DIVORCE, REMARRIAGE, CONCUBINES & POLYGYNISTS; ANOTHER LOOK for Monogamists. All rights reserved. Anyone may copy this in its entirety off of, or post on to, computer networks like Internet. BY L. Tyler, P.O. 620763, San Diego, CA 92162-0763 P.O. Box 734, El Centro, CA 92244-0734 0953@geocities.com I. INTRODUCTION: PRIORITIES AND AN ANCIENT MARITAL OPTION RECONSIDERED. The aim of this document is to show that both monogyny and polygyny or concubinage may be acceptable options for those who have a Judeo-Christian cultural background. The writer believes that monogyny is the best for most, but for those who are called in or called to polygyny or concubinage in this mortal life, there is a need to know and understand that second-best is not bad socially, morally or ethically --- even for those of a Judeo-Christian cultural background. Polygamy and polygyny are currently illegal or unpopular in most of the world. The Third World's and the Orient's experience with communism and their desire to enter the world of the "West", the lifestyle of America, and the capitalism and technology of the 20th century -- all of these have moved them away from a widespread acceptance of polygamy. Few educated and successful Orientals, Asians or Third Worlders would want to appear to be primitive and barbaric by having more than one wife, especially when his peers will instead admire him if he has mistresses on the side. Two thirds of the world's population live in societies where concubines and mistresses are openly accepted in society and officially sanctioned, while the other third (America, Europe etc.) lives in societies where mistresses and common law wives are officially sanctioned but not openly accepted. The plight of most wives, concubines and mistresses are worse now than when polygamy were legal because then at least they had some security, often in law and social pressure, and commitment from their mates even if they took additional wives, while now they are dumped (divorced etc. with no legal recourse or rights) when the man takes a new wife, mistress or concubine. A man need make no commitments to a mistress and in most of the world, mistresses have no rights if there is no contractual agreement involved. It is much more to the advantage of the male to have a mistresses with no commitments or legal obligations, than to have a concubine or polygynous wife whose rights are protected by law or social pressure. Are polygyny and concubinage only for the benefit of males? It is 1995 and the women live in Somalia or Rawanda and Burundi, Africa as refugees or survivors of famine and/or civil war. Almost 50% of them are widows and almost 50% of their marriageable men have been killed or have been missing for months. It is a patriarchal society and the women do not want to be lesbians. They can live as single widows suffering mind and heart breaking hardships in a war ravaged poverty stricken land with no protection against sexual attack by roving homeless males. They can try to survive by prostitution but in Africa, like California, that is usually a death sentence by HIV AIDS They can become the polygynous wives or concubines of one of the few surviving stable and working males, coming under their society's patriarchal umbrella, becoming part of a working family unit with all its support and having protection against the vulnerability of living alone. It is 1995 and the women living in Bosnia, Rawanda, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Cambodia and in Black inner city ghettos are facing the same critical shortage of marriageable males in a patriarchal society where they want no part of lesbianism. In 1990, it was found that 33% of all black males aged 20 - 29 were either incarcerated, on parole, or on probation.>1a. I got more information from a local newspaper>1b. Approximately 1 out of every 25 black males is in prison. Between prison and death, there are significantly more Black females available for marriage than Black males. The vast majority of the Black males in prison range in age from 20 - 40, with most in the 25-35 age group. Most of the imprisoned Black males will return to prison. Just this week (12/1/Õ95) it was on national TV news and in the local paper that 6.8% of all Black males are in prison. This means a very significant number of Black males are unavailable for marriage or parenting their children during the normally most productive years (20-40) due to imprisonment or death. Perhaps that is why only 30% of married Black females have their spouse present in their homes, half the Caucasian/white rate (57%); while 9% of the married Black females have spouses that are absent from the home (four times the Caucasian/White 2% rate); and 39% of the Black females never married >1c. [Footnote: >1a The San Diego Union-Tribune, 10/5/'95, page A-5, quoting from The Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice in San Francisco. >1b Parade 8/13/'95; Parade Publications, 711 Third Ave., NY NY 10017. >1c Census Bureau/World Almanac. ] One out of every thousand Black people is dying of AIDS>1c making it the number one killer of Blacks in America. That means approximately 30,000 Blacks will be dying each year from HIV/AIDS, a horrendous slaughter! Condoms fail 33% of the time [see Doctor Lorraine Day, MD], and then on stationary artificial genitals according to federal test results, so they give very little protection. But when you add crack or speed or other mind altering drugs to the equation, so the users canÕt even think straight to appraise their risk or use them carefully and correctly, then condoms canÕt even give their miserable little 66% protection. And the AIDS rolls on through the urban Black communities like the plague. The second major killer of Blacks in America, especially the males, is Black-on-Black homicide. The third major killer of blacks in America today is abortion, where more Black babies are being killed/aborted than are being born. According to Beverly LaHaye of Concerned Women for America, the original founder of Planned Parenthood had as her original purpose the use of government funded abortion to keep the minority populations small, especially the Black population. The Black population in America has increased very little in the last twenty years, one % in twenty years, to the delight of the bigots. Tragically all of the facts cited above (AIDS, Gangs, drugs, abortion) mean that Blacks are killing more Blacks per year now than the number of Blacks killed by Caucasian bigots and the KKK during any one year from 1800 to 1940, to the delight of the bigots. In 1880, according to the census bureau, Blacks accounted for 13.1% of the total population, whereas today Blacks account only for 12.5% of the total population. One hundred ten years later and the Black community has not yet recovered from the 1880Õs 13.1% (of the total USA pop.) drop to the 1895Õs 9.5% (of the total USA pop.) that lynchings, Jim Crow, and Western-Canadian-Mexican migrations caused in the Black community. More than a fourth of the Black population just dropped off the census charts during that time and the Black community has never made it back up to 13.1% of the total USA population. Not much chance give the present circumstances. [Footnote: >.1c San Diego Union Tribune, ll/25/'95 page A-8, quoting the US Center Disease for Control and Prevention.] This means a very significant number of Black males are unavailable for marriage or parenting their children during the normally most productive years (20-40) due to imprisonment or death. This results in significantly more Black females than males being available for marriage and parenting children, many of whom are single parents raising a family without a present or stable father figure. According to the Census Bureau and Focus on the Family radio program, 39% of Black women never marry, and 46% of Black men never marry>.1d On 11/26/'95, Michelle said that the Essence magazine gave the figure of 40%>.1d. We still live in a racist society 20 years after the death of M.L.King. Black females are not sought for as wives by a significant number of non-Black males in America. This leaves a significant number of marriageable Black females with no suitable male to marry and help raise their children. Normal young, Black females with affectionate and passionate needs do not have enough suitable males for monogynous marriages so that leaves neurotic frustration, promiscuity, lesbianism or bisexuality. In America, bigamy and polygyny are illegal. Why shouldn't ethically moral and Biblically acceptable Christian concubinage be a viable option for such a population (30 million Blacks in l990, 12.1% of the total USA pop.) with an obvious shortage of stable and successful males, even in America? My Islamic and polygynist friend Rafiq shared that the Holy Quran states: "And if you fear that you will not be fair in dealing with the orphans, then marry of women as may be agreeable to you, two, or three, or four; and if you fear you will not be able to deal justly, then marry only one or what your right hands possess. That is the nearest way for you to avoid injustice." (Sura 4 verse 4)." Rafiq continues:"Sura 4:4 mentions the welfare of orphans. To elaborate a bit further we can say that Sura 4:4 deals with the welfare of the society. Polygamy therefore should be encouraged when the welfare of the society demands it. "Another aspect of Sura 4:4 is that it mentions polygamy as a natural way of life. It does NOT start with 'marry ONE, or two, or three or four' but it already starts with 'marry two...' From this fact it can be clearly deducted that polygamy is considered rather the norm and not the exception. One reason therefore to seek to practice polygamy may be to fulfill the personal purposes of marriage as mentioned above. However, another aspect would be to contribute to the health of the society as a whole. "Most of the prophets of the bible have several wives. Islam is in fact the only religion who has LIMITED polygamy to only four permitted wives. This in order to facilitate the first rule of polygamy in Islam: the equal treatment of all wives. "Several times in recent years the subject of marriage was brought up in the International Shura (Consultative Assembly) of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. The reason was that most Communities faced the problem of having a surplus of girl unable to find husbands. The problem is/was of course more serious with widows and divorcees but also exists even with unmarried virgin girls. The fact that this subject was brought up for consultation again and again proves that in this respect the health of the society could be/needed to be improved. During the Assembly the Head of the worldwide Ahmadiyya Muslim Community had inquire from various delegates whether this problem existed in their local communities. All representatives had to agree, with the exception of the African representatives. As Polygamy is practiced in Africa the communities there did not face any problems in this respect. "As many Hadith (sayings of the Holy Prophet Mohammad (peace be on him)) show it is of course a great blessing to marry widows and divorcees.. . . . ." If the situation necessitates it, if circumstances in the Black community (as described above) require it, why not in America too? In Paris France they have over 100,000 thousand practicing polygynists, according to the New York Times. So why not America? Why couldn't a wife, of any race, whose best female friend is a Black single mom, approach her husband with the request that they as a couple include her best friend + kids as part of their family, with her husband becoming the adoptive father of the kids of the single mom and becoming husband to the single mom in concubinage (she becomes his concubine by informal covenant and contract, in a ceremony of their own design with the exchange of their covenants with his wife as witness, instead of by civil or formal legal means, since bigamy and polygamy are illegal in America). The kids of the single mom get a committed and already successful father figure, and the single mom gets a husband with whom she can soul-bond and count on, plus she gets to see her best friend a whole lot more. Real love can overcome jealousy and envy, if they selflessly work at the marriage, as you would have to in any marriage. A compassionately cherishing husband, who consistently compassionately cherishes his own wife, thus making her very secure with him, should be able to come to his compassionate and generous wife and ask her to thoughtfully consider such a controversial proposal as the following: "Darling, I'm very concerned about our Black sister who is struggling as a single mom and having a very hard time. I believe that the conditions in our own family would allow us to be of considerable help to her in her crisis. Please think about us accepting her and her kids as part of our family, with me as father-figure to her kids, with me as husband to her and her as concubine to me----with lifelong commitments for the sake of both her and her children." Of course this would follow the husband and wife having thoroughly discussing and considering the issue in general before any specific action is taken. It would take a very secure wife to share her husband, but compassion has moved people to heroic and selfless actions throughout history. The real needs of the fatherless children would be met. The real needs of an adult female who, having been sexually loved may have a genuine sexual appetite with no one to meet it in a context of soul-bonding, commitment and genuine caring about her as a whole person. In the world-wide community some of our ancestors practiced polygyny (having more than one wife) until recent times. Please read about the historical background of, and precedents for, polygyny further on in this article. There were many abuses of women in those times and their rights and interests were usually neither recognized nor protected, but good marriages are the product of the efforts of a minority in any society. . Most of the spiritual messengers told us that our ancestors were wrong in their practice of polygyny, so most of us stopped practicing it. I submit to you that, as most spiritual 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. 