Divorce_&_PolygamyPt2.html

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, POLYGYNY & JESUS; Another Look for Christians.

COPYRIGHT JANUARY 14, 1995 All rights reserved.
Copyright 01/12/96 (Revised)

By L. Tyler P.O. Box 620763, SanDiego, CA 92162-0763
P.O.Box 734, El Centro, CA 92244
oldservant@delphi.com,
rtyle19@wavenet.com

Divorce_&_Polygyny part 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS (PLEASE USE YOUR FIND TOOL TO FIND THE CHAPTER BY THE CHAPTER NUMBER)
V. VARIETIES OF MARRIAGE IN THE BIBLE, OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS -- LET THE WORD
SPEAK ABOUT POLYGYNY AND CONCUBINES! P.
VI. ADULTERY DEFINED: A SURPRISE! ISNT POLYGYNY ADULTERY? P.
VII. SO, WHAT ABOUT CONCUBINES & POLYGYNY TODAY IN MY COUNTRY? P.
VIII. ARE POLYGYNISTS AND CONCUBINES LIVING IN ERROR TODAY? P.
IX. MARRIAGE, CONCUBINES, CIVIL LAW, PERSONAL LIBERTY AND A LOVING CONSCIENCE! P.
X. DOES GOD FORGIVE BROKEN VOWS, DIVORCE AND ADULTERY? P.
XI. CAN YOU COME BACK TOGETHER & REMMARY AFTER ADULTEROUS REMARRIAGE? P.
XII. WHAT ABOUT THE HEALTH QUESTIONS INVOLVED IN SUCH REUNIONS? P.
XIII. CAN ADULTERY, DIVORCE, VOWS AND REPENTANCE RESULT IN POLYGYNY/CONCUBINAGE? P. 112
XIV. ADULTERY, DIVORCE, CONCUBINES, POLYGYNY AND THE UNSAVED. P.
XV. THE MARRIED MAN WHO WOULD ADD WIVES/CONCUBINES TO HIS "HAREM". P.
XVI. ARE POLYGYNY & CONCUBINES OPTIONS FOR THE ABANDONED MAN? P.
XVII. POLYGYNISTS, CONCUBINES AND THE LEADERS OF GOD'S PEOPLE. P.
XVIII. POLYGYNY & CONCUBINES AND THE WESTERN CHRISTIAN WOMAN. P.
XIX. WHAT'S WRONG WITH POLYANDRY? P.
XX. HUSBAND RULE OVER THE WIFE? IF SERVANT-TEACHERS RULE .P.
XXI. THREE CHEERS FOR MONOGAMY! THE BEST FOR MOST! P.
XXII. LISTEN TO THE WORD! P.
XXIII. BIBLIOGRAPHY P. 100
APPENDIX ONE: WHAT MAKES A WEDDING &/OR A MARRIAGE? P.101
APPENDIX TWO: WHEN MUST ONE MARRY? P.103
APPENDIX THREE: THE PRACTICE OF POLYGYNY IN AN HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT P. 111

WHAT THEN DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT ACTUALLY SAY ABOUT POLYGYNY FOR BELIEVERS TODAY?

"Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits

adultery against her."

Mark 10:11 Pretty clear, right? But did you note
that nowhere in the Bible does He say "Whoever remains married to
his wife and marries another woman in polygyny commits adultery against her."
Why? When Jesus walked on earth didn't He Himself
command the apostles and His disciples to observe and obey all of
the Law of Moses>a., including the Laws about polygyny cited in the
following, and that the apostles and Jewish believers kept and
observed all the Laws given to Moses (including those about
polygyny) through the entire book of Acts>b period up until God
released the apostles and believing Jews from the Law of Moses in
Ephesians 2 and Colosians 2? What about the following facts:
(1) Immediately after God gave Moses the ten commandments He
gave Moses instructions for men who have more than one wife>14. .
(2) Later He gave Moses instructions (Dt.12:1ff) for a husband who
has two wives>15. .
(3) He gave Moses specific instructions for the brother-in-laws of a
widow and did not exempt any brother who was already married>16.
and Jesus introduced no such exemption when He spoke of this
passage>17.
(4) God Himself told polygynist King David (he had ten +/- wives and
concubines at the time>18. ) that He had been with him wherever he
had gone, that He would make a great name for him, that his descendant
would be the Messiah>19. , and that He Himself had given David
more than one wife>20.
(5) God, who cannot sin and never portrays Himself as sinning,
portrayed Himself as the polygynist husband of two wives in Ezekiel
23.
[Footnotes: >a. Matthew 23:1-3
>b. In Matthew 23:1-3 Jesus commands obedience to the Laws give n
to Moses. In Acts 15 the believing non-Jews, not the believing Jews, were released from the Laws given to Moses. In Acts 21:15-25 we see the Jewish apostle Paul and the surviving apostles still obeying the Law of Moses in obedience to Christ in Matt. 23:1-3.
>14. Exodus 21:7-11 (See Hosea 3:2; Deut. 25:5-10; Lev. 19:20)
>15. Deut. 21:15-17 (See 2 Chron. 24:3; Gen. 29:33; 1 Chron.5:2; 26:10;
2 Kings 2:9)
>16. Deut. 25:5-10
>17. Matt. 22:23-25; Mark 12:18-20; Luke 20:27-29
>18. 2 Samuel 5:13; 6:12-23
>19. 2 Samuel 7:8-17
>20. 2 Samuel 12:8 ; that this did not mean platonic care is evident
from 1 Kings 1:1-3; 2:13-25.

Does Jesus' statement

The two shall become

one flesh

mean that only one man and one woman
should become one flesh, as in monogamy>57 , as
most of the "leaders" maintain? Doesn't the Spirit uses The
two shall become one flesh principle in 1 Corinth. 6
to show that he who is joined to a harlot is one body
with her , and then uses the same one flesh
principle in Eph. 5 about a husband and his wife?
Do you recall the discussion of this issue in the section on
Adam and Eve?

1Cor.7:2's . . . ..each [man] is commanded to be having

his own wife, and each [woman] is commanded to be having her own

husband .

