Topic: Ethics In Practicing Your Faith

The following is taken from foonote 9, Page 270 of Prince of Sumba, Husband to Many Wives. Copyright 2009 - Don Milton - All Rights Reserved

Mark 10:11 is confusing to many students of the Bible. In that verse, Jesus presents us with a syllogism. A syllogism is a logical argument that has the form; If A and B, then C. Here is the syllogism Jesus presented in Mark 10:11:

Whosoever shall put away his wife, and shall marry another,
                          [A]                                         [B]
committeth adultery against her.{DBY}
             [C]

Notice that the Bible DOES NOT SAY:

Whosoever shall not put away his wife, and shall marry another,
                             [NOT A]                                    [B]
committeth adultery against her.
             [C]

Since this example is not found anywhere in the Bible, we lie if we claim that a man who has not put away his wife, and marries another, commits adultery. Only when a man marries a new wife, having put away another wife, has he committed "adultery against her." William Tyndale, the first English translator of the Bible, renders it, "breaketh wedlocke to her warde" which is synonymous with "causeth her to commit adultery." Mark 10:11 is simply one of the many examples of putting away "for reasons other than fornication." Putting away, "saving for the cause of fornication," is forbidden. Marrying a new wife, without putting away another wife, is not forbidden.

Matthew 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

For those of you who are having a hard time grasping this I am adding additional material here that is not in my novel.

Let's look at a real life example of a logical syllogism.

[Whoever borrows his friend's car] and [sells that car as his own]
                     A                                                                 B
[commits fraud.]
          C
From this syllogism, we can infer the example below is true:
Henry borrowed his friend's car and sold that car as his own.
                         A                                          B
Henry committed fraud.
                   C
But when one of the antecedents (A or B) is not true then the conclusion (C) does not follow.
Henry bought his friend's car and sold that car as his own.
                NOT A                                   B
  Henry committed fraud.
                  C
In the second example, A is not true and therefore C cannot be proven. Henry bought his friend's car. He did not borrow it. So although B is true, he sold it as his own. Selling your own car is permissible so to charge Henry with fraud is unwarranted.

NOW LISTEN: The only people who think that Henry committed fraud in the second sentence are people who grew up in communist countries where strict laws against buying and selling have short circuited their brains into making them think that any activity involving buying and selling is forbidden.

Look at where you live. If your country has strict laws against polygamy then your brain has likely been short circuited to make you think that even an illogical argument against polygamy is logical simply because you've been improperly brought up to believe that is is forbidden. Remember, on the topic of buying and selling a car, you completely understood that the change of A to Not A (not borrowed but purchased) made the sale completely legitimate. Apply that to the topic of putting away and marriage. Only putting away for the purpose of marrying is forbidden. Marrying without putting away is not forbidden. Of course a woman who takes another husband commits adultery and there are verses against a married woman being with more than one man.

Romans 7:3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

The following is a typical course description for Philosophy 101 for a first year Pre-Theology student. It includes an introduction to syllogisms. You do not have to be a theologian, or a linguist to understand that [If A and B then C] DOES NOT PROVE [If Not A and B then C.] In fact, it doesn't even hint at C. You simply must have studied one paragraph from any first year logic book or even a dictionary to understand this.

PHIL101 An Introduction to Philosophical Argumentation
3 credits. This is an introductory course in logic and critical thinking as practiced by Western philosophers since the time of Aristotle, including the nature and uses of formal arguments or syllogisms; truth, validity, and soundness; the distinction between deduction and induction; and the nature and misuses of informal fallacies.

If one of the spouses in a Christian marriage gets married to someone else, is the marriage void and is the innocent spouse free to get married to another in the Lord?

The Bible gives no exception to the laws of marriage whether a couple is Christian or not. It is only a husband who may divorce his wife. A wife may not divorce her husband. A wife who has sexual relations with another man but has not been freed to remarry with a Bill of Divorcement from her husband is an adulteress and the penalty for the wife and the man with whom she has had sexual relations is death. Now neither you nor I can take the law into our own hands but death by stoning is the biblical penalty for adultery.

Leviticus 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Do we dare to change the definitions of adultery? Adultery always involves a married woman with a man who is not her husband. A married man who has sexual relations with an unmarried woman is not committing adultery. Certainly if she is not a virgin [I'll address this later in the article] he is committing a fornication worthy of church discipline but it is not adultery and it is not as serious as the case of a wife who has sexual relations with someone other than her one and only husband. Now listen, this is where people get confused. Murder is a horrible thing. It requires the death penalty according to the Bible. Is beating a man till he has black eyes and multiple bruises on his face a horrible thing? Of course it is! Does it require the death penalty? NO! The same logic applies to the difference between a wife having sexual relations with another man and a husband having sexual relations with another woman. Both are sins but the one sin is worthy of death while the other is worthy of some lesser punishment. Men and women naturally know that there is a difference between a man who has sex with women other than his wife and a woman who has sex with men other than her husband but what we naturally know is not at issue. What is at issue is what the Bible says and it simply is not adultery when a married man has sexual relations with a single woman and when a married man gets married to an additional wife it is no sin at all. It is marriage. It is not against what the Bible teaches. Now, concerning a married man who has sexual relations with a virgin.

Exodus 22:16 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.

Notice, it does not say "if a man that is not betrothed." The woman must not be betrothed and she must be a virgin [maid] for this verse to be understood to mean that the man must declare his marriage to her, that she has indeed become his wife, but there is absolutely nothing said about the marital status of the man. We must take this to mean exactly what it says unless we are not the "Bible believing Christians" we claim to be and what it says is "if a man." The man here described is any man who is not forbidden to marry her by the incest laws given in the Bible. Whenever the Bible uses the Hebrew word which is transliterated 'iysh and has it followed by a verb, it is translated as "if a man" or "whosoever" and then the verb. In this case it is 'iysh pathah and as we have seen this translates as "if a man entice." We see 'iysh nathan in Exodus 22:10-11 "if a man deliver."

If a man deliver unto his neighbour an ass, or an ox, or a sheep, or any beast, to keep; and it die, or be hurt, or driven away, no man seeing [it]:[Then] shall an oath of the LORD be between them both, that he hath not put his hand unto his neighbour's goods; and the owner of it shall accept [thereof], and he shall not make [it] good.

The phrase "if a man" that is found in both Exodus 22:10 and 22:16 as well as many other verses signifies that what follows, applies to all men and not just a select group of men. So married or not, a man who deflowers a virgin must declare his marriage to her and upon declaring that she is his wife their congregation must acknowledge that they are indeed married. A wife who does not like the fact that her husband has married a second wife has no valid reason to ask him for a divorce unless he stops providing her with the same amount of conjugal rights that she had before he took the second wife or if he decreases the amount of money set aside to take care of her food and clothing.* If he fails to do these, she can demand that her church and the civil authorities put whatever pressure is needed to force her husband to give her what is her due. Thirty-nine lashes to the husband would probably be sufficient to persuade the husband to render unto his wife her due benevolence. Divorce is such a horrible alternative that it makes sense to use corporal punishment against husbands who refuse their first wife her due benevolence after they have taken another wife. A discussion of the appropriateness of corporal punishment shall be provided in another article. Until a few hundred years ago it was considered a standard mode of punishment for certain crimes and if used it is valid according to many verses in the Bible, particularly in Proverbs.

*Exodus 21:10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.

Let's not forget, if he provides her all this, she will not have any valid reason to ask him for a divorce but every wife is free to leave her husband as long as she doesn't take another man. Wives are not slaves and since Paul states that a wife may indeed leave her husband he is clarifying that it is only the husband who must provide conjugal duties and this accords well with the fact that nowhere in the Bible does it state that a wife must not diminish her "duty of marriage" for a wife does not have any duty she must perform. The man may simply take another wife if he finds himself in the unhappy situation of living with a wife who has no interest in marital affections.

