, your Christian mate as part of the ChurchÕs discipline of your ÒChristianÓ mate who is living in sin>192 Since the purpose of Church discipline is to result in repentance and reconcilia-tion>193 , the separation/divorce should be seen as a temporary measure, unless the Lord puts the sinning saint to ÒsleepÓ in death>194 , or turns out to be an unbeliever>195 If there is repentance by your adulterous and remarried Christian mate, should you be reconciled to your repentant mate? Since you two are bound maritally for life by the Lord, I would hope so. What does God say? Because of John 8 and Eph. 2 and Colos. 2 we donÕt stone to death adulterers and adulteresses. Because of 1 Corinth 7:10-15,39; and Romans 7:1-5 we donÕt just walk away and disown our mates. In the Church's Ecumenical Council, the African Code of A.D. 419 stated that "It seemed good that according to evangelical and apostolical discipline a man who had been put away from his wife, and a woman put away from her husband should not be married to another, but so should remain, or else be reconciled the one to the other. . .">121 [Footnote: >192 Romans 16:17;1 Corint. 5:9-11; Eph. 5:11; 2 Thess. 3:6-14;1Tim. 6:3-5; 2 Tim. 3:1-5; Matt. 18:15-20. >193 (2 Corinth 2 and 7). >194 1 Corinth. 5:4-8; 11:28-32. >195 Matthew 18:15-18. >.n121 A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church,Vol. XIV; p. 493.] King David took his wife Michal back after she had been given in marriage to another, with GodÕs blessing>.196. Some might say that he took her back but wasn't intimate with her, as he did with the wives/concubines that his son raped>197. That doesn't seem to be the case with Michal because the Holy Spirit made a point of the fact that He caused her to be barren AFTER she had returned to David from her other husband-in-adultery>.198 If he brought Michal back but was not intimate with her there would have been no point to God making her barren. So apparently David was being intimate with Michal after her adultery but God made sure she was barren after her sin. [Footnote: ~>.~196. 1 Sam. 25:44; 2 Sam. 3:13-16. >197. 2 Sam 16:21,22; 19:5; 20:3. #>.#198. 1 Sam 25; 2 Sam 6:16-23.] Hosea the prophet was told by God to marry an unfaithful woman and then to take her back as wife after she had been unfaithful to him. In Ezekiel 16 and 23 God presents Himself as a husband who takes back his unfaithful wife. So there is a place for reconciliation and reunion of two obedient believers who are bound for life but who sinned by divorcing and remarrying. There are grounds for leaving an adulterous marriage and going back to the Christian mate to whom you are bound for life. So why the Word in Deut. 24:1-4 about not taking back your ex-wife after she has remarried? Jesus tells us that Deut. 24:1-4 was given because of the hardness>199. of their hearts, not because it was God's best for them. Jesus overruled Deut. 24 and restored His Law that made divorce itself just as much an abomination>200. as the "abomination" of taking back your ex-wife after she had been married to somebody else. Perhaps Deut. 24 and it hardness-of-heart rule was a temporary attempt by God to discourage divorce, at least frivolous divorce. Whatever the reason, it wasn't just a defilement issue, because the Deut. 25:5- 10; Rahab & Ruth 4; David & Michal, Hosea passages make it clear that there is and was no sin or defilement in marrying a woman who had been "defiled" by her former husband (David and Abigail, Ruth and Boaz) or some other man (Rahab the harlot) before the current marriage. [Footnote: >199. Matthew 19:1-19. ^>.^200. Malachi 2.] The Holy Spirit did not restate or reinstate the hardness-of-heart rule in the cases of 1 Tim. 5:10-14, or 1 Cor. 7:15, 39 or Romans 7:1-5. The only restrictions on remarriage were that they be "in the Lord", which at least means within the Lord's explicit will and marrying someone who is in the Lord. Everything in John 8; Gal. 6:1; Mat. 18:15-18; 2 Cor. ch. 2 and ch. 7; Hosea, Ezekiel etc. all call for accepting back the repentant and believing mate who fell in adultery and has heard Jesus say, "Go and sin no more!" XII. WHAT ABOUT THE HEALTH QUESTIONS INVOLVED IN SUCH REUNIONS? What if the saved mates want to reunite, acknowledging their bound-for-life status before God, after they have sinfully separated, been adulterous, divorced or remarried? With so many sexually transmitted diseases (STD) out and about today, it is a pressing question. What if the couple who wish to reunite still have small or dependent children so that they must make sure that at least one of them lives to care for them? If one of the two has acquired genital warts, it's only annoying for the husband but the wife would have to deal with the fact that reunion with full marital intimacy could expose her to cervical cancer, a leading killer of women. There are diseases that only affect fertility but if the couple has had no children yet, then that is a major decision for them to make with possible remedies like artificial insemination or etc>. What if one of them has genital herpes? For some people, usually the woman, that results in great discomfort periodically, sometimes even temporarily disabling. Would the reuniting mate be willing to be exposed to that if the other mate had it? What about HIV and AIDS? It's a death sentence with a heart break, and an ugly painful death at that. What do you do if saved you and your saved mate wish to acknowledge the reality of your bound-for-life status before God but you are staring an STD right in the face as a possible consequence? Some would run right back to Deut. 24 and say that reconciliation is out since one or both have been "defiled". But defilement under the law included everything from nocturnal seminal emissions, running sores, blood, touching a dead body, eating the wrong food, touching or associating with gentiles (non Jews) or a woman's menstrual flow. The patriarch married Rahab the harlot of Jericho, who certainly had been defiled, and became an ancestor of Mary and Jesus. Under Deut. 25, every brother who married his brother's widow married a woman who had been defiled by another man (the dead brother). I don't think that is the issue. What does being bound-for-life-maritally-in-the-Lord mean when one or both have STD's? When one or both have STD's that could end or severely handicap life? I have some idea of what this means because I was engaged to a dear saint whose deceased husband of 20 years had been repeatedly unfaithful to her, exposing her to whatever his whores had, and then after their divorce she backslid in depression and was seduced by a felonious excon, and we know of the homosexual diseases to which excons are exposed. A brother I know became engaged to a church going "Christian" lady and then found out that before they met she had been a prostitute with over 100 other men, some in refugee camps in utter poverty where her pay was food for her and her children. He worried about what he had exposed himself to just by kissing her. Again, what does being bound-for-life-maritally-in- the-Lord mean when one or both have STD's? If we really believe that the "wife is bound by the law [of God] as long as her husband lives">201 , then we must also believe the commands and truths of Prov. 5:18,19; and 1 Cor. 7:2,3,4,5 where your marital partner's rights and responsibilities are described. Are you ready and willing to repent of wrongfully leaving or divorcing your saved mate and marrying another (or just being intimate with another)? Are you, the abandoned/ divorced/rejected mate, ready to grant 2 Cor. 2 forgiveness to your mate has demonstrated 2 Cor. 7 godly repentance for his or her 1 Cor. 5 offense against you and God? The blessing is on those who hear and obey. The sin lies at the door of the one who knows to do right and does not do it. [Footnote: >201 (1 Cor. 7:39).] But what about STD's? Do you expect me to resume full marital intimacy with my saved and repentant mate who now has genital herpes and/or penicillin resistant gonorrhea? Yes these are very inconvenient and genuine concerns and the Old Testament Law would have forbidden you to touch people with such issues. But according to Acts 15, Eph. 2 and Colos. 2 we are not bound by the Mt. Sinai Law given to Moses now. That infected and repentant mate, bound to you by God as long as you both live, still has 1 Cor. 7:2-5 authority over your body and you still are under 1 Cor. 7:4,5 authority to meet her needs in marital intimacy so that mate wont be dangerously tempted by the enemy of your souls. The physical peril is greater than the spiritual peril. You have what your mate needs>202 in marital intimacy, the precedents>203 show that it is your responsibility to meet those needs that only you can meet. You are not being asked to lay down your life for your mate>204 . You may land up bearing the burden>205 of the ailment with your mate but that is godly and rewarded/blessed in the Lord. The one who seeks to save his life is the one who looses it before the Lord, whereas the one who lays down his life for another is the one who receives it again anew forever from the Lord. [Footnote: >202 (1 Jn. 3:17). >203 Luke 3:11; Acts 20:36; 1 Tim. 6:17-19; Eph. 4:28; 2 Cor 8 & 9; James 2:14-17; Deut. 15;7;Prov. 3:27,28; 21:13; Job 31:16- 23. >204.(1 Jn. 3:16; Jn. 15:13; Rom. 16:4; Mk. 8:35). >205 (Ga. 6:2; Rom. 15:1-6).] Creativity is not a sin. The two may mutually decide that their needs in marital sex could be met by mutual petting to orgasm, or erotic massage, erotic bathing, or etc. so that there is no genital to genital contact, no exchange of infectious fluids. Condoms are little or no protection with even the best of them failing to protect 30% of the time in federal tests that involved no motion on an artificial penis>#. The latex gloves that surgeons use offer some protection. They both can pray for wisdom and receive it from God on how to wisely meet their marital sex responsibilities to each other in a godly and loving manner without infecting the other. But the bottom line is that the love of God constrains them both to meet each other's marital sex needs in order to obey God and deliver their partner from life threatening temptations>206 . [Footnote: ># Dr. Loraine Day, surgeon. >206 (1 Cor. 7:2-5; Prov. 5:18,19,20)] What if my repentant and returning mate has HIV or AIDS? If you have dependent children to raise, you have some hard planning and decision making ahead of you. I can only offer my untried opinions. You must seek the Lord in fasting and prayer in this. The thought that comes to my mind is that of St. Francis of Assisi ministering to the lepers to the risk of himself and his beloved brethren. I think again of the beloved saint in Hawaii who ministered to the lepers in his leper colony and finally contracted it and died himself as a leper. And I think of Christ who fleshed Himself in this world of leprous sin, lived with we spiritually leprous sinners, and then voluntarily died, taking all our leprous sin into His own pure and sinless body. Isn't He our Master? Isn't that His way? Aren't we called to follow in His footsteps>207 ? Did He dodge and forego the suffering He was called to for us? Can we do any less as His Ambassadors? Isn't He the same Christ who indwells us and lives in us, our very life, and would He shrink from laying down His life in you for your mate who has AIDS but needs your marital sex according to 1 Cor. 7:2,3,4; and Prov. 5:18,19,20 in order to avoid the deadly temptations>208 that will come if you don't meet you mate's needs? They knew Him by the nail prints in His hands. Would it be too much for Him to ask you to be known by the AIDS of your needy mate in whom He also dwells? Is not His grace sufficient in every need and crisis? Can't you depend on Him to keep His Word to not let you be tried in this life more than you are able to bear>209 ? Read your Bible, Amy Carmichael's Rose from Briar, Amy's Gold Cord, Corrie Ten Boom's writings! Our God is able and we are a people called to take up our cross daily, laying down our lives for our brethren. I believe the same scriptures that compelled Peter Elliot to risk his life and be martyred in Ecuador - compel the saved mate to respond according to 1 Cor. 7:2,3,4,5 to the genuine marital sex needs of their saved, repentant and returning mate. [Footnote: >207 (1 Peter 2:21,22,23,24). >208 (1Cor. 7:5). >209 (1 Cor. 10:13)] Of course if the infected wife had the gift of continence, having no need of marital sex and was free from temptation, and so was able to deny herself her right so that her beloved mate need not be exposed, that would be the way to go for them. Sometimes something as easy as asking and endocrinologist to help a Christian male medically lower his testosterone level to the lowest safe level can so lessen the intensity of the aching needs and appetites that they cease to be a problem. But he would need to do it with the doctor monitoring him since we now know that hormonal imbalances can result in tumors and cancers. But we each have our gift>210, and even AIDS doesn't change those marital gifts which physically and mentally express themselves powerfully as aching needs and compelling appetites, as 1 Cor. 7:9 & 1 Tim. 5:11-14 and the practicers of Prov. 5:18,19,20 can tell you. [Footnote: >210 (1 Cor. 7)] XIII. CAN ADULTERY, DIVORCE , VOWS AND REPENTANCE RESULT IN POLYGYNY OR CONCUBINAGE? We are called to speak Truth to each other (Eph.4) by the God Who is the Truth.We are called to serve the God who cannot lie. Our God calls us to be a people whose mouths reflect His Light and Truth. The passages below show us that He expects us to be honorable and honest in the agrteements, understanding and contracts we have and make with each other. If we want His blessing, we will provide honest things in the sight of all so as not to give the adversaries an opportunity to blaspheme God or God's work in your life. Consider the se: MKJV PSALM 116:13 ÒI will take the cup of salvation, and call on the name of the LORD. 14 I will pay my vows to the LORD now in the presence of all His people.Ó MKJV PSALM 66:13 ¦ ÒI will go into Your house with burnt offerings; I will pay You my vows,14 [those] which my lips have uttered and my mouth has spoken in my trouble.Ó DBY PSALM 15: ÒJehovah, who shall sojourn in your tent? . . . 2 He that walks uprightly . . .who, if he have sworn to his own hurt, changes it not; . . Ò YLT ECCLES 5:4 ¦ ÒWhen thou vowest a vow to God, delay not to complete it, for there is no pleasure in fools; that which thou vowest--complete. 5 Better that thou do not vow, than that thou dost vow and dost not complete. 6 Suffer not thy mouth to cause thy flesh to sin, nor say before the messenger, that `it [is] an error,' why is God wroth because of thy voice, and hath destroyed the work of thy hands?Ó MKJV EZEKIEL 17:13 ÒAnd he has taken of the king's seed and has made a covenant with him, and has taken an oath from him. He has also taken the mighty of the land, 14 so that the kingdom might be low, that it might not lift itself up, [but] that by keeping his covenant it might stand. 15 But he rebelled against him in sending his ambassadors into Egypt, to give him horses and many people. Shall he be blessed? Shall he who does such [things] escape? Or SHALL HE BREAK THE COVENANT AND BE DELIVERED? 16 [As] I live, says the Lord Jehovah, surely in the place of the king who made him king, WHOSE OATH HE DESPISED AND WHOSE COVENANT HE BROKE, even with him in the midst of Babylon he shall die. . . . 18 And HE HAS DESPISED THE OATH BY BREAKING THE COVENANT. And, behold, HE HAD GIVEN HIS HAND, AND HAS DONE ALL THESE, HE SHALL NOT ESCAPE. 19 Therefore so says the Lord Jehovah: [As] I live, surely MY OATH THAT HE HAS DESPISED, AND MY COVENANT THAT HE HAS BROKEN, I WILL EVEN REPAY IT ON HIS OWN HEAD. . . . I WILL JUDGE HIM THERE WITH HIS SIN WHICH HE HAS SINNED AGAINST MEÓ. KJV ROMANS 1:28 . . . ÒGod gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; . . . covenantbreakers, . . . 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.Ó If American and legally married John legally marries free-to-marry Betty, it is a sin because John is under command>211 to obey the laws of the government authorities which forbids official/legal bigamy and polygyny and he would have to live with the legal consequences but I don't believe that would nullify the covenants he made with Betty. The covenants that are not covenants-to-sin could still be binding for the two in the Lord. So bigamy is illegal, Christians divorce Christians who are bound by the Lord to each other as long as both live, and Christians go on and marry others while still bound by the Lord to their exÕs under the banner of forgiveness. This combination has very complicated outcomes, consequences and effects which may include marriage, separation, polygyny , concubinage, adultery and/or fornication. Please read on. [Footnote: >211 (Romans 13; 1 Peter 2:12-14)] What about this saved but separated and chaste wife? It seemed to me to be quite unfair that she could leave him and live unmarried, and we have seen that 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. The double standard of male polygyny seems to favor the male, while the double standard of the wifeÕs ability to separate (remaining chaste while the male may not separate) seems to favor the female. St. Augustine (4th Cent AD) had a powerful way of stating the permanent nature of the marriage of two who married after being born again, lovingly obedient to Jesus and fruitful in the Spirit--- ÒTo such a degree is that marriage compact entered upon a matter of a certain sacrament, that it is not made void even by separation itself, since, so long as her husband lives, even by whom she hath been left, she commits adultery, in case she be married to another: and he who hath left her, is the cause of this evil. . . Seeing that the compact of marriage is not done away by divorce intervening; so that they continue wedded persons one to another, even after separation; and commit adultery with those, with whom they shall be joined, even after their own divorce, either the woman with a man, or the man with a woman. . . But a marriage once for all entered upon in the City of our god>122, where, even from the first union of the two, the man and the woman, marriage bears a certain sacramental character, can no way be dissolved but by the death of one of them. . . Therefore the good of marriage throughout all nations and all men stands in the occasion of begetting, and faith of chastity: but, so far as pertains unto the People of God, also in the sanctity of the sacrament, by reason of which it is unlawful for one who leaves here husband, even when she has been put away, to be married to another, so long as her husband lives, no not even for the sake of bearing children: . . . not even where that very thing, wherefore it takes place, follows not, is the marriage bond loosed, save by the death of the husband or wife.Ó>123 [Footnotes:>122 This footnote mark etc. is not St. Augustine's or Arthur Haddan's. I insert it just in case the reader is not aware of the fact that all marriages between real saints take place "in the City of our god" not according to St. Augustine, but according the the Holy Spirit in Hebrews 11:10,13-19, where they are already seated with Christ in the Heavenlies according to Eph. 1 & 2. >123 St. Augustin: On The Trinity; pp. 402, 406, 412.] If she divorces him so she can live alone>212 , and he remarries a ÒsisterÓ without rejecting/repudiating/denying/ forsaking her who divorced him (so there is no adultery, see Mark 10:9-11), then yes it is legal in America and both she who wants to be alone and she who married him are both bound to him as long as he lives. She who divorces him to be alone is bound by Law as long as he lives, and she who married this rejected and abandoned man is bound both GodÕs Law and the law of man to him>. Under GodÕs Law the two are bound to him as long as he lives. There is nothing in scripture that contradicts this. We have seen that polygyny is not a sin and an evil. It is against the law and tradition of America and a saint must obey the laws of America>213 as long as they donÕt require us to disobey God. That is manÕs tradition, not GodÕs. [Footnote: >212 (1 Cor. 7:11). >213 (Rom. 13).] In the Old Testament and New Testament times (4000 B.C. to 100 AD) polygyny and concubinage were practiced by Israel, Egypt, Babylon, Greece and Rome according to Jewish historians like Josephus. Yes, officially being married to two women in America is illegal by man's laws and those laws have to be obeyed if possible, but an informal/private covenant relationship between a married man and another woman besides his wife is concubinage, a practice as old as Jacob, Lea and Rachel in Genesis 22 (Lea's and Rachel's handmaidens/ concubines with whom Jacob fathered the heads of the 12 tribes) and is not illegal in America and is practiced on every continent on earth. A "mistress" is not a concubine in Biblical terms because a concubine is maritally bound to her husband by covenants and by the same scriptures as bind a wife to her husband, while a mistress is what the Bible calls a harlot in Ezekiel 16 and 23. Please see the full polygyny discussion enclosed. Keeping one's marital vows/covenants can indeed result in polygyny, especially if done in repentance to a sinful divorce or an adulterous remarriage on the part of one or both of the saved marital partners who abide by God's Word, that they are bound by God maritally as long as both of them live. The foundation for believing that you or your mate is saved would be the following fruits of the Spirit, produced in the believer by the empowering of Christ: (1) They were legally and honorably married, before the divorce etc.; (2) They both had consistent public testimony of their salvation; (3) Their lives were consistent with the Word at home and away from home; (4) They both were compassionately and effectively involved in nurturing and shepherding Christian fellowship; (5) They were both characterized by the fruits of the Spirit instead of the works of the flesh; (6) They were faithfully in the Word in a life changing way; and (7) They were faithfully in prayer on a regular basis. If any of the above are missing, you have good cause to question the salvation of the person in question, which should move you to intercessory prayer and Matt. 18: 15-18. One of the best ways to resolve the question of a persons salvation is to exercise the Mat. 18:15-18 procedure in the manner of 2 Tim. 2:24-26. It would clarify the situation by showing you if your case was that of 1 Cor. 7:10,11,39 or that of 1 Cor. 7:12-15. How can vows result in polygyny for a genuinely saved brother? His vows could lead to his polygyny. He marries Sophia, both genuinely saved and free to marry in the Lord, and they vowed/covenanted to have each other to be husband and wife to each other, pledging their troth in all honor, love, duty, service, faith and tenderness, to cherish and live with each other according to the ordinance of God, honoring and keeping each other in the holy bond of marriage. Before God and other witnesses they promised and covenanted to be each others comforting, loving and faithful mate; in plenty and in lack, in joy and grief; in infirmity and health; as long as they both live. Then Sophia decides to exercise the sin/repentance option of leaving him and living chastely separated from him>214 as long as he lives. He comes under the tormenting temptation predicted in 1 Cor. 7:5 & 9, and so finding himself burning and or failing to control himself, he obeys God's command to marry and marries genuinely saved Serena. Serena accepts him even though he and Serena both know that he is still bound before the Lord to Sophia as husband. For him to reject, repudiate and forsake his marital bond to Sophia in order to marry Serena would make him an adulterer and his marriage to Serena, adultery>215 . Acknowledging his marital bond with both Sophia and Serena he becomes a polygynist, not an adulterer. Sophia has a change of heart and wants to be married to him again, but in the USA he can legally be married to only one wife, so he has to accept her back as his concubine, fully honoring his vows both Serena and Sophia. If Serena doesn't want to be married to an active polygynist, she can sin by leaving him and repent by remaining chastely single as long as he lives. In thought, word and deed he must love each according to his vows, since separation or polygyny do not release him from his vows>124 . [Footnote: >214 1 Cor. 7:11,39. >215 (Mark 10:11,12; Luke 16:18). >124 See Appendices 4 and 7; (see the pages and scriptures just before the Bibliography).] What if Sophia disobeyed God, left her husband, Eli, and married Raj? Since she is bound to Eli as long as he lives, she has committed adultery>216 . She makes the same vows to Raj as to Eli, in her adultery. After experiencing God's promised chastening>217 she repents, forsaking her adulterous relations with Raj and either returns to marital relations with Eli or chastely lives alone. Raj and Serena would have to do the sin of adultery to keep their vow to have and live with each other as husband and wife, so that vow is nullified (Numbers 30; we are the purchased bride of Christ = 1 Cor. 6:19,20 --so He nullifies our sinful vows, our vows to sin.). Their vows to cherish each other in all honor, love, duty, service, faith and tenderness are not sinful and therefore are not nullified but would have to be exercised chastely and free of any adulterous elements, at least in fervent intercessory prayer for each other. The same would hold true for Eli if he married Poona, Sukkur's lawful wife, in adultery and then repented of it, forsaking the adultery of his marital relations with Poona. Their vows to cherish each other in all honor, love, duty, service, faith and tenderness are not sinful and therefore are not nullified but would have to be exercised chastely and free of any adulterous elements, at least expressed in fervent intercessory prayer. [Footnote: >216 (Mark 10:11,12; Luke 16:18; Rom.7:1- 5). >217 (1 Cor. 11; Heb. 12).] What if Kure and Toegu Ohtani, a genuinely saved couple, had made the wedding vow that they would forsake all others, to keep themselves only to each other as long as both live? Dear little Toegu is overwhelmed by the strains of married life, sins by separating herself from Kure but repents by living chastely and unmarried>218 . Kure comes under the tormenting temptation predicted in 1 Cor. 7:5 & 9, and so finding himself burning and or failing to control himself, he obeys God's command to marry>125 and marries genuinely saved Kasai, who accepts Kure even though he, Kasai and Toegu know that he is still bound before the Lord to Toegu as her husband. [Footnote: >218 (1 Cor. 7:10, 11). >.n125 See Appendix #6.] But what about his vow to forsake all others, keeping himself only to Toegu? He finds himself under God's command to keep his word>219 , and he also finds himself under God's command to marry>220 . Toegu refuses to be wife to him so he could beat the predicted temptations caused by her not obeying 1 Cor. 7:2-5 with him. He's bound by their vow but, as predicted, he is being taken advantage of by the Enemy, burning and sometimes failing to control himself. I believe that Kure, who is not his own but the purchased bond slave and member of the Bride of Christ, is released by his Spiritual Lord and Husband from his "forsaking all others" vow and released>221 to obey God's Word>222 to let the loving comfort of marital intimacy drown his burning. [Footnote: >219 (Eccles. 