Objections To Biblical Christian Polygyny

OBJECTIONS TO BIBLICAL AND GODLY POLYGYNY, CONCUBINES, &
JESUS; Another Look for Christians.
COPYRIGHT © JANUARY 14, 1995 All rights reserved.

Copyright © 01/14/'95; 01/12/'96, 07/26/2003; 3/28/09 (Revised)
This file, in its entirety, may be posted on or copied off of computer
networks like Internet or WWW by anyone so inclined as long as it is
not changed and the author is acknowledged.
By L. Tyler P.O. Box 620763, San Diego, CA 92162-0763
oldservant8@aol.com
Jabez1Chr4@hotmail.com
elkanahtyler@gmail.com
[NOTICE-------If you have found this file/post in an open to
the public, you should assume that it has been corrupted and
changed without my approval or consent. To obtain an accurate
copy of my original you can go to these moderated sites to see
and download it. Sorry about the inconvenience.]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PolyPolygamyPolygnyNJesus
http://groups.google.com/group/BiblicalChristianPolygamyPolygyny
If you want to skip to any of these segments, please use your "Finder"
to locate it in this document.
>>>>Is Polygyny Sexist and an Exploitation of Women?
>>>>Gen.2 THE MONOGYNOUS ADAM & EVE IDEAL P. 1
>>>>>>Gen.3:6 Fallen Monogynous Adam and Eve and Polygyny
>>>>GEN. 16-25 ABRAHAM, SARAH, HAGAR
>>>>CONCUBINES, Abraham, Sarah, Hagar & Keturah
>>>>Gen. 29-31: JACOB, HIS WIVES & CONCUBINE-WIVES.
>>>>Ex 20, 21 JEHOVAH'S LAW RE POLYGYNY
Leviticus 18 MARRYING TWO SISTERS
De 17 MULTIPLYING WIVES TO YOURSELF
Deut. 21 HAVING TWO WIVES
DT 25 WIDOWS AND POLYGYNY
>>>>>1 Samuel 18-2 Sam 20 ; David, his six wives and ten
concubines
>>>>>1 KINGS 11 SOLOMON
Ezekiel 23 JEHOVAH AS A POLYGYNIST
>>>>POYGYNY & SINAI LAW IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
>>>>>Mat 19 BEING/BECOMING ONE FLESH 1 Cor 6 + 7
>>>>ROMANS 13 SUBMITTING TO THE AUTHORITIES
1 TIimothy 3 & TITUS 1 LEADERS WITH ONLY ONE WIFE
>>>>>>Miscellaneous Objections
>>>>>>The Economics and Sociology of Polygyny
IN CONCLUSION==============
##########################################
#############
>>>>>>Is Polygyny Sexist and an Exploitation of Women?
<<[A] BIDJAN, Ivory Coast -- Tomam Constance Yai is on a crusade

against polygamy.
<<Although she scarcely tolerates it, her problem is not so much the
traditional rural practice, which is widespread throughout this region,
where the economics of hardscrabble farming have long encouraged
men to take more than one wife.>>
<<Instead, the crusade of this leader of the Ivoirian Association for the
Defense of Women's Rights is aimed at an equally well established
urban phenomenon of multiple wives, mistresses and concubines that
she says perpetuates the sexual privileges of men while stunting the
lives of African women.>>
<<By Howard W. French, New York Times. 10 April, 1996>>
///In the much of the Third World, the world of the impoverished, there
are many impoverished Jesus believing single women, bereft women
and widows who are failing to adequately control themselves and so
are under command to marry (1 Cor 7:8,9; 1 Tim 5:10-14). Often in the
Third World of Poverty, a single female aged 12 or above is forced into
compromising sexual situations and often into outright prostitution
because of the lack of food, clothing, shelter and income to the family.
All one has to do is walk the streets of Tijuana, Mexico City, Calcutta,
Bangkok, Cebu, Rio de Janero, Hong Kong etc to see females of all ages
driven to sexual immorality and prostitution just to have food, clothing
and shelter.
In 1960s Tijuana alone I met one woman in her late teens who had
dreams of going to college some day, but in the meantime she had to
work in TJ strip clubs to help support her birth family, all of 8 of them
living in a two room shack. In 1960s Tijuana a 14 year old big brother
offered to me his 12 year old virgin sister for sex for $5 dollars for
living expenses. In 1960s Tijuana three daughters, aged 8 - 24, and
their grandfather offered their willing mother to me for sex for $5
inside a swapmeet kind of building. Such things ought not to be and
broke my heart and I'm sure deeply grieved the heart of my Jesus.
Polygyny WHICH IS NO WHERE CONDEMNED IN THE BIBLE, NEVER
DECLARED TO BE SIN, NEVER FORBIDDEN BY GOD would be a much
better alternative for these desperate people rather than pedophilia,
public nudity, prostitution and fornication (having sex with one who is
not your mate), adultery, lesbianism, sinful self-stimulation using
memory or imagination or porn, bisexuality and/or lesbianism, ALL OF
WHICH ARE CONDEMNED IN THE BIBLE, DECLARED TO BE SIN,
FORBIDDEN BY GOD.
I am sure that pedophilia, public nudity, prostitution and fornication
(having sex with one who is not your mate), adultery, lesbianism, sinful
self-stimulation using memory or imagination or porn, bisexuality
and/or lesbianism, ALL OF WHICH ARE CONDEMNED IN THE BIBLE,
DECLARED TO BE SIN, FORBIDDEN BY GOD do much more "stunting of
the lives of" these females than polygyny ever would,
WHICH IS NO WHERE CONDEMNED IN THE BIBLE, NEVER DECLARED TO
BE SIN, NEVER FORBIDDEN BY GOD.
On the average in the local churches of the Third World of Poverty,

there are 2 available mongynous men for every needy woman in her
20's, 3 available monogynous men for every needy woman in her 30s,
4 available monogynous men for every needy woman in her 40s, and 5
available monogynous men for every needy woman in her 50s. Since
there are not enough single godly men available for each bereft
woman and widow to have one for each, instead of obeying the
command to marry by marrying in polygyny WHICH IS NO WHERE
CONDEMNED IN THE BIBLE, NEVER DECLARED TO BE SIN, NEVER
FORBIDDEN BY GOD; instead these esus believing bereft women and
widows fall in to fornication (having sex with one who is not your
mate), adultery, lesbianism, sinful self-stimulation using memory or
imagination or porn, bisexuality and/or lesbianism, ALL OF WHICH ARE
CONDEMNED IN THE BIBLE, DECLARED TO BE SIN, FORBIDDEN BY
GOD. Indeed the teaching and commandment and traditions of
religious men against polygyny, have made the Word of God of no
effect for these needy women (Mark 7:1-15).
According to some Christian leaders,

polygamous family living is described or rated as an
inferior type of family living, but a passable one>64 .
The right of the first born>30 ; the right of each wife
to food, clothing/ shelter and marital sex>31 ; and the
right for the whole polygamous family to be
Spiritually and materially blessed by God>32 is
preserved by God in these polygamous marriages just
as in monogamous marriages. There is no scripture
that says a wife in polygyny is less of a wife than a
wife in monogamy. There is no scripture that says a
husband in polygyny is less of a husband than a
husband in monogamy. Consider St. AugustineÕs
point in the following:Ò . . . no one doubts . . . who
reads with careful attention what use they made of
their wives, at a time when also it was allowed one
man to have several, whom he had with more chastity
than any now has his one wife . . . But then they
married even several without any blame . . Ó>65
[Footnotes:>.64 Please see THE INSTITUTES OF
BIBLICAL LAW, by R. Rushdonney, p. 364. >30
(Deut. 21:15,16). >31 (Ex. 21:10). >32 (Genesis
30 and 2 Samuel 7). >..65 St. Augustin: On The
Trinity; p. 406.]
I understand a Christian elder to maintain that Israel

put up with polygamy as a lesser evil, causing some of
the Old Testament writers embarrassment, and
causing these writers to criticize sharply, clearly and
tirelessly showing the negativity associated with
polygamy.>66. Tolerated as a lesser evil? Tolerated
by whom? God did more than tolerate it, He
legislated it in the following:
[Footnotes: >66. W. Trobisch, MY WIFE MADE ME A
POLYGAMIST; p.19.]
Remember Exodus 21: 7-11 and DEUT. 21:15-17.

WHY DOESN'T GOD CONDEMN
HIM FOR TAKING ANOTHER WIFE IF IT IS A SIN?
He legislated polygyny without one word or hint of
condemnation. If polygyny were sin, why didn't God
condemn it instead of putting the royal seal of His
holy Law on it? God's designated and anointed
leaders freely and openly practiced it (Abraham,
Jacob, David, Jehoida the priest, and God in Ezekiel
23). Where in the Bible does he find an Old
Testament writer embarrassed to report polygamy?
If you know of a single passage that clearly and
explicitly states that, please let me know. How can
any Old Testament writer be embarrassed of
something God sanctioned and legislated, and that His
designated and anointed leaders freely and openly
practiced with God's obvious and abundant blessing in
their lives (see the next section)? The Old Testament
writers untiringly and realistically show the
negativity of polygamy? Abram and Sarai, Rachel and
Leah had problems, as did Hannah and so did
Solomon, but even with these four there is no
untiring and relentless criticism of polygamy? I
couldn't find it. In the next section, covering
thousands of years and each major period of Jewish
history there is no such relentless criticism of
polygyny found in the Bible.
In fact if you accept the Song of Solomon as the story

of young Solomon and his Shulamite wife in a
polygamous marriage>34 , you have one of the most
beautiful and positive statements of good will and
love between the Shulamite and her co-wives as well
as with the daughters of Jerusalem, many of whom
probably also became wives to Solomon later in life
when he went too far and disobeyed God by
multiplying wives to himself>35 . Let's look at the
record in the Word.
[Footnotes:>34 (Song of Sol. 6:8-10). >35 (Deut
17:15-17)]
St. Augustine (4th Century AD) had the following good

word on this subject in the following:
ÒThat the holy fathers of olden times after Abraham,
and before him, to whom God gave His testimthat
"they pleased Him," [Heb. 11:4-6] thus used their
wives, no one who is a Christian ought to doubt, since
it was permitted to certain individuals amongst them
to have a plurality of wives, where the reason was for
the multiplication of their offspring, not the desire of
varying gratification. . .In the advance . . . of the
human race, it came to pass that to certain good men
were united a plurality of good wives, --- many to
each; and from this it would seem that moderation
sought rather unity on one side for dignity, while
nature permitted plurality on the other side for
fecundity. For on natural principles it is more feasible
for one to have dominion over many, than for many
to have dominion over one.Ó
[Footnote: >..67 A Select Library of the Nicene and
Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church, Vol. V;
p. 267]
Are polygyny and concubinage a form of female

abuse? Without even discussing cases like that of OJ
Simpson's, there is a very well documented serious
and growing problem of spousal abuse in
monogamous America. There is still an
internationally known serious and abiding problem of
males killing their wives either to free them so they
can get the dowry of a new wife, or just because they
don't love their wives, in India where open polygyny
has been illegal for some time. You will find spousal
abuse in every form of marriage known to and
practiced by humans because their sinful nature>3 or
because of the involvement of evil spiritual beings>4.
The problem is not the social form of the marriage.
The problem is in the humans who exercise that social
form of marriage. Mates will abuse mates whether it
be polygyny or monogyny.
[Footnote: >3 Rom 3:23. >4 Eph. 2:1,2; 6:12.]
Does it denote inferiority on the part of the woman?

There is nothing in the Bible that says women are
inferior to men. "There is neither Jew nor Greek,
there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male
nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.">5
What does it mean to be in Christ Jesus? "But God,
who is rich in mercy, for his great Love with which he
Loved us, even when we were dead in sins, has made
us alive together with Christ . . . and has raised [us] up
together, and made [us] sit together in the heavenlies
in Christ Jesus . . . for through Him we both have
access by one Spirit to the Father." >6 In terms of
what is real, spiritually right now we who are His
children have a presence in His very presence right
now where sex is totally irrelevant and
inconsequential. "Therefore, from now on, we know
no one according to the flesh. . .">7 Our sexuallity is
not a legitimate basis for knowing each other or
relating to each other. Our sexuality is like a
temporary "uniform" we wear during a short period
of our eternal life with God, or like an instrument we
temporarily play in God's orchestra.
[Footnote: >5 Gal 3:28. >6 Ephes. 2:1-18. >7 2
Cor. 5:16]
Our Father decided>8 which of us would wear female

"uniforms" and which would wear male "uniforms",
which of us would play female insturments and which
of us would play male instruments during our
pilgrimage on earth. As the Grand Conductor of his
orchestra, He decides where we should be and when
we should play our "instrument" or wear our
"uniform". All are uniformed musicians in God's
orchestra and all are musicians with an instrument to
play. There are varying degrees of skill and varying
degrees of importance in His orchestra>9 We know
that everyone in the orchestra must be harmonious
and unified in their effort because it takes only one
musician to make one sour note to mess up the
performance, so clearly all are important and are all
under the command of the Conductor.
[Footnote: >8 Eph. 1:11; Rom. 8:28. >9 Rom. 12; 1 Cor.
12.]
For some of us life means we are males, for some of

us life means we are females, all under the same
Conductor. His males and His females must be
harmonious and unified in their effort because it only
take one member to be grieved for the whole Body of
Christ to be hurting>10 . The females' part in the
symphony of life is spelled out in Bible passages>11
and the males' part in the symphony of life is spelled
out in Bible passages>12. They are not the same
parts, but under the grand Conductor the parts can
and should be harmonious and unified, blending to
produce a wonderful work for the benefit of all.
[Footnote: >10 Rom. 12:5; 1 Cor. 12:26,27. >11 Gen.
2; 1 Cor. 11:1-16; 14:34,35,36; Ephes. 5; 1 Tim. 2 & 5
and Titus 2. >12 Gen. 2; 1 Cor. 11:1-16; Eph. 5; 1
Tim 3 & 5; Titus 1 & 2.]
If that means the Conductor wants the male to play

the lead violin and the female to play the lead viola in
a duet (marriage), then He knows best and can draw
out of us in that relationship beautiful harmonies for
the delight and benefit of all. The female is not
inferior to the male, but while they are male and
female, He has laid down some rules how we are to
relate in His Church when we assemble in one place,
and He has laid down some rules when we come
together in marriage/sex. If we Love Him, we will
obey His rules in those settings>13 . If we love Him,
we will compassionately cherish each other, male and
female, in obedience to Him. Sacrificial and 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]
From: "oldservant8" <oldeservant@.com>

Date: Sat Jul 20, 2002 9:05 am
Subject: expected economic role + striving for equality
To:IslamicLady
This discussion came up in a Yahoo economics group
@yahoogroups.com
>>> = A correspondent
/// = oldservant8
///You wrote--
>>>As, you well know, the media always exploits the pitfalls of poly
relationships, especially with recent cases of welfare fraud
surrounding children who are products of poly relationships, while,
of course, ignoring the enormous poverty and fraud that occurs within
serial monogamous relationships through divorce and unwed mothers.
>>>Aside from your personal reasons for wanting a poly relationship,
how
do you envision your own family economically functioning as a poly
unit? The number one question we have found from poly-curious single
women is, what is their expected economic role in the relationship.
What do you think?
///In a nutshell, I like the Biblical model the best.

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

Peace,
Ron
++++++++++++++++++Part
two++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 12:38:47 -0700 (PDT)

From: IslamicLady
Subject: Re: expected economic role + striving for equality
>>> As salaamu alaiku, group

>>>Some of the means of achieving economic harmony listed here
are
quite clear and would indeed provide economic harmony within the
family unit. However, the average person one causes me some
concern.
If the "average man" can barely support one wife and any children,
who exactly would be paying the rent on the apartments of the other
wives?
///It is common knowledge and all the statistics are in. The largest
group in the working class of the poor is the group of working single
mothers. The largest group of the working class poor with the worst
record of escaping that poverty is the group of working single mothers.
The largest group of working class children locked into poverty with
the worst health and education record is the group of children of
working
single mothers. Single mothers and their children do not do as well as
mothers who have a committed male in their lives who is helping them
as
a family.
///How could a low income working class polygynous family make it?
They would pool their net income for the expenses, as described
below, and as described above in the Acts 2 & 4 & 2 Cor 8 Scriptures.
>>>Would they themselves be expected to continue working

in order to maintain their own residences?
///All work, even the one that stays home to breast feed the babies
and care for the children, but this one doesn't get a formal paycheck
from an official employer. The work of the breast feeding mother is
to care for the baby or babies being breast fed, and she is paid by the
pooled resources of the other members of the family who are working.
>>> If this is what is envisioned by this, then this certainly sounds

unfair, because then the woman gains nothing but the company of a
husband and may find that she needs to rely on public assistance in
order to survive economically and that defeats one of the purposes of
marriage.
///Even working poor monogynous families have to sometimes

receive unemployment insurance, food stamps and/or medicare.
The women and children in a working poor family receiving some form
of assistance in their poverty are still doing better than the working
poor single mothers. The women and their children gain the love,
protection, care, affection, passion and
attention of a man they love passionately, a man who loves them
passionately. Each wife has at least one hour alone with him every
other night for intimacy and special attention. This allows each wife
to have orgasmic passion three times a week without fear of HIV/
HCV/HPV. He has one hour a night with the kids. One hour a night
with everybody during the dinner hour. As you see in the model
below, their is no need for public cash assistance for this family of 13.
>>>Otherwise, all of the cooperative options listed make sense, since

each wife
would bring her unique talent and gift to the marriage as a whole.
oldservant8 <oldeservant@.com> wrote: expected economic role +

striving for equality
///THE SPECIFICS OF THE John Doe FAMILY SITUATION

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

So. Calif. Their food budget is $2600 per mo. They have car
expenses of $1000 per month. Insurance runs $520. Medical and
dental insurance for the full time and part time stay-home moms,
$400. Utilities and phone runs at $160. That is an outflow of $7880.
That leaves $2150 for everything else, including savings, investments.
///Because polygamy is illegal in the USA, he is legally married only

to one of the “wives”, Betty, and was privately and solemnly
covenanted
with each of his other ladies. Loulou, Fannie Mae, Daisy. He attends
Betty's pentecostal church Sunday mornings at 8:30, as her husband.
He attends Loulou's AfroAm COGIC church at 10:30, as her backslidden
man to avoid prosecution for polygamy. He attends FannieMae's
African American Episcopalean church Sunday night, as her
backslidden
man, to avoid prosecution. He attends Daisy's lilly white Presbyterian
church Wednesday nights, as her backslidden man, to avoid
prosecution.
Sunday afternoons they either barbecue at the beach or the park,
where they picnic together and the children play.
Anyway, that's the view from here
+++++++++++++++++Part
three++++++++++++++++++++++
From: IslamicLady
Date: Sun Jul 21, 2002 6:28 am
Clearly you have thought this through - a bit too much it would
appear. And in the "average man" description, assumptions are
made that should not be. All of the wives are non-Muslim so
would they be accepting of such an arrangement?
/// I believe the following answer that question in the affirmative.

www.bfree.org
http://bfree.org/
http://www.3coins.com/
http://www.etext.org/Religious.Texts/Polyamory
http://communities.msn.com/OrthodoxBiblicalPolygamy
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/OrthodoxBiblicalMarriagePo
lygamy
www.groups.aol.com/BiblicalMarriage&Polygamy
http://www.smartgroups.com/group/OrthodoxBiblicalPolygyny
>>>Also, it calls into account the need for the older children to
work as well as all of the adults.
/// 2 Thess 3: 10 “For also when we were with you we enjoined

you this, that if any man does not like to work, neither let him eat.
11 For we hear that there are some walking among you
disorderly, not working at all, but busybodies. 12 Now such we
enjoin and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ, that working quietly
they eat their own bread.” 12, 13 and 14 year old children are
quite capable and should have some small job/jobs by which they
can earn pocket change. Older children still attending
school full time should have part time jobs of ten to 15
hours a week to pay for their own entertainment,
transportation, clothing etc.
/// That is an outflow of $7880. That

leaves $2150 for everything else, including savings,
investments.
>>>Assuming the figures you gave above, the average rent on

each of the 4 apartments would be $800; is the car expense
amount for 4 cars or 5 - I mean each wife should have her own
car, right?
/// Good point. There would need to be a 5th car, unless one of
the wives drove JohnDoe to and from work.
>>> And utilities and phone combined are only $160 for 4
residences, that must indicate that each apartment has most of
the utility amounts covered as part of the $800 rent payment (or
the families are essentially living in darkness most of the time
without air conditioners or even fans)
///Water and trash are included. Living in So. Calif. is cheap,

given the mild Mediterranean climate.
>>>and that no one uses the phone very often, especially to

make long-distance calls;
/// unlimited local use, email saves on the long distance calls.
>>>you mentioned insurance, which I assume is car insurance,
and medical and dental insurance for the wives that stay at
home - what about the rest of the family?
/// The legal wife is covered by her husband's insurance through

employment, and the wives who
work out of the house have med and life insurance through their
employment.
>>>I stick to my original statement, such a situation means that

each wife must work in order for the family unit as a whole to
survive.
///Yes, everybody works, except for the children under 12 years.
>>>And if Mr. Truck Driver is attending so many different

churches, how is he remaining true to his own faith?
/// All of those churches have compatable core beliefs, no

serious conflicts.
>>>Or are you describing this as an overall economic solution for

both Muslims and non-Muslims?
/// It would work for anyone, except there would be so many

different churches, since the Muslims at the local Mosque would
probably accept the polygyny of the family.
>>>Perhaps this is where my confusion comes in.
///Not aware of any confusion.

oldservant8 <oldeservant@excite.com>
==========================================
=
From: "a_human" = +++

Date: Sun Jul 21, 2002 11:26 am
> ///All work, even the one that stays home to breast feed the
babies
> and care for the children, but this one doesn't get a paycheck.
+++Oh, I get it. Taking care of kids isn't REAL work.