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 is one of those options available to followers of the Compassionately Cherishing One today, that polygyny is neither wrong nor displeasing to The Most High One, that polygyny may be The Most High One's ideal/best for you, and that there is a way for the spiritual in The Chosen Deliverer to live in polygyny that today is acceptable to The Most High One and allowed by society. As with any controversial thing #1. in life, one must search out the will of The Most High One 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. Any child of The Most High One who feels led to consider polygyny for his/her life and/or loved ones needs to determine what kind of relationship he/she has with The Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer. Whatever we believe about marriage, divorce, remarriage, monogyny or polygyny, our relationship with The Chosen Deliverer is the paramount issue. What about polygyny ? What is its history & practice? I understand that in Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Asian, Oriental, and African societies, India and China, polygyny is still being practiced. The Mormon assembly so shocked America that they passed laws against polygyny in almost all of the states. The Spiritual community takes positions on polygyny ranging from a flat out condemnation of it as falling short of the standard to the position that it lies in the area of The Most High One's permissive or second best will and it is not a falling short of the standard though quite socially undesirable. They all agree it is not The Most High One's best for marriage and that a polygamist should at least be excluded from assembly offices/positions (1 Tim. 3 & Titus 1). Most spiritual ambassadors no longer demand a converted polygamist to divorce/abandon all of his wives except for the first wife, recognizing the binding nature of the wedding vows/ Contracts and the plight of the abandoned/ divorced women. They usually at least instruct him to take no new wives and be content with what he has (1 Tim. 6).#2. So there is a great deal of controversy and difference of opinion about the Spiritual and polygyny . What about polygyny ? Is its condemnation an error? Shall we be like these: ÒAnd the Master says, Forasmuch as this people draw near with their mouth, and honor me with their lips, but their heart is removed far from me, and their fear of me is a commandment taught of men; 14 therefore, behold, I will proceed to do marvelously with this people, to do marvelously, even with wonder, and the wisdom of their wise [men] shall perish, and the understanding of their intelligent ones shall be hid.Ó? #3. What does The Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer say about such people? ÒBut he answering said to them, Well did Esaias prophesy concerning you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honor me with their lips, but their heart is far away from me. 7 But in vain do they worship me, teaching [as their] teachings commandments of men. 8 [For], leaving the commandment of The Most High One, you hold what is delivered by men [to keep] - . . . 9 And he said to them, Well do you set aside the commandment of The Most High One, that you may observe what is delivered by yourselves [to keep]. . . . 13 making void the word of The Most High One by your traditional teaching which you have delivered; and many such like things you do.Ó #4. You may ask, ÒPray tell, what commandment of men do most of AmericaÕs spiritual leaders teach as doctrine?Ó I submit that most of AmericaÕs spiritual leaders teach as doctrine manÕs commandment that monogamy is the only marital way for the spiritual and that polygyny is evil and wrong for all people and cultures on the earth presently. I propose to show that this is the case, in terms of the writings of the Most High. What about those who practice polygyny where most of the people on earth live, in China, India, SE Asia, Africa and in parts of South America where it is legal and a part of manÕs tradition? If the condemnation of polygyny is only the commandment and tradition of men, dare we impose as Doctrine the commandment and tradition of men about polygyny as if it were the Word of The Most High One? Will we not again make of no effect the Word of The Most High One in the lives of these people who live where most of the people on earth live if our teaching against polygyny is only the tradition and commandment of men? I like what the 4th century messenger said about it: "But here there is no ground for a criminal accusation: for a plurality of wives was no crime when it was the custom; and it is a crime now, because it is no longer the custom. There are faults against nature, and faults against custom, and faults against the laws. As regards nature, [Jacob] used the women not for sensual gratification, but for the procreation of children. For custom, this was the common practice at that time in those countries. And for the laws, no prohibition existed. The only reason of its being a crime now to do this, is because custom and the laws forbid it."1b III. POLYGYNY IN THE WRITINGS OF THE MOST HIGH --- LET THE WORD SPEAK! Let me share with you the way I understand the Most High's record and please correct me with clear and specific the writings of the Most High where and when I am in error. The first mention of marriage in the writings of the Most High is where The Most High One miraculously provided Eve to Adam in the Garden of The Most High One. The monogamists say that if The Most High One approved of polygyny The Most High One would have given Eve, Eva and Evellyn to Adam. On the other hand, just like with you and I, if we have more than one good option, we donÕt need to exercise all of them, just the one that is best at the time. There is no quarrel with the fact that The Most High One has ordained that the male leaders of his Assembly are to have one wife#5. , and that even in the Old Contract the leaders were instructed not to ÒmultiplyÓ wives to themselves. To be a valid prefigure of The Most High's King (as Òthe first AdamÓ) you would expect Adam to have one wife, just as The Most High's King, the Òlast AdamÓ, has one wife the Assembly. In the Old Contract The Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer, as The eternally self-existent One , presents Himself as the husband of one wife remembering their wedding day and the exchange of the vows at the mountain in the desert #6. . Reflecting the reality of the divisions after Solomon died, The Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer (as The eternally self-existent One#7. ) presents Himself as the husband of two wives. The Most High One never presents Himself as falling short of the standard to us except for when The Most High's perfect King became a falling-short-of-the-standard for us to bear all our short- comings and die for them in our place so that if we accept his sacrificial death in our behalf we wont have to pay the penalty of all our short- comings. Those falling short of the standard were His wives and He was righteous as the husband of two wives#8. . It was only two wives in accordance with His own Law that decreed that the ruler must not multiply wives to himself. Even The Most High OneÕs polygyny is NEVER labeled or declared to be falling short of the standard in the writings of the Most High. Having one wife is said#9. to significantly complicate oneÕs life and distract one who is waiting on The Most High One, so of course we understand that any spiritual man with more than one wife would be significantly more distracted from waiting on The Most High One and would have a significantly greater struggle in his spiritual life with The Most High One. In the New Contract in accordance with His law for assembly leaders, presents Himself to His people as having only one wife, the Assembly #10. , because believing Jews and believing Non-Jews were reconciled into one Body, the Assembly, to be one unified and united Bride to The Most High's King. But no where is this example made mandatory or commanded by The Most High One. Not all are called to be leaders of The Most High OneÕs people. In fact most of us are called to be followers/imitators of these leaders. Besides how can a leader do a good job both of leading the believers and of caring for his wives if he has more than one or a few wives? Any married man and any reader of the Writings#11. knows that WIVES TAKE TIME if the marriage is to be successful and spiritual. A polygynist shouldnÕt have time to be a leader in the local assembly because of the time it takes him to be the spiritual leader of his wives and his children in his own home. The polygynist has his service in his own home to his own family. Next we read that Cain knew his wife and she conceived. No word of the wedding or the nature of the wedding. The first mention of polygyny in the writings of the Most High is in a passage with the Cain cloud over it.28* where Lamech (Wild man) takes two wives but there is no denunciation of this in the context. As Jerome (340-420AD) put it, "Lamech, a man of blood and a murderer, was the first who divided one flesh between two wives."28c Some maintain that polygamy was much less common in the Old Contract than is frequently thought to be the case, though its practice usually seemed to have a valid reason..{29. Is guilt by association a valid condemnation of polygyny ? I would think not, given that the next incident is where Sarai gave her slave/maid "to her husband Abram to be his wife", not concubine, but ÒwifeÓ. Consider the following points 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 The Most High One and became the father of an important nation.[30. The same commentary also makes 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) The Most High One intervened and instructed him so that he was assured that Ishmael's rights and his mother's prospects were ensured.<31. 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. The Most High One intervened and sent Hagar back into the marital situation with Abram and Sarai.31*. When The Most High One next spoke to Abraham (17:1--) there was no condemnation of his polygyny , but instead The Most High One blessed him with an even greater blessing than before. In response to the blessing he takes his son by Hagar and circumcised him (17:23-25). But a Western spiritual elder apparently maintains there was no blessing from The Most High One on Abraham's polygamy, that the Most High's record of it is a criticism of Abraham's conduct. <32. He gives no references so let's look at the record for ourselves. The Most High One blessed Sarah with fertility in polygyny.32* and The Most High One 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.32^ Abraham had another concubine after Hagar, named Keturah.32a by whom Abraham had six children without any condemnation or denunciation by The Most High One. What about a Western spiritual 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<32b. . 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 wrong works of the flesh and need to be dealt with Spiritually, just like any other faults involving more than one person. falling short of the standard and the flesh are the evils, not polygamy or monogamy. Culturally it is interesting that Nahor, Abraham's brother, also was a polygamist having a concubine (22:20-24). Abraham also had concubines under The Most High One's blessing (25:1-6) although he diligently protected the heir status of Isaac. HezronÕs Caleb had two concubines.32c . The only differences I can detect between a concubine and a wife are: (1) that the wedding/marriage is confirmed by a solemn Contract between the husband and concubine.32d without a public wedding, (2) the concubineÕs rights were protected by The Most High One (see below), and (3) their status as concubines spared them certain penalties.32d. 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 the Most High's 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)..........@33 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 even of the marriage of the parents....#34 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.<35. 