Chapter 7. The Rise, Fall and Restoration of Plural Marriage



Plural marriage has always existed so long as there have been human beings around. And although Lamech is the first recorded man to have had more than one wife in the Bible, there is no reason to suppose that there were not many others before him. The reason the nation of Israel multiplied so precociously during the Egyptian captivity was because of plural marriage. Their rapidly increasing numbers, even during the wilderness wandering, gave them the ability to populate the land of Canaan when the natives were displaced.


The elimination of plural marriage from Christianity was gradual and continued unopposed for at least three centuries after the New Testament period. By the fourth century the emerging Roman Catholic Church, which had, and was continuing, to persecute (often to the death) any opposing creeds to its own, had started enforcing celibacy on its clergy. The pressure was being felt on the lay people as well. Though fewer and fewer were by this time living in a plural arrangement, it is known that one common arrangement was for a man to have one full wife and a concubine but by the turn of the fifth century even this was declared to be criminal. Priests who were married were forced to declare their marriages null and void and by the seventh century plural marriage was officially outlawed by the Roman Emperor Justinian.


Sporadic polygyny did appear in Europe and was tolerated by the Catholic Church, especially in times of war when the male population was decimated. Not until the 16th century did polygyny become a capital offence. When in the 18th and 19th centuries Europeans started evangelising Africa, it was not long before monogamy was imposed on converts and polygamous families were forced to break up. In spite of the opposition of many local ministers who argued that plural marriage should be tolerated, the upper hierarchy always vetoed such suggestions until the 20th century when the Catholic and many Protestant Churches began turning a blind eye so long as polygamous families did not contract further wives after baptism.


Plural marriage did not surface in the West again to any great degree until the Mormons began the practice in the 19th century in America. It earned them persecution from Catholic and Protestants alike and they were officially forced to abandon it at the end of that century. Its secret practice continued underground leading eventually to a schism between the mainstream Mormons and the 'fundamentalists'. Probably about 50,000 claiming Mormon roots practice this lifestyle in the United States today.


Though no doubt there have always been a tiny handful of polygynists in Europe they did not surface until the end of the 20th century, in the 1980's, under my own ministerial leadership. A decade later polygyny ministries began to appear in the United States and elsewhere too. In the space of a decade increasing numbers of Westerners have been drawn back to full biblical marriage and at last polygynists in Africa and Asia, who were always right about this divine lifestyle, are once again being accepted into churches and assemblies who not only accept but actually proclaim the lawfulness of plural marriage.


As far as marriage is concerned, there can be no doubt that the West went through a 'dark age' every bit as dark as the political equivalent under the Catholic tyranny. Slowly but surely that is beginning to change. It is probably true to say that few, if any, of the extant denominations will accept plural marriage, though more may tolerate it. A few, like ours, with an apostolic mandate, are promoting it especially in Africa and Asia where it is normal.

Chapter 8. Greeks versus Hebrews



The cause of multiple marriage's fall in the West may with certainty be ascribed to its culture whose roots are not biblical but pagan Greek. The Hebraic culture and its biblical tradition of plural marriage first came to be seriously eroded when Alexander the Great appeared on the Middle Eastern scene. The activities of Alexander and his successors led to the rise of the infamous antichrist Antiochus Epiphanes whom we remember at Hanukkah each year. They began to increasingly impose Hellenic (Greek) culture on the nations they conquered. This clash between Yahweh's Torah (Law) and Greek humanism led to an attempt to exterminate the Jewish people and their laws altogether. Only a Jewish Maccabean revolt prevented this diabolical plan of Satan from succeeding.


This same Hellenic culture swiftly blended with the emergent Christianity in the first and subsequent centuries and created, first, a watered-down, and then a false Gospel called Catholicism which attempted to entirely erase Christianity's Hebraic roots. Biblical marriage was supplanted by the West's monogamy with its attendant prostitution and homosexuality. The horrid decline in morality in the West may in large part be ascribed to the unnatural monogamy-only mindframe.


The reason plural marriage is so vehemently opposed by so many Christians is not, I suspect, so much because they reject it as biblical (the honest can see it is plainly so) but because it represents a clash of cultures. Whatever the West is, it is not Hebraic - it is Greek. And the reason the Christian Church is dying in the West is because it is stubbornly clinging on to its Greek culture, the very same culture which has always persecuted Yahweh's people and which has always been opposed to His Torah (Law). If the Church is going to survive and not be engulfed by the neo-paganism of the West, it must renounce its Greek legacy and return to its Hebraic roots.