5:1-5; Psa. 15). >220 (1 Cor. 7:5,9,36). >221 (Numbers 30). >222 (1 Cor. 7:4,5,9.]) Any vow to sin is nullified for the believer according to Numbers 30 and 1 Cor. 6:19,20. You are not your own so you have no authority to promise yourself to anything except your Master's will. You would not allow your five year old son to keep his foolish promise to rob a bank. Your boss, hopefully, would not let you use his luxury car to rob the bank you promised to rob using his car. It would be sin on sin to keep sinful vows (Rom.6:1-5). It would not be sin to keep a vow that is in agreement with the Word of God. You have no authority to yield your self to keeping a vow to sin even if your good intention is to keep your word, especially when keeping your word in and of itself would be sin, because what you vowed to do is sin. The best plan is to obey Jesus in Deut. 23:22; Eccles. 5:2,5; Matt. 5:33-37 and James 5:12A>#7 . Instead of vows/promises/covenants/ swearings/oaths, we should obey Jesus in James 4:13-17 and Matt. 5:33-37, making solemn declarations and affirmations of marital intentions, aspirations and hopes instead of making presumptuously arrogant and boastful marital vows about what we are going to do and not do in the future, which belongs to God and not to us. Please see the appendices 6 & 7 for a sample of such marital declarations and affirmations. [Footnote: >7 See the file on oaths] For Kure to reject, repudiate and forsake his marital bond to Toegu in order to marry Kasai would make him an adulterer and his marriage to Kasai, adultery>223 . Acknowledging his marital bond with both Toegu and Kasai he becomes a polygynist, not an adulterer, even if Toeguy can only be his informal and unofficial contracted concubine because of the laws of the land. He keeps all righteous vows to both. [Footnote: >223 (Mark 10:11,12; Luke 16:18).] If the saved husband, Ndola, has divorced his saved wife, Lusaka, and married another saved wife, Serowe, his repentance for the adultery of both divorcing his wife Lusaka and marrying Serowe -- should at least result in his seriously trying be to reconciled to the Lusaka he left>224 . Then he would have to deal with the question of his vows/covenants>225 he made with his new saved wife, Serowe. He would have to decide whether or not his covenants, if any, were binding and whether or not that results in him being a polygynist with two wives before the Lord (two wives, or a wife and a concubine before his community). [Footnote: >224 (Prov. 28:13; 1 Cor. 7:11,39). >225 (Psa. 15:4; Prov. 20:25;Ezek. 17:15; Malachi 2:13-17; Rom. 1:31).] The situation could come to pass another way. If Lusaka has gone through a divorce from her saved husband Ndola, and she has married Ankora, her repentance should at least result in her leaving Ankora to either be reconciled to Ndola or live in celibate separation from him>226 . If Lusaka exercised her second best option and gets a divorce separating herself from Ndola in celibacy>227, subjecting Ndola to the temptations of 1 Cor. 7:5 so that his burnings and failures to control himself>228 bring Ndola under God's command to marry>126 and so he marries Serowe and is now bound before God to two saved wives as long as they both live>229. If Lusaka divorced and separated herself and later chooses to be reconciled to Ndola, to whom she is bound by the Lord but who has already remarried Serowe, then they have to decide if they resume their marital relationship with Lusaka being an unofficially contracted concubine in Western monogamous societies, or as either a concubine or a second wife in non-Western polygynous societies. So indeed, adultery, divorce and repentance can result in polygyny and/or concubinage. [Footnote: >226 (1 Cor.7:10,11,39). >227 (1 Cor. 7:11). >228 of 1 Cor. 7:9,36 (1 Th. 4:3,4,5). >.n126 See Appendix 6. >229 (1 Cor. 7:39; Rom. 7:1-3).] XIV. ADULTERY, DIVORCE, POLYGYNY, CONCUBINES AND THE UNSAVED Okay, I know that God doesn't want saved/believing me to marry one who is unsaved/unbelieving>5 , but what if I am/was married to an unsaved person? There is no question in scripture about the permanence of the marriage of two Christians, but what if you are a Christian and your mate is not a Christian, or at least you are not sure if your mate is a Christian because, even though the mate professes to be born-again, the mate's behavior is so sinful you doubt your mate's salvation. The book of First John 2:3-7 makes it clear that a mate's open and unrepentant continual disobedience to clear and explicit commands in the Word of God shows that he doesn't know God. The book of First John 2:19 shows that a mate who professed to be saved and then rejected Christ and Christians never was really saved in the first place. If you still aren't sure if your mate is saved, then Matt. 18:15-19 tells you what to do and if you do it you will know whether or not your mate is truly saved and then may proceeded according to 1 Corinth. 7:10,11,12,13,14, & 15. [Footnote: >5 See Appendix #5.] So what if you have a mate who is plainly unsaved or one who has been found to be unsaved by the Matt. 18:15-18 procedure? The scriptures in 1 Corinth. 7:12,13,14,15 plainly state that as long as the unsaved mate wants to live and/or house with you, you should not leave the unsaved mate. It appears that the saved wife with the unsaved husband probably has the same 1 Corinth 7:10,11 repentance option of separation without remarriage that the saved wife has with her saved husband. The l Corinth. 7:12-15 passages make it clear that (1) if the unsaved no longer wants to live/dwell/ cohabit>127 with the saved, the saved mate may leave the unsaved mate but not be free to remarry since the saved one is free to remarry only if the unsaved departs; and (2) if the unsaved leaves/abandons/ divorces the saved mate, the saved mate may leave/divorce the unsaved mate and be free to remarry. [Footnote: >.n127 Greek Lexicons: BerryÕs Intelinear and ThayerÕs: Ò dwellÓ; Harpers and Brothers Analytical: Òto dwell, cohabitÓ; Arnndt and GingrichÕs: Òdwell, have oneÕs habitationÓ.] What if the believer sinned>230 and left/ divorced the unsaved mate who wanted to live with and remain married to the believer? 2 Corinthians 7 and Prov. 28:13 would seem to say that the believer's repentance of the sin ( a believer leaving the unsaved mate who still wants to live with the believer ) would be to forsake and clear his/herself of leaving/divorcing the unbeliever and return to the unbeliever. If the believer left/divorced the unbeliever while he/she still wanted to live/house with the believer and the believer remarried it would seem to be adultery since the believer wasn't freed according to 1 Cor. 7. What if the unsaved mate was abusive and cruel to the believer so the believer left/divorced the unsaved to live as chastely unmarried? Would the believer still be morally bound to this abusive unbeliever who sincerely still wants to live/house with the believer? I don't know but it would appear to be the same as the case as in 1 Cor. 7:11. Intense believing prayer and fasting>231 can be a big part of the solution for a saved but separated sister whose unsaved husband is both abusive and desirous of living with her. The saints should stand with her in this travail of prayer. [Footnote: >230 (1 Corinthians 7:12-15). >231 Mat. 17:21; Luke 5:33,34; Acts 10:30;13:3; Ephes. 6:12; 2 Cor. 10:3-7] Because of Prov. 28:13 and 2 Corinth. 7 and Philemon I can't believe that she can just say to God, "I goofed and I'm sorry and I know You give the option of separation without marriage to anothe>232 but I don't want to be involved with my abusive unsaved husband anymore so I want you to forgive me for my disobience to Your will (leaving my unsaved husband who still wants to live/house with me) so I can marry somebody else". [Footnote: >232 (1 Cor. 7:11)] There is no scripture that I know of that plainly and explicitly says that a believer who leaves an unbeliever who still wants to live/house with the believer (and the unbeliever has not left the believer) is still morally bound to the unbeliever and not free to remarry. I'm not aware of any scriptural basis for the believer who left the unbeliever to marry someone else if the unsaved mate still wants to live/ house with the believer and has not left/abandoned the believer. If I were in that situation I would take the safest course possible in the absence of any clear scripture and consider myself morally and maritally bound to my unsaved mate as long as my unsaved mate sincerely wants to live/house with me and has not left/abandoned me. As soon as the unbeliever leaves/ abandons/divorces me, no longer sincerely wanting to live/house with me, then I am no longer bound to that unbeliever and am free to remarry as I understand 1 Corinth. 7:12- 15. XV. THE MARRIED MAN WHO WOULD ADD WIVES TO HIS ÒHAREMÓ. What about the married character who says that since polygyny /concubinage is not a sin he will just go ahead and add a couple of new wives to his harem? Well he wont get off the ground in America unless he is rolling in money and has found some like-minded women. Even then they can't formally or legally marry. He could only legally marry one as wife and contract/covenant unofficially with the others as concubines. What about the married "brother" who knows a "sister" who knows she can't marry him because of the bigamy laws but they want to be married so bad that she is willing to be his "concubine" in polygyny , even though she knows his wife objects or doesn't even know? The Spiritual fruit of contentment should prevail. A person should be content with the mate they have. Selfishness is a work of the flesh and anyone who wants a mate, or another mate, or an additional mate, out of selfish reasons is out of the will of God and snared in sin. YLT=1 Tim. 6:5 "wranglings of men wholly corrupted in mind, and destitute of the truth, supposing the piety to be gain; depart from such; 6 ¦ but it is great gain--the piety with contentment; . . . 8 but having food and raiment--with these we shall suffice ourselves; 9 and those wishing to be rich [having more than they need], do fall into temptation and a snare, and many desires, foolish and hurtful, that sink men into ruin and destruction, . . ." [Young's Literal Translation] 1Cor. 7:17 ¦ ÒHowever, as the Lord has divided to each, as God has called each, so let him walk; and thus I ordain in all the assemblies.Ó [Darby] If his present wife objects to his taking a concubine for himself, can't she exercise her second best option>81 and separate herself from him and remain separate or be reconciled to him at some later date? [Footnote: >81 (1 Cor. 7:10,11,39)] If his present wife objects to his taking a concubine for himself, how can he say to Jesus that he is being kind to her, that he is not selfishly seeking his own by taking a concubine? God has promised to chasten>82 those saints who deliberately sin, and if he unkindly and selfishly takes on a concubine, then isn't he going to be chastened? [Footnote: >82 (1 Cor. 11:30 weakness, sickness, death; Ezekiel 14 famine, hurtful beasts, war or personal violence, disease and pestilence)] If his wife is innocently and sincerely grieved, stumbled and offended by his desire to have a concubine, experiencing a genuine sense of loss or betrayal, then he has broken all the principles of Love in Romans 14, 1 Cor. 8 & 10 by using his liberty (to have a concubine) to the hurt of his ÒsisterÓ in the Body of Christ and chastening>83 is certain. Certainly his prayers will be hindered>84. [Footnote: >83 (Malachi 2;1 Cor. 11:30 Heb 12). >84 (1 Peter 3:7;Isa 59:1,2)] What if her objections to his taking a concubine are selfish, hateful, mean spirited, unkind and spiteful? These are all works of the flesh. If his taking a concubine stumbled her into these vices, caused her to fall into these vices, then he is destroying one for whom Christ died and for whom Christ is the Avenger (Rom. 14)] . What if she normally and naturally is selfish, hateful, mean, unkind and selfish? What if her objections to his taking a concubine are selfish, hateful, mean spirited, unkind and spiteful? These are all works of the flesh. If she was this way by her choice before the concubine became an issue between them, she has chosen to walk in the flesh, her salvation is questionable at best, and he is at least in a 1 Cor. 7:12,13 situation: MKJV 1 CORINTH. Ò7:12 But to the rest I speak, not the Lord, If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is pleased to dwell with him, do not let him put her away. 13 And the woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is pleased to dwell with her, do not let her leave him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; else your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. 15 But if the unbelieving one separates, let [them] be separated. A brother or a sister is not in bondage in such [cases], but God has called us in peace.Ó He is bound to her as long as she wishes to house/dwell with him. With this kind of wife, wouldn't a godly concubine be his Òcorner on the roofÓ, his sanctuary from the strife of her spirit and her tongue? What if she doesn't know about his taking on a "sister" as a concubine (but the world would call her a mistress because they don't believe in marital commitment)? Well the following scriptures indicate that there could be a problem involving honesty: Luke 8:15 ÒBut that in the good ground, these are they who in an honest and good heart, having heard the word keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience.Ó Rom. 12:17* Òrecompensing to no one evil for evil: providing things honest before all men: . Ò. Eph. 4:25 ÒWherefore, having put off falsehood, speak truth every one with his neighbor, . . . 29 Let no corrupt word go out of your mouth, but if [there be] any good one for needful edification, that it may give grace to those that hear [it].Ó 2 Cor. 8:21 Òfor we provide for things honest, not only before [the] Lord, but also before men.Ó There would have to be no communications or there would have to be false communications between a man and his wife if the man had a secret concubine on the side. As his wife exercised her authority over his body for affection and sex>86 he probably would, at some point because of the secret concubine, resist her sexual authority>87 over his body and be chastened of God, or he would get into a situation where he would have to lie to get out of it, and be chastened of God. If he keeps that up, couldn't she land up a widow and get to marry again in the Lord since He liberated her from her Judas? [Footnote: >86 (1 Cor.7:3-5). >87 (Romans 13:1- 5)] What if Theo is a devoted, loving and caring husband but Safronia is uninterested in sex with him, passively tolerating sex with him while making him feel, without a word, that he is imposing on her and being burdensome to her in the matter? She refuses the help available from counseling and support groups. Well she obviously is not doing 1 Cor 7:2,3,4,5 as unto the Lord. MKJV 1 CORINTH. 7: 2 ÒBut, [to avoid] fornication, let each have his [own] wife, and let each have her own husband. 3 Let the husband give to the wife proper kindness, and likewise the wife also to the husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over [her] own body, but the husband. And likewise also the husband does not have power [over his] own body, but the wife. 5 Do not deprive one another, unless [it is] with consent for a time, so that you may [give yourselves to] fasting and prayer. And come together again so that Satan does not tempt you for your incontinence.Ó ~!@# Seeing her brother-husband in need, she shuts up her feelings of compassion>88 . But in the meantime she has killed his affections for her by her words and deeds and his affection goes unanchored now. She refuses to welcome his affectionate and intimate touch in disobedience to the Word>89 . As predicted, Theo is being sexually tempted by Satan and Theo finds himself burning and sometimes failing >90 to control himself when exposed to things like pornography. Tempted, burning and sometimes failing to control himself, Theo finds himself under the command to marry (be having his own wife)>n89. Safronia refuses to help him meet his needs, and he can't divorce her because she claims to be saved >91 . Since she cares not for affection with him, he might exercise his liberty to have a concubine in the manner of Romans 14. If his faith allows him to have a concubine but having a concubine would grieve, offend and/or stumble someone, perhaps even his Arctic wife, then wouldn't he have to exercise his faith's personal liberty by having his concubine privately and discretely between himself, her and God so as not to let his liberty offend the Body of Christ. [Footnote: >88 (1 John 3:14-18). >89 (1 Cor. 7:2,3,4,5). >90 (1 Cor. 7:9, see Appendix 6). >.n89 See Appendix Six. >91 (1 Cor.7:10,11,39; Mark 10:1-12).] What kind of sister would be concubine to such a brother? Perhaps one who saw his need>92 and was moved with compassion and, having what he needs she lays down her life for him to minister as wife-concubine to him>93 . Perhaps she feels called to be his good Samaritan concubine in his wounded and neglected need. She would have to be of one mind and one faith with him to be his concubine privately and discreetly so as not to offend the Body of Christ. They would have to agree to deny themselves the free and open exercise of 1 Cor. 7:2-5 and exercise those rights and needs within the limitations of privacy and discretion before God and the Body of Christ>94 . Wouldn't they have to agree not to lie or deceive while on the other hand they would have to agree to obey Rom. 14:28ff in not breaking their commitment to privacy and discretion, even if they have to say nothing when asked? Wouldn't it be a marriage fraught with self denial, self sacrifice and self control? [Footnote: >92 (1 Cor. 7:2-5). >93 (1 John 3:14- 18). >94 (Rom14:28-).] Anyone who did this would have to selflessly and unselfishly seek the protection and well being even of his cold and indifferent wife. He would have to do everything possible to make sure that any concubine he would have would not bring harmful sexually transmitted diseases (including HIV) into the germ pool of their polygyny . That would mean genital cultures, blood tests and abstaining from marital intimacy/ commitment and waiting several months for repeated tests since HIV might not show up for several months. Since STDÕs, including HIV, can be transmitted by bloody saliva in kissing, wouldn't they have to abstain even from kissing until all tests came back okay? What if it is a situation of real need and crisis? What if she decided to exercise her option to separate>95 herself from her husband, but not by divorce but by separate beds or separate bedrooms and allowed him no more access to her body for his sexual needs? He is under GodÕs command to not leave or divorce her>96 . She is wife in name only and he has no sexual partner. Hasn't she sinfully set him up for Satan>97 and burning>98 which will compel him to marry or be an adulterer. If it is to marry, wouldn't it have to be with a concubine, since bigamy is illegal in the USA? [Footnote: >95 (1 Cor. 7:10,11). >96 (1 Cor. 7:10,11; Mark 10:9-11). >97 (1 Cor.7:5). >98 (1 Cor. 7:9; 1 Th.4:4,5; Appendix 6).] XVI. ARE POLYGYNY & CONCUBINES OPTIONS FOR THE ABANDONED MAN? What about the divorced Christian husband? Could he just go out and take another wife while his prior Christian wife chooses to remain chastely separated? Would that be selfish? Those who are born of the Spirit of God are led by the Spirit of God, acknowledge Him as Lord in all their ways and love Him by obeying Him. Any act not led by the Spirit or any act that is contrary to the Word of God is sin. Exodus 21:10 states, "If he takes another, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marriage rights." It didnÕt depend on her wanting or demanding them. He had to be ready to give to her whether she wanted it or not. In l Corinth. 7:1-4,10,11,39 the separated wife has authority over his body in her right to sexual intimacy with him any time she chooses reconciliation. It is possible that he could know a Christian widow or sister who was burning>99 and under command to marry>100 who had no marital prospects except a Christian man divorced from a chastely separated Christian sister, no other brother wanting to marry her. The divorced Christian man who would like to marry her could be moved as in the following: [Footnote: >99 (1 Cor. 7:9). >100 (1 Tim 5:11- 14).] MKJV 1 JOHN 3:16 ÒBy this we have known the love [of God], because He laid down His life for us. And we ought to lay down [our] lives for the brothers. 17 But whoever has this world's goods and sees his brother having need, and shuts up his bowels from him, how does the love of God dwell in him? 18 My children, let us not love in word or in tongue, but in deed and in truth. 19 And in this we shall know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before Him.Ó He could be moved by her plight and pray for an unencumbered husband for her. But if God doesnÕt provide another and the sister is burning, having great trouble with and almost succumbing to temptations, his continued prayer alone would be empty piety like in the following: MKJV JAMES 2: 14 ¦ ÒMy brothers, what profit [is it] if a man says he has faith and does not have works? Can faith save him?15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and if one of you says to them, Go in peace, be warmed and filled, but you do not give them those things which are needful to the body, what good [is it]? 17 Even so, if it does not have works, faith is dead, being by itself.Ó He would seem to be compelled to intervene, offering himself in marriage to her as he desires anyway, to enable her to obey GodÕs solution for her problem>101 . This could even be the case if his chastely separated and divorced "Christian"Ó wife was carnal and too selfish/rebellious to be moved by her plight and 1 John 3:17 to approve of her divorced Christian manÕs plan to marry her. You donÕt let the saint who seeks GodÕs solution be destroyed because of a carnal saint who resists or refuses compassion and GodÕs solutions. [Footnote: >101 (1 Cor. 7:1,2,3,9; see Appendix Six).] Jesus went ahead and pleased His Father to die for us while his friends and apostles either resisted or could not comprehend the idea. Peter risked the scorn of his fellow apostles when he went to CorneliusÕs house in Acts 10 & 11. Paul rebuked Peter before all and took his stand with the Lord and righteousness when Peter fell into public sin in Galatians 2. If a man is led by the Spirit in conformity with the Word of God to remarry after ÒChristianÓ divorce (let a man examine himself>102 ) then he had better make sure to not forget that his divorced and chastely separated wife is bound to him as wife as long as they both live>103 . He would have to recognize her authority over his body for marital intimacy with her if she ever sought reconciliation. To act contrary to her authority would be the resisting of God's authority in the following: [Footnote: >102 , his motives, his desires, his obligations and make sure they are of 1 John 3:17. >103 1 Cor. 7:11,39; Rom. 7:1-5; Mark 10; Malachi 2.] ROMANS 13: 1 ¦ ÒLet every soul be subject to the higher authorities. For there is no authority but of God; the authorities that exist are ordained by God. 2 So that the one resisting the authority resists the ordinance of God; and the ones who resist will receive judgment to themselves. 3 For the rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the bad. And do you desire to be not afraid of the authority? Do the good, and you shall have praise from it. 4* For it is a servant of God to you for good. For if you practice evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword in vain; for it is a servant of God, a revenger for wrath on him who does evil. 5 Therefore [you] must be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience' sake.Ó Most of the godliest men who had the closest and most blessed relationship with God in the Old Testament were polygynists at some point in their lives. A Godly polygynist is not an oxymoron. A Godly polygynist could be and could have been God's man for that moment in history since polygyny never excluded anyone from God's miraculous blessing and intervention. I believe St. Augustine (4th Century AD) had a good word here for such a man. "But those who have not the virtues of temperance must not be allowed to judge of the conduct of holy men, any more than those in fever of the sweetness and wholesomeness of food. . . If our critics, then, wish to attain not a spurious and affected, but a genuine and sound moral health, let them find a cure in believing the Scripture record, that THE HONORABLE NAME OF SAINT IS GIVEN NOT WITHOUT REASON TO MEN WHO HAD SEVERAL WIVES; and that the reason is this, that the mind can exercise such control over the flesh as not to allow the appetite implanted in our nature by Providence to go beyond the limits of deliberate intention. . . .the holy patriarchs in their conjugal intercourse were actuated not by the love of pleasure, but by the intelligent desire for the continuance of their family. . . .NOR DID THE NUMBER OF THEIR WIVES MAKE THE PATRIARCHS LICENTIOUS. But why defend the husbands, to whose character the divine word bears the highest testimony. . . .">.n90 [Footnote: >n90 The CAPS are Tyler's. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church, Vol. iv; p.290. Yes it is understood that some of the patriarchs, in their conjugal intercourse, might have actually been motivated by the conjugal pleasure of Prov. 5:18,19; Song of Solomon; Eccles. 9:9-------actually obeying God's command.] XVII. POLYGYNY, CONCUBINES AND THE LEADERS OF GOD'S PEOPLE. Husband of one wife: Yes! Definitely! An elder/overseer/bishop/ superintendent of a church must be the husband of only one wife. Are we all elders/overseers/bishops/ superintendents? Clearly not. The unmarried are not. The married who have unruly children are not. Husbands with disrespectful, uncooperative and defiant wives are not. The married and unmarried who are unable to teach are not. All novices are not. Those with a bad reputation, earned or unearned, among the unsaved through slander or misunderstandings are not. Those who donÕt want a church leadership position are not. That includes most of us, and most of us are not covered by the injunction to be the husband of only one wife. 1 Cor. 7:33 and 34 with Eph. 5:22-32 show why an elder can have only one wife: MKJV 1 CORINTH. 7:33ÓBut the [one] who is married cares for the things of the world, how to please [his] wife. 34 The wife and the virgin [are] different. The unmarried woman cares for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she who is married cares for the things of the world, how she may please [her] husband.Ó MKJV EPHES. 5:22 ÒWives, submit yourselves to [your] own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ [is] the head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for it . . . 28 So men ought to love their wives as their [own] bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no man ever yet hated his [own] flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, even as the Lord loves the church. . . . 33 But also let everyone of you in particular so love his wife even as himself, and the wife that she defers to her husband.Ó With one wife would he have the time to invest in the needs of the local church under his care. The local church would be the equivalent of a second wife for him due to the time and energy he would have to invest to do the work well. There are only so many hours in the day and we all have only so much strength and energy. Beyond that the work must fall to some one else. A polygynist church elder would fall short of Matt. 6:33 due to time pressures, - - - - MKJV MATT. 6:33 ÒBut seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added to you.Ó - - - - - -fall into disobedience of the following with his wives, - - - - MKJV 1 CORINTH. 7: 4 ÒThe wife does not have authority over [her] own body, but the husband. And likewise also the husband does not have power [over his] own body, but the wife. 5 Do not deprive one another, unless [it is] with consent for a time, so that you may [give yourselves to] fasting and prayer. And come together again so that Satan does not tempt you for your incontinence.Ó - - - - his prayers would be hindered according to the following - - - - - DARBY 1 PETER 3: 7 Ò[Ye] husbands likewise, dwell with [them] according to knowledge, as with a weaker, [even] the female, vessel, giving [them] honour, as also fellow-heirs of [the] grace of life, that your prayers be not hindered.Ó - - - - - - -and the church would be poorly served due to his lack of time and energy. There is the problem of the polygamous mentality. A man who has learned to love passionately and maritally more than one wife at one time would be more vulnerable to sexual temptation in church ministry than a man who has learned to love passionately and maritally only one wife at a time. A ministering polygamist in a leadership position would be more likely to be tempted to accept the advances/ propositions of an unmarried sister in the church who falls in love with him and he with her. This could result in sex outside of marriage (fornication) or yet another addition to his polygamous "harem". This would stumble the saints and would be a reproach to the unsaved. It would appear that a godly polygamist would have to have a very low profile (no leadership position) in the church. XVIII. POLYGYNY, CONCUBINES AND THE MODERN OR WESTERN CHRISTIAN WOMAN. Why would a Western/Occidental woman ever consider polygyny /concubinage? It is clearly a sin to marry an unsaved person> 104 . She knows she must not marry an unsaved man>105 or a snared-in-sin "saint">106. If a Christian woman in a Western church finds the usual shortage of godly brothers, yet earnestly desires marriage or is commanded to marry>91 she may consider marrying a Christian brother (1) whose ÒChristianÓ wife has divorced him exercising her option>107 to be separate and chaste, or (2) who sinfully divorced his ÒChristianÓ wife who now will not forgive him or be reconciled to him, exercising her option to be separate and chaste. [Footnote: >104 (2 Cor. 6 & 7 etc.). >105 (2 Cor. 6:14-7:2). >106 See Appendix five. >91 See Appendix Six. >107 1 Cor 7:10.] If this Western Christian sister is burning with passion and not successfully controlling her passions and/or imagination consistently, she must marry>92. If she finds herself in repeated defeat morally and spiritually and the only Christian brother who is available or interested is the one who is legally divorced from a Christian wife who wants chaste separation without reconciliation, the choice to marry in Biblical polygyny would be more acceptable than continued burning and moral defeats. It is clearly a sin to marry an unsaved>#5 or backslidden Christian>108 . It is not a sin to exercise personal liberty in Christ in covenanted polygyny .Yes, the polygyny of being married to a divorced Christian man who is bound for life to his former wife who left/ divorced him and refuses to be reconciled to him, exercising her option of chaste separation. [Footnote: >92See Appendix Six. >#5 See Appendix #5. >108 (l Cor. 5:11; 2 Thess 3:6,14).] Would born-again Thusnelda be willing to take the chance of having to share her preciously rare godly husband with a sister-in- Christ Felicia who had previously been married to ThusneldaÕs husband and who now wants reconciliation, even if it had to be informal, discreet and private? Can l John 3:17 mean that Thusnelda, who has a godly husband and sees her sister Felicia in marital need now, should not shut up her own heart from Felicia, according to the Love of God abiding in her? Sarai had a need and asked Abraham to become a polygamist. Rachel had a need and asked polygamist Jacob to take her maids as additional wives. Then Leah did the same and the world got the twelve tribes of Israel. A godly wife should not be selfish, seek her own, but should seek the benefit of others>109 and she who is strong should bear the burden of the weak one>110 as the Spirit and peace of God lead. Consider St. Augustine's thought: [Footnote: >109 (1 Cor l3). >110 (Rom 15).] ÒClearly with the good will of the wife to take another woman, that from her may be born sons common to both, by the sexual intercourse and seed of the one, but by the right and power of the other, was lawful among the ancient fathers: whether it be lawful now also, I would not hastily pronounce....Ó>n93 [Footnote: >n93 St. Augustin: On The Trinity; p. 406.] Does the principle of the good Samaritan enter here? Would godly wife ÒAÓ share her godly husband with the needy godly sister "BÓ, essentially laying down her own life and denying herself for the other? It is definitely not natural or carnal. The only precedents I'm aware of are like the one that involved Ruth, where the widow's need for a husband's care and intimacy to carry on the blood line was taken up by God and he mandated that the brother, married or not, had to marry her and meet her needs>111 The only similar New Testament passages I know of are the following - - - - - - - - - - - [Footnote: >111 (Gen. 38: 9,10,11; Deut.25:5-10; Ruth 4:1-11; Matt 22:24ff; Mark 12: 19ff;Lk. 20:28ff).] MKJV 1 CORINTH. 7: 8 ÒI say therefore to the unmarried and the widows, It is good for them if they remain even as I. 9 But if they do not have self- control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn. . . . 36 ¦ But if anyone thinks [it] behaving himself indecently toward his virginity (if he is past [his] prime, and so it ought to be) let him do what he will; he does not sin; let them marry. 37 But [he] who stands steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but who has authority over [his] own will (and has so judged in his heart that he will keep his virginity) he does well. 38 So then he who gives in marriage does well. But he who does not give in marriage does better. 39* ¦ The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband lives, but if her husband is dead, she is at liberty to be remarried to whom she will, only in the Lord. MKJV 1 TIM. 5: 11 But refuse younger widows, for whenever they grow lustful against Christ, they desire to marry . . .14 Therefore I want the younger ones to marry, bear children, guide the house, giving no occasion to the adversary because of reproach.Ó Here the widow is told to remarry in the Lord but she isn't told who to marry in the Lord. 1 John 3:16,17 could enter here with a Christian brother seeing her marital need and marrying her to minister and serve her as husband (like Ruth & Boaz). Are saints today capable of such mental and Spiritual "self-control" and self denial? A Spirit filled and Spirit led saint could rise to such a level>112 . The women described above would be comparable to St. Augustine's man of the following: [Footnote: >112(Gal. 5 and Phil. 2:13 + 4:13).] "But those who have not the virtues of temperance must not be allowed to judge of the conduct of holy men, any more than those in fever of the sweetness and wholesomeness of food. . . If our critics, then, wish to attain not a spurious and affected, but a genuine and sound moral health, let them find a cure in believing the Scripture record, that THE HONORABLE NAME OF SAINT IS GIVEN NOT WITHOUT REASON TO MEN WHO HAD SEVERAL WIVES; and that the reason is this, that the mind can exercise such control over the flesh as not to allow the appetite implanted in our nature by Providence to go beyond the limits of deliberate intention. . . .the holy patriarchs in their conjugal intercourse were actuated not by the love of pleasure, but by the intelligent desire for the continuance of their family. . . .nor did the number of their wives make the patriarchs licentious. BUT WHY DEFEND THE HUSBANDS, TO WHOSE CHARACTER THE DIVINE WORD BEARS THE HIGHEST TESTIMONY, WHEN IT APPEARS THAT THE WIVES THEMSELVES . . . WHEN THEY FOUND THEMSELVES BARREN, THEY GAVE THEIR HANDMAIDS TO THEIR HUSBANDS; SO THAT WHILE THE HANDMAIDS HAD THE FLESHLY MOTHERHOOD, THE WIVES WERE MOTHERS IN INTENTION .">.n94 [Footnote: >n94 The CAPS are Tyler's. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church, Vol. iv; p.290.] What if he and his wife know a widow or a "sister" abandoned by her unsaved husband who has come under the commands to marry >113 ? They and she cannot find a "brother" for her and she is failing and burning and under the command to marry. Does it become a 1 Jn 3:16,17 situation: [paraphrased] Ô.He laid down His life for us. And we also ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. But whoever has a godly husband and sees her sister in need, shuts up her heart from her refusing to share her husband with her in polygyny , how does the Love of God abide in her?Õ See the following and note that the "brother" is not exempted or excused from this law if he is already married: [Footnote: >113 1 Cor. 7:9; 1 Th. 4:3,4,5 and 1 Tim. 5:11-14] MKJV DEUT. 25: 5 ¦ ÒIf brothers live together, and one of them dies and has no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry outside to a stranger. Her husband's brother shall go in to her and take her as a wife for himself, and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her. . . 7 And if the man does not want to take his brother's wife, then let his brother's wife go up to the gate to the elders and say, My husband's brother refuses to raise up a name in Israel to his brother. He will not perform my levirate. 8 Then the elders of his city shall call him and speak to him. And [if] he stands and says, I do not desire to take her, 9 then his brother's wife shall come to him in the presence of his elders, and take off his shoe from his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done to that man who will not build up his brother's house. 10 And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him who has his shoe taken off.Ó Like the movie, SUBSTITUTE WIFE (Farrah Fawcett), where the wife was dying and knew her husband wouldn't remarry without her intervention, leaving her baby and children motherless, she went out and found a concubine for him and brought her home to him before she died, whom he married and loved after her death at his deceased's request. An American, a normal woman, could only do such a thing by the grace of God. XIX. WHATÕS WRONG WITH POLYANDRY? Why can't a Christian woman have more than one husband? Because God has made it crystal clear in the following: MKJV GENESIS 1: 26 ¦ ÒAnd God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after our likeness. . . . 27 And God created man in His image; in the image of God He created him. He created them male and female. 28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, Be fruitful, and multiply and fill the earth, and subdue it. . .Ó MKJV GENESIS 2: 20 ÒAnd Adam gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field. But there was not found a suitable helper for Adam. 21 ¦ And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept. And He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh underneath. 22 And the LORD God made the rib (which He had taken from the man) into a woman. And He brought her to the man. 23 And Adam said, This [is] now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. [She] shall be called Woman because [she] was taken out of man. 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife and they shall be one flesh.Ó MKJV GEN. 3:16 ¦ ÒTo 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.Ó MKJV 1 CORINTH. 11: 1 ¦ ÒBe imitators of me, even as I also [am] of Christ. 2 But I praise you, brothers, that you remember me in all things, and you keep the doctrines as I delivered [them] to you. 3 But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying with [his] head covered dishonors his Head. . . . 7 For a man indeed ought not to have [his] head covered, because he is the image and glory of God. But the woman is [the] glory of [the] man. 8 For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. 9 Nor was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man. . . . 11 But neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord. 12 For as the woman [is] of the man, even so the man [is] also by the woman; but all things ofGod. Ò Those passages make it very clear that the wife is under the authority of the man even though he is no better no godlier than her. If she joins herself to another while he lives >114 it is adultery, even if she has a perfectly legal divorce decree from the government since GodÕs laws are the final word. So why then does God allow men to have more than one wife but allow a wife to have only one husband? Why the three double standards (e.g>. 1. the male can be polygamous, but not the female; 2. the wife can separate herself chastely from her husband, but he may not separate himself from his wife at all; 3. The wife may not rule over the husband, but the husband must take the lead as her servant and she must make the choice whether or not to follow him)? [Footnote: >114 (l Cor. 7:39 and Romans 7:1-5; Mark 10:1-20).] This does not mean that women are second class citizens in the Kingdom of God, because the Word is clear>115, that even now in the spiritual realm - seated with Christ now in the heavens- there is no difference between males and females in their rights, privileges and responsibilities. In terms of the spiritual warfare and influence seen in Daniel 10 and Ephesians 6:10-20, females and males have equal opportunities to be used of God mightily and effectively. [Footnote: >115 in Galatians 3:26,27,28; Ephesians 2:6, 19-22 and Matthew 19:10-12 and 1 Peter 3:7.] So there is now no difference between the sexes in spirit in Christ in the heavens. But our spirits are also now in our bodies on earth in the realm of Satan, the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now works in the sons of disobedience. Our reborn spirits, the Holy Spirit, now lives in our flesh and blood bodies, which flesh and blood bodies cannot receive our inherit the Kingdom of God and are at war >116 with the Spirit in us. When our bodies are transformed by Jesus they will not have blood and they will obviously have transformed flesh no longer under the influence of hormones, germs etc. [Footnote: >116 (Romans 7:13- 8:11; Galatians 5:16- 26).] So being in the body now has its problems and limitations. Being in the body on earth is a real handicap in terms of the Spirit because we daily have to practice Romans 6:1-14, crucifying the flesh daily>117 . The woman's body was designed and created to help/assist man>118 . Adam needed no spiritual companion because he had spiritual communion with Jesus daily in the garden. His body needed a female body and the female body needed a compatible spirit to be the kind of flesh- spirit helper Jesus designed her to be. They were completely equal in the garden, like we will be in the spiritual realm of the heavens with Christ, especially when we reign on earth with Him for a thousand years after the tribulation. But they failed to obey in the garden and ruined that wonderful arrangement so temporarily we have the Òdouble standardsÓ. [Footnote: >117 (Colos. 3:5). >118 (Gen.2:18; l Cor. 11:1-10).] Genesis 3 and l Corinthians 11 show the tragic consequences of their sin. Yes, their sin. I really like the radio preacherÕs idea that Adam knew that she would die for eating that fruit, so being compelled by his love and need for her he decided to die with her rather than to lose her and so he also ate the fruit. His fear of God was still greater than his love for her, yet not great enough to keep him from eating the fruit, so he blamed her when he was confronted by Christ. Maybe that is why Jesus made such a big deal in Luke 14 etc. that we must love Him more than we love our loved ones. See St. Augustine>.n95 who makes the same points. [Footnote: >.n95 A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church, Vol. V; W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., pp. 267ff.] Yes there are some cultures in the world today where they practice polyandry in matriarchal systems, but that doesn't make it moral or right, no more than the temple prostitutes of India's classical Hinduism makes prostitution right or moral. Pornographers in America present the spectacle of three men having simultaneous intercourse with one woman where the number of the woman's lovers is only limited by the number of orifices in her body that allow penetration. I don't think anyone, especially any godly woman, would argue that this is justification for a woman to have more than one husband at a time. Polyandry may be a way that seems right to some, but the ends thereof are the ways of death and alienation from the God who created the wonder of woman. The male was the rough draft, the female is the masterpiece---- to be handled with tender loving care and thanksgiving to God. XX. HUSBAND RULE OVER THE WIFE? IF SERVANT- TEACHERS RULE . . .? The husband who is said to "rule" over his wife, is the same husband who is commanded over and over again in Eph. 5 to compassionately cherish her. A ruler-husband who compassionately cherishes his wife? Big words, but what do they mean? They mean that when he "rules over" his wife he-------- 1. Meekly (Spiritually controlling his superior strength so as to be gentle) chersihes her without envy or jealousy. 2. Patiently bears ill treatment from her. 3. Is kind and gentle to her. 4. Mellows that which would be harsh or austere for her. 5. Does not brag or show off with her. He is not haughty to her. 6. Does not act unbecomingly with her, free of arrogance or bad manners. 7. Is unselfish and selfless with her, not insisting on his own rights or way. 8. Does not become touchy, resentful, irritated, provoked, exasperated, angry with her. 9. Does not take into account any evil she may do to him, holding no grudges. 10. Does not take pleasure or delight in evil with her. 11. Rejoices with her in the truth. 12. Endures all her things. 13. Optimistically believes her and in her. 14. Hopes the best for and in her. 15. Courageously bears up under all her trying ways. 16. Is committed to let Christ's Love in him for her never fail. 17. Intelligently and wisely conducts his home life with her. 18. Holds her in particular honor, considerately showing all due respect. 19. Renders to her what Christ says is due her, recognizing her sexual authority over his body, not denying her intimate marital affection. [Footnote: See Wuest's Expanded New Testament and the Amplified Bible for 1 Cor.7, 13; Ephes. 5; Luke 22:25,26,27 and 1 Peter3:7] THIS MAKES A GREAT CHECK LIST FOR SELF EVALUATION. Such a ruler would be welcome in any sane and god- fearing realm, with great enthusiasm by the subjects. If the husband is like this to the wife, then the wife would be encourage to behave similarly to her children, and then the children would be encouraged to behave similarly to each other ------ and the world would be a better place. Of course any saint knowledgable in the Word knows that it is impossible for us to generate this behavior on our own. As we reckon our selves indeed to be dead to sin/evil, we yield our minds and bodies to Him and trust Him to work His will in us by His Holy Spirit, inspiring and enabling us to yield ourselves to Him so He can rule and live that way in us (Romans 6; Phil.2:12,13; 4:13; Heb. 13:290,21). The husband "rule" over the wife?!?! "How primitive and barbaric!" But didn't God say to the woman " your desire shall be to your husband, and he shall rule over you"? "That's just the Old Testament! It's irrelevant and out of date, besides being primitive and barbaric!" -------- Well what does God say about people who feel that way? MKJV 1 CORINTH. 14:37 ÒIf anyone thinks to be a prophet, or a spiritual one, let him recognize the things I write to you, that they are a commandment of the Lord. 38 But if any is ignorant, let him be ignorant.Ó MKJV 1 THESS. 4: 8 ÒTherefore he who despises does not despise man, but God, who also has given us His Holy Spirit.Ó MKJV ACTS 7:51 ¦ ÒO stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers [did], so you do.Ó MKJV ROMANS 9: 19 ÒYou will then say to me, Why does He yet find fault? For who has resisted His will? 20 No, but, O man, who are you who replies against God? Shall the thing formed say to Him who formed [it], Why have you made me this way? 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel to honor and another to dishonor?Ó MKJV 2 TIMOTHY 3: 8 ÒBut as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so these also resist the truth, men of corrupt mind, reprobate concerning the faith. 9 But they shall proceed no further. For their foolishness shall be plain to all, as theirs also becameÓ. The husband should not lord it over (exercise lordship) or tyrannize/ suppress the wife, according to the following: MKJV 1 PETER 5: 5 ¦ ÒLikewise, younger ones, be subject to older ones, and all being subject to one another. Put on humility. For God resists proud ones, but He gives grace to the humble. 6 Therefore be humbled under the mighty hand of God, so that He may exalt you in due time . . .Ó MKJV LUKE 22: 25 ÒAnd He said to them, The kings of the nations exercise lordship over them. And they who exercise authority on them are called benefactors. 26 But you [shall] not [be] so: but the greater among you, let him be as the lesser, and he who governs, as [one] who serves.Ó 1 TIM. 2: 9¦ In the same way also, I desire that wives adorn themselves in decent clothing, with modesty and sensibleness, not [adorned] with braiding, or gold, or pearls, or costly clothing, 10* but with good works, which becomes wives professing godliness. 11* Let the wife learn in silence with all subjection. 12* But I do not allow a wife to teach, or to exercise authority [over] a husband, but to be in silence. AND 1 CORINTH. 