How can this be an argument for monogamy as most Christian leaders
maintain>62? Whenever Abraham had Sarah, he had his own wife;
and whenever Abraham had Hagar, he had his own wife, not
someone else's wife,right? When David had Ahinoam, didn't he have his own
wife? When David had Abigail, didn't he have his own wife? When
David had Maacah, didn't he have his own wife? When David had
Haggith, didn't he have his own wife, instead of having another's wife? When David had Abital, didn't he have his own wife? When he had Eglah, didn't he have his own wife, not someone else's wife? Each time Jacob, Joash or Gideon had one of their own wives in polygny, wasn't he having his own wife/concubine? Wasn't each wife/concubine of these polygamists having her own polygamous
husband? Isn 't this also true of a man and his concubine with whom he
has maritally covenanted>22 honorably before God? Doesn't each polygynist
have his own wife, and have each one of them intimately and each one is
his own wife? Doesn't each of the polygynist's wives have her own husband
and have him intimately in their marriage. How does the passage above
rebuke, demean or condemn polygyny? Doesn't the passage address
marital faithfulness and exclude adultery, which involves a husband
having anothers wife and a wife having one who is not her own
husband? Doesn't it restrict sexual having to marriage with ones own
mate in monogyny or polygyny?
. . . ..let each man have his own wife, and let each wife have her own husband is not an argument for monogamy as most Christian leaders maintain>62 . Whenever Abraham, David, Jacob, Joash or Gideon had one of their own wives, he was having his own wife/concubine; and each wife/concubine of these polygamists had her own polygamous husband. This is also true of a man and his concubine with whom he has maritally covenanted>22 honorably before God. David had his own Abigail and Abigail had her own David. David had his own Abigail and Bathsheeba, and Bathsheeba and Abigail both had their own David. The polygynist has his own wife, and has each one of them intimately and each one is his own wife. Each of the polygynist's wives has her own husband and has him intimately in their marriage. This passage does not rebuke, demean or condemn polygyny. The passage addresses marital faithfulness and excludes adultery, which involves a husband having anothers wife and a wife having one who is not her own husband. It restricts sexual having to marriage with ones 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.]

1 TIimothy 3: 1*

Faithful [is] the word: If anyone reaches out to overseership, he desires a good work. 2* Then it behooves the overseer to be without reproach,

husband of one wife

, temperate, sensible, well-ordered, hospitable, apt at teaching, 3 not a drinker, not quarrelsome, not greedy of ill gain, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous, 4 ruling his own house well, having children in subjection with all honor. 5 (For if a man does not know to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) 6 not a novice, lest being puffed up he may fall into the condemnation of the Devil. 7 But he must also have a good report from those on the outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the Devil.
8 Likewise the deacons [are to be] reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of ill gain, 9 having the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. 10 And let these also first be tested, then let them [use the office of a deacon], being blameless. 11 Even so [their] wives are to [be] reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. 12

Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife,

ruling [their] children and households well.

Titus 1: 6

if anyone is blameless,

husband of one wife

, having believing children, not accused of loose behavior, or disobedient. 7 For an overseer must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not full of passion, not given to wine, not quarrelsome, not greedy for ill gain; 8 but hospitable, a lover of good, discreet, just, holy, temperate 9 holding fast the faithful word according to the doctrine, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and to convict the gainsayers.
[Are these requirements only for elders,overseers and deacons, or are they for all of us in Christ? Aren't we all supposed to be without reproach, temperate, sensible, well-ordered, not drinkers, not quarrelsome, not greedy of ill gain, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous, reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, having the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience, being blameless, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. having a good report from those on the outside?

But doesn't 1 Corinth. 12 and Ephes. 4 make it plain that we all have different gifts so that some [but not all] are hospitable, some [but not all] are able to teach, some [but not all] rule their own house well, some [but not all] have their children in subjection with all honor, (For if one does not know to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)? Since novices are not expected to be able or qualified to be an elder, overseer or deacon, doesn't that also mean that they are therefore not expected to be mongynous? Since all believers are not required to have the gift of hospitality, of teaching, of ruling well and effectively their children, and since all believers are novices at one point in their spiritual lives, then isn't it obvious that not all believers have the gift (1 Cor. 7) of monogyny? If these standards (especially monogyny) are to be required of all believers, then what about those believers Paul encourages to never marry at all so that they can wait on God without distraction in times of persecution? Isn't it clear that these requirements are required only of those who seek to qualify for such positions?
Husband of one wife: Yes! Definitely! An elder/overseer/bishop/superintendent of a church must be the husband of only one wife. Are we all elders/overseers/bishops/ superintendents? Clearly not. The unmarried are not. The married who have unruly children are not. Husbands with disrespectful, uncooperative and defiant wives are not. The married and unmarried who are unable to teach are not. All novices are not. Those with a bad reputation, earned or unearned, among the unsaved through slander or misunderstandings are not. Those who dont 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.]

Douglas New Bible Dictionary : MARRIAGE:
....."Monogamy is implicit in the story of Adam and
Eve, since God created only one wife for Adam. Yet
polygyny is adopted from the time of Lamech (Gn.
4:19), and is not forbidden inScripture. . . ...Polygamy
continues to the present day among Jews in Moslem,
Hindu, Buddhist, Asian, Oriental, and African
countries."
HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE: . . . Elkanah,
the husband of Hannah and Peninnah, is an
interesting example of a man of no particular position
who nevertheless had more than one wife; this may
be an indication that bigamy, at least, if not polygamy,
was not confined to the very wealthy and exalted. At
all events, polygyny was an established and
recognized institution from the earliest of times.>39
[Footnote: >39. HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE;
p.259.]

Polygamy meets us as a fact: e.g. Abraham, Jacob, the
Judges, David, Solomon; 1 Ch 7:4 is evidence of its
prevalence in Issachar; Elkanah (1 Sam.1:1ff) is
significant as belonging to the middle class; Jehoida (2
Ch 24:3) as a priest. . .Legislation . . . safeguarded the
rights of various wives, slave or free; and according to
the Rabbinical interpretation of Lv 21:13>40. . . .the
high priest was not allowed to be a bigamist. . . The
marriage figure applied to the union of God and Israel
. . . implied monogamy as the ideal state. . . Being ..
apparently legalized, and having the advantage of
precedent, it was long before polygamy was formally
forbidden in Hebrew society, though practically it fell
into disuse; the feeling of the Rabbis was strongly
against it. Herod had nine wives at once. . . Its
possibility is implied by the technical continuance of
the Levirate law, [Deut. 25:5-10] and is proved by the
early interpretation of 1 Ti 3, whether correct or not.
Justin reproaches the Jews of his day [A.D.] with
having 'four or even five wives,' and marrying 'as
they wish, or as many as they wish.' The evidence of
the Talmud shows that in this case at least the
reproach had some foundation. Polygamy was not
definitely forbidden among the Jews till the time of R.
Gershom (c. A.D. 1000), and then at first only for
France and Germany. In Spain, Italy, and the East it
persisted for some time longer, as it does still among
the Jews in Mohammedan countries>41.
[Footnote: (>.(40. Septuagint Lev. 21:13 "He shall take
for a wife a virgin of his own tribe.". .>41. HASTINGS
DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE; p.583ff.]