The 21st century's polygyny-accepting churches and assemblies, with few exceptions, may be what are called 'Messianic' or 'Hebraic-roots'. Once you accept all of Yahweh's Law you are inevitably forced to accept biblical marriage, including a plurality of wives.


What was once natural for men and women, however, has - in the course of nearly two thousand years - become repulsive to your average Westerner. Ironically, this same Westerner is not indisposed towards sexual promiscuity and has eagerly embraced witchcraft and its sexual doctrine of 'help yourself without responsibility'.


In our view, the Western Church and its modern depraved neo-pagan culture has lost all authority. It is promoting a doctrine of demons. Believers in Africa and Asia particularly should not feel intimidated by them when they condemn multiple marriage and use governments and agencies like the United Nations to try and enforce a monogamy-only culture that not only turns a blind eye to, but also promotes, promiscuous living.


For the last 20 years an end-time apostolic, Bible-based, Hebraic-roots community of Christians has been forming which, amongst other things, has declared the validity of plural marriage. It is known as the Chavurat Bekorot, which in Hebrew means "Assembly of the Firstborn". It has no connection with any of the historical churches but stands for itself as a fresh restoration of the biblical way of life. It provides the leaders for the congregations organised under its auspices.

Chapter 9. Men of the Bible with Plural Wives



It annoys most from the so-called 'historical churches' that so many people lived plural marriage without Yahweh or His prophets ever once raising an objection, and that both Yah'shua (Jesus) and Yahweh (the Father) describe themselves as allegorical polygynists! Yet the facts are incontrovertible, as the list below shows:


Abdon, a judge of Israel in the time of the judges; perhaps the same as 'Bedan' (Uncertain, Judges 12:14)

Abijah, king of Judah, son and successor of Rehoboam (14 wives, 2 Chronicles 13:21)

Abraham, faithful friend of God and father of the Hebrew nation, "father of the faithful" (3 + concubines, Sarah, Hagar, and Keturah, Genesis 16:1,3; 25:1)

Ahab, king of Israel (Wives, 1 Kings 20:3)

Ahasuerus, title of the king of Persia, assumed to be Xerxes (Women, Vashti, Esther, Esther 1:9)

Ashur (2 wives, Helah and Naarah, 1 Chronicles 4:5)

Belshazzar, king of Babylon at the time of its fall; he to whom Daniel interpreted the writing on the wall (Wives, Daniel 5:2)

Benhadad, the king of Syria (Uncertain, 1 Kings 20:3)

Caleb (5 wives, Azubah, Jerioth, Ephrath, Ephah, Maachah, 1 Chronicles 2:18-19,46,48)

David, youngest son of Jesse and second king of Israel, "after God's own heart" (Wives and Concubines, Abigail, Ahinoam, Michal, Maacah, Rizpah, Bathsheba, 1 Samuel 25:39, 43-44; 2 Samuel 3:3,7; 5:13; 1 Chronicles 14:3; 2 Samuel 12:7-8, 24)

Eliphaz (2 wives, Timna, Genesis 36:11-12)

Elkanah (2 wives, Hannah, Peninnah, 1 Samuel 1:2)

Esau (3, Judith, Bashemath, Mahalath, Genesis 26:34; 28:9)

Ezra (2 wives, Jehudijah, 1 Chronicles 4:17-18)

Gideon, fifth judge of Israel who led the Israelites against the Midianites (Wives, Drumah, Shechem, Judges 8:30)

Heman (Uncertain, 1 Chronicles 25:4)

Herod the Great (10, Elpide, Phedra, Mariamne, Doris, Malthace the Samaritan, Cleopatra, Pallas, Elpis, Josephus, Ant. 17, 19f.; War 1,562; The Jewish War 1.473 (Whiston))

Hezron (3 wives, Abiah, 1 Chronicles 2:9,21, 24)

Hosea (2 wives, Gomer, Hosea 1:3; 3:1)

Ibzan (Uncertain, Judges 12:9)

Tribe of Issachar (Wives, 1 Chronicles 7:4)

Jacob, father of the twelve patriarchs of the tribes of Israel, "the prince of God" (4 wives, Leah, Rachel, Bilhah, Zilpah, Genesis 29:23,28; 30:4,9)