14:34 Have your wives keep silence >a in the churches, for it is not permitted to them to speak >b , but [they are commanded]to be subjecting >c themselves , as also says the Law. 35. And if they will learn anything, have them ask their husbands at home, for it is a shame for wives to speak in the church. [Footnote: See the Greek for this interpretation: wife and woman is the same Greek word, man and husband is the same Greek word, it is the context that shows what the word means. >a See l Cor. 14:28,30; Acts 12:17; 15:12 for the Greek usage. >b See 1 Cor. 14:27,28,29; Eph. 5:19; Acts 26:26; John 8:44; 9:21. >c See Arndt & Gingrich and Thayer Lexicons] A wife should not obey her husband if and when he tells her to do something that is contrary to the explicit, plain and uncontested Word of God. By "explicit, plain, and uncontested" I mean that the majority of fundamental, orthodox, evangelical and traditional Christian Bible teachers/preachers/ authors agree on the meaning of that portion of scripture, e.g. "Honor your parents!". I don't mean those portions of scripture that are characterized by parables, allegories or symbolism where you find so much disagreement. I mean that if her husband tells her to steal, lie, fornicate or blaspheme, she knows that such conduct is contrary to the will of God for her so she doesn't obey him. On what grounds? Throughout the Bible God makes it plain that we are to obey our parents and the social/civil authorities over us>^. God makes it very plain that if our parents or the social/civil authorities over us tell us to disobey the clear and explicit will of God, we must disobey>* them in order to obey God. This is true of the state over the citizen, parents over children, and husbands over wives. If the one occupying your culture's place of authority over you tells you to do that which is contrary to the clear, explicit and plain Word of God, then you must disobey the one in authority in order to obey God. So the husband who tells his wife not to go to church, pray or read her Bible-----that husband has to be disobeyed, with all due respect, humility, grace and amiability and without preaching, teaching or lecturing>``. [Footnote: >^=(Romans 13; Heb. 13:7,21 etc.). >*Ezek. 20:17,18; Daniel 3:13-18; 5:21; 6:7-11; Deut. 1:13-18; 17:8-13; Acts 4:15-21; 5:20,29,40,42; 23:5. >`` (Luke 6:27-36; Galat. 6:1; 2Tim.2:24-26 and 1 Peter 3:1-6). The husband exercises his authority as "head" of the wife by humbly teaching>119 her what she should do/say and by being a good example of how she should act/speak >120 . THE HUSBAND HAS NO RIGHT TO MAKE HIS WIFE DO WHAT HE WANTS HER TO DO AND HE HAS NO SCRIPTURAL RIGHT TO BOSS OR ORDER HER ABOUT>121 . If his wife resists his lead and authority, or just rebels outright, he can compassionately but firmly admonish and rebuke her humbly and gently according to the following: [Footnote: >119 2 Tim. 2:24-26. >120 (Hebrews 13:7, 17,). >121 (Luke 22:25,26;1 Peter 5:5).] MKJV GALATIANs 6: 1 ¦ ÒBrothers, if a man is overtaken in a fault, you the spiritual ones restore such a one in the spirit of meekness, considering yourself, lest you also be tempted. 2 Bear one another's burdens, and so you will fulfill the law of Christ.Ó MKJV 2 TIMOTHY 2:24 ÒBut the servant of [the] Lord must not strive, but to be gentle to all, apt to teach, patient, 25 in meekness instructing those who oppose, if perhaps God will give them repentance to the acknowledging of [the] truth, 26 and [that] they awake out of the snare of the Devil, having been taken captive by him, so as to do the will of that one.Ó MKJV LUKE 17: 3 ÒTake heed to yourselves. If your brother trespasses against you, rebuke him. And if he repents, forgive him. 4 And if he trespasses against you seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turns again to you, saying, I repent, you shall forgive him.Ó MKJV MATTHEW 18: 15 ¦ ÒBut if your brother shall trespass against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he will not hear [you], take one or two more with you, so that in [the] mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell [it] to the church. But if he neglects to hear the church, let him be to you as a heathen and a tax-collector.Ó MKJV 1 CORINTH. 5: 3 ÒFor as being absent in body but present in spirit, I indeed have judged already [as though I were] present [concerning] him who worked out this thing; 4 in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, with my spirit; also, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ; 5 to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. 8 Therefore let us keep [the] feast; not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened [bread] of sincerity and truth. . . 11 But now I have written to you not to associate intimately, if any man called a brother [and is] either . . . or an idolater, or a reviler, . . . with such a one not to eat.Ó After having done all of the above, when his wife is uncooperative or rebellious, he has to leave the results to the Lord/Spirit even if she is difficult and defiant. THE HUSBAND HAS NO RIGHT OR AUTHORITY FROM GOD TO FORCE, COERCE OR INTIMIDATE HIS WIFE IN ORDER TO MAKE HER GIVE IN UNWILLINGLY AND DO WHAT HE WANTS HER TO DO>122 His business and duty is to compassionately cherish her. [Footnote: >122 (Luke 22:25,26;1 Peter 5:5; Eph. 6:9; Col. 4:1)] When her husband is verbally or physically abusive, dictatorial, tyrannical, unkind, harsh and/or wicked, the Godly wife FIRST>^ should fast and pray for her husband who spitefully abuses her, do good to her husband who hates her, bless him when he curses her>^, humbly and meekly tell him privately what he is doing that offends and grieves her>`,flee for her life as she offers her cheek (from a safe distance) to the dog-husband who strikes her>*; and SECONDLY get her local fellowship group to do Matt. 18:15-20 and/or 1Cor.5:5-14. Then she has to leave the results to the Lord/Spirit if he is difficult and defiant. Her business and duty is to compassionately cherish him and show respect to him even if he has failed the Matt. 18 test and she now relates to him as to an unsaved person>¤. [Footnote: >^ Luke 6:27-42. >` Matt.18:15-18;Gal.6:1; 2Tim.2:24-28. >*Matt. 10:23; 1Cor.7:10,11; Prov.1:10- 19; Prv. 2:10-22. >¤ Eph.5:22-34; Matt.18:17] What a shame most women have no idea of what the average male's testosterone sex drive does to him. Granted about half of males have low mid-range to low testosterone levels as well as nocturnal emission, so they have little or no problem turning off or on their sex lives. The low testosterone level males may have a great deal of difficulty turning on their sex lives. Women have no idea that the sex drive in that half of the male who have mid to high testosterone levels in their blood is as strong and compelling as the hunger drive when the stomach is growling and cramping for lack of food; or as the thirst drive when the tongue, throat and mouth are so dry it is even difficult to talk; as the rest drive when it is impossible to keep the eyes open or the body erect due to utter exhausion. These same women would not normally ignore such hunger/thirst signs, nor say that they would take cold showers and exercise to overcome such hunger/thirst signs. If they chose to fast, go without food and drink, by the second day they would be too weak to do their daily work and chores, and by the third day they would be too weak walk far or stand for long periods of time. As one who has fasted and prayed three days without food or drink, I know. Yet they fault the mid to high testosterone blood level male for not being able to ignore his compelling sex drive and do without. When the men who are not blessed with natural nocturnal emission (wet dreams) have gone without sexual release for several days, the prostrate becomes so congested that it begins to squeeze shut the uretha so they cannot urinate normally and the effect on the brain is that those males are so distracted and distractable, especially by anything female, that quite literAlly their minds could be said to be weakened in that it is very difficult to concentrate or focus on necessary tasks. If women could think of their nasal sinuses being so congested that they cannot breath, or of the problems with urination that a woman has with urination when 8 or 9 months pregnant, then maybe they could understand the problems prostrate congestion can cause. Without release, ejaculation, they could become so distracted and distractable by anything that, as with too much alcohol, their judment and thinking is impaired and foolish (risky), dangerous (AIDS,HIV) or irrational behaviour results. To help his wife or daughter understand the effect of testosterone on a male in relationship with his woman whom he loves and desires passionately, a man might do the following. (1) Take his lady out to eat her favorite meal. Order the meal, talking it up to maximize her anticipation and desire for it (2). When the meal is served, ask her take a minute to look carefully at each item (how it is arranged, how it appears). Ask her to smell each item. Ask her to take one fork/spoon serving of each item and eat it, one at a time. Ask her if she is pleased and still wants it (3). If she replies that she is ready and eager to eat and wants no more delay, then gently, sweetly, carefully ask/beg/entreat her to trust you in what you are about to do and that she go along with what you are about to do. If she will cooperate, ask the waiter/waitress to doggy bag the meal(4). She will probably need a lot of reassurance at this point, so tell her that if she will go along with you it will significantly improve her marriage. Hopefully she will believe you, reluctantly. Ask her to carry the bagged food in the car on her lap, or on the floor at her feet. Turn on the heater of your car with a little floor heat so the smell of the food will rise to her face(5). When you get home, ask her to carry it and put it in the refrigerator (6). She will probably need more encouragement to do this. Ask/beg/entreat her to trust you and cooperate. Ask her if she likes the way that the evening has gone so far. Ask her how she feels about her favorite meal, cooling off in the refrigerator. Sit her down and gently, compassionately and wisely explain to her what follows next. The Òfavorite mealÓ to him is HER (1). He approaches, anticipates, and awaits her with eager expectation(2). Tell her that everytime he sees, smells, hears, touches and/or tastes her lips/skin, it is what she felt above (3). Explain that the bagging of the food in front of her (4) is what he feels when she says to him ÒHoney! Not tonight.Ó, ÒI have a headache and I just donÕt feel like it right now.Ó, ÒAll you think of is sex! Chill out baby! Not tonight!Ó, ÒWhat have you done lately to deserve it, baby?Ó. Explain to her that the carrying of the pleasantly aromatic food home on her lap in the car is like when he is near her but canÕt feast on her, canÕt fully enjoy her(5). Explain that her putting the nice warm and delicious food in the refrigerator is what he experiences when he has to go to bed or part from her without having had the honor, the privilege, the delightful pleasure, the soul fulfilling experience of feasting on her and her many delectables (6). Explain patiently and gently and that for him his sexual drive is an appetite, and his appetite is for her - his favorite feast. Explain that to be near her is like ordering and receiving his favorite meal, her. Explain that when he is denied his compelling hunger and thirst for her, it is painful and hard to bear. Explain that it is a soul wrenching experience. Explain that he NEEDS he even more than he WANTS her. Appeal to her experience with the deferred meal to understand how frustrating and emotionally troubling it is to be denied her. If nothing else, lay the Word on her---- how it is the will of God for her to feed the hungry, and seeing his need and her ability to meet it -- pray that she will be moved with compassion and meet his need. And explain that his responsibility is to receive the wonderful and gracious gift that she is and has, is to gently and kindly and thoughtfully enjoy her--- seeking to give her as much pleasure as possible. If he doesnÕt do that, then he is the swine that had pearls thrown before him, the fool who has no idea of the value of his precious possession and hides it away from all, even from himself. If the smile and expressions of delight on her face and the utterances of fulfillment and ecstasy on her lips are not as important to him as his hunger for and need of her, then he is unworthy of her. Perhaps such an unworthy one could show genuine repentance (2Cor7) and humble himself under the mighty hand of His God and under the authority He has given his wife over his body, and become a learner of how to please and delight his woman. A man who acts like Nabal with his wife, will surely face the fate of a Nabal. As a male with mid to high testosterone and no nocturnal emission when I was in high school, my Urologist (Vital Haynes,MD), told me I had a few options to prevent my recurring prostrate congestion. He said that I, at age 17, could either get married and be intimate frequently, be promiscuous frequently, self-stimulate quite frequently, become homosexual (the penis in the anus squeezes the seminal fluid out of the prostrate), or come into his office two to three times a week for him to massage/press the seminal fluid out of my prostrate (too expensive and embarassing). Cold showers, exercise and being spiritual just did not empty the prostrate so I could urinate normally and have my mind clear of testosterone distractions. For the mid to high testosterone male, sexual release is just as much as physical need as food, drink, and sleep. The question such men have to deal with is, "How can I have the testosterone release I need so I can take care of daily business and be acceptable to Jesus?" The obvious answer is marriage (1 Cor. 7:1,2,5,9) with a wife who understands his sexual needs and is committed to ministering to him in his need in Christ, and as unto Christ (Matt. 25:34,35,36), so that his physical need of the release/ejaculation can be met and they can get on with their lives. The closest the female comes to this experience is in her PMS where her mind is bombarded with hormones etc. making many to be quite distracted and temporarily not their normal selves. It is extremely difficult for a woman to understand that testosterone can make a godly man REALLY NEED (not just want) the physical marital love making of a godly wife. It is not just a matter of the will and the mind, just like the physical needs for food, drink and sleep. XXI. THREE CHEERS FOR MONOGAMY!! THE BEST FOR MOST!! ÒThat 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.Ó >n128 [Footnote: >.n128 A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church,Vol. V; p. 267.] Monogamy is not monotony, no matter what the world may say. Those that maintain that monogamy is monotony seem to have no idea of loving one's wife wisely or as Christ loves the Church. If one's love for one's wife is limited to the physical, the sexual and only a superficial understanding of her personality, then monogamy could be monotonous. That monotony is an indictment of an uninspired and unloving lover. If you studied your mate, learned her learning style, mastered her personality type, determined her spiritual gifts and their possible applications, studied her body's erogenous zones, mastered personal body massage where she likes it best, perfected your skills in bringing her to climax, with creativity explored the perfumes and scented massage oils that delight her, meditated on her goals and needs and helped her in quest to meet them, diligently listened and questioned her so as to be able to more effectively pray and intercede for her, fasted and prayed for her where she is experiencing serious problems or personal defeat, and zealously sought how the two of you can more effectively deal with the household chores, then I doubt seriously that your monogamy will be monotonous. But that brings up another advantage of monogyny, because we have only so much time and only so much energy and only so much mental ability. If it is such a formidable challenge to love one wife well and in a manner well pleasing to Christ, not many would have the ability to love more than one wife well and in a manner well pleasing to Christ. If you had a choice, a realistic and hard working parent would prefer monogamy simply for the reduced needs and demands. The Christian male who thinks of women, and specifically his own wife, only in terms of sex and erotic pleasures is probably not going to have much of a prayer life since God wont be answering his prayers>233 , is probably not going to live long since God going to be faithful to chasten her with weakness, sickness or death for his insensitive and unwise conduct towards her>234 [Footnote: >233 (1Pet.3:7;1 Jn 3:22). >234 (1 Cor. 11:27-32).] Look at the energy expended by Solomon and the Shulamite! Right out of the honey moon manual, but only the leisurely rich and famous could have the time to maintain that on an ongoing basis. Most wives would be delighted to be loved in this manner, and once they've experienced it there remains an appetite for it. Your average Elias might be able to pull it off for a while, with more than one wife even, but even if it is only with one wife that peak activity will decline, if from nothing else but fatigue, and then there will be disappointment felt by the wife, and possible frustration and a sense of inadequacy for the husband. These negative emotions don't make for a happy marriage. If a godly man finds himself in a polygamous situation, I'm sure that the 2 Cor. 8 & 9 principle of being accepted based on one's willingness instead of on one's possessions would hold here, and hopefully his wives would be spiritual enough to understand and allow for it, giving him credit for doing the best he can do. The command that you should have no other gods before Jehovah seems to be one reason from Deut. 17:17 where it is stated that too many wives will cause the heart of such a lover of many wives to turn away from following Jehovah with his whole heart. This ties in with 1 Cor. 7:32-35 which shows that wives distract one from serving the Lord and too many wives distract the husband too much for the family's spiritual good. A man who is covetous of having many wives could be guilty of idolatry, loving polygyny more than Jesus>235 . We should be content with what we have maritally>236 . [Footnote: >235 (Eph. 5:5,6). >236 (1 Tim. 6:5- 9 and 1 Cor. 7:9,26-35).] The bottom line for the child, being led by the Spirit who works in him to will and do His good pleasure>237 , is that celibacy, marriage or polygamy is not really up to him if he acknowledges Jesus as Lord. The Lord is the Lord and He gives the gifts. Celibacy, marriage, or polygamy are gifts from the Lord and the obedient and loving child of God waits on his Father and Lord to give His servant the appropriate gift>238 . If he is called to marriage, God will also call one of His daughters to marry the blessed bloke, also giving her the gift of marriage. If he is called to polygyny, if that is his gift from his Father and Lord, then his wives will also be called to polygyny. God's grace will be sufficient if he is called/saved in monogyny or in polygyny. He doesn't give us impossible callings, since nothing is impossible for Him as He works out His will in us. [Footnote: >237 (Rm.8:14; Ph 2:13). >238 (1 Cor. 7:7,8,9,17-27).] Since godly polygyny really requires the Spiritual fruits of unity>239 and sharing>240 even more so than monogyny, the Spiritual challenge of walking in the Spirit would be even greater requiring a close walk with the Lord. If it weren't His gift and calling for each member of the polygynist family, it would be completely impossible to maintain on a voluntary basis. With His gift and calling, they can do all things in Christ>241 . There is no dispute that marital harmony, sharing and unity would be much easier in monogamy. It's easy to see why God ordained that elders, deacons, bishops, church overseers, deacons etc. had to be monogynists, since they have to deal with all the people and issues in their care in the Church. Polygynists have their hands full with the people and the issues of the church in their home. [Footnote: >239 (Ep. 4:1-5). >240 (Acts 4:32-37; 2 Cor. 8 & 9). >241 (Ph. 4:13).] "If a man desires the position of a bishop/overseer, he desires a good work">242 . Part of that "good work" is a monogamous marriage. We are to follow/imitate their faith>243 and part of their faith is that they believe they were called to be a Church leader and as such, called to have a monogamous marriage. We are to support and imitate their walk of faith, their walk in their calling, and their trust in His leading. [Footnote: >242 (1 Tm 3:1). >243 (Heb. 13:7).] So each one of us needs to wait on our Lord for his leading>244 , His gifts>245 , and His enabling>246 . Our church leaders are monogamous. Christ presents Himself as the Church's Overseer as the monogamous husband of one wife. In the Old Testament He portrayed Himself as both monogamous >247 and polygamous >248 as husband to Israel. He knows what He can do in us, and being the God of 1 Cor. 10:13 and Ph. 4:13, He knows how much we can handle so He gives the gifts and leadings accordingly. [Footnote: >244 (Rom. 8:14). >245 (1 Cor.7:7,8,9 etc.). >246 (Ph.2:13;4:13).>247 (Ezek. 16) . >248 (Ezek. 23).] Our responsibility is obedience and contentment. For His blessing to be upon us, we must walk in obedience to His calling and leading>249 . For us to be blessed by Him in our walk, we must be content with what He gives and how He leads>250 . To go beyond and get more than His will is to trespass and He is faithful to chasten. To know to do right and then not do it is sin, and He is faithful to chasten. Strait is the way and narrow. Few there be that find it. [Footnote: >249 (Heb. 5:8,9; Jn. 14:15). >250 (1 Tm. 6:3-19).] ÒNoah, Isaac, and Joseph had only one wife, and domestic happiness in the Bible is always connected with monogamy>.n129 (2 K 4, Ps 128, Pr 31, Sir 25,,,). The marriage figure applied to the union of God and Israel. . . .. implied monogamy as the ideal state. Polygamy is, in fact, always an unnatural development from the point of view both to religion and of anthropology; 'monogamy is by far the most common form of human marriage; it was so also amongst the ancient peoples of whom we have any direct knowledge' (Westermarck, Hum. Marr. p. 459). Being, however, apparently legalized, and having the advantage of precedent, it was long before polygamy was formally forbidden in Hebrew society >n130 , though practically it fell into disuse; the feeling of the Rabbis was strongly against it.Ó>n131 [Footnotes:>.n129 Always? What about the divorce statistics in our modern and monogamous America? Also, Solomon and the Shulamite seemed to have a great deal of domestic happiness in their polygamy according to the Song of Solomon 6. >.n130 "Polygamy was not definitely forbidden among the Jews till the time of R. Gershom (c. A.d. 1000), and then at first only for France and Germany. In Spain, Italy,m and the East it persisted for some time longer, as it does still among the Jews in Mohammedan counties". HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE; p.584. >..n131 HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE; pp. 583-587.] ÒMonogamy is implicit in the story of Adam and Eve, since God created only one wife for Adam. Yet polygamy is adopted from the time of Lamech (Gn. iv. 19), and is not forbidden in Scripture. It would seem that God left it to man to discover by experience that His original institution of monogamy was the proper relationship. . .Ó >n132 [Footnote: >..n132 The New Bible Dictionary, J.D. Douglas Ph.D ; p.787.] ÒThe gradual evolution in the OT of monogamy as the ideal is therefore of the highest interest. The earliest codes attempt in various ways to regulate the custom of polygyny. The Deut. code in particular actually forbids kings to multiply wives (Dt 17.17); this is the fruit, apparently of the experience of Solomon's reign.Ó>n133 [Footnote: >.n133 HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE; p.259..] XXII. THE WORD. James 4:13 Go to now, you who say, To-day or to- morrow will we go into such a city and spend a year there, and traffic and make gain, 14 you who do not know what will be on the morrow, ([for] what [is] your life? It is even a vapor, appearing for a little while, and then disappearing,) 15 instead of your saying, If the Lord should [so] will and we should live, we will also do this or that. 16 But now you glory in your vauntings: all such glorying is evil. 17 To him therefore who knows how to do good, and does it not, to him it is sin. He would have us make marital affirmations and marital declarations of intentions, all qualified with "If the Lord will". Vows and covenants are inherently boastings about one's future performance, something we have no right to do. James 5:12 ¦ But before all things, my brethren, swear [solemnly promise/vow/covenant See Appendix #7] not, neither by heaven, nor by the earth, nor by any other oath; but let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay, that you do not fall under judgment. Here and in Matt.5 God makes it real clear we have no business making solemn promises, vows or covenants without the "If the Lord will". But what if we observe the tradition of men and have the traditional wedding vows and covenants? Psalm 15:1 ¦ Jehovah, who shall sojourn in your tent? who shall dwell in the hill of your holiness? 2 He that walks uprightly, and works righteousness, and speaks the truth from his heart. . . . 4 . . .who, if he have sworn [solemnly promised/covenanted/vowed] to his own hurt, changes it not; . . If you solemnly promised, vowed or covenanted to do something that is not contrary to the will of God as expressed in the Bible, better stick to it and keep it because each time you don't, there is sin on your head. Eccles. 5:2 Be not rash with your mouth, and let not your heart be hasty to utter anything before God: for God is in the heavens, and you upon earth; therefore let your words be few. 3 . . .and a fool's voice through a multitude of words. 4 ¦ When you vow a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for he has no pleasure in fools: pay that which you have vowed. 5 Better is it that you should not vow, than that you should vow and not pay. 6 Suffer not your mouth to cause your flesh to sin; neither say you before the angel, that it was an inadvertence. Wherefore should God be wroth at your voice, and destroy the work of your hands? No need for comment. The Word speaks for itself, and it certainly does include wedding vows that are not contrary to the will of God in the Bible. SEE Eccles. 5: 5-7; Malachi 2:7; Prov. 20:25; Acts 5:4; Psalms 50:14; 76:11; 66:13,14. Ezekiel 16:59 For thus says the Lord Jehovah: I will even deal with thee as thou have done, who has despised the oath, and broken the covenant. . . . 17: 15 But he rebelled against him . . . Shall he prosper? shall he escape that does such things? shall he break the covenant, and yet escape? . . . 16 [As] I live, says the Lord Jehovah, verily in the place of the king that made him king, whose oath he despised, and whose covenant he broke, even with him, in the midst of Babylon, shall he die. . . .18 He despised the oath, and broke the covenant; and behold, he had given his hand, yet hath he done all these things: he shall not escape. 19 Therefore thus says the Lord Jehovah: [As] I live, verily, mine oath which he hath despised, and my covenant which he hath broken, even it will I recompense upon his head. 20 And I will spread my net upon him, and he shall be taken in my snare; . . . Malachi 2:14 Yet you say, Wherefore? Because Jehovah has been a witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt unfaithfully: yet is she your companion, and the wife of your covenant. 15 And did not one make [them]? and the remnant of the Spirit was his. And wherefore the one? He sought a seed of God. Take heed then to your spirit, and let none deal unfaithfully against the wife of his youth, 16 (for I hate putting away, says Jehovah the God of Israel;) and he covers with violence his garment, says Jehovah of hosts: take heed then to your spirit, that you deal not unfaithfully. The unfaithfulness here is the unfaithfulness to the wedding vows/ covenants which takes the form of putting away (divorcing) one's mate. Romans 1:28 And according as they did not think good to have God in [their] knowledge, God gave them up to a reprobate mind to practice unseemly things; . . . 31 void of understanding, faithless [covenant breaking, undutiful], without natural affection, unmerciful; 32 who knowing the righteous judgment of God, that they who do such things are worthy of death, not only practice them, but have fellow delight in those who do [them]. Romans 2:5 . . . God, 6 who shall render to each according to his works: 7 to them who, in patient continuance of good works, seek for glory and honor and incorruptibility, life eternal. 8 But to those that are contentious, and are disobedient to the truth, but obey unrighteousness, [there shall be] wrath and indignation, . . . Is there any question about what will happen to the mate who breaks or disregards the marital affirmations/covenants/vows? In case you missed it, they were death, wrath and God's personal indignation. It is in your own self interest to abide by you marital affirmations/covenants/vows. Why be a fool and get burned for it? The document now under your consideration is an appendix to the book MY LOVE IS A GARDEN OF DELIGHTS! , a commentary on the Song of Solomon for Christian polygynists and concubines. $10 USA--$14 overseas/foreign/ Canada/Mexico -- for postage, copying and handling of MY LOVE IS A GARDEN OF DELIGHTS! XXIII. BIBLIOGRAPHY >1. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church, Vol. IV; edited by Philip Schaff (D.d., LL.D.); W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids Mich; 1956 >2. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church, Vol. V; edited by Philip Schaff (D.d., LL.D.); ; W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids Mich; 1956; p. 267 >3. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church, Vol. VIII; edited by Philip Schaff (D.d., LL.D.) and Henry Wace (D.D.) ; W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids Mich; 1956 >4. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church, Vol. XIV; edited by Philip Schaff (D.D., LL.D.) and Henry Wace (D.D.) ; W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids Mich; 1956 >5. Amplified Bible, The; 1965, Zondervan Publishing House >6. ANALYTICAL GREEK LEXICON, THE: Harper & Brothers, New York >7. Arndt & Gingrich: A GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT and Other Early Christian Literature ; By W.F.Arndt & F. W. Gingrich; The Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, Ill.; Cambridge at the Univ. Press.; 1957 >8. ASV: The Holy Bible, American Standard Version 1901 & 1929; Thomas Nelson & Sons, New York >9. Gold Cord, by Amy Carmichael, Christian Literature Crusade, Fort Worthington, Penna.; London's Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge, Holy Trinity Church, Marylebone Rd., N.W. (N.Y. The Macmillan Company). >10. CUSTOMS AND CULTURES, Anthropology for Christian Missions, by Eugene A. Nida1954, Harper & Brothers, New York >11. Darby's 1890 translation: Most of the scriptures quoted in this work, if not otherwise indicated, are from the a modernized version of J. N. Darby's translation, the OnLine Bible computer program of "Online Bible f ", Ken Hammil 1-908-741-4298; [E-Mail: khamel@aol.com]. >12. DIVORCE, John Murray, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co. \ >13. G. Duty's book on divorce and remarriage , Downers Grove, Ill. >14. HASTING'S DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE; 1989, Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., Peabody, Mass;, Editor James Hastings, DD., >15. I LOVED A GIRL; Walter Trobisch, Inter-Varsity Press, Downers Grove, Ill. >16. INTERNATIONAL BIBLE COMMENTARY, THE; Editor, F.F.Bruce; 1979; Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids Michigan. >17. Jay Adam'sÕ book on divorce and remarriage >18. JEWISH: The Holy Scriptures according to the Masoretic Text, 1955, The Jewish Publication Society. >19. KINSHIP & MARRIAGE, Robin Fox, 1967, Penguin Books, Inc., USA & England >20. LAMSA: The Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts, 1940, Holman Co., by G. Lamsa. >21. MARRIAGE EAST AND WEST; David & Vera Mace, 1960, Dolphin Books, Double Day & Co., Inc. Garden City, NY >22.MARRYING AGAIN; David Hocking, 1977, Fleming H. Revell Co. >23. MKJV: MODERN KING JAMES VERSION, 1993, by Jay P. Green Sr., in Online Bible 2.5.1; the OnLine Bible computer program of "Online Bible f ", Ken Hammil 1- 908-741-4298; [E-Mail: khamel@aol.com]. >24. MY WIFE MADE ME A POLYGAMIST; Walter Trobisch, 1971, Inter-Varsity Press, >25. NASB: Holy Bible New American Standard; Broadman & Holman Publishers, Nashville Tenn.; The Lockman Foundation, 1977 >26. NEB: NEW ENGLISH BIBLE, 1970; Oxford/Cambridge University Press >27. NEW BIBLE DICTIONARY, THE; Editor J.D.Douglas Ph.D; 1962; W. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, Mich. >28. NEW TESTAMENT GREEK FOR BEGINNERS, By, J. Gresham Machen, D.D, Litt. D.,1959 >29. NIV: "Scripture taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION. Copyright @ 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society." Used as required by Zondervan Bible Publishers. >30. NKJV: New King James Version, 1984, Thomas Nelson, Inc. >31. OnLine Bible computer program of "Online Bible f ", Ken Hammil 1-908-741-4298; [E-Mail: khamel@aol.com]. >32. PLEASE HELP ME! PLEASE LOVE ME!; Walter Trobisch, Inter-Varsity Press, >33. St. Augustin: On The Trinity; translated by Arthur West Haddan, B.D.; W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids Mich; 1956 >34. StrongÕs Lexicon, Open Bible "Online Bible f", Ken Hammil 1-908-741- 4298. Also Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Mich. >35. Thayer: Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament; Joseph Henry Thayer, D.D.; American Book Co., New York, 1889 >36. The Septuagint of the Old Testament and Apocrypha With an English Translation; Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan; 1972; Samuel Bagster & Sons, Ltd. London >37. WOMEN'S LIVES IN MEDIEVAL EUROPE - A SOURCEBOOK; Edited by Emile Amt; Routledge, Chapman, Hall; NY, NY; 1993 >38. Wuest's THE NEW TESTAMENT, An Expanded Translation, Kenneth S. Wuest, 1961 >39. YLT; Young's Literal Translation, 1898: OnLine Bible computer program of "Online Bible f ", Ken Hammil 1-908-741-4298; [E-Mail: khamel@aol.com]. The document now under your consideration is an appendix to the book MY LOVE IS A GARDEN OF DELIGHTS! , a commentary on the Song of Solomon for Christian polygynists and concubines. $10 USA--$14 overseas/foreign/Canada/ Mexico -- for postage, copying and handling of MY LOVE IS A GARDEN OF DELIGHTS! APPENDIX ONE: WHAT ABOUT RACISM & INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE? American racists (like those in the KKK, the White CitizensÕ Council, the Aryan leagues, the Nazis, the Skinheads, a surprising number of So. Bapt. ministers, certain race supremists, etc.) have dared to use the Word of God to validate and confirm their erroneous and nonChristlike teachings that one race is (or some races are) inherently superior to another (or to others) and therefore some people have rights and privilieges that other people donÕt have ----- and for sure they must never intermarry. Well, we know what these evil doers think, --letÕs see if the Bible agrees. First of all, during the civil rights movement of the 1940Õs -70Õs, many Bible belters and So. Baptists taught that all Blacks were ordained to servitude and/or slavery by God because Noah cursed one of his descendants to be Òa servant of servantsÓ to his brethren, the rest of us, since only Noah and his descendants survived the flood. Gen. 9:22 makes it crystal clear that Ham, NoahÕs son, erred seeing his fatherÕs/parentsÕ genitals. Gen. 9:24, 25 makes it equally clear that even though Ham is the one who erred, it was HamÕs son Canaan --- NOT HAM ---that was cursed to be Òservant of servantsÓ to the rest of us. If you check Gen. 10 with 1 Chronicles 1 and any orthodox Bible atlas, you will see that Canaan settled in Canaan (Surprise?!?!), aka the Promised Land, which is part of the Mid East, not Africa. I think even the KKK admits that Africans/Blacks came from Africa where THE REST of HamÕs children settled and parented Africans. So according to the Bible, it was Canaanites, NOT AFRICANS, who were cursed to be Òservant of servantsÓ to the rest of us. Whether God honored NoahÕs curse on Canaan, or NoahÕs curse was a prophecy,the point remains that in the time of Moses and Joshua we see the Canaanites under GodÕs curse of destruction. Why? Even in AbrahamÕs time, the Canaanites manifested their ungodly inclination in Sodom and Gomorrah with their fornication, sodomy and homosexuality. By the time of Moses, the Canaanites peoples under GodÕs curse of destruction had given themselves over to live human infant sacrifices to their gods, sex with temple/grove/high place prostitutes as an act of worship of their gods, sodomy, homosexuality, witchcraft, sorcery, and attempts to contact the dead. God would curse any people with destruction who did such things (Romans 1:22-32). It makes no difference to the spiritually blind and hardened that modern ethnological biology confirms what the Bible tells us, that we are all descendants of ÒEveÓ, one ancestor, making us all kinfolks. Only the most ignorant and unlearned believe as fact that Africans, like MosesÕs wife -- JosephÕs wife, SolomonÕs Shulamite, JeremiahÕs Ethiopian Ebedmelech, PhillipÕs Ethiopian Eunech --- are not homo sapiens like Asians and Caucasians. The writings of Ashley Montagu and Frederick S. Hulse alone document the fact that there is no fixed or significant inherent difference between the races (except for hair, face shape and skin color), even Caucasian and Black/African. It makes no difference to the spiritually blind and hardened that ÒHe has made of one blood all nations of men to dwell on all the face of the earth. . . Therefore, then, as we are the offspring/race of God. . . He has given assurance to all, in that He raised Him from the dead.Ó [Acts 17:24-31; Rom. 9:21]. Science had to wait until the 20th century to prove what the Bible said almost 2000 years ago, that all nations of men are made of one blood, with all its various types. Is interracial marriage a sin? Is it a "sexual perversion" as some preachers and teachers maintain (See the New Open Bible's Topical Index under "Abominations" by Wick Broomall)? Thomas Nelson publishers of the New Open Bible have put it in writing that they are going to remove "Racial intermarriage" from "Abominations" because the idea of racial intermarriage being an abomination to God is so inappropriate scripturally. [I] Interracial marriage, in and of itself, is never described in the Bible, defined or listed as a sin, trespass, transgression or an evil. In the Old Testament Israel was commanded not to marry the pagan people of Palestine . . .the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, the Jebusites, and certain peoples of Canaan, specifically because they had been appointed to death for their gross sins. [Exodus 23:20-33;34:10-16; Deut. 7:1-3; Ezra 9 & 10. See also Ezra 9 and Nehemiah 9.] In the New Testament after Pentecost, the Church is commanded not to marry sinners, saints snared in sin, "saints" living in sin and unrepentant, and the unsaved. The Church was commanded not to marry peoples based on the unsaved or undelivered spiritual status of peoples, not based on any physical, racial or ethnic criteria. In fact, after Acts 10-15 and Galatians 2, Christ gave us Gal. 3:28; Colos. 3:10, 11; 2 Cor. 4:18 and 5:12,16. Before Acts 10 the apostles were obeying Christ's word in Matt. 23:1-3 and therefore they would not eat with, marry or associate with non-Jews. As long as they were Jews, whether devout Ethiopians (Acts 8) or devout men from every other nation under heaven (Acts2:5), there was no social discrimination based on race or ethnicity. The world dwelt in two camps based on spiritual criteria, Jews and non-Jews. Any devout Jew of any race or nation was free to marry any devout Jew of any race or nation, except for those few Palestinian nations condemned in Deut. 6, Ezra 9 and Nehemiah 9. After Acts 10 - 15 the world lay in two new camps, those in Christ and those outside of Christ, those in the Bride of Christ and those outside of the Bride of Christ. Christ tells us in Gal. 3:28 + Col. 3:10,11 terms of eternal reality, that there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female, neither barbarian nor Scythian. The eternal reality of our relationships is no longer based on our bodies, our national origin, our race, or our social status. These are not the factors that determine our behavior towards each other, including marriage. The factors that determine our behavior towards each other, including marriage, are unseen - invisible - spiritual. [> 2 Corinth. 4:17,18; 10:7; Luke 16:15]. We no longer are to take pride in, have confidence in, boast of, lift up or exalt that which appears, our appearance; but we are to take pride in, have confidence in, lift up and exalt the spiritual realities of the regenerated heart or soul [ 2 Corinth. 5:12; 10:7;Luke 16:15] . We pick our mates based not on their physical appearance or physical heritage, but on the nature of their regenerated hearts and souls. We are commanded by God Himself to NO LONGER be acquainted with, stand in relationship to or have knowledge [ 2 Cor. 5:16; 10:7; Luke 16:15: See Arndt and Gingrich Greek & English Lexicon p. 558.] of another human being "on the physical plane" or "simply as a physical being" [ 2 Cor. 5:16; 10:7;Luke 16:15: See Arndt & Gingrich Greek & English Lexicon pp. 408, 409.] . We must look at and relate to each person in terms of their soul and spirit for therein lies the reality with which we are called by Christ to deal. We must not relate to or know anyone on the basis of their physical appearance or physcial heritage. That means that a husband and wife should celebrate and enjoy sex , a very physical act and experience, not on the basis of the attractiveness or unattractiveness of their physical appearance or physical ancestry, but on the basis that they are commanded by God to sexually have each other and be sexually affectionate [1 Corinth. 7:2,3,4,5; Titus 2:4; Prov. 5:18,19; Song of Solomon]. Marital sex is as much a Spiritual God ordained ministry as is feeding the hungry, clothing the naked and giving drink to the thirsty. Isn't it obvious that the husband and wife should be as creative, zealous and devoted in their sexual ministry to each other, being sexually dependent on each other, as they would be in their ministry to the thirsty, hungry and unclothed who are dependent on them. Since they are called to do their sexual ministry to each other, doing it as unto the Lord (meaning they would do their very best in order to please Jesus), you would expect excellence, creativity, originality and first class performance. That is an example of how a Spiritual people who know each other in terms of the Spirit, not in terms of their bodies or the visible, use the opportunity of their bodies or the visible to serve each other and the God who called them. It is fairly common knowledge that we don't "wrestle against flesh and blood" [ Ephes. 6:12; 2 Corinth. 10:3,4,5,6,7] in the spiritual battles we fight daily and some of us see ourselves in that struggle, but we also should daily reckon ourselves to be "blessed with all spiritual blessings" and seated together in the spirtual realm in Christ [ Ephes. 1:3-14; 2:5-10] because that IS the reality of our daily lives and we miss mark and the blessing when we live and act without that awareness. [II.] Marriage and/or engagement with certain specific peoples was expressly and explicitly forbidden in the Word of God [a] Israelite marriage and/or engagement with the people of the Land of Canaan, Palestine, was expressly and explicitly forbidden. Exodus 23:20- 33;34:10-16; Deut. 7:1-3; Ezra 9 & 10: the pagan people of Palestine . . .the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites ...You shall make no . . . marriages with them ... See also Ezra 9 and Nehemiah 9. [b] Marriage and/or engagement with people who do not obediently believe in and submit to Jehovah/Jesus was and is expressly and explicitly forbidden in the Word of God . 2 Cor. 6:14-7:10; Psalms 1:1-2;1 Cor. 5:9,11; 2 Thess. 3:6-14. [c] Christians are forbidden to marry or become engaged to people of any race who hold or believe in false doctrines, those which contradict and differ from the Word of God (1 Tim. 6:3-5; 2 Tim. 3:1-5; 2 John 7- 11; 2 Cor. 6:14-7:1) [d] Christians are forbidden to marry or become engaged to people of any race who are unsaved, unregenerated and/or unbelieving (2 Cor. 6:14-7:10; Psalms 1:1-2; Ezra; Nehemiah. [e] Christians are forbidden to marry or become engaged to people of any race who are deliberately and intentionally doing sin, trespass, transgression, iniquity, ungodliness and/or uncleanness. 1 Cor. 5:9,11; 2 Thess. 3:6-14. [III.] When people of Canaan became believers in Jehovah and came under the covenant of Moses, marriage was not forbidden or punished by God. Two actually became ancestors of Jesus in His birth/incarnation. Mat. 1:5 Salmon begat Boaz, ancestor of David and Christ, by JerichoÕs Rahab. Josh 6:25 And Joshua saved Rahab . . . , and ...she lives in Israel to this day.. Heb 11:31 By faith the harlot Rahab did not perish . . . Jas 2:25 . . . was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works . . . ? Mt 1:5 . . . Boaz fathered Obed of Ruth, and Obed fathered Jesse ... Ru 1:4 . . . wives ... from the women of Moab. The name of the ... other Ruth. ... Deut. 23 :3 -6 discourages marriage to Moabites and gives the reason, but that diddid not stop Obed from marrying Ruth, with God's blessings, Ruth the Moabitess who had converted to faith in Jehovah and become a Jew. SEE ALSO Ezra 1:1 & 2 and Nehemiah 13: 23 - 27 Deut. 23:7 , 8 ----ÓYou shall not despise an Edomite . . . You shall not despise an Egyptian, . . .Ó In Ezra 9 it was the people who added Egyptians to the forbidden list, and of course pagan Egyptian wives would be as unacceptable to God as pagan Israeli or pagan Cushite wives, because they were pagans, not because of their race or ethnic heritage. [IV.] Marriage with the following people after they became obedient believers in Jehovah/Jesus was never forbidden or condemned: Edomites, Egyptians,Philistines, Aramites, Asshurites, Cushites, Ethiopians and Joktanites. In fact, except for those listed previously above in [2], no other races or ethnic groups were named by God as unacceptable for marriage after they became obedient believers in Jehovah/Jesus. [4a] Abraham MARRIED Hagar, the Egyptian descendant of HamÕs African Mizraim. She was acknowledged fully as his wife, not his mistress or slave. God never in Scripture condemned AbrahamÕs marriage to Hagar, done in obedience to Sara. If there was any sin, it was not waiting on God, no the act of marrying Hagar. (Deut. 23:7,8) Abraham approved of marriage with Mesopotamians (Iraq, Syria, Turkey; Gen 24:1-10) [4b] Gen. 28:1-5 shows Rebekah and Issac approving of marriages with Syrians. [4c] Joseph married an Egyptian descendant of Ham, with no condemnation or denunciation by God or the prophets (Gen. 41:45, 50, 51, 52; Deut 23:7,8) [4d] Moses married an Ethiopian Cushite and God punished those who spoke against this interracial marriage. Numbers 12:1-16; Jeremiah 13:23. [4e] Mat. 1:5 Salmon begat Boaz, ancestor of David and Christ, by JerichoÕs Rahab the harlot, with no condemnation or denunciation in scripture. Heb 11:31 ÒBy faith the harlot Rahab did not perish . . .Ó Jas 2:25 Ò. . . was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works . . . ?Ó She believed, therefore she acted --- sincere and genuine faith results in God working His works through her. [4f] Marriages with Moabites, like Ruth, were not condemned but were greatly discouraged (Deut. 23:1-8) Mt 1:5 Ò . . . Boaz fathered Obed of Ruth, and Obed fathered Jesse ...Ó who fathered King David and later came his offspring, the Virgin Mary and Jesus Christ. [4g] SamsonÕs Philistine marriage (Judges 14, 15; not Delilah) did not violate the letter of GodÕs law (Ex. 23:23, 28,31,32; 34:14-16; Deut. 7:1-3) but it certainly violated spiritual principles dear to his parents, Abraham and Issac (Gen. 24:1-10; Gen.27:46- 28:1-9; Judges 14:3,4) [4h] Solomon married a black Shulamite. She was not just tanned. The Hebrew word translated as black in Song of Solomon 1:5 (ÒI [am] black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon.Ó) is the very same Hebrew word to describe her husband's hair (Song 5:11 Òhis locks [are] bushy, [and] black as a raven.Ó). Now a raven is BLACK, GLOSSY BLACK, not tanned or brown. Not only is this obvious interracial marriage in the Word of God, it is seen as a picture of Jehovah and Israel, Jesus and the Church. [V.]. Bias, discrimination, prejudice and bigotry are sins and have no place in the Christians life, thoughts or marriages. THESE ARE ALL FROM DARBY'S VERSION UPDATED. LEV. 19:15 You shall do no unrighteousness in judgment; you shall not respect the person of the lowly, nor honour the person of the great; in righteousness shalt you judge your neighbour. DEUT. 1: 17 You shall not respect persons in judgment: you shall hear the small as well as the great; you shall not be afraid of the face of man, for the judgment is God's; and the matter that is too hard for you shall youbring to me, that I may hear it. PROV. 24:23 ¦ These things also come from the wise. It is not good to have respect of persons in judgment. 24 He that says unto the wicked, You are righteous, peoples shall curse him, nations shall abhor him . . . PROV. 28: 21 ¦ To have respect of persons is not good; but for a piece of bread will a man transgress. ISAIAH 10:1 ¦ Woe unto them that decree iniquitous decrees, and to the writers that prescribe oppression, 2 to turn away the poor from judgment, and to take away the right from the afflicted of my people . . . ISAIAH 59:1 ¦ Behold, Jehovah's hand is not shortened that it cannot save, neither his ear heavy that it cannot hear; 2 but your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid [his] face from you, that he does not hear. 3 For your hands are stained with blood, and your fingers with iniquity; your lips speak lies, your tongue muttereth unrighteousness: 4 none calls for justice, none pleads in truthfulness. They trust in vanity, and speak falsehood; they conceive mischief, and bring forth iniquity. 9 ¦ Therefore is justice far from us, and righteousness overtakes us not: . .14 And judgment is turned away backward, and righteousness stands afar off; for truth stumbles in the street, and uprightness cannot enter. 15 And truth fails; and he that departs from evil makes himself a prey. And Jehovah saw [it], and it was evil in his sight that there was no judgment. ACTS 10:15 And [there was] a voice again the second time to him, What God has cleansed, do not *you* make common.. . . 28. . . to *me* God has shewn to call no man common or unclean. 15:8 And the heart- knowing God bore them witness, giving [them] the Holy Spirit as to us also, 9 and put no difference between us and them, having purified their hearts by faith. ROMANS 2:9 tribulation and distress, on every soul of man that works evil, both of Jew first, and of Greek;10 but glory and honour and peace to every one that works good, both to Jew first and to Greek: 11 for there is no acceptance of persons with God. ROMANS 14:12 So then each of us shall give an account concerning himself to God.13 Let us no longer therefore judge one another; but judge you this rather, not to put a stumbling-block or a fall-trap before his brother. . . 15 For if on account of meat thy brother is grieved, thou walkest no longer according to love. Destroy not him with thy meat for whom Christ has died. . . 19 So then let us pursue the things which tend to peace, and things whereby one shall build up another. ROMANS 15:7 ¦ Wherefore receive you one another, according as the Christ also has received you to [the] glory of God. GALAT. 2:6 . . . it makes no difference to me: God does not accept man's person . . . 1 TIM. 5:19 Against an elder receive not an accusation unless where there are two or three witnesses. 20 Those that sin convict before all, that the rest also may have fear. 21 I testify before God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels, that thou keep these things without prejudice, doing nothing by favour. JAMES 2:1 ¦ My brethren, do not have the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, [Lord] of glory, with respect of persons: . . . 4 have you not made a difference among yourselves, and become judges having evil thoughts? . . . 8 ¦ If indeed you keep [the] royal law according to the scripture, You shalt love your neighbour as thyself, you do well. 9 But if you have respect of persons, you commit sin, being convicted by the law as transgressors. Righteous, just and fair judgment and justice; protection for the rights of the afflicted and the poor; pursuit of that which promotes peace and personal maturity/growth; acting without prejudice or bias; no biased respect of persons, no intimidating biased influences, no one is to be considered common or unclean, no putting of stumbling blocks and fall-traps in the way of another -----sounds like a pretty darn good way to live. It's a shame that so few countries in the world even come close to this standard. That should not deter us, for we can, to the best of our ability, struggle to achieve this in our own sphere of influence and leave our microworld a better place when we are finished. What about those who do practice racism, discrimination, partiality, bias and bigotry? A Christian has his marching orders on how to deal with them from Luke 6; Ephes. 5:7,11; Galat. 6:1; 1Tim.2:1-4; 5:20,21; Matt. 18:15-18; 2 Cor.5:18-20; 2Tim.2:24-26 and all the cross references of these passages. Warning! If you set out to obey the truth and principles in these passages, you may find yourself nailed to a cross. A minor problem for those who have become children of God through faith in and acceptance of Jesus Christ and His perfect work to save us, for being nailed to a cross is followed by a resurrection in to supernatural and eternal life with Him who is Compassionate Cherishing, Truth, Eternal Life, Perfect Light and the Way. APPENDIX TWO: WHAT DO YOU THINK? THE FEEDING OF TWO LEGGED OXEN. I am not trying to meddle or cause trouble. I just want to know if there are any mistakes in the ideas above in terms of scripture alone, not in terms of the condemned traditions and doctrines of people (Mark 7).I really want to know what the Bible says about the subjects discussed above. I want to live by every Word of God, not by the commandments and traditions of man (Mat. 15, Mark 7 and Colos 2). PLEASE ADVISE ME OF ANY AND ALL ERRORS (TYPOS, DOCTRINAL, ETC.) THAT YOU FIND. PLEASE GIVE ME CLEAR AND EXPLICIT SCRIPTURES DEALING WITH THE ERROR WHEN YOU WRITE. I WANT THE WORD, NOT OPINIONS AND PARADIGMS. Any and all donations are welcomed for the furthering and the expense of this very controversial ministry. Donations are welcome for the furthering of this ministry. It has taken a great deal of time. If the information in this work has ministered to you, I would appreciate your ministry to me to get this information out and to the Church. Otherwise I have to "make tents". If I time from "making tents" permits, this work will be revised monthly. In the next publication/distribution I hope to provide the actual texts for all references. Ro 15:27 Truly it has pleased them, and they are their debtors. For if the nations have been made partakers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to minister to them in carnal things. 1 Cor. 9:9 For it is written in the law of Moses, "You shall not muzzle the mouth of the ox treading out grain." Does God take care for oxen? 10 Or does He say [it] altogether for our sakes? It was written for us, so that he who plows should plow [in] hope, and so that he who threshes [in] hope should be partaker of his hope. 11 If we have sown to you spiritual things, [is it] a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things? 12 If others have a share of [this] authority [over] you, rather [should] not we? But we have not used this authority, but we endured all things lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ. 13 Do you not know that those who minister about holy things live [of the things] of the temple? And those attending the altar are partakers with the altar. 14 Even so, the Lord ordained those announcing the gospel to live from the gospel.Galatians 6:6 But let him who is taught in the Word share with the [one] teaching in all good things. 1Ti 5:17 Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in word and doctrine. 18 For the Scripture says, "You shall not muzzle the ox treading out grain," and, "The laborer [is] worthy of his reward." AS THE LORD LEADS. This document before you now is a preface to MY LOVE IS A GARDEN OF DELIGHTS! (my commentary on the Song of Solomon for concubines and polygynists) and is available in MacWrite or Microsoft Word on a Mac DD 3.5 disk $5 ($7 overseas) for packaging, postage and copying; At least $10 USA--$12 overseas/foreign/Canada/Mexico -- for postage, copying and handling. Contact L. Tyler, P.O.Box 620763, SanDiego,CA 92162-0763; Internet E-Mail address: polyboy@delphi.com , or ruth1lee2@aol.com. Donations are welcome, for all the time it takes to prepare and mail the items requested. It costs about $2 computer online time with my online service to upload and Email this Divorce and Remarriage study. Please feel free to donate more for the time and expense of this ministry if the Lord has used it for good in your life. APPENDIX THREE: Marriage by covenant. If you have decided that Mat. 5:33-37, James 4:13-17 and James 5;12 don't allow you to use the traditional wedding vows and covenants because they involve swearing and/or oaths (SEE APPENDIX SEVEN), then you might be interested in using and adapting the following to your own needs. Also these covenants are suitable for legal weddings, common law weddings, and a wedding in concubinage. A WEDDING AFFIRMATION*********************************** (Your name), will you have this (man, woman) to be your (husband, wife) and will you , before God and these witnesses, solemnly affirm and declare your marital intentions and expectations to (him, her), in all honor and love, in all service and duty, in all faith and tenderness, to live with (him, her), to comfort, keep (him/her), and cherish (him/her), according to the ordinance of God, in the holy bond of marriage? (Answer, "I do" or "Yes"). I, (your name), take you, (the other's name), to be my wedded (husband, wife); and I do solemnly affirm and declare before God and these witnesses that I intend and expect to be your loving and faithful (husband, wife) to love and to cherish each other; in plenty and in want; in joy and grief; in health and infirmity; as long as we both shall live. All that I own and have is now ours. In token of our solemn affirmations and declarations, with this ring I wed you; in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit who lives and abides in us. Amen (both repeat in unison) I now pronounce you husband and wife. Do you have something to declare to us? (in unison) We covenant before God and all of you present, that we are husband and wife bound together to be one flesh in the Lord until death part us. We covenant before God that it is our responsibility to compassionately cherish each other according to His Word, the Holy Bible, to His glory and honor. Pray for us. _________________________ The Couple's Signatures and Date ______________________________ ______________________________ The Witnesses' Signatures & Date ANOTHER WEDDING AFFIRMATION************************** ________, do you accept and acknowledge ______ as your husband? Yes/I do_______ Do you accept your responsibility to be faithful to him, in all virtue and honor, in all duty and service, in all faithfulness and tenderness, to live with him and compassionately cherish him according to the Word of God, in the holy bond of marriage? Yes/I do______ initials Do you leave your parents and loyally bond with him to be one in marriage submitting to each other in reverence to God, sharing in common all that you have and own? Yes/I do_______ initials Do you, ____________, commit yourself to him with all your heart, to follow ________'s lead as unto the Lord in all matters showing honor and respect? Yes/I do______ initials __________, do you accept and acknowledge ___________as your wife?_Yes/I do______ initials Do you accept your responsibility to be faithful to her, in all virtue and honor, in all duty and service, in all faithfulness and tenderness, to live with her and compassionately cherish her according to the Word of God, in the holy bond of marriage? Yes/I do_______ initials Do you leave your parents and loyally bond with her to be one in marriage submitting to each other in reverence to God, sharing in common all that you have and own? Yes/I do ________ initials Do you ________, commit yourself to her with all your heart to live wisely with her;respectfully, compassionately and sacrificially cherishing her, feeding her the Word, taking care of her and leading her by your example? Yes/I do_______ initials _____________________________ The Couple's Signatures and Date ______________________________ ______________________________ The Witnesses' Signatures & Date ANOTHER WEDDING COVENANT***************************** I, ___________________, make a covenant with you this day. I take you, ____________________, as my wedded husband before God and these witnesses. I acknowledge my fervent desire and responsibility to faithfully cherish you as my husband, to love you and honor you in plenty and in want, in joy and in sorrow, in sickness and in health, all the days of my life. All that I have and own is now ours. I make this covenant, not boasting of or counting on my own ability to keep it, but trusting in God for His Spirit's enabling and motivating, and His gift of length of days to honor Him in the keeping of this covenant. I, ____________________, make a covenant with you this day. I take you, _______________________, as my wedded wife before God and these witnesses. I acknowledge my fervent desire and responsibility to faithfully cherish you as my wife, to love you and honor you in plenty and in want, in joy and in sorrow, in sickness and in health, all the days of my life. All that I have and own is now ours. I make this covenant not boasting of or trusting in my own ability to keep it, but trusting in God for His Spirit's enabling and motivating, and His gift of length of days to honor Him in the keeping of this covenant. ______________________________ The Couple's Signatures and Date ______________________________ ________________________________ The Witnesses' Signatures & Date APPENDIX FOUR: What makes a wedding &/or a marriage? From many passages in the Bible (including Ezekiel 16:8, Exodus chapters 19 & 20, and Malachi 2:14,15) it appears clear to me that marriage of a couple is based on their covenant/solemn agreement to be husband and wife to each other in a relationship of marital/ sexual intimacy, - - whether or not they do it legally or officially. Adam and Eve had no formal or official wedding and exchanged no formal vows but they accepted each other as husband and wife and lived accordingly. There is no wedding formula in the Bible and there is no wedding ceremony prescribed in the Bible. When you study how they married in the Old Testament you see that the basis was either their covenant to be husband and wife to each other, or they accepted their parentsÕ covenant for them to be married. The strongest statement I know of is the one in Matthew 1:18,19,20 where, based on their covenant/betrothal (v.18), the Holy Spirit callED Joseph her husband (v.19) and the angel called Mary his wife (v.20) before (Luke 1:26,34) their official wedding and cohabitation (v.24). God and His messengers call Mary and Joseph wife and husband before their wedding and solely on the basis of their covenants to be husband and wife to each other. This agrees with the great weight God gives our solemn word in such passages as DBY PSALM 15: Jehovah, who shall sojourn in thy tent? . . . 2 He that walketh uprightly, . . .who, if he have sworn to his own hurt, changeth it not; . . . YLT ECCLES 5:4 ¦ When thou vowest a vow to God, delay not to complete it, for there is no pleasure in fools; that which thou vowest--complete. 5 Better that thou do not vow, than that thou dost vow and dost not complete. 6 Suffer not thy mouth to cause thy flesh to sin, nor say before the messenger, that `it [is] an error,' why is God wroth because of thy voice, and hath destroyed the work of thy hands? All of this is to say that if you and your mate have agreed seriously to be faithful to each other in and for marital/sexual intimacy as husband and wife, then I believe that makes you husband and wife. Even if you havenÕt used the magic words Òhusband, wife, marriageÓ, if you two have agreed to be faithful marital/sexual partners to each other, to me thatÕs the same thing as Ezekiel 16:14 where God shows that marriage is by covenant. In Malachi 2 God shows again that a woman becomes a wife by covenant, and to break that covenant is to deal treacherously with you mate. Sexual intimacy>m with anyone else besides your mate is fornication, sexual sin. If you are maritally committed to each other and then you yourself --- but not your mate----- genuinely received Jesus Christ as your Lord and Ruler to be obeyed and as Savior to deliver you from the penalty of your sins- - but your guy hasn't, then I believe you find yourself in the situation described in 1 Corinthians 7:12,13,14,15, the saved mate of an unsaved person. [>.m see footnotes on breast pressing, petting,caressing and/or genital contact (Ezekiel 23:3,8,21; Prov. 5.)] APPENDIX FIVE: Marrying the unsaved & "saints" living in sin. What if I am thinking about maritally committing to a guy who is or might be unsaved, not believing in a risen from the dead and someday to return in the clouds Son of God named Jesus? What does the Bible say? 2 Cor. 6:14 Be not unequally yoked>1 with unbelievers; for what participation [is there] between righteousness and lawlessness? or what fellowship/communion of light with darkness? 15 and what accord/consent of Christ with Belial, or what part for a believer along with an unbeliever? 16 and what agreement has God's temple>2 with idols?. . . [[Footnote: >1. Any permanent and/or long term commitment/obligation that limits/controls your behavior or options, like marriage. Jeremiah 27:8,11; Jer. 28:2; Ezek. 30:18; Lev. 26:3; Malachi 2:14,15; Prov. 20:25; Jer.3:20; Malachi 3:5;Mat. 11:29,30; Acts 15:10; Gal. 5:1; 1 Timothy 6:1-5. >2. ÒOr do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit..and you are not your own? For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are GodÕs.Ó 1 Corinthians 6:19,20.a] Consider the following: Ex.34:14 For you shall worship no other God; for Jehovah--Jealous is his name--is a jealous God; 15 lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and then, when they [they are unfaithful to God by loving and serving] their gods.and you [are unfaithful to God by loving and serving] their gods Psalm 1:1 ¦ Blessed is the man that walks not in the counsel of the wicked, and stands not in the way of sinners, and sits not in the seat of scorners. . . Psalm 26:2 Prove me, Jehovah, and test me; try my reins and my heart: . . .4 I have not sat with idolatrous mortals, neither have I gone in with hypocrites 5 I have hated the congregation of evil-doers, and I have not sat with the wicked. Proverbs 13:20 ¦ He that walks with wise [men] becomes wise; but a companion of the foolish will be destroyed. Proverbs 14:7 ¦ Go from the presence of a foolish man [one who says there is no God, one who lives as if there were no God], in whom you perceive not the lips of knowledge. Proverbs 24:1 ¦ Be* not envious of evil men, neither desire to be with them; 2 for their heart studies destruction, and their lips talk of mischief/trouble making. Isaiah 30:1 ¦ Woe to the rebellious children, says Jehovah, who take counsel, but not of me, and who make leagues, but not by my Spirit, that they may heap sin upon sin . . . .. Isaiah 52:11 --Depart, depart, go out from there, touch not what is unclean; go out of the midst of her, be* clean, that bear the vessels of Jehovah. Amos 3:3 Shall two walk together except they be agreed? 1 Corinthians 10:20 But that which [the nations] sacrifice they sacrifice to demons, and not to God. Now I do not wish you to be in communion with demons. 21 You* cannot drink [the] Lord's cup, and [the] cup of demons: you* cannot partake of [the] Lord's table, and of [the] table of demons. 22 Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he? James 4:4 . . .know you* not that friendship with the world [human society] is enmity with God? Whoever therefore is minded to be [the] friend of the world [human society] is made an enemy of God. Revelations 18:4 And I heard another voice out of the heaven saying, Come out of her, my people, so that you* have not fellowship in her sins, and so that you* do not receive of her plagues . . . ..a precedent in the Bible to see what God means. What about marriage, engagement and dating? 2 Corinthians 6:17b ..for you* are [the] living God's templeÒOr do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit..and you are not your own? For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are GodÕs.Ó 1 Corinthians 6:19,20.a according as God has said, I will dwell among them, and walk among [them]; and I will be their God, and they shall be to me a people. 17 Wherefore come out from the midst of them, and be separated, says [the] Lord, and touch>5 not [what is] unclean>6, and *I* will receive you; 18 and I will be to you for a Father, and you* shall be to me for sons and daughters, says [the] Lord Almighty. [Footnote: >5. 1 Corinth 7:1,2,3,4.a ; [>6. The unsaved, those knowingly,willfully and deliberately living in their sins without repentance,salvation and forgiveness: John 13:8-20.a] ] What does the following say: Ex.34:14 For you shall worship no other God;..15 lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and then, when they go a whoring5 after their gods,16 and you take of their daughters unto your sons, and their daughters go a whoring6 after their gods, and make your sons go a whoring after their gods. Deut. 7:3 And you shall make no marriages with them: your daughter you shall not give unto his son, nor take his daughter for your son; 4 for he will turn away your son from following me, and they will serve other gods, and the anger of Jehovah will be kindled against you, and he will destroy you quickly. . . . .6 For a holy people are you unto Jehovah your God: Jehovah your God has chosen you to be unto him a people for a possession, above all peoples that are upon the face of the earth. Ezra 9:10 .. 12 Now therefore give not your daughters to their sons, neither take their daughters to your sons, nor seek their peace or their prosperity for ever; that you may be strong, and eat the good of the land, and leave it for an inheritance to your children for ever. 13 And after all that is come upon us for our evil deeds .. 14 should we again break your commandments, and join in affinity with the peoples of these abominations? would you not be angry with us till you had consumed us, so that there should be no remnant nor any to escape? Exodus 23:27 ..32 You shall make no covenant with them, nor with their gods. 33 They shall not dwell in your land, lest they make you sin against me; for if you serve their gods, it is sure to be a snare 7. unto you. Numbers 33: 51 .55 But if you will not dispossess the inhabitants of the land from before you, those that you let remain of them shall be thorns in your eyes, and pricks in your sides, and they shall harass you in the land [marriage, contract, covenant, home] in which you dwell. Nehemiah 10:28 And the rest of the people,.. that we would not give our daughters to the peoples of the land, nor take their daughters for our sons: Nehemiah 13:25 .. You shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor take their daughters for your sons or for yourselves. 26 Did not Solomon king of Israel sin by these things? Yet among the many nations was there no king like him, who was beloved of his God, and God made him king over all Israel; but even him did foreign8. wives cause to sin. 1 Kings 11:1 ¦ But king Solomon loved many foreign 8. ..women 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 his wives turned away his heart. Malachi 2:11 .. Judah has profaned the sanctuary9. of Jehovah which he loved, and has married the daughter of [one who believes in] a strange . god. 12 Jehovah will cut off from the tents of Jacob the man that does this, IsnÕt this a record about what God means? Does this Òbe separate . . . .donÕt touchÓ principle apply to people who call themselves Christians but donÕt act like followers of Christ? 1 Corinthians 5:9 I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company>8 . with sexually immoral>9 people. . . ..11. But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is a fornicator>10 , or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner -- not even to eat with such a person. [Footnote: >.8 hang around with, be companions with/to,.a . >.9. breast pressing, petting,caressing and/or genital contact (Ezekiel 23:3,8,21; Prov. 5.) with someone else besides your mate/spouse. >.10 one who does breast pressing, petting,caressing and/or genital contact (Ezekiel 23:3,8,21; Prov. 5.) with someone else besides your mate/spouse.] 1 Thessalonians3:6 But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us. 1 Timothy 6:3 If anyone teaches otherwise and does not consent to wholesome words, the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing. . . . .From such withdraw yourself. 2 Corinthians 7:1 ¦ Having therefore these promises, beloved, let us purify ourselves from every pollution of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in God's fear. The Bible tells us what this means: 2 Timothy 2:19 ¦ Yet the firm foundation of God stands, having this seal, [The] Lord knows those that are his; and, Let every one who names the name of [the] Lord withdraw from iniquity. 20 But in a great house there are not only gold and silver vessels, but also wooden and earthen; and some to honor, and some to dishonor. 21 If therefore one shall have purified himself from these, [in separating himself from them], he shall be a vessel to honor, sanctified, serviceable to the Master, prepared for every good work.22 ¦ But youthful lusts flee, and pursue righteousness, faith, love, peace, with those that call upon the Lord out of a pure heart. Hebrews 5:5 Thus the Christ also has not glorified himself . . . . . ..7 Who in the days of his flesh, having offered up both supplications and entreaties to him who was able to save him out of death, with strong crying and tears; (and having been heard because of his piety;) 8 though he were Son, he learned obedience from the things which he suffered; 9 and having been perfected, became to all them that obey him, author of eternal salvation; John 14:15 ¦ If you love me, keep my commandments. 16 And I will beg the Father, and he will give you another Comforter, that he may be with you for ever, 17 the Spirit of truth . . . . . ... 1 John 2:1 ¦ My children, these things I write to you in order that you* may not sin; and if any one sin, we have a patron/advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ [the] righteous; . . . . . 3 ¦ And hereby we know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. 4 He that says, I know him, and does not keep his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; 5 but whoever keeps his word, in him verily the love of God is perfected. Hereby we know that we are in him. 6 He that says he abides in him ought, even as *he* walked, himself also [so] to walk. 21 He that has my commandments and keeps them, he it is that loves me; but he that loves me shall be loved by my Father, and I will love him and will manifest myself to him. APPENDIX SIX: When do I have to marry? WHEN MUST WE MARRY? Before we look at when we must marry, letÕs find out the meaning of Òsexual immoralityÓ or ÒfornicationÓ which god by paul indicates is the main reason for the need of marriage (1 COR. 7:1,2). JESUS AND THE APOSTLES TOOK THE SAME OLD TESTAMENT HEBREW AND GREEK (LXX) WORDS FOR IMMORALITY/FORNICA-TION AND USED THEM IN THE NEW TESTAMENT GREEK WITHOUT CHANGING THEIR MEANINGS. HE DID CHANGE THEIR PENALTIES/ PUNISHMENTS IN THIS LIFE ON EARTH. Matt. 5:17 ¦ Think not that I am come to make void the law or the prophets; I am not come to make void, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Until the heaven and the earth pass away, one iota or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all come to pass. 19 Whosoever then shall do away with one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of the heavens; but whosoever shall practise and teach [them], *he* shall be called great in the kingdom of the heavens. Matt. 23: 1 ¦ Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 saying, The scribes and the Pharisees have set themselves down in Moses' seat: 3 all things therefore, whatever they may tell you, do and keep. But do not after their works, for they say and do not, ***Sexual sin includes the following: (1) Pressing/handling/embracing the genitals, a breast and/or breast-nipple of a female who is not your wife or by a male who is not your husband; (2) Coition/genital-to-genital connection with someone who is not your husband/wife;(3) Genital connection with orgasm with someone who is not your husband/wife; (4) A "lover/ paramour" seeing the genitals of the female he is involved with and she is not his wife. Ezekiel 23:2 "Son of man, there were two women, daughters of one mother. 