1 Corinthians 7:10,11 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

Divorce for cause [see Matthew 5:32] was not abolished by the New Testament so 1 Corinthians 7, verses 10&11 are discussing departure without cause. Notice how simply Paul puts his paraphrase of Exodus 21:10, "let not the husband put away his wife" but his wife can depart as long as she remains single. If a man could not marry more wives then Paul certainly would have taken this opportunity to write a reciprocal verse such as: [not in the Bible->] "if he depart, let him remain unmarried, or be reconciled to his wife."[<-not in the Bible] Of course no such verse is found in the Bible and Paul does not make such an instruction.

We must remember that in all cases, the woman must not be a heathen or the marriage is void from inception. "Strange" refers to those who have not adopted the worship of Jehovah and only Jehovah.

Ezra 10:10-11 And Ezra the priest stood up, and said unto them, Ye have transgressed, and have taken strange wives, to increase the trespass of Israel. Now therefore make confession unto the LORD God of your fathers, and do his pleasure: and separate yourselves from the people of the land, and from the strange wives.

What about repentance? If an adulterous wife repents must the husband take her back?
Click Here to Read the Answer.

Broken Marriages - Part One

Broken is not a biblical term concerning marriage. The couple is either married or they are not married. After a man has taken a woman as a wife there are only two things that can make her not his wife. His death or a Bill of Divorcement given by him to his wife. No court, no man, no church can make a married woman single again. Only the death of her husband or a Bill of Divorcement from her husband can make her single again. Furthermore, no court, no man and no church can declare a woman still to be married if a man has given her a bill of divorcement. That Bill of Divorcement signed by the husband makes her single. Many Christians have great difficulty understanding marriage outside the context of their government laws and that is sad. The fact is, marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with the government. The government can cause great difficulties for Christians concerning their marriages and of course a wise man will consider this in whatever actions he takes. Matthew 10:16 Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.

The following are all the verses concerning a Bill of Divorcement. [translated writing of divorcement in the New Testament]

-----------------------------
Deuteronomy 24:1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give [it] in her hand, and send her out of his house.

Deuteronomy 24:3 And [if] the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth [it] in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her [to be] his wife;

Isaiah 50:1 Thus saith the LORD, Where [is] the bill of your mother's divorcement, whom I have put away? or which of my creditors [is it] to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves, and for your transgressions is your mother put away.

Jeremiah 3:8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

Mark 10:4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put [her] away.

Matthew 5:31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:

Matthew 19:7 They say unto Him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

Mark 10:4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put [her] away.
-----------------------------

Notice that it is the man who gives the Bill of Divorcement. There is no case where a woman gives a Bill of Divorcement. This is based on the fact that woman was created for man as a helper, an astounding and one of a kind helper but a helper nonetheless. Adam poetically describes her as "bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh."

Genesis 2:18 And the LORD God said, [It is] not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
Genesis 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

By definition, a helper is one whose services belong to the one they're helping. If the helper stops helping and starts sabatoging her husband then her husband can divorce her and the Lord describes the type of sabotage for which a man can divorce his wife; "some uncleanness."

Deuteronomy 24:1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give [it] in her hand, and send her out of his house.

So what is some uncleanness? Jesus discusses Deuteronomy 24:1 in Matthew 5:31&32 when he says that a man may divorce his wife "for the cause of fornication." Since Jesus was a Hebrew and spoke to Hebrews it is of little value to look at the Greek translation of his words when we can find the Hebrew words in Deuteronomy 24:1 where the word translated as "uncleanness" [fornication] is "`ervah."

Here is the meaning of `ervah according to Strong's Hebrew concordance:

1) nakedness, nudity, shame, pudenda

a) pudenda (implying shameful exposure)

b) nakedness of a thing, indecency, improper behavior

c) exposed, undefended (fig.)

Based on this, what activities would be unclean for a woman?

- public nudity
- behaving like one who exposes herself publicly (dressing like a harlot)
- going with a man "undefended" meaning without a chaperone.

No wife should ever go behind closed doors with any man except for those who are responsible for keeping her safe, namely, her own close relatives as defined by the incest laws of Leviticus. Close male relatives include her husband, her grandfather, her father, her son, her grandson, her nephew, her father-in-law, her son-in-law, and her brother-in-law. Of course if a husband has reason to believe that any of these cannot be trusted then he can prohibit his wife from being alone with them as well. There certainly are cases where even a close relative cannot be trusted such as when the relative is a drug user, a heavy drinker, mentally ill, or where the relative has shown moral weakness in the past.

As with all discussion concerning morality, and particularly morality of the kind that can result in divorce, we must remember the following verse:

Romans 5:13 For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Have you and your church sufficiently taught the law so that those who are marrying within your church know the consequences of their actions? Can you impute sin when they sin or have you hidden sin from them? It is extremely important that every Christian, every minister, and every church teach morality in accordance with the Bible or the sins of those they counsel will be on their hands. It is too late to metaphorically tear our robes. We must start teaching from the Bible and only from the Bible today.

The article you have just read provides some clear reasons for when a man can divorce his wife. There are additional situations where a man can divorce his wife but if she has not committed any of the above then it is hard to believe that she could have committed some of the worse sins that would make her deserving of a divorce. When I add an article concerning this I will add the link here. I have already published an article concerning when a woman can ask her husband to divorce her which you can find by clicking here.

You may not marry the sister of your wife while your wife is still living. It is incest.

Leviticus 18:18 Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex [her], to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life [time].

In short, marrying two sisters at the same time is a violation of the laws against incest. You are forbidden to do it. There are some who enter into a semantic type of nonsense concerning this verse while ignoring the context. They claim that if a man doesn't set out to vex his wife by marrying her sister that he's not violating Leviticus 18:18 but that's not the point of this verse. Leviticus 18:18 is a law against committing a particular type of incest. The context in which this incest law is found is within a long list of incestuous bans.

Leviticus 18:14 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she [is] thine aunt.

This is speaking of after the uncle is dead. During the life of the uncle it would be adultery but this has no limit such as in the ban on uncovering the nakedness of a wife.

Leviticus 18:16 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it [is] thy brother's nakedness.

Again, this is speaking of after the brother is dead for during the life of the brother it would be adultery and this also has no limit such as in the ban on uncovering the nakedness of a wife.

Now let's look at the verse in question:

Leviticus 18:18 Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex [her], to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life [time].

To uncover whose nakedness? If we are using the context of the verses that precede Leviticus 18:18 then we are forced to specify that the "her" is the current wife. Like this:

Leviticus 18:18 Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex [your wife], to uncover [your wife's] nakedness, beside the other in her life [time].

You see, the wife of your sister is "your wife's nakedness." In other words, it is incestuous.

This case could be put on a test as follows:

Question: What is the only incestuous relationship that ceases to be incestuous after the death of your wife?

Answer: Marriage to your wife's sister.

   I apologize in advance for the briefness of this article. I will be expanding on it within a few months at most. There are many more reasons than the ones I have presented here that prove there are times when divorcing a wife without any sin on her part is permissible, even righteous. Take the example of a young man who has been married only a few months when he is brutally mutilated, his sexual organs removed and his tongue cut out. Should his twenty year old bride be denied a divorce and a remarriage for as long as the husband is alive? To answer that, we must ask Jesus' purpose in requiring a reason for divorcing a wife. Was his purpose to protect women or was it to cause them extreme anguish? Was His reason for saying that a man may not divorce his wife unless she committed fornication to destine a righteous wife to a life of misery? The husband who has been mutilated has already been given that destiny. God forbid that the butchers who mutilated him should be given the power through a false application of Scripture to deny his young bride a divorce and remarriage. Would it be cruel for a wife to accept a divorce from such a husband? It depends on what you mean by cruel. From whose perspective? Could a wife who was forced to continue in a marriage where the husband could not meet his sexual obligations to her retain her chastity? It is doubtful. If, therefore, it is likely that the husband would be rendered an unwilling witness to his wife's adulteries, would it not be better that he divorce her before the adultery take place before his very eyes? Better that she should appear cruel by accepting a divorce from him than become an adulteress.
   I'm sure you can think up many more verses that give permission in such circumstances to the husband to provide his wife a Bill of Divorcement. One such verse would be Luke 14:5 where Jesus "answered them, saying, Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the Sabbath day?" Honoring the Sabbath is one of the Ten Commandments and yet Jesus says it can be broken to do certain types of good. In that light, let's proceed with this study, and again, I apologize that this article could not be provided to you in a more thorough fashion but it is of such great importance that even in this abbreviated form I felt it needed to be published. I pray that no reader will think that this gives them or anyone else permission to divorce. I do not have the power to permit or forbid divorce. A husband is the only one who can divorce and the Lord provides us the Bible which each of us must read in humility and come to our own conclusions as to when a husband can actually provide a Bill of Divorcement.