Jair (Uncertain, Judges 10:4)

Jerahmeel (2 wives, Atarah, 1 Chronicles 2:26)

Jehoiachin, king of Judah (Wives, 2 Kings 24:15)

Jehoram (Wives, 2 Chronicles 21:14)

Jeroboam (14, Michaiah, Flavius Josephus Jewish Antiquities 8.282 (Whiston))

Jerubaal (Uncertain, Judges 9:5)

Joash (2 wives, 2 Chronicles 24:3)

Joseph (Uncertain, George Lamsa, in Gospel Light, Harper & Row, p. 5-7, his commentary)

Judah (2 wives, Tamar, Daughther of Shua the Canaanitess, 1 Chronicles 2:3-4)

Lamech (2 wives, Adah, Zillah, Genesis 4:19)

Machir (2 wives, Maachah, Zelophehad, 1 Chronicles 7:15-16)

Manasseh (2 wives, The Aramitess, 1 Chronicles 7:14)

Mered (4 wives. Jehudijah, Bithiah, Hodiah, 1 Chronicles 4:17-19)

Moses (2 wives, Zipporah, Ethiopian Woman, Exodus 2:21; Numbers 12:1)

Nahor (2 wives, Milcah, Reumah, Genesis 22:20-24)

Rehoboam (78 wives, Mahalath, Abihail, Maachah, 2 Chronicles 11:18-23)

Saul (2 wives, Ahinoam, Rizpah, 1 Samuel 14:50; 2 Samuel 3:7)

Shaharaim (2 wives, Hushim, Baara, 1 Chronicles 8:8)

Shimei (Uncertain, 1 Chronicles 4:27)

Simeon (2 wives, Canaanitish Woman, Genesis 46:10, Exodus 6:15)

Solomon (1,000 wives, Sidonians, Tyrians, Ammonites, Edomites, 1 Kings 11:3)

Terah (2 wives, Genesis 20:12)

Zedekiah (Wives, Jeremiah 38:23)

Ziba (Uncertain, 2 Samuel 9:10)

Unnamed (Uncertain, 1 Corinthians 5:1)

YAH'SHUA/JESUS (5 metaphorical wives, Parable, Matthew 25:1-13; + millions of the redeemed who are the Church, Revelation 19:6-9);

YAHWEH/GOD THE FATHER (2 allegorical wives, Aholah/Samaria, Aholibah/ Jerusalem, Analogy, Ezekiel 23:4, Jeremiah 3:6-14; 31:31-34; + millions of true Israelites throughout all ages)

Chapter 10. The Mystery of Echad



Part of the blindness which afflicts the Western mind when it comes to the truth of plural marriage is its lack of understanding of a very Hebrew but non-western concept called uniplurality. Uniplurality is the simultaneous existence of both one and many.


In the example of the mystical marriage of the Lamb we see this uniplural concept beautifully illustrated. The Messiah, we are told, is married to His 'wife' (Rev.19:7), which on one level is very clearly a monogamous relationship. However, everybody knows that this 'one wife' does not consist of one saved soul but millions, "a great multitude", in fact (v.6). The allegorical wife of Christ is both One and Many. She is uniplural.


The same is true of the Godhead. There is, we are told, only one God, and yet we all know that He consists of a minimum of Three persons - Father, Son and Ruach haQodesh (Holy Spirit). Roman Catholics and their daughter churches call this the 'Three-in-one' or 'Trinity' (Triunity) doctrine. Interestingly, the Scriptures speak of a sevenfold Ruach haQodesh (Holy Spirit) (Rev.1:4; 3:1; 4:5; 5:6) which means there are Nine in the Godhead in total (1+1+7).


This is not easy for us to understand in English because the word 'God' actually translates four different Hebrew words. One is always singular - El, Eloah, or Elah - and always refers to God the Father, and the other is Elohim which is Uniplural - it is both singular (God) and plural (Gods). Very commonly Yahweh - God the Father - has His Name attached to Elohim as 'Yahweh-Elohim', what the King James Version renders as 'LORD God'. Yahweh is Elohim, Yah'shua (Jesus) is Elohim, and the Ruach haQodesh (Holy Spirit) is Elohim, but only the Father is El, Eloah, or Elah.


That is why in the creation narