">
:: Unregistered? Register for a user account.



Christian Topics



Christian Friends

There are 5 unlogged users and 0 registered users online.

You can log-in or register for a user account here.

Languages

Preferred language:


Category: Theology Questions

The news items published under this category are as follows.
See all


Ethics In Practicing Your Faith

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.



Note: Copyright 2007 Don Milton

Posted by: Pastor_Don_Milton on Jul 19, 2007 - 01:20 AM  

Ethics In Practicing Your Faith

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.



Note: Copyright 2007 Pastor Don Milton

Posted by: Pastor_Don_Milton on Jul 18, 2007 - 10:36 PM  

Ethics In Practicing Your Faith

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.



Note: Copyright 2007 Don Milton All Rights Reserved.
All Copyright Laws Apply - Thou Shalt Not Steal


Posted by: Pastor_Don_Milton on Jun 25, 2007 - 01:06 AM  

Chastity

Many laymen and ministers misquote Jesus by repeating the liberal line, "He that is without sin, let him cast the first stone." I say 'liberal line' because this quote is not from the Bible and is certainly not what Jesus said. Jesus said, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."

Jesus was speaking to the case before him and to a specific group; the Scribes and Pharisees. The Scribes and Pharisees had brought a woman who they claimed was caught in adultery before Him. Then they did their own misquoting of scripture saying,

"Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?" John 8:5

It must be pointed out that their case had no merit because Moses in the law did not command what they said. Here is what Moses in the law actually commanded:

"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." Leviticus 20:10

Where was the man? The Scribes and Pharisees did not bring a man because they were tempting Jesus to improperly render justice so that they could accuse Him. "They said this, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him." John 8:6

The law required both the man and the woman to be stoned. Jesus did not change the penalty for adultery and it remains the same today; "The adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death." And what is an adulterer? "the man that committeth adultery with [another] man's wife, [even he] that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife."

The astounding thing about these few verses is how they have been twisted by ministers, and in lock step by their followers, in order to justify their tolerance of fornication in their own congregations. Fornication is rampant in the churches of America and nobody is doing anything about it! Listen! In November 2006 the President of the National Association of Evangelicals was ousted for "sexual immorality" of the worst kind, homosexual activity. I was not surprised because I have long preached that the churches are dens of iniquity from the top down and from the bottom up and I'm not surprised that they'll continue in their ways of fornication, pretending that their sexual immorality is "not that bad."

Now I'll go through some of the ways that the verses we have been discussing have been twisted by the immoral in the church. They're quite nutty but if you're like most Christians who've been brought up to accept western fornication as "not that bad" you likely believe some of these yourself.

Nutty twisting one:
Some Christians actually believe that this is a story of repentance yet there is not one place in this story where the woman repents!

Nutty twisting two:
Some Christians go so far as to change the meaning of the words in the story in order to claim that Jesus actually forgave the woman. Now remember, the woman never asked for forgiveness, healing, or anything at all. The Christians who claim Jesus forgave her say that He did so when when He said, "Neither do I condemn you." The actual word that is translated here as condemn means "to give judgment against." As I've explained earlier in this article. You cannot judge an adultery case without the man, the adulterer, present for there will be a stoning as soon as judgment is rendered and both the "adulterer and the adulteress" must be stoned. That is all Jesus was saying. Did he say I judge you innocent? No. Did he say you'll never be tried for this crime again? No, that would be illogical since she wasn't tried for adultery that day and that was only because the adulterer was not present.

Nutty twisting three:
Some Christians want to see Jesus as standing between the woman accused and her accusers as if they wanted to stone her. There was nothing further from their minds. They didn't want to stone her, they brought her before Jesus, "tempting him, that they might have to accuse him." Tempting him to what? Tempting him to stumble and say, "Ok, let's hear the case." They wanted Jesus to do that so that they could boast that he had not upheld the law because the adulterer was not present and the law required that both the adulterer and the adulteress be stoned. If Jesus had said, "Ok, let's hear the case," they certainly would not have gone along with it. They would have shouted, "This man is not a prophet for he breaks the law. The law says that we must stone the adulterer and the adulteress. This man cannot be a prophet for he wishes to put on trial and stone the adulteress without the adulterer!"

Nutty twisting four:
Some Christians believe that Jesus did away with the death penalty for adultery. Jesus did no such thing. Jesus simply refused to hear a case that was not brought before him in accordance with the law.

The Evil Twisting - Anti-Semitic twisting:
Some preachers are so disgusting that they don't even know they're anti-Semitic when they preach. They have preached that when Jesus said, "he who is without sin among you," that He was accusing the Scribes and the Pharisees of having committed adultery with the woman! Those pastors who preach such anti-Semitic sermons should be thrown out of their ministries without delay. They are liars and they are Jew haters. The Bible says clearly that those who hate Jews will be cursed. They will bring curses upon their churches, the members of the churches that support their ministries, and if there are enough of such anti-Semitic preachers in a nation they will bring those curses down upon an entire nation. Concerning the promised descendants of Abraham, the nation of Israel, the Lord says:

And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. Genesis 12:3

Any ministers reading this who have preached falsely concerning any of these verses that are clear to any non-biased reader must repent and teach in accordance with the Bible, nothing more and nothing less.



Note: Although the oldest and most reliable manuscripts do not include the story of the woman "caught" in adultery, the story is not inconsistent with what Jesus taught when understood in context.

If you have questions or comments concerning this article please
click here
to send a message to Pastor Don.


Posted by: Pastor_Don_Milton on May 13, 2006 - 07:45 PM  

Member's Lounge

1 Corinthians 7:2 Nevertheless, [to avoid] fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

1 Corinthians 7:2 is often brought up as a proof against polygamy but a closer look shows it's exactly the opposite. The word translated as "her own" that precedes husband is "idios" from which the English word idiosyncrasy derives, one peculiar to her. Now we've all heard the expression "they share the same idiosyncrasy" and indeed, a woman may also share the same husband, as is the case with polygamy, made clear by Paul's choice of the word "idios". On the other hand, the word translated as "his own" that precedes wife is "heautou" which actually translates as "hisself" without conveying a limit in number but a limit in who possesses that wife. For example, in America, if you're from the South or the Inner City and your brother went to get more food at the family reunion you might say, "he got hisself another helping" and by saying that you're not saying he won't get "hisself" a helping again and again, lot's of helpings. Those of us who have not been blessed with this deeper English would say "he got himself another helping" and the meaning of the original Greek would not be as easily conveyed.

KJV Translates 1 Corinthians 7:2 as follows: Nevertheless, [to avoid] fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

KJV Should be corrected as follows: Nevertheless, [to avoid] fornication, let every man have himself a wife, and let every woman have a husband peculiar to her.

Such a translation is more accurate and does not allow for the twisting of this verse to claim it forbids polygamy for this verse actually shows the authority of man over woman in that he is nowhere limited to one wife but she must have a husband who is idiosyncratic to her... an idiosyncrasy she may indeed share with his other wives.

A commentary, critical and explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments contains the following citation by Steiger which explains the distinction between the words used for "her own" husband and "his own" wife as found in 1 Corinthians 7:2 and elsewhere.
"Nevertheless, [to avoid] fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." 1 Corinthians 7:2

your own—enforcing the obligation: it is not strangers ye are required to be subject to. Every time that obedience is enjoined upon women to their husbands, the Greek,idios,” “one’s own peculiarly,” is used, while the wives of men are designated only by heauton, “of themselves.” Feeling the need of leaning on one stronger than herself, the wife (especially if joined to an unbeliever) might be tempted, though only spiritually, to enter into that relation with another in which she ought to stand to “her own spouse (1Co 14:34, 35, “Let them ask their own [idious] husbands at home”); an attachment to the person of the teacher might thus spring up, which, without being in the common sense spiritual adultery, would still weaken in its spiritual basis the married relation [Steiger]

Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., Fausset, A. R., Brown, D., & Brown, D. 1997.
A commentary, critical and explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments.
Theological dictionary of the New Testament contains the following citation by F. Buschel that clarifies the meaning of idios.

God is the pater ídios of Jesus; no others stand in the same relationship (John. 5:18). F. Büschel, IV, 737-41]

Kittel, G., Friedrich, G., & Bromiley, G. W. 1995, c1985.
Theological dictionary of the New Testament.
Translation of: Theologisches Worterbuch zum Neuen Testament. W.B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Michigan

From these two citations we see that idios specifies belonging to one and only one while heautou does not. The New Testament never strays from this language. As Steiger points out, "Every time that obedience is enjoined upon women to their husbands, the Greek,idios,” “one’s own peculiarly,” is used, while the wives of men are designated only by heauton, “of themselves.”" In other words, the law against a woman having another man is built into the very morphemes (elements of meaning) that form the words of the Bible, but there is no such law built into the language of the Bible, nor written in the commands, against a man having more than one wife.*



Note: Are you keeping your wife from sin? There is no reason that your wife should consult any man for advice. The Bible forbids it (1Corinthians 14:34,35) and Steiger has explained how not only is it forbidden in plain language but it's built into the very meaning of the Greek words used to forbid it.

If you have questions or comments concerning this article please
click here
to send a message to Pastor Don.
Polygamy is the common term today for what is more specifically called polygyny.


Posted by: Pastor_Don_Milton on May 12, 2006 - 08:39 PM  

Chastity

Speaking of the end times, the Bible says:

In that day shall the branch of the LORD be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the earth [shall be] excellent and comely for them that are escaped of Israel.
Isaiah 4:2

Now what event happens before Isaiah 4:2? Well of course, Isaiah 4:1 and it is written as follows:

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.

Now keep in mind that this does NOT refer to the seven churches of Asia for notice, it says, "We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: o­nly let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach."

The churches will not be wearing their own apparel. They will be wearing the robes of righteousness provided to them by the Lord. For the churches to claim they would wear their own robes would be tantamount to saying they did not need nor want the robes of righteousness provided by the Lord.

I will greatly rejoice in the LORD, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decketh [himself] with ornaments, and as a bride adorneth [herself] with her jewels.
Isaiah 61:10

So it's clear to see that the women spoken of in Isaiah 4:1 are real women in this world marrying real men in this world. Now in what generation have women ever had the economic ability to support themselves as spoken of in Isaiah 4:1? o­nly within the last century have women approached the kind of economic freedom that would allow them to make such an offer to a man, that they would be willing to support themselves, if o­nly he would marry them. Now just because the woman's offer is to support herself, don't think that this will be the case. The verse is simply showing the strength of the desire to have children that the seven women would have in that they would gladly support themselves. It's stating the tremendous yearning that they have to fullfill their destiny as mothers and wives.

To clarify that when Isaiah 4:1 talks about the o­ne man taking away the reproach of the seven women it is talking about the man giving her children, I've given some verses below.

And she conceived, and bare a son; and said, God hath taken away my reproach: Genesis 30:23

And after those days his wife Elisabeth conceived, and hid herself five months, saying, Thus hath the Lord dealt with me in the days wherein he looked o­n [me], to take away my reproach among men.
Luke 1:24&25

The day is coming soon when Christian men will not fear taking more than o­ne Christian wife for the Lord wants us to be fruitful and multiply. This is not possible if the single women in the church are not given husbands; are not given a man to take away their reproach. Since Isaiah 4:1 must be fullfilled before Isaiah 4:2 is fullfilled we must ask ourselves; will the Lord return o­nly after we are practicing marriage in accordance with the Bible? Remember, this is what Isaiah 4:2 says:

In that day shall the branch of the LORD be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the earth [shall be] excellent and comely for them that are escaped of Israel.





Posted by: Pastor_Don_Milton on Aug 05, 2005 - 08:39 PM  

Ethics In Practicing Your Faith

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?



Note: [1] Deuteronomy 22:23,24
If a damsel [that is] a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, [being] in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
If you have questions or comments concerning this article please
click here
to send a message to Pastor Don.


Posted by: Pastor_Don_Milton on Jul 05, 2005 - 06:13 PM  

Chastity

It is often the case that those attacking men's reproductive rights (the right to have more than o­ne wife) fail to read their Bibles thoroughly. A correct rendering of Ecclesiastes 2:8 is found in the Darby translation which you can find below. A similar version can be found in the Revised Standard Version of the Bible.

I gathered me also silver and gold, and the peculiar treasure of kings and of the provinces; I got me men-singers and women-singers, and the delights of the children of men, a wife and concubines. Ecclesiastes 2:8

For those who would say that this verse does not endorse having more than o­ne wife I ask, why did the translators of the King James Bible and other bibles based on the King James decide to incorrectly translate the word to something other than the actual word which means "concubine?" What were they covering up?

The Hebrew word in question, "shiddah", is translated in the Strongs Hebrew Lexicon as concubine, wife, or harem but instead of using o­ne of those words in the King James Bible the translators used the word musical instruments. The fact is that there is not o­ne negative reference in the Bible to a man's having more than o­ne wife. The o­nly negative references in the Bible to a man's relationship with his wife concern the o­ne to o­ne relationship between a husband and his wife not any type of ganging up o­n him by his wives although such a situation could easily be made into a comedy.

If it is a delight to have more than o­ne wife then let's admit it. Men have rights too and o­ne of those rights is to have many wives.



Note: If you have questions or comments concerning this article please
click here
to send a message to Pastor Don.


Posted by: Pastor_Don_Milton on Jul 05, 2005 - 12:47 AM  

Chastity

The Bible does not forbid marrying your cousin so let's make sure in our zeal to help others that we don't confuse what our culture teaches with what the Bible teaches.

Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Leviticus 18 lists the forbidden relationships and cousins are not forbidden nor is cousin marriage forbidden anywhere else in the Bible.

God may have chosen your cousin for you and if He chose him it would be a sin to walk away from this. There is no evidence that there is a significant increase in birth defects when cousins marry. The preferred marriage among the Israelites was cousin to cousin marriage and Jews to this day have an average I.Q. of over 120 with the highest population of Geniuses in the world. Ever hear of Einstein?

Both Albert Einstein and Charles Darwin married their first cousins. If such scientists as these had no fear of "defects" in their children then you should not. Their children were all healthy and bright. However, if you're really stupid and your cousin is really stupid then there is a much higher chance that your children will be really stupid. Is there room for a little humor here?

The fact is that cousin marriage was banned by the Roman Catholic church under 'Pope Gregory I' in an attempt to prevent the accumulation of wealth and power within families. The popes saw wealth among the common man as competition for their own power. This power structure exists in the Philippines to this day and is hampering economic development. The ban had nothing to do with our Bibles which we read regularly, don't we?

Civil disobedience has a long history within the Christian community. You've all heard of people power. When the people gathered by the thousands outside of Malacanang to oust Marcos that was against the law. Was it a sin? No. If you must go to another province or state to marry your cousin so that nobody will report you then that is what you must do. Will that be against the law? Maybe. Is it a sin? No. This is not unheard of in the Philippines, The United States, and many other countries where Born Again Christians live in sufficient numbers to make such laws of no effect. I know of such a couple in the Philippines and they live happily to this day. They're now in their 60s with 5 children and many grandchildren. They're born again of course because it is the pope who forbids cousin marriage, not the Bible.



Note: If you have questions or comments concerning this article please
click here
to send a message to Pastor Don.


Posted by: Pastor_Don_Milton on Apr 01, 2005 - 12:56 AM  

Ethics In Practicing Your Faith

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!



Note: If you have questions or comments concerning this article please
click here
to send a message to Pastor Don.


Posted by: Pastor_Don_Milton on Mar 25, 2005 - 01:32 AM  

Food For Thought

Many lay people and homespun ministers have tried to say that 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6 are written against polygamy. However theologians throughout history, have not claimed this. The problem with considering 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6 as injunctions against polygamy is two fold.

First, the question arises, why ban polygamy to become a Bishop, Elder, or Deacon but not to remain one. This question cannot be overlooked. There is nothing in the text that suggests whatsoever that the man who becomes a Bishop, Elder, or Deacon may not after having received his office, take more wives and there are certainly no punishments outlined for anyone whosoever that takes more than one wife.

Second, if 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6 are bans against polygamy then what is 1 Timothy 5:9 for it says, "Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of o­ne man." This is why theologians throughout history have not considered 1 Timothy or Titus to have anything to do with polygamy. Paul wouldn't write something so silly that banned something that didn't exist in his time; a woman who was really married to more than o­ne husband. So what is the key to this verse? As always, it's found in the surrounding paragraphs.

In 1 Timothy 5:3 Paul says regarding widows - "Honour widows that are widows indeed." What does Paul mean by this? What characteristics do most harlots and widows share? That's right, children. One of the things that Paul is saying here is NOT to consider a harlot to be a widow. Just because she has children don't assume that she's a widow. Check things out. The woman is required to have been married to the father of her children and he must be deceased in order for her to be considered a widow. She cannot be a runaway bride or a harlot.

1 Timothy 5:3 "Honour widows that are widows indeed" precedes and sets up the understanding for 1 Timothy 5:9 "wife of one husband" making it clear that "wife of one husband" simply means that she has been married already.

1 Timothy 5:3 & 5:9 clarify 1 Timothy 3:2 as well as Titus 1:6 since the phrases "wife of o­ne husband" and "husband of o­ne wife" are identical in form. What they clarify is that we're talking about someone who is or who has been married. So "husband of o­ne wife" means "a man who is or has been married."

The expression "husband of one wife" and "wife of one husband" came to mean something other than one and only, but how? Languages have subtleties that cannot be understood when separated by such great time periods as we are from the original writings. If I say to you that you're "one sharp dude" it doesn't mean the number one, it means "a" and sharp doesn't mean sharp like a knife, it means smart, and dude doesn't mean a guy from the city. It just means a guy. In two thousand years from now you'd need a linguist by your side and lots of hours to study comparative texts to find that out.

But finally, a discovery concerning the expression - Husband of One Wife

Paul's intent was not to ban men who were not Husbands of One Wife from the office of Bishop, Elder, and Deacon but to give them the honor of an exemption from that duty! When we look at Paul's statement from the viewpoint of an exemption from duty rather than a ban from eligibility it sheds an entirely new light on both 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6. In order to understand this exemption from duty, yes, this privilege, we must look at two things; the definition of Bishop, Elder, and Deacon AND Jus Trium Liberorum*. You say, Jus Trium Liber-or-what? Stick with me, now. This is a point in history that has been long forgotten, and conveniently so, by those who might have come up with the perfect explanation for 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6 long before I have here.

Jus Trium Liberorum* was a status granted citizens of Rome who had at least three children. One of the privileges of Jus Trium Liberorum* was to be exempted from all inconvenient offices. In cities other than Rome, a man was required to have at least four children to be granted such an exemption and in remoter parts of the Roman Empire as many as five or even up to seven children were required to gain such an exemption. It is of note that this new law first made its way through legislation a few years before Christ's birth and had already been fully implemented prior to His crucifixion. Every Roman citizen would have been aware of this new law which gave privileges to those men who had the most children and one of the greatest privileges was to be exempted from holding certain public offices. Now, either husband of one wife had come to mean a man without enough children to qualify for the exemption (and this is the most likely since we can imagine those who serve in offices that nobody else wants having their friends coming up to them kidding, "now here you see, the husband of one wife.") or Paul, aware of this new law, granted  men with more than one wife the same exemption that men with many children had, with the understanding that a man with more than one wife would certainly have many children. Thus, Paul was stating that only a man with one wife, specifically, a man with few children, should be considered for the least sought after positions in the church, namely, that of Elder, Bishop and Deacon. Those with more than one wife were given the privilege of an exemption. Now you're probably asking yourself why in the world wouldn't someone want those high positions in the church of Elder, Bishop, and Deacon. The answer is that those were, and would still be if defined according to the Bible, the least sought after offices in the church. So much so, that Paul had to preface his statement concerning his exemption for those with many children by saying, "This [is] a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work."1 Timothy 3:1. Paul is essentially saying, it's not a worthless job. It's a good work. Today we have the expression to do good works which refers to doing charity work. Just like the good works of charity, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the good works of the offices of Elder, Bishop, and Deacon. Performing such functions is a good work but let's make sure to properly define those offices.