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

JUMP at the chance of having 1 hour alone with her husband every
48 hours.
/// The working class and poor single mother with no committed
man has much less than that, in both quantity and quality. John Doe
would spend one night of every four nights as well with
each wife. Statistically John Doe's wives are have orgasmic sex
two times more a week than the averge American wife.
Statistically the average American couple spends much less time
focused on each
other than John and his wives. They are getting about twice as
much conscious focused attention than the average American wives.
///The war widows and HIV widows of Africa, Afghanistan, Albania,

Sudan, Ethiopia, ERitrea would thank God if they could be in and
have such a family and such attention from a husband of their
own. The unmarried "surplus" women of SE Asia who are
economically forced into prostitution and crime would thank God if
they could be in and have such a family and such attention from a
husband of their own.
+++The kids too would be so fortunate to see their dad for an hour a
day (and share him with the rest of the brood). What could be better
than this?
///The statistics in America indicate that John's kids are getting

three times as much focused and conscious attention as the
average American kid. The orphans of Africa, Afghanistan, Albania,
have such a family and such attention from a stepdad of their
own. The orphans of SE Asia who are economically forced into
prostitution and crime would thank God if they could be in and
have such a family and such attention from a step dad of their
own. The SE Asian Muslim council decreed that polygyamy was
the solution for dealing with the women and widows who have no
man of their own, and for orphans who have no home or family.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The debate over the low income working class John Doe
and his four wives continues.
/// = my responses
Tyler
In a message p_l@yahoogroups.com writes:
<< - Mar 2003
From: "U" <s@yahoo.de> = \\\
Subject: Re: Re:two "wives" that live in separate houses
\\\Surprise, surprise, surprise, I actually agree with you about 2 Thess

3: 10-14. A man should work. In biblical terms, (I cannot remember the
verses), a man is the head of the house and as such he is responsible
for his family.
///According to the Bible, every member of the family is responsible for

themselves and each other, with the husband serving as the
teacher/advisor/leader (not boss, tyrant or dictator), the wife as his
helper/advisor/assistant and as teacher of her children etc etc etc.
\\\Here is where I start disagreeing :-) What you described below is a
man that has four separate women to choose from.
///Maybe I didn't state it clearly enough, but John Doe and his wives are
committed believers and followers of Jesus Christ, and are maritally
committed to each other as long as each lives. Just as he is
commanded to be sexually having his wives (1Cor7:2-5;Prov5:19,20)
and has sexual authority over the sexual use of their bodies (1Cor7:2-
5), the wives are commanded by God to be sexually having their own
husband, and have sexual authority over the sexual use of his body.
They are forbidden from sexually denying each other except for prayer
and fasting that is mutually agreed upon and has a time limit. Any
"choosing" being done in such a family should be done according to
the above.
\\\When there is trouble from one of the women he can go to another

'home' until the trouble blows over.
///If he is prepared to disobey Jesus and be subject to the sickness and

or weakness of His chastening for disobeying Jesus. Jesus requires such
a man to live wisely (1Pt3:7) with his wife/wives, and Jesus requires
him to make a diligent and sincere effort restore the unity in a bond of
peace (Eph 4:1-5). His mission is described as follows:
2Tm2:24* And a bondman of the Lord ought not to contend, but be
gentle towards all; apt to teach; forbearing; 25* in meekness setting
right those who oppose, if God perhaps may sometime give them
repentance to acknowledgment of the truth, 26 and that they may
awake up out of the snare of the devil, who are taken by him, for *his*
will.
Eph4: 1 ¶ *I*, the prisoner in the Lord, exhort you therefore to walk
worthy of the calling wherewith ye have been called, 2 ¶ with all
lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, bearing with one another
in love; 3 using diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the uniting
bond of peace.
///Just as he is commanded to be sexually having his wives (1Cor7:2-

5;Prov5:19,20) and has sexual authority over the sexual use of their
bodies (1Cor7:2-5), the wives are commanded by God to be sexually
having their own husband, and have sexual authority over the sexual
use of his body. They are forbidden from sexually denying each other
except for prayer and fasting that is mutually agreed upon and has a
time limit.
\\\Where is his responsibility to any of them? According to your

scenario each of the woman support themselves, with the older
children's help.
///In Africa, India, SE Asia and the Far East, poor polygynist families
require the work of everyone able to work in order to survive. It would
be unrealistic and unsupported by the Bible to require a poor husband
to have to be able to fully support every wife he has, leaving the
practice of polygyny to the rich only. As in the Third World, the John
Doe and his wives are poor working class people, need everyone who
can work to work (housekeeping, raising kids, holding full time jobs,
part time jobs and assisting each other). Everyone is "responsible" to
the family for its support, according to their ability.
\\\He is living a lie. He goes to each of the women's church pretending

to believe in that faith. This is deceit at its worst. These churches may
all have "compatible core beliefs", I don't know. However, just by going
to any of these churches Mr. John Doe is expressing a basic belief in
that church's philosophy. So he goes and lives a lie. A good example he
sets for his children.
///It is so hard to deal gently with the tone and content of your arrogant
and ignorant assumptions. He has his own church and is a member
( but not an official) of it. He is forbidden to have an official leadership
or service position (1Tm3). He visits his other wives churches NOT
PRETENDING TO BELIEVE THEIR UNIQUE AND DISTINGUISHING
BELIEFS, but as a believer in the Jesus and Bible they also hold to, as
her own visiting man but not as a member of their church. He may not
attend as her “husband” because that would violate America’s
antipolygyny laws. John Does and I do this all the time.
///In my last main job I would attend up to four different churches,

many of different denominations, on any one Sunday, enjoying the
messages and the fellowship. THERE IS NO DECEIT. When John Does
and/or I visit a Catholic, Pentecostal, Baptisit, Methodist, Messianic,
AOG, Brethren etc church, we don't visit as deceitful nonCatholics,
Pentecostals, Baptists, Methodists, AOGs, Messianic, Brethren, or etc.;
but as believers in Jesus who have chosen to join them for fellowship at
that time for that service. THERE IS NO LIE OR DECEIT, BUT AN
AFFIRMATION THAT BELIEVERS IN JESUS MEET AND WORSHIP JESUS IN
MANY DIFFERENT WAYS.
\\\Where is his leadership? What kind of example does he set for his
children? How does he stand by his women when all their belief
systems are different from his.
///The leadership is where it belongs, first with Jesus, then with the
husband and then with the wife. They lead their children in consistent
and faithful practice of their faith in Jesus. They set the example of the
unity of all believers in Jesus who Love and serve each other as they
are taught by Jesus to do so. Their core beliefs in Jesus are all the
same, while the way they worship, baptize, have communion may vary
significantly, being secondary beliefs
\\\Sure they have a picnic on the weekends but that just proves he is a
good party organizer. One of the women probably has that chore also.
///In such a family, just as all the funds and finances are shared, all the
duties and responsibilities are shared, including the planning, doing
and cleaning up of a picnic.
\\\You brought up Muslims. Muslims set a good example with polygamy.

A man cannot take another wife until he is fully able to support her and
any children. Maybe if all these so called "bible believing", "God
inspired" polygamists took their responsibilities more serious instead of
collecting trophies there wouldn't be such an outcry against polygamy.
Examples like yours justify the present mainstream mood against
polygamy.
///You OBVIOUSLY know little of Muslim polygyny, especially African

Muslim polygyny, where all work and pool their resources to help the
family survive. Polygyny was never meant to be the privilege of only
the rich and the powerful.
\\\If Mr. John Doe really wanted to have a polygamist relationship he

would find a house where his 'family' could live together.
///In the USA that would probably make him/them subject to felony
bigamy/polygyny prosecution, fines and imprisonment. A stupid way to
ruin one's family.
///In State v. Barlow (107 Utah 292-1944), "The Utah Supreme Court
rejected the defendant's free exercise challenge and affirmed their
convictions for cohabitating with more than one person of the opposite
sex." The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the defendant's appeal of the
Utah Supreme Court decision. p. 1070
"We find no authority for extending the Constitutional right to privacy
so far that it would protect polygamous marriages. We decline to do
so." 1985, see Roe v. Wade. p. 1070
///The "Constitutional right of privacy prevents the state from

criminalizing the non-prostitutional heterosexual activities of two
unmarried consenting adults when such activities occur in privacy of
home." Duling, 603 F. Supp. 960 (E.D. Va 1985). p. 1071
It behooves American polygynists that are legally married to be legally
UNMARRIED AND CONSENTING with any other covenanted sexual
partners they may have, exercising their polygyny in the privacy of
their home, sexually, verbally and editorially.
///To pracitce polygyny in California today, you must not:

>> 1. Be legally married to more than one "wife" at the same time (CA
Criminal Law #820)
>> 2. Be married in an officially recognized ceremony to more than
one "wife" at one time (CA Criminal Law 822; Fam Law #66))
>> 3. Be married in a state or publicly recognized common-law
marriage to more than one wife at the same time (CL 822; Fam Law
#65 & #66). Public here means the general public, not polygynous
families who join you in a covenanting event.
>> 4. Be married by state license to more than one mate at the same
time (CL822)
>> 5. Be solemnized in marriage to more than one wife at the same
time by an official recognized by the state (CL822). If the
polygynous "marriage" is "solemnized" by ceremony, rite or ritual, the
words "wife", "husband" and "marriage" should be avoided carefully (a
good thesaurus will help. See the
appendix. See Fam Law#65).
>> 6. Be authenticated in marriage to more than one wife at the same
time (in polygyny) in any way acceptable to the state
(CL822)
>> 7. File the marriage certificate of registry with the state, for your
polygynous marriage. (CL822)
>> 8. Conclude in an official civil manner or legally your "marriage" in
polygyny. (CL824)
>> 9. Publicly cohabit as husband and wife, publicly and mutually,
assuming marital rights, duties and obligations, including
sexual relations with more than one wife at the same time.(CL825)
[Public here is the general public, not one's polygynous associates.
Even though they may not cohabit as husband and wife, they may
cohabit as man and woman, man and his own woman, exclusive lovers,
exclusive love/life partners, exclusively devoted lovers, a man and his
covenant woman/lover/partner/pal, or viceversa for all the above (e.g.
a woman and her own man).]
>> 10. Have the reputation in a community of being married, nor
deport yourselves in the neighborhood as husband and wife (Fam Law
61 & 62). Specifically you must not allow/permit/encourage common,
general, uniform, and undivided repute among witnesses/
neigbors that you are married to more than one mate at the same
time. (Fam Law#65, Re Estate of Gill; Hite v. Hite; Re Estate of
Baldwin). The reputation of being a man with more than one
woman/lover would be legal.
>> 11. Have any one other than the actual parties of the polygynous
uniting present at the "uniting" ceremony (Fam Law 62), since every
witness of the "uniting" is a possible "witness" of the polygynous
uniting in a bigamy trial. See # 5 above. If they are willing to take the
chance, there would be relative safety in having other polygynously
"united" couples present. I don't see any problem with witnesses at a
"covenant event", "union ceremony", or "bonding ceremony" (not
wedding ceremony, see ch. 3). It would be foolish and risky to invite or
inform the monogynous and/or the opponents of polygyny to any such
uniting event. It only takes one witness to files criminal charges.
\\\A couple of the women could concentrate on their careers enabling

them to bring home more money.
///Night and weekend schools and correspondence courses would allow

all the wives to do so, with each other helping out with each other's
kids.
\\\One could home school, providing the children a quality education.
///obviously you didn't read all of my post. Again ---

"///John works at Slurpo, the local soft drink company, as a union
truck driver making a monthly net of $2400, working 30 hours a week.
Betty
according to each's need, striving for equality. Three of the older kids
work at local restaurants and fast food outlets, making a net of $1630.
children, a family of 13 people."
\\\With them all living in the same household over all expenses would
go down and the older children would not have to go to work to help
support the family, which is Mr. John Doe's responsibility.
///THERE IS NOT ONE SCRIPTURE IN THE WHOLE BIBLE THAT SAYS THAT
THE HUSBAND IS REQUIRED TO BE SOLE PROVIDER AND THAT ALL ARE
TO LIVE OFF OF HIS INCOME. YOU ARE TEACHING AS DOCTRINE YOUR
OWN TEACHING INSTEAD OF GOD'S DOCTRINE. God's rule is made
plain in 2 Cor 8 and 2 Cor 9.
When necessary, all who can work should work (2 Thess 3:6-14).
\\\The children could concentrate on getting a better education,
thereby ensuring a much better future for the children, which is
another one of Mr. John Doe's responsibilities.
///ACCORDING TO YOUR MALE CHAUVINISTIC POINT OF VIEW. In the

Bible's view the father/husband and wife/mother are jointly responsible
for preparing their children for their futures.
\\\In my opinion, Mr. John Doe has four separate monogamous

relationships. Mr. John Doe is living the good life. He can go from
woman to woman as he sees fit. He is keeping them down. The women
would be better off if they banded together and got rid of Mr. John Doe.
///No point in repeating the errors in U's reading and interpretations of

my post. Getting rid of their John Doe would leave the women as single
mothers
with fatherless children, which in America today is the lowest and most
poverty stricken level of living in America, with the children statistically
doing worse in school and more likely to become involved in crime.
Tom's idea sucks. John Doe and his wives avoid all these pitfalls and
have the joy of living in loving and caring unity.
__________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 2003
From: <t@alltel.net> = ---
Subject: Re: Re: Re:two "wives" that live in separate houses
---Must agree Tom. Mr. John Doe seems to have all the good of
relationships but none of the bad. Not even the responsibility.
///Sad to see that N did no better than U. John Doe shares with each of
his wives the responsibility of parenting, teaching, caring and providing
for their children. John Doe and his wives are committed believers and
followers of Jesus Christ, and are maritally committed
to each other as long as each lives. Just as he is commanded to be
sexually having his wives (1Cor7:2-5;Prov5:19,20) and has sexual
authority over the sexual use of their bodies (1Cor7:2-5), the wives are
commanded by God to be sexually having their own husband, and
have sexual authority over the sexual use of his body. They are
forbidden from sexually denying each other except for prayer and
fasting that is mutually agreed upon and has a time limit. He is
responsible for unselfishly and compassionately cherishing his wives in
Love, of submitting to the Word of God they speak to Him from the
Bible, and his wives are responsible for following his lead,
as long as doing so does not involve disobedience to Jesus, and for
showing the respect due to him as the marital authority that God has
set over her (Rom 13; Ephes 5).
---It seems he is basically a "stud service" for these women in that

aside from LouLou or whoever, everyone takes care of themselves.
///The women have the same sexual authority over him and are
commanded to be sexually having him, just as he is commanded to do
with them. He has an hour plus every evening with all the wives and
the children, and an hour =/- with the children of the wife with whom
he spends that night. Such a family that Loves Jesus shows that Love
by Loving each other, so when they see each others need, they do
what they can to meet that need (1 Jn3 Eph 4)
---While one woman who works as the meter maid gets no housework
help while she is working, she is putting in a full week of work. The
other women have much less to do.
///Fannie Mae's part time job plus home schooling is more than a full
time job. Anyone who knows the work of an RN, knows that Daisy is
earning the money she makes as a full time nurse. "Much less to do"? I
don't think so.
///" Fannie Mae works at a part time job, making a

travels to town to work as an RN, making a monthly net $3200. "
---While Mr. John Doe has least of all. He just goes to work his measly
30 hours and hops from house to house for food, showers and sex.
///Many workers, especially if they work for Vons, Wal*Mart, KMart etc
are given only 30 a week by their employer, because the employers
want
to keep their costs down. This John Doe is working the most hours his
employer allows him to work. Obviously you didn't read all of the
post---
"///The women gain the love, protection, care, affection, passion and
below, their is no need for public assistance for this family of 13."
--- I can see why a man would want it this way, but I see Mr. John Doe
as a pig, as would most woman.
N >>
///Then your husband must spend more that nine hours a week eye to
eye and face to face with your/his kids; more that nine hours a week
eye to eye and face to face with you; and must have sex with you
every night. This makes both him and you
exceptional people with an exceptional marriage and family. Most of
the lower working class people and poverty level women and children I
work with and assist
as a social worker long for a father/husband who invest a fraction of
that amount of time in them and their lives.
##########################################
#############
>>>>Gen.2 THE MONOGYNOUS ADAM & EVE IDEAL

• THE FIRST MARRIAGE
>>>>Gen.2: 7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the
ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life;
and man became a living soul.
8 ¶ And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden;
and there he put the man whom he had formed. . . . 15 And
the LORD God took the man, and put him
into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
16 ¶ And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of
every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17 But of
the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat
of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt
surely die.
18 ¶ And the LORD God said, [It is] not good that the man
should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. . . .
20 And Adam gave names to all the cattle, and to
the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field. But
there was not found a suitable helper for Adam.
21 ¶ And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on
Adam, and he slept. And He took one of his ribs, and closed
up the flesh underneath. 22 And the LORD God made the rib
(which He had taken from the man) into a woman. And He
brought her to the man.
>>Is this an ideal setting for the first marriage?

Yes. Do we have such a face to face relationship with
God today? No. Had man been designated as her head/ruler
yet? No. Had she been told by God yet that Adam
would take the lead in their marriage? No. Weren't they
still perfectly equal partners still? Yes. Is it realistic to
take this perfect marriage-in-paradise and hold it
up as the norm and standard for us today who live in a
fallen and sinful world? No. Wasn't it
God Himself that changed the marital relationship
when they were expelled from the Garden? Yes. Does
God anywhere in His Word say that this marriage-
made-in-Paradise is to be our model and standard
for Godly marriage? No. Where? No where in the Bible.
If He didn't make it the norm and the standard, dare we
make it the standard (Mark 7)? No.
>>Is there anything in this first marriage

that clearly and specifically allows only monogyny?
No. Is there anything in this first marriage that clearly
and specifically forbids polygyny? No. Is there
anything in this passage that indicates that God set
monogyny up as the model we must follow? No. Is there
anything in this passage that clearly and specifically
instructs us to follow Adam's example of monogyny? No.
>>>The first mention of marriage in the Bible

is where God miraculously provided Eve to Adam in
the Garden of God. Monogamists say that if God
approved of polygyny God would have given Eve,
Eyvette, Eva and Evellyn to Adam. On the other
hand, just like with you and I, if we have more than
one good option, we don’t need to exercise all of
them, just the one that is best at the time. There is
no quarrel with the fact that God has ordained that
the official male leaders in the local assemblies
of his Church are to have one wife>33 , and that
even in the Old Testament the kings were instructed
not to “multiply” wives, horses or gold to
themselves. Jehovah-Jesus described Himself in the
Old Testament both as an monogynist >34 and
as a polygynist >35. To be a valid prefigure of
Christ (“the last Adam”) you would expect Adam,
the first Adam, to have one wife, just as Christ, the
“last Adam”, has one wife, the Church.
[Footnotes: >33 1 Tim. 3; Titus 1; >34(Ezek 16);
>35 (Ezek 23)]
Gen.2: 23 And Adam said, This [is] now bone of my bones

and flesh of my flesh. [She] shall be called Woman because
[she] was taken out of man.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother,
and shall cleave to his wife and they shall be one flesh. 25
And they were both naked, the man and his wife; and they
were not ashamed.
>>>Does Jesus' statement “The two shall become

one flesh” mean that only one man and one woman
should become one flesh, as in monogamy>36 , as
most of the "leaders" maintain? Doesn't the Spirit
uses “The two shall become one flesh” principle in
1 Corinth. 6 to show “that he who is joined to a
harlot is one body with her” , and then uses the
same “one flesh” principle in Mt. 19 about a
husband and his wife? Jerome (340-420AD)
didn't indicate any problem understanding the
possibility when he wrote, "Lamech, a man of blood
and a murderer, was the first who divided one flesh
between two wives.">37
BIBLICAL LAW, by R. Rushdonney, p. 363. >.37 A
Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene
Fathers of The Christian Church, Vol. VIII; p.
358.]
>>>Since the harlot is one flesh with every fornicator

she has sexual union with and the husband is one
flesh with his wife, how can the “one flesh”
principle be unique to marriage and how can it be
an argument for monogamy or against polygyny ?
Doesn't the “one flesh” principle in physical
reality describe only the result of sexual union,
whether it involve a harlot, a fornicator,
a married couple or a polygamous marriage?
Weren't David, Israel and Abraham “one flesh”
with each of their wives in marriage>38, just as
the adulteress >39 was one flesh in adultery with
each of her adulterers? Under the Law by Moses,
being “one flesh” could have been the basis for
marriage>40 but not so for we nonJews/nonIsraelites
after Jesus' Spirit decreed through
the Apostles>41 that nonJews,
nonIsraelites are not required to keep the Sinai Law
of Moses >42, right? If we do not control ourselves
today, aren't we commanded to marry>43 , with who
to marry not specified, only that your mate be
saved>44 and godly>45?
[Footnotes: >38(Ex21:7-11; Deut 21:15,16; 2Sam
12:8); >39of Prov. 6 & 7; >40 (Deut. 22:22-30; Ex.
22:16,17). >41 (Acts 10 + 11 + 15 + 21); >42 (Eph.
2 and Col. 2, especially in the case of 1 Cor. 7:9; 1 Tm.
5:11-14) >43 1 Cor. 7:1,2,9,36; 1 Tim 5:14;
Appendix Six of this document. >44. 2 Corinthians
6. .>45 1 Corinthians 5:9-11; 2 Thess. 3:6-14]
Being one flesh, as Eph. 5:22-33 shows, is one of the

best motives for the husband being good and godly to
his wife. A Christian elder apparently maintains that
godly equality is possible only in a monogamous
marriage, and that polygamy increases women's
subordination.>59 He apparently believes that the
harmony and unity of Gen. 2:24 is unable to develop
in a polygamous marriage, and that monogamy best
reflects Christ's love to the Church>60. How did I miss
that? Was it the blissful and enraptured love the
Shulamite had for her Solomon who loved and adored
her in their polygynous marriage>15? Was it Abigail
who gave up her wealthy independence as Nabal's
widow in order to be David's wife in a polygynous
marriage?
[Footnotes:>59. Trobisch; MY WIFE MADE ME A
POLYGAMIST; p21ff. >60. Trobisch; MY WIFE MADE
ME. . . . P. 25. >15 (Song of Sol. 6)]
No, but I think a Christian elder missed the point that

a tragic number husbands around the world have
neglected, been unloving to, abused and subordinated
their wives in monogamy. The women's movement
for the right to vote, the heart breaking of spousal
abuse and neglect, the right to have equal pay for
equal tasks done by men, and the whole affirmative
action program for women shows that monogamy
proves to be a pretty effective context in which
women can be subordinated and treated quite
unlovingly. The problem, again, is that sin and the
flesh are the problem, not monogamy or polygyny.
There is no question that monogamy best reflects
Christ's love to the Church, that is why He chose it and
modeled it for all the Church leaders>16 of whom He
is the Chief leader. The real situation is that we are
all not Church leaders and we all have our "best", our
different "gifts" from God>17 .
[Footnotes:>16 (1 Tm. 3 & Ti. 1). >17 (1 Cor.
7:6,7,17-28)]
I understand a Christian elder to state that in

monogamy both leave and both cleave, becoming one
flesh, and this is only possible for two marital
partners, therefore polygamy is excluded by the
Biblical idea of equality>61. He gives no scripture
reference for this position, and I don't believe he
would be able to do so. Statistics show that most
Christian monogamous marriages fail to maintain this
harmonious equality, and again because of sin and the
flesh. There is no claim that in polygyny three
"become one", but indeed the husband does become
one flesh with each of his wives>18 and the
fornicator becomes one flesh with each harlot with
whom he fornicates>19 . There is no reason why a
polygynist and his wives/concubines could not attain
to the level of the saints in the early church where
they shared all that they had, and had all things in
common>20 in a sweet and loving harmony. In the
Lord any family, even a polygynous family, can
achieve that unity of the Spirit in the bond of
peace>21 .
[Footnotes:>61. Trobisch; MY WIFE MADE ME. . . >. P.
49ff. >18 (Matt. 19). >19 (1 Cor. 6:12-20).
>20 Acts 4. >21 (Phil. 4:13;Eph. 4:1-5; Psalm 133
and Acts 3 & 4)]
==========================================
====
>>>>>Gen.3:6 Fallen Monogynous Adam and Eve and Polygyny
>>>>>>Gen.3:6 ¶ And when the woman saw that the tree [was] good
for food. and that it was pleasing to the eyes, and a tree to
be desired to make wise, she took of its fruit, and ate. She
also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. 7 And the
eyes of both of them were opened. And they knew that they
[were] naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made
girdles for themselves. 8 And they heard the voice of the
LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day. And
Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the
LORD God in the middle of the trees of the garden.
9 ¶ And the LORD God called to Adam and said to him,
Where [are] you? 10 And he said, I heard Your voice in the
garden, and I was afraid, because I [am] naked, and I hid
myself. . . .
16 ¶ To the woman He said, I will greatly increase
your sorrow and your conception. In pain you shall bear
sons, and your desire shall be toward your husband, and he
shall rule over you.
17 ¶ And to Adam He said, Because you have listened
to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree, of
which I commanded you, saying, You shall not eat [of] it!
The ground [is] cursed for your sake. In pain shall you eat
of it all the days of your life. 18 It shall also bring forth
thorns and thistles to you, and you shall eat the herb of the
field. 19 In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread until
you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For
dust you [are], and to dust you shall return.
20 ¶ And Adam called his wife's name Eve, because
she was the mother of all living.
21 ¶ And for Adam and his wife the LORD God made
coats of skins, and clothed them.
22 ¶ And the LORD God said, Behold, the man has
become as one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he
put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat,
and live forever, 23 therefore the LORD God sent him out
from the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he
had been taken. 24 And He drove out the man. And He placed
cherubs at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming
sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree
of life.
>>>Monogamy was established in a sinless

world with sinless people. Monogamy was established
when Adam and Eve were still perfectly equal before Jesus,
for Jesus didn't tell Eve that " he shall rule over you" until
after they had sinned. Monogamy was established when Eve's
desire had not yet been centered in Adam ("your desire shall
be toward your husband"). Monogamy was established when there
would have been no pain in childbirth ("In pain you shall bear
sons"). Divorce and separation were inconceivable and impossible
in the Garden before the sin and fall. This is not the condition
of monogyny today.
>>>Sin destroyed the cacoon, the paradise in which

monogamy was conceived. Sin caused monogyny to be
dramatically changed by Jesus. Jesus does not require us to
experience and know monogyny as He established it in the
Garden before the fall, so how dare we require others to
experience and know monogyny as He originally established
it? We shouldn't for if we do so, we are guilty of vainly worshipping
Jesus "teaching as their teachings commandments of men. . . leaving
the
commandment of God," to "hold what is delivered by men to keep --"
setting
" aside the commandment of God," to "observe what is delivered by
yourselves to keep.
. . "making void the word of God by your traditional teaching which ye
have delivered; . . Mark 7
>>>The monogyny and polygyny the came into existence after

the sin and fall and expulsion from the Garden reflect the nature
of humans and marriage after the sin, fall and expulsion. The
monogyny that came into being after the sin and fall was monogyny
under THE CURSE OF SIN.
>>> Aren't they now in a whole new "universe",

under a curse, mortal, subject to sickness and
weakness and a whole new way of relating to each
other as a result of their sin? Isn't there a
significant change in their relationship with each
other and with God? Hadn't the ideal first marriage
become a very different thing because of sin?
Didn't their world become like ours is today? Isn't
this the beginning of the changes that would take
place in human matrimony? Is there anything in
this first marriage that clearly and specifically
allows only monogyny? Is there anything in this
first marriage that clearly and specifically forbids
polygyny? Is there anything in this passage that
indicates that God set monogyny up as the model we
must follow? Is there anything in this passage that
clearly and specifically instructs us to follow
Adam's example of monogyny?
Leaders say that one of God's purposes in

creation was that the marital standard for man be
monogamy>32 even though there is not one
scripture, quoted or paraphrased, that says that.
Yet I understand a Christian elder and most of the
"leaders" to persist, apparently maintaining that
there is no doubt that God's indisputable will, as
seen in the Old Testament, is monogamy.>33.
BIBLICAL LAW, page 362, by R. Rushdonney.;
>33. Trobisch, MY WIFE MADE ME. . . P.21]
Whether or not it is the best form of
marriage for each individual depends on the gift and
the leading (Rom. 8:1-14) each individual receives
from God. St. Augustine (4th Century AD) had a
gentler way of saying it that I feel more reflects the
God of Gen. 1 and 1 Cor. 13. Consider the following:
“That the good purpose of marriage,
however, is better promoted by one husband
with one wife, than by a husband with
several wives, is shown plainly enough by
the very first union of a married pair,
which was made by the Divine Being
Himself, with the intention of marriages
taking their beginning therefrom, and of its
affording to them a more honorable
precedent. In the advance, however, of the
human race, it came to pass that to certain
good men were united a plurality of good
wives, --- many to each; and from this it
would seem that moderation sought rather
unity on one side for dignity, while nature
permitted plurality on the other side for
fecundity. For on natural principles it is
more feasible for one to have dominion over
many, than for many to have dominion over
one.”
[Footnote: >..34 2b A Select Library of the Nicene
and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church;
Vol. V; p. 267]
Not one verse, quoted or paraphrased, says

that God's purpose was that "monogamy be the
standard for man" but most of our relgious leaders
teach this doctrine. They say that Gen. 2:18-24
shows that "The normative marriage is clearly
monogamous.”
First that passage says nothing about Gen 2

being normative, and no other passage in the Bible
says that. None of us are commanded by God to
emulate or imitate Adam. Adam had to be unique as
the first Adam just as Christ had to be unique to be
the “last Adam”>35. , and being unique it is no
surprise that both “Adams” have one unique wife
(the first Adam, Eve; the last Adam>36. Jesus, the
Church). In the Old Testament Jesus portrayed
Himself as a polygynist>37 in accordance with His
own Law governing polygyny, and as King of Kings
He did not “multiply” wives to Himself. In the New
Testament as the Leader of the Church, He could
have only one wife in accordance with His own Law
governing the marital status of Church leaders>4
[Footnotes:>.35. 1 Cor. 15:45-49; Romans 5:12-
21. >.36. DITTO 1 Cor. 15:45-49; Romans 5:12-
21. >.37 Ezekiel 23; >.>4 Titus 1; 1 Timothy 3]
"Monogamy is implicit in the story of Adam

and Eve, since God created only one wife for
Adam. Yet polygyny is adopted from the
time of Lamech (Gn. 4:19), and is not
forbidden inScripture. . . ...Polygamy
continues to the present day among Jews in
Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Asian, Oriental,
and African countries." [Douglas’ New Bible
Dictionary : MARRIAGE: .....p.787]
“. . Elkanah, the husband of Hannah and
Peninnah, is an interesting example of a
man of no particular position who
nevertheless had more than one wife; this
may be an indication that bigamy, at least, if
not polygamy, was not confined to the very
wealthy and exalted. At all events, polygyny
was an established and recognized
institution from the earliest of times.”>39
[Footnote: >39. HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF
THE BIBLE; p.259.]
“Polygamy meets us as a fact: e.g. Abraham,

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

book Customs and Cultures>42 documents the
practice of polygyny by Christians in non Western
countries, and how it is still practiced in China, SE
Asia, India, Africa and parts of South America.
Eugene Nida points out that when polygamists
become Christians they are told of their limitations
in church offices and are asked not to take any
additional wives because it stumbles western
Christians>5 . They are not usually asked to
abandon their other wives to a premature
widowhood because of l Cor. 7:1-15.
[Footnotes:>.42 1954, Harper & Brothers, New
York; >5 (Rom 14, l Cor. 8 and 10)]
The unscriptural condemnation of

polygyny/concubinage by the Western Christian
community has proven to be one of the main
obstacles for people in Eastern and third world
countries to accept the message of Christ,
especially if Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Asian,
Oriental, or African, fulfilling Christ's Word in
Mark 7:13 "making the word of God of no effect
through your tradition which you have delivered . .
." The Western “Christian” tradition against
polygyny hinders the spread of the Gospel of Christ
in Moslem and other polygynous societies.
What about all those third world folks,

especially the Moslems and Africans, who are practicing
polygyny/ concubinage and are told that they have
to dump or abandon their extra wives in order to
become Christians? This requirement keeps many
from Christ and alienates many against Christ,
being one of the biggest obstacles for the Moslems and African
communities. These "Christian" folks who feel
their own tradition about monogamy and polygyny
must be kept by Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Asian,
Oriental, and Africans and other third world
polygamists for them to become Christians, sound
like the folks: Mat. 23:13 "¶ But woe unto you,
scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for you shut up
the kingdom of the heavens before men; for *you*
do not enter, nor do you suffer those that are
entering to go in."
The angels are waiting to rejoice over the

conversion of one polygamous Moslem, Hindu,
Buddhist, Asian, Oriental, and African or third
worlder. "Christian legalists and traditionalists"
wont let them into their "Christian" churches
unless they sin by (1) "dealing treacherously">6
with their wives by putting them away in
repudiation, (2) disobeying Christ's command not
to leave their wives>7 , and (3) not remaining in
the marital condition in which they were called to
Christ, whether it be concubinage, polygyny or in
monogamy. I understand one source to make the
point has been made that it would be brutal for the
Christian community to force a polygamist to have
to choose between (1) being saved and then
baptized, and (2) having his wives in legally and
sociably acceptable polygyny.>43.
[Footnotes:>6 Malachi 2; >7 1 Cor.
7:11,12,13,14; ^>.^43. Trobisch, MY WIFE MADE
ME. . . P.33; [Karl Barth, CHURCH DOGMATICS,
III/4, p. 203].
So what is the solution? What is God's

solution? At the very least the Spirit's Word in
Paul tells us that if you, husband or wife, are saved
in polygyny/concubinage, then remain in
polygyny/concubinage and accept it as God's
distribution for each person involved in particular.
1 Cor.7: 17 ¶ “However, as the Lord has divided to
each, as God has called each, so let him walk; and
thus I ordain in all the assemblies. . . . 20 Let each
abide in that calling in which he has been called. . . .
24 Let each, wherein he is called, brethren,
therein abide with God. . . . 26 I think then that
this is good, on account of the present necessity,
that [it is] good for a man to remain so as he is. 27
Are you bound to a wife? Seek not to be loosed; are
you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife."
FURTHERMORE, most of the "leaders" say that one of the

products of Adam and Eve's fall clearly was
polygamy, appearing in a sinful world>89 , even
though no where in the Word of God does the Word
say this. God portrays Himself, in the fullness of His
holiness, as the polygamous husband of two wives in
Ezekiel 23. I believe God was not a victim of the fall,
and remains holy in a world of sin. If Òpolygamy
clearly appears as a product of the fallÓ then why isnÕt
there one scripture or even one verse that says that?
Since there isnÕt, it seems to be more menÕs teaching.
No where does polygyny appear, in the Old or the
New Testaments, in any list of sins, list of fleshly
works or list of abominations to God. I understand
Rev. Gerhard Jasper to make the following points: (1)
In Old Testament times a Jewish polygynist's
marriage was fully recognized as marriage, protected
by the Law and the elders; (2) the Jewish
polygynist's faith in or faithfulness to God was not
questioned because of his polygyny; (3) the polygyny
of the Jewish polygynist did not keep him from being
admitted to the congregation with full
membership.>44. Moses did not forbid polygamy>8
(Dt. 21:15,16) >8 but apparently it was unusual
among average people .>45.
[Footnotes:>.f89 Please see p. 362, THE INTSTITUTES
OF BIBLICAL LAW, by R. Rushdonney. >44.
Trobisch, MY WIFE MADE ME. . . P.18; (AFRICAN
THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL, Rev. Gerhard Jasper of
Lutheran Theological College in Makumira, Tanzania;
Februrary 1969, p. 41). >45. Please see THE
INTERNATIONAL BIBLE COMMENTARY; p. 407.]
St. Augustine (4th Century AD) had a good word on

this subject. Consider the following:ÒThat the holy
fathers of olden times after Abraham, and before him,
to whom God gave His testimony that "they pleased
Him," [Heb. 11:4-6] thus used their wives, no one who
is a Christian ought to doubt, since it was permitted to
certain individuals amongst them to have a plurality
of wives, where the reason was for the multiplication
of their offspring, not the desire of varying
gratification. . .In the advance . . . of the human race,
it came to pass that to certain good men were united a
plurality of good wives, --- many to each; and from
this it would seem that moderation sought rather
unity on one side for dignity, while nature permitted
plurality on the other side for fecundity. For on
natural principles it is more feasible for one to have
dominion over many, than for many to have dominion
over one.Ó>46
[Footnote: >46 A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-
Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church Vol. V; p. 267.]
==========================================
>>>>• THE POLYGYNOUS PATRIARCH, ABRAHAM, SARAH AND HAGAR

>>>>GEN. 16-25
>>>>GEN. 16: 2 And Sarai said to Abram, Behold now, the
LORD has kept me from
bearing. I pray you, go in to my slave woman. It may
be that I may be built by her. And Abram listened
to the voice of Sarai. 3 And Sarai, Abram's wife, took
Hagar her slave woman, the Egyptian, and gave
her to her husband Abram to be his >>WIFE<< (after
Abram had lived ten years in the land of Canaan);
The Holy Spirit declares that both were his wives <0802; 'ishshah ; n f:
woman, wife, female>
Gn 16:3 And Sarai, Abram’s wife Sarai, Abram’s wife<0802>, took
Hagar her slave woman, the Egyptian, and gave her to her husband
Abram to be his wife, took Hagar her slave woman, the Egyptian, and
gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife<0802> . .
The useage of <0802 'ishshah> clearly indicates that Hagar became
his wife,
not his mistress or lover.
Ge 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and
shall cleave unto his wife<0802 'ishshah>: and they shall be one flesh.
Ge 2:25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife<0802
'ishshah>, and were not ashamed.
Ge 3:8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the
garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife<0802 'ishshah>
When the Bible indicates that a woman belongs to a man, she is "his
own woman"/wife/concubine; and when the Bible indicates a man
belongs to a woman, he is "her own man"/husband.
1Cor7:1 ¶ But concerning the things of which ye have written to me: It
is good for a man<444> not to be touching a woman<1135>; 2 but
ON ACCOUNT OF SEX SINS, each<1538> should be having HIS OWN
WOMAN<1135>, and each woman<1135> should be having HER OWN
MAN<435>. 3 A man<435> should pay his wife<1135> her due, and
a woman<1135> also should pay her husband<435> his [due]. 4 It is
not the wife<1135>, but the husband<435>, who exercises power
over her body; and so, too, it is not the husband<435>, but the
wife<1135>, who exercises power over his body.
<444 anthropos; n m: a human being, whether male or female
<435 aner; n m: any male
<1135 gune n f: a woman of any age
>>>Gen 16:9 And the Angel of the LORD said to her [Hagar],
Return to your mistress and submit yourself under her hands.
10 ¶ And the Angel of the LORD said to her, I will
multiply your seed exceedingly, so that it shall not be
numbered for multitude. 11 And the Angel of the LORD said
to her, Behold, you are with child, and shall bear a son. And
you shall call his name Ishmael, because the LORD has
heard your affliction 12 And he will be a wild man. His
hand will be against every man, and every man's hand
against him. And he shall live in the presence of all his
brothers. 13 And she called the name of the LORD who had
spoken to her, You [are] a God of vision! For she said, Even
here have I looked after Him that sees me? 14 Therefore
the well was called The Well of the Living One Seeing Me.
Behold, [it is] between Kadesh and Bered.
15 ¶ And Hagar bore Abram a son. And Abram
called his son's name, which Hagar bore, Ishmael. 16 And
Abram [was] eighty-six years old when Hagar bore
Ishmael to Abram.
17: 1 ¶ And when Abram was ninety-nine years
old, the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him,
I [am] the Almighty God! Walk before Me and be
perfect. 2 And I will make My covenant between
Me and you, and will multiply you exceedingly. 3
And Abram fell on his face. And God talked with him,
saying,
4 ¶ As for Me, behold! My covenant is with you,
and you shall be a father of many nations. 5
Neither shall your name any more be called
Abram, but your name shall be Abraham. For I
have made you a father of many nations. 6 And I
will make you exceedingly fruitful, greatly so,
and I will make nations of you, and kings shall
come out of you.
7 ¶ And I will establish My covenant between Me
and you and your seed after you in their
generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a
God to you and to your seed after you. . . 10 This is My
covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and
you and your seed after you. Every male child
among you shall be circumcised.
>>>If polygyny is a sin, why does God bless both Abraham and
his two wives in their polygny? Is there anything in this
passage that specifically and clearly shows God's
disapproval of and displeasure in Abraham's polygyny?
15 ¶ And God said to Abraham, As for Sarai your

wife, you shall not call her name Sarai, but her
name [shall be] Sarah. 16 And I will bless her,
and give you a son also of her. Yes, I will bless
her, and she shall be [a mother] of nations,
kings of people shall be from her. . . 19 And
God said, Sarah your wife shall bear
you a son indeed. And you shall call his name
Isaac. And I will establish My covenant with him
for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed
after him. 20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard
you. Behold, I have blessed him, and will make
him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly.
He shall father twelve princes, and I will make
him a great nation. 21 But I will establish My
covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to
you at this set time in the next year. 22 And He left
off talking with him, and God went up from Abraham.
>>If polygyny is condemned by God and forbidden to man,
then why does God bless Sarah who influenced Abraham to
become a polygynist? If Abraham's polygyny was a sin,
why did God bless the offspring of his polygyny? If
Abraham's polygyny was a sin, why did God personally talk
with him and bless him so richly? Where is the
condemnation of Abraham's polygyny?
GEN. 21:1 ¶ And the LORD visited Sarah as He had

said. And the LORD did to Sarah as He had spoken. 2 For
Sarah conceived and bore Abraham a son in his old age, at
the set time of which God had spoken to him. 3 And Abraham
called the name of his son that was born to him (whom
Sarah bore to him) Isaac. 4 And Abraham circumcised his
son Isaac when he was eight days old, as God had commanded
him.
>>>WHERE IS THE CONDEMNATION OF ABRAHAM'S

POLYGYNY? WHERE IS THE DENUNCIATION OF THE
CHILDREN OF HIS POLYGYNY?
Gen. 21: 9 ¶ And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the

Egyptian (whom she had borne to Abraham) mocking. 10
And she said to Abraham, Cast out this slave
woman and her son. For the son of this slave woman
shall not be heir with my son, with Isaac. 11 And the thing
was very evil in Abraham's sight, because of his son. 12
And God said to Abraham, Let it not be grievous in
your sight because of the boy and because of your
slave woman. In all that Sarah has said to you,
listen to her voice. For in Isaac your Seed shall
be called. 13 And also, I will make a nation of the
son of the slave woman, because he [is] your
seed.
>>>WAS SHE KICKED OUT BECAUSE THEY BELIEVED THEIR

POLYGYNY DISPLEASED GOD? WHAT IS THE REASON
SARAH GAVE FOR THE EXPULSION OF HAGAR AND ISHMAEL?
DID HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THEIR POLYGYNY?
GEN. 21: 14 ¶ And Abraham rose up early in the

morning, and took bread and a bottle of water, and gave [it]
to Hagar, putting [it] on her shoulder. And he gave her the
boy, and sent her away. And she departed and wandered in
the wilderness of Beer-sheba. 15 And the water was gone
in the bottle, and she cast the boy under one of the shrubs.
16 And she went and sat down across from him, a good way
off, about a bowshot. For she said, Let me not see the death
of the boy. And she sat across from him, and lifted up her
voice, and cried. 17 And God heard the voice of the
boy, and the angel of God called to Hagar out of
the heavens, and said to her, What ails you,
Hagar? Do not fear, for God has heard the voice
of the boy where he is. 18 Rise up, lift up the
boy and hold him up with your hand, for I will
make him a great nation. 19 And God opened her
eyes, and she saw a well of water; and she went
and filled the bottle with water, and gave drink
to the boy. 20 And God was with the boy, and he
grew, and lived in the wilderness, and became an
archer. 21 And he lived in the wilderness of Paran, and
his mother took a wife for him out of the land of Egypt.
>>>WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT GOD CONDEMNED OR PUNISHED

HAGAR AND ISHMAEL FOR THEIR POLYGYNY?
If their polygyny were a sin, why did God save their lives, take such
good care of
them and promise them such great blessings?
==========================================
========
>>>>CONCUBINES, Abraham, Sarah, Hagar & Keturah
Gen.22: 20 ¶ And it happened after these things that

it was told Abraham, saying, Behold Milcah! She also has
borne children to your brother Nahor: . . . 23 And Bethuel
fathered Rebekah. These eight
Milcah bore to Nahor, Abraham's brother. 24 And
his >>>concubine<<<, named Reumah, she also bore
Tebah, and Gaham, and Thahash, and Maachah.
Gen. 23: 19 And after this, Abraham buried Sarah his wife
in the cave at the field of Machpelah before Mamre, which
[is] Hebron, in the land of Canaan.
Gen. 25: 1 ¶ Then again Abraham took a >>>WIFE,<<<
and her name was Keturah. . . .
4 And the sons of Midian: Ephah and Epher and Hanoch and
Abida and Eldaah. All these [were] the sons of Keturah. 5
And Abraham gave all that he had to Isaac. 6 But to the sons
of the >>>CONCUBINES<<< which Abraham had, Abraham gave
gifts. And he sent them away from Isaac his son while he
still lived, eastward to the east country.
1 Chronicles 1: 32 And the sons of Keturah, Abraham's
>>>concubine<<<: She bore Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and
Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah. And the sons of Jokshan:
Sheba and Dedan.
>>>PLEASE NOTE that in Gen 25 the Spirit states that Keturah

was Abraham's wife and then in 1 Chron 1 the Spirit states that
Keturah was Abraham's concubine, just like the Spirit stated that
David's concubines were his wives in Samuel 12.
2 Sam 12:11 “So says the
LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against you out of your
own house, and I will take your >>>WIVES<<< before your
eyes and give [them] to your neighbor. And he shall lie with
your >>>WIVES<<< in the sight of this sun.”
2 Sam 16: 21 “And Ahithophel said to Absalom,
Go in to your father's >>>CONCUBINES<<<, that he left to
keep the house. And all Israel shall hear that you are
abhorred by your father. And the hands of all who [are]
with you will be strong. 22 And they spread Absalom a tent
on the top of the house, and Absalom went in to his
father's >>>CONCUBINES<<< in the sight of all Israel.”
If God declares the

concubines of His godly men to be their wives, should we do
anything less that the same? Surely the concubines of His godly
men today are considered by Him to be their wives, just as in
times past. Where is God's denunciation of Abraham for having
concubines? Where is God's denunciation of the concubines
for marrying Abraham? Where is Abraham's confession of
his sin, if polygyny is sinful as some say?
Have you considered the following?

". . . a man's 'house' might consist of his mother; his
wives and the wives' children; his concbines and their
children . . . and slaves of both sexes. Polygamy
was in part the cause of the large size of the Hebrew
household; in part thecause of it may be found in the
insecurity of early times, when safety lay in
numbers
. . . Polygyny and bigamy were recognized features of
the family life. From the Oriental point of view there
was nothing immoral in the practice of polygamy.
The female slaves were in every respect the property
of their master and became his concubines; except in
certain cases, when they seem to have belonged
exclusively to their mistress . . . At all events,
polygyny was an established and recognized
institution form the earliest times">8 HASTINGS
DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE; p.259.
Eerdmans' Douglas' New Bible Dictionary:

“Concubine.
A secondary wife acquired by purchase or as a war
captive, and allowed in polygamous society such as
existed in the Middle east in biblical times....Where
marriages produced no heir, wives presented a slave
concubine too their husbands in order to raise an heir
(Gen. 16). Handmaidens, given as a marriage gift,
were often concubines (Gen. 29:24,29). Concubines
were protected under Mosaic law (Exod. 21:7-11;
Dt. 21:10-14), though they were distinguished from
wives (Jdg. 8:31) and were more easily divorced
(Gen.21:10-14)."
[Footnote: >10. 1962, IVCF, Editor J.D.Douglas; W.
B. Eerdmans Publishing]
FUNK & WAGNALLS NEW ENCYCLOPEDIA:

CONCUBINAGE, “refers to the cohabitation of a man
and a woman without sanction of legal marriage.
Specifically, concubinage is a form of polygyny in
which the primary matrimonial relationship is
supplemented by one or more secondary sexual
relationships. Concubinage was a legally sanctioned
and socially acceptable practice in ancient cultures,
including that of the Hebrews; concubines,
however,
were denied the protection to which a legal wife was
entitled. . .. In Roman law, marriage was precisely
defined as monogamous; concubinage was tolerated,
but the concubine's status was inferior to that of a
legal wife. Her children had certain rights,
including
support by the father and legitimacy in the event of
the marriage of the parents” [>11 1986, Funk &
Wagnalls]
HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE: “The relative

positions of wives and concubines were determined
mainly by the husband's favour. The children of the
wife claimed the greater part, or the whole, of the
inheritance; otherwise there does not seem to have
been any inferiority in the position of the concubine
as compared with that of the wife, nor was any idea
of illegitimacy, in our sense of the word, connected
with her children. . . . The female slaves were in every
respect the property of their master, and became
his concubines; except in certain cases, when they
seem
to have belonged exclusively to their mistress, and
could not be appropriated by the man except by her
suggestion or consent (Gn 16:2,3). The slave-
concubines were obtained as booty in time of war
(Jg 5:30), or bought from poverty-stricken parents
(Ex 21:7); or, possibly, in the ordinary slave traffic
with foreign nations.” >12
[Footnote: >12. HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE
BIBLE; p.259.]
“ The difference between a wife and a concubine

depended on the wife's higher position and birth,
usually backed by relatives ready to defend her.”
>13
[Footnote: >13. 1989, HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF
THE BIBLE; p.585.]
For this paper a distinction is made between

a mistress and a concubine. I understand a
mistress to mean a human female who has
sexual (breast &/or vagina) intimacy with
another human with whom she has no
marital covenants/vows/ commitment. So a
mistress is in the same category as a whore,
harlot, prostitue etc. except that she might
be having sexual intimacy with only one
person during a specific period. I attempt
to show at length, later in the paper, that in
the Bible a concubine has the status of a
wife, even though it may be by informal
marital covenants/vows/ commitments. And
so, continuing the discussion . . . . Having
one wife/concubine is said to significantly
complicate one’s life and distract one who is
waiting on God>37 , so of course we
understand that any godly man with more
than one wife/concubine would be
significantly more distracted from waiting
on God and would have a significantly
greater struggle in his spiritual life with
God. In the New Testament in accordance
with His law for church leaders, Jesus
presents Himself to His people as having
only one wife, the Church>38 because
believing Jews and believing Gentiles were
reconciled into one Body, the Church, to be
one unified and united Bride to Christ.
[Footnotes:>37 1 Cor. 7; >38 (1 Timothy
3 and Titus 1) ]
In the Bible's reality is a concubine

the same as a mistress? In the following
paragraphs I believe you will see that a
concubine has marital status in God's eyes
even though socially and culturally she
doen't have as high a status as a wife who
was married publicly and according to the
laws of the culture. The difference between a
wife and a concubine is discussed in the next
paragraph. On the other hand a mistress is
a female who lets "her man" relate to her
sexually by means of her breasts>50
and/or genitals>51 without them making or
agreeing to any marital "for life"
commitments or covenants>52. So a
mistress provides sex and affection to her
partner without marital commitments or
covenants.
[Footnotes:>50 Prov. 5:19,20,21;
Ezek.23:3,8,21; >51 1 Cor. 6:15,16,
17,18; >52 Prov. 2:16,17,18,19;
5:3,4,5,6; 6:24,25,26; 7; Ezek. 16; 23]
The only differences I can detect

between a concubine and a wife are: (1) that
the concubine's marriage is confirmed by a
solemn covenant between the husband and
concubine>53 without a public wedding, (2)
the concubine’s rights were protected by
God (see below), and (3) their status as
concubines spared them certain
penalties>54 . The Holy Spirit by the
writer of Judges 19 declared the Levite to
be the concubine's "husband", declared the
father of the concubine to be the Levite's
"father-in-law", and declared the Levite to
be the "son-in-law" of the concubine's
father. This is a very strong legitimization
of the husband-concubine marital status. It
is the same legitimization of the
relationship that the Holy Spirit used in
Matthew 1, calling the espoused Mary
"wife" and the espoused Joseph "husband".
If God so recognizes them and describes
them, then who are we to do any less. By the
Holy Spirit here in Judges 19 we see that a
concubine had a "husband" who was the
"son-in-law" of her father, his "father-in-
law". A wife has a "husband" who is the
"son-in-law" of her father, her husband's
"father-in-law".
[Footnotes:>53 (Ezek. 16 and Malachi 2);
>54 (Lev. 19:20 vs. Deut. 22)]
Sarai gave her slave/maid "to her husband Abram

to be his wife", not concubine, but “wife”.
Consider the following points that appear to be made
in one commentary: (1) It was Sarai's idea>* ; (2)
it was a common at the time for a wife to obligate
herself to get an heir by providing a slave girl to
her husband so he could have his heir by the slave
girl; (3) this was legal but left a tangle of emotions
due to the heartlessness of conventional law; (4)
polygamous marriages cause damage of
a psychological nature; (5) there is no reproof of
Abram for fathering Ishmael who, in his turn, was
blessed of God and became the father of an important
nation.>5. By the way there is no proof or
documentation given that proves that polygamous
marriages cause psychological damage.
[Footnotes:>* MKJV GEN. 16: 2 And Sarai said to
Abram, Behold now, the LORD has kept me from
bearing. I pray you, go in to my slave woman. It
may be that I may be built by her. And Abram
listened to the voice of Sarai. 3 And Sarai, Abram's
wife, took Hagar her slave woman, the Egyptian,
and gave her to her
husband Abram to be his wife (after Abram had
lived ten years in the land of Canaan); >5. THE
INTERNATIONAL BIBLE COMMENTARY; Editor,
F.F.Bruce; pp. 126ff]
I understand the same commentary to make
these points: (1) Abraham was reluctant because of
the customs and the laws of his society, valid
concerns about his reputation; (2) very old
documentation reveals that normally it was not
correct or legal to get rid of one's concubine and
children in this way; (3)
God intervened and instructed him so that he was
assured that Ishmael's rights and his mother's
prospects were ensured.>6.
[Footnote: >6. THE INTERNATIONAL BIBLE
COMMENTARY; Editor, F.F.Bruce; p. 129]
Yes it is obvious that Sarai apparently acted

on her own and there was no divine guidance in this
move, but there was also no divine condemnation.
God intervened and sent Hagar back into the marital
situation with Abram and Sarai>41 When God next
spoke to Abraham>42 there was no condemnation of
his polygyny , but instead God blessed him with an
even greater blessing than before. In response to
the blessing he takes his son by Hagar and
circumcised him>43 . But I understand a
Christian elder to maintain that there was no
blessing from God on Abraham's polygamy, that the
Biblical record of it is a criticism of Abraham's
conduct. >7. He gives no references so look at the
Word for yourselves -- "in all things the Lord had
blessed Abraham" (Gen. 24:1).
[Footnotes:>41 (Gen 16:9-16.); >42 (Gen.
17:1--); >43 (Gen. 17:23-25); >7. MY
WIFE MADE ME. . . .p.20.]
Consider the following:

". . . a man's 'house' might consist of his
mother; his wives and the wives' children;
his concbines and their children . . . and
slaves of both sexes. Polygamy was in part
the cause of the large size of the Hebrew
household; in part thecause of it may be
found in the insecurity of early times, when
safety lay in numbers . . . Polygyny and
bigamy were recognized features of the
family life. From the Oriental point of view
there was nothing immoral in the practice
of polygamy. The female slaves were in
every respect the property of their master
and became his concubines; except in
certain cases, when they seem to have
belonged exclusively to their mistress . . .
At all events, polygyny was an established
and recognized institution form the earliest
times">8 HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE
BIBLE; p.259.
God blessed Sarah with fertility in

polygyny>44 and God blessed Hagar and Ishmael
even though she was cast out of Sarah's house at
Sarah's confirmed request because of the question of
an heir, not polygyny>45 . Abraham had another
concubine after Hagar, named Keturah>46 by
whom Abraham had six children without any
condemnation or denunciation by God. What about
a Christian elder's apparent assertion that
polygamy is a breeding ground for contemptuous,
jealous, quarrelsome conduct in a marriage
resulting in alienation between wife and husband<9
Forgive me if I sound a little naive (I'm only in my
50's and have experienced marriage for only 24
years) but divorce court records and sociological
studies of divorce indicate that those vices are quite
common in monogamy in America today. Does that
make monogamy evil? I think not. Contempt,
jealousy, quarreling and estrangement are sinful
works of the flesh and need to be dealt with
Spiritually, just like any other sins involving
more than one person. Sin and the flesh are the
evils, not polygamy or monogamy.
[Footnotes:>44 (Gen 21:1-7); >45 (Gen. 21);
>46 (1 Chron.1:32) ; >9. See Gen. 16 and 21 as
well as HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE
BIBLE;p.259]
• THE POLYGYNOUS PATRIARCH JACOB, HIS

WIVES & CONCUBINES.
Were these Old Testament saints less Godly than we?
I think not. But what of those who say that having
more than one wife in those days was a falling short
of the will of God and reflected a weakness in the
character of those who participated in polygyny? St.
Augustine has a good word on that, as follows:
"But those who have not the virtues of temperance
must not be allowed to judge of the conduct of holy
men, any more than those in fever of the sweetness
and wholesomeness of food. . . If our critics, then,
wish to attain not a spurious and affected, but a
genuine and sound moral health, let them find a
cure in believing the Scripture record, that the
honorable name of saint is given not without reason to men
who had several wives; and that the reason is this, that
the mind can exercise such control over the flesh as not
to allow the appetite implanted in our nature by
Providence to go beyond the limits of deliberate
intention. . . . the holy patriarchs in their conjugal
intercourse were actuated not by the love of
pleasure,
but by the intelligent desire for the continuance of
their family. . . .nor did the number of their wives
make the patriarchs licentious. But why defend the
husbands, to whose character the divine word bears
the highest testimony. . . ."
[Footnote: >.23 A Select Library of the Nicene and
Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church, Vol. iv;
p.290]
==========================================
==
>>>>Gen. 29-31: JACOB, HIS WIVES & CONCUBINE-WIVES.
>>>>Gen. 29: 21 And Jacob said to Laban, Give [me] my

wife, for my days are fulfilled, so that I may go
in to her. 22 And Laban gathered together all the men of
the place, and made a feast. 23 And it happened in the
evening, he took his daughter Leah and brought her
to him. And he went in to her. 24 And Laban gave
Zilpah his slave woman to his daughter Leah for a
handmaid. 25 And it happened in the morning, behold, it
[was] Leah! And he said to Laban, What [is] this you have
done to me? Did I not serve with you for Rachel? Why then
have you tricked me? 26 And Laban said, It must not be
done so in our country, to give the younger before the
first-born. 27 Fulfill her week, and we will give
you this one also for the service which you shall serve
with me still another seven years. 28 And Jacob did so,
and fulfilled her week. And he gave him Rachel his
daughter to wife also. 29 And Laban gave Bilhah his
slave woman to his daughter Rachel, to be her handmaid.
30 And he also went in to Rachel. He also loved Rachel more
than Leah, and served with him still seven more years.
Gen. 30:1 ¶ And when Rachel saw that she bore Jacob no
children, Rachel envied her sister. And she said to Jacob,
Give me sons, or else I will die. . . . 3 And she
said, Behold my slave woman Bilhah; go in to
her, and she shall bear upon my knees, and yea,
let me be built up from her, me also. 4 And she
gave him her slave woman Bilhah to >>>WIFE<<<. And
Jacob went in to her. 5 And Bilhah conceived, and
bore Jacob a son. . . . 9 When Leah saw that she
had quit bearing, she took her slave woman
Zilpah and gave her to Jacob to >>>WIFE<<<. 10 And
Leah's slave woman Zilpah bore Jacob a son. . . . .
Gen.31: 3 And the LORD said to Jacob, Return to
the land of your fathers, and to your kindred, and
I will be with you.
>>>If polygyny is the sin that some say it is, why did God
intervene to help Leah conceive? Why did God remember
and bless Rachel when she influenced Jacob to have a third
wife? Why did God listen to Leah's prayer after she
influenced Jacob to have a fourth wife? If polygyny is
unacceptable to God, then why did the Lord speak to Jacob
and promise to bless him with His abiding presence?
Gen 32: 1 ¶ And Jacob went on his way, and the angels of
God met him. 2 And when Jacob saw them he said, This
[is] God's camp. And he called the name of that place Refuge.
. . . . . .24 ¶ And Jacob was left alone. And a Man wrestled
there with him until the breaking of the day. . . .26 And He said, Let Me
go, for the day breaks. And he said, I will not let You go
except You bless me. 27 And He said to him, What [is]
your name? And he said, Jacob. 28 And He said,
Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but
Israel; for like a prince you have power with God
and with men, and have prevailed. 29 And Jacob
asked and said, I pray You, reveal Your name. And
He said, Why do you ask after My name? And He
blessed him there. 30 And Jacob called the name of the
place Peniel; for I have seen God face to face, and my life is
preserved.
>>>Why would God allow his angels to meet

Jacob, since he was practicing polygyny with four
wives? Why did Jesus wrestle with Jacob, and
bless Him with a new and significant name, if Jacob
was under God's judgment for practicing polygyny?
Exactly where is God's denunciation and disapproval
Jacob's polygyny expressed?
Jacob marries Rachel and Leah>58 , and

goes on to have children by his concubine-wives as
well>59. Sure, treachery was involved in the
Rachel and Leah marriage, but it appears that the
treachery stands alone as the evil since at the first
mention of the polygyny option,>60 Jacob has no
moral objection to having more than one wife and
nowhere does God denounce his having 2 wives.
Yes, Lev. 18:18 shows that much later
in the time of Moses, God forbade two sisters being
wives to one husband at one time and makes rivalry
the issue. God deliberately involved Himself in the
polygyny of Jacob by blessing Leah with
fertility>61. God repeated himself in this way with
the mother of Samuel without denouncing her
polygyny>62 . God intervened and granted fertility
to Rachel in her polygyny>63 . God not only
blesses Jacob with fertility but also with
miraculous prosperity in his polygyny> 64 . God
not only blessed Jacob in his polygyny but also
delivered him from evil and harm as a
polygynist>65
[Footnotes:>58 in Gen 29 & 30; >59 (Gen.
35:22; 37:2);. >60 (Gn. 29:27,29). >61 (Gn.
29:31,32; 30:17); >62 (l Sam 1:1-6); >63
(Gn. 30:22); >64 (Gn. 30:41-31:10); >65 (Gn.
31:24, 29,42)
In spite of this Biblical record of God's

blessings on Jacob, I understand a brother to write
that Jacob experienced only troublesome times with
Rachel and Leah, and that they were angry, envious,
and hateful rivals.>15. Only troublesome times?
What about all of God's miraculous provision and
prospering their family experienced directly from
God's intervention? What about their cooperation,
their love, trust and loyalty for Jacob when he was
in conflict with their father and then with Esau?
Maybe their polygyny lacked the sweet bliss and
loving harmony of Solomon's early polygyny >66 ,
but there is no passage that Rachel and Leah only
had troublesome times.
[Footnotes:>15. Trobisch, MY WIFE MADE ME. . ; p.
20; >66 (Song of Songs 6:4-9)]
I wish I had some of that trouble in my life!

What about the rivalry? God saw the destructive
potential of such sibling rigalry and made the law
that a polygynist should not marry the sister of his
wife >67 . He did not condemn the man for being a
polygynist, He just indicated that the man as
polygynist should not marry his wife's sister while
she lived. What about the hatred, envy and anger?
Well folks, I don't mean to be redundant, but we see
those sins in monogamy, between sisters, between
brothers (Cain & Abel) and between children and
parents (Absalom and David) then and today. If you
aren't aware of that, then I have to ask you if you
were raised by Robinson Crusoe on some island.
[Footnote: >67 (Lev. 18:18)]
==========================================
=
>>>>Ex 20, 21 JEHOVAH'S LAW RE POLYGYNY
• GOD GAVE MOSES RULES ABOUT POLYGYNY

>>>>Exodus 20:22 ¶ And Jehovah said to Moses, Thus
shalt thou say to the children of Israel: Ye have seen
that I have spoken with you from the heavens. . . .
21:1 ¶ And these are the judgments which thou
shalt set before them. . . . 7 And if a man sells his
daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants
do. 8 If she does not please her master, who has
betrothed her to himself, then he shall let her be
redeemed. He shall have no power to sell her to a
strange nation, since he has dealt deceitfully with her.
9 And if he has betrothed her to his son, he shall deal
with her as with daughters. 10 If he takes himself
another [wife], her food, her clothing, and
her duty of marriage shall not be lessened. 11
And if he does not do these three to her, then she shall
go out free without money.
It was expected that the female slave would become

her master's wife or concubine, or become the wife
or concubine of her master's son, and the law
protected her rights if he was unwilling to do
so.>16. Her owner could not sell her to foreigners
because he had "trifled" with her (see LXX),
"seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.">17.
[Footnotes:>16. Please see the discussion in THE
INTERNATIONAL BIBLE COMMENTARY; p.126ff &
p.172ff.; >17. Ex. 21:8; The Holy Scriptures
according to the Masoretic Text].
If polygyny is a sin, why doesn't God forbid the men from

taking an additional wife? If polygyny is unacceptable
to God, why does He instruct men what He requires of
them if they take an additional wife? If polygyny is
sin, where is His command that a woman not marry a
man who already has a wife?
>>>>Leviticus 18 MARRYING TWO SISTERS

>>>>Leviticus 18: 17 The nakedness of a woman and her
daughter shalt thou not uncover; thou shalt not take her
son's daughter, nor her daughter's daughter, to uncover
her nakedness: they are her near relations: it is
wickedness. 18 And thou shalt not take a wife to
her sister, to vex her, to uncover her
nakedness beside her, during her life. [darby]
“And thou shalt not take a woman to her sister, to
be a rival to her . . .. beside the other in her lifetime.”>47
[Footnote: >.47 The Holy Scriptures, Masoretic
Text]
“Thou shalt not take a wife in addition to her sister,
as a rival . . in opposition to her, while she is yet
living.”>48
[Footnote: >.48 The Septuagint Version, 1972]
“And you shall not take to wife a sister of your
wife, to distress her. . ..beside the other in her
lifetime.”>49
[Footnote: >.49 The Holy Bible from Ancient
Eastern Manuscripts]
“And thou shalt not take a wife to her sister, to be a
rival to her , . . ...besides the other in her life-
time.”>50
[Footnote: >.50 American Standard Version 1901 &
1929]
“You must not marry a woman in addition to her
sister, to be a rival to her. . . .when the first one is
alive.”>51
[Footnote: >.51 Amplified Bible, 1965, Zondervan
Publishing House.]
"You are not to take a woman to be a rival with her sister
and have sexual realtions with her while her sister is still
alive.">52
[Footnote:>52 Complete Jewish Bible, Jewish New Testament
Publications, Inc.; Jerusalem, Israel.]
The New King James Version agrees with the
meaning of those above.The New International Version agrees
with the meaning of those above. >53
[Footnote: >.53 HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL
VERSION.]
Can Lev. 18:18 be used to condemn polygyny, or

does it forbid being married to two blood sisters at
the same time? Is the issue here that of marrying
sisters, or is the issue polygyny? I SEE A
PROHIBITION OF RACHEL+LEAH MARRIAGES
INVOLVING TWO SISTERS BEING MARRIED TO THE
SAME HUSBAND, BUT WHERE IS THE IMPLIED
PROHIBITION OF POLYGYNY? It seems to me that
God is simply prohibiting a husband from marrying
the sister in-the-flesh of his wife.
Does it apply to sisters in the Spirit? The

obediently believing Israelite women were as much
sisters in the Lord as are the Christian women
sisters in the Spirit and there was no prohibition
against them being in polygynist marriages like
King David’s. Are you willing to add to the
scripture to support the tradition of men?
>>>>>De 17:15 “You shall only set him king

over you whom Jehovah your God will choose: from
among your brethren shall you set a king over you; .
. . 16 Only he shall not multiply horses to himself,
. . . 17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself,
that his heart turn not away; neither shall he greatly
multiply to himself silver and gold.”
If this passage is used to make a case against polygyny,

shouldn't it also be used to make a case that the king
should have only one horse, only one bar of gold, and
only one bar of silver?
God's Law forbade a king from "multiplying"
wives>.75 to himself without making such a
command to we nonkings. It appears from later
scripture about Godly and God blessed kings of
Israel that God makes a distinction between
MULTIPLYING wives & horses to yourself and
adding wives & horses to yourself. None of us
object to King David having more than one horse but
many object to King David having more than one
wife, yet it is the same command "he shall not
multilply hoses . . . wives to himself." By 2 Samuel
5-12 God had “given” him seven wives plus a
number of concubines. We see His implied blessing
on David’s polygyny . This implied blessing of his
polygyny would have to mean that David, with
concubines and seven wives, had not yet violated
the prohibition against a king multiplying wives
and horses to himself.
[Footnotes:>75 De 17:15 “You shall only set him
king over you whom Jehovah your God will choose:
from among your brethren shall you set a king
over you; . . . 16 Only he shall not multiply horses
to himself, . . . 17 Neither shall he multiply wives
to himself, that his heart turn not away; neither
shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and
gold.” NO PROHIBITION FROM HAVING SOME
HORSES , SOME WIVES and some gold]
Most of the "leaders" maintain that Deut.

17:17 at least implies a condemnation of polygyny
because of its command forbidding the king to
multiply wives and horses to himself>55 . Since
interpretations belong to God, let's see what God says
in His Word. By the time David became King in Judah
he had 6 wives>9 and was being blessed and
prospered by God. At the time of the wonderful
Covenant with David in 2 Sam. 7, God specifically
blesses and covenants with polygamist David,
husband to his concubines and his seven wives.
DavidÕs wives, as part of his house, benefited from
GodÕs blessing. Apparently even concubines plus
seven wives is not "multiplying" wives to oneself. He
had about 14 wives and concubines at the end of his
life>10 .
BIBLICAL LAW, by R. Rushdonney, p. 363. >9 (2
Sam. 3 & 5); >10 (1 Chron 3)]
I believe St. Augustine (4th Century AD) had a good

word here for such godly men. Consider the following:
"But those who have not the virtues of temperance
must not be allowed to judge of the conduct of holy
men, any more than those in fever of the sweetness
and wholesomeness of food. . . If our critics, then,
wish to attain not a spurious and affected, but a
genuine and sound moral health, let them find a cure
in believing the Scripture record, that the honorable
name of saint is given not without reason to men who
had several wives; and that the reason is this, that the
mind can exercise such control over the flesh as not to
allow the appetite implanted in our nature by
Providence to go beyond the limits of deliberate
intention. . . .the holy patriarchs in their conjugal
intercourse were actuated not by the love of pleasure,
but by the intelligent desire for the continuance of
their family. . . .nor did the number of their wives
make the patriarchs licentious. But why defend the
husbands, to whose character the divine word bears
the highest testimony. . . ."
[Footnote: >.56 A Select Library of the Nicene and
Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church, Vol. iv;
p.290]
Was the High Priest commanded to marry only one

wife in Lev. 21:13,14 as some American religious
leaders say? In the vast majority of respected
translations there is no such "only one wife"
command. Again we see the tradition of man making
of no effect the Word of God.
>>>>>*Deut. 21:15 ¶ “If a man have two wives, one

beloved, and one hated, and they have borne him children,
[both] the beloved and the hated, and [if] the first-
born son be hers that was hated; 16 then it shall be,
in the day that he makes his sons to inherit [that]
which he has, [that] he may not make the son of the
beloved first-born before the son of the hated, who is
the first-born; 17 but he shall acknowledge as first-
born the son of the hated, by giving him a double
portion of all that he has; for he is the firstfruits of his
strength: the right of the firstborn is his.”
If God condemns polygyny, why does he not only allow a
man to have two wives, but he actually legislates the right
of one wife's child over the right of the other wife's child?
If the children are children of polygyny, why would God
give them any rights at all, if it is such a sin as some say?
I understand Rev. Gerhard Jasper to make the

following points:
(1) In Old Testament times a Jewish polygynist's
marriage was fully recognized as marriage,
protected by the Law and the elders;
(2) the Jewish polygynist's faith in or faithfulness
to God was not
questioned because of his polygyny;
(3) the polygyny of the Jewish polygynist did not
keep him from being
admitted to the congregation with full
membership.>44. Moses did not forbid polygamy>8
(Dt. 21:15,16) >8 but apparently it was unusual
among average people .>45.
[Footnotes:>.f89 Please see p. 362, THE INTSTITUTES
OF BIBLICAL LAW, by R. Rushdonney. >44.
Trobisch, MY WIFE MADE ME. . . P.18; (AFRICAN
THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL, Rev. Gerhard Jasper of
Lutheran Theological College in Makumira, Tanzania;
Februrary 1969, p. 41). >45. Please see THE
INTERNATIONAL BIBLE COMMENTARY; p. 407.]
He legislated polygyny without one word or

hint of condemnation. If polygyny were sin, why
didn't God condemn it instead of putting the royal
seal of His holy Law on it? God's designated and
anointed leaders freely and openly practiced it
(Abraham, Jacob, David, Jehoida the priest, and
God in Ezekiel 23). Where in the Bible does he find
an Old Testament writer embarrassed to report
polygamy? If you know of a single passage that
clearly and explicitly states that, please let me
know. How can any Old Testament writer be
embarrassed of something God sanctioned and
legislated, and that His designated and anointed
leaders freely and openly practiced with God's
obvious and abundant blessing in their lives (see
the next section)? The Old Testament writers
untiringly and realistically show the negativity of
polygamy? Abram and Sarai, Rachel and Leah had
problems, as did Hannah and so did Solomon, but
even with these four there is no untiring and
relentless criticism of polygamy? I couldn't find it.
In the next section, covering thousands of years and
each major period of Jewish history there is no
such relentless criticism of polygyny found in the
Bible.
>>>>>Deut 25: 5 ¶ If brethren dwell together, and

one of them die, and have no son, the wife of the
dead shall not marry a stranger abroad: her husband’s
brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him as
wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother
unto her. 6 And it shall be, that the firstborn that she
beareth shall stand in the name of his brother who is
dead, that his name be not blotted out from Israel.
1 Tim 5:11 But younger widows decline; for when they
grow wanton against Christ, they desire to marry, . . .
14* I will therefore that the younger marry, bear children,
rule the house, give no occasion to the adversary in
respect of reproach.
1 Cor 7:8 But I say to the unmarried and to the widows,
It is good for them that they remain even as I.
9* But if they have not control over themselves, they
should marry; for it is better to marry than to burn.
PLEASE NOTE that Dt. 25 reads as follows:

"her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take
her to him as wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s
brother unto her."
PLEASE NOTE that Dt 25 DOES NOT READ AS FOLLOWS:
<her husband’s SINGLE brother shall go in unto her, and take
her to him as wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s
SINGLE brother unto her.>
THAT MEANS THAT "her husband’s brother shall go in unto
her, and take her to him as wife, and perform the duty of a
husband’s brother unto her." WHETHER OR NOT HE IS
MARRIED ALREADY.
========================================
>>>>>1 Samuel 18-2 Sam 20 ; David, His Six Wives and Ten
Concubines
DAVID'S SEVEN WIVES AND HIS TEN CONCUBINES.

>>>>>1 Samuel 18: 27 And David arose and went forth, he and
his men. And [they] killed two hundred men of the
Philistines. And David brought their foreskins, and they
gave them in full number to the king so that he might be
the king's son-in-law. And Saul gave him his
daughter Michal for a wife. 28 And Saul saw and
knew that the LORD [was] with David, and that
Michal, Saul's daughter, loved him.
1 Samuel 25: 42 And Abigail hurried and arose, and rode
on an ass, with five of her maidens who went after her. And
she followed the messengers of David and became
his WIFE. 43 David also took Ahinoam of Jezreel.
And they became, both of them, his WIVES. 44 And
Saul gave his daughter Michal, David's WIFE, to
Phalti the son of Laish, who [was] of Gallim.
2 Samuel 3: 1 ¶ And there was a long war between the
house of Saul and the house of David. But David [became]
stronger and stronger, and the house of Saul became
weaker and weaker. 2 And sons were born to David in
Hebron. And his first-born [was] Amnon, [the son of]
Ahinoam of Jezreel. 3 And his second was Chileab, of
Abigail of Carmel, the former wife of Nabal. And
the third [was] Absalom, the son of Maacah the
daughter of Talmai king of Geshur. 4 And the fourth
[was] Adonijah, the son of Haggith. And the fifth [was]
Shephatiah, the son of Abital. 5 And the sixth [was]
Ithream, by Eglah, David's WIFE. These were born to
David in Hebron.
2 Samuel 6:16 And it happened [as] the ark of the LORD

came to the city of David, Michal, Saul's daughter, looked
through a window and saw king David leaping and dancing
before the LORD. And she despised him in her heart. . . . . .
20 ¶ And David returned to bless his household. And Michal
the daughter of Saul came out to meet David and said, How
glorious was the king of Israel today, who uncovered
himself today in the eyes of the handmaids of his servants,
as one of the vain fellows shamelessly uncovers himself!
21 And David said to Michal, [It was] before the LORD, who
chose me before your father, and before all his house, to
appoint me ruler over the people of the LORD, over Israel.
And I danced before the LORD. . . . 23 And Michal the
daughter of Saul had no child to the day of her death.
If God made Michal childless because of her error, why

didn't God punish David in some equally significant way,
since he had at least six wives by the time of this incident?
If polygyny is sinful, why didn't God punish David instead
of Michal, his first wife?
2 SAMUEL 7:4 ¶ And that night the word of the LORD came
to Nathan saying, 5 Go and tell My servant David, So says
the LORD, Shall you build Me a house for My dwelling? . . .
. . . 8 And now so shall you say to My servant David, So says
the LORD of hosts: I took you from the sheepcote, from
following the sheep, to be ruler over My people, over
Israel. 9 And I was with you wherever you went, and have
cut off all your enemies out of your sight, and have made
you a great name like the name of the great ones in the
earth. . . . . . Also the LORD tells you that He will make you
a house. 12 And when your days [are] fulfilled, and you
shall sleep with your fathers, I will set up your seed after
you, who shall come out of your bowels. And I will make his
kingdom sure. 13 He shall build a house for My name, and I
will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will
be his Father, and he shall be My son. If he commits
iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with
the stripes of the sons of men. 15 But My mercy shall not
leave him, as I took [it] from Saul, whom I put away before
you. 16 And your house and your kingdom shall be made
sure forever before you. Your throne [shall be] established
forever.
>>>If polygyny is a sin like adultery, why did Jehovah

confer such a great blessing, reward and heritage on a man
with six wives and numerous concubines, without reproaching
him once for being a polygynist?
MKJV 2 Sam.12: 7 And Nathan said to David, You [are]

the man! So says the LORD God of Israel, I anointed you
king over Israel, and I delivered you out of
the hand of Saul. 8 And I gave you your master's
house and your master's WIVES into your bosom
to embrace*, and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah.
[*to embrace* Complete Jewish Bible, Jewish New
Testament Publications]
Do I have a reading problem, or did God just say that He

gave WIVES (plural) to David? Why is this giving of wives
listed by God among the blessings that He gave to David, if
polygyny is the sin that some say it is?]
2 Samuel 12:9 And if that [was] too little, I would have
given to you such and such [things] besides. 9 Why have
you despised the word of the LORD, to do evil in His sight?
You have stricken Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and
have taken his wife [to be] your wife, and have killed him
with the sword of the sons of Ammon. 10 And therefore, the
sword shall never depart from your house, because you
have despised Me and have taken the wife of
Uriah the Hittite to be your wife.11 “So says the
LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against you out of your
own house, and I will take your >>>WIVES<<< before your
eyes and give [them] to your neighbor. And he shall lie with
your >>>WIVES<<< in the sight of this sun.”
2 Sam 16: 21 “And Ahithophel said to Absalom,
Go in to your father's >>>CONCUBINES<<<, that he left to
keep the house. And all Israel shall hear that you are
abhorred by your father. And the hands of all who [are]
with you will be strong. 22 And they spread Absalom a tent
on the top of the house, and Absalom went in to his
father's >>>CONCUBINES<<< in the sight of all Israel.”
2Sam.20:3 “And David came to his house at
Jerusalem. And the king took the ten women, [his]
>>>CONCUBINES<<<, whom he had left to keep the house,
and put them in ward, and fed them but did not go in to
them. And they were shut up till the day of their death,
living in widowhood.”
1 Kings 11: 4 For it happened when Solomon was old, his

wives turned away his heart after other gods. And his
heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as
[was] the heart of David his father. . . . 6 and
Solomon did evil in the sight of Jehovah, and did not [go]
fully after the LORD like his father David.
Why would God say that King David went "fully after the
LORD", being blessed and commended by God, even though
he had fallen into adultery and had many wives and
concubines? Why would God say that David's heart was
perfect with the Lord his God, when the Lord knew that
David was a practicing polygynist, if polygyny is a sin as
some say? Where do we see God blessing evil doers in
their sin? Adultery is a sin and God exacted a severe
punishment on David, so why didn't God punish David for
his polygyny, if it is a sinful as some say?
1 Chronicles 3:1 ¶ And these were the sons of David, who

were born to him in Hebron. The first-born, Amnon, of
Ahinoam of Jezreel. The second, Daniel, of >>>Abigail<<<
of Carmel. 2 The third, Absalom the son of >>>Maachah<<<
the daughter of Talmai king of Geshur. The fourth, Adonijah
the son of >>>Haggith<<<. 3 The fifth, Shephatiah of
>>>Abital.<<< The sixth was Ithream by >>>Eglah<<< his
wife. 4 [These] six were born to him in Hebron. And there
he reigned seven
years and six months. And he reigned in Jerusalem thirty-
three years. 5 And these were born to him in Jerusalem
Shimea, and Shobab, and Nathan, and Solomon, four of
>>>Bathsheba<<< the daughter of Ammiel 6 and Ibhar, and
Elishama, and Eliphelet, 7 and Nogah, and Nepheg, and
Japhia, 8 and Elishama, and Eliada, and Eliphelet, nine. 9
[These were] all the sons of David, besides the sons of
the >>>CONCUBINES<<<, and Tamar their sister.
>>> IF POLYGYNY IS THE SIN THAT SOME SAY IT

IS, WHERE IS GOD'S CONDEMNATION OF THE SIX
WIVES AND TEN CONCUBINES OF KING DAVID?
WHY WOULD GOD REBUKE AND CHASTEN DAVID FOR
HIS ADULTERY WITH BATHSHEBA, AND THEN TURN
AND BLESS DAVID IN HIS MARRIAGE TO
BATHSHEEBA AND HIS OTHER WIVES, IF POLYGYNY
IS SIN AS SOME SAY? If you count his first wife,
Michael, then he had eight wives when he died. In
these passages you see God calling and recognizing
as "wives" David’s concubines. If that is the way
God sees them, only a fool would treat them as less
than a wife (Malachi 2). Malachi 2 makes it pretty
clear how God feels about those who break their
covenants with their concubines and wives.
David is a fascinating case. He marries

Michal in l Sam. 18. Then, as the anointed future
king of Israel, David took to himself three
additional wives in l Sam 25, and one is recognized
by the Spirit for her grace and wisdom. He does
this at a time of God's miraculous intervention and
blessing in his life. God neither denounces or
condemns him or his polygyny. In the case of three
or four wives you are still dealing with addition,
rather than the multiplying of Deut. MKJV DEUT.
17:16 “But he shall not multiply horses to
himself. . . . 17 Nor shall he multiply wives to
himself, so that his heart does not turn away. Nor
shall he greatly multiply silver and gold to
himself.”
It is interesting that horses, silver and gold

- AS WELL AS WIVES - were not to be multiplied. I
can't believe this was meant to limit the king to ONE
HORSE, or ONE SILVER OR GOLD BAR, even so I
can't believe it limits a king to one wife.
In fact in 2 Sam 6, it is Michal who is

condemned and punished instead of her polygamous
husband David. By the time he becomes King in
Judah he has 6 wives>83 and is being blessed and
prospered by God. At the time of the wonderful
Covenant with David in 2 Sam. 7, God specifically
blesses and covenants with polygamist David and his
concubines and his seven wives, as part of his
house, receive a blessing. God even said "I gave you .
. . your master's wives" >84 ". And Nathan said to
David, you are the man! Thus says Jehovah the
God of Israel: I anointed you king over Israel, and I
delivered you out of the hand of Saul; 8 and I GAVE
YOU YOUR MASTER'S HOUSE, AND YOUR MASTER'S
WIVES INTO YOUR BOSOM TO EMBRACE, and gave you the house of
Israel and of Judah; and if [that] had been too little,
I would moreover have given unto you such and such
things."
[Footnotes:>83 (2 Sam. 3); >84a 2Sa 12:7]
At this time God had “given” him seven

wives plus a number of concubines (1 Chronicles
3). God here condemns David’s adultery and
murder, but implies His blessing on David’s
polygyny . This implied blessing of his polygyny
would have to mean that David, with concubines and
seven wives, had not yet violated the prohibition
against a king multiplying wives to himself. >84b
to David in his polygyny. Apparently even
concubines plus seven wives is not "multiplying"
wives to oneself. He had about 14 wives and
concubines at the end of his life>85. David the
polygamist was declared to be loyal to God>86. God
declares that David, the polygamist, fully followed
God>87.
[Footnotes:>84b 2Sa 12:7; >85 (1 Chron 3);
>86 ( l King 11:4); >87 (l King 11:6)]
In contrast to God's evaluation of David, we
have a beloved brother's evaluation that David was
adulterous, unjust, favored some over others, and
his sons became killers because he didn't have the
authority deal decisively with his heritage>19.
Unless I'm mistaken, I believe that monogamous
Adam and Eve had a similar problem with Cain and
Abel, and monogamous Isaac and Rebekah certainly
had their share of "favoritism and injustice. . .
intrigues" in their parenting of Jacob and Esau and
Jacob's obtaining the blessing instead of Esau.
Again and again we see that sin and the flesh are the
problems, not polygyny.
[Footnote: >19. Trobisch; MY WIFE MADE ME. . .
p.20.]
God conferred the status of wives on David's

concubines in 2 Sam. 12:11 as we see how the
prophecy was played out in 2 Sam. 16:21, 22; and
20:3. Again the distinction between concubines and
wives seems to be an issue on man's end, not on
God's end where it seems to be the solemn
vow/covenant>20 and not the wedding ceremony>21
that makes a woman a wife even if society calls her
a concubine>88 .
[Footnotes:>.20 See appendix #4.; >.21 See
appendix #4; >88 (Ezek. 16; Malachi 2; Eccles.
5:5-9;and Matt. 1:18-20 where we see the Holy
Spirit call Mary and Joseph husband and wife based
on their betrothal/ espousal alone and before the
actual wedding and cohabitation)]
==========================================
==
>>>>>1 KINGS 11 SOLOMON
1 ¶ But king Solomon >>>loved many foreign women<<<, besides

the daughter of Pharaoh: women of the Moabites, Ammonites,
Edomites, Zidonians, Hittites; 2* >>>of the nations of which Jehovah
had said to the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither
shall they come in to you;<<< they would certainly turn away your
heart after their gods: to these Solomon was attached in love. 3 And
>>>he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred
concubines;<<< and his wives turned away his heart. 4 And it came to
pass when Solomon was old, that >>>his wives turned away his heart
after other gods; and his heart was not perfect with Jehovah his God,
as the heart of David his father.<<< 5 And Solomon went after
Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the
abomination of the Ammonites. 6 >>>And Solomon did evil in the
sight of Jehovah, and followed not fully Jehovah, as David his
father.<<< 7 Then did Solomon build a high place for Chemosh the
abomination of the Moabites, on the hill that is before Jerusalem, and
for Molech the abomination of the children of Ammon. 8 And so he did
for all his foreign wives, who burned incense and sacrificed to their
gods.
9 ¶ And Jehovah was angry with Solomon, because >>>his heart was
turned away from Jehovah the God of Israel, who had appeared to him
twice, 10 and had commanded him concerning this thing, not to go
after other gods;<<< but he kept not what Jehovah had commanded.
11 And Jehovah said to Solomon, Forasmuch as this is done by thee,
and thou hast not kept my covenant and my statutes which I
commanded thee, I will certainly rend the kingdom from thee, and will
give it to thy servant: 12 notwithstanding in thy days I will not do it, for
David thy father’s sake; I will rend it out of the hand of thy son;
Solomon's sins were three. First his sin was marrying unbelievers with
whom marriage was forbidden by Jesus.
**Malachi 2:10 ¶ Have we not all one father? Hath not one *God
created us? Why do we deal unfaithfully every man against his brother,
by profaning the covenant of our fathers? 11* Judah hath dealt
unfaithfully, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in
Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the sanctuary of Jehovah which he
loved, and hath married <01166> the daughter of a strange *god. 12
Jehovah will cut off from the tents of Jacob the man that doeth this, him
that calleth and him that answereth; and him that offereth an oblation
unto Jehovah of hosts.
>>>01166 ba`al ; v: to marry, be lord (husband) over
**Deut 7: 1 ¶ When the Lord your God takes you into the land where
you are going, which is to be your heritage, and has sent out the
nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites
and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the
Jebusites, seven nations greater and stronger than you; 2 And when
the Lord has given them up into your hands and you have overcome
them, give them up to complete destruction: make no agreement with
them, and have no mercy on them: 3 Do not take wives or husbands
from among them; do not give your daughters to their sons, or take
their daughters for your sons. 4 For through them your sons will be
turned from me to the worship of other gods: and the Lord will be
moved to wrath against you and send destruction on you quickly.
Secondly his sin was multiplying wives to himself in violation of Deut 7,
"he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred
concubines;"
De 17:15 “You shall only set him king
over you whom Jehovah your God will choose: . .
16 Only he shall not multiply horses to himself,
. . . 17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself,
that his heart turn not away; neither shall he greatly
multiply to himself silver and gold.”
It is interesting to note that King Solomon's abuse of polygyny

was judged and condemned by God, who at the same time held up
David, the polygynist King, as the standard which Solomon had
failed to meet. Solomon's "wives turned away his heart after other
gods; and his heart was not perfect with Jehovah his God, as the heart
of David his father. . . And Solomon did evil in the sight of Jehovah, and
followed not fully Jehovah, as David his father."
Thirdly, "his heart was turned away from Jehovah the God of Israel,
who had appeared to him twice, 10 and had commanded him
concerning this thing, not to go after other gods. . . 5 And Solomon
went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom
the abomination of the Ammonites." He fell into idolatry.
JEHOVAH AS THE POLYGYNOUS HUSBAND OF TWO

WIVES
>>>>>Ezekiel 23: 1 ¶ The word of the LORD came again to me, 2
Son of man, there were two women, the daughters
of one mother. 3 And they fornicated in Egypt; they
whored in their youth, their breasts were handled, and
there their virgin nipples were worked. 4 And their names
[were] Oholah, the oldest, and Oholibah, her sister. And
they were Mine, and they bore sons and
daughters. And their names: Samaria [is] Oholah, and
Jerusalem [is] Oholibah. 5 And Oholah whored under
Me. And she lusted after her lovers, to [her] Assyrian
neighbors, . . . . . . . . 35 So the Lord Jehovah says this:
Because you have forgotten Me and cast Me behind your
back, therefore bear also your wickedness and your
adulteries.
36 ¶ And the LORD said to me: Son of man, will you judge
Oholah and Oholibah, and declare to them their
abominations, 37 that they have committed adultery,
and blood [is] on their hands?
Never by God or His prophets is polygyny

denounced, condemned or grouped with sins or
carnal expressions of the flesh. God Himself
portrays Himself as a monogynist in Ezekiel 16 and
then as polygynist in Ezekiel 23. It appears He has
no problem with the marriage styles he initiated,
legislated and in which He blessed His people. So
who are we to condemn as sin that which God never
condemns as sin? Why would we want to do such a
thing? Yes it is against the law in some countries
and we know that God wants us to obey the laws of
the land as long as it does not violate His Law. So we
should not practice formal and public polygyny in
those lands in obedience to Romans 13 etc. So why
not simply say that instead of teaching as doctrine
the tradition of religious men, i.e. that polygyny is
sinful?
=========================================
>>>>POYGYNY & SINAI LAW IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
WHAT DID JESUS TELL HIS JEWISH FOLLOWERS TO DO ABOUT THE LAW
OF MOSES, THE LAW THAT INCLUDED POLYGYNY?
Matthew 23: 1 Then Jesus spoke to the crowd and to His disciples, 2
saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. 3 Therefore
whatever they tell you to observe, observe and do. But do not do
according to their works; for they say, and do not do.Some might say
all or most of those Old Testament passages on marriage and morality
were for the nation Israel under the Law of Moses and not for Jesus'
church under the Law of LOVE in Christ. Bible history indicates quite
clearly that Jesus came not to destroy the Law but to fulfill it>96 . Jesus
showed that He was observing all the Law of
Moses as an adult when He said that whoever does the
commandments and teaches others to do the Law of Moses "shall be
called great in the kingdom of Heaven">~ . Over and over again in the
Gospels you see Jesus obeying the Law of Moses and telling His
followers to obey it>97 . Matt. 23:3, 4, and 23 are the strongest
statements of this expectation that His followers were to be obeying
the marriage and morality laws of Moses when He was still visibly with
them, and Jesus made it soon before His death.
[Footnotes:>96 (Matt. 5:17,18); >~ (Matt. 5:19); >97 (Matt. 8:4;
12:11,12; 13:54; 15:3-6, 22-26; 17:24, 27; 19:17-19; 21:12,13; 22:34-
40; 23:3,4,23; 26:18,19; 26:63,64; etc.)]
IF JESUS TOLD HIS FOLLOWERS TO BOTH KEEP THE LAW OF MOSES

AND
THE TEACHINGS OF THEIR RELIGIOUS LEADERS, WHY DON'T WE NON-
JEWS KEEP THE LAW OF MOSES TODAY, INCLUDING THOSE LAWS
ABOUT POLYGYNY?
Acts 15: 4 And arriving in Jerusalem, they were received by the church,
and [by] the apostles and elders. And [they] declared all things that
God had done with them. 5 But some of those from the sect of the
Pharisees, having believed, rose up, saying, It was necessary to
circumcise them and to command [them] to keep the law of Moses.. . .
. . 7 And after much disputing, Peter rose up and said to them, Men,
brothers, you recognize that from ancient days God chose among us
[that] through my mouth the nations [should] hear the word of the
gospel, and believe. 8 And God, who knows the hearts, bore them
witness, giving them the Holy Spirit even as to us. 9 And He put no
difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10
Now therefore why do you tempt God by putting a yoke on the neck of
the disciples, a yoke which neither our fathers nor we were able to
bear? 11 But we believe that through the grace of [the] Lord Jesus
Christ we shall be saved, according to which manner they also
believed. . . . . 22
Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send
chosen men from them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; Judas,
whose last name was Barsabas; and Silas, chief men among the
brothers. 23 And they wrote these things by their hand: The apostles
and elders and brothers [send] greeting to the brothers, from [the]
nations in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia. 24 Because we have heard
that certain ones who went out from us have troubled you with words,
unsettling your souls, saying, Be circumcised and keep the law! (to
whom we gave no such command); 25 it seemed [good] to us, being
assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our
beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have given up their lives for
the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 Therefore we have sent Judas and
Silas, who will also announce [to you] the same things by word. 28 For
it seemed [good] to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater
burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from meats
offered to idols, and
[from] blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from
which, if you keep yourselves, you shall do well. Be prospered. 30 Then
indeed they being let go, they came to Antioch. And gathering the
multitude, [they] delivered the letter. 31 And when they had read [it],
they rejoiced at the comfort.
WHY THIS DOUBLE STANDARD IN THE BOOKS OF ACTS?

Consider Hebrews 8, especially the Greek of verse 13:
In that he says, A new [covenant], he has made the
first [covenant] old. Now that which is becoming
obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
Consider The Greek of 2 Cor. 3:7,11:
. . . the ministration of death, written [and] engraved
in stones, was glorious . . . How shall not the
ministration of the Spirit be more glorious? . . . For if
what is passing away [was] glorious, much more that
which is reamaining [is] glorious..
These passages show there was a period of transition (is becoming

obsolete..growing old..is ready to vanish..is passing away) from the
Sinai Law of Moses to the Calvary Law of LOVE in Christ. The book of
Acts is full of the apostles keeping the Sinai Law of Moses after
Pentecost. You see them worshipping in the Temple regularly>98 ,
Peter refuses to socialize with Gentiles according to the Sinai Law>99 ,
Peter refuses to eat the
animals classified as unclean in the Sinai Law>1 , Paul circumcises
Timothy, Paul keeps the Law's feasts>2 , Paul recognizes the authority
of the Chief Priest, the believing Gentiles are released from the Sinai
Law of Moses while the believing Jews are not released >3 .
[Footnotes:>98 (Acts 4, 12, 15, 21); >99 (Acts 10, 11, Gal. 1 & 2); >1
(Acts 10 & 11); >2 (Acts 21); >3 (Galatians, Acts 15 and see Acts 10;
11:8, 23; 15:5; 16:3; 18:18, 21;21:18-25; 24:18)]
DO YOU REALLY THINK THE CHURCH WAS DIVIDED IN THE BOOK OF

ACTS, WITH ONLY THE BELIEVING JEWS, INCLUDING THE APOSTLES,
KEEPING LAW?
***Acts 10: 9 On the next day, as these went on [the] road, and
drawing near the city, Peter went up on the housetop to pray, about
[the] sixth hour. 10 And he became very hungry and desired to eat. But
while they made ready, an ecstasy fell on him. 11 And he saw the
heaven opened and a certain vessel like a sheet coming down to him,
being bound at the four corners and let down to the earth; 12 in which
were all the four-footed animals of the
earth, and the wild beasts, and the reptiles, and the birds of the
heaven. 13 And a voice came to him, saying, Rise, Peter! Kill and eat!
14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord, for I have never eaten anything that is
common or unclean. 15 And the voice [spoke] to him again the second
[time], What God has made clean, you do not call common. 16 This
happened three [times], and the vessel was received up again into the
heaven. 17 And while Peter
doubted within himself what the vision which he had seen might be,
even behold, the men who were sent from Cornelius had asked for
Simon's house and stood on the porch. 18 And they called and asked if
Simon whose last name is Peter was staying there.19 And [while] Peter
thought on the vision, the Spirit said to him, Behold, three men are
looking for you. 20 Therefore arise and go down and go with them
without doubting, for I have sent them. . . . . . . 26 But Peter took him
up, saying, Stand up! I also am a man myself. 27 And as he talked with
him, he went in and found many who had come
together. 28 And he said to them, You know that it is an unlawful thing
for a man, a Jew to keep company with or to come near to one of
another nation. But God has shown me not to call any man common or
unclean.
***Galatians 2: 11 But when Peter came to Antioch, I opposed [him] to
his face, because he was to be blamed. 12 For before some came from
James, he ate with the nations. But when they came, he withdrew and
separated himself, fearing those of the circumcision. 1 3 And the rest
of the Jews also dissembled with him, so as even Barnabas was led
away with their dissembling. 14 But when I saw that they did not walk
uprightly with the truth
of the gospel, I said to Peter before all, If you, being a Jew, live as a
Gentile, and not as the Jews, why do you compel [the] nations to
judaize?
***Acts 16: 3 Paul wanted him to go with him, and taking [him he]
circumcised him , because of the Jews who were in those places; for
they all knew that his father was a Greek. 4 And as they passed
through the cities, they delivered to them the commandments to keep,
th e ones that were ordained by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem.
***Acts 18:18 And Paul having remained many days more, taking leave
of the brothers, he sailed from there into Syria. And Priscilla and Aquila
were with him. And Paul had shorn his head in Cenchrea, for he had a
vow. 19 And he came to Ephesus and left them there. But he himself
entered into the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews. 20 And they
asking [him] to stay a longer time with them, he did not consent 21 but
took leave of them, saying, I must by all means keep this feast that is
coming in Jerusalem ,
but I will return again to you, God willing. And he sailed from Ephesus.
***Acts 21:18 And on the next [day] Paul went with us to James. And all
the elders were
present. 19 And having greeted them, he related one by one what
things God had done
among the nations by his ministry. 20 And hearing, they glorified the
Lord, and said to
him, You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are who
believe, and they are
all zealous of the law. 21 And they are informed concerning you, that
you teach all the
Jews who are among the nations to forsake Moses, saying that they
ought not to
circumcise [their] children, nor to walk after the customs. 22 What is it
therefore? At all
events a multitude will come together, for they will hear that you have
come. 23
Therefore do this, what we say to you: We have four men who have a
vow on themselves;
24 taking them, be purified with them , and be at expense for them, so
that they may
shave [their] heads. And all may know that what they have been told
about you is
nothing, but you yourself also walk orderly and keep the Law. 25 And
as to the nations
who believe, we joined in writing, judging them to observe no such
things, except only
that they keep themselves from both idol sacrifice, and blood, and a
thing strangled, and
[from] fornication. 26 Then taking the men on the next day, being
purified with them,
Paul went into the temple, declaring the fulfillment of the days of the
purification,
until an offering should be offered for each of them.
[ Doesn't this mean that the marriage and morality teachings

of 1 Thess. 4 ; Romans 7; 1 Corinthians 5, 6 and 7, which
were written before the time of Acts 21:16 while Paul
and the believing Jews, including the apostles, were
still obeying and teaching the marriage and morality
laws of the Law of Moses, discussed at length above
including polygyny ? Doesn't that mean that all of their terms and
definitions were in harmony and accord with the Law of Moses, which
the apostles were still keeping since they were believing Jews? Isn't it
amazing that when God made up and gave all the exhaustive lists of
sins, both in the Sinai Law and in the New Testament, He never
included polygyny? If He made sure to condemn sodomy, pederastery,
homosexuality, lesbianism, incest, adultery and fornication, then why
didn't He also make sure to condemn polygyny, if it is the sin that
some say it is?] So we see Paul, the Apostle of Grace to we non-Jews,
purify himself with four other Christian Jews under a vow, pay the
expenses of their being under the vow including the shaving of their
heads, and have an offering offered for them all so that he could show
the believing Jews that he walked orderly, keeping the Sinai Law and its
customs and telling the believing Jews to circumcize their children and
walk in Moses' customs. These
customs of Moses included the laws given to Moses regulating and
recognizing polygyny. So the apostles and believing Jews were still
keeping the Law, not for salvation, but to obey Jesus in Mat. 23:1-3,
and still they do not condemn or reject the polygyny being practiced all
around them by both Jews and Romans
WHY DON'T THE BELIEVING GENTILES/NONJEWS OF TODAY STILL KEEP

THE LAW OF MOSES, WITH ITS PROVISIONS FOR POLYGYNY?
In fact, it is not until after Acts 22 that the Spirit has

Paul write the following:
***DBY EPHES. 2: 14 ¶ For *he* is our peace, who has made both one,
and has broken down the middle wall of enclosure, 15 having annulled
the enmity in his flesh, the law of commandments in ordinances, that
he might form the two in himself into one new man, making peace; 16
and might reconcile both in one body to God by the cross, having by it
slain the enmity; 17 and, coming, he has preached the glad tidings of
peace to you who were afar off, and the glad tidings of peace to those
who were nigh.
***DBY COLOS. 2:13* ¶ And you, being dead in offences and in the
uncircumcision of your flesh, he has quickened together with him,
having forgiven us all the offences; 14* having effaced the handwriting
in ordinances which stood out against us, which was contrary to us, he
has taken it also out of the way, having nailed it to the cross; 15 having
spoiled principalities and authorities, he made a show of them publicly,
leading them in triumph by it.
16* ¶ Let none therefore judge you in meat or in drink, or in matter of
feast, or new moon, or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to
come; but the body is of Christ.
***DBY 2 PETER 3:14 Wherefore, beloved, as ye wait for these things,
be diligent to be found of him in peace, without spot and blameless; 15
and account the longsuffering of our Lord to be salvation; according as
our beloved brother Paul also has written to you according to the
wisdom given to him, 16* as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of
these things; among which some things are hard to be understood,
which the untaught and ill-established wrest, as also the other
scriptures, to their own destruction.
========================================
>>>>>Mat 19 BEING/BECOMING ONE FLESH
Matt 19:5 and said, On account of this a man shall leave father and
mother, and shall be united to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh?
6 so that they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has
joined together, let not man separate.
1Cor 6:15 Do ye not know that your bodies are members of Christ?
Shall I then, taking the members of the Christ, make them members of
a harlot? Far be the thought. 16 Do ye not know that he that is joined
to the harlot is one body? for the two, he says, shall be one flesh. 17
But he that is joined to the Lord is one Spirit. 18* Flee fornication
Does Jesus' statement “The two shall become
one flesh” mean that only one man and one woman
should become one flesh, as in monogamy>57 , as
most of the "leaders" maintain? Doesn't the Spirit uses
“The
two shall become one flesh” principle in 1 Corinth. 6
to show “that he who is joined to a harlot is one body
with her” , and then uses the same “one flesh”
principle in Eph. 5 about a husband and his wife?
Do you recall the discussion of this issue in the section on
Adam and Eve?
1Cor.7:2's “. . . ..each [man] is commanded to be having

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

had one of their own wives, he was having his own
wife/concubine; and each wife/concubine of these
polygamists had her own polygamous husband. This
is also true of a man and his concubine with whom
he has maritally covenanted>22 honorably before
God. David had his own Abigail and Abigail had her
own David. David had his own Abigail and
Bathsheeba, and Bathsheeba and Abigail both had
their own David. The polygynist has his own wife,
and has each one of them intimately and each one is
his own wife. Each of the polygynist's wives has
her own husband and has him intimately in their
marriage. This passage does not rebuke, demean or
condemn polygyny. The passage addresses marital
faithfulness and excludes adultery, which involves
a husband having another’s wife and a wife having
one who is not her own husband. It restricts sexual
“having” to marriage with one’s own mate.
BIBLICAL LAW, by R. Rushdonney, p. 363. >22
Ezek. 16:8; Malachi 2:10-17; Neh. 9:38 with 1
Sam. 20:3-17; As in Matt. 1:18-24 and Luke 1 &
2, she was his "wife" by their covenant even before
their actual formal wedding.]
>>>>>Mat 19:9 IS POLYGYNY ADULTERY?

ADULTERY DEFINED, A SURPRISE! The American
definition of adultery is not the Bible's definition.
Some say "The same laws apply to both male

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

commits adultery">144. The reason being that she is
still bound to her exhusband as wife.>145.
[Footnote: >144 Mat. 5:32; 19:9; Luke 16:18; except in
the cases of 1 Cor. 7:12-15,39; 1 Tim. 5:14. >145. 1
Cor. 7:10, 11, 39; Romans 7:1-3. ]
2. Mt5:32 But *I* say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife,
except for cause of fornication, makes her commit adultery, and
whosoever marries one that is put away commits adultery."
The husband "causes her to commit adultery"
when he divorces her for any reason other than
sexual immorality>146. The reason being that she is
still bound to him as wife.>147 In 1 Corinth. 7:5
we see that her husband "causes her to commit
adultery" because her husband is failing to meet her
marital needs and the enemy of her soul tempts in
her burning need. (On the other hand: The wife is not
said to cause her husband to commit adultery when
she divorces him for any other reason than sexual
immorality. Ever wonder why? Ask me.)
[Footnote: >146. Matt. 5:32; 19:9. >147 1 Cor. 7:10,
11, 39; Romans 7:1-3.]
3. "And if a woman divorces her husband and marries

another, she commits adultery.">148. The adultery
consists of both divorce AND remarriage. The reason
being that she is still bound to him as wife.>149.
If she divorced him and remained celibately single,
acknowledging that she is still maritally bound to him,
it is not adultery >149.
[Footnotes:>148. Mark 10:12. >149. 1 Cor. 7:10, 11,
39; Romans 7:1-3.]
4. "if, while her husband lives, she marries another

man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her
husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is
no adulteress, though she has married another
man.">150
His death releases her to remarry.
[Footnote: >150. Romans 7:3.]
##############Adultery for the man:
1. "Whoever marries a woman who is divorced

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

immorality, and marries another, commits adultery."
The adultery consists of divorcing his wife for
something else besides sexual immorality AND then
marrying the other woman. If he stayed married to his wife
and became marital with another, according to this passage he
has not committed adultery. What does that mean? Ask me.
On the other hand, it is implied here that if he divorces his
wife for sexual immorality and marries another, he
does not commit adultery. His divorcing her does not
cause her to commit adultery because she is already
immorally sexually involved with someone else. His
refusal to meet her sexual needs (1 Cor 7:2-5) does
not cause her to be immoral because she is already
being immoral. He is commanded not to be intimate
with her (1Cor.5:11) but his lack of her intimacy will
cause him to be tempted (1 Cor.7:5). He is under command
to do Matt. 18: 15-18; 2 Thess. 3:6-14; and 1 Cor. 5 with
her in the manner of 2 Tim. 2:24-28. Having done that,
if the temptations overcome him and he is faling to control
himself, burning with marital desire, he comes under
command to marry (1Cor.7:1,2,3,5,9) and so marries in the
Lord. If the wife he divorced for sexual immorality is a
genuine believer, he is still maritally bound to her in the
Kingdom of God and when she repents in godly sorrow there
is to be reconciliation (1Cor 5; 2 Cor 2 & 7)[Footnote: >152.
Matt 19: 9: Mark 10:11; Luke
16:18.152.]
3. "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits

adultery against her." Mark 10:11 Pretty clear, right? Divorcing your
wife and marrying another woman is adultery, right? But please note
that nowhere in the Bible does He say "Whoever remains married to his
wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her." Why?
Adultery is divorcing one wife AND marrying another woman.Biblical
polgyny includes KEEPING ONES WIFE and marrying another woman.
But understand that if a man remains married to his wife and
marries another in a civil/state recognized marriage, he has committed
the felony of bigamy and is sinful disobedience to Romans 13:1-5.If a
man remains married to his wife and marries another in a
discrete,private, and confidential covenanting according to Romans
14:21-23, he has committed no crime and no sin. Understand that if a
man remains married to his wife and becomes maritally committed to
another woman in violation of their wedding vows/covenant, then his
sin is not that of adultery, but is the sin of breaking covenants (Eccles
5:4-6; Malachi 2:14-17; Rom 1:31 void of understanding, faithless
covenant breakers, without natural affection, unmerciful; 32 who
knowing the righteous judgment of God, that they who do such things
are worthy of death, not only practise them, but have fellow delight in
those who do them.) As with Joshua and the
Gibeonites (Josh 9 etc), such a man must confess the sin of
breaking the covenant and then keep the new covenant if to do so
does not violate Scripture.
4. "You shall not covet your neighbor's wife.">153.

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

presence, releases and/or repudiates (apoluo) her husband
and marries another man, Jesus says she is committing
adultery. Mr 10:12; Rom 7:2,3 (Only one exception: 1 Cor
7:12-15). There is not one verse in the entire Bible
that say or teaches that if she confesses her sin
( sending away, putting away, dismissing from her presence,
releasing and/or repudiating (apoluo) her husband in order
to marry another man), then she is free to marry another
man. Confession of (agreeing with God about) one's sin
must be coupled with repentance, the forsaking of that
sin (Prov 28:13; 2 Cor 7:9-11). In this case it means the
forsaking of and/or the ceasing from her sending away,
putting away, dismissing from her presence,
releasing and/or repudiating (apoluo) her absent husband.
2. If a man sends away, puts away, dismisses from his

presence, releases and/or repudiates (apoluo) his wife
AND marries another woman, Jesus says he is committing
adultery. Mt 5:32; Mt 19:9; Mr 10:12; Rom 7:2,3
(Only one exception: 1 Cor 7:12-15) There is not one
verse in the entire Bible that say or teaches that if
he confesses his sin ( sending away, putting away,
dismissing from his presence, releasing and/or repudiating
(apoluo) his wife in order to marry another woman), then
he is free to marry another woman. Confession of
(agreeing with God about) one's sin
forsaking of and/or the ceasing from his sending away,
putting away, dismissing from his presence,
releasing and/or repudiating (apoluo) his absent wife.
If there was no breaking of covenants/vows, it was
not a sin for him to take another wife, his repentance
does not include leaving his new wife. He is bound
by covenants to both, keeps his covenant with his
new wife and keeps his covenant with the wife he
forsook/abandonned/repudiated.
3. An adulterer is a man who marries a woman

who has been sent away, put away, dismissed
from her husband's presence, released from
and/or repudiated by her husband. Mt 5:32;
Mt 19:9; Luke 16:18 (Only one exception: 1 Cor
7:12-15). There is not one verse in the entire
Bible that say or teaches that if he confesses
his sin ( marrying a woman who has been sent
away, put away, dismissed from her husband's
presence, released from and/or repudiated by
her husband), then he is free to marry another woman.
Confession of (agreeing with God about) one's sin
forsaking of and/or the ceasing from being married to
a woman who has been sent away, put away,
dismissed from her husband's presence, released
from and/or repudiated by her husband.
Adultery for the female is sexual intimacy with

anyone else besides her own husband/mate. Adultery
for the male is when (1) he is married to a new wife
and had left/rejected/divorced his former wife in
order to marry this new wife>99 . ; or (2) is sexually
intimate with some one else's wife. It is this double
standard that allowed Abraham, Jacob, David and
Joash to be godly polygamists, but declared a
woman to be an adulteress if she was intimate
with anyone but her own mate. It is a double
standard for the man and the woman, just like
polygyny was/is a double standard for the man and
the woman. The same sin is defined differently for
the woman and differently for the man. See more on
this below.
[Footnotes:>99 It is the combination of divorcing one's
mate in order to marry another and then marrying
that other that is adultery. If he both dutifully keeps
his own wife and then becomes martially committed to
another woman, it is not adultery. If the wife dutifully
keeps her own husband and marries another it is adultery
(Romans 7:3) The double standard is clearly laid out in Matt.
5:32 and 19:6-9; Mark 10:1-11; Luke 16:18; 1 Thess.
4:4-6 and Romans 7:1-3; 1 Corinth. 7:39]
What about the genuinely saved wife whose "believing"

husband is involved in sex sin so she is commanded to
separate from and not be intimate with him?
Such a wife separates from him according to 1 Cor.
7:10,11 but after a while she finds herself being
tempted according to 1 Cor.7:5. Then she falls to the
temptation and is afraid she might fall to it again,
finds herself maritally burning and under command
be married and have marital sex (1Cor.7:5,9).
Hopefully Jesus has finished his 1 Cor. 5:4,5-11 work
and the guy has either died and his spirit is with the
Lord, if he were really saved, or he has repented
according to 2 Cor 2 & 7 and is ready to be reconciled
to her. Or in the case of Matt. 18:15-18 she has
learned that she is to relate to him as an unsaved
person, an unsaved person who no longer wants to
live with her, no longer wants her as his
wife(1Cor7:13,15), so she is free from him and free to
obey the Lord and get married in the Lord.
Will God intervene in behalf of His fasting and

praying but maritally burning and sorely tempted
daughter, who as wife is separated from her husband
because of his 1 Cor. 5 sin, and because of that
separation is burning with marital desire and sorely
tempted? If He took out the rich and unloving
believers in 1 Cor. 11 for the shabby way they
stumbled and offended their poorer brethren in the
celebration of the Lord's supper, don't you think He
will give her a 1 Cor. 10:13 out or make a quick end
the husband causing her the grief? The God who
promised 1 Cor. 10:13 and Phil. 4:6,7,13,18,19 will not
break those promises.
Mark 10 ; 1 Cor 7:10,11, 12, 13-15,39; and Rom 7

seem to state rather clearly that a Christian marriage
lasts and is binding on both as long as both live. That
being the case I often wondered why God gave the
Christian wife the second best option of departing and
remaining unmarried and possibly being reconciled
with her saved husband later. The husband is given
no such second best option. He must not leave his
wife, period! Because of spousal abuse I can
understand why God would allow a wife to separate
herself while still bound to the abuser in marriage in
order to allow the exercise of church discipline>158 to
have an effect. But what about that poor turkey of a
husband who is warned by God>159 that being
deprived of his wife will result in Satanic temptations
to immorality and that he is explicitly forbidden to
leave her, send her away or ask her to leave>160. No
qualifications or exceptions. Why the double
standard? Because God allowed men the option of
polygyny. Polygyny is the God given way for a man to
cope with a wife who has left him and he is not maritally
free from her in the Kingdom of God.
[Footnotes:>158 (Matt 18 and l Cor 5). >159 (1 Cor.
7:1-5). >160 (Greek of l Cor. 7:11,12 and Mark 10)]
The woman's repentance option explains the "double

standard" and apparent inequity of 1 Corinthians
7:10,11 where it appears that the woman who has left
her husband has the repentance option of remaining
single but the man must never leave his wife. If a
wife left her husband according to 1 Cor. 7:11, he
would immediately be put in the hazardous position
of 1 Corinth 7:1-5, being tempted to sin because his
wife will not give him the marital sexual outlet since
she is gone. Until I understood God's double standard
about adultery and remarriage, it seemed to me to be
quite unfair that she could leave him and live unmarried,
and he, knowing he is still bound to her for life, has to
struggle with the burning temptations predicted in 1
Corinth. 7:1-5, 9 with no legitimate sexual outlet.
It is this double standard that results from the man

being the designated the head of the family (Gen 2;
1Cor. 11), that results in what appears to be another
inequity. In Mt. 5:32 Jesus apparently allows the
genuinely believing husband to divorce his wife
because she is snared in sexual immorality. Not only
is he allowed to divorce her, he is allowed to remarry.
If she is genuinely saved, she is still bound maritlly to
him as wife before the Lord according to Mt 5:32
" . . . . and whosoever marries her that is put away
commits adultery."; 1 Cor 7:39 39 "¶ A wife is bound
for whatever time her husband lives; . . ."; and Rom.
7: 2* "A wife, for instance, whose husband is living
is bound to him by the Law; but if her husband dies
the law that bound her to him has now no hold over
her. 3 This accounts for the fact that if during her
husband’s life she lives with another man, she will
be stigmatized as an adulteress; . . . ." This is true
even though she is snared in sex sin and Jesus
hasn't finished his Mat. 18:15-18 & 1 Cor. 5:3-11
work with her yet. He remarries with a free-in-the-
Lord-to-marry genuinely believing woman and is still
bound before the Lord to his sinning exwife. If the
one involved in sex sin survives 1 Cor . 5 and
repents according to 2 Cor. 2 &
7, he must accept her back along with his
new wife, being bound to both as long as he and they
all live.
There is a common teaching in the Christian

community that says that since the penalty for
adultery was death, if a genuinely believing woman
commits adultery she is as good as dead in God's
eyes. They say that this "as good as dead" status
frees her by this "death" from her genuinely believing
husband, leaving her free to remarry and releasing
him from her. That is not what God says in Mt 5:32
" . . . . and whosoever marries her that is put
away commits adultery." If her adultery rendered
her "as good as dead" and free to remarry, her
remarriage would not be the adultery Jesus says
it would be.
1 Cor 7:39 39 "¶ A wife is bound for whatever time
her husband lives; . . ." is stated as fact without
qualification, clearly
indicating that her adultery did not free genuinely
believing her by "death" from being bound to her
genuinely believing husband.
Rom. 7: 2* "A wife, for instance, whose husband is living

is bound to him by the Law; but if her husband dies
the law that bound her to him has now no hold over
her. 3 This accounts for the fact that if during her
husband’s life she lives with another man, she will
be stigmatized as an adulteress; . . . ." Here the
Word clearly teaches that the genuinely believing
wife is not freed from her genuinely believing husband
by her adultery, but if she marries another while he
lives she will be known as an adulteress.
The common teaching in the Christian

community that says that since the penalty for
adultery was death, if a genuinely believing woman
commits adultery she is as good as dead in God's
eyes, IS A FALSE DOCTRINE. This false doctrine
declares that this "as good as dead" status frees
her by this "death" from her genuinely believing
husband, leaving her free to remarry and releasing
him from her.
I understand a Christian elder to state that it is

inadequate to prescribe polygamy as a treatment for
the problem of adultery, because polygamy facilitates
stepping into adultery. Apparently he maintains that
polygamous wives are often driven to adultery by the
sinful neglect)>23 of their husbands, and may have to
bribe their husbands away from their other wives,
resulting in very unsatisfying sexual relations for the
wives.>63. First of all, God is the only real antidote
against adultery, because He tells us that even in
monogyny spousal neglect can result in temptations to
adultery>24 . Secondly, whether it be the "inclusive
sex-partnership" of polygyny or the exclusive 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)]
==========================================
===
>>>>>>ROMANS 13 + SUBMITTING TO THE AUTHORITIES

1 TIimothy 3 & TITUS 1 LEADERS TO HAVE ONLY ONE WIFE
One wrote:
>I know I read that we must abide by God's law and Man's law and the
last I heard,
///Clearly God instructs us in many places inthe Bible to obey the laws
and the lawmakers of the land, as long as
those laws do not violate or contradict His Laws in His Word in the
Kingdom of God. Heb 11 etc. declare that we
believers have dual citizenship, USA by natural birth, Heaven and the
New Jerusalem by rebirth in Jesus. The Kingdom of God is for eternity
and the kingdom of man is temporary, so the Laws of the Kingdom of
God take precedence, as Shedrach and Co. showed when they refused
to obey their king and his laws that required them to bow to and
worship a false god; as Daniel showed when he disobeyed the law of
the land by continuing to pray to God; as Miriam and Moses showed in
disobeying Pharaoh's orders to kill Israelites and keep enslaved Israel;
As Johnathon did in disobeying the King to save David's life; as Michal
did when she disobeyed her father and king to save David's life; as
David disobeyed Saul as a fugitive from the King's "justice"; as Rahab
did when she disobeyed her rulers in Jericho and saved the Israeli
spies; as Esther did when she entered the King's presence without his
permission to save the Israelis; as Joseph did when refused to have sex
with her who was in authority over him; as Samson did when he
disobeyed the Philistine occupation forces; as the Wise Men did when
the disobeyed Herod and obeyed God's angel by not returning to
Herod; as Peter did when he disobeyed the authorities in order to obey
Jesus' command to preach Him resurrected; as Jesus did when He
disobeyed the rulers of Israel by healing on the Sabbath, gleaning and
eating the gleanings on the Sabbath,
and by exposing the sins of the rulers of Israel contrary to their law; as
Dr. ML King did when he integrated nonviolently churches, buses,
stores etc which were segregated legally, exposing and confronting the
sins
of bias, prejudice, partiality and injustice according to 2 Tim 2:22-24
and Ephes 5:7,11.
Dear Saints,
We who believe in the polygny of the Bible must be prepared to suffer
persecution, to suffer evil and harm at the hands of the state. What
about the state and the citizen of the Kingdom of God? I have
struggled much with this issue. Let's deal with civil disobedience.
Gen 39: 7 ¶ And it came to pass after these things, that his master’s
wife cast her eyes on Joseph, and said, Lie with me! 8 But he refused,
and said to his master’s wife, Behold, my master takes cognizance of
nothing with me: what is in the house, and all that he has, he has given
into my hand.
Slaves were commanded to obedient to their masters and slaves were

considered to acceptable sex objects for their masters (Ex 21:7-11),
yet Joseph obeyed God rather than man, and refused to have sex with
her who owned him.
Daniel 3:15 Now if you are ready, at the time you hear the sound of the
horn, the pipe, zither, the lyre, harp, and bagpipe, and all kinds of
music, fall down and worship the image which I have made. But if you
do not worship, in that moment you shall be thrown into the middle of
a burning fiery furnace. And who is that god who shall deliver you out
of my hand? 16 Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego answered and said
to the king, O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to return a word to
you on this matter. 17 If it is so that our God whom we serve is able to
deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, then He will deliver us out of
your hand, O king. 18 But if not, let it be known to you, O king, that we
will not serve your gods nor worship the golden image which you have
set up.
///God's servants defied and disobeyed the commands of men when

those commands were in conflict with the commands of God, their
eternal King of their eternal homeland --
Heb 11:9 By faith he sojourned as a stranger in the land of promise as
a foreign country, having dwelt in tents with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs
with him of the same promise; 10 for he waited for the city which has
foundations, of which God is the artificer and constructor.
Daniel 6:13 Then they answered and said before the king, Daniel, who
is of the exiled sons of Judah, has not respected you, O king, nor the
ban that you have signed, but makes his prayer three times a day. 14
Then the king, when he heard the word, was very much displeased
with himself. And he set his heart on Daniel to deliver him. And he
labored until sundown to deliver him. 15 Then these men met before
the king and said to the king, Know, O king, that the law of the Medes
and Persians is that no ban nor law which the king establishes may be
changed. 16 Then the king commanded, and they brought Daniel and
threw him into the lions’ den. The king answered and said to Daniel,
Your God, whom you always serve, will deliver you.

Acts 4:18 And having called them, they charged them not to speak at
all nor teach in the name of Jesus. 19 But Peter and John answering
said to them, If it be righteous before God to listen to you rather than
to God, judge ye; 20 for as for us *we* cannot refrain from speaking of
the things which we have seen and heard. 21 But they, having further
threatened them, let them go, finding no way how they might punish
them, on account of the people, because all glorified God for what had
taken place;

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

must be practiced according to 1 Cor 8, Rom 14 and 1 Cor 10.
[PARAPHRASED] for application:
***1Cor 8: 8 It is true that a particular kind of [marriage] will not bring

us into God’s presence; we are neither inferior to others if we abstain
from [polygyny], nor superior to them if we [practice] it. 9 But take
care lest this liberty of yours should prove a hindrance to the progress
of weak believers. 10 For if any one were to see you, who know the real
truth of this matter, [practicing polygyny], would not his conscience
(supposing him to be a weak believer) be emboldened to [practice
polygyny as well but with doubts]? 11 Why, your knowledge becomes
the ruin of the weak believer--your brother, for whom Christ died! 12
Moreover when you thus sin against the brethren and wound their
weak consciences, you are, in reality, sinning against Christ. 13
Therefore if [my polygyny] causes my brother to fall, never again to
the end of my days will I [openly and publically practice polygyny], for
fear I should cause my brother to fall. [Derived from 1 Cor 8:8-13]
***1Cor 10: 23 ¶ Everything is allowable, but not everything is

profitable. Everything is allowable, but everything does not build others
up. 24 No one should be for ever seeking his own good, but each
should seek that [good] of his fellow man. 25 Any [form of marriage
practiced in the world, is good for marrying,] and ask no questions for
conscience’ sake; 26 for <the earth is the Lord’s, and all that it
contains.> 27 If an unbeliever gives you an invitation and you are
disposed to accept it, [accept it in the form of marriage that you
please], and ask no questions for conscience’ sake. 28 But if any one
tells you, “This [form of marriage is wrong and evil];” abstain from
[manifesting] it--out of respect for him who warned you, and, as before,
for conscience’ sake. 29 But now I mean his conscience, not your own.
“Why, on what ground,” you may object, “is the question of my liberty
of action to be decided by a conscience not my own? 30 If, so far as I
am concerned, I partake [ of the form of marriage I please] with a
grateful heart, why am I to be found fault with in regard to a thing for
which I give thanks?” 31 Whether, then, you are [marrying or not
marrying], or whatever you are doing, everything should be done to
the glory of God. 32 Do not [let your form of marriage] be causes of
stumbling either to Jews or to Gentiles, nor to the Church of God. 33
That is the way that I also seek in everything the approval of all men,
not aiming at my own profit, but at that of the many, in the hope that
they may be saved.
Rom 14:16 Let not then your [conviction that polygyny is] good be evil
spoken of; 17 for the kingdom of God is not [polygyny] and
[monogyny], but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit.
18 For she that in this [controversy about polygyny] serves the Christ is
acceptable to God and approved of men. 19 So then let us pursue the
things which tend to peace, and things whereby one shall build up
another. 20 For the sake of [polygyny] do not destroy the work of God.
All things [including polygyny] indeed are pure; but it is evil to that
woman who [becomes polygynous] while stumbling [in sin] because of
her doubts about its rightness. 21 It is right not to [take a second wife],
nor [take a third wife], nor do anything in which thy brother [or sister]
stumbles [striking the toe of one's conscience against an obstacle
inducing one to sin by acting in doubt], or is offended [ or stumbles or
is enticed to act without faith or think unfavourably or unjustly of
another and so displesed and indignant], or is made weak [morally
feeble, without strength, powerless]. 22 Have you faith [to believe
polygyny is right and so practice it]? Have that conviction to yourself
before God. Blessed is the one who does not judge oneself in what
[belief or practice of polygyny] one allows [with a firm and convinced
faith in its rightness]. 23 But one that doubts [about the rightness of
polygyny], if [that] one [becomes polygynous], [that one] is
condemned; because that one became polygynous not because of faith
[in its rightness]; but whatever [behavior or thought does not originate
from] faith [in its rightness before God] is sin.
>>>>>1 TIimothy 3: 1* ¶ Faithful [is] the word: If anyone

reaches out to overseership, he desires a good work. 2*
Then it behooves the overseer to be without reproach,
husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, well-
ordered, hospitable, apt at teaching,
1 Tim. 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the

husband of one wife,
A bishop: 1) an overseer
1a) a man charged with the duty of seeing that
things to be done by others are done rightly, any
curator, guardian or
superintendent
1b) the superintendent, elder, or overseer of a
Christian church >54
[Footnote: >.54 StrongÕs Lexicon, Open Bible Online, Ken
Hammil]
>>> 2Tim 3:8 ¶ Likewise the deacons [are to be] reverent, not 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?
Doesn't 1 Corinth. 12 and Ephes. 4 make it

plain that we all have different gifts so that some
[but not all] are hospitable, some [but not all] are
able to teach, some [but not all] rule their own
house well, some [but not all] have their children
in subjection with all honor, (For if one does not
know to rule his own house, how shall he take care
of the church of God?)? Since novices are not
expected to be able or qualified to be an elder,
overseer or deacon, doesn't that also mean that they
are therefore not expected to be mongynous? Since
all believers are not required to have the gift of
hospitality, of teaching, of ruling well and
effectively their children, and since all believers
are novices at one point in their spiritual lives,
then isn't it obvious that not all believers have the
gift (1 Cor. 7) of monogyny? If these standards
(especially monogyny) are to be required of all
believers, then what about those believers Paul
encourages to never marry at all so that they can
wait on God without distraction in times of
persecution? Isn't it clear that these requirements
are required only of those who seek to qualify for
such positions?
Husband of one wife: Yes! Definitely! An

elder/overseer/bishop/superintendent of a church
must be the husband of only one wife. Are we all
elders/overseers/bishops/ superintendents?
Clearly not. The unmarried are not. The married
who have unruly children are not. Husbands with
disrespectful, uncooperative and defiant wives are
not. The married and unmarried who are unable to
teach are not. All novices are not. Those with a bad
reputation, earned or unearned, among the unsaved
through slander or misunderstandings are not.
Those who don’t want a church leadership position
are not. That includes most of us, and most of us
are not covered by the injunction to be the husband
of only one wife.
There is the problem of the polygamous

mentality. A man who has learned to love
passionately and maritally more than one wife at
one time would be more vulnerable to sexual
temptation in church ministry than a man who has
learned to love passionately and maritally only one
wife at a time. A ministering polygamist in a
leadership position would be more likely to be
tempted to accept the advances/ propositions of an
unmarried sister in the church who falls in love
with him and he with her. This could result in sex
outside of marriage (fornication) or yet another
addition to his polygamous "harem". This would
stumble the saints and would be a reproach to the
unsaved. It would appear that a godly polygamist
would have to have a very low profile (no
leadership position) in the church, as the scripture
requires.
========================================
>>>>>>Miscellaneous Objections
The critic writes:

<<So we see that God allowed Abraham to have plural wives, but we
also see that he had to live with the consequences of such an
arrangement and we still today see the consequences of this
arrangement when we see the trouble in the Middle East between the
Muslims and the Jews. It has even hit our soil as we see what happened
on Sept. 11, 2001. The Muslims come from the line of Ishmael, the son
of Hagar.
We see in Gen. 29:25-35, 30:1-24 the story of Jocob and his two wives.
He originally was supposed to marry Rachel, but Laban tricked him and
gave him Leah. Jacob then was able to get Rachel later as wife. But we
see in the above reference the story of that plural marriage. Rachel
was a favorite wife,but Leah was able to conceive and have children
while Rachel was barren in the beginning. It was a constant source of
hard feelings and discord between the two women. Once again, we see
the consequences of polygamy.>>
///Partiality, favoritism and bias are sins for anyone, monogynous or

polygynous.
1 Tim 5:20,21; James 2:1-10; Acts 10. His standard for us, monogynous
or polygynous, is "to walk worthy of the calling wherewith ye have
been called, 2 ¶ with all lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering,
bearing with one another in love; 3 using diligence to keep the unity of
the Spirit in the uniting bond of peace."Eph 4.
Rivalry, emulation and strife are sins for anyone, monogynous or
polygynous.
3 for ye are yet carnal. For whereas there are among you emulation
and strife, are ye not carnal, and walk according to man? 1Cor 3
Often in monogyny there is rivalry, emulation, fruitfulness contrasted
with barrenness, hard feelings and discord between the husband and
the wife. Polygyny is not the cause of the sin,
but it is the product of society, the flesh principle and/or the evil ones.
<<Hannah is a prominent woman in the Bible. Her story is in 1 Samuel

1. She was the plural wife of Elkanah. His other wife was Peninnah. We
see once again a rival relationship between the two women when one
could bare children and the other could not. It was the cause of discord
in the family, a result of polygamy.>>
///Rivalry, contention, strife, self-assertion and selfishness are sins for

anyone, monogynous or polygynous. His standard for us, monogynous
or polygynous, is "to walk worthy of the calling wherewith ye have
been called, 2 ¶ with all lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering,
bearing with one another in love; 3 using diligence to keep the unity of
the Spirit in the uniting bond of peace."Eph 4.
Rivalry, emulation and strife are sins for anyone, monogynous or
polygynous.
3 for ye are yet carnal. For whereas there are among you emulation
and strife, are ye not carnal, and walk according to man? 1Cor 3
Often in monogyny there is rivalry, emulation, fruitfulness contrasted
with barrenness, hard feelings and discord between the husband and
the wife. Polygyny is not the cause of the sin,
but it is the product of society, the flesh principle and/or the evil ones.
<<We see yet another sad story in the life of David. 2 Chron.13
records the story of Tamar, the full sister of Absalom and the half sister
of Amnon. Amnom raped Tamar, his half sister and Absalom her full
brother killed him for it. Had David only married one wife, this would
not have had to happen. So here we see another unhappy
consequence of a plural marriage.>>
///Incest is a sin that God has condemned for all, monogynous or

polygynous, since Moses (Lev 18 and 20). Polygyny does not cause
incest, but it is the product of society, the flesh principle and/or the evil
ones.
<<We see in these stories from the Old Testament that the fruit of
polygamy is less than ideal. . . It looks like God allowed polygamy,
although it was not His ideal for marriage. >>
///The ideal for marriage was found in the Garden with Adam and Eve
before they sinned and came under the curse. The ideal was Adam and
Eve completely equal, no wifely subjection required, no decreed
husband leadership/headship, and no pain in childbirth. All of that from
the ideal monogynouos marriage was lost with sin, the fall and the
curse. Since then there has been no ideal marriage, since all marriages
are found under and suffering from the fall, sin and the curse.
<< I guess my only questions would be this. Why is polygamy so

important to you? Why is this such an all consuming issue for you?
Are there not more important Biblical issues at stake?>>
///Because the USA is full of genuine believers living in adultery,

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

neighbor to faith in Jesus Christ, I doubt that they would give me the
time of day when they saw my life style.>>
///What kind of testimony do you think the adulterous Christians

described above have? What kind of testimony do those believing
bereft and/or widowed women have who in their struggle to sexually
control themselves are failing to accept God's solution of marriage (a
solution being denied to them by the religious leaders of the local
churches condeming polygyny) and so are intermittently falling into
fornication (having sex with one who is not your mate), adultery,
lesbianism, sinful self-stimulation using memory or imagination or
porn, bisexuality and/or lesbianism." I personally know for a fact that it
is quite possible to practice polygyny according to Rom 14 in America
today and have a good testimony and ministry in local churches.
======================================
>>>>>>>>The Economics and Sociology of Polygyny for the Working

Class Poor.
From: "oldservant8" <oldeservant@.com>

Date: Sat Jul 20, 2002 9:05 am
Subject: expected economic role + striving for equality
To:IslamicLady
This discussion came up in a Yahoo economics group
@yahoogroups.com
>>> = A correspondent
/// = oldservant8
///You wrote--
>>>As, you well know, the media always exploits the pitfalls of poly
relationships, especially with recent cases of welfare fraud
surrounding children who are products of poly relationships, while,
of course, ignoring the enormous poverty and fraud that occurs within
serial monogamous relationships through divorce and unwed mothers.
>>>Aside from your personal reasons for wanting a poly relationship,
how
do you envision your own family economically functioning as a poly
unit? The number one question we have found from poly-curious single
women is, what is their expected economic role in the relationship.
What do you think?
///In a nutshell, I like the Biblical model the best.
WEYActs 2:44 And all the believers kept together, and had everything
in common. 45 They sold their lands and other property, and
distributed the proceeds among all, according to every one's
necessities.
WEYActs 4:34 And, in fact, there was not a needy man among them,
for
all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the
money which they realised, 35 and gave it to the Apostles, and
distribution was made to every one according to his wants.
DBY2Cor8: 12 For if the readiness be there, a man is accepted
according to what he may have, not according to what he has not. 13
For it is not in order that there may be ease for others, and for you
distress, 14 but on the principle of equality; in the present time
your abundance for their lack, that their abundance may be for your
lack, so that there should be equality. 15 According as it is written,
He who gathered much had no excess, and he who gathered little was
nothing short.
///In one polygynous African tribe, the husband lives in the largest
dwelling, each wife has her own littler dwelling, and the
responsibilities are divided among all members, all working. Some took
care of the babies, usually the last one to give birth and breast
feeding. Some worked the gardens. Some took goods to market to sell.
Some
traveled to town to do work. All brought their gain to the family, and
the family divided what they had according to each's need, striving
for equality .
///In America it could take several forms. There could be the rich man
who has a big six bedroom house, the husband in the master bedroom
for
together times with all in bed in one room, and each wife having her
own bedroom, and the children having the rest. Some took care of the
babies, usually the last one to give birth and breast feeding. Some
worked the gardens. Some took goods to markets to sell. Some
traveled
to town to do work. All brought their gain to the family, and the
family divided what they had according to each's need, striving for
equality .
///There could be the country farmer with 100 acres, a big house and
several cottages. The husband in the master bedroom for together
times
with all in bed in one room, and each wife having her own cottage, and
the children having the rest. Some took care of the babies, usually
the last one to give birth and breast feeding. Some worked the gardens
and the crops. Some took goods to markets to sell. Some traveled to
town to do work. All brought their gain to the family, and the family
divided what they had according to each's need, striving for equality.
///Then there is average Joe Blow who has a job that barely allows him
to
support one wife in a small two bedroom apartment. His three other
wives each have their own two bedroom apartment for themselves and
their children. The husband's living room is made into a master
bedroom for together times with all in bed in one room, one bedroom
made into a den, and the second bedroom for the kids. Each wife
having
her own apartment & bedroom, and the children having the second
bedroom. One took care of the babies, usually the last one to give
birth and breast feeding. One worked at a part time job to have time
to help homeschool the children. Another wife worked at the local
market. One traveled to town to work as an RN. All brought their gain
to the family, and the family divided what they had according to
each's need, striving for equality .
Anyway, that's the view from here.

Peace,
Ron
++++++++++++++++++Part
two++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 12:38:47 -0700 (PDT)

From: IslamicLady
>>> As salaamu alaiku, group

>>>Some of the means of achieving economic harmony listed here
are
quite clear and would indeed provide economic harmony within the
family unit. However, the average person one causes me some
concern.
If the "average man" can barely support one wife and any children,
who exactly would be paying the rent on the apartments of the other
wives?
///It is common knowledge and all the statistics are in. The largest
group in the working class of the poor is the group of working single
mothers. The largest group of the working class poor with the worst
record of escaping that poverty is the group of working single mothers.
The largest group of working class children locked into poverty with
the worst health and education record is the group of children of
working
single mothers. Single mothers and their children do not do as well as
mothers who have a committed male in their lives who is helping them
as
a family.
///How could a low income working class polygynous family make it?
They would pool their net income for the expenses, as described
below, and as described above in the Acts 2 & 4 & 2 Cor 8 Scriptures.
>>>Would they themselves be expected to continue working

in order to maintain their own residences?
///All work, even the one that stays home to breast feed the babies
and care for the children, but this one doesn't get a formal paycheck
from an official employer. The work of the breast feeding mother is
to care for the baby or babies being breast fed, and she is paid by the
pooled resources of the other members of the family who are working.
>>> If this is what is envisioned by this, then this certainly sounds

unfair, because then the woman gains nothing but the company of a
husband and may find that she needs to rely on public assistance in
order to survive economically and that defeats one of the purposes of
marriage.
///Even working poor monogynous families have to sometimes

receive unemployment insurance, food stamps and/or medicare.
The women and children in a working poor family receiving some form
of assistance in their poverty are still doing better than the working
poor single mothers. The women and their children gain the love,
protection, care, affection, passion and
below, their is no need for public cash assistance for this family of 13.
>>>Otherwise, all of the cooperative options listed make sense, since

each wife
would bring her unique talent and gift to the marriage as a whole.
oldservant8 <oldeservant@.com> wrote: expected economic role +
striving for equality
///THE SPECIFICS OF THE John Doe FAMILY SITUATION

///Then there is average John Doe who has a job that barely allows him
to support one wife, Betty, in a small two bedroom apartment. His
three
other wives each have their own two bedroom apartment for
themselves
and their children. Their apartments are less than one mile away from
each other. The husband's living room is made into a living-room-
bedroom
for together times, if so desired by all, with all in one large room.
Because of antipolygyny laws and recent Supreme Court rulings, it is
strongly advisable that the husband not be intimate with more than
one
wife at a time. One bedroom in is apartment would be made into a
den,
and the second bedroom for the kids. Each “wife” would have her own
apartment & bedroom, her children having the second and or third
bedroom.
///John works at Slurpo, the local soft dring company, as a union truck
driver making a monthly net of $2400, working 30 hours a week. Betty
according to each's need, striving for equality . Three of the older kids
work
at local restaurants and fast food outlets, making a net of $1630.
children, a family of 13 people. They all put their income into the
common purse/account and in family conference decide together
how the money should be spent.
///Their combined rents are $3200, in a blue collar neighborhood in

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

www.bfree.org
http://bfree.org/
http://www.3coins.com/
http://polyamory.meetup.com/389/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Poly_Polygamy_Polygny_And_Jesus
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OrthodoxBiblicalMarriagePolygamy
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OrthodoxBiblicalMarriagePolygamy2
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LynnAndLossRecovery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PolyOption4ChristiansWithSTDs/ -
http://community.eons.com/groups/group/women-sharing-one-man-
maritally
http://groups.myspace.com/BiblicalChristianPoly
http://www.hi5.com/friend/group/3901734--
Biblical_Christian_Polygamy_Po--front-html
http://en.netlog.com/clan/PolygamyPolygynyJesus
ttp://polygynouschristians.multiply.com/
http://biblicalpolygamy.multiply.com/
http://en.groups.zorpia.com/group/biblical_polygamy_polygyny
>>>Also, it calls into account the need for the older children to
work as well as all of the adults.
/// 2 Thess 3: 10 “For also when we were with you we enjoined

you this, that if any man does not like to work, neither let him eat.
11 For we hear that there are some walking among you
disorderly, not working at all, but busybodies. 12 Now such we
enjoin and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ, that working quietly
they eat their own bread.” 12, 13 and 14 year old children are
quite capable and should have some small job/jobs by which they
can earn pocket change. Older children still attending
school full time should have part time jobs of ten to 15
hours a week to pay for their own entertainment,
transportation, clothing etc.
/// That is an outflow of $7880. That

leaves $2150 for everything else, including savings,
investments.
>>>Assuming the figures you gave above, the average rent on

each of the 4 apartments would be $800; is the car expense
amount for 4 cars or 5 - I mean each wife should have her own
car, right?
/// Good point. There would need to be a 5th car, unless one of
the wives drove JohnDoe to and from work.
>>> And utilities and phone combined are only $160 for 4
residences, that must indicate that each apartment has most of
the utility amounts covered as part of the $800 rent payment (or
the families are essentially living in darkness most of the time
without air conditioners or even fans)
///Water and trash are included. Living in So. Calif. is cheap,

given the mild Mediterranean climate.
>>>and that no one uses the phone very often, especially to

make long-distance calls;
/// unlimited local use, email saves on the long distance calls.
>>>you mentioned insurance, which I assume is car insurance,
and medical and dental insurance for the wives that stay at
home - what about the rest of the family?
/// The legal wife is covered by her husband's insurance through

employment, and the wives who
work out of the house have med and life insurance through their
employment.
>>>I stick to my original statement, such a situation means that

each wife must work in order for the family unit as a whole to
survive.
///Yes, everybody works, except for the children under 12 years.
>>>And if Mr. Truck Driver is attending so many different

churches, how is he remaining true to his own faith?
/// All of those churches have compatable core beliefs, no

serious conflicts.
>>>Or are you describing this as an overall economic solution for

both Muslims and non-Muslims?
/// It would work for anyone, except there would be so many

different churches, since the Muslims at the local Mosque would
probably accept the polygyny of the family.
>>>Perhaps this is where my confusion comes in.
///Not aware of any confusion.

oldservant8 <oldeservant@excite.com>
==========================================
=
From: "a_human" = +++

Date: Sun Jul 21, 2002 11:26 am
> ///All work, even the one that stays home to breast feed the
babies
> and care for the children, but this one doesn't get a paycheck.
+++Oh, I get it. Taking care of kids isn't REAL work.