So what are you doing if you are condemning
polygyny in general as sin?Mark 7:8 [For], leaving
the commandment of God, you hold what is delivered
by men [to keep] --washings of vessels and cups, and
many other such like things you do. 9 And he said to
them, Well do you set aside the commandment of
God, that you may observe what is delivered by
yourselves [to keep]. . . . 13 making void the word of
God by your traditional teaching which you have
delivered; and many such like things you do.

Pretty serious stuff, laying aside God's
commands so you can keep your own traditions and
making God's Word ineffective through your
traditions. It wont look good for those folks at the
judgment seat of Christ. What about all those third
world folks, especially the Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist,
Asian, Oriental, and Africans, who are practicing
polygyny and are told that they have to dump and
abandon their extra wives &/or concubines in order
to become Christians, the biggest obstacle for the
Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Asian, Oriental, and African
community? These "Christian" folks who feel their
own tradition about monogamy and polygyny must
be kept by Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Asian, Oriental,
and Africans and other third world polygamists for
them to become Christians sound like these folks:
Mat.23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and
Pharisees, hypocrites, for you shut up the kingdom of
the heavens before men; for *you* do not enter, nor
do you suffer those that are entering to go in.

I understand that Rev. Joseph Conrad Wold>*, a
Lutheran missionary in Liberia, maintains the
following points: 1. Some missionaries have become
like the Pharisees, knit picking legalists; 2. For
unbelievers it is more of a question of who is or is not
a polygamist rather than who is and who isn't a
Christian; 3. Rejecting polygamy has become the
rejecting of polygamists; 4. If Cornelious>45 could be
born again without circumcision, then surely
polygamists should be able to be born again without
cutting away their wives, breaking their solemn
promises and forcing their beloved and faithful wives
into adultery for survival; 5 Let the polygamist be lost
because he refused to love and obey Jesus, rather
than because he loved his wives too much to cause
them to suffer, or was too 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 mans tradition? If the
condemnation of polygyny/concubinasge is only the
commandment and tradition of men, dare we impose
as Doctrine the commandment and tradition of men
about polygyny/concubinage as if it were the Word
of God? If our teaching against polygyny is only the
tradition and commandment of men, will we not
again make of no effect the Word of God in the lives
of these people who live where most of the people on
earth live ?

The angels are waiting to rejoice over the conversion
of one polygamous Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Asian,
Oriental, and African or third worlder and "Christian
legalists and traditionalists" wont let them in unless
they sin by "dealing treacherously">46 with their
wives &/or concubines by putting them away in
repudiation, and sin by disobeying Christ's command
not to leave their wives>47 , and sin by not
remaining in the marital condition in which they were
called to Christ. According to the New York Times
News Service, there were 200,000 polygynists in Paris
France alone. Can we turn away such a mission
field?
[Footnote: >46 (Malachi 2). >47 (1 Cor. 7:11)]
1 Cor.7: 17 However, as the Lord has divided to
each, as God has called each, so let him walk; and thus
I ordain in all the assemblies. . . 20 Let each abide in
that calling in which he has been called. . . . 24 Let
each, wherein he is called, brethren, therein abide
with God. . . . 26 I think then that this is good, on
account of the present necessity, that [it is] good for a
man to remain so as he is. 27 Are you bound to a
wife? Seek not to be loosed; Are you free from a
wife? Do not seek a wife.

Yes, that means if they were called in polygyny, they
remain in polygyny unless their polygyny violates the
law>48 of the land they are called in. If the law of
the land prohibits their polygyny, they cannot dump
their wives since they are bound by God to them in
marriage since Gods 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 mens 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) ]

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.
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)]
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! ISNT POLYGYNY ADULTERY?
Some say The same laws apply to both male and female. This is an issue of nature, not role. Therefore all are equal: male and female. Some Bible interpreters are more zealous for unisex doctrines and practices than the bleeding heart liberals who encourage unisex restroom and coed dorms. God made males and females very different for a reason, and we miss the mark when we fail to recognize the differences He made and instituted. Mary leave/divorces Elias. Some say that this forsaken Elias commits adultery when he marries Sally but the Biblical definition of adultery>143 in Matt. 5:32 and 19:6-9; Mark 10:1-11; Luke 16:18; 1 Thess. 4:4-6 and Romans 7:1-3>143 plainly states the double standard in the definition of adultery. There really are different scriptural laws for men than for women governing marriage and remarriage, and there are different scriptural laws for men than for women defining adultery.

Adultery for the woman:
1. "Whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery">144. The reason being that she is still bound to him as wife.>145.
[Footnote: >144 Mat. 5:32; 19:9; Luke 16:18; except in the cases of 1 Cor. 7:12-15,39; 1 Tim. 5:14. >145. 1 Cor. 7:10, 11, 39; Romans 7:1-3. ]

2. The husband "causes her to commit adultery" when he divorces her for any reason other than sexual immorality>146. The reason being that she is still bound to him as wife.>147 In 1 Corinth. 7:5 we see that her husband "causes her to commit adultery" because her husband is failing to meet her marital needs and the enemy of her soul tempts in her burning need. (On the other hand: The wife is not said to cause her husband to commit adultery when she divorces him for any other reason than sexual immorality, probably because he is free to be a polygynist.)
[Footnote: >146. Matt. 5:32; 19:9. >147 1 Cor. 7:10, 11, 39; Romans 7:1-3.]

3. "And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.">148. The adultery consists of both divorce AND remarriage. The reason being that she is still bound to him as wife.>149.
[Footnotes:>148. Mark 10:12. >149. 1 Cor. 7:10, 11, 39; Romans 7:1-3.]

4. "if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man.">150
[Footnote: >150. Romans 7:3.]

Adultery for the man:
1. "Whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery", obviously because she still is bound to the husband from whom she is divorced.
[>.^151. Mat. 5:32; 19:9; except in the cases of 1 Cor. 7:12-15,39; 1 Tim. 5:14.]

2. "Whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery." The adultery consists of divorcing his wife for something else besides sexual immorality AND then remarrying. If he stayed married to his wife and married another, he became a polygynist. On the other hand, it is implied here that if he divorces his wife for sexual immorality and marries another, he does not commit adultery. His divorcing her does not cause her to commit adultery because she is already immorally sexually involved with someone else. His refusal to meet her sexual needs (1 Cor 7:2-5) does not cause her to be immoral because she is already being immoral. He is commanded not to be intimate with her (1Cor.5:11) but his lack of her intimacy will cause him to be tempted (1 Cor.7:5). If the temptations overcome him and he is faling to control himself, burning with marital desire, he comes under command to marry (1Cor.7:9) and so remarries in the Lord. [Footnote: >152. Matt 19: 9: Mark 10:11; Luke 16:18.152.]

3. "You shall not covet your neighbor's wife.">153. "You shall not lie carnally with your neighbor's wife>154. "For this is the will of God. . . ..that no one should take advantage of and defraud/cheat his brother in this matter.>155. A genuine Christian wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives and she becomes an adulteress when she marries another while he still lives.
[Footnotes:>153. Exod. 20:17. >154. Leviticus18:20. >155. 1 Thess. 4:3-6.]

Adultery for the female is sexual intimacy with anyone else besides her own husband/mate. Adultery for the male is when (1) he is married to a new wife and had left/rejected/divorced his former wife in order to marry this new wife>99 . ; or (2) is sexually intimate with some one elses 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, thats right, there is a double standard going all the way back to Genesis. It was not adultery for a married man to marry another woman free-to-marry under the laws of God throughout the whole Old Testament. It was legal and divinely permitted polygyny , if the scriptures are understood correctly. Under the same Word of God, a woman who was sexually intimate with another besides her own husband was an adulteress. The double standard started in Genesis 3:16, restated in 1 Corinth. 11 and 1 Timothy 2 appear to allow a godly man to be a polygamist but does not allow a godly woman to be a polyandrist.
The woman's repentance option explains the double standard and apparent inequity of 1 Corinthians 7:10,11 where it appears that the woman who has left her husband has the repentance option of remaining single but the man must never leave his wife. If a wife left her husband according to 1 Cor. 7:11, he would immediately be put in the hazardous position of 1 Corinth 7:1-5, being tempted to sin because his wife will not give him the marital sexual outlet since she is gone. It seemed to me to be quite unfair that she could leave him and live unmarried, and he, knowing he is still bound to her for life, has to struggle with the burning temptations predicted in 1 Corinth. 7:1-5, 9 with no legitimate sexual outlet.
Then I realized that 1 Corinth. 7:1-5 predicted his need of marital intimacy, how Satan would use the wife's absence to tempt him, how marital intimacy is the prescription to avoid Satan's temptations, and then the command in verse 9 plainly commands the one to marry who is failing to have successful self-control>100 . Then I realized that the polygyny option balanced the equation. The wife could leave her husband and remain single and the husband who was still bound to such a departed wife seems to have had a Biblical option of polygyny / concubinage, (depending on the laws of his land) if he found himself tempted and burning as in 1 Cor. 7:5, 9,12. She could leave and he could remarry becoming a polygamist and the inequity was gone. She could separate and remain single, and he could remarry as long as he recognized that he was still bound to his separated wife.
[Footnote: >100 See Appendix Six.]
Now consider the case where the wife, claiming to be a Christian, refuses for years to obey 1 Cor. 7:1-5 with her saved husband and then finally leaves, abandons, rejects ,separates herself , and dismisses him from her presence. She doesn't care about getting a formal divorce but feels free to date and get involved with another man. Her abandoned husband is faced with the question, "Is she saved and is it a case of 1 Cor. 7:11 & 39 or is she unsaved and is he free according to l Cor. 7:12 & 15?" Her abandoned husband wants to do Matt. 18:15-17 to clarify the situation and get an answer to his question but can find no Christian body willing to do the following:
MKJV MKJV 1 CORINTH. 5: . . . I indeed have judged already [as though I were] present [concerning] him who worked out this thing; 4 in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, with my spirit; also, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ; 5 to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. . . . 11 But now I have written to you not to associate intimately, if any man called a brother [and is] either a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one not to eat. 12 . . . Do you not judge those who are inside? 13 . . . Therefore put out from you the evil one.
MKJV MATTHEW 5:32* But I say to you that whoever shall put away his wife, except for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery. And whoever shall marry her who is put away commits adultery.
MATTHEW 18: 15 But if your brother shall trespass against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he will not hear [you], take one or two more with you, so that in [the] mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell [it] to the church. But if he neglects to hear the church, let him be to you as a heathen and a tax-
collector.
5:32* But I say to you that whoever shall put away his wife, except for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery. And whoever shall marry her who is put away commits adultery. . . .
18 Truly I say to you, Whatever you shall bind on earth shall occur, having been bound in Heaven; and whatever you shall loose on earth shall occur, having been loosed in Heaven.

This means he is unable to clarify the status of both himself and his departed wife. He is unable to determine if she is unsaved and he is free to remarry>161, , or if she is saved and he is bound maritally to her for life>162 So without sending her away, dismissing , repudiating, leaving, releasing or separating himself from her, he gets a legal divorce (on the grounds of irreconcilable differences) for state and federal tax and inheritance purposes but reaffirms in writing to her what he believes may be the binding nature of their relationship>163 .
[Footnotes>161 1 Cor. 7:12,13,14,15. >162 1 Cor. 7:10,11, 39; Mark 10; Rom. 7:1-5. >163 (1 Cor. 7:39)]
So the divorce is only a legal recognition of the wife's departure and
unwillingness to be reconciled, while he still publicly recognizes the binding nature of their relationship. Then he remarries another Christian because his burning and his 1 Cor. 7:5 predicted failures to control himself bring him under the command to marry in l Cor. 7:9,36 (NIV & Amplified "they should marry"),
1 Cor. 7:36 (NIV "They should get married);
1 Tim 5:14 (NIV "So I counsel younger widows to marry.."
Amplified "So I would have younger [widows] marry..") and
1 Thess 4:3-8 (NIV "that each of you should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and honorable . . ..") >101
[Footnote>101 Please see Appendix Six; NIV , NEW INTERNATIONAL 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.

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)]

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 (12/1/95) it was on national TV news and in the local paper that 6.8% of all Black males are in prison. This means a very significant number of Black males are unavailable for marriage or parenting their children during the normally most productive years (20-40) due to imprisonment or death. Perhaps that is why only 30% of married Black femaleshave their spouse present in their homes, half the Caucasian/white rate (57%); while 9% of the married Black females have spouses that are absent from the home (four times the Caucasian/White 2% rate); and 39% of the Black females never married >1c.
[Footnote: >1a The San Diego Union-Tribune, 10/5/'95, page A-5, quoting from The Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice in San Francisco. >1b Parade 8/13/'95; Parade Publications, 711 Third Ave., NY NY 10017. >1c Census Bureau/World Almanac. ]
One out of every thousand Black people is dying of AIDS>1c making it the number one killer of Blacks in America. That means approximately 30,000 Blacks will be dying each year from HIV/AIDS, a horrendous slaughter! Condoms fail 33% of the time [see Doctor Lorraine Day, MD], and then on stationary artificial genitals according to federal test results, so they give very little protection. But when you add crack or speed or other mind altering drugs to the equation, so the users cant even think straight to appraise their risk or use them carefully and correctly, then condoms cant even give their miserable little 66% protection. And the AIDS rolls on through the urban Black communities like the plague.
The second major killer of Blacks in America, especially the males, is Black-on-Black homicide. The third major killer of blacks in America today is abortion, where more Black babies are being killed/aborted than are being born. According to Beverly LaHaye of Concerned Women for America, the original founder of Planned Parenthood had as her original purpose the use of government funded abortion to keep the minority populations small, especially the Black population.
The Black population in America has increased very little in the last twenty years, one % in twenty years, to the delight of the bigots. Tragically all of the facts cited above (AIDS, Gangs, drugs, abortion) mean that Blacks are killing more Blacks per year now than the number of Blacks killed by Caucasian bigots and the KKK during any one year from 1800 to 1940, to the delight of the bigots. In 1880, according to the census bureau, Blacks accounted for 13.1% of the total population, whereas today Blacks account only for 12.5% of the total population. One hundred ten years later and the Black community has not yet recovered from the 1880s 13.1% (of the total USA pop.) drop to the 1895s 9.5% (of the total USA pop.) that lynchings, Jim Crow, and Western-Canadian-Mexican migrations caused in the Black community. More than a fourth of the Black population just dropped off the census charts during that time and the Black community has never made it back up to 13.1% of the total USA population. Not much chance give the present circumstances.
[Footnote: >.1c San Diego Union Tribune, ll/25/'95 page A-8, quoting the US Center Disease for Control and Prevention.]
This means a very significant number of Black males are unavailable for marriage or parenting their children during the normally most productive years (20-40) due to imprisonment or death. This results in significantly more Black females than males being available for marriage and parenting children, many of whom are single parentsraising a family without a present or stable father figure. According to the Census Bureau and Focus on the Family radio program, 39% of Black women never marry, and 46% of Black men never marry>.1d On 11/26/'95, Michelle said that the Essence magazine gave the figure of 40%>.1d. We still live in a racist society 20 years after the death of M.L.King. Black females are not sought for as wives by a significant number of non-Black males in America.
This leaves a significant number of marriagable Black females with no suitable male to marry and help raise their children. Normal young, Black females with affectionate and passionate needs do not have enough suitable males for monogynous marriages so that leaves neurotic frustration, promiscuity, lesbianism or bisexuality. In America, bigamy and polygyny are illegal. Why shouldn't ethically moral and Biblically acceptable Christian concubinage be a viable option for such a population (30 million Blacks in l990, 12.1% of the total USA pop.) with an obvious shortage of stable and successful males, even in America?
It is 1995 and the women living in and around San Francisco who want no part of lesbianism face the same critical shortage of marriagable men. It is 1995 and there seems to be a genuine shortage of godly, spirit-filled and born-again men for the godly, spirit-filled and born-again women who want to marry, especially for those who are burning and are under God's command to marry>2 .
[Footnote: >.2 See appendix 6 .]
Patriarchies are not the problem. They are a social institution that has usually worked for the protection of women and children in most societies of the world, for most of the history of the world. Yes there have been many instances of abuse, but every social institution on earth has a history of abuses because of the nature of humans>1 and the involvement of evil spiritual powers>2. God's solution for widows in Deut. 25 included the possibility of polygyny since being married did not exempt a brother from the command to marry his brother's widow. Given the shortage of males in poor, rural, and primitive or war-ravaged lands, patriarchal polygyny seems to be a realistic option for widows and women facing a real shortage of males. I intend by this document to show that polygyny or concubinage should be viable options for society in general and born-again and Spirit-filled Christians in particular.
[Footnote: >1 Rom. 3:23. >2 Eph. 2:1,2; 6:12.]
Any child of God who feels led to consider polygyny or concubinage for his/her life and/or loved ones needs to determine what kind of relationship he/she has with Jesus. Whatever we believe about marriage, divorce, remarriage, monogyny, concubinage or polygyny, our relationship with Jesus Christ is the paramount issue.
God's laws about polygyny and concubinage in the Old Testament were brought by Jesus into the New Testament without being changed or nullified. During the transition period (transition from the Law of Moses to the Royal Law of Christ) we saw the following:
Mat. 5:17 Think not that I am come to make void the law or the prophets; I am not come to make void, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Until the heaven and the earth pass away, one iota or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all come to pass. 19 Whosoever then shall do away with one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of the heavens; but whosoever shall practise and teach [them], *he* shall be called great in the kingdom of the heavens.
Matt. 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 saying, The scribes and the Pharisees have set themselves down in Moses' seat: 3 all things therefore, whatever they may tell you, do and keep. But do not after their works, for they say and do not, . . .
Heb. 8:8* For finding fault, he says to them, Behold, days come, says the Lord, and I will consummate a new covenant as regards the house of Israel, and as regards the house of Juda; 9 not according to the covenant which I made to their fathers in [the] day of my taking their hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; . . .13* In that he says New, he has made the first old; but that which grows old and aged [is] near disappearing.
Hebrews 8, especially the Greek of verse 13..........................
In that he says, A new [covenant], he has made the first [covenant] old. Now that which is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
.. . .and the Greek of 2 Cor. 3:7,11 .................................
. . . the ministration of death, written [and] engraved in stones, was glorious . . . How shall not the ministration of the Spirit be more glorious? . . . For if what is passing away [was] glorious, much more that which is remaining [is] glorious".......
show there was a period of transition (is becoming obsolete..growing old..is ready to vanish..is passing away) from the Sinai Law of Moses to the Calvary Law of LOVE in Christ. The book of Acts is full of the apostles keeping the Sinai Law of Moses after Pentecost. You see them worshipping in the Temple regularly>1 , Peter refuses to socialize with Gentiles according to the Sinai Law>2 , Peter refuses to eat the animals classified as unclean in the Sinai Law>3 , Paul circumcises Timothy >4, Paul keeps the Law's feasts>5 , Paul recognizes the authority given to the elders and Chief Priests under Moses' Sinai Law>6, the believing Gentiles were released from the Sinai Law of Moses while the believing Jews were not released ,>.68 , before the Law of Moses was abolished after the Book of Acts was finished>. 69 , in Acts 15 and 21 we see the believing Jews (including the apostles) keeping the law of Moses as Christians, and part of that law was God's laws regulating and allowing polygyny and concubinage.
[Footnote:>1 Acts 3 & 4. >2 Acts 10; Galat. 2. >3 Acts 10. >4 Acts 16:1-5. >5 Acts 21 >6. Acts 4:1-22; 23:1-5 >68 Acts 15 & 21 >.69 Eph. 2:14 For *He* is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of enclosure, 15 having annulled the enmity in his flesh, the law of commandments in ordinances, that He might form the two in Himself into one new man, making peace; 16 and might reconcile both in one body to God by the cross, having by it slain the enmity; . . . Colos. 2: 9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily . . . 13 and you . . . He has made alive together with Him . . . 14. Blotting out the handwriting of decrees that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to His cross . . ]
Galatians is no problem, given a date of writing of Acts 14+/-. The Jewish believers were not keeping the law to be saved or made righteous with God because they were just obeying Jesus in Matthew 23:1,2,3 just like all believers obey Jesus in John 14:15 and Matt. 28:19,20----- not for salvation but as a RESULT salvation (1 John 2:2,3,4,5; Heb. 5:8,9; Phil 2:12,13). The Legalists who were seducing Peter and the other Galatian backsliders to require circumcision for salvationl and righteousnes before God and fellowship with the apostles, were the object of Pauls wrath in Galatians. So we have Paul and the apostles observing the Law of Moses, including the laws on polygyny and concubinage, as Christians and the only thing they wrote about polygyny was that the elders/bishops/ deacons/overseers and church superintendents should have only one wife at a time. NEVER IN THE WORD OF GOD IS polygyny OR CONCUBINAGE LABELED SIN, CALLED SIN, DENOUNCED AS SIN, PROHIBITED FOR ALL SAINTS, CALLED A WORK OF THE FLESH, CALLED A CARNAL ACT OR CALLED A SIGN OF SPIRITUAL WEAKNESS.
Yes Romans 13 make it crystal clear an American Christian may not openly and officially practice polygyny in America because we have to obey the laws of the land if they do not violate the Word of God. But concubinage is neither against the laws of God nor is it against the laws of the vast majority of the United States of America. In fact the courts have validated its legality in its palimony rulings.
You may ask, Pray tell, what commandment of men do most of Americas religious leaders teach as doctrine>36 ? I submit that most of Americas religious leaders teach as doctrine mans commandment that monogamy is the only marital way for the godly, and that polygyny/concubinage is evil and sinful for all people and cultures on the earth presently. God Himself enacted laws regulating polygyny/ concubinage>.37 . God Himself gave wives in polygyny to King David>38 Which commandment of God is laid aside to hold their tradition, making the Word of God of no effect?
[Footnote: >36 Mark 7:6-13. >37 Exodus 21:7-11; Leviticus 18:18; Deut. 17:15-17; Deut. 21:15-17. >38 2 Sam 12:7,8.]
I am attempting to show that most of todays religious leaders of the Christian community are laying aside Gods Old Testament Sinai Law commands>39 about polygyny, commands that Christ, as seen above in the Gospels, commanded His followers to keep>40 while He was on Earth. The apostles commanded the believing Jews to keep>41 in the first century church until they, like the believing Gentiles>42 were released from keeping the Sinai Law by God's Word>43 Jesus and the apostles commanded the believing Jews to keep the Sinai laws governing polygyny through the book of Acts period>44 . I propose to show that most Christian religious leaders lay this fact aside for their tradition of condemning polygyny/ concubinage as sin.
[Footnote: >39 Exodus 21:7-11; Leviticus 18:18; Deut. 17:15-17; Deut. 21:15-17. >40 Matt. 5:17-19; 23:1-3; Acts 21:18-26. >41 Acts 15 & 21:18-26.>42 Acts 15. >43 in Eph. 2 and Col. 2. >44 Exodus 21:7-11; Leviticus 18:18; Deut. 17:15-17; Deut. 21:15-17; Matt. 5:17-19; 23:1-3; Acts 21:18-26. ]
So what are you doing if you are condemning polygyny in general as sin?Mark 7:8 [For], leaving the commandment of God, you hold what is delivered by men [to keep] --washings of vessels and cups, and many other such like things you do. 9 And he said to them, Well do you set aside the commandment of God, that you may observe what is delivered by yourselves [to keep]. . . . 13 making void the word of God by your traditional teaching which you have delivered; and many such like things you do.
Pretty serious stuff, laying aside God's commands so you can keep your own traditions and making God's Word ineffective through your traditions. It wont look good for those folks at the judgment seat of Christ. What about all those third world folks, especially the Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Asian, Oriental, and Africans, who are practicing polygyny and are told that they have to dump and abandon their extra wives &/or concubines in order to become Christians, the biggest obstacle for the Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Asian, Oriental, and African community? These "Christian" folks who feel their own tradition about monogamy and polygyny must be kept by Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Asian, Oriental, and Africans and other third world polygamists for them to become Christians sound like these folks:
Mat.23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for you shut up the kingdom of the heavens before men; for *you* do not enter, nor do you suffer those that are entering to go in.
I understand that Rev. Joseph Conrad Wold>*, a Lutheran missionary in Liberia, maintains the following points: 1. Some missionaries have become like the Pharisees, knit picking legalists; 2. For unbelievers it is more of a question of who is or is not a polygamist rather than who is and who isn't a Christian; 3. Rejecting polygamy has become the rejecting of polygamists; 4. If Cornelious>45 could be born again without circumcision, then surely polygamists should be able to be born again without cutting away their wives, breaking their solemn promises and forcing their beloved and faithful wives into adultery for survival; 5 Let the polygamist be lost because he refused to love and obey Jesus, rather than because he loved his wives too much to cause them to suffer, or was to virtuous to be a hypocrite.>70 He makes such an impassioned case I hope you take the time to read the original. Truly the commandments of men, condemning as sin and forbidding polygamy, make of no effect the commandments of God for so many.
[Footnote: >*GOD'S IMPATIENCE IN LIBERIA, Rev. Joseph Conrad Wold, pp. 179ff. >45 (Acts 10 & 11). >.@70 Trobisch, MY WIFE MADE ME. . . Pp.16 & 17;].
What about those who practice polygyny/concubinage where most of the people on earth live, in China, India, SE Asia, Africa and in parts of South America where it is legal and a part of mans 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 the 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 in 1995. Can we turn away such a mission field?
[Footnote: >46 (Malachi 2). >47 (1 Cor. 7:11)]
1 Cor.7: 17 However, as the Lord has divided to each, as God has called each, so let him walk; and thus I ordain in all the assemblies. . . 20 Let each abide in that calling in which he has been called. . . . 24 Let each, wherein he is called, brethren, therein abide with God. . . . 26 I think then that this is good, on account of the present necessity, that [it is] good for a man to remain so as he is. 27 Are you bound to a wife? Seek not to be loosed; Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife.
Yes, that means if they were called in polygyny, they remain in polygyny unless their polygyny violates the law>48 of the land they are called in. If the law of the land prohibits their polygyny, they cannot dump their wives since they are bound by God to them in marriage since Gods 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 mens 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:
That the holy fathers of olden times after Abraham, and before him, to whom God gave His testimony that 'they pleased Him,' [Heb. 11:4-6] thus used their wives, no one who is a Christian ought to doubt, since it was permitted to certain individuals amongst them to have a plurality of wives, where the reason was for the multiplication of their offspring, not the desire of varying gratification. . . . In the advance, however, of the human race, it came to pass that to certain good men were united a plurality of good wives, --- many to each; and from this it would seem that moderation sought rather unity on one side for dignity, while nature permitted plurality on the other side for fecundity. For on natural principles it is more feasible for one to have dominion over many, than for many to have dominion over one.>72
[Footnote: >..72 A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church, Vol. V; p. 267]
So for St. Augustine (4th century AD) ". . . good men were united [to] a plurality of good wives. . ." in a "feasible" form of polygyny that involved "moderation", "dignity" and "fecundity". Clearly he didn't label it sin and he didn't say that the practice of polygyny made these "good" people sinners. This is the position of St. Augustine, a significant post-Pentecost leader in the 4th Century AD church, speaking in the era of the Church in which we live today. Hear him again, in the following:
"But those who have not the virtues of temperance must not be allowed to judge of the conduct of holy men, any more than those in fever of the sweetness and wholesomeness of food. . . If our critics, then, wish to attain not a spurious and affected, but a genuine and sound moral health, let them find a cure in believing the Scripture record, that the honorable name of saint is given not without reason to men who had several wives; and that the reason is this, that the mind can exercise such control over the flesh as not to allow the appetite implanted in our nature by Providence to go beyond the limits of deliberate intention>. . . .the holy patriarchs in their conjugal intercourse were actuated not by the love of pleasure, but by the intelligent desire for the continuance of their family. . . .nor did the number of their wives make the patriarchs licentious. But why defend the husbands, to whose character the divine word bears the highest testimony. . . ." >73
[Footnote: >.73 A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church, Vol. iv; p.290]
Here we see St. Augustine describing most of the Bible's polygynists as "holy patriarchs" who deserved the "honorable name of saint" because their "character .. bears the highest testimony", the Word of God. It sure doesn't sound like they are a back slidden lot of fleshly saints! Quite to the contrary! Any "elder" today would do well to be so spoken of as these polygynous patriarchs.
Is polygyny with wives and concubines a sin today? St. Basil (4th Century AD) wrote that "On polygamy the Fathers are silent, as being brutish and altogether inhuman. The sins seems to me worse than fornication.">74 "Herard of Tours, A.D. 858, declares any greater number of wives than two to be unlawful. . . Leo the Wise, Emperor of Constantinople, was allowed to marry three wives without public remonstrance, but was suspended from communion by the patriarch Nicholas when he married a fourth.">75 St. Augustine (4th Cent. AD) indicates that the Roman Catholic Church was the power behind the move to not allow polygyny or concubinage among the church members of his time..>76 So even in the early church we find a wide diversity of reactions to the polygyny and concubinage of the Bible. This, in its own way, bears witness to the fact that there is no clear scriptural teaching against polygyny and concubinage. They obviously fall in the category of things discussed in Rom. 14, 1 Cor. 8 and 1 Cor 10.
[Footnote: >.74 A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church, Vol. VIII; p. 258. >.75 A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church, Vol. V; p. 267. >76 St. Augustin: On The Trinity; p. 402.]

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 Douglas New Bible Dictionary, 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?
At all events, polygyny was an established and recognized institution from the earliest of times.>78. Justin reproaches the Jews of his day [A.D.] with having 'four or even five wives,' and marrying 'as they wish, or as many as they wish.' The evidence of the Talmud shows that in this case at least the reproach had some foundation. Polygamy was not definitely forbidden among the Jews till the time of R. Gershom (c. A.D. 1000), and then at first only for France and Germany. In Spain, Italy, and the East it persisted for some time longer, as it does still among the Jews in Mohammedan countries.>79.
"POLYGAMY WAS NOT DEFINITELY FORBIDDEN AMONG THE JEWS" DURING MOST OF THE POST PENTECOST CHURCH ERA. SINCE JESUS COMMANDED HIS APOSTLES TO OBEY THE JEWS (MT. 23:1-3) IN THEIR LAWS GOVERNING POLYGYNY, WHO ARE WE TO SAY THAT THEY WERE CARNAL AND MISLED IN OBSERVING POLYGYNY AND CONCUBINAGE ACCORDING TO THE LAW OF MOSES?
[Footnote: >78. HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE; p.259. <79. HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE;p.583ff.]
What does St. Augustine (4th Century AD) say about the practice of polygyny and concubinage? Consider the following:
"The only reason of its being a crime now to do this, is because custom and the laws forbid it. Whoever despises these restraints, even though he uses his wives only to get children, still commits sin, and does an injury to human society itself, for the sake of which it is that the procreation of children is required. In the present altered state of customs and laws, men can have no pleasure in a plurality of wives, except from an excess of lust; and so the mistake arises of supposing that no one could ever have had many wives but from sensuality and the vehemence of sinful desires. Unable to form an idea of men whose force of mind is beyond their conception, they compare themselves with themselves, as the apostle says [2 Cor. x. 12], and so make mistakes. Conscious that, in their intercourse though with one wife only, they are often influenced by mere animal passion instead of an intelligent motive, they think it an obvious inference that, if the limits of moderation are not observed where there is only one wife, the infirmity must be aggravated where there are more than one.">.80
[Footnote: >80 A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church, Vol. iv; pp.289ff.]
"But here there is no ground for a criminal accusation: for a plurality of wives was no crime when it was the custom; and it is a crime now, because it is no longer the custom. There are sins against nature, and sins against custom, and sins against the laws. As regards nature, [Jacob] used the women not for sensual gratification, but for the procreation of children. For custom, this was the common practice at that time in those countries. And for the laws, no prohibition existed. The only reason of its being a crime now to do this, is because custom and the laws forbid it.">.81
[Footnote: >81 A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church, Vol. iv; p.289.]
Whose laws forbid it? A "a plurality of wives was no crime when it was the custom". "NO PROHIBITION EXISTED." NOW IT IS A CRIME ONLY BECAUSE OF Man's laws, not God's laws! Mark 7 and Matt.13 give us a very good insight into how godly man's laws are when they are made in the Name of God. On the other hand it is living in error to live in polygyny or concubinage where man's customs and laws forbid it because we are to obey the laws of the land>57 if at all possible>58 . It is NOT living in error to live in polygamy or concubinage where man's customs and law permit it. The vast majority of the world lives under laws that permit concubinage. Some countries, mostly Moslem or Asian or Oriental, still permit official and legal polygamy.
[Footnote: >57 Romans 13. >58 (Rom. 12:18; Acts 4:18-20; Deut. 1:13-18; 17:8-13)]
Unofficial, discreet, private and personal>59 contractual concubinage is legal in almost all countries, even in the United States. American courts have given a positive legal status to monogynous concubinage in the forms of palimony and common law marriages, even in cases of serial polygynous concubinage. They have not yet given such a positive legal status to polygynous concubinage, but that doesn't stop its widespread practice. Most American concubines are only mistresses where there are no long term commitments or relationships. Without marital commitments a concubine is only a harlot or whore>60 . We have already seen how God recognizes as wives concubines who have covenanted/ contracted as wives with their husbands before God and there is a significant number of such honorable concubines even in America today, especially in states where common law marriages are recognized.
[Footnote: >59 (Romans 14:13-23). >60 1 Cor. 6; Prov. 5 & 6; Ezek. 16 & 23]