The offices of Elder, Bishop, and Deacon have been incorrectly defined in the minds of both layman and church officials for millennia. This is one reason for the current state of the churches wherein we have unchecked fornication, adultery, and debauchery in nearly every church in the United States. If you don't believe me, answer this question concerning your church: Are ninety percent of the single women over the age of twenty, virgins? How about eighty percent? Would anyone believe, seventy percent? You and I both know that it's likely that no more than thirty percent of the single women in the churches who have attained the age of twenty are virgins. In fact, it's probably closer to ten percent, and why is this? It's because the churches do not have Elders or Bishops as defined by the Bible! The comparable civil office to the church office of Elder is Sheriff and the comparable civil office to the church office of Bishop is Deputy. A Deacon is merely an administrative assistant. Take a look at the following Strong's Concordance definitions of these church offices if you don't believe me.

Elder: Those who in separate cities managed public affairs and administered justice.
[This definition applies within the church in the capacity of a prosecutor.]

Bishop: Investigation, inspection, visitation.
[This definition applies within the church in the capacity of a sheriff.]

Now, don't get confused. When you look at Strong's Concordance it will list other definitions concerning what functions are performed by such officials in the church. That is exactly my point. The definitions of the words have been changed by various churches but the words still mean what they meant when they were written and they were written before any such offices existed. They were written when the words meant exactly what you read in the definitions I've listed above!

From these you can see that within the Church, an Elder is a unpaid Sheriff or an unpaid District Attorney or for those of you in Europe an unpaid Chief Inspector whose function is to oversee, i.e., police those who are members of the church. The Elder administers justice. He does NOT administer the church. And again, at the time of Paul, he was unpaid even though the position required a huge amount of work. He worked on behalf of the apostle of the appointed area or on behalf of the pastors of the area but he did not administer the church!

Let's look at what the Bishop does. He is the one who actually goes out to do the investigations, inspections, and visitations. These are not pastoral visitations. They would not likely be welcomed by those being visited and in many cases, the Bishop might dread going on the visitation to determine the facts concerning the the misdeeds of Church members.

So what do we have in a church without Elders and Bishops who carry out the true duties of Elders and Bishops? We have unchecked fornication of the kind that has never been seen in the history of the Christian Church. The sins of the Popes, Cardinals, and Friars pale in comparison to the sins of the present day Protestant Church! Need I say, REPENT!

One of the reasons that these offices have not been filled in accordance with Scripture is that they truly are offices that nobody wants. Would you like to go to someone's house to discuss their wayward son's taking the virginity of two of the young women in the church? If you're normal, the answer is no. This is why the Apostle Paul commanded Timothy to do what? To appoint Elders in every city and as you can see from the definition of Bishop, the Bishops were to be under the supervision of the Elder in each city who, as I've already explained, served at the pleasure of either the Apostle for the region or the Pastors in that region.

Deacon: A servant, attendant, domestic, to serve, wait upon.

No more comment need be made on the office of Deacon other than to say, few would want such an office. All of the aforementioned offices would certainly be categorized when properly defined as "inconvenient" to say the least and therefore Paul exempted those with many children from serving in those offices. Certainly Paul did not err in handing out privileges to those who were following God's command to multiply, not to mention that carrying out the duties of Elder and Bishop could be greatly hindered by a large family. (Again, don't get confused with your own definition of Elder and Bishop. An Elder and Bishop could be required to work long hours. Think of how many officials it would take to clean up all the churches in your community of their present state of immorality!)

From the above explanation we can see that half of the function of the Church is crippled. One part of a church's function is evangelizing and exhorting but the other is to maintain discipline within the congregations. That discipline requires the properly assigned Church offices of Elder and Bishop. Clearing up these definitions and explaining Jus Trium Liberorum* not only takes care of explaining 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6 but it also explains 1 Timothy 5:9 for why would Paul say that a widow, in order to be on the widow's list must be the "wife of one man" if not for the fact that the wife of one man would have few children and would not have anyone to take care of her. The wife of more than one man, after the death of the first, of course, would be likely to have many children who could take care of her. Paul further clarifies his point as we see in 1 Timothy 5:16 that it is the relatives who are to take care of their widows so that the church might only take care of those "that are widows indeed."

So we see that 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6 are exemptions, not prohibitions. Paul's point isn't that a man who is not the "husband of one wife" is disqualified from becoming an Elder, Bishop, or Deacon, but that the man with more wives, thus, more children, is exempt from such unwanted duties. As I've already pointed out, prior to Paul's giving this exemption he felt it necessary to explain that even though men who are not "a husband of one wife" (men with lots of children) are exempted from such offices, the taking of such an unwanted office is a good thing and that no man should be ashamed of accepting these positions. Read 1 Timothy 3:1 again:

This [is] a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 1 Timothy 3:1

Again, as I've already said, if such an office were highly sought after, why would Paul need to make such a statement prior to exempting men with many children from the office?

I want to make sure, also, that you understand that neither an apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor, nor teacher is an Elder, Bishop or Deacon. Whether one could successfully execute both offices is debatable, nonetheless, they are separate and unique functions in the Church.

Before closing I'd like you to consider the following. When Paul gave his instructions to Timothy and Titus, he was giving them with the understanding that Timothy and Titus would be selecting officers from their own congregations. In other words, Timothy and Titus would be selecting from men who had been baptized in their churches, were receiving communion without restriction, and were in good standing. Timothy and Titus surely would not have been so imprudent to do otherwise. If Paul found it necessary to give the exemption from serving as Elder, Bishop, and Deacon to men who were not "the husband of one wife" then we know that there were men who were not "the husband of one wife" within the congregations of both Timothy and Titus, period! If polygamy was so bad then why in the world would Paul give polygamists special privileges?