3 And they did sexual sin in Egypt; they did sexual sin in their youth: there were their breasts pressed, and there were handled the nipples of their virginity. . . . . 8 Neither left she her sexual sin [brought] from Egypt; for in her youth they had lain with her, and had handled the breasts of her virginity, and poured their fornication upon her. 21 And you did look back to the lewdness of your youth, in the handling of your nipples by the Egyptians, for the breasts of your youth. Proverbs 5:18 Let your fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of your youth. 19 [Let her be as] the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy you at all times; and be ravished [enraptrured/intoxicated] always with her [erotic] love. 20 And why will you, my son, be ravished [enraptrured/intoxicated] with some other woman, and embrace the bosom of an alien stranger? 21 For the ways of man [are] before the eyes of the LORD, and he ponders all his goings. 22 His own iniquities shall take the wicked himself, and he shall be held with the cords of his sins." Please read all of Ezekiel 16, Ezekiel 23 with 1 Corinthians 6. ***Pressing/handling/embracing a female's breast and/or breast-nipple, coition/genital-to-genital connection, genital connection with orgasm OUTSIDE OF YOUR OWN MARRIAGE IS UNACCEPTABLE TO GOD AND ETERNAL LIFE. Exodus 22:16 ¦ And if a man seduce a virgin who is not covenanted-to-marry, and lie [in genital connection] with her, he shall certainly endow her to be his wife. 17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him [as wife], he shall weigh money according to the dowry of virgins. Deut. 22:25 But if a man find a covenanted-to-marry young woman in the field, and the man force her, and lie [in genital connection] with her; then the man only that lay [in genital connection] with her shall die: 26 But unto the young woman you shall do nothing; [there is] in the young woman no sin [worthy] of death; for as when a man rises against his neighbour, and slays him, even so [is] this matter: 27 For he found her in the field, [and] the covenanted-to-marry young woman cried, and [there was] no one to save her. 28 If a man find a young woman [who is] a virgin, who is not covenanted-to-marry, and lay hold on her, and lie [in genital connection] with her and they be found [by man or God]; 29 Then the man who lay [in genital connection] with her shall give unto the young woman's father fifty [shekels] of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. PROVERBS 5, 6, &7 on premarital &/or extramarital sex. Lev. 18:20 And you shall not lie [in genital connection] with your neighbour's wife, to become unclean [by orgasm/adultery] with her. 1 Corinthians 6:9 ¦ Do you not know that unrighteous [persons] shall not inherit [the] kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators >*, nor idolaters, nor adulterers >~ , ...shall inherit [the] kingdom of God. . . . 13 ... the body [is] not for sexual sin, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then, taking the members of the Christ, make [them] members of a female who does sexual sin? Far be the thought. 16 Do you not know that he [that is] joined to the female who does sexual sin 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 sexual sin. Every sin which a man may practice is without the body, but he that commits sexual sin, sins against his own body... [Footnotes>*=those who press/handle/embrace a female's breast and/or breast-nipple, and/or have coition/genital-to-genital connection, and/or genital connection with orgasm OUTSIDE OF/WITHOUT MARRIAGE . >~=males who press/handle/embrace the breast/nipple of another male's female, and/or have genital connection with another male's female; or females who let another male besides her own male press/handle/embrace their breast/nipple and or have genital connection with them] 1 Thess 4:1 ¦ Furthermore, then, my brothers, we beseech you and exhort [you] in [the] Lord Jesus, that, as you have received of us how you ought to walk and to please God, so you would abound more [and more]. 2 For we know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus. 3 For this is the will of God, your sanctification, that you should abstain from fornication>^, 4 each one of you should know how to know how to possess his vessel. [Footnote:>^=Pressing/handling/embracing a female's breast and/or breast-nipple, coition/genital-to-genital connection, genital connection with orgasm OUTSIDE OF YOUR OWN MARRIAGE] OTHER POSSIBLE TRANSLATIONS PUT FORTH BY OTHERS : 1: . . .Óknow that he is to procure his own vessel [wife] in [personal] holiness and honor, not in the passion of inordinate desire . . .Ó 2. ..Ó learn to control his own body .. or . .Ólearn to live with his own wife; or . . .Ólearn to acquire a wife . . . 3. Ò know how to possess [control, manage] his own body (in purity, separated from things progfane, and) in consecration and honor.".1b in sanctification and honor 5 (not in the passion of lust, even as the nations who know not God) , 6 not to go beyond and defraud >1c his brother in this matter, because the Lord [is the] avenger concerning all these, as we also have forewarned you and testified. 7 For God has not called us to uncleanness, but unto sanctification. 8 He, therefore, who despises, does not despise man but God, who also has given unto us His Holy Spirit. [Footnote: >1c This probably refers to adultery, defrauding your brother by adultery with his wife.] KJV 1 Corinth. 7: 8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. 9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. >>>1Co.7:9a BUT IF THEY CANNOT contain, let them marry.<<<<<<< 12 Strong's exhaustive concordance; Baker Book House; Grand Rapids, Mich.12---------Ò3756 ou {oo} .. a primary word, the absolute negative [cf 3361] adverb; particle 1) no, not; in direct questions expecting an affirmative answerÓ So Strong's shows us that there is no Greek basis for the word ÒcanÓ. It was supplied by the translators. When the KJV translators translated the very same word, without the negative ÒnotÓ, in 1 Cor. 9:25 (And every man that strives for the mastery is temperate <1467> (5736) in all things. ) they use Òis temperateÓ, not Òcan be temperateÓ, to translate <1467> so even they are inconsistent. >>>1Co.7:9b- But if they cannont CONTAIN , let them marry.<<<<<<<< [StrongÕs<1467> (5736)], StrongÕs1467 egkrateuomai {eng-krat-yoo'-om- ahee} middle voice from 1468 1) to be self-controlled, continent 1a) to exhibit self-government, conduct, one's self temperately 1b) in a figure drawn from athletes, who in preparing themselves for the games abstained from unwholesome food, wine, and sexual indulgence 5736 Tense - Present; Voice - Middle or Passive Deponent; Mood - Indicative >>>1Co.7:9c- But if they cannot contain, LET THEM MARRY <<<<<<<< [StrongÕs <1060> (5657)]: ÒStrongÕs 1060: gameo {gam-eh'-o} from 1062>.>.. 1) to lead in marriage, take to wife 1a) to get married, to marry 1b) to give one's self in marriage 2) to give a daughter in marriage StrongÕs 5657 Tense - Aorist; Voice - Active------- The active voice represents the subject as the doer or performer of the action. E.g., in the sentence, "The boy hit the ball," the boy performs the action. Mood - Imperative The imperative mood corresponds to the English imperative, and expresses a command to the hearer to perform a certain action by the order and authority of the one commanding. Thus, Jesus' phrase, "Repent ye, and believe the gospel" (Mk.1:15)is not at all an "invitation," but an absolute command requiring full obedience on the part of all hearers.Ó Does "let them marry" mean "You let/permit/allow them to marry"? Is ÒYouÓ the Òhearer [who is] to performÓ the action of marrying in this passage? J. Gresham Machen, D.D., Litt.D; in his Macmillan Co. Greek manual, states the following: "The imperative mood is used in commands>.>.It will be observed that the English language has, properly speaking, no imperative of the third person. Hence in translating the Greek imperative of the third person we have to use the helping verb let, so that the noun or pronoun that is the subject of the imperative in Greek becomes the object of the helping verb in English." So in Òif they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry.Ó it means ------- Òthat the>..pronoun (them) that is the subject (third person plural: they) of the imperative (marry) in Greek becomes the object (them) of the helping verb (let) in English.Ó So a literal translation of Òlet them marryÓ would be Òthey are commanded to marry" by the order and authority of the one commanding (The Holy Spirit in Paul); or simply, Òthey are commanded to marry.Ó Who is commanded to marry? Those who donÕt exercise self-control. THERE IS NO INDICATION AS TO WHO THEY SHOULD MARRY. IN THE OLD TESTAMENT THE "WHO" WAS INDENTIFIED (See Deut. 22 and Ex. 22) BUT WE ARE NO LONGER BOUND BY THOSE LAWS (Acts 15; Eph. 2; Col. 2). We know that He does not want us to marry the unsaved (2 Cor. 6) or saints living in sin (2 Th. 3:6-14; 1 Cor. 5:9-11; 1 Tim. 6:1-5; 2 Tim. 3:1-5). It's obvious that He wants us to marry "in the Lord". >>>1 Cor.7:9----FOR IT IS BETTER TO MARRY THAN TO BURN.<<<< What a shame most women have no idea of what the average male's testosterone sex drive does to him, how it can make him burn. Granted about half of males have low mid-range to low testosterone levels as well as nocturnal emission, so they have little or no problem turning off or on their sex lives. The low testosterone level males may have a great deal of difficulty turning on their sex lives. Women have no idea that the sex drive in that half of the male who have mid to high testosterone levels in their blood is as burning and compelling as the hunger drive when the stomach is growling and cramping for lack of food; or as the thirst drive when the tongue, throat and mouth are so dry it is even difficult to talk; as the rest drive when it is impossible to keep the eyes open or the body erect due to utter exhausion. These same women would not normally ignore such hunger/thirst signs, nor say that they would take cold showers and exercise to overcome such hunger/thirst signs. If they chose to fast, go without food and drink, by the second day they would be too weak to do their daily work and chores, and by the third day they would be too weak walk far or stand for long periods of time. As one who has fasted and prayed three days without food or drink, I know. Yet they fault the mid to high testosterone blood level male for not being able to ignore his burning and compelling sex drive and do without. When the men who are not blessed with natural nocturnal emission (wet dreams) have gone without sexual release for several days, the prostrate becomes so congested that it begins to squeeze shut the uretha so they cannot urinate normally and the effect on the brain is that those males are so distracted and distractable, especially by anything female, that quite literAlly their minds could be said to be weakened in that it is very difficult to concentrate or focus on necessary tasks. If women could think of their nasal sinuses being so congested that they cannot breath, or of the problems with urination that a woman has with urination when 8 or 9 months pregnant, then maybe they could understand the problems prostrate congestion can cause. Without release, ejaculation, they could become so distracted and distractable by anything that, as with too much alcohol, their judment and thinking is impaired and foolish (risky), dangerous (AIDS,HIV) or irrational behaviour resultswhich results in burns. As a male with mid to high testosterone and no nocturnal emission when I was in high school, my Urologist (Vital Haynes,MD), told me I had a few options to prevent my recurring prostrate congestion. He said that I, at age 17, could either get married and be intimate frequently, be promiscuous frequently, self-stimulate quite frequently, become homosexual (the penis in the anus squeezes the seminal fluid out of the prostrate), or come into his office two to three times a week for him to massage/press the seminal fluid out of my prostrate (too expensive and embarassing). Cold showers, exercise and being spiritual just did not empty the prostrate so I could urinate normally and have my mind clear of testosterone distractions. For the mid to high testosterone male, sexual release is just as much as physical need as food, drink, and sleep. The question such men have to deal with is, "How can I have the testosterone release I need so I can take care of daily business and be acceptable to Jesus?" The obvious answer is marriage (1 Cor. 7:1,2,5,9) with a wife who understands his sexual needs and is committed to ministering to him in his need in Christ, and as unto Christ (Matt. 25:34,35,36), so that his physical need of the release/ejaculation can be met and they can get on with their lives. The closest the female comes to this experience, except for the women of the next paragraph, is in her PMS where her mind is bombarded with hormones etc. making many to be quite distracted and temporarily not their normal selves. It is extremely difficult for a woman to understand that testosterone can make a godly man REALLY NEED (not just want) the physical marital love making of a godly wife. It is not just a matter of the will and the mind, just like the physical needs for food, drink and sleep. The widow who is left burning for the sexual affection and attention of her departed husband (1Cor.7:5; 1Tim.5:11-14), has a very real and intense sex drive, not fueled by testosterone, but by an emotional/affectionate need created by the wonderful addiction to marital sex with her husband, now departed. She can actually feel, in her memory, the stimulation of her whole body or particular erotic zones that love making with her husband activated. Those affectionate and erogenous memories create an intense aching longing for that whole body experience she had in orgasm with her husband. Even a formerly promiscuous woman who knew no other love than that she had in sex with "tricks/Johns" or just guys, feeling such an aching and yearning desire for affectionate attention, can burn with desire for that sexual affection and attention. Mind, emotional and heart addictions can generate such a desperate burning that their judgment is impaired, their reasoning clouded, and their mind so distracted that they are capable of doing very foolish and life threatening things. AND THE LORD SAID IT IS BETTER TO MARRY THAN TO BURN. 1 Corinthians 7:9a in various versions: DBY1>.13 DarbyÕs.3 "But if they have not control over themselves, " NEB1>.14 New English Bible (version 2) 1970.4 "if they cannot control themselves, "(So also NIV) YLT1>.15 YoungÕs Literal Translation.5 and "if they have not continence--" NKJV1>.16 New King James Version, 1984: This version uses the word "cannot" with refernce to the exercise of self-control, "cannot exercise self-control" MKJV1>.17 OnLine BibleÕs Modern King James Version: This version uses "do not" with reference to having self-control. ASV1>.18 American Standard Version, 1901.8 "But if they have not continency, " LP1>.19 LamsaÕs Peshitta, 1957.9 "But if they cannot endure it, " AB2>.20 Amplified Bible, 1965.0 "But if they have not self-control (restraint of their passions), " WNT2>.21 WuestsÕs New Testament, 1961.1 "But assuming that they are not able to exercise self- control in the realm of the continent life, "........ 1 Cor. 7:9b invarious versions continued: DBY " let them marry; " (so also LP) NEB "they should marry." (so also NIV) ASV "let them marry" (so also YLT, MKJV, WNT & NKJV) AB they should marry. 1 Cor. 7:9c in various translations cont.: DBY "for it is better to marry than to burn." (so also ASV, MKJV NEB "Better be married than burn with vain desire." YLT "for it is better to marry than to burn;" LP" for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. " (So also NIV, NKJV AB "For it is better to marry than to be aflame (with passion and tortured continually with ungratified desire)." WNT "for it is more advantageous to marry than to continue to burn [with the heat of sexual passion}" So the way this writer gets it is a modified DBY: ÔBut if they have not control over themselves, they should marry; For it is better to marry than to burn.Õ Now if the mighty God of the universe tells me I should marry, just being thankful in Christ that He has taken the time to know me and deal with me, I would be asking ÒWhoÓ and ÒWhenÓ. Now I know I need to obey my Lord Jesus (Heb.5:8,9; 1John2:1-5), and since He has told me I NEED to/SHOULD marry and promised to supply all my needs according to His riches, then I need to prepare myself forWHOEVER of the saints He provides (seek and ye shall find), knowing that He will LEAD that saint to be willing to marry me ----- and shame on me if I am too selfish and particular to accept the one He provides! 1Tim. 5:11-15 show us another circumstance where God inspires the expression of His will that someone marry, whether or not they want. 1 Cor. 7:5 shows why she cannot remain unmarried, Satan tempting her because of her lack of self-control. 1 Cor. 7:9 and 1 Tim. 5:11-15 show us God's will when we fail to have or exercise self-control, it is better to marry than to burn."Who" they should marry is not indicated, as it used to be in the Old Testament, but certainly they should marry "in the Lord". The next passage is seen in two ways, has three possible translations, which apply and pertain to believers in the world today. The first is that it applies to a "brother" and his own virginity. The second, that it applies to a fiancŽ and his fiancee (engaged but not married), or a couple in some kind of relationship where they both agree that she is "his virgin". The first and second translations are very much like 1 Cor. 7:9 and 1 Tim. 5:11-15, the people involved come under God's command to marry. In the case of the fiancŽ and fiancŽe, the "who to marry" is clear and indicated. The third translation, applies to a father and his virgin daughter, may or may not involve the daughter's failure to exercise self-control, and may involve other factors. If the father's virgin daughter is burning and failing to control herself, the father would behave "unseemly" with regard to his daughter if she has come under God's command to marry and he refuses to let her marry. Refusing to let her marry would be to cast a stumbling block (Rom.14) in her way, setting her up for the disgrace and dishonor of failing to control herself in her "burning". If the father's saved virgin daughter was burning and failing ot control-self with her saved sweetheart, the obvious command to the father is "let them marry", i.e. they are commanded to marry (1 Co. 7.9). >>>1 Cor. 7:36 ¦ BUT IF ANY ONE THINK THAT HE BEHAVES UNSEEMLY. . <<<<<<<<<<< [Young's Literal Translation: 1 Cor. 7:36 ¦ and if any one doth think [it] to be unseemly2>.22c [Arndt & Gingrich: behave disgracefully, dishonorably, indecently . . . 1 Cor. 13:5 . . . if anyone thinks he is behaving dishonorably toward his maiden 7:36. [Thayer: to act unbecomingly . . . 1 Co. xiii.5; . . . contextually, to prepare disgrace for her, 1 Co. vii. 36. [ Harper & Brothers The Analytical Greek Lexicon: to behave in an unbecoming manner, or indecorously, 1 Co. 13.5; to behave in a manner open to censure,1 Co. 7:36.2c to his virgin] >>>1 Co. 7:36 TO HIS VIRGINITY, IF HE BE BEYOND THE FLOWER OF HIS AGE. . . <<<<<<<<<<<< [Arndt & Gingrich: . . . it may apply either to the woman past one's prime, past marriageable age, past the bloom of youth . . . or to the man . . . with strong passions. Thayer: . . . 2. overripe, plump and ripe, (and soin greater danger of defilement): of a virgin ] [R.V. past the flower of her age ], 1 Co. vii. 36 [( Harper & Brothers: past the bloom of life) >>>1 Cor. 7:36 AND SO IT MUST B E, LET HIM DO WHAT HE WILL, HE DOES NOT SIN: LET THEM MARRY. <<<<<<<<<<<<< Does "let them marry" mean "You let/permit/allow them to marry"? Is ÒYouÓ the Òhearer [who is] to performÓ the action of marrying in this passage? See the J. Gresham Machen, D.D., Litt.D, quote above in the 1 Cor. 7:9 discussion. So in Òif they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry.Ó it means ---Òthat the>..pronoun (them) that is the subject (third person plural: they) of the imperative (marry) in Greek becomes the object (them) of the helping verb (let) in English.Ó So a literal translation of Òlet them marryÓ would be Òthey are commanded to marry" by the order and authority of the one commanding (The Holy Spirit in Paul); or simply, Òthey are commanded to marry.Ó Agreeing with the KJV and RV Greek meaning that Òthey are commanded to marryÓ you have the NIV, Wuest's EXPANDED NEW TESTAMENT, NEW KING JAMES VERSION, AMPLIFIED BIBLE, THE NEW ENGLISH BIBLE (1970), the AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION (1901), Berry's INTERLINEAR. The NIV agrees with the fiancŽ and fiancŽe meaning, as do the AMPLIFIED BIBLE, THE NEW ENGLISH BIBLE (1970), THE NEW KING JAMES VERSION, the footnote of the AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION (1901), Agreeing with the father and his virgin daughter meaning are WUESTS EXPANDED NEW TESTAMENT, the footnote in the NEW KING JAMES VERSION, Lamsa's HOLY BIBLE, the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE (1977), the footnote of THE NEW ENGLISH BIBLE (1970), the AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION (1901), Lamsa's HOLY BIBLE. if she may be beyond the bloom of age, and it ought so to be, what he willeth let him do; he doth not sin-- let him marry = Darby. This is Darby's Online Bible 19th Cent. version, and Berry's Interlinear agrees with Darby that this is about one's own virginity. The Amplified indicates that v.37 is about one and his own virginity. The American Standard Version gives this "one and his own virginity" as an option in its notes According to Harper & Brothers Analytical Greek, this is the "3 per. pl. pres. imper. act." [of gameeo] so its pronoun would have to be "they". The imperative means that the third person, "they", are commanded to marry. Lockman's NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE, 1977, and Lamsa's Holy Bible, change the "them" of "let them marry" to "her" so that the meaning is changed to mean that the virgin daughter is commanded to marry, she is commanded to marry. This writer, Tyler, believes it is Òlet them marryÓ or Òthey should marryÓ. Modern King James Version (Greene's OnLine Bible) and The New King James Version gives this meaning in its main text. .The Amplified combines the two indicating that v.37 is about one and his own virginity. The American Standard Version gives this "one and his own virginity" as an option in its notes. 1 Cor.7:37 And he who hath stood stedfast in the heart--not having necessity--and hath authority over his own will, and this he hath determined in his heart--to keep his own virgin--doth well; 38 so that both he who is giving in marriage doth well, and he who is not giving in marriage doth better. KJV The New King James Version gives this meaning as an option in its notes. The American Standard Version, LamsaÕs Peshitta, YoungÕs Literal Translation seem to prefer this interpretation. The Amplified gives verses 36,38 this meaning. WuestÕs seems to prefer the father & virgin daughter meaning.The NEB gives the father daughter option in its notes.The NEB & NIV seem to prefer the man and his fiance interpretation. I believe that this is a shotgun verse, taking a number of valid targets. I believe it is up to the saint to be led by the Spirit in the Word to see which application, if any , applies to his or her case. If you find you or your loved one under the command to marry, then you should show Jesus your Love for Him and have a marriage (John14:15-21). If you find you and your loved one under His command to marry, it becomes a "need" on your part that He has promised to fill and your part is the "ask-knock-seek" part under the Spirit's leading. . 1 Corinthians 7:1 Now concerning the things about which you wrote to me, [it is] good for a man not to be touching a woman. 2. Nevertheless, [to avoid] sex sin every man is to be having his own woman and every woman is to be having her own man.....8.I say therefore, to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide [unmarried] even as I. But if they do not abstain [from touching/having one], they are [commanded] to marry. For it is better to marry than to burn [lustfully/passionately]......36. But if anyone think that he behaves himself improperly toward his virgin, if she has become marriageable, and so it must be, he is [commanded] to do what he wishes; he does not sin; they are [commanded] to marry. 37. Nevertheless he who stands steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but has power over his own will, and so has determined in his heart that he will keep [as is] his virgin, does well. [See 1 Thessalonians 4:1- 8.] 1 Timothy 5:11 But refuse [to enroll] younger widows; for when they have sensuous impulses contrary to Christ, they wish to marry.... 