One reason for polygyny 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]

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 And say, So says the Lord Jehovah to Jerusalem, . . . 8 And I passed by you and looked on you, and, behold, your time [was] the time of love. And I spread my skirt over you and covered your nakedness. And I swore to you and entered into a covenant with you, says the Lord Jehovah. And you became Mine.
MKJV MALACHI 2:14 Yet you say, Why? Because the LORD has been witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously; yet she [is] your companion and your covenant wife. 15 And did He not make [you] one? Yet the vestige of the Spirit [is in] him. And what [of] the one? He was seeking a godly seed. Then guard your spirit, and do not act treacherously with the wife of your youth. 16 The LORD, the God of Israel, says He hates sending away; and to cover [with] violence on his garment, says the LORD of hosts. Then guard your spirit, and do not act treacherously. Here "act treacherously" means " break covenant" or "fail to honor your covenant/commitment".
MKJV ECCLES. 5:4 When you vow a vow to God, do not wait to pay it. For He has no pleasure in fools. Pay that which you have vowed. 5 [it is] better that you should not vow, than that you should vow and not pay. 6 Do not allow your mouth to cause your flesh to sin; do not say before the angel that it [was] an error. Why should God be angry at your voice and destroy the work of your hands?
MKJV PSALM 15:1 A Psalm of David. LORD, who shall dwell in Your tabernacle? . . . 2 He who walks uprightly, and works righteousness, and speaks the truth in his heart; . . . [he] has sworn to his hurt, and does not change it; 5. . . He who does these [things] shall not be moved forever.
MKJV ROMANS 1:28 And even as they did not think fit to have God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do the things not right, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness . . . 31 . . . covenant-breakers. . . 32 who, knowing the righteous order of God, that those practicing such things are worthy of death, not only do them, but have pleasure in those practicing [them].

It is the treachery of breaking marital covenants that God condemns in these passages and that which he hates. "Yes, I swore an oath to you and entered into covenant with you, and you became Mine," says the Lord God>70 . We become a part of the bride of Christ in the same way. The Spirit considered Mary and Joseph as husband and wife on the basis of their espousal/betrothal/ covenants even before the wedding and the coming together>71.
[Footnote: >70 (Ezek. 16:8). >71 (Mat. 1:18-25 ;Deut. 22:23-27)]
So why can't two Christians exchange espousal/betrothal covenants and become each other's marital partners without a formal marriage which would be illegal? Of course they can since common law marriages are legally acceptable in most of Americas 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 (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.]

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 Do 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.
MKJV GALA. 6: 1 Brothers, 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.
DARBY MATT. 18:15 But 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.
DARBY 1 CORINTH.5:3 For *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.
DBY 2 THESS. 3: 6 Now 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.

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 For 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.

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 Yet you say, Why? Because the LORD has been witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously; yet she [is] your companion and your covenant wife. 15 And did He not make [you] one? Yet the vestige of the Spirit [is in] him. And what [of] the one? He was seeking a godly seed. Then guard your spirit, and do not act treacherously with the wife of your youth. 16 The LORD, the God of Israel, says He hates sending away; and to cover [with] violence on his garment, says the LORD of hosts. Then guard your spirit, and do not act treacherously
MJJV LUKE 16: 15 And 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.
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.
DBY ROMANS 7:1 Are 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.
DBY 1 CORINTH. 7: 4 The 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.
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 A Psalm of David. LORD, who shall dwell in Your
tabernacle? . . .2 He who walks uprightly, and works righteousness, and speaks the truth in his heart; . . . [he] has sworn to his hurt, and does not change it; 5 . . . He who does these [things] shall not be moved forever.
MKJV ECCLES. 5:4 When you vow a vow to God, do not wait to pay it. For He has no pleasure in fools. Pay that which you have vowed. 5 [it is] better that you should not vow, than that you should vow and not pay. 6 Do not allow your mouth to cause your flesh to sin; do not say before the angel that it [was] an error. Why should God be angry at your voice and destroy the work of your hands?
DBY MALACHI 2:14 Yet 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.
MKJV ROMANS 1:28 And even as they did not think fit to have God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do the things not right, 29 . . .[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].

You cant 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:
To 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.
[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 arent. Matt. 5:23,24 and 18:15-18 tell about repentances reconciliation and how to do it, but when dealing with so-called sinning brothers/sister>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 dont 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 daughter>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 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. . . . 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; . . .

XI. CAN YOU COME BACK TOGETHER AND REMARRY AFTER ADULTEROUS REMARRIAGES?

Ezekiel 16: 3 . . . Thus 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.

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 Rejoice 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