* Jus Trium Liberorum is the term frequently used to describe what is more accurately called the Lex Papia Poppaea, A.D. 9, which granted special privileges to men with many children and punished celibacy by limiting the rights of single men. This can account for Paul's discussions on celibacy which should not be taken as encouraging celibacy but as defending the right of a man or woman to voluntarily choose marriage instead of feeling compelled to marry by government decree. The Lex Papia Poppaea decreed punishments such as the loss of inheritance rights for those who remained single after having attained puberty up to the age of fifty for women and sixty for men. A man or woman was given one hundred days to get married upon finding out they were the beneficiary of an inheritance or forfeit the inheritance. The Lex Papia Poppaea also specified certain forbidden marriages because of class distinctions. There are many more interesting details of this Roman law which I'll address in another article.

References: A Systematic and Historical Exposition - ROMAN LAW - In the Order of a Code by W. A.Hunter EMBODYING THE INSTITUTES OF GAIUS AND THE INSTITUTES OF JUSTINIAN, TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH BY J. ASHTON CROSS, B.A. of Balliol College, Oxford, BARRISTER-AT-LAW, Fourth Edition 1803



Note: Pastor Don Milton received his Bachelor of Arts in Linguistics from the University of Washington in 1987, has studied five languages and regularly speaks a language other than his own.

If you have questions or comments concerning this article please
click here
to send a message to Pastor Don.


Posted by: Pastor_Don_Milton on Mar 10, 2005 - 10:24 PM  

This Ministry

Jesus could only have been married if He had no Children. Yes, Children would have to be capitalized for His Children would be begotten of God (Jesus,) not created. They would be Gods.

Furthermore, if Jesus had Children, regardless of the sins of His wife, His Children would have been born sinless, just like Jesus. Sin is passed down patriarchally (doctrine of original sin) through Adam to everyone except Jesus, since Jesus' Father is God, and Jesus was therefore sinless.

Now, even if you don't accept the doctrine of original sin, Paul would have known about Jesus' Children, if He had them, and Paul therefore would not have referred to Jesus as the Last Adam in his writings because the Children of Jesus would have been the 3rd Adam or the 2nd Eve and so forth. Even if you claim that Paul might not have known, it wouldn't matter, Paul was writing Scripture, inspired by the Holy Spirit. That made what Paul wrote God's word, and that word of God stated that Jesus was the Last Adam. Jesus could most certainly have been married, there is no sin in that, BUT He could not possibly have had any Children or God's word would not refer to Jesus as the Last Adam. That means that any wives that Jesus may have had would have been barren and NOT mentioned for not one barren wife is mentioned in the entire Bible if she did not subsequently bear a son. In fact, not one Israelite wife is mentioned in the entire Bible if she did not bear at least one son.

Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
Romans 5:14

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
1 Corinthians 15:22

And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit.
1 Corinthians 15:45



Note: If you have questions or comments concerning this article please
click here
to send a message to Pastor Don.


Posted by: Pastor_Don_Milton on Mar 09, 2005 - 10:42 PM  

Chastity

If there is o­ne word in the Bible that modern day Christians can be said to discuss most but understand least, it is the word adultery as it pertains to marriage.

If I were a betting man, I'd bet that 99% of you cannot properly define the word adultery.

Here's a simple test:

If a married man has sexual intercourse with his single secretary, has he committed adultery?

If you answered yes then you don't know the definition of adultery.

The fact is that anyone who has sexual intercourse outside of marriage has indeed committed a sin (harlotry*) but if the woman involved is not a married woman then it is not called adultery.

It is impossible for a single woman to commit adultery.

Adultery refers to a specific kind of sexual sin; Sexual intercourse with another man's wife or a woman betrothed to another man.

That's it. Nothing else.

This is the definition provided by Strong's Exhaustive Concordance which is the concordance favored by theologians.

But even without the Strong's Concordance we can understand the definition of adultery by the dozens of verses referring to it in the Old Testament, the Bible that Jesus quoted.

The first reference to the word* adultery is found in the 7th commandment.

Thou shalt not commit adultery. Exodus 20:14

The second reference to adultery defines it and gives the penalty for it.

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.Leviticus 20:10

The verse above is word for word and bracket for bracket what is written in the King James Bible.

Every reference to adultery in the entire Bible concerns sexual intercourse between a married or betrothed woman and a man other than the o­ne to whom she is married or betrothed.

Solomon clarifies that adultery is a crime against men in Proverbs 6:32-35

But] whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding: he [that] doeth it destroyeth his own soul. A wound and dishonour shall he get; and his reproach shall not be wiped away. For jealousy [is] the rage of a man: therefore he will not spare in the day of vengeance. He will not regard any ransom; neither will he rest content, though thou givest many gifts.Proverbs 6:32-35

The Bible is gender specific when it comes to marriage. It does not use the word spouse except in the Song of Songs where in fact it is not gender neutral, it refers to the writer's bride and is translated in all other places in the Bible as daughter-in-law or bride.

The rights of women and the rights of men are very different in the Bible. Women have some rights that men don't have and men have some rights that women don't have.

We can now more easily understand Matthew 5:27&28, the verses that speak of "adultery in the heart," but there are two more words that we must define in order to fully understand it:

Lust: to desire something forbidden
Romans 7:7b - "for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet."

Woman: both the Hebrew word and the Greek word for woman can also be translated as wife.

Now that you know the meanings of the words let's go to the context.

Let's start with the first verses found in Matthew 5 that have a similar structure to the o­nes we're studying, namely, they begin with "Ye have heard" and are followed by "But I say unto you."

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. Matthew 5:21&22

Notice that Jesus is referring to the 9th & 6th commandments:

Exd 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Exd 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.

Jesus shows here that there is a sequence of events that leads up to murder. First; unjustified anger, second; bearing false witness, and third; murder.

Jesus uses the same method to explain the steps that lead to adultery in Matthew 5:27&28

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh o­n a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.Matthew 5:27&28

Notice that he's referring to the 10th & 7th commandments:

Exd 20:17 ...thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife...

Exd 20:14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Jesus shows here that there is a sequence of events that leads up to adultery. First; Looking upon another man's wife; second; lusting after her, third; committing adultery with her.

What is often not perceived by modern readers in our modern culture is that the admonition not to "looketh o­n a woman to lust after her" is an admonition not to break the 10th commandment; not to covet thy neighbor's wife because that will lead to adultery, the crime of having sexual intercourse with another man's wife.

In the two cases above, murder & adultery, Jesus explains the importance of not speaking ill of others and of not desiring forbidden things because doing so will lead to murder and adultery.

Jesus did not give a new command here to deny your sexuality. It is natural for men to desire women and for women to desire men otherwise nobody would ever get married. Properly directed sexual desire is God given, it is good. It shows that you're healthy.

Jesus words must be understood in the context of the meaning of each word as well as the context of each paragraph. A man or woman who has a strong sexual desire for the person they expect to marry or would like to marry is not sinning.

Here is Matthew 5:27&28 with the meanings of the words inserted for greater clarity:

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery [with thy neighbor's wife] but I say unto you, That whosoever looketh o­n a [married] woman to [covet] her  hath committed adultery with [another man's wife] already in his heart.

Finally, I am saddened at the number of times that I have seen Kirk Cameron o­n his T.V. show, "Way of the Master" improperly training the Christian audience o­n how to witness to unbelievers. I wrote Kirk Cameron complaining about his sin and I was responded to by Judy Notchick who sent a copy of her response to S.G. Scott. The accusation has been made therefore, to the man, Kirk, and before two or three Witnesses, S.G. Scott & Judy Notchick. So now it's time to bring it before the Christian community.

Here is the sin that is repeated over and over again o­n Kirk Cameron's The Way of the Master Television show. With the T.V. cameras taping, Kirk or his sidekick Ray Comfort says to a woman:

"Jesus said, If you look with lust.You have already commited adultery in your heart."
"Have you ever looked with lust?"
The unsuspecting woman says, "Yes, of course."
The average person o­n the street will think that the Bible meaning of the word lust is the same as the common English usage of the word, so they say yes. Yet the Bible's usage means to desire something forbidden. If the single woman is desiring the man she is hoping to marry someday then certainly she hasn't sinned. But Kirk or Ray continue without explanation.
"Then you've committed adultery in your heart. Do you know what the penalty for adultery is?"
The unsuspecting woman says, "No."
The response is, "Death."

This is supposed to lead people to Christ? It's disgusting. It's a lie first of all. Sexual desire does not equal lust. Lust is to desire something forbidden, to covet. The sin Jesus spoke of in Matthew 5:27&28 is to look upon a married woman with lust in your heart as you have learned in this study since the definition of "lust" is to desire something forbidden and the definition of "adultery" is sexual intercourse with another man's wife. In fact, it is impossible for a single woman to commit adultery!

THE PROBLEM with calling normal, healthy desires adultery is that it is a LIE!

Secondly, those who are not Christians will believe that it is impossible to be alive without continually committing adultery in the heart when in fact it is quite easy. Many men do live without committing adultery in the heart. They don't look at other men's wives with lust. They have the entire world of available women to look at. They don't need to look at other men's wives. Furthermore, non-Christians will believe that when they become Christians they'll be expected to pretend that they have no desires because Kirk and Ray have labeled most normal sexual desires, (as opposed to the forbidden sexual desire for another man's wife) adultery! Is it any wonder that young men are not to be found in the churches?

Yes, nearly everyone has committed some kind of sexual sin in their heart but let's at least get our definitions right. If we're going to be godly witnesses then we must tell the truth. Becoming a Christian does not mean that we are to pretend that we do not thirst for water. Why should we teach that it means that we do not desire the "bone of my bones" as Adam so poetically stated and as the pages of the Song of Songs so wonderfully describe?



Some of you may not have paid any attention to what I have just explained and are asking, "Then why didn't Jesus just say wife?" For you, I must say please please, read and understand. We have already discussed how the "Greek" attributed to Jesus in this passage was NOT the English word wife but a "Greek" word that can be translated both as wife and as woman. This Greek word, "gune", was translated in 92 other places in the New Testament as wife or wives. Had Jesus specifically defined woman in this context (lust) he would had to have said, "whosoever looketh o­n another man's wife or a woman betrothed to another man to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." That would have been redundant since He had already used the word "lust" which specifies a forbidden woman and adultery which specifies the type of forbidden woman; the wife of another man or a woman betrothed to another man. There is no Greek word used in the New Testament that always means wife and never means woman. Greek is not English. The o­ne word, gune, means either wife or woman but never means exclusively o­ne of those except as determined by the context.

Now your final test question:

If a married woman or a woman who is betrothed has sexual intercourse with with her administrative assistant, has she committed adultery?

If you said no then you still don't get it.

The definition of adultery is simple.

Sexual intercourse between a married or betrothed woman and any man other than her o­ne and o­nly.

That's it.


What Is Fornication? Click Here.



Note: The word* adultery:Even though the first reference to the "word" adultery is found in Exodus 20:14God made reference to adultery as far back as Genesis 20:3
"But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, Behold, thou [art but] a dead man, for the woman which thou hast taken; for she [is] a man's wife." Genesis 20:3Notice again how adultery always involves another man's wife or the woman betrothed to him.


Harlotry*
Click Here to Read: Who was Rahab


If you have questions or comments concerning this article please
click here
to send a message to Pastor Don.


Posted by: Pastor_Don_Milton on Mar 08, 2005 - 04:05 PM  

Links

Bible.org, a website linked to from StoneBriar.org, Chuck Swindoll's church in Texas, has an interesting article o­n polygamy in which there is no condemnation for the practicing polygamist. (Chuck Swindoll is also the chancellor for the Dallas Theological Seminary. Even though he would not agree with Bible.org's position, his website is linked to Bible.org)

I have often written about how most ministers do not advocate the divorcing of additional wives in polygamous marriages. The fact that Bible.org has placed this article o­n their website for all to view is evidence of this. They must not realize that the polygamists are among them. For those of you living near Frisco, Texas, I recommend fellowshipping at Stonebriar Community Church where you must hold them to the teachings o­n their sister site; bible.org. Pastor Chuck Swindoll may speak against polygamy but the very missions he is associated don't have nearly the harsh words that he has for it. Bible.org's worst words against polygamy are that polygamy is not the "better way" but that "polygamy is not directly forbidden, except for leaders." My ministry here at ChristianMarriage.com holds that at most, the Bible precludes already practicing polygamists from church leadership but that those who have already accepted such positions are free to marry as many wives as they can support, in accordance with scripture.

Polygamy is legal in most states in that if your wife obtains a civil divorce from you prior to your taking an additional wife then you are guilty of nothing if you marry another wife but according to the Bible, without a Bill of Divorcement from you, the civil divorce she obtained is not valid.

Although I take issue with nearly every position that Bible.org takes o­n the page linked below I am providing the link because in the last paragraph it redeems itself for the writer says:

"Divorce is abhorrent to God, and allowed o­nly in the most restricted circumstances. Thus, those who have come to faith as polygamists should remain married, and be accepted (with wives and children) into the church."

http://www.bible.org/qa.asp?topic_id=20&qa_id=361

What is of note is that he says, "those who have come to faith as polygamists" so we must imply that he wishes to break up the families of those who have become polygamists after having come to the faith. This makes null his argument that those who "come to the faith" with wives already should remain married and be accepted and the others not since he bases that argument o­n his anti-divorce stance.