14. Therefore I desire that younger [widows] marry, bear children, manage the house, give no occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully. [The difference between the old testament commands to marry (see above) and the New Testament commands to marry is that in the Old Testament God tells the one who erred WHO he must marry, and in the New Testament He just commands the uncontrolled one to marry and leaves it up to the uncontrolled one to find out WHO to marry by Phil. 4:6,7,8 & Romans 8:14. In other words, now, an uncontrolled saint might be sinfully intimate intermittently without commitment/covenant with an unsaved person, all the while under great conviction. That puts the uncontrolled saint under command (1Cor.7:9) to marry, but that saint is also under command not to marry the unsaved (2 Cor.6:14-7:3), so the uncontrolled saint must marry ---but not to the unsaved one of the intermittent intimacy without commitment/covenant. ] So there are two parts to the solution for a believer whose struggle with sex sin has more failures than bearable; 1. First do 1Jn1:9 with 2 Cor. 7; 2. Secondly marry the Spirit filled believer walking in the Spirit that God provides, and have enough sense to drop your own personal and preconceived prerequisites e.g. bodily appearance, education, social status, ethnic/racial status, economic status) if they arenÕt met by the one God provides. SOME SCRIPTURAL GUIDELINES 1. God makes it very clear in His Word that He, as our Heavenly Father, instructs us not to Ògo withÓ, become engaged to, or marry anyone who is not a believer who is obeying the Word of God>#1. Being the Loving Father our God is, and the all wise King that Jesus is, God instructs us for our own well being that an obedient believer should not Ògo withÓ, become engaged to, or marry any ÒbelieverÓ who is disobeying GodÕs instructions, or any ÒbelieverÓ who believes or teaches things that contradict or are in conflict with GodÕs teachings in the Bible>#2. Yes, that really narrows the way for finding a godly mate and drastically reduces the number of eligible people but those who have been down the road can tell you that it is better to marry right than wrong, and that it is better not to marry than to marry wrong. It just makes the miracle of GodÕs provision even more miraculous, like Elijah pouring all that water over the sacrifice to be burned before God sent the consuming fire from Heaven. You have to have Faith in God to walk with God. You have to really trust Him before you can turn your hopes and dreams over to Him for His decision. [#1 2 Corinthians 6:11-7:1; 1 Corinthians 15:33; James 4:4; Exodus 34:12; 23:33; 1 Kings 11:1,2; Ezra 9:11,12; Nehemiah 10:25-30;Psalms 1:1; 26:4,5; Prov. 12:26;13:20; 14:7; 24:1; Amos 3:3. #2 1 Corinthians 5:9-11; 2 Thessalonians 3:6-14; Ephesians 5:7,11; NKJV 1 Timothy6:3-5; Romans 16:17; 3 John 10,11; 2 Timothy 3:1-5] 2. If you have no need of marital affectionate/sexual intimacy, a gift from God, you have the wonderful opportunity to serve God with fewer "distractions", to spend much more time with Him in the Word and prayer, and with others in ministry. David Hocking's book on singles beautifully explains 1 Corinthians 7:1,7,,20,25-35 and the great opportunity the single life presents to those who want more fully to seek and follow God with their whole heart. Singles groups for such people are fellowship opportunities, and provide the opportunity to bond with friends and minister to the Body of Christ. 3. If your calling and gift is to marry, how do you seek and find that partner? First of all you have to have your priorities right because marriage can become an idol just like anything else on earth can. You have to make very sure that Matthew 6:33,34; Proverbs 3:1-8; Psalms 37:1-6; and 2 Timothy 2 are daily very real or else even our prayers are in vain (1 John 3:22,23 and 1 John 5:14,15). Next we have to come to the place of Luke 22:42 and Romans 6:4,11, 12,13----the place of death to self and resurrection to Love which seeks not its own way/things---SO THAT WE ARE READY TO ACCEPT WHOEVER HE GIVES TO US, EVEN IF HIS CHOICE SEEMS TO FALL FAR SHORT OF OUR DREAMS AND FANTASIES. With our "seed" dead in the ground, He can raise us to a new life of marriage in His will. You literally have to die to your wants and tastes in physical appearance, personality, color hair or eyes, height, talents, income, status etc. and be ready to accept whoever He gives to you and you will have doubt-free peace of heart and mind if you are ready and accepting the one He gives to you. Your only concern should be that your prospective mate meets God's requirements in the Bible for a godly, Spirit-led and Spirit-filled man/woman. Jesus said seek and you shall find. Seeking one's mate can be as active a process as Ruth's and Queen Esther's or it can be as privately surprising as Adam's awakening to Eve for the first time. You can count on God to lead you according to His word (Proverbs 3:5,6; Romans 8:14). You can trust Him to put His ideas/desires in your heart/mind and the opportunities to act on them (Philippians 2:13; Hebrews 13:20,21). Like Adam, you can wake up to her in your life in His time. Like Issac, a parent figure can help you find God's choice for you. You can just be going about your daily activities like Rebekah and, in a moment of compassionate assistance to a stranger, you can find your mate. Like Ruth, you can commit yourself to God's service, make a Godly decision to step out of one situation and into another and in that new situation be led and advised to do what seems like an ordinary work day decision but which results in your meeting your mate quite unexpectedly. Following wise and Godly counsel of Godly counselors like Ruth, you might be led to offer yourself as wife to a Godly man who obviously cares for and admires you but for some reason feels unworthy to ask you to be his wife. Like David meeting Abigail, you could just be going about your daily walk in the Lord, meet a godly woman you admire and respect but who seems unavailable just to quite unexpectedly find that she is both available and ready to marry you. Like Abigail, you could find yourself in a trying and difficult situation with no relief in sight, but by living wisely and Godly in that situation impress and build a relationship with the one you will eventually marry. With todayÕs laws about sexual harassment, any wise male will think long and hard before he compliments a female on her female beauty or appearance, long and hard before he will let her know he likes her and is interested in getting to know her personally, long and hard before he will ask or suggest that they go out on a date. Because of the sexual harassment laws the only way a woman might know a man is interested in her is by what his eyes show, and it is now virtually up to the woman to tell the man that if he is interested, she would like to get to know him better and get together to talk. This is very hard for a woman because of the chance of misreading his eyes and being rejected and embarrassed. ThatÕs why men and women more than ever need Christian singlesÕ and couplesÕ agencies and fellowship groups, as the Lord leads. THE KEY IS IN GENESIS 24:27. Being in His way, doing His things, saying His Words He leads you to the where and the who of your future. It may even seem like blind faith but it has to be absolute trust in His working all things together according to the counsel of His own will (Ephes. 1:11; Phil. 4:6,7) free of worry, anxiety and fretting, with a soul at rest and in peace knowing that your Shepherd-King will take care of the need for you in His time with the person of His choice, not necessarily of your choice. YOU MUST TRUST HIM TO USE HIS WORD AND THE TRUTH OF ROMANS 14:22,23 WITH PHILIPPIANS 4:6,7 to guide you. He can bring scriptures to mind to guide and direct you. The final test is the Spirit's gift of doubt-free peace of heart and mind. Move and rest in that peace. Consider every doubt and uneasiness of spirit to be God's Romans 14 and Phil. 4 signal to you that you shouldn't do the thing in question because either it is the wrong thing and you don't realize it yet, or it is the right thing but you shouldn't do it yet. So you don't say it or do it until your consciousness is filled with His doubt-free peace and rest of spirit about it/him/her and the Word of God in Scripture. APPENDIX SEVEN: The error of swearing , oaths, solemn promises and swearing oaths. It is obvious that certification can be comprised of oaths, swearings, covenants and contracts. For example government documents requiring certification consist of at least an assertion about the future, if not a promise or prediction about the future. A Calif. Highway Patrol ticket has the statement, "Without admitting guilt, I promise to appear at the time and place checked below. Signature___________". The promise or assertion about the future is made binding by the maker's signature. In legal terms, the signature functions as an oath, making the promise/agreement binding on the maker, so the entire statement becomes a sworn statement (a solemn promise made binding by an oath). Phrases like "I promise that I will . . . .", "I agree that I will provide . . . .", "I will also cooperate . . . .", "I agree that I will inform . . . ." are all predictions or promises about one;s future behavior. When certified or signed with one's signature, the signature functions as an oath, making them binding and the maker punishable for failure to fulfill his predictions/ promises. The signature, or witnessed statement, is that which (1) attests to the credibility of the predictions and promises, (2) makes the promises or predictions binding on the applicant/recipient/maker, and (3) enables the courts to punish the applicant/recipient/ maker if he fails to fulfill his words. According to almost all legal and college level dictionaries, those three characteristics of such a signature makes that signature an oath that completes and confirms the swearing (promises or predictions) that precede it. Almost all legal and college level dictionaries define swearing as promising or predicting with an oath. The government's Loyalty Oath is a perfect example, i.e. promises or predictions made with a witnessed raised right hand and/or a witnessed signature (i.e. name). Arndt & Gingrich Greek Lexicon render the word "swear" (Mt. 5:34) as "swear, take an oath w. acc. of the pers. or the thing by which one swears . . warning against any and all oaths as early as Choerilus Epicus[V BC]">.26 ; and the word "oath" (Mt. 5:33) as "swear to someone with an oath . . . perform oaths to the Lord . . . guarantee by means of an oath . . .">27. Thayer's Greek Lexicon renders "swear" (Mt. 5:34) as " to swear; to affirm, promise, threaten, with an oath: . . . .in swearing to call a person or thing as witness, to invoke, swear by . . .">28; and renders the word "oath" (Mt. 5:33) as "an oath . . . that which has been pledged or promised with an oath; plur. vows . . .">29. That this is the definition of swearing and oaths in the HolyBible is obvious from the following scriptures: Gen. 21:23, 24 (19th Cent. BC); Gen. 31:44, 52, 53 (18th Cent, BC); Josh. 2:12, 13, 14, 20; Josh 9:11-20 (14th Cent. BC); Judg. 21:1 (11th Cent. BC); 1 Kg 1:29,30 (10th Cent. BC); Ezek. 17:12-19 (6th Cent. BC); Luke 1:73,74,75 (1st Cent. BC); Matt. 5:34-37 & 14:7,8,9 (1st Cent. AD); Acts 7:17 (1st Cent AD); Acts 2:29-31 with 2 Sam. 7:11-16; Heb. 3:10,11 with Num. 14; Heb. 6:13-17 with Gen. 22:16,17; Heb. 7:20,21 with Psa. 110:4; and see also Isa. 62:7; Jer. 44:6,26; Matt. 23:18; Heb. 3:18. [Footnote: >.26 Arndt & Gingrich Greek English Lexicon; p. 568ff. >.27 Arndt & Giungrich; p. 585. >.28 Thayer Greek Lexicon; p. 444. >.29 Thayer; p.453.] Passages, like Mt. 26:74, lead people to think that 'swearing' means profanity or cussing or "taking the Lord's Name in vain", i.e. that Peter was using profanity to deny that he knew Jesus. Instead of that Mat. 26:74 means "in swearing to call a person or thing as witness, to invoke" where Peter called on God to curse him/his if what he was saying (that he didn't know Jesus) was untrue. The cursing was invoking God's curses on him if what he was affirming under oath was untrue, that he did not know Jesus. Jesus is not talking about cursing, profanity, cussing or taking the Lord's Name in vain in Matt. 5 or James 5. Some of the oaths people swear by are God (Gen. 24:3), one's self (Ex. 32:13), God's holiness (Amos 4:2), the raised or unraised right hand or arm (Isa. 62:8; Rev. 10:5,6), one's name (Jer. 44:26; Lev. 19:12; Deut. 6:13), something greater than you (Heb. 6:16), and some swear a curse on one's self if what one says isn't true or if one fails to do what one swears you will do, like Peter when he swore - invoking curses on himself -- while denying Jesus (2 Sam. 3:35; 13:35; 1 Kg 2:23; Matt. 26:74). I see my signature attesting to/vouching for and guaranteeing (certifying) promises and predictions as an oath, just like swearing by my name or swearing by myself. Today the "curse" you swear on yourself if you are lying or fail to do what you promised is jail (perjury, fraud) or civil suit. The fourth century AD Church fathers Jerome, St. Ambrose and Basil all agreed with this definition of swearing (promises or predictions confirmed with one's signature, name or hand)>.30 , that it is not profanity, cussing or using the Lord's Name coarsely. [#>30The Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, 1954, Erdman's Publish Co.' pp. 63, 386, 248.] The Holy Bible in Matthew 5:33-37, James 4 and James 5:12, declares that we don't know our future, not even tomorrow or even the next hour. Therefore it is a presumptuous assertion to say that we will do this or that in our future. He tells us to recognize and admit our finite knowledge and our mortality by saying, "If the Lord wills and we live, we also shall do this or that." To make presumptuous assertions about your future is prideful boasting and contrary to His will. See James 4:13,14,15 and Prov. 27:1. This is not an attempt to be dishonest or evasive since this same God of Truth commands us to be honest, to give that which is due to others, and to conscientiously submit to the civil authorities (Romans 13 and 1 Pt. 2). While He wants us to be honest and give that which is due, he takes into consideration our human frailty, finite knowledge and mortal nature and so holds us liable only for our intent, will and expectations about the future. From James 4:13-17 & 5:12 we see that there is nothing that we can give that will honestly and absolutely attest to the credibility and fulfillment of our promises or predictions about our own future. We have absolute and perfect control or authority over not one thing. To give the idea to the recipient of such promises, oaths or predictions about our future --- that we can be expected to perfectly and completely fulfill such statements is to give the recipient a false expectation of (and false confidence in) our fulfillment of such swearings/oaths. Such dishonesty is contrary to the Truth of the word since or life is like a vapor or a blade of grass and disasters, disabilities, incapacities, death or etc. could keep us from fulfilling our sworn oaths. People who give their signatures, handshakes, property and etc. as oaths in promissory notes of indebtedness, or contracts or other such documented promises or predictions not only fall into the condemnation of man when they fail to fulfill their sworn promises or predictions, but they face the double condemnation of God for swearing (promising/predicting with an oath), and then for the failure to truthfully keep their promise (the covenant breaking of Rom. 1:31,32). The God of Truth does not want His followers to suffer for doing wrong, or to keep on doing that which is wrong. Truth, Who was revealed as Christ, declares that all I can give to promises or predictions about my future is simply "If the Lord wills", or a simple "Yes", i.e. an affirmation of my will, a declaration of my intent, an expression of my expectation, an evidence of my good and honest intentions and an expression of my optimistic hope for the future fulfillment of my intentions or expectations. No oaths. Such an affirmation attests to and is confirmation of nothing but that described in this paragraph's first sentence. It is proof of my sincere desire and intention to fulfill the declaration/affirmation/intention. The recipient of such an affirmation knows that he has been given no profound absolute and mighty guarantee. Such an affirmation is a reflection of our finite, mortal and frail human nature. Laurence Geller, a Calif. Administrative Law Referee/Judge ruled against San Diego County and Calif. and for my petition, on 8/5/'75, stating: "It is the claimant's conviction that before he may affix his signature to any document, his signing must b e qualified by a religious preface such as ÔIn case Christ wills and I live.Õ Claimant testified that his desire to so qualify his signature is in no way an attempt or subterfuge to not meet his reporting responsibilities. Claimant simply desires the qualification so that the placing of his signature would be in conformity with his religious convictions which appear to require an affirmation of the finite nature of the claimant's existence. . . .San Diego County shall rescind its July 1, 1975 denial . . .Further, the county shall permit the claimant to sign his application and qualify his signature with the religious statement.Ó In A COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPELS>31 we read "The citizen of the New Kingdom . . .is also too frank and truthful to need the use of oaths; his word is his bond." In THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW>32 we read the following: "Matthew 5:33-37 . . . This passage concludes with the commandment that when a man has to say yes, he should say yes, and nothing more; and when he has to say no, he should say no, and nothing more. The ideal is that a man should never need an oath to buttress or guarantee the truth of anything he may say. . . Clement of Alexandria insisted that Christian must lead such a life and demonstrate such a character that no one will ever dream of asking an oath from them. . . ." [>.31 By Ronald Knox, 1952, N.Y. Shed and Ward, Imprimatur, Richard J. Cushing, Archbishop of Boston. >.32 Vol. 1, Barclay, Professor of Divinity at the Univ. of Glasgow, Westminister Press, 1958; p. 158.] In A COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO SAINT MATTHEW>33 we read the following: "Since in all of life man is dealing with God, he is always obligated to complete integrity in word and act. Therefore the use of oaths is misleading; swear not at all; simply say "Yes" or "No" . . . The use of solemn-sounding oaths instead of simple, truthful speech is a concession to a double standard and comes from the Evil One, Satan, the "Father of Lies" . . . and dishonesty (Jn :44)." [>.33 Filson, Dean and Professor of N.T. lit.and Hist.; McCormick Theological Seminary, Chicago, Harper and Bros. Prss, 1960; p. 89.] In the THEOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT>34 we read the following: ". . . oaths and vows had to be kept. . . . Attempts have been made to limit ["swear not at all"] of Jesus, e.g. to promises rather than affirmations.. . . . . . Hence the ["Swear not at all"] applies to all oaths, whether in daily life or in judicial cases. . . The Essenes rejected the oath unconditionally. . . Jesus does not merely attach the misuse of the oath; He rejects it altogether. . . He who already belongs to the kingdom . . . must be truthful in all things; hence he stands under the requirement not to sear at all. . . ["swear" Mt. 5:34] means to swear, to affirm (confirm) by an oath. . ." In THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW>35 we read that "Jesus would abolish oaths altogether as unnecessary for those who habitually tell the truth as his disciples are expected to do. This radical rejection of oaths is paralleled in the Damascus Document of the Dead Sea Scrolls (XIX, 1). [>.34 edited by G. Friedrich G. Kittel, Eerdmans Publishers, 1967, Vol. 5; pp. 176ff and page 183. >.35 Argyle, Cambridge, 1963; p.52.] The Holy Bible in Matthew 5:33-37, James 4 and James 5:12, declares that we don't know our future, not even tomorrow or even the next hour. Therefore it is a presumptuous assertion to say that we will do this or that in our future. He tells us to recognize and admit our finite knowledge and our mortality by saying, "If the Lord wills and we live, we also shall do this or that." To make presumptuous assertions about your future is prideful boasting and contrary to His will. See James 4:13,14,15 and Prov. 27:1. This is not an attempt to be dishonest or evasive since this same God of Truth commands us to be honest, to give that which is due to others, and to conscientiously submit to the civil authorities (Romans 13 and 1 Pt. 2). While He wants us to be honest and give that which is due, he takes into consideration our human frailty, finite knowledge and mortal nature and so holds us liable only for our intent, will and expectations about the future. From James 4:13-17 & 5:12 we see that there is nothing that we can give that will honestly and absolutely attest to the credibility and fulfillment of our promises or predictions about our own future. We have absolute and perfect control or authority over not one thing. To give the idea to the recipient of such promises, oaths or predictions about our future --- that we can be expected to perfectly and completely fulfill such statements is to give the recipient a false expectation of (and false confidence in) our fulfillment of such swearings/oaths. Such dishonesty is contrary to the Truth of the word since or life is like a vapor or a blade of grass and disasters, disabilities, incapacities, death or etc. could keep us from fulfilling our sworn oaths. People who give their signatures, handshakes, property and etc. as oaths in promissory notes of indebtedness, or contracts or other such documented promises or predictions not only fall into the condemnation of man when they fail to fulfill their sworn promises or predictions, but they face the double condemnation of God for swearing (promising/predicting with an oath), and then for the failure to truthfully keep their promise (the covenant breaking of Rom. 1:31,32). The God of Truth does not want His followers to suffer for doing wrong, or to keep on doing that which is wrong. Truth, Who was revealed as Christ, declares that all I can give to promises or predictions about my future is simply "If the Lord wills", or a simple "Yes", i.e. an affirmation of my will, a declaration of my intent, an expression of my expectation, an evidence of my good and honest intentions and an expression of my optimistic hope for the future fulfillment of my intentions or expectations. No oaths. Such an affirmation attests to and is confirmation of nothing but that described in this paragraph's first sentence. It is proof of my sincere desire and intention to fulfill the declaration/affirmation/intention. The recipient of such an affirmation knows that he has been given no profound absolute and mighty guarantee. Such an affirmation is a reflection of our finite, mortal and frail human nature. There have been laws passed at various levels of government, as well as written policies made by creditors as part of their loan agreement, that acknowledge human frailty and the uncertain future of any human. Legal bankruptcy is offered to and available for debtors who are unable to pay what they had bound themselves to pay. Bankruptcy laws protect the debtor from the creditor, but also warns future creditors of the debtors behavior. The law and the courts can release the debtor from his debt to the creditor and protect him from a creditorÕs legal actions, but it cannot release the child of God from the responsibility before God to honor and fulfil his/her word/promise/pledge/contract with the creditor. So even if it is ÒpenniesÓ a month repayment of the money/service owed, the child of God should make every realistic effort to honor his/her word/signature/hand-shake and pay/do that which was agreed upon or promised-------even if released by bankruptcy court or by human law. It would appear that if a creditor/contractor would accept your signature/ word/hand-shake as binding but with the acceptance/recognition of your finite human nature, with its possibilty of failure to be able to do what was promised/contracted,----- then you would appear to have a James 4:13-17 contract instead of the forbidden James 5:12 type of contract. Just a thought. APPENDIX EIGHT----BLACK POLYGYNY RESOURCES Here are summaries of some articles dealing with the subjects of blacks and polygamy. -------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- TITLE: Can Mr. Mombasa Keep All his Wives? AUTHOR: Tim Stafford SOURCE: Christianity Today, 35:33-34 Feb 11, 1991 This article deals with a conflict in the Christian church in Kenya, wheremany blacks who are converted have several wives. Originally the churchwould not baptize them, but allowed them to participate in the church.Later, the church and some members broke away from their leadership and began baptizing black polygamous men. -------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- TITLE: Thinking the unthinkable: man-sharing: a startling report from those who do, don't, will, won't. AUTHOR: Laura B. Randolph SOURCE: Ebony 46:136+, Jan 1991 The book Man Sharing: Dilemma or Choice, by Audrey Chapman, says that man sharing is common in the black community. This article discusses the emotional impact of man-sharing on black women, and says that many black women do chose this life-style because of the shortage of black men. -------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- TITLE: Shortage of Black Men may Force Alternative to Traditional Family SOURCE: Jet 69:33, Feb 3, 1986 This article discusses the shortage of single, employed black men, and suggests that women may have to consider polygamy as an alternative. -------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- TITLE: Woman Leader Sparks Furor about Polygamy Saving Black Families SOURCE: Jet 69: 38-39 Feb 17, 1986 Hortense G. Canady, who is the leader of Sigma Theta Sorority, has created a controversy by stating that black women may have to live polygamy because of the shortage of marriagable black men in the community. -------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- Other polygyny resources: http://etext.info/ then locate Etext Archives and look under pub/essays/polyamory and pub/politics/essays/polyamory http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Hezekia h/polygamy.html http://www.mainelink.net/~bfree/men.html bfree@mainelink.net Mormon and Moslem: Lanove@aol.com/ Lanove Homepage /Web Searchers footnotes done to ********* CHANGED 29,30,31,78,79 App[endiox three