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

JUMP at the chance of having 1 hour alone with her husband every
48 hours.
/// The working class and poor single mother with no committed
man has much less than that, in both quantity and quality. John Doe
would spend one night of every four nights as well with
each wife. Statistically John Doe's wives are have orgasmic sex
two times more a week than the averge American wife.
Statistically the average American couple spends much less time
focused on each
other than John and his wives. They are getting about twice as
much conscious focused attention than the average American wives.
///The war widows and HIV widows of Africa, Afghanistan, Albania,

have such a family and such attention from a husband of their
own. The unmarried "surplus" women of SE Asia who are
economically forced into prostitution and crime would thank God if
they could be in and have such a family and such attention from a
husband of their own.
+++The kids too would be so fortunate to see their dad for an hour a
day (and share him with the rest of the brood). What could be better
than this?
///The statistics in America indicate that John's kids are getting

three times as much focused and conscious attention as the
average American kid. The orphans of Africa, Afghanistan, Albania,
have such a family and such attention from a stepdad of their
own. The orphans of SE Asia who are economically forced into
prostitution and crime would thank God if they could be in and
have such a family and such attention from a step dad of their
own. The SE Asian Muslim council decreed that polygyamy was
the solution for dealing with the women and widows who have no
man of their own, and for orphans who have no home or family.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The debate over the low income working class John Doe
and his four wives continues.
/// = my responses
Tyler
In a message p_l@yahoogroups.com writes:
<< - Mar 2003
From: "U" <s@yahoo.de> = \\\
Subject: Re: Re:two "wives" that live in separate houses
\\\Surprise, surprise, surprise, I actually agree with you about 2 Thess

3: 10-14. A man should work. In biblical terms, (I cannot remember the
verses), a man is the head of the house and as such he is responsible
for his family.
///According to the Bible, every member of the family is responsible for

themselves and each other, with the husband serving as the
teacher/advisor/leader (not boss, tyrant or dictator), the wife as his
helper/advisor/assistant and as teacher of her children etc etc etc.
\\\Here is where I start disagreeing :-) What you described below is a
man that has four separate women to choose from.
///Maybe I didn't state it clearly enough, but John Doe and his wives are
committed believers and followers of Jesus Christ, and are maritally
committed to each other as long as each lives. Just as he is
commanded to be sexually having his wives (1Cor7:2-5;Prov5:19,20)
and has sexual authority over the sexual use of their bodies (1Cor7:2-
5), the wives are commanded by God to be sexually having their own
husband, and have sexual authority over the sexual use of his body.
They are forbidden from sexually denying each other except for prayer
and fasting that is mutually agreed upon and has a time limit. Any
"choosing" being done in such a family should be done according to
the above.
\\\When there is trouble from one of the women he can go to another

'home' until the trouble blows over.
///If he is prepared to disobey Jesus and be subject to the sickness and

or weakness of His chastening for disobeying Jesus. Jesus requires such
a man to live wisely (1Pt3:7) with his wife/wives, and Jesus requires
him to make a diligent and sincere effort restore the unity in a bond of
peace (Eph 4:1-5). His mission is described as follows:
2Tm2:24* And a bondman of the Lord ought not to contend, but be
gentle towards all; apt to teach; forbearing; 25* in meekness setting
right those who oppose, if God perhaps may sometime give them
repentance to acknowledgment of the truth, 26 and that they may
awake up out of the snare of the devil, who are taken by him, for *his*
will.
Eph4: 1 ¶ *I*, the prisoner in the Lord, exhort you therefore to walk
worthy of the calling wherewith ye have been called, 2 ¶ with all
lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, bearing with one another
in love; 3 using diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the uniting
bond of peace.
///Just as he is commanded to be sexually having his wives (1Cor7:2-

5;Prov5:19,20) and has sexual authority over the sexual use of their
bodies (1Cor7:2-5), the wives are commanded by God to be sexually
having their own husband, and have sexual authority over the sexual
use of his body. They are forbidden from sexually denying each other
except for prayer and fasting that is mutually agreed upon and has a
time limit.
\\\Where is his responsibility to any of them? According to your

scenario each of the woman support themselves, with the older
children's help.
///In Africa, India, SE Asia and the Far East, poor polygynist families
require the work of everyone able to work in order to survive. It would
be unrealistic and unsupported by the Bible to require a poor husband
to have to be able to fully support every wife he has, leaving the
practice of polygyny to the rich only. As in the Third World, the John
Doe and his wives are poor working class people, need everyone who
can work to work (housekeeping, raising kids, holding full time jobs,
part time jobs and assisting each other). Everyone is "responsible" to
the family for its support, according to their ability.
\\\He is living a lie. He goes to each of the women's church pretending

to believe in that faith. This is deceit at its worst. These churches may
all have "compatible core beliefs", I don't know. However, just by going
to any of these churches Mr. John Doe is expressing a basic belief in
that church's philosophy. So he goes and lives a lie. A good example he
sets for his children.
///It is so hard to deal gently with the tone and content of your arrogant
and ignorant assumptions. He has his own church and is a member
( but not an official) of it. He is forbidden to have an official leadership
or service position (1Tm3). He visits his other wives churches NOT
PRETENDING TO BELIEVE THEIR UNIQUE AND DISTINGUISHING
BELIEFS, but as a believer in the Jesus and Bible they also hold to, as
her own visiting man but not as a member of their church. He may not
attend as her “husband” because that would violate America’s
antipolygyny laws. John Does and I do this all the time.
///In my last main job I would attend up to four different churches,

many of different denominations, on any one Sunday, enjoying the
messages and the fellowship. THERE IS NO DECEIT. When John Does
and/or I visit a Catholic, Pentecostal, Baptisit, Methodist, Messianic,
AOG, Brethren etc church, we don't visit as deceitful nonCatholics,
Pentecostals, Baptists, Methodists, AOGs, Messianic, Brethren, or etc.;
but as believers in Jesus who have chosen to join them for fellowship at
that time for that service. THERE IS NO LIE OR DECEIT, BUT AN
AFFIRMATION THAT BELIEVERS IN JESUS MEET AND WORSHIP JESUS IN
MANY DIFFERENT WAYS.
\\\Where is his leadership? What kind of example does he set for his
children? How does he stand by his women when all their belief
systems are different from his.
///The leadership is where it belongs, first with Jesus, then with the
husband and then with the wife. They lead their children in consistent
and faithful practice of their faith in Jesus. They set the example of the
unity of all believers in Jesus who Love and serve each other as they
are taught by Jesus to do so. Their core beliefs in Jesus are all the
same, while the way they worship, baptize, have communion may vary
significantly, being secondary beliefs
\\\Sure they have a picnic on the weekends but that just proves he is a
good party organizer. One of the women probably has that chore also.
///In such a family, just as all the funds and finances are shared, all the
duties and responsibilities are shared, including the planning, doing
and cleaning up of a picnic.
\\\You brought up Muslims. Muslims set a good example with polygamy.

A man cannot take another wife until he is fully able to support her and
any children. Maybe if all these so called "bible believing", "God
inspired" polygamists took their responsibilities more serious instead of
collecting trophies there wouldn't be such an outcry against polygamy.
Examples like yours justify the present mainstream mood against
polygamy.
///You OBVIOUSLY know little of Muslim polygyny, especially African

Muslim polygyny, where all work and pool their resources to help the
family survive. Polygyny was never meant to be the privilege of only
the rich and the powerful.
\\\If Mr. John Doe really wanted to have a polygamist relationship he

would find a house where his 'family' could live together.
///In the USA that would probably make him/them subject to felony
bigamy/polygyny prosecution, fines and imprisonment. A stupid way to
ruin one's family.
///In State v. Barlow (107 Utah 292-1944), "The Utah Supreme Court
rejected the defendant's free exercise challenge and affirmed their
convictions for cohabitating with more than one person of the opposite
sex." The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the defendant's appeal of the
Utah Supreme Court decision. p. 1070
"We find no authority for extending the Constitutional right to privacy
so far that it would protect polygamous marriages. We decline to do
so." 1985, see Roe v. Wade. p. 1070
///The "Constitutional right of privacy prevents the state from

criminalizing the non-prostitutional heterosexual activities of two
unmarried consenting adults when such activities occur in privacy of
home." Duling, 603 F. Supp. 960 (E.D. Va 1985). p. 1071
It behooves American polygynists that are legally married to be legally
UNMARRIED AND CONSENTING with any other covenanted sexual
partners they may have, exercising their polygyny in the privacy of
their home, sexually, verbally and editorially.
///To pracitce polygyny in California today, you must not:

>> 1. Be legally married to more than one "wife" at the same time (CA
Criminal Law #820)
>> 2. Be married in an officially recognized ceremony to more than
one "wife" at one time (CA Criminal Law 822; Fam Law #66))
>> 3. Be married in a state or publicly recognized common-law
marriage to more than one wife at the same time (CL 822; Fam Law
#65 & #66). Public here means the general public, not polygynous
families who join you in a covenanting event.
>> 4. Be married by state license to more than one mate at the same
time (CL822)
>> 5. Be solemnized in marriage to more than one wife at the same
time by an official recognized by the state (CL822). If the
polygynous "marriage" is "solemnized" by ceremony, rite or ritual, the
words "wife", "husband" and "marriage" should be avoided carefully (a
good thesaurus will help. See the
appendix. See Fam Law#65).
>> 6. Be authenticated in marriage to more than one wife at the same
time (in polygyny) in any way acceptable to the state
(CL822)
>> 7. File the marriage certificate of registry with the state, for your
polygynous marriage. (CL822)
>> 8. Conclude in an official civil manner or legally your "marriage" in
polygyny. (CL824)
>> 9. Publicly cohabit as husband and wife, publicly and mutually,
assuming marital rights, duties and obligations, including
sexual relations with more than one wife at the same time.(CL825)
[Public here is the general public, not one's polygynous associates.
Even though they may not cohabit as husband and wife, they may
cohabit as man and woman, man and his own woman, exclusive lovers,
exclusive love/life partners, exclusively devoted lovers, a man and his
covenant woman/lover/partner/pal, or viceversa for all the above (e.g.
a woman and her own man).]
>> 10. Have the reputation in a community of being married, nor
deport yourselves in the neighborhood as husband and wife (Fam Law
61 & 62). Specifically you must not allow/permit/encourage common,
general, uniform, and undivided repute among witnesses/
neigbors that you are married to more than one mate at the same
time. (Fam Law#65, Re Estate of Gill; Hite v. Hite; Re Estate of
Baldwin). The reputation of being a man with more than one
woman/lover would be legal.
>> 11. Have any one other than the actual parties of the polygynous
uniting present at the "uniting" ceremony (Fam Law 62), since every
witness of the "uniting" is a possible "witness" of the polygynous
uniting in a bigamy trial. See # 5 above. If they are willing to take the
chance, there would be relative safety in having other polygynously
"united" couples present. I don't see any problem with witnesses at a
"covenant event", "union ceremony", or "bonding ceremony" (not
wedding ceremony, see ch. 3). It would be foolish and risky to invite or
inform the monogynous and/or the opponents of polygyny to any such
uniting event. It only takes one witness to files criminal charges.
\\\A couple of the women could concentrate on their careers enabling

them to bring home more money.
///Night and weekend schools and correspondence courses would allow

all the wives to do so, with each other helping out with each other's
kids.
\\\One could home school, providing the children a quality education.
///obviously you didn't read all of my post. Again ---

"///John works at Slurpo, the local soft drink company, as a union
truck driver making a monthly net of $2400, working 30 hours a week.
Betty
according to each's need, striving for equality. Three of the older kids
work at local restaurants and fast food outlets, making a net of $1630.
children, a family of 13 people."
\\\With them all living in the same household over all expenses would
go down and the older children would not have to go to work to help
support the family, which is Mr. John Doe's responsibility.
///THERE IS NOT ONE SCRIPTURE IN THE WHOLE BIBLE THAT SAYS THAT
THE HUSBAND IS REQUIRED TO BE SOLE PROVIDER AND THAT ALL ARE
TO LIVE OFF OF HIS INCOME. YOU ARE TEACHING AS DOCTRINE YOUR
OWN TEACHING INSTEAD OF GOD'S DOCTRINE. God's rule is made
plain in 2 Cor 8 and 2 Cor 9.
When necessary, all who can work should work (2 Thess 3:6-14).
\\\The children could concentrate on getting a better education,
thereby ensuring a much better future for the children, which is
another one of Mr. John Doe's responsibilities.
///ACCORDING TO YOUR MALE CHAUVINISTIC POINT OF VIEW. In the

Bible's view the father/husband and wife/mother are jointly responsible
for preparing their children for their futures.
\\\In my opinion, Mr. John Doe has four separate monogamous

relationships. Mr. John Doe is living the good life. He can go from
woman to woman as he sees fit. He is keeping them down. The women
would be better off if they banded together and got rid of Mr. John Doe.
///No point in repeating the errors in U's reading and interpretations of

my post. Getting rid of their John Doe would leave the women as single
mothers
with fatherless children, which in America today is the lowest and most
poverty stricken level of living in America, with the children statistically
doing worse in school and more likely to become involved in crime.
Tom's idea sucks. John Doe and his wives avoid all these pitfalls and
have the joy of living in loving and caring unity.
__________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 2003
From: <t@alltel.net> = ---
Subject: Re: Re: Re:two "wives" that live in separate houses
---Must agree Tom. Mr. John Doe seems to have all the good of
relationships but none of the bad. Not even the responsibility.
///Sad to see that N did no better than U. John Doe shares with each of
his wives the responsibility of parenting, teaching, caring and providing
for their children. John Doe and his wives are committed believers and
followers of Jesus Christ, and are maritally committed
to each other as long as each lives. Just as he is commanded to be
sexually having his wives (1Cor7:2-5;Prov5:19,20) and has sexual
authority over the sexual use of their bodies (1Cor7:2-5), the wives are
commanded by God to be sexually having their own husband, and
have sexual authority over the sexual use of his body. They are
forbidden from sexually denying each other except for prayer and
fasting that is mutually agreed upon and has a time limit. He is
responsible for unselfishly and compassionately cherishing his wives in
Love, of submitting to the Word of God they speak to Him from the
Bible, and his wives are responsible for following his lead,
as long as doing so does not involve disobedience to Jesus, and for
showing the respect due to him as the marital authority that God has
set over her (Rom 13; Ephes 5).
---It seems he is basically a "stud service" for these women in that

aside from LouLou or whoever, everyone takes care of themselves.
///The women have the same sexual authority over him and are
commanded to be sexually having him, just as he is commanded to do
with them. He has an hour plus every evening with all the wives and
the children, and an hour =/- with the children of the wife with whom
he spends that night. Such a family that Loves Jesus shows that Love
by Loving each other, so when they see each others need, they do
what they can to meet that need (1 Jn3 Eph 4)
---While one woman who works as the meter maid gets no housework
help while she is working, she is putting in a full week of work. The
other women have much less to do.
///Fannie Mae's part time job plus home schooling is more than a full
time job. Anyone who knows the work of an RN, knows that Daisy is
earning the money she makes as a full time nurse. "Much less to do"? I
don't think so.
///" Fannie Mae works at a part time job, making a

travels to town to work as an RN, making a monthly net $3200. "
---While Mr. John Doe has least of all. He just goes to work his measly
30 hours and hops from house to house for food, showers and sex.
///Many workers, especially if they work for Vons, Wal*Mart, KMart etc
are given only 30 a week by their employer, because the employers
want
to keep their costs down. This John Doe is working the most hours his
employer allows him to work. Obviously you didn't read all of the
post---
"///The women gain the love, protection, care, affection, passion and
below, their is no need for public assistance for this family of 13."
--- I can see why a man would want it this way, but I see Mr. John Doe
as a pig, as would most woman.
N >>
///Then your husband must spend more that nine hours a week eye to
eye and face to face with your/his kids; more that nine hours a week
eye to eye and face to face with you; and must have sex with you
every night. This makes both him and you
exceptional people with an exceptional marriage and family. Most of
the lower working class people and poverty level women and children I
work with and assist
as a social worker long for a father/husband who invest a fraction of
that amount of time in them and their lives.
>>>>>IN CONCLUSION==============
So Biblical polygamy, as believed or practiced by the Patriarchs,
Luther's associates, John Milton, and St. Augustine is a sin only when it
is against the law of the land of those who would practice it (Rom 13).
So we come to His Word regarding the marrige of two genuine
believers (He has another Word for believer-unbeliever marriages in 1
Cor 7:12-15).
Mk 10: 11* And he says to them, Whosoever shall divorce his wife AND
shall marry another, commits adultery against her.
Lu 16:18* Every one who divorces his wife AND marries another
commits adultery; and every one that marries one put away from a
husband commits adultery.
Mt 19:9* But I say unto you, that whosoever shall divorce his wife, not
for fornication, AND shall marry another, commits adultery; and he who
marries one so divorced commits adultery.
The adultery equation is:

Adultery = (1) divorcing one's wife
+++PLUS+++ (2) marrying another
Adultery against one's ex wife
(1) The divorcing of a wife is sin in its violation of the commands, but in
and of itself is not adultery.
>>>>>>Mt 19: 6 So that they are no longer two, but one. What God
himself, then, has yoked together man must not separate.”
>>>>>>1 Cor 7:11, 39 . . . a man is not to divorce his wife. . . 39* ¶ A
wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives; . . .
(2) Marrying another, if not contrary to the laws of the land [Rm 13]
while keeping one's wife is polygyny, is not adultery. If polygyny is
against the law of man, in that land marrying another wife while
keeping the first is a Rom 13 sin. Since Biblical polygyny is never
declared to be sin by God, when a genuine believer marries another
genuine believer, while honoring his marital covenants to the prior wife
without violating Rom 13 (see below), it is polygyny in the spirit realm
of the Kingdom of God, not adultery.
(3) Having put away one's wife and marrying another, simply asking
God to forgive the adulterous new marriage does not meet the
"confess and forsake" rule (Prov 28:13; 2 Cor 7:5-11; 1 John 1:9) for
forgiveness, because the sinning couple continue in their adulterous
relationship of being with the new wife and being separated from the
exwife. What is the appropriate repentance? Is the man to "forsake" his
new wife and their adulterous relationship, divorcing her and breaking
his marital covenants with her, and reuniting with his exwife?
(4) His marrying the new wife was a sin only because he divorced the
prior wife, if the laws of the land accept polygyny. If he had kept his
wife and married another it would be polygyny, if the laws of the land
accept polygyny. His repentance would appear to be to stop being
divorced from the ex wife while being married to his new wife, making
him a polygynist, if the laws of the land accept polygyny. What if the
laws of the land don't accept polygyny?
(5) All genuine believers are citizens of the new Jerusalem and are
bound by its laws (Eph 2:19;Ph 3:20). On the higher plane of the
Kingdom of God, the genuinely believing man is still maritally bound to
the genuinely believing wife even though by the laws of man he
divorced her. In the Kingdom of God, Biblical polygyny is not a sin,
never called or labeled than in the entire Bible. So in the Kingdom of
God the genuinely believing man who divorced his genuinely believing
wife and maritally covenanted with another genuinely believing wife is
maritally bound until parted by death, and his repentance is to stop
being divorced from his exwife. In a land where polygyny is sin he may
not "remarry" her but he is still bound to her by all of his marital
covenants and must honor and abide by those covenants even if it
must be done without benefit of a legal remarriage, because to break
those marital covenants is a sin worthy of death (Le 5:4; Nu 30:2;
Psalm 15:4 Ezek 17:13, 15, 16, 18,19; De 7:2 with Josh 9:18-20; 2 Sam
21:1-9; Rom 1:31,32).
(6) What about the conflicting marital vows in such cases of a man who
has divorced one wife and taken another, for often the wedding vows
include a phrase stating that each forsakes all others and pledge to
keep each other to each other alone and only? I believe the Joshua-
Gibeonite incident explains this. Even though the polygyny of the
Biblical patriarchs was never condemned in Scripture, the breaking of
marital covenants is condemned many times (Le 5:4; Nu 30:2; Psalm
15:4 Ezek 17:13, 15, 16, 18,19; De 7:2 with Josh 9:18-20; 2 Sam 21:1-
9; Rom 1:31,32) as a sin worthy of death. The Joshua-Gibeonite
incident shows that the subsequent covenant takes precedence over
the prior covenant where the two are in conflict, i.e. having made
covenant with the Gibeonites Joshua could not obey the covenant-
command of God to kill the Gibeonites. This tells me that where the
man's marital covenant with his second wife is in conflict with his
marital covenant with the first wife, the second wife covenant takes
precedence over the first wife covenant where the two are in conflict,
i.e. having made covenant with his second wife the man could not
keep his first wife covenant of forsaking all others and keeping himself
maritally her only. The appropriate repentance for such three people in
America today where polygyny is illegal, and so a Rom 13 sin, seems to
me to be that he would stay legally married to his present wife while
privately and discretely (Rom 14:22) [#1] repent by diligently keeping
his marital covenants to the wife he had divorced and [#2] privately
and discretely obey 1 Cor 7:2-5 with his exwife.
Peace,
Tyler
[NOTICE-------If you have found this file/post in an open to

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

Objections To Biblical Christian Polygyny

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Objections To Biblical Christian Polygyny

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

OBJECTIONS TO BIBLICAL AND GODLY POLYGYNY, CONCUBINES, &

JESUS; Another Look for Christians.

COPYRIGHT © JANUARY 14, 1995 All rights reserved.

<<[A] BIDJAN, Ivory Coast -- Tomam Constance Yai is on a crusade

On the average in the local churches of the Third World of Poverty,

According to some Christian leaders,

I understand a Christian elder to maintain that Israel

Remember Exodus 21: 7-11 and DEUT. 21:15-17.

In fact if you accept the Song of Solomon as the story

St. Augustine (4th Century AD) had the following good

Are polygyny and concubinage a form of female

Does it denote inferiority on the part of the woman?

Our Father decided>8 which of us would wear female

For some of us life means we are males, for some of

If that means the Conductor wants the male to play

Do polygyny and concubinage unfairly or unjustly

I submit to you that, as most Christian messengers

From: "oldservant8" <oldeservant@.com>

///In a nutshell, I like the Biblical model the best.

Anyway, that's the view from here.

Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 12:38:47 -0700 (PDT)

>>> As salaamu alaiku, group

>>>Would they themselves be expected to continue working

>>> If this is what is envisioned by this, then this certainly sounds

///Even working poor monogynous families have to sometimes

>>>Otherwise, all of the cooperative options listed make sense, since

oldservant8 <oldeservant@.com> wrote: expected economic role +

///THE SPECIFICS OF THE John Doe FAMILY SITUATION

///Their combined rents are $3200, in a blue collar neighborhood in

///Because polygamy is illegal in the USA, he is legally married only

Anyway, that's the view from here

/// I believe the following answer that question in the affirmative.

/// 2 Thess 3: 10 “For also when we were with you we enjoined

/// That is an outflow of $7880. That

>>>Assuming the figures you gave above, the average rent on

///Water and trash are included. Living in So. Calif. is cheap,

>>>and that no one uses the phone very often, especially to

/// The legal wife is covered by her husband's insurance through

>>>I stick to my original statement, such a situation means that

///Yes, everybody works, except for the children under 12 years.

>>>And if Mr. Truck Driver is attending so many different

/// All of those churches have compatable core beliefs, no

>>>Or are you describing this as an overall economic solution for

/// It would work for anyone, except there would be so many

>>>Perhaps this is where my confusion comes in.

///Not aware of any confusion.

From: "a_human" = +++

+++Oh, I get it. Taking care of kids isn't REAL work.

+++Wow, sounds like bliss! I can't imagine why women wouldn't

///The war widows and HIV widows of Africa, Afghanistan, Albania,

///The statistics in America indicate that John's kids are getting

\\\Surprise, surprise, surprise, I actually agree with you about 2 Thess

///According to the Bible, every member of the family is responsible for

\\\When there is trouble from one of the women he can go to another

///If he is prepared to disobey Jesus and be subject to the sickness and

///Just as he is commanded to be sexually having his wives (1Cor7:2-

\\\Where is his responsibility to any of them? According to your

\\\He is living a lie. He goes to each of the women's church pretending

///In my last main job I would attend up to four different churches,

\\\You brought up Muslims. Muslims set a good example with polygamy.

///You OBVIOUSLY know little of Muslim polygyny, especially African

\\\If Mr. John Doe really wanted to have a polygamist relationship he

///The "Constitutional right of privacy prevents the state from