I will place a link here shortly where I give a rebuttal verse for verse to bible.org's article. I've actually rebutted all the verses but throughout this website, not o­n just o­ne page dedicated to rebutting bible.org's page.

I'm sorry that I cannot name the writer at bible.org but he doesn't name himself.



Note: If you have questions or comments concerning this article please
click here
to send a message to Pastor Don.


Posted by: Pastor_Don_Milton on Feb 16, 2005 - 10:21 PM  

Food For Thought

Many ministers refer to Rahab as a prostitute and wax eloquent with stories (made up) of what her life may have been like before Israel gave her protection. In fact, in the least inclusive sense of the word "harlot" she could have been a never married woman who was not a virgin; also known as a whore. For those of you who are shocked that I call a woman who has had sexual relations without the benefit of marriage a whore, get out your Bible and read it. You'll find that it is the Bible that calls women who have had sexual relations without the benefit of marriage fornicators and whores. Click Here - to read my article with the scriptural proof.

So if you're a whore or a man who fornicates by having relations with your whore (you probably call her your girlfriend) is there anything you can do? Yes, first recognize who you are. You're a fornicator. Second turn away from your wickedness and turn to the Lord. If the woman was a virgin when you took her then you are commanded by Exodus 22:16 to make her your wife.

By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace. Hebrews 11:31

Turn to the God of Israel and be saved. Turn away from your sins. Rahab turned to God and her name now appears in the pages of the Bible! Yes, Rahab was a whore just like you may be but after she turned to God in faith she became a woman of faith. She even made it into the genealogy of Jesus.* If you think you are a woman or man of faith but are having sexual relations without the benefit of marriage then you are lying to yourself. You are not a woman or man of faith. You are a fornicating dog and will return to your vomit or a sweathog who will return to your filth.*

Isaiah 55:7
"Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and He will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for He will abundantly pardon."

*Matthew 1:5&6 And Salmon begat Boaz of Rahab; and Boaz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her [that had been the wife] of Uriah;

*2Peter 2:22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog [is] turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.



Note: If you're an unmarried woman in America you're probably a harlot, just like Rahab. To be unmarried and not be a virgin is to be a harlot unless you were raped and shouted out for help. Deuteronomy 22:23&24 explains how in order for a virgin to claim she was forced into having sexual intercourse that she must have been heard screaming in resistance. If the intercourse happened in an area where she could not have been heard screaming then her innocence is presumed.

If you have questions or comments concerning this article please
click here
to send a message to Pastor Don.


Posted by: Pastor_Don_Milton on Feb 14, 2005 - 07:13 PM  

Food For Thought
Some of this story actually happened and some didn't.

My son, Josiah, poked his head in the door and said, "Johnny's saying a bad word."

"What bad word?" I said.

"He keeps saying 'Oh my God.' and he won't stop."

"Tell him to stop saying it or he has to go home."

"I did but he won't stop."

I leaned out the door and said to Johnny.

"Johnny, we don't say 'Oh my God' o­n this property. If you want to say that you'll have to go home. When you say 'Oh my God' you're making God into a tiny thing. God is not some tiny expression. He made the world."

Johnny came back later that day. My son, Josiah came in again saying, "Johnny's saying a bad word again."

"What's he saying this time?" I said.

Note: Some might think that I would quote "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain" in regards to using God's name as an expression, however that commandment refers to lying while under an oath taken in God's name. When you say "Oh my God" you're actually admitting a disbelief in God's presence in your life and you are reducing God to a tiny expression, not a personal Savior and the Creator of all things.

If you have questions or comments concerning this article please
click here
to send a message to Pastor Don.


Posted by: Pastor_Don_Milton on Jan 26, 2005 - 04:37 PM  Read full article: 'Have you reduced God to an expression?' (958 more words)

Food For Thought

Gay Marriage or Same Sex Marriage is not marriage at all. It is easiest to explain this by explaining the basis for marriage. Marriage began with the removal of a rib from Adam. God formed Eve from that rib and ever since that day, man has naturally been drawn to his rib, to his Eve and that rib, that Eve, has been drawn back to her man, her Adam. Regardless of what attraction a person may feel toward another person, it is impossible for it to be that same attraction between the sexes that began with the removal of Adam's rib if that attraction is not for a member of the opposite sex. Men who are drawn to the false god of homosexuality must renounce this form of idolatry and turn to the Lord in repentance.



Note: If you're a homosexual and realize that you need treatment for this serious mental and spiritual disorder please visit the following site for more information:http://www.narth.com/docs/repair.html

If you have questions or comments concerning this article please
click here
to send a message to Pastor Don.


Posted by: Pastor_Don_Milton on Jan 26, 2005 - 05:58 AM  Read full article: '"Gay" Marriage' (416 more words)

Member's Lounge

If you were to ask the average man or woman on the street to define Christian Marriage they'd likely give you a long list of what it is not. In fact, their list would likely include most of the Characteristics of Matriarchal Christian Marriage, the brand of religious marriage taught by the Western Church which frequently includes "mutual submission."

  • Then what is Christian Marriage?

Christian Marriage is marriage taught according to the Bible. Those who teach it usually refer to themselves as Patriarchal Christians. Patriarchal Christianity is one of the world's fastest growing denominations and its teachings are simple: Follow God's Word.

  • Why the name Patriarchal Christianity?

  • Because in the first centuries following Jesus' resurrection the Western Church began a series of false teachings about marriage which have continued to this day. Those teachings limit the rights of all believers and are in direct opposition to Jesus' teachings about marriage and our relationship to the Lord. Using the name Patriarchal Christianity is our way of making it clear that we are not going to put up with the false teachings of the Western Church, the Matriarchal Church, and we are going to clearly set the record straight on what Christian Marriage is and how understanding Christian Marriage helps us understand our Lord.

    • Why the emphasis on marriage?

    Because the Lord has used the metaphor of marriage more frequently than any other metaphor in the Bible to describe His relationship with us. If we are to understand these metaphors then we must become experts on the Bible's teachings o­n marriage. Those teachings o­n marriage are not o­nly central to our faith but are central to all peoples' daily lives.

    • But hasn't the church taught this?

    The Western Church hasn't taught this. That's our point. If you read Philip Schaff's History of the Christian Church you'll find less than 3 pages devoted to the topic of marriage. Keep in mind that Schaff's History of the Christian Church is a 7,120 page, that's 7,120 PAGE, multi-volume monumental work that describes Christianity from Jesus to the 19th century! It is five times the size of the Bible! However, it is not Philip Schaff's History of the Christian Church with which we have a problem, it is the behavior of those in the ministry that is out of step with the Bible. For they have dedicated so little to the study and teaching of marriage that only 3 pages of Philip Schaff's monumental history were required to describe their accomplishments concerning marriage!

    • So how much of the Bible concerns marriage?

    The typical Bible is printed with enough words on each page so that it contains 1000 pages. This means that there is an average mention of a marriage related topic on every page of the Bible! That's every page! And we didn't even include the word man or woman in our search on this subject!

    We're sure you can think of other marriage and fidelity search words than what we used. You'll find at the bottom of this page a list of all the words we were able to easily find and their number of occurrences.

    • Do the end times concern marriage?

    Do you know the biblical definition of whore? If you don't, then you can't understand what the Lord means by the Great Whore of Babylon! Imagine, the most basic of end times prophecies cannot be understood without an understanding, an acceptance, of the Bible's definition of marriage.

    It is clearly not possible to understand Christianity without living in accordance with the Biblical definitions of marriage, fornication, adultery, and divorce? The ministers of the Western Church refuse to do this. How few ministers know or teach that a woman cannot divorce her husband, ever!*

    There are things God wants us to understand about Him through our own relationships and yet what was universally accepted and understood prior to the advent of the popes is no longer talked about in a polite society. It is not considered polite to mention the fact that God pronounced that for women, 'thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." It has therefore become nearly impossible to understand the Lord through the many metaphors of marriage which He has given us because most do not understand marriage.

    Topics for Discussion

    • Can a single woman commit adultery? NO

    • Does sex outside of marriage make us impure? YES [See important footnote for women who have lost their virginity and had no other men since.]

    • What's the definition of adultery? Carnal knowledge between a married woman and a man who is not her husband. The Bible requests the state to impose the death penalty for the man and woman in such cases when there are two witnesses other than the defendants.

    • Can a woman divorce her husband? NO

    • Is comparing your husband unfavorably with other men fornication? YES

    • Can a man divorce his wife for fornication? YES

    • Should women cover their heads when they pray? YES

    • How can I find out how to be chaste? Read all about it here!

    A marriage related topic is mentioned in over 1000 Bible verses. That computes to a o­ne to o­ne ratio of marriage related verses to pages in the Bible.

    Search Term

    Occurrences

    Bible Verses

    wife

    396

    360

    wives

    133

    122

    wife's

    11

    11

    concubine

    22

    21

    concubines

    17

    16

    harlot

    40

    38

    harlots

    8

    8

    whoredom

    22

    22

    whoredoms

    32

    26

    husband

    120

    104

    husbands

    19

    19

    bride

    14

    14

    bridegroom

    23

    20

    betroth

    4

    3

    betrothed

    9

    9

    marry

    22

    19

    marrieth

    4

    3

    marriage

    19

    18

    marriages

    3

    3

    wedding

    7

    7

    divorce

    1

    1

    divorced

    4

    4

    widow

    50

    49

    widows

    26

    24

    adultery

    40

    33

    adulteries

    5

    5

    fornication

    36

    32

    fornications

    3

    3

    prostitute [meaning: cause to be defiled]

    1

    1


    This is by no means an exhaustive list of verses concerning marriage. If you were to do a search I'm sure you'd find even more verses.

    FOOTNOTE: If you're a woman who has lost your virginity to a man and have had no other men since, the Bible requires that man to declare you to be his wife! Please consider 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."



Note: If you have questions or comments concerning this article please
click here
to send a message to Pastor Don.


Posted by: Pastor_Don_Milton on Jan 19, 2005 - 07:15 AM  

Food For Thought
Many ministers would like rich Christian men to believe that Jesus came to make life worse for them, specifically, to tell them that they are not allowed to have more than o­ne wife even when they can afford it. I have no idea how their minds could be so fogged as to think such a thing. Jesus made it clear that divorce was because of hardened hearts. He never denied any man more than o­ne wife, rich or poor. Jesus was simply clarifying that a man must not use divorce to get additional wives; that a man must keep his wife and not swap her out for a trophy wife like the monogamists do.

Note: If you have questions or comments concerning this article please
click here
to send a message to Pastor Don.


Posted by: Pastor_Don_Milton on Jan 10, 2005 - 02:45 AM  

Food For Thought
I'm often asked to define adultery. The following is also a common question:

Isn't it adultery when a married man has relations with a single woman?

The Bible defines adultery as sexual relations between any man and the wife or betrothed of another man.

Genesis 20:3 But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, Behold, thou [art but] a dead man, for the woman which thou hast taken; for she [is] a man's wife.

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.

Note:

Pastor Don Milton teaches what the Bible teaches about marriage. Nothing more, nothing less. You're encouraged to write Pastor Don with any questions you may have.



If you have questions or comments concerning this article please
click here
to send a message to Pastor Don.


Posted by: Pastor_Don_Milton on Jan 10, 2005 - 12:52 AM  Read full article: 'Adultery defined.' (129 more words)

Food For Thought
It is frequently supposed that Adam had o­nly o­ne wife. It is true that there are no verses saying that Adam had more than o­ne wife but neither are there verses saying that he had o­ne and o­nly o­ne wife. We are left o­nly to conjecture. That conjecture however can lead to lively discussions. In the following discourse I argue that it is highly likely that Adam had more than o­ne wife while the imaginary Zeke argues against me.

Zeke:
How could Adam possibly have had more than o­ne wife when Leviticus 20:14 specifically forbids it? "And if a man take a wife and her mother, it [is] wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you."

Pastor Don:
Your reference would apply if Adam existed after the "law." For Romans 5:13 states: "For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law." Relations between close relatives were o­nly forbidden after the law. Consider Moses, his mother was Jochebed. Jochebed married Amram, her own nephew. This marriage was forbidden by the very law that Moses himself delivered from Mount Ararat! Exodus 6:20 "And Amram took him Jochebed his father's sister to wife; and she bare him Aaron and Moses: and the years of the life of Amram [were] an hundred and thirty and seven years."

Note: Pastor Don Milton comments on controversial issues concerning marriage that other ministries ignore. You may write him and have your questions discussed as well.

If you have questions or comments concerning this article please
click here
to send a message to Pastor Don.


Posted by: Pastor_Don_Milton on Jan 01, 2005 - 12:54 AM  Read full article: 'Did Adam Marry Other Wives?' (647 more words)

Site Search


Admonitions

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

Other Stories

Chat with Pastor Don