Can a Woman Divorce Her Husband?

   Can a woman divorce her husband? This question involves the very nature of marriage which is a metaphor for our relationship with our Lord Jesus but before I give the long answer to this question I'll give you the short answer and some alternatives.
   No, a woman may not divorce her husband. A woman may leave her husband and a woman may ask her husband to divorce her but she may not divorce him. [This is because a marriage is a unilateral contract. I'll discuss this later in this article.]
   Paul makes this understanding of marriage in Romans 7:3 when he writes:

   "So then if, while [her] husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man."

   So if a woman can't divorce her husband then what are her options when she is married to a man who is unwilling to treat her as a wife or to a man who has defiled himself? Let's take the simplest case; a woman who is married to a man who has defiled himself. In such a case it would not be surprising that a wife would no longer want sexual relations and if she did not want any further sexual relations with the defiled husband then she would be left in a horrible situation of being married but with no outlet for her sexual needs. Here are some examples of defiled men from which such a wife might want a divorce. The penalties for these defilements are also given.

A husband who has defiled himself sexually by laying carnally with another man's wife. [An adulterer]
Penalty: Death by stoning for the man as well as for the other man's wife. [Leviticus 20:10]

A husband who has defiled himself sexually by laying carnally with the widow of his father.
Penalty: Death for both the widow and for the stepson. [Leviticus 20:11]*

A husband who has defiled himself sexually by laying carnally with the widow of his son.
Penalty: Death for both the widow and for the father-in-law. [Leviticus 20:12]*

A husband who has defiled himself by laying with a man as with a woman. [A homosexual - The Bible calls this an abomination and calls such men dogs.]
Penalty: Death Penalty [Leviticus 20:13]

A husband who has defiled himself sexually by laying carnally with both a woman and her daughter.
Penalty: Death by fire for both the man and the two women. [Leviticus 20:14]

A husband who has defiled himself by laying with an animal. [The Bible calls this confusion.]
Penalty: Death [Leviticus 20:15]

   These are clear cases of defilement and the complete list is much longer than this. If a woman asked her husband to give her a Bill of Divorcement in such cases she would not be sinning nor would the husband be sinning by giving her a Bill of Divorcement. Jesus forbade men to give a Bill of Divorcement for the hardness of their hearts but He did not forbid them to give a Bill of Divorcement out of the tenderness of their hearts. In a moment of tenderness for a wife, a wife who does not deserve a defiled husband, the defiled husband may even desire to give his wife a Bill of Divorcement. If we were living in a righteous nation, a nation that followed God's laws and carried out God's punishments, the wives of such men would not have to seek a Bill of Divorcement since their husband would be put to death and the wives would then be free to remarry. A defiled husband in virtually every country escapes the death penalty so he certainly has no cause to cry injustice if his wife uses extreme tactics to get  him to provide her with a Bill of Divorcement. If God had His way, the man would be given the death penalty.
   There are other types of men who have not defiled themselves but who are incapable of providing their wives with their marital rights. Wives would not be sinning to ask such men to provide them with a Bill of Divorcement. Here is a short list of some men who are incapable of providing sexual satisfaction to their wives.

Men whose schizophrenia or other mental impairment results in violent behavior.
Men who are chronic alcoholics or drug addicts.
Men who are physically abusive.

   Situations that fall short of what I have described above require a serious analysis before a wife asks for a Bill of Divorcement. The last thing that any man or woman wants is to find themselves party to a divorce which should never have occurred, for once a woman is divorced she cannot remarry her former husband if she has had sexual relations with another man. [Deuteronomy 24:1-4]
   To sum up, I've shown here that even though a woman can't divorce her husband she can righteously pursue a Bill of Divorcement and in Western nations it is very easy for her to make life intolerable for a husband if he refuses to provide it. Now I'll explain why a woman cannot divorce her husband.
   Marriage is a unilateral contract in that it involves three things: Payment, Acceptance, and Possession:

Payment: Bride's Price

Acceptance: Father Gives the Bride Away. In the case of a father with a deflowered virgin he is required to give the daughter in marriage or he will be guilty of prostituting his daughter. "Do not prostitute thy daughter, to cause her to be a whore; lest the land fall to whoredom, and the land become full of wickedness."Leviticus19:29 The word which is transliterated as "chalal" and translated into English in the King James as the verb "prostitute" is translated more accurately in the Strong's concordance: to profane, make common, defile, pollute, to violate the honour of, to dishonour, to violate (a covenant), to treat as common. It would be impossible for a father to remain in good standing with his community if he did not give his daughter in marriage to the man who deflowered her for that would mean he was planning to give a defiled daughter to some other future husband for she would be defiled to anyone other than the first. He would be forcing her to be profaned. The sad fact is that nearly every church and nation of the world has fallen into this wickedness but nations have the authority to enforce God's laws and they must use severe action such as the threat of corporal punishment when a man refuses to declare a woman to be his wife after having taken her virginity or when a father refuses to give his daughter in the same instance. Proverbs and many other scriptures can be used for the basis of demanding punishment of those who allow the land to be defiled.

Possession: Sexual Union

Whether the sexual union takes place before the payment and acceptance or afterwards, God's law requires that indeed the man declare the woman to be his wife. Only when the sexual union under discussion here was between a believing man and a heathen woman would it be deemed fornication. (See Ezra 10:10-11 on the invalidity of marriages between believers and heathens.)

Exodus 22:16 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.

Marriage is a Unilateral Contract

As in all unilateral contracts, only the one who has made payment can release what he has made payment for, in this case, a wife.

Marriage includes two additional stipulations to this unilateral contract.

1.) The man is required to provide the woman with her marital rights; food, clothing, and sex. [Exodus 21:10]

   If the man refuses to provide the woman with her marital rights; food, clothing, and sex, then he is required to release her but it is his decision, not hers. He is the only one who can issue a Bill of Divorcement. A woman who has been defrauded can do her best to influence such a man with whatever legal means she has at her disposal but she cannot divorce him because she does not possess him any more than an arm possesses the body. Furthermore, a righteous community would impose severe measures against any man who refused to provide conjugal duties to his wife. Thirty-nine stripes with a whip would be appropriate in such cases and it may require no more than the threat of such action by those who have the authority to take action in order to get him to give his wife the affections she is due.

2.) The woman belongs exclusively to the man.

   The man may divorce a wife who puts herself in situations by speech or action which increase the likelihood that she will not be exclusively his. A wife who seeks the advice of other men in regards to her marriage is fornicating for she is looking up to another man for advice. This is why I refuse to counsel married women. The Bible clearly forbids this. [1 Corinthians 14:35] " And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."

   It's sad that marriage is so misunderstood that Christians must re-learn what their own Bible teaches them. Custom and tradition now overshadow the marriage ceremony to the point that the simplest of transactions has been made complex by ministers who seek to inject their own hocus pocus when even the ceremony is not required. Payment, Acceptance, and Possession are all that's required for a marriage to be valid. Woman was made for man, not man for woman despite the confused ideas of men who think that they are God's gift to women. The first step toward wonderful friendships and wonderful marriages is to understand what is taught by the Bible and to follow it. Most men will agree with me that women are God's most beautiful creation and that most of them will live up to their title, helpmeet. Learning what the Bible says about our relationships is the first step in making sure that we do the right thing when our marriages, courtships, and friendships are strained.

Additional references are:
Matthew 19:8,9

Do you believe that Jesus taught that men may never divorce their wives? If you believe this, then you believe that a man who gets married deserves the same penalty as a man who rapes a virgin!

Deuteronomy 22:28,29 (King James Version)
If a man find a damsel [that is] a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty [shekels] of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

   Take note, the rapist "may not put her away all his days." If you truly believe that Jesus' teaching on marriage was that a man can never divorce his wife then you must be at least a little curious as to why Jesus would pronounce the same sentence on a man for getting married as the law pronounces on a man who rapes a virgin.
   The fact is, Jesus never forbade legitimate divorce. The false belief that a man may never divorce his wife evolved from the long standing position of the Roman Catholic church, not from any teachings found in the Bible. Those who claim that the Bible forbids all divorce can only do so by invoking the false doctrine of gender parity. Gender parity claims that all verses that apply to women, apply equally to men. Romans 7:3 is the favorite verse of gender parity advocates. Here are Paul's actual words:

"So then if, while [her] husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man." Romans 7:3

Those who teach the false doctrine of gender parity twist and yes, change Romans 7:3 by claiming that it can also be understood as follows, minus my warnings:

[WARNING! THE PARAGRAPH YOU ARE ABOUT TO READ IS NOT FROM THE BIBLE]

So then if, while [his] wife liveth, he be married to another woman, he shall be called an adulterer: but if his wife be dead, he is free from that law; so that he is no adulterer, though he be married to another woman.

[WARNING! THE PARAGRAPH YOU JUST READ IS NOT FROM THE BIBLE]

I have placed the [WARNING NOT IN THE BIBLE] marker next to the phrases above to make sure that you understand that only by CHANGING the words in the Bible can the gender parity advocates make verses that apply to women apply also to men. The gender parity advocates cannot prove their point against divorce unless they put the same restrictions that the Bible places on women upon men and they can only do this by making up words and or inserting different words. What they do is a great sin. The word woman simply does not mean man! Not only do gender parity advocates change and insert words but in so doing they muddle the meaning of the words they are using. The definition of adulterer that is found in the Bible is a man who lays with another man's wife or who lays with the betrothed of another man. It is impossible for a man to be an adulterer by legitimately divorcing his fornicating wife and taking a new wife. There is simply no verse that states this when taken in the context that the law permitted and Jesus repeated that a man may divorce his wife for fornication. A man is only forbidden from divorcing a fornicating wife when the marriage was precipitated by forcible rape. However, even in such marriages, if proven adultery is discovered (copulation between the wife and another man) then he may divorce his wife. Not only may he divorce her but the Bible demands that the government put her to death by stoning as long as that government abides by all the stipulations of biblical law in their proceedings.

Now that I've shown how ridiculous it is to believe that a man can never divorce his wife, let's look at cases where divorce is actually considered a righteous act. We'll begin with Jesus' own stepfather, Joseph, who was called a "just man" for planning to divorce Mary secretly. This was prior to his being told by the angel Gabriel that Mary was "with child of the Holy Ghost."

Matthew 1:19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just [man], and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.

Now let's find out why a man who is a just man, a righteous man, not only can but must divorce his wife if he finds out that she is pregnant with another man's child.

Leviticus 18:20 and Ezekiel 33:26 make it clear that both the adulterer (a man who lays with his neighbor's wife) and the adulteress (a married woman who lays with a man other than her one husband) are defiled.

Leviticus 18:20 "Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her."
Ezekiel 33:26 "Ye stand upon your sword, ye work abomination, and ye defile every one his neighbour's wife: and shall ye possess the land?"

Leviticus 18:24-30 warns us not to defile ourselves with any of customs of the nations out of which the Israelites came.
  
Lev 18:24 "Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you: And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants. Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit [any] of these abominations; [neither] any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you: (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which [were] before you, and the land is defiled;) That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that [were] before you. For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit [them] shall be cut off from among their people. Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that [ye] commit not [any one] of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I [am] the LORD your God."
   Now, if you don't mind being "spued out" as the "nations" that defiled themselves with such things were spued out then go ahead and ignore what the Old Testament says and when you ask me, "Why does any of this matter? We're under grace, not the law." Answer yourself and go ahead and allow marriage between children and parents, bestiality, and all the other abominations that are only forbidden in the Old Testament. But if  you're not ready to abandon those righteous laws then don't call me legalistic for asking you to show your love to God by obeying them. Sure, salvation is of grace but faith without works is dead.
   If you're so convinced that I'm legalistic when I preach that we must show our love to God by obeying Him then tell me what you would say if your kids said the following to you:
   "Oh, I love you mom and dad, I just don't have to obey you because that's legalism. You love me unconditionally because I'm your kid so I'm going to do whatever I want. If I even tried to remember your rules or pay any attention to them it would be legalism and since I can't possibly obey all of your rules I'll just give up on trying to follow even one of them. After all, it's your grace that made me your child and I'm no longer under your rules."

Can a woman divorce her husband? Click Here to Read Article

Once you know polygamy is not a sin you can't unknow it.
Pastor Don Milton

If a husband does not resolutely maintain dominion over his woman she will at once become his master and he her hated slave.
Pastor Don Milton

Custom is a costume and when we're unaware we've put it on, it puts us on.
Pastor Don Milton

And Leah said, God hath given me my hire, because I have given my maiden to my husband: and she called his name Issachar.
Genesis 30:18

Adam's sin is committed daily by men who refuse to take authority over their wives.
Pastor Don Milton

Better [is] the sight of the eyes than the wandering of the desire: this [is] also vanity and vexation of spirit. Ecclesiastes 6:9
Solomon

When Cajus was accused of Bigamy, Confessing, he professing did reply, A Bishop Husband of one wife may be: May not a Lay-man have two or three?
Owen's Epigram 134 of Book 1 translated from Latin to English in 1667 by Thomas Harvey. I first heard this from my father who learned it either in his high school or college Latin class. It is a favorite of Latin teachers to break up the monotony of an otherwise dry subject.

A wise old teacher with many wives was once asked to answer a question for the wife of one of his monogamous students. Believing he could stump the teacher, the monogamous student read his wife's question for the entire class to hear.
"Is it not true, teacher, that your wives are always bickering with one another? And that they argue about which one shall prepare your dinner?"
"That is absolutely true," said the wise teacher. Then he asked the student, "And who does your wife bicker with? And who does she argue with over who should prepare your dinner?"
Pastor Don Milton Dec. 1998 or earlier.

To offer a woman equality is to offer her shackles to bind your soul.
Pastor Don Milton

"In the universities [seminaries] they have ordained that no man shall look on the Scripture, until he be noselled [nursed or trained] in heathen learning eight or nine years, and armed with false principles; with which he is clean shut out of the understanding of the Scripture." William Tyndale From an 1849 printing of "Expositions and notes on sundry portions of the Holy Scriptures together with The Practice of Prelates"
William Tyndale - Martyred 1536

Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.
Jesus -- Matthew 10:16

They claim Adam as the model on which we should base our marriages and say that he was a monogamist. Ok, let's accept that at face value. Look what horror befalls Adam, the monogamist. He has but one wife, so not wishing to lose her he commits the original sin in accepting the forbidden fruit, thereby causing untold suffering not to mention the sacrificial death of our Lord and Savior Jesus in order to wipe that original sin away. Then his tiny monogamist family which is limited to just one birth per year, turns inward upon itself with the first born of a monogamist murdering the second born of a monogamist and then going out to be a monogamist himself! Oh what horrors monogamy causes! Of course I'm jesting. You know and I know that such arguments are ridiculous but no less ridiculous than the silly arguments of anti-polygamists against the polygamists.
Pastor Don Milton