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./36. Both David and Abraham recognized all the rights and responsibilities of the concubines as if they were official wives. The bottom line is what does The Most High One say and how does He view concubines. You see The Most High One calling and recognizing as "wives" DavidÕs concubines.36a . If that is the way The Most High One sees them, only a fool would treat them as less than a wife.36*. Lamech, the bad guy, and Abraham, the good guy, both marry polygamously on their own initiative without The Most High One's explicit leading or condemnation. You cannot condemn the polygyny because their kids turned out bad because so did Isaac's Esau and Eli's kids in monogamy. Next we have another bad guy polygamist, Esau, and a good guy polygamist, Jacob. Esau's polygyny.36^ was not condemned but his unequal yoke was the point of grief to his mother. EsauÕs son had a concubine (36:12). A dear brother reminds us that the two wives of Esau embittered life for his parents, especially his mother (26:35). The passage cited shows it was an in-law problem. Again American divorce courts and sociological studies document that monogamy does very well in producing wrong and carnal problems between mates and the parents-in-law. The problem is still falling short of the standard and the flesh, not monogamy or polygamy. Jacob marries Rachel and Leah.36` , and goes on to have children by his concubines as well (35:22; 37:2) 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 (29:27,29) Jacob has no moral objection and nowhere does The Most High One denounce the development. Much later in the time of Moses, The Most High One forbade two sisters being wives to one husband at one time and makes rivalry the issue.36~ . The Most High One deliberately involved Himself in the polygyny of Jacob by blessing Leah with fertility (29:31,32; 30:17). The Most High One repeated himself in this way with the mother of Samuel without denouncing her polygyny.36½ . The Most High One intervened and granted fertility to Rachel (30:22). The Most High One not only blesses Jacob with fertility but also with miraculous prosperity (30:41-31:10). The Most High One not only blessed Jacob in his polygyny but also delivered him from evil and harm as a polygynist (31:24, 29,42). Consider what Augustine of Hippo said in the fourth century AD. "But here there is no ground for a criminal accusation: for a plurality of wives was no crime when it was the custom; and it is a crime now, because it is no longer the custom. There are faults against nature, and faults against custom, and faults against the laws. In which, then, of these senses did Jacob falling short of the standard in having a plurality of wives? As regards nature, he used the women not for sensual gratification, but for the procreation of children. For custom, this was the common practice at that time in those countries. And for the laws, no prohibition existed. The only reason of its being a crime now to do this, is because custom and the laws forbid it."36b In spite of this The Most High's record of The Most High One's blessings on Jacob, a brother writes that Jacob experienced only troublesome times with Rachel and Leah, and that they were angry, envious, and hateful rivals.~37. Only troublesome times? What about all of The Most High One's miraculous provision and prospering their family experienced directly from The Most High One's intervention? What about their cooperation and their love trust and loyalty for Jacob when he was in conflict with their father and then with Esau? I wish I had some of that trouble in my life! What about the rivalry? The Most High One saw that and made the law that a polygynist should not marry the sister of his wife.37a. 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 faults 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. JacobÕs son Ashur had two wives.37b , and his son, Manasseh, had a concubine.37c . BenjaminÕs Shaharaim was also a polygamist.37d . So what is the score? The Most High One miraculously gives one wife to Adam and another to Isaac. The Most High One allows Lamech, Abraham, Nahor, Esau and Jacob to marry polygamously and blesses the ones who walk with Him in submission, polygyny or no. The next occurrence is controversial but interesting. Before the Law and in accordance with the principles of Genesis, Moses marries Zipporah a Midianite. She seems to do a Michal.37e and apparently suffers the same fate because next we see Moses marry, after the giving of the law, an Ethiopian Cushite.37f in polygyny . Under The Most High One's Law Moses gave instructions about polygyny.37g affording it the full legal status of monogamy with no stigma or denunciation. The maidservant status of Hagar and Jacob's wives is clothed in marital status in Ex. 21:7-9. It is a profound statement that in all of the explicit moral injunctions of Lev. 18, 19, &20; Deut 12 & 27 there is not one denunciation of polygyny or concubinage. Concubinage apparently, because it involved maidservants, seems to have a lower status as reflected in Ex. 21:7-9 with Lev. 19:20 in contrast to Deut. 22:23-26 but perhaps Deut. was subsequent and current replacing Lev. 19:20. What about Ex. 21:7-9? It was expected that the female slave would become her master's wife or concubine, or become the wife or concubine of her master's son, and the law protected her rights if he was unwilling to do so.^38. Her owner could not sell her to foreigners because he had "trifled" with her (see LXX), "seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her."*39. The Most High One's Law instructed kings not to "multiply" wives to himself.39a without giving similar instructions to we non kings. It appears The Most High One blessed kings of Israel that The Most High One makes a distinction between multiplying wives to yourself and adding wives to yourself. The Most High One had ÒgivenÓ him seven wives plus a number of concubines.39c . We see His implied blessing on DavidÕs polygyny . This implied blessing of his polygyny would have to mean that David, with concubines and seven wives, had not yet violated the prohibition against a king multiplying wives and horses to himself. The Most High One intervenes and acknowledges and vindicates the second wife in a polygamous marriage where the falling short of the standard of partiality was being practiced.39d . She is vindicated not condemned. Dt. 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 the firstborn son be hers that was hated; 16 then it shall be, in the day that he makes his sons to inherit what he has , that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, who is the firstborn; 17 but he shall acknowledge as firstborn the son of the hated, by giving him a double portion of all that is found with him; for he is the firstfruits of his vigour: the right of the firstborn is his. Gideon had many wives, was blessed and used of The Most High One without any condem-nation/denunciation from The Most High One about his polygyny.39e . A dear brother apparently states, of Gideon's (Jerubbaal's ) son Abimelech, that polygamy actually lead to murder (40. Excuse me! With logic like that I guess you would have to say that the monogamy of Adam and Eve led Cain to murder Abel. I think not. The Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer makes it clear that murder comes from the murderer's heart.40a or from the inner working of the evil ones.40b, but not from monogamy or polygamy. The problem is falling short of the standard and the weakness of the flesh, not polygamy. What about the LeviteÕs? These keepers of the tabernacle, did they have special rules that kept them from polygyny? Not according to the following, because when his concubine was mercilessly murdered by rape, the nation of Israel rose to vindicate him and avenge her murder. And it came to pass in those days, when there was no king in Israel, that a certain Levite, . . . took him a concubine out of Bethlehem-Judah. 2 And his concubine played the whore against him, and went away from him to her father's house to Bethlehem-Judah, and was there some time, --four months. 3 And her husband rose up and went after her, to speak kindly to her, to bring her again; . . . And she brought him into her father's house; and when the father of the damsel saw him he rejoiced to meet him. 4 And his father-in-law, the damsel's father, retained him, and he abode with him three days; . . ..40c SO A CONCUBINE IS NOT A HARLOT. Just like any other wife, she can become a harlot while married.40d. HARLOTRY IS AN EVIL THAT EITHER A WIFE OR A CONCUBINE CAN PRACTICE WHILE MARRIED. Hannah, the wife of polygamous Elkanah, received the same intervention and blessing from The Most High One that Sarah, Rachel and Leah received in their polygyny.40e. Her problem with her co-wife and her own infertility is quite similar to Abraham and Sarah's experience. The co-wife had a falling short of the standard problem, and it was her problem, not a polygyny problem. You find the same wrong behavior today between sisters, brothers, wives in social groups, wives socializing in assembly or work settings. falling short of the standard and the flesh are the problems, not polygyny. The situation made famous by Ruth.40f involves the potential for polygyny since the brother-in-law is not exempted if he is already married. It is amazing, given the specificity of the Law spread out over four books, that The Most High One specifically condemns immorality, immorality, homosexuality, sodomy, bestiality but nowhere condemns polygyny or concubinage. King Saul had a concubine.40g. David is a fascinating case. He marries Michal.40h. Then, as the anointed future king of Israel, David took to himself three additional wives .40i and one is recognized by the Spirit for her grace and wisdom. He does this at a time of The Most High One's miraculous intervention and blessing in his life. The Most High One neither denounces or condemns. In the case of three or four wives you are still dealing with addition, rather than the multiplying of.40j. It is Michal who is condemned and punished instead of her polygamous husband David.40k . By the time he becomes King in Judah he has 6 wives.40l and is being blessed and prospered by The Most High One. At the time of the wonderful Contract with David.40m, The Most High One specifically blesses and contracts with polygamist David and his concubines and his seven wives, as part of his house, receive a 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.40n . David, the polygamist, was declared to be loyal to The Most High One.40o . The Most High One declares that David, the polygamist, fully followed The Most High One.40p. In contrast to The Most High One's evaluation of David, we have a beloved brother's evaluation that David was immoral, unjust, favored some over others, and his sons became killers because he didn't have the authority deal decisively with his heritage.41. 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 falling short of the standard and the flesh are the problems, not polygyny. The Most High One conferred the status of wives on David's concubines.41a as we see how the prophecy, that his wives (including concubines) would be incestuously violated, was played out.41b. Again the distinction between concubines and wives seems to be an issue on man's end, not on The Most High One's end where it seems to be the solemn vow/Contract.41c and not the wedding ceremony41c that makes a woman a wife.41d (where we see Mary and Joseph called husband and wife based on their betrothal/espousal alone and before the actual wedding and cohabitation). Solomon's polygyny was wrong first because He disobeyed The Most High OneÕs command against a king multiplying wives to himself.41e ; and secondly because he married unbelievers and those with whom The Most High One had specifically forbidden marriage.41f. Too many wives and forbidden wives both had the same predicted result, that they turned his heart away from The Most High One. Solomon was declared to be disloyal to The Most High One in his polygyny.41g while David the polygamist was declared to be loyal to The Most High One.41h . The Most High One even declares that David fully followed The Most High One.41i Evil king Rehoboam imitated Solomon and almost had 18 wives and 60 concubines.41j. Then Spiritual king Abijah, blessed and prospered of The Most High One, also had fourteen wives.41k . The Spiritual High Priest Jehoida gave two wives to spiritual king Joash.41l , Spiritual queen Esther was a wife in polygyny, mightily blessed and used by the Most High.41m . The Most High One Himself describes Himself as a polygamist.41n . The Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer reaffirmed this Old Contract record of blessed polygynous marriages and righteous concubines.41o. What a record! Two authors of the Old Contract, David and Solomon, possibly three if you count Moses, were uncondemned and The Most High One-honored polygynists in their polygyny. Four spiritual patriarchs with whom The Most High One entered into special and unique Contracts (Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon; five if you count Moses) were polygynists at the time The Most High One Contracted with them. In every era of the Old Contract (Pre Law, Sinai Law, Judges, Kingdom prophets, Dispersion prophets) you find The Most High OneÕs people and leaders practicing polygyny and practicing it according to The Most High OneÕs will or instructions. Yet many Western spiritual leaders agree with the brother that apparently maintains that the writings of the Most High offers little defense for polygamy in comparison to monogamy, that because of its shortcomings polygamy cannot be tolerated as a form of marriage willed by The Most High One.#42. Perhaps that's why The Most High One chose the polygamous marriage of Solomon and his Shulamite in Song of Solomon to be the model for marriage in Israel and the marriage model for His relationship to Israel. Were these Old Contract devout ones less Spiritual 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 The Most High One and reflected a weakness in the character of those who participated in polygyny? Augustine of Hippo has a good word, as follows: "But those who have not the virtues of temperance must not be allowed to judge of the conduct of consecrated 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 writings of the Most High 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 consecrated 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. . . ."42b [Bold mine for emphasis] Never by The Most High One or His prophets is polygyny denounced, condemned or grouped with faults or carnal expressions of the flesh. The Most High One Himself portrays Himself as a monogynist .42c and then as polygynist.42d. 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 falling short of the standard that which The Most High One never condemns as wrong? Why would we want to do such a thing? Yes it is against the law in some countries and we know that The Most High One wants us to obey the laws of the land as long as it does not violate His Law. So we should not practice polygyny openly and publicly in those lands.42e. So why don't they simply say that instead of teaching as doctrine the tradition of spiritual men, i.e. that polygyny is wrong? Okay, that's polygamy B.C.. What's the story on polygamy A.D. ? Some might say all or most of those Old Contract passages on marriage and morality were for the nation Israel under the Law of Moses and not for The Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer' assembly under the Law of LOVE in The Most High's King. The writings of the Most High history indicates quite clearly that The Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer came not to destroy the Law but to fulfill it.42f . The Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer 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 the spiritual realm of the Most High".42g. Over and over again in the New Contract you see The Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer obeying the Law of Moses and telling His followers to obey it.42h Mt.. 23:3, 4, and 23 are the strongest statement 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 The Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer made it soon before His death. Even a Western spiritual elder agrees that during The Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer' physical and visible walk on earth, the Jews practiced polygamy.<43. In the New Contract we read that the Old Contract Òis becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish awayÓ.43a. The New Contract statement about the Old Contract, Ò...if what is passing away [was] glorious...Ó.43b, shows there was a period of transition (Òis becoming...growing old...is ready to...is passing away) from the Old Contract Sinai Law of Moses to the New Contract Law of Compassionately Cherishing . The book of Acts is full of the apostles keeping the Old Contract Sinai Law of Moses after Pentecost. You see them worshipping in the Temple regularly, Peter refused to socialize with Non-Jews, Peter refused to eat the animals classified as unclean in the Law, Paul circumcised Timothy, Paul kept the Law's feasts, Paul recognized the authority of the Chief Priest. The believing Non-Jews are released from the Old Contract Sinai Law of Moses while the believing Jews are not released.43c. So even after Acts' Pentecost and Acts 15 the apostles and believing Jews still believe that they are to obey the Law of Moses including the laws about marriage (including polygyny ) and morality, and the only thing they wrote about polygyny was that the elders/bishops/deacons should have only one wife at a time.43d . In fact, it is not until after Acts 22 when the Spirit has Paul write that The Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer reveals and instructs us to accept the end.43e of the Law of Moses, finally releasing believing Jews from having to obey the Law of Moses (as the Non-Jews were in Acts 15) and then not many years later causes the Jerusalem Temple to be destroyed so that it would be impossible to keep on obeying the Law of Moses with its sacrifices and temple worship. This means that the marriage and morality teachings of the New Covenant written before Acts 21:16 while Paul and the believing Jews, including the apostles, were still obeying and teaching the marriage and morality laws of the Old Contract Law of Moses, discussed at length above and including polygyny . The change of significance was not that polygyny was condemned or forbidden but that monogamy was made a prerequisite for holding an official position of leadership in the local assembly. The polygyny of the Jewish, Egyptian, Greek and Roman world was not attacked, but the leadership of the local assemblies was transformed by the monogamy restriction, probably to prevent polygamous leaders from getting involved in assembly service that would result in the neglect of time with their own children and/or wives. What was the actual status of polygamy in New Contract time, the First Century AD? Let's look at the evidence. MARRIAGE: ......"Monogamy is implicit in the story of Adam and Eve, since The Most High One created only one wife for Adam. Yet polygyny is adopted from the time of Lamech (Gn. 4:19), and is not forbidden in The writings of the Most High.......Polygamy continues to the present day among Jews in Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Asian, Oriental, and African countries.".44 Eugene Nida's book Customs and Cultures45. . documents the current practice of polygyny by Monogynists 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 The Most High's children they are told of their limitations in church offices and are asked not to take any additional wives because it stumbles western The Most High's Kingpins (Rom 14, l Cor. 8 and 10). They are not usually asked to abandon their other wives to a premature widowhood because of l Cor.. 7:1- 15. 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 the Most High's 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)..........@46 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 even of the marriage of the parents....#47 "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 reproached 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."<48. Tacitus, who died in 117 A.D., was a Roman historian who provided us with one of the earliest detailed descriptions of the Germans and their Germanic tribes, which later migrated into western Europe and included the English and the French. <48b These Germans of his time were unique. They strictly observed the marital tie and were generally content with one wife for each husband, in marked contrast to most of the "barbarians" of the time who often practiced polygyny. The few exceptions to this Germanic monogyny was when they were sought for a polygynous marriage because of their high birth..<48c It is incredible to think that The Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer and the apostles would say nothing about such a widespread contemporary practice as polygyny if it were indeed sinful, less than The Most High One's best, carnal and reprobate to good works. The Most High One never said such a thing in Old Contract times and He obviously never said such a thing in New Contract times. When you consider how specific The Most High One was in the Old Contract.48w, I can not believe that The Most High One would "forget" to include polygyny if it is as bad as most Western spiritual leaders say it is. IV. ARE POLYGYNY AND CONCUBINAGE WRONG FOR TODAY? Is polygyny with wives and concubines a falling short of the standard today? St. Basil (4th Century AD) wrote that "On polygamy the Fathers are silent, as being brutish and altogether inhuman. The faults seems to me worse than immorality."48z "Herard of Tours, A.D. 858, declares any greater number of wives than two to be unlawful. . . Leo the Wise, Emperor of Constantinople, was allowed to marry three wives without public remonstrance, but was suspended from communion by the patriarch Nicholas when he married a fourth."48e Augustine of Hippo (4th Cent. AD) indicates that the Roman Catholic Church was the power behind the move to not allow polygyny among the assembly members of his time.48f We know it is still practiced today in parts of Utah, China, India, Asia, Africa, in all Moslem nations, and among the Indians of Latin America. Communism greatly discouraged polygyny in China among the working class. So roughly half of the people of the world live in a society where some form polygyny is practiced and accepted. So for Augustne of Hippo (4th century AD) ". . . good men were united [to] a plurality of good wives. . ." in a "feasible" form of polygyny that involved "moderation", "dignity" and "fecundity". Clearly he didn't label it wrong and he didn't say that the practice of polygyny made these "good" people wrong doers. This is the position of Augustine of Hippo, a significant post-Pentecost leader in the 4th Century AD Assembly, speaking in the era of the Assembly in which we live today. Hear him again, in the following: "But those who have not the virtues of temperance must not be allowed to judge of the conduct of holy men, any more than those in fever of the sweetness and wholesomeness of food. . . If our critics, then, wish to attain not a spurious and affected, but a genuine and sound moral health, let them find a cure in believing the Scripture record, that the honorable name of saint is given not without reason to men who had several wives; and that the reason is this, that the mind can exercise such control over the flesh as not to allow the appetite implanted in our nature by Providence to go beyond the limits of deliberate intention>. . . .the holy patriarchs in their conjugal intercourse were actuated not by the love of pleasure, but by the intelligent desire for the continuance of their family. . . .nor did the number of their wives make the patriarchs licentious. But why defend the husbands, to whose character the divine word bears the highest testimony. . . ." >73 [Footnote: >.73 A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church, Vol. iv; p.290] Here we see Augustine of Hippo describing most of the Bible's polygynists as "holy patriarchs" who deserved the "honorable name of saint" because their "character .. bears the highest testimony", the Word of God. It sure doesn't sound like they are a back slidden lot of fleshly saints! Quite to the contrary! Any "elder" today would do well to be so spoken of as these polygynous patriarchs. Some spiritual leaders say Òthe purpose of The Most High One in creation was that monogamy be the standard for manÓ even though there is not one the writings of the Most High, quoted or paraphrased, that says that. Yet I understand a Western spiritual elder and most of the "leaders" to persist, apparently maintaining that there is no doubt that The Most High One's indisputable will, as seen in the Old Contract, is monogamy.#2. Augustine of Hippo (4th Century AD) had a gentler way of saying it that I feel more reflects the The Most High One of Gen. 1 and 1 Cor. 13. There is no question that the best form of marriage for most is monogamy, since that is the gift (1 Cor. 7:7-27) He has given most of His children on earth and worldwide. But the point of 1 Cor. 1:7-27 is that the best form of marriage for each individual depends on the gift and the leading (Rom. 8:1-14) each individual receives from The Most High One. 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.2b DouglasÕ Dictionary6. : MARRIAGE: ......"Monogamy is implicit in the story of Adam and Eve, since The Most High One created only one wife for Adam. Yet polygyny is adopted from the time of Lamech (Gn. 4:19), and is not forbidden in The writings of the Most High.......Polygamy continues to the present day among Jews in Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Asian, Oriental, and African countries." 4/19/'96 P.O.Box 620763 SanDiego, CA 92162-0763 Editor Players 8060 Melrose Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90046 Dear Editor, I really appreciated your article on "Polygamy African Style" by Odie Hawkins. I believe that this is an important issue for the Black community in America today, as I point out in part one of this essay. I am sending you only a portion of the whole document and it is a religiously neutral version so that it can be read without offense by people with Islamic, Jewish or Christian cultural backgrounds. The original document in on the Internet Web in the Zines Archives. Feel free to use this if you want to continue the discussion of polygyny in your magazine. Please let me know if you would like to have the rest, and whether or not you want it religiously neutral. Would it be more appropriate in your "Advice & Consent" section? I really miss your Lingerie publication. I'm not comfortable with "pussy shots" and "spread explicit" photos of female models. As far as I'm concerened, most of a woman's body if far more prettier than her "pussy", and I love my lady's "pussy". If you ever publish something like Lingerie again, where its not all "pussy shots", please let me know. I would like to buy/subscribe. Why don't you give the Black community a choice with a swimsuit issue that doesn't have any "pussy shots"? Why give up the swimsuit market to the white models and buyers? Sincerely, Lee Tyler ½½½½½½½½½ Eugene A Nida, of the American The writings of the Most High Society in his book Customs and Cultures discusses how polygyny is not a falling short of the standard in and of itself, but that at the very least New Contract rules disqualify any polygamist from being an elder, bishop, overseer, deacon or official leader in the spiritual assembly. Why such a disqualification if polygyny is not a falling short of the standard in and of itself? There are several principles that are involved: too many wives preoccupy, distract and turn a husband's heart from a whole hearted love for, and attention to, the Master (Dt. 17:16,17); a spiritual husband of many wives earnestly seeks to please his wives so must spend a great deal of time on marital matters so he would have little or no time for assembly service (1 Cor. 7:2-5, 32-35); and any physical/social/human act (exercise, eating, sex, sleep, intellectualism, socializing) indulged in excessively is usually harmful a violation of the command to moderation in all things, choking the believer's spiritual life like the cares-of-the-world weeds choked the seed in the parable (Mt.13). The command that you should have no other The Most High Ones before The eternally self-exitent One seems to be one reason from Deut. 17:17 where it is stated that too many wives will cause the heart of such a lover of many wives to turn away from following The eternally self-exitent One with his whole heart. This ties in with 1 Cor. 7:32-35 which shows that wives distract one from serving the Master and too many wives distract the husband too much for the family's spiritual good. An elder , or etc. , would be like the apostles in Acts 6:1-7 and should not be tied up with the daily service to many wives which would prevent him from being in the Word of The Most High One enough to lead and feed the flock he has been placed over. The polygamist would have his hands full leading, feeding and serving his wives and children, essentially his family-assembly. A man who is covetous of having many wives could be guilty of idolatry, loving polygyny more than The Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer (Eph. 5:5,6). We should be content with what we have maritally (1 Tim. 6:5-9 and 1 Cor. 7:9,26-35). So polygyny in and of itself is not a sin, unless practiced in violation of menÕs laws (Rom 13), or unless its practice is abused by selfishness and sinfulness (Rom. 14). The polygyny of concubinage is not illegal in modern society, but is bound by the principles of Romans 14, 1 Cor 8 and 1 Cor 10. So for St. Augustine (4th century AD) ". . . good men were united [to] a plurality of good wives. . ." in a "feasible" form of polygyny that involved "moderation", "dignity" and "fecundity". Clearly he didn't label it sin and he didn't say that the practice of polygyny made these "good" people sinners. This is the position of St. Augustine, a significant post-Pentecost leader in the 4th Century AD church, speaking in the era of the Church in which we live today. Hear him again, in the following:Ê "But those who have not the virtues of temperance must not be allowed to judge of the conduct of holy men, any more than those in fever of the sweetness and wholesomeness of food. . . If our critics, then, wish to attain not a spurious and affected, but a genuine and sound moral health, let them find a cure in believing the Scripture record, that the honorable name of saint is given not without reason to men who had several wives; and that the reason is this, that the mind can exercise such control over the flesh as not to allow the appetite implanted in our nature by Providence to go beyond the limits of deliberate intention>. . . .the holy patriarchs in their conjugal intercourse were actuated not by the love of pleasure, but by the intelligent desire for the continuance of their family. . . .nor did the number of their wives make the patriarchs licentious. But why defend the husbands, to whose character the divine word bears the highest testimony. . . ." >73 [Footnote: >.73 A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church, Vol. iv; p.290] Here we see St. Augustine describing most of the Bible's polygynists as "holy patriarchs" who deserved the "honorable name of saint" because their "character .. bears the highest testimony", the Word of God. It sure doesn't sound like they are a back slidden lot of fleshly saints! Quite to the contrary! Any "elder" today would do well to be so spoken of as these polygynous patriarchs. II. WHAT DO MOST WESTERN SPIRITUAL LEADERS SAY ABOUT POLYGYNY TODAY? FIRST, they say Òthe purpose of The Most High One in creation was that monogamy be the standard for manÓ even though there is not one the writings of the Most High, quoted or paraphrased, that says that. Yet I understand a Western spiritual elder and most of the "leaders" to persist, apparently maintaining that there is no doubt that The Most High One's indisputable will, as seen in the Old Contract, is monogamy.#2. Augustine of Hippo (4th Century AD) had a gentler way of saying it that I feel more reflects the The Most High One of Gen. 1 and 1 Cor. 13. There is no question that the best form of marriage for most is monogamy, since that is the gift (1 Cor. 7:7-27) He has given most of His children on earth and worldwide. But the point of 1 Cor. 1:7-27 is that the best form of marriage for each individual depends on the gift and the leading (Rom. 8:1-14) each individual receives from The Most High One. 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.2b DouglasÕ Dictionary6. : MARRIAGE: ......"Monogamy is implicit in the story of Adam and Eve, since The Most High One created only one wife for Adam. Yet polygyny is adopted from the time of Lamech (Gn. 4:19), and is not forbidden in The writings of the Most High.......Polygamy continues to the present day among Jews in Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Asian, Oriental, and African countries." Eugene Nida's (American The writings of the Most High Society) book Customs and Cultures7. documents the practice of polygyny by renewed ones 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 Renewed ones they are told of their limitations in assembly offices and are asked not to take any additional wives because it stumbles western renewed ones (Rom 14, l Cor. 8 and 10). They are not usually asked to abandon their other wives to a premature widowhood because of l Cor.. 7:1-15. HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE THE WRITINGS OF THE MOST HIGH: . . . 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.*8. 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 S 1:1ff) is significant as belonging to the middle class; Jehoida (2 Ch 24:3) as a priest. . .Legislation (see below, % 6) safeguarded the rights of various wives, slave or free; and according to the Rabbinical interpretation of Lv 21:13(9. the high priest was not allowed to be a bigamist. . . The marriage figure applied to the union of The Most High One and Israel (% 10) 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.<10. The unscriptural condemnation of polygyny by the Western spiritual community has proven to be one of the main obstacles for people in Eastern and third world countries to accept the ways of the West, especially if Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Asian, Oriental, and African. The Western Ò spiritualÓ tradition against polygyny hinders the spread of the Western culture in Moslem and other polygynous societies. What about all those third world folks, especially the Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Asian, Oriental, and Africans, who are practicing polygyny and are told that they have to dump and abandon their extra wives in order to become Monogynists, one of the biggest obstacles for the Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Asian, Oriental, and African communities? These " spiritual" 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 Monogynists. SECONDLY, most of the "leaders" say that Òpolygamy clearly appears as a product of the fall, in a world of sin.Ó, even though no where in the Word of The Most High One does the Word say this. The Most High One portrays Himself, in the fullness of His holiness, as the polygamous husband of two wives in Ezekiel 23. I believe The Most High One was not a victim of the fall, and remains consecrated in a world of sin. If Òpolygamy clearly appears as a product of the fallÓ then why isnÕt there one the writings of the Most High 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 Contracts, in any list of sins, list of fleshly works or list of abominations to The Most High One. I understand Rev. Gerhard Jasper to make the following points: (1) In Old Contract 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 The Most High One 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.#12. Moses did not forbid polygamy (Dt. 21:15) but apparently it was unusual among average people (see de Vaux, p. 25).^13. Augustine of Hippo (4th Century AD) had a good word on this subject. Consider the following: That the consecrated fathers of olden times after Abraham, and before him, to whom The Most High One gave His testimony that "they pleased Him," [Heb. 11:4-6] thus used their wives, no one who is a The Most High's Kingian 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. . . 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.13b THIRDLY, what about that which is implied by some in Leviticus 18:18? Well, what about Lev. 18:18? ÒAnd thou shalt not take a woman to her sister, to be a rival to her...... beside the other in her lifetime.Ó14. ÒThou shalt not take a wife in addition to her sister, as a rival......in opposition to her, while she is yet living.Ó15. ÒAnd you shall not take to wife a sister of your wife, to distress her.......beside the other in her lifetime.Ó16. ÒAnd thou shalt not take a wife to her sister, to be a rival to her ,.....besides the other in her life-time.Ó 17. ÒYou must not marry a woman in addition to her sister, to be a rival to her.....when the first one is alive.Ó18 The New King James Version agrees with the meaning of those above.19. The New International Version agrees with the meaning of those above. 20. EXCUSE ME! DID I MISS SOMETHING? I SEE A PROHIBITION OF RACHEL+LEAH MARRIAGES INVOLVING TWO SISTERS BEING MARRIED TO THE SAME HUSBAND, BUT WHERE IS THE IMPLIED PROHIBITION OF POLYGYNY ?? It seems to me that The Most High One 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 Master as are the Western spiritual women sisters in the Spirit and there was no prohibition against them being in polygynist marriages like King DavidÕs. Are you willing to add to the the writings of the Most High to support the tradition of men? FOURTHLY, Husband of one wife: Yes! Definitely! An elder/overseer/bishop/ superintendent of a assembly 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. A 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 unrenewed through slander or misunderstandings are not. Those who donÕt want a assembly 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 assembly service than a man who has learned to love passionately and maritally only one wife at a time. A serving polygamist in a leadership position would be more likely to be tempted to accept the advances/ propositions of an unmarried sister in the assembly who falls in love with him and he with her. This could result in sex outside of marriage (immorality) or yet another addition to his polygamous "harem". This would stumble the devout ones and would be a reproach to the unrenewed. It would appear that a spiritual polygamist would have to have a very low profile (no leadership position) in the assembly. FIFTHLY, most of the "leaders" maintain that there is Òat least an implied condemnation of polygyny in Deut. 17:17, which forbade the king to Ômultiply wivesÕÓ [and horses] to himself. Since interpretations belong to The Most High One, let's see what The Most High One says in His Word. By the time David became King in Judah he had 6 wives (2 Sam. 3 & 5) and was being blessed and prospered by The Most High One. At the time of the wonderful Contract with David in 2 Sam. 7, The Most High One specifically blesses and Contracts with polygamist David, husband to his concubines and his seven wives. DavidÕs wives, as part of his house, benefited from The Most High OneÕs 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 (1 Chron 3). I believe Augustine of Hippo (6th Century AD) had a good word here for such spiritual men. "But those who have not the virtues of temperance must not be allowed to judge of the conduct of consecrated 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 The writings of the Most High 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 consecrated patriarchs in their conjugal intercourse were actuated . . . 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. . . ."21b [Bold print mine for emphasis] @#***********########@@@@@@@@@ Was the High Priest commanded to marry only one wife in Lev. 21:13,14 as some American spiritual leaders say? In any reputable version there is no such Òonly one wifeÓ command. Again we see the tradition of man making of no effect the Word of The Most High One. SIXTHLY, does The Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer statement ÒThe two shall become one fleshÓ mean only one man and one woman become one flesh in monogamy, as the most of the "leaders" maintain? The Spirit uses ÒThe two shall become one fleshÓ principle in 1 Corinth. 6 to show Òthat he who is joined to a harlot is one body with herÓ , and then uses the same Òone fleshÓ principle in Eph. 5 about a husband and his wife. Jerome (340-420AD) didn't indicate any problem understanding the possibility when he wrote, "Lamech, a man of blood and a murderer, was the first who divided one flesh between two wives."21c Since the harlot is one flesh with every fornicator she has sexual union with and the husband is one flesh with his wife, the Òone fleshÓ principle is not unique to marriage and cannot be an argument for monogamy or against polygyny . The Òone fleshÓ principle is physical reality that describes only the result of sexual union, whether it involve a harlot, a fornicator, a married couple or a polygamous marriage. David, Israel and Abraham were Òone fleshÓ with each of their wives, just as the adulteress of Prov. 6 & 7 was one flesh with each of her adulterers. Under the Law by Moses, being Òone fleshÓ could have been the basis for marriage (Deut. 22:22-30; Ex. 22:16,17) but not so for us after Eph. 2 and Col. 2 in the case of 1 Cor. 7:9; 1 Tm. 5:11-14. Now if we do not control ourselves, we are commanded to marry, but who to marry is not specified, only that your mate be saved22 and spiritual.23. Being one flesh, as Eph. 5:22-33 shows, is one of the best motives for the husband being good and spiritual to his wife. A Western spiritual elder apparently maintains that spiritual equality is possible only in a monogamous marriage, and that polygamy increases women's subordination.<24. 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 The Most High's King's love to the Church>25. 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(Song of Sol. 6)? Was it Abigail who gave up her wealthy independence as Nabal's widow in order to be David's wife in a polygynous marriage? No, but I think a Western spiritual 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 falling short of the standard and the flesh are the problem, not monogamy or polygyny. There is no question that monogamy best reflects The Most High's King's love to the Assembly, that is why He chose it and modeled it for all the Assembly leaders (1 Tm. 3 & Ti. 1) of whom He is the Chief leader. The real situation is that we are all not Assembly leaders and we all have our "best", our different "gifts" from The Most High One (1 Cor. 7:6,7,17-28). I understand a Western spiritual 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 The Most High's idea of equality/26. He gives no the writings of the Most High reference for this position, and I don't believe he would be able to do so. Statistics show that most Western spiritual monogamous marriages fail to maintain this harmonious equality, and again because of falling short of the standard 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 (Matt. 19) and the fornicator becomes one flesh with each harlot with whom he fornicates (1 Cor. 6:12-20). There is no reason why a polygynist and his wives could not attain to the level of the devout ones in the early assembly where they shared all that they had, and had all things in common (Acts 4). In the Master any family, even a polygynous family, can achieve that unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Phil. 4:13;Eph. 4:1- 5; Psalm 133 and Acts 3 & 4). SEVENTH, Ò.....let each man have his own wife, and let each wife have her own husbandÓ is not an argument for monogamy. Whenever Abraham, David, Jacob, Joash or Gideon had one of their own wives, he was having his own wife; and each wife of these polygamists had her own polygamous husband. 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 immorality, which involves a husband having anotherÕs wife and a wife having one who is not her own husband. It restricts sexual ÒhavingÓ to marriage with oneÕs own mate. I understand a Western spiritual elder to state that it is inadequate to prescribe polygamy as a treatment for the problem of immorality, because polygamy facilitates stepping into immorality. Apparently he maintains that polygamous wives are often driven to immorality by the wrong neglect (1 Cor. 7:2-5) of their husbands, and may have to bribe their husbands away from their other wives, resulting in very unsatisfying sexual relations for the wives.{27. First of all, The Most High One is the only real antidote against immorality, because He tells us that even in monogyny spousal neglect can result in temptations to immorality (1 Cor. 7:1-5). Secondly, whether it be the "inclusive sex-partnership" of polygyny or the exclusive sex- partnership of monogyny, the step to immorality depends entirely on the individual's relationship to The Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer, obedience to The Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer and level of commitment to both The Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer and the marriage. Surveys show that monogamous America today steps easily and frequently to immorality. Lastly, if the polygynist husband was obeying The Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer by having his own wives (1Cor.7:1-4), defrauding none of them (1Cor.7:5), loving them and laying down his life for them (Eph. 5), showing no favoritism or partiality in his behavior towards them (1Tim5:20,21), by simply walking in the Spirit his family would not experience the problem described above by a Western spiritual elder. EIGHTH, no where in the writings of the Most High is polygamous family life described or rated as a Òlower form of family life, but a tolerable one....Ó. The right of the first born (Deut. 21:15,16); the right of each wife to food, clothing/ shelter and marital sex (Ex. 21:10); and the right for the whole polygamous family to be Spiritually and materially blessed by The Most High One (Genesis 30 and 2 Samuel 7) is preserved by The Most High One in these polygamous marriages just as in monogamous marriages. There is no the writings of the Most High that says a wife in polygyny is less of a wife than a wife in monogamy. There is no the writings of the Most High that says a husband in polygyny is less of a husband than a husband in monogamy. . . . 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 . . .27b I understand a Western spiritual elder to maintain that Israel put up with polygamy as a lesser evil, causing some of the Old Contract writers embarrassment, and was clearly criticized sharply tirelessly showing the negativity associated with polygamy.*28. Tolerated as a lesser evil? Tolerated by whom? The Most High One did more than tolerate it, He legislated it in Deut 21:15ff and Exodus 21:7ff without one word or hint of condemnation. The Most High One's designated and anointed leaders freely and openly practiced it (Abraham, Jacob, David, Jehoida the priest, and The Most High One in Ezekiel 23). Where in the The writings of the Most High does he find an Old Contract 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 Contract writer be embarrassed of something The Most High One sanctioned and legislated, and that His designated and anointed leaders freely and openly practiced with The Most High One's obvious and abundant blessing in their lives (see the next section)? The Old Contract 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 besides these four husbands where is this untiring and realistic showing of the negativity 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 pointing out in the The writings of the Most High. In fact if you accept the Song of Solomon as the story of young Solomon and his Shulamite wife in a polygamous marriage (Song of Sol. 6:8-10), 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 The Most High One my multiplying wives to himself (Deut 17:15-17). Let's look at the record in the Word. Augustine of Hippo (4th Century AD) had a good word on this subject. Consider the following: That the consecrated fathers of olden times after Abraham, and before him, to whom The Most High One gave His testimony that "they pleased Him," [Heb. 11:4-6] thus used their wives, no one who is a The Most High's Kingian 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.28b V. CIVIL LAW, PERSONAL LIBERTY AND A LOVING CONSCIENCE! P. 28 Surely Romans 13 and related passages apply. And certainly the principles of Romans 14 and l Cor 8 & 10 apply. But how? Obviously it is a felony to officially marry (by man's laws) more than one woman in terms of the government's law, public records, inheritance laws and divorce laws in most Western or industrial nations. Obviously it is socially acceptable, legal and not a felony in most Asian nations, the Mid East, Africa and Indian tribes in the Americas. That is as clear as black and white. But there is a great big gray area. Many Western states recognize informal marriage (concubinage) as common law marriages but as soon as they become official they come under the monogamy laws. But they can live for years in the morally acceptable common law status without any illegality. Under Administrative Law in California, County Welfare officials set up semi-official marriages with people who live together without being married where one or both parties could still be legally married to others. Administrative Welfare law recognizes them as a semi-married couple and will grant them AFDC aid and even help them get divorces so they can eventually marry IF THEY WISH. With the state's approval they live together as a family sometimes for years, but they have no IRS rights, or inheritance rights or marital tax status from the state as a married couple. It is legal and approved of by state law. California's courts have also established palimony rights where they protect the Contract/contractual rights of people living in unofficial marriage or concubinage. While they have no official tax status or inheritance rights the courts have established that a marital relationship and the members of that relationship have protection under the law in terms of their Contracts, contracts, vows, espousal or betrothal. The courts have awarded "palimony", property and child custody rights in and from these relationships. The new no- discrimination-against-one's-sexual-orientation laws protect those who practice informal contractual polygyny or concubinage. Since The Most High One prescribes no "wedding ceremony", ritual, vows or rite.Ap#4 to make two people married, leaving it to the local assemblies to have their own redeemed local and indigenous marital customsAp#4 . The vows, Contracts, betrothals and prenuptial contracts seem to be covered by The Most High One's standards in Ezek. 16:1-14; Malachi 2; Eccles 5:1-10; Psalm 15 and Romans 1:31. It is the treachery of Contract breaking that The Most High One condemns in these passages and that which he hates. "Yes, I swore an oath to you and entered into Contract with you, and you became Mine," says the Master The Most High One (Ezek. 16:8). We become a part of the bride of The Most High's King in the same way. The Spirit considered Mary and Joseph as husband and wife on the basis of their espousal/betrothal/ Contracts even before the wedding and the coming together (Mat. 2 ;Deut. 22:23-27). So why can't two Monogynists exchange espousal/betrothal Contracts and become each other's without a formal marriage which would be illegal? Of course they can but should they? We are bound by our Contracts and The Most High One makes it clear He has no pleasure in the fools who break them (Eccles. 5:5; Psalm 15). We enter into the gray zone of the liberty we have in The Most High's King (Rom 14) that is limited by the cords of Agape love. Yes two Monogynists could exchange their vows/ Contracts without a formal/legal wedding day but if they became involved in intimacy and that intimacy became an offense or stumbling block to another devout one it would be falling short of the standard and could destroy the work of The Most High's King in another or embolden a weak one to be intimate contrary to his/her conscience (l Cor. 8 & 10). So is such intimacy a falling short of the standard between two Monogynists who have solemnly and formally Contracted before The Most High One that they are maritally one flesh as long as they both live? It is neither illegal nor wrong but it becomes falling short of the standard if it stumbles, offends, grieves another in The Most High's King. But what about the command in Romans 14 that states that if you have a solid controversial conviction from the Word, have it to yourself before The Most High One? Happy is the one who does not condemn himself in what he approves (Rom 14:22,23). But woe to him if he does it with doubts or offense to another in The Most High's King. So it seems to be with post Contract but pre wedding intimacy. It seems to be the same case with polygyny / concubinage. Do you practice/believe in polygyny /concubinage? Have it and do so privately and very discreetly before The Most High One. Happy is the one who does not condemn one's self in what he approves in the liberty of The Most High's King. But he who practices/believes in polygyny /concubinage with doubts is condemned if he/she indulges because he/she does not practice it out of conviction from the Spirit and the Word. polygyny / concubinage is indeed pure, but it is evil to practice it if it stumble, offends, grieves or weakens your brethren in The Most High's King. Foreign spiritual polygynists visiting Western monogamous societies encounter a special challenge. Spiritual and Devoted Monogynists would be able to handle it well and in the Master, but the unrenewed, the carnal, the Spiritual milk drinkers, the legalists, the ignorant, and those weak of conscience would all have varying problems with a spiritual polygynist and his wives visiting their Western/Occidental assembly (1 Cor. 8 & 10; Rom. 14 & 15). The visiting spiritual polygynist would do all within his power to not let his liberty hinder the effectiveness of his testimony and witness to these people, if they would be willing to receive it. Hopefully mercy and compassion would move the spiritual polygynist to not flaunt his polygyny in the face of such "Monogynists" even though they are so unlike The Most High's King. Mercy would move the polygynist to not lay a heavier burden on the weak than they can bear, not wanting their liberty to cause their weak brethren to fall into sin. Compassion would move the polygynists to be sensitive to the weakness and doubts of the weak devout ones. Obviously the polygynist would not be an official leader in the assembly and would not be visiting local assemblies as a leader/elder/deacon/bishop/overseer/etc. (1 Tim. 3 and Ti. 1). Ideally the local devout ones would be bearing the fruits of the Spirit and receive such foreign visitors with mercy and compassion. If they agreed and were able (1 Cor. 7:5) for a short while to be separated, the polygynist could visit the Western assembly bringing one or none of his wives so as to reduce the controversy. The same would be true of a polygynist wife visiting the West without her husband, under the rule of 1 Cor. 7:5. VI. SO WHAT? WHAT'S THE POINT? The Most High One's laws about polygyny and concubinage in the Old Contract were brought by The Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer into the New Contract without being changed or nullified. During the transition period (Heb. 8:8* For finding fault, he says to them, Behold, days come, says the Master, and I will consummate a new Contract as regards the house of Israel, and as regards the house of Juda; 9 not according to the Contract which I made to their fathers in [the] day of my taking their hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; . . .13* In that he says New, he has made the first old; but that which grows old and aged [is] near disappearing.) before the Law of Moses was abolished {Eph. 2:14 ¦ For *he* is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of enclosure, 15 having annulled the enmity in his flesh, the law of commandments in ordinances, that he might form the two in himself into one new man, making peace; 16 and might reconcile both in one body to The Most High One by the cross, having by it slain the enmity; . . ......} we see the believing Jews in Acts 15 and 21 keeping the law of Moses as Renewed ones, and part of that law was The Most High One's laws regulating and allowing polygyny and concubinage. So we have Paul and the apostles observing the Law of Moses, including the laws on polygyny and concubinage, as Renewed ones and the only thing they wrote about polygyny was that the elders/bishops/deacons/overseers and assembly superintendents should have only one wife at a time. NEVER IN THE WORD OF THE MOST HIGH ONE IS polygyny OR CONCUBINAGE LABELED SIN, CALLED SIN, DENOUNCED AS SIN, PROHIBITED FOR ALL DEVOUT ONES, CALLED A WORK OF THE FLESH, CALLED A CARNAL ACT OR CALLED A SIGN OF SPIRITUAL WEAKNESS. Yes Romans 13 make it crystal clear an American Renewed one may not practice polygyny in America because we have to obey the laws of the land if they do not violate the Word of The Most High One. But concubinage is neither against the laws of The Most High One nor is it against the laws of the vast majority of the United States of America. In fact the courts have validated its legality in its palimony rulings. So what are you doing if you are condemning polygyny in general as sin? Mark 7:8 [For], leaving the commandment of The Most High One, you hold what is delivered by men [to keep] -- washings of vessels and cups, and many other such like things you do. 9 And he said to them, Well do you set aside the commandment of The Most High One, that you may observe what is delivered by yourselves [to keep]. . . . 13 making void the word of The Most High One by your traditional teaching which you have delivered; and many such like things you do. Pretty serious stuff, laying aside The Most High One's commands so you can keep your own traditions and making The Most High One's Word ineffective through your traditions. It wont look good for those folks at the judgment seat of The Most High's King. What about all those third world folks, especially the Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Asian, Oriental, and Africans, who are practicing polygyny and are told that they have to dump and abandon their extra wives in order to become Monogynists, the biggest obstacle for the Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Asian, Oriental, and African community? These "Renewed" 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 Western monogynists sound like these folks: Mat.23:13 ¦ But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for you shut up the kingdom of the heavens before men; for *you* do not enter, nor do you suffer those that are entering to go in. The angels are waiting to rejoice over the conversion of one polygamous Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Asian, Oriental, and African or third worlder and "Spiritual legalists and traditionalists" wont let them in unless they falling short of the standard by "dealing treacherously" (Malachi 2) with their wives by putting them away in repudiation, and falling short of the standard by disobeying The Most High's King's command not to leave your wife (1 Cor. 7:11), and falling short of the standard by not remaining in the marital condition in which you were called to The Most High's King. 1 Cor.7: 17 ¦ However, as the Master has divided to each, as The Most High One 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 The Most High One. . . . 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. VII. THE MARRIED MAN WHO WOULD ADD WIVES TO HIS ÒHAREMÓ. What about the married character who says that since polygyny /concubinage is not a falling short of the standard he will just go ahead and add a couple of new wives to his harem? Well he wont get off the ground in America unless he is rolling in money and has found some women of questionable judgment. But what about the married "brother" who knows a "sister" who knows she can't marry him because of the bigamy laws but they want to be married so bad that she is willing to be his "concubine" in polygyny , even though she knows his wife objects or doesn't even know? The Spiritual fruit of contentment should prevail. A person should be content with the mate they have. Selfishness is a work of the flesh and anyone who wants a mate, or another mate, or an additional mate, out of selfish reasons is out of the will of The Most High One and snared in sin. YLT=1 Tim. 6:5 "wranglings of men wholly corrupted in mind, and destitute of the truth, supposing the piety to be gain; depart from such; 6 ¦ but it is great gain--the piety with contentment; . . . 8 but having food and raiment--with these we shall suffice ourselves; 9 and those wishing to be rich [having more than they need], do fall into temptation and a snare, and many desires, foolish and hurtful, that sink men into ruin and destruction, . . ." [Young's Literal Translation] 1Cor. 7:17 ¦ However, as the Master has divided to each, as The Most High One has called each, so let him walk; and thus I ordain in all the assemblies. [Darby] If his present wife objects to his taking a concubine for himself, she can exercise her second best option (1 Cor. 7:10,11,39) and separate herself from him and remain separate or be reconciled to him at some later date. If his present wife objects to his taking a concubine for himself, how can he say to The Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer that he is being kind to her, that he is not selfishly seeking his own by taking a concubine? The Most High One has promised to chasten (1 Cor. 11:30 weakness, sickness, death) those devout ones who deliberately sin, and if he unkindly and selfishly takes on a concubine, then he is going to get chastened. If his wife is innocently and sincerely grieved, stumbled and offended by his desire to have a concubine, experiencing a genuine sense of loss or betrayal, then he has broken all the principles of Love in Romans 14, 1 Cor. 8 & 10 by using his liberty (to have a concubine) to the hurt of his ÒsisterÓ in the Body of The Most High's King and chastening (Malachi 2;1 Cor. 11:30 Heb 12) is certain. Certainly his prayers will be hindered (1 Peter 3:7;Isa 59:1,2). What if her objections to his taking a concubine are selfish, hateful, mean spirited, unkind and spiteful? These are all works of the flesh. If his taking a concubine stumbled her into these vices, caused her to fall into these vices, then he is destroying one for whom The Most High's King died and for whom The Most High's King is the Avenger (Rom. 14). Again, what if her objections to his taking a concubine are selfish, hateful, mean spirited, unkind and spiteful? These are all works of the flesh. If she was this way by her choice before the concubine became an issue between them, she has chosen to walk in the flesh, her salvation is questionable at best, and he is at least in a 1 Cor. 7:12,13 situation, bound to her as long as she wishes to house/dwell with him. With this kind of wife, a devoted concubine would be his Òcorner on the roofÓ, his sanctuary from the strife of her spirit and her tongue. What if she doesn't know about his taking on a "sister" as a concubine (but the world would call her a mistress because they don't believe in marital commitment)? Well the following the writings of the Most High indicate that there could be a problem involving honesty: Luke 8:15 But that in the good ground, these are they who in an honest and good heart, having heard the word keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience. Rom. 12:17* recompensing to no one evil for evil: providing things honest before all men: . . Eph. 4:25 Wherefore, having put off falsehood, speak truth every one with his neighbor, . . . 29 Let no corrupt word go out of your mouth, but if [there be] any good one for needful edification, that it may give grace to those that hear [it]. 2 Cor. 8:21 for we provide for things honest, not only before [the] Master, but also before men. There would have to be no communications or there would have to be false communications between a man and his wife if the man had a secret concubine on the side. As his wife exercised her authority over his body for affection and sex (1 Cor.7:3-5) he probably would, at some point because of the secret concubine, resist her sexual authority (Romans 13:1-5) over his body and be chastened of The Most High One, or he would get into a situation where he would have to lie to get out of it, and be chastened of The Most High One. If he keeps that up, she might land up a widow and get to go again in the Master since He liberated her from her Judas. What if his wife was uninterested in sex with him, passively tolerated it with him while making him feel, without a word, that he is imposing on her and being burdensome to her in the matter? Well she obviously is not doing 1 Cor 7:2,3,4,5 as unto the Master. Seeing her brother-husband in need she shuts up her feelings of compassion (1 John 3:14-18). But in the meantime she has killed his affections for her by her words and deeds and his affection goes unanchored. Since she cares not for affection with him, he might exercise his liberty to have a concubine in the manner of Romans 14. If his faith allows him to have a concubine but having a concubine would grieve, offend and/or stumble someone, perhaps even his Arctic wife, then he would have to have his concubine faith privately and discretely between himself, her and The Most High One so as not to let his liberty offend the Body of The Most High's King. What kind of sister would be concubine to such a brother? Perhaps one who saw his need (1 Cor. 7:2-5) and was moved with compassion and, having what he needs she lays down her life for him to minister as wife-concubine to him (1 John 3:14-18). Perhaps she feels called to be his good Samaritan concubine in his wounded and neglected need. She would have to be of one mind and one faith with him to be his concubine privately and discreetly so as not to offend the Body of The Most High's King. They would have to agree to deny themselves the free and open exercise of 1 Cor. 7:2-5 and exercise those rights and needs within the limitations of privacy and discretion before The Most High One and the Body of The Most High's King (Rom14:28- ). They would have to agree not to lie or deceive while on the other hand they would have to agree to obey Rom. 14:28ff in not breaking their commitment to privacy and discretion, even if they have to say nothing when asked. It would be a marriage fraught with self denial, self sacrifice and self control. Anyone who did this would have to selflessly and unselfishly seek the protection and well being even of his cold and indifferent wife. He would have to do everything possible to make sure that any concubine he would have would not bring harmful sexually transmitted diseases (including HIV) into the germ pool of their polygyny . That would mean genital cultures, blood tests and abstaining from marital intimacy/commitment and waiting several months for repeated tests since HIV might not show up for several months. Since STDÕs, including HIV, can be transmitted by bloody saliva in kissing, even kissing would have to be abstained from until all test came back okay. What if it is a situation of real need and crisis? What if she decided to exercise her option to separate (1 Cor. 7:10,11) herself from her husband, but not by divorce but by separate beds or separate bedrooms and allowed him no more access to her body for his sexual needs? He is under The Most High OneÕs command to not leave or divorce her (1 Cor. 7:10,11; Mark 10:9-11). She is wife in name only and he has no sexual partner. She has sinfully set him up for The Evil One (1 Cor.7:5) and his burning (1 Cor. 7:9; 1 Th.4:4,5) will compel him to marry or be an adulterer. If it is to marry, it would have to be with a concubine, since bigamy is illegal in the USA. VIII. POLYGYNY, AN OPTION FOR THE ABANDONED MAN? What about the divorced Spiritual husband? Could he just go out and take another wife while his prior Renewed wife chooses to remain chastely separated? Would that be selfish? Those who are born of the Spirit of The Most High One are led by the Spirit of The Most High One, acknowledge Him as Master in all their ways and love Him by obeying Him. Any act not led by the Spirit or any act that is contrary to the Word of The Most High One is sin. Exodus 21:10 states, "If he takes another, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marriage rights." It didnÕt depend on her wanting or demanding them. He had to be ready to give to her whether she wanted it or not. In l Corinth. 7:1-4,10,11 the separated wife has authority over his body in her right to sexual intimacy with him any time she chooses reconciliation. It is possible that he could know a Renewed widow or sister who was burning (1 Cor. 7:9 and under command to marry 1 Tim 5:11-14) who had no marital prospects except a Renewed man divorced from a chastely separated Renewed sister, no other brother wanting to marry her. The divorced Renewed man who would like to marry her could be moved as in 1 John 3:17 by her plight and pray for an unencumbered husband for her. But if The Most High One doesnÕt provide another and the sister is burning, having great trouble with and almost succumbing to temptations, his continued prayer alone would be empty piety like in James 2:14-17, and he would seem to be compelled to intervene, offering himself in marriage to her as he desires anyway, to enable her to obey The Most High OneÕs solution for her problem (1 Cor. 7:1,2,3,9. This could even be the case if his chastely separated and divorced "Renewed"Ó wife was carnal and too selfish/rebellious to be moved by her plight and 1 John 3:17 to approve of her divorced Renewed manÕs plan to marry her. You donÕt let the devout one who seeks The Most High OneÕs solution be destroyed because of a carnal devout one who resists or refuses compassion and The Most High OneÕs solutions. The Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer went ahead and pleased His Father to die for us while his friends and apostles either resisted or could not comprehend the idea. Peter risked the scorn of his fellow apostles when he went to CorneliusÕs house in Acts 10 & 11. Paul rebuked Peter before all and took his stand with the Master and righteousness when Peter fell into public falling short of the standard in Galatians 2. If a man is led by the Spirit in conformity with the Word of The Most High One to remarry after ÒRenewedÓ divorce (let a man examine himself, his motives, his desires, his obligations and make sure they are of 1 John 3:17) then he had better make sure to not forget that his divorced and chastely separated wife is bound to him as wife as long as they both live. He would have to recognize her authority over his body for marital intimacy with her if she ever sought reconciliation. To act contrary to her authority would be the resisting of The Most High One's authority in Romans 13. Most of the The Most High Oneliest men who had the closest and most blessed relationship with The Most High One in the Old Contract were polygynists at some point in their lives. A Devoted polygynist is not an oxymoron. A Devoted polygynist could be and could have been The Most High One's man for that moment in history since polygyny never excluded anyone from The Most High One's miraculous blessing and intervention. I believe Augustine of Hippo (6th Century AD) had a good word here for such a man. "But those who have not the virtues of temperance must not be allowed to judge of the conduct of consecrated 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 The writings of the Most High 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 consecrated 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. . . ."48h [Bold mine for emphsis] IX. POLYGYNY AND THE LEADERS OF THE MOST HIGH ONE'S PEOPLE. Husband of one wife: Yes! Definitely! An elder/overseer/bishop/ superintendent of a assembly 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. A 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 unrenewed through slander or misunderstandings are not. Those who donÕt want a assembly 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 assembly service than a man who has learned to love passionately and maritally only one wife at a time. A serving polygamist in a leadership position would be more likely to be tempted to accept the advances/ propositions of an unmarried sister in the assembly who falls in love with him and he with her. This could result in sex outside of marriage (immorality) or yet another addition to his polygamous "harem". This would stumble the devout ones and would be a reproach to the unrenewed. It would appear that a devoted polygamist would have to have a very low profile (no leadership position) in the assembly. 1 Cor. 7:33 and 34 with Eph. 5:22-32 show why an elder can have only one wife, because only with one wife would he have the time to invest in the needs of the local assembly under his care. The local assembly would be the equivalent of a second wife for him due to the time and energy he would have to invest to do the work well. There are only so many hours in the day and we all have only so much strength and energy. Beyond that the work must fall to some one else. A polygynist assembly elder would fall short of Matt. 6:33 due to time pressures, fall into disobedience of 1 Cor. 7:5 with his wives, his prayers would be hindered according to 1 Pet. 3:7, and the assembly would be poorly served due to his lack of time and energy. X. POLYGYNY AND THE WESTERN RENEWED WOMAN. Why would a Western/Occidental woman ever consider polygyny /concubi-nage? It is clearly a falling short of the standard to marry an unrenewed person (2 Cor. 6 & 7 etc.). She knows she must not marry an unrenewed man (2 Cor. 6:14-7:2) or a snared-in-sin "devout one" (1 Cor. 5:10,11; 2 Thess. 3:6,14). If a Renewed woman in a Western assembly finds the usual shortage of devoted brothers, yet earnestly desires marriage or is commanded to marry (as in 1 Tim 5:14 or 1 Cor. 7:2,9 & 36, and 1 Thess. 4:4) she may consider marrying a Renewed brother (1) whose ÒRenewedÓ wife has divorced him exercising her option to be separate and chaste, or (2) who sinfully divorced his ÒRenewedÓ wife who now will not forgive him or be reconciled to him, exercising her option to be separate and chaste. If this Western Renewed sister is burning with passion and not successfully controlling her passions and/or imagination, she must marry according to the the writings of the Most High cited above. If she finds herself in repeated defeat morally and spiritually and the only Renewed brother who is available or interested is the one who is legally divorced from a Renewed wife who wants chaste separation without reconciliation, the choice to marry in The Most High's polygyny would be more acceptable than continued burning moral defeat. It is clearly a falling short of the standard to marry an unrenewedAp#5 or backslidden Renewed one (l Cor. 5:11; 2 Thess 3:6,14) and it is not a falling short of the standard to exercise personal liberty in The Most High's King in Contracted polygyny . What Renewed wife, ÒAÓ, would be willing to take the chance of having to share her preciously rare devoted husband with a sister, ÒBÓ, in The Most High's King who had previously been married to wife ÒAÕsÓ husband and now wanted reconciliation, even if it had to be informal, discreet and private? Can l John 3:17 mean that wife ÒAÓ, who has a devoted husband and sees her sister ÒBÓ in marital need now, should not shut up her ÒAÓ heart from her ÒBÓ, according to the Love of The Most High One abiding in her "A"Ó? Sarai had a need and asked Abraham to become a polygamist. Rachel had a need and asked polygamist Jacob to take her maids as additional wives. Then Leah did the same and the world got the twelve tribes. A devoted wife should not be selfish, seek her own, but should seek the benefit of others (1 Cor l3) and she who is strong should bear the burden of the weak one (Rom 15) as the Spirit and peace of The Most High One lead. Consider St. Augustine's thought: Clearly with the good will of the wife to take another woman, that from her may be born sons common to both, by the sexual intercourse and seed of the one, but by the right and power of the other, was lawful among the ancient fathers: whether it be lawful now also, I would not hastily pronounce.48i Does the principle of the good Samaritan enter here? Would devout wife ÒAÓ share her devout husband with the needy devout sister "BÓ, essentially laying down her own life and denying herself for the other? It is definitely not natural or carnal. The only precedents I'm aware of are like the one that involved Ruth, where the widow's need for a husband's care and intimacy to carry on the blood line was taken up by The Most High One and he mandated that the brother, married or not, had to marry her and meet her needs (Gen. 38: 9,10,11; Deut.25:5- 10; Ruth 4:1-11; Matt 22:24ff; Mark 12: 19ff;Lk. 20:28ff). The only similar New Contract passages I know of are I Tim. 5:11-14-16 with I Cor. 7:9, 36, 39 where the widow is told to remarry in the Master but she isn't told who to marry in the Master. 1 John 3:16,17 could enter here with a Renewed brother seeing her marital need and marrying her to minister and serve her as husband (like Ruth & Boaz). Are devout ones today capable of such mental and Spiritual "self-control"? A Spirit filled and Spirit led devout one could rise to such a level (Gal. 5 and Phil. 2:13 + 4:13). The women described above would be comparable to St. Augustine's man of the following: "But those who have not the virtues of temperance must not be allowed to judge of the conduct of consecrated 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 The writings of the Most High 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 consecrated patriarchs in their conjugal intercourse were actuated not by the love of pleasure, but by the intelligent desire for the continuance of their family. . . .nor did the number of their wives make the patriarchs licentious. But why defend the husbands, to whose character the divine word bears the highest testimony, when it appears that the wives themselves . . . when they found themselves barren, they gave their handmaids to their husbands; so that while the handmaids had the fleshly motherhood, the wives were mothers in intention ."48j [Bold print mine for emphasis.] What if he and his wife know a widow or a "sister" abandoned by her unrenewed husband who has come under the 1 Cor. 7:9; 1 Th. 4:3,4,5 and 1 Tim. 5:11-14 command to marry. They cannot find a "brother" for her and she is failing and burning and under the command to marry. Does it become a 1 Jn 3:16,17 situation: [paraphrased] ....He laid down His life for us. And we also ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. But whoever has a devout husband and sees her sister in need, shuts up her heart from her refusing to share her husband with her in polygyny , how does the Love of The Most High One abide in her? See Deuteronomy 25:5-10. Or like the movie where the wife was dying and knew her husband wouldn't remarry without her intervention, leaving her baby and children motherless, so she went out and found a concubine for him and brought her home to him before she died, whom he married and loved after her death at his deceased's request. An American, a normal woman, could only do such a thing by the grace of The Most High One. XI. WHATÕS WRONG WITH POLYANDRY? Why can't a Renewed woman have more than one husband? Because The Most High One has made it crystal clear from Gen 1 & 3 and l Cor 11 that the wife is under the authority of the man even though he is no better no The Most High Onelier than her. If she joins herself to another while he lives (l Cor. 7:39 and Romans 7:1-5; Mark 10:1-20) it is immorality, even if she has a perfectly legal divorce decree from the government since The Most High OneÕs laws are the final word. So why then does The Most High One allow men to have more than one wife but allow a wife to have only one husband? Why the three double standards (e.g.. 1. the male can be polygamous, but not the female; 2. the wife can separate herself chastely from her husband, but he may not separate himself from his wife at all; 3. The wife may not rule over the husband, but the husband must take the lead as her servant and she must make the choice whether or not to follow him)? This does not mean that women are second class citizens in the Kingdom of The Most High One, because the Word is clear in Galatians 3:26,27,28; Ephesians 2:6, 19-22 and Matthew 19:10-12 and 1 Peter 3:7, that even now in the spiritual realm -seated with The Most High's King now in the heavens- there is no difference between males and females in their rights, privileges and responsibilities. In terms of the spiritual warfare and influence seen in Daniel 10 and Ephesians 6:10-20, females and males have equal opportunities to be used of The Most High One mightily and effectively. So there is now no difference between the sexes in spirit in The Most High's King in the heavens. But our spirits are also now in our bodies on earth in the realm of The Evil One, the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now works in the sons of disobedience. Our reborn spirits, the Consecrated Spirit, now lives in our flesh and blood bodies, which flesh and blood bodies cannot receive our inherit the Kingdom of The Most High One and are at war (Romans 7:13- 8:11; Galatians 5:16-26) with the Spirit in us. When our bodies are transformed by The Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer they will not have blood and they will obviously have transformed flesh no longer under the influence of hormones, germs etc. So being in the body now has its problems and limitations. Being in the body on earth is a real handicap in terms of the Spirit because we daily have to practice Romans 6:1-14, crucifying the flesh daily (Colos. 3:5). The woman's body was designed and created to help/assist man (Gen.2:18; l Cor. 11:1-10). Adam needed no spiritual companion because he had spiritual communion with The Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer daily in the garden. His body needed a female body and the female body needed a compatible spirit to be the kind of flesh-spirit helper The Compassionately Cherishing Deliverer designed her to be. They were completely equal in the garden, like we will be in the spiritual realm of the heavens with The Most High's King, especially when we reign on earth with Him for a thousand years after the tribulation. But they