The fear of man bringeth a snare: but whoso putteth his trust in the LORD shall be safe.
Solomon -- Proverbs 29:25

As he that bindeth a stone in a sling, so [is] he that giveth honour to a fool.
Solomon -- Proverbs 26:8

A husband who is limited in the number of wives that he may have is no longer a husband but has in fact become a wife.
Pastor Don Milton

A man who is forbidden from divorcing an adulterous wife has been put lower than a slave.
Pastor Don Milton

When goods increase, they are increased that eat them: and what good [is there] to the owners thereof, saving the beholding [of them] with their eyes?
Solomon -- Ecclesiastes 5:11

The more words, the less meaning, and what good does that do anyone.
Pastor Don Milton

A kind thought is worth repeating.
Pastor Don Milton

You who claim to be enlightened, the great pride that you take in your humility reveals your true nature.
Pastor Don Milton

The influential speak only when all are listening and the people think they have charisma. It's just timing.
Pastor Don Milton

Those who give from the heart are satisfied with the Lord's silent approval while the stingy want loud praise for empty words.
Pastor Don Milton

Learn the rules.
Pastor Don Milton

Distrust those who brag about their good deeds.
Pastor Don Milton

A real man gives to his family and community while a wimp takes all for himself.
Pastor Don Milton

One foolish friend can do more harm than seven enemies.
Pastor Don Milton

Teach your kids how to do right in your eyes and they will find contentment.
Teach your kids how to do right in the eyes of God and they shall find salvation.
Pastor Don Milton

Don't pay attention to every word that is spoken or you may hear the curses of those who serve you.
Solomon -- Ecclesiastes 7:21

No flood can put out the fire that is true love nor can it be bought.
Pastor Don Milton

Don't confuse age with maturity nor confidence with ability.
Pastor Don Milton

Great men are not [always] wise: neither do the aged understand judgment. Job 32:9
Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the kindred of Ram

A man's acceptance of his role as protector is the true measure of his manhood.
Pastor Don Milton

Disciplining your kids means making them disciples to your beliefs. Make sure you know what you believe.
Pastor Don Milton

There exists no place where two wrongs make a right. NONE!
Pastor Don Milton

The wise choose their friends.
Pastor Don Milton

Walk in thanks, not in pride.
Pastor Don Milton

Do not let your gifts be so extravagant that they shame the recipient.
Pastor Don Milton

If (A = B) and (B = C) then A = C. EVERY TIME!
Pastor Don Milton

Distrust those who are easily angered.
Pastor Don Milton

Success: To do well and right.
Pastor Don Milton

Excellence defines what is common, never the reverse.
Pastor Don Milton

Wisdom is better than many friends.
Pastor Don Milton

Wisdom is better than strength: nevertheless the poor man's wisdom is despised, and his words are not heard.
Solomon -- Ecclesiastes 9:16

The lips of the righteous feed many: but fools die for want of wisdom.
Solomon -- Proverbs 10:21

A heart full of pride is empty, while a heart full of thanks overflows.
Pastor Don Milton

Don't pay attention if someone grumbles behind your back, have you never done the same?
Pastor Don Milton

Don't excuse unkind remarks by saying, "But it's true!"
Pastor Don Milton

A man who has three wives is a polygamist. A man who has two wives is a bigamist. A man who has only one wife is a monotonist.
Cardinal Jaime Sin - Philippines

No sense of a text in the New Testament, which renders the passage contradictory to, or inconsistent with the Old Testament, can be the true one. Regardless of how it might coincide with popular opinion, or flatter our own preconceived notions of things, it is to be rejected.
Reverend Martin Madan
[Note: "however it may" has been edited to "regardless of how it might" for Modern English readers.

Beware of searching for truth anywhere but in the blessed word of God; dread as much to leave it for an instant, as a blind man would dread to walk amidst pits and precipices without a guide, or a mariner to sail among rocks and shoals without a pilot. Remember what the Psalmist says, 'Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.'
Reverend Martin Madan

Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.
1 Corinthians 14:20

If Balak would give me his house full of silver and gold, I cannot go beyond the commandment of the LORD, to do [either] good or bad of mine own mind; [but] what the LORD saith, that will I speak.
Numbers 24:13

Making human opinion the standard of truth, is like making the chameleon the standard of color.
Reverend Martin Madan

Christ only, is the Spouse of souls, and Bridegroom of His Church: And if we, who are ministers, be His friends, we ought, with John the Baptist, as the friends of Christ, the only true Spouse of souls, to send them to Him, their Bridegroom; and not to draw them to ourselves.
From Bernardino Ochino's "Dialog On Polygamy"

To condemn polygamy, is for man to prefer himself to God, Who never did condemn it, and to assume a greater degree of perfection than He.
Telypolygamus from Bernardino Ochino's Dialog on Polygamy

"The Gospel hath neither recalled nor forbid what was permitted in the law of Moses with respect to marriage."
From the translation of a notorized letter dated 1539 approving of the polygamous marriage of Philip, Landgrave of Hesse, and signed by Martin Luther, Philip Melancthon, Martin Bucer, Antony Corvin, Adam, John Leningue, Justus Wintferte, and Denis Melanther.

Among the Reverend of the Romish Creed, we see, that Matrimony, in any Sort or Degree, is utterly thrown out of Doors; though we daily see Persons, most Sir-Reverendly noted for Filthiness, promoted to their chiefest Church Dignities!
Telypolygamus from Bernardino Ochino's Dialog on Polygamy

When men once depart from the scriptures, where will they stop?
Reverend Martin Madan

I will, therefore, that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.
The Apostle Paul speaking Scripture in 1Timothy 5:14

You can't live your life to please the wife without committing the original idolatry; putting Eve before God.
Pastor Don Milton

Do not fear the false teachers with silver tongues for their mouths are always open and silver tarnishes when exposed.
Pastor Don Milton

Wives unprovok'd think not of Sway,
Without commanding they obey.
But if your dear Ones take the Field,
Resolve at once to win or yield,
For Heav'n no Medium ever gave
Betwixt a Sovereign and a Slave.
Samuel Wesley (Father of John Wesley, Founder of the Methodist Denomination)

True Britons all, I'll lay my Life
None here is Master of his wife
Samuel Wesley (Father of John Wesley, Founder of the Methodist Denomination.) As part of a poem concerning his fellow Englishmen. For those of you who have been thoroughly feminized, it was meant as an insult.

Better is a dinner of herbs where love is, than a stalled ox and hatred therewith.
King Solomon - Proverbs 15:17

All wise men know it's the woman who chooses. Only a fool chases a woman whose heart is not already his.
Pastor Don Milton from The Prince of Sumba, Husband to Many Wives

"We should take care that we do not make our profession of religion a receipt in full for all other obligations."
Reverend John Newton who wrote the hymn Amazing Grace

And I find more bitter than death the woman, whose heart [is] snares and nets, [and] her hands [as] bands: whoso pleaseth God shall escape from her; but the sinner shall be taken by her. Ecclesiastes 7:26
King Solomon

It's not surprising that we live in a nation of harlots since most ministers can't even define the word harlot or tell you where it first occurred in the Bible. The primary reason for this is that they fear teaching chastity from the Bible because it requires them to teach from the Old Testament and if they teach from the Old Testament they'll have to admit that polygamy is not a sin or lie by claiming that it is. In order to avoid either of those, they just don't teach chastity from the Bible. Instead, they rely on societal taboos but today, those taboos have vanished and without "the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God"* their flock is defenseless against the onslaught of permissive messages from American society.

The first use of the word harlot concerned Dinah, Jacobs daughter. She had been taken for sexual relations without the benefit of marriage by a Hivite prince named Shechem. Genesis 34:2 Shechem dearly loved Dinah for the Bible tells us, "his soul cleaved to Dinah the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the young woman, and spoke kindly to the young woman. And Shechem spoke to his father Hamor, saying, Get me this young woman for my wife! Genesis 34:3,4

Now when the sons of Jacob discovered that Shechem, the Hivite prince, had defiled their sister by having sex with her without marrying her first, they killed all the Hivite men, and explained the reason to Jacob their father, saying:

"Should he deal with our sister as with a harlot?" Genesis 34:31

Let's look at what happened to cause Jacob's sons to say that Dinah had been dealt with by Shechem as a harlot? What had Shechem done with Dinah? He'd had sex with her without the benefit of marriage. That's it. There are no claims that she resisted or that he forced himself upon her. Now you have the definition of harlot; a woman who has sex without the benefit of marriage, so let's look at how much worse it is to have sex with a boyfriend than to be paid to have sex.

"And the contrary is in you from other women in your whoredoms, whereas none follow you to commit whoredoms: and in that you give a reward, and no reward is given to you, therefore you are contrary." Ezekiel 16:34

So we have the Lord stating here that a woman who gives a reward to the man who she has sex with is worse than the woman who is paid to have sex. This doesn't mean it's not a sin to have sex for money. It is a sin. But horrible sin that selling your body is, it is a worse sin to give it away! Do you know any women who give presents to their boyfriends? Have you given gifts to your boyfriend? Has your girlfriend given gifts to you? When women have sex with their boyfriends and give them gifts they are the worst kind of harlots according to the Bible.

The Lord says of such women:

Ezekiel 16:35,36 Wherefore, O harlot, hear the word of the LORD: Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thy filthiness was poured out, and thy nakedness discovered through thy whoredoms with thy lovers, and with all the idols of thy abominations, (today - materialism) and by the blood of thy children, (today - abortion) which thou didst give unto them; Behold, therefore I will gather all thy lovers, with whom thou hast taken pleasure, and all [them] that thou hast loved, with all [them] that thou hast hated; I will even gather them round about against thee, and will discover thy nakedness unto them, that they may see all thy nakedness.

There is no difference between the women of today who have abortions or take RU-486, the abortion pill, and the women in Old Testament times who sacrificed their live newborns at the alter of Molech. Today's woman has simply switched gods. Instead of sacrificing to Molech, she sacrifices to the god of materialism and convenience.

This nation is full of women who have sex outside of marriage (the Bible calls them whores and harlots) and who give gifts to the men who fornicate with them. Half of the country is or has been a harlot or fornicator. If you still haven't understood what the Bible teaches concerning harlotry, let me make a final attempt to clarify. If you are a woman who lost her virginity prior to marriage and it was not due to rape, you are a harlot; a whore. You've heard of Rahab the harlot? Well if you're what I just described then you're ___________ the harlot. Just fill in the blank with your name.

Why have I focused on American harlots and fornicators in this article? Because the United States has one of the highest percentages of "Christians" of any nation in the world and yet it also has one the highest percentages of harlots and fornicators in the world. Our ministers, however, are not the only ones responsible for this decline. Every person who considers their self a Christian is responsible for their own behavior. Most homes have more than one Bible. Anyone reading this as an Internet article has online access to hundreds of Bibles. There is no excuse for any Christian not to know what the Bible teaches about chastity. Paul said, "Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body." 1 Corinthians 6:18 But you can't flee fornication if you don't know what it is. This is why it is absolutely necessary that all Christians familiarize themselves with all the teachings in the Bible concerning chastity.

In addition to the the sin of harlotry and fornication, harlots and fornicators who call themselves Christians are causing others to stumble by their poor example of what Christians are.

Now if you're a harlot or a fornicator, or a minister or brother or sister in Christ who has failed to teach chastity in accordance with the Bible, I'm telling you this for a reason. I want you to know that you have sinned and you have sinned greatly. I want you to know this so that you will be led to turn from your sins, turn to God, and begin reading and teaching from the bible. The American form of harlotry, where women give their boyfriends presents and shack up with them, even paying rent and car payments, is the WORST kind of harlotry as I have outlined here but the Lord is still able and anxious to forgive. Are you able and anxious to accept that forgiveness? Can you accept what is taught in the Bible that there is a right way and a wrong way to have sex and that the right way is in marriage? Are you ready to turn away from sin and turn to the Lord? Maybe you're already saved but just don't realize the depth of forgiveness that the Lord has given you. If you'll think about how He has forgiven you for crimes worse than those that a prostitute commits then you can experience the great love and thankfulness that those of us who have sinned greatly feel toward the Lord when we accept His forgiveness. Don't try to hide your sins from yourself no matter what those sins have been. Let the Lord "hide His face" (psalm 51:9) from those sins and cleanse you from all unrighteousness. He'll not only hide His face from them, He'll take them away as "far as the east is from the west." Psalm 103:12  It is His power and His grace that is made even more awesome when we see the great sins that He has freed us from.

If you are a harlot or fornicator let it be said about you:

Such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. 1 Corinthians 6:11

For:

If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 1 John 1:9

Rom 8:1 There is therefore now, no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. Romans 8:1

May the psalmist's prayer be yours:

"Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities. Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me. Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me. Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me [with thy] free spirit. [Then] will I teach transgressors thy ways; and sinners shall be converted unto thee." Psalms 51:9-13 Praise the Lord!

Will you join me in teaching transgressors the ways of the Lord so that sinners can be converted?

Shame on those ministers who read but don't preach the Bible. They are stumbling blocks. May each of us know the greatness of God's salvation by understanding the depth of our own depravity. In this way we can know His great love for us. May you and I learn every day how great the Lord's love is when He shows us the error of our ways. Better yet, may He deliver us from temptation!. Amen? Amen!

A final word:

You alone are responsible for the path you take. Despite the guilt of any minister or other Christian in failing to teach you from the Bible, you have a Bible yourself and may read from it at any time.

May your prayer again be as the psalmist's:

Make me to go in the path of thy commandments; for therein do I delight. Psalm 119:35

   Muslims will outnumber Christians within one or two generations if Christians don't start having more children immediately. If you don't understand why this is a problem then let me state some facts.
   Islamists, the most violent and aggressive members of Islam, are rarely (and then only in ambiguous terms) condemned by the so called "moderate forces" in Islam. The Islamists, therefore, will inevitably win out over the "moderate forces."
   The Islamists give Christians two options; have your head slowly sawed off from your neck or renounce Jesus.
  Countries that are controlled by Islam usually execute Christians who witness to Muslims within their borders. They often do this with vigilantes.
   Because of these facts, it's important that Christians multiply in sufficient numbers to keep Muslims from gaining political control of any more countries. The easiest way for Christians to multiply is through having children. It is imperative that Christians prevent Muslims from gaining more territory for when they gain territory they kill, rape, and imprison Christians. If we do not multiply then we will have no freedoms left.
   Yes, God can raise up stones into children if He wants but why should we tempt God. Aren't we men? Can't we care for our own families? Can't we marry all the Christian women who are seeking husbands? Jesus thought so highly of children that he said, "allow the little children to come unto me" but today I hear Christians talk of birth control and overpopulation. Such a lack of faith! God is blessing this world so much right now and yet Christians act like there is no hope. Did you know that the food supply is increasing in virtually every free country in the world at a rate faster than the population? It is the lack of Christianity, not the lack of food, that prevents the world from being fed. The poorest countries in the world are the ones with the lowest numbers of Christians. This is not a coincidence.
   Let's return to the Bible and have the faith of Abraham. Let's not allow our women to marry unbelievers. Look around you, aren't the Christian women among you marrying unbelievers who follow a Roman who calls himself Holy Father? Isn't the man in Rome who calls himself Holy Father blaspheming God by calling himself by the name of God? Shame! How can we turn away those precious women who dance with tambourines before the Lord and let them marry unbelievers. How can those among us who already have wives be unwilling to bring unmarried virgins into our households as wives. Oh, you say you can't afford to have more wives?

The day is not far when Isaiah 4:1 will be fulfilled.

"And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach."

   If every Born Again Christian woman in our nations has seven children and their children do likewise then in just two generations Born Again Christians will outnumber all other faiths put together. Do you want your nation to be a Born Again Christian nation or not? It is the lack of Christians throughout the world that stifles the world and clouds the judgment of our leaders. We can clear the way for the world to hear the gospel by multiplying ourselves by giving birth to many children. Are you willing to be a godly husband and father or will you surrender your freedom to worship the One True Lord and Savior Jesus the Messiah at the hands of the Islamists?

Big Love, the HBO hit show about a polygamous family is a big hit with women. Much like a Soap Opera, Big Love has grabbed women's attention. Forums about the show are filled with women. If the ratio of men to women outside those forums were the same then polygamy would indeed be part of our daily lives, and not just on the TV screen.

As for the show? I don't subscribe to HBO or any cable TV provider. It's important for Christians not to subscribe to cable providers that make their money from pushing R rated trash. That said, it's important when a show such as this catches the attention of the TV watching public that those of us who accept only what the Bible teaches on marriage share what we know about marriage with the newly curious and that we do so in a way that shows them we're serious about our faith and that our decisions are based on what we understand the bible to teach.

There is no reason that the big interest in Big Love can't give us ample opportunity to share the true Big Love of Jesus Christ and explain to others how it is our relationship with Jesus that determines our path in life. Let's take this opportunity to share the gospel and bring Christians back to the bible.

Hebrews 13:4
"Marriage [is] honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge."

This verse does not define adulterer. One must already know the definition of adultery from other verses or simply from Strong's Concordance. Since there was no Bible except the Old Testament at the time of the writing of the New Testament then every definition of adultery and fornication must be taken from the Old Testament; the only scripture ever quoted by the writers of the New Testament. Furthermore, the New Testament does not anywhere define adultery or fornication. Those terms are defined in the Old Testament and my articles site those definitions concisely.

A whoremonger is a pimp (monger = seller)(whore seller = bugaw in Tagalog).
whore - a woman who has had sex prior to betrothal/marriage See: What Is Fornication?
Note:
Engagement does NOT equal betrothal.
Consummated betrothal equals marriage.
Consummated engagement equals whoredom.

The difference between betrothal and engagement is that in most jurisdictions, engagement amounts to nothing more than a unenforceable promise. Furthermore, there is nothing in the law or custom of engagement that makes a man and his fiance become married simply by having sex. The case with betrothal is far different. Betrothal is a binding agreement which states that consummation shall result in marriage. There is a distinct difference between an unattached woman and a woman who is betrothed. The Bible gives the death penalty for a betrothed woman who lies with any man other than the man she is betrothed to marry.[1] There is no such distinction between an unattached woman and an engaged woman. Thus, engagement is quite worthless and without meaning. For most of today's women engagement amounts to an informal license to fornicate which they use to excuse shacking up with their fiance.

Hebrews 13:4 (above) states that marriage is honorable in all. This means that if a man is married then it is honorable. Was David married to his many wives? Yes. So it was honorable.Genesis 2:18, 22-25

Genesis 2:18 And the LORD God said, [It is] not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

Gen 2:22-25 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This [is] now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be o­ne flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.These verses don't limit a man to o­ne woman unless a man and woman are also limited to just the amount and type of clothing that God made for Adam and Eve; coats of skins, not any material made from anything else.

Genesis 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.If we follow the logic that we are limited to the number of things (in this case wives) that God originally gave to us then we are not supposed to wear any clothing other than animal skins because God didn't give Adam and Eve any other types of clothing. Of course this is ridiculous. You can have as man pieces of clothing and as many wives, as you can maintain comfortably.

Those who accuse men that have more than one marriage at the same time of adultery by twisting Genesis 2:18,22&25 are with or without knowing it, accusing righteous Abraham, Israel, David, and so many more great men in the Bible of knowingly committing adultery. In addition, they slander all Jews because if indeed the great patriarchs in the Bible were adulterers then all Jews are bastards since they descended from the patriarchs and specifically, Israel, the polygamist Patriarch of the Israelites. By such a lose rendering of scripture, Jesus Himself, would be a bastard through the lineage of Mary his mother who was also descended from the Israelite patriarchs. The fact, however, is that David was accused of committing one case of adultery, the case with Bathsheba, another man's wife. The Bible is so astoundingly clear on this that I'm shocked that there are those who don't want to accept the Bible's definition of adultery but I'll continue to try to help with my answer here.

In 1 Corinthians 7:2 "let each man have his own (heautou) wife, and let each woman have her own (idios) husband." lol, now remember, it doesn't say "idiot husband" it says "her own" for which the Greek word is "idios."
The Greek reflexive pronouns are different for "his own" and "her own". The reflexive pronoun for "her own" is "idios" which means unique to her, just o­ne, as in the following sentence when referring to the city of your birth of which there is just o­ne.

Luke 2:3 And all went to be taxed, every o­ne into his own city. (his own - idios = o­ne to each person)

The Greek reflexive pronoun that is used in "his own" as in "his own" wife is "heautou" which means his own in the sense that you can have more than o­ne as in the following sentence.

Philippians 2:4 Look not every man o­n his own (heautou) things, but every man also o­n the things of others.

You can clearly have many things. This is why heautou was used here instead of idios.

The Greek words in 1 Corinthians 7:2 give a clear example of where a man can have more than o­ne wife but a woman cannot have more than o­ne husband. Keep in mind that what needs to be understood here is that it is of no consequence whether the Greek word for wife is singular or plural, the Greek word "heautou" leaves open the door for more wives. It would be illogical to use plural here. If it were plural then it would be saying that every man should have more than o­ne wife which is clearly an impossibility unless God starts making tons of women. Ephesians 5:28 - 31 falls under the same logic. If the word wife were plural then it would be inferring that every man had more than o­ne wife. Of course it would not say that because even in highly polygamous societies, less than 15 percent of men have more than o­ne wife.

1 Corinthians 7:12-16 has no bearing o­n the number of wives that a man may have but if it did it cannot be taken as scripture for it is prefaced with:1Corinthians 7:12 "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord:"

It is true that marriage is between o­ne man and o­ne woman. David was not married to a bunch of women as if they were a corporation where it was between David and the corporation. David was married to each of his wives, individually.

No man is required to have more than o­ne wife. However, we are all required to understand our Bibles and not to change the meanings of words. The Bible, not you nor I, define the words adultery and fornication. They each have their own specific meaning. If our fellow Christians don't know these definitions then we must show them the verses. Please read the following article for a more comprehensive discussion of fornication.

What Is Fornication?

The definitions o­n this website for adultery and fornication are taken from Strong's Concordance and from the context of the verses in which the words adultery and fornication are found.

I'm surprised at how many Christians visiting this website find my definitions unusual when they are supported by most theologians and as I've already stated, Strong's Concordance. (No, your pastor is probably not orthodox - how could he keep getting donations if he were?)

Here are some verses that are often used to try to change the subject when it comes to defining adultery. I'll show how these verses don't do what those quoting them imply.

Hebrews 13:4
"Marriage [is] honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge."

This verse does not define adulterer or whore. O­ne must already know the definition of adultery and whore from other verses in the Bible or simply from Strong's Concordance in order to understand what is being condemned here. Since there was no Bible except the Old Testament at the time of the writing of the New Testament then every definition of adultery and fornication must be taken from the Old Testament, the o­nly scripture ever sited by the writers of the New Testament. Furthermore, the New Testament does not anywhere define adultery or fornication. Those terms are defined in the Old Testament. Please see the following article for more o­n that.

 Adultery in Your Heart - It's Not What You Think

What is notable about Hebrews 13:4 is that it states that marriage is honorable in all. This means that if a man is married then it is honorable. Was David married to his many wives? Yes! So it was honorable. David was punished for committing adultery with Bathsheba, not for having many wives. Having many wives was not then, nor is it today, adultery.

Some site Genesis 2:18 and Genesis 2:22-25 claiming that these verses have something to do with a definition of adultery.

Genesis 2:18 And the LORD God said, [It is] not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

Gen 2:22-25 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This [is] now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be o­ne flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

These verses do not use the word adultery nor can they even be said to limit a man to o­ne woman unless a man is also limited to just the amount and type of clothing that God made for him after the fall; coats of skins made by God. You'll see what I mean when you read the following verse.

Genesis 3:21
"Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them."

Follow the logic. If God made o­nly o­ne woman and that limits a man to o­ne wife then since God provided o­nly the animal skins that he clothed Adam with then men are also limited to those very same types and number of animal skins that God gave Adam after the fall. "Oh you can't have any other coat than the o­ne God gave you." Yeah, sure.

Genesis 2:24 is actually a ban o­n homosexuality, mother son sex, and an injunction to get married. Something else of note is that singleness is not an option in Genesis 2:24

It says, "Therefore SHALL a man leave his father and his mother, and SHALL cleave unto his wife: and they SHALL be o­ne flesh."

To understand any verse you must look at the verses that precede it and the verses that follow it. The verse that precedes Genesis 2:24 is of course Genesis 2:23

And Adam said, This [is] now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

Was Adam's father taken out of Adam? No. Was Adam's mother taken out of Adam? No.

Therefore, shall a man leave his father....etc. You see? If you read the verse that proceeds it you see that a man shall cleave to his wife because she is the o­ne who was taken out of him. Neither his father nor his mother were taken out of him.

Something to be very concerned about when you take positions o­n the lives of others is bearing false witness. If you're claiming that God calls men who have more than o­ne marriage at the same time adulterers by citing Genesis 2:18, Genesis 2:22, Genesis 2:23, Genesis 2:24, & Genesis 2:25 then you are also claiming that righteous Abraham, Israel, David, even righteous King Josiah who read the entire Law to the people, were knowingly committing adultery by taking more than o­ne wife since they were well aware of these passages. Certainly you don't think you have a higher I.Q. than those great men, or do you! Calling those great men adulterers is to call all Jews bastards since they descended from Israel, the polygamist Patriarch of the Israelites. By such a definition of adultery, Jesus Himself, would be a bastard through Mary his mother who was also descended from the Israelite patriarchs. David, in fact, was o­nly chastised for his o­ne and o­nly o­ne case of adultery, the case with Bathsheba. The Bible is so astoundingly clear o­n the subject of adultery that I'm shocked that anyone continues to try to redefine it. It can o­nly be a result of their being a child of this world.

Some say that 1 Corinthians 7:2 bans polygamy but in fact it acknowledges that a man can have more than o­ne wife.In 1 Corinthians 7:2 Let each man have his own (heautou) wife, and let each woman have her own (idios) husband." lol, now remember, it doesn't say "idiot husband" it says "her own" for which the Greek word is "idios."

The Greek reflexive pronouns are different for "his own" and "her own". The reflexive pronoun for "her own" is "idios" which means unique to her, just o­ne, as in the following sentence when referring to the city of your birth of which there is just o­ne.

Luk 2:3 And all went to be taxed, every o­ne into his own city. (his own - idios = o­ne to each person)

The Greek reflexive pronoun that is used in "his own" as in "his own" wife is "heautou" which means his own in the sense that you can have more than o­ne as in the following sentence.

Philippians 2:4 Look not every man o­n his own (heautou) things, but every man also o­n the things of others.

You can clearly have many things. This is why heautou was used here instead of idios.

So you can see from the Greek words in 1 Corinthians 7:2 that you have a clear example of where the Greek states that a man can have more than o­ne wife but a woman cannot have more than o­ne husband.

Now it needs to be understood that it is of no consequence whether the Greek word for wife is singular or plural because the Greek word "heautou" leaves open the door for more wives. Furthermore, it would be illogical for Paul to have used plural here because if it were plural then it would be saying that every man should have more than o­ne wife which is clearly an impossibility unless God starts making tons of women. Look at that construction: "let every man have his own wives." You see! This would be a command for all men to have more than o­ne wife. Clearly the singular for this sentence would be needed whether Paul accepted a man's right to more than o­ne wife or not. The greek word "heautou" keeps in place the Hebrew understanding of marriage which included the right to more than o­ne wife.Ephesians 5:33 is another such verse.

Ephesians 5:33
" Nevertheless let every o­ne of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife [see] that she reverence [her] husband."

If the word wife were plural then it would read: "so love his wives" and the reader would be led to the conclusion that everyone must have more than o­ne wife. In addition, the Bible never tells us to love any group. It tells us to love each member of that group, singular. You cannot love a group.

I have never disagreed with the fact that marriage is between o­ne man and o­ne woman. David was not married to a group of women as if they were a corporation where the marriage was between David and the corporation. David married each of his wives, individually.

May we always submit ourselves to the Bible. Amen!

A husband who is limited in the number of wives that he may have at the same time is no longer a husband but has in fact become a wife.

Deuteronomy 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so [are] abomination unto the LORD thy God.

How much worse if a man puts on a woman's behavior? A man who vows a woman's vow, that he shall not retain the right of a man to have more than one wife, has vowed an abominable vow. Renouncing such a vow and declaring it an abomination is an act of repentance, not an act of covenant breaking. If a man vowed at his wedding that he would forever wear a woman's garments, would such a vow be valid? God forbid! Abominable vows, abominable covenants, or abominable whatever you want to call them, are never valid. A man who vows an abominable vow must renounce the abomination and make clear to the world that he will not "put on a woman's behavior."

Permission Slip Polygamy should call itself what it is. Instead, supporters of Permission Slip Polygamy continue to refer to their belief system with the misandrist* invective; "Love Not Force".

This cruel invective does three things:

1.) It denounces men who would dare to disagree.

2.) It abuses men who disagree by insinuation.

3.) It censures discourse by insinuation.

Consider first the following weak statement that they don't use:

"I can't possibly agree with what you're proposing. We adhere to Permission Slip Polygamy."

Apparently the promoters of Permission Slip Polygamy know that their concept is so weak that they must turn to political tactics to attack those who disagree with them. Instead of debating Permission Slip Polygamy, they create a name that of itself condemns those who would disagree.

Consider the tactic they actually use.

"I can't possibly agree with what you're proposing. We adhere to Love Not Force."

The statement insinuates that the o­ne being spoken to is not loving and that they're proposing to force something o­n somebody.

Because the phrase doesn't say something like "love not brutality" or "love not bondage" the reader doesn't realize the intensity of the accusation but it's there all the same. It accuses those who don't agree with those who invoke this invective disguised as a doctrine of being unloving and of forcing something o­n someone, specifically of being mysogynists*. It shouts, "Either you're o­ne of us or you're a mysogynist."

Imagine if someone said to you,

"I can't possibly agree with what you're proposing. We adhere to Love Not Butchery."

You'd immediately know that they were calling you an unloving butcher!

The names we call our doctrines should not be invectives. I call upon all the "Love not Forcers" to call it what it is: Permission Slip Polygamy. And yes, I am most certainly questioning the motives for selecting an invective for the name of a doctrine and even moreso the motives for retaining it.

I've listed below some other well known invectives that have been used throughout history to accuse instead of define or debate. Have you ever been accused with o­ne of these invectives?

Love not Lust - against polygamy
Love not Gender - against biblical relationships
Love not Bondage - against different roles in marriage
Love not Legalism - against Sabbath keepers
Love not Words - against patient people
Love not Terror - against self defense
Love not Anger - against self defense
Love not Violence - against self defense
Love not Rebellion - against dissent
Love not Judgement - against Christians
Love not War - against self defense
Love not Greed - against private property rights
Love not Money - against private property rights
Love not Babies - against procreating
Love not Bloodshed - against self defense
Love not Religion - against Christianity

Invectives such as "Love Not Force" have no place in Christian dialog. The affect is to bring out the misandrist* in the reader by planting the thought: "Those beasts! How could they teach force instead of love!" We urge those who teach that you must get a Permission Slip from your wife in order to take additional wives to simply call it what it is: Permission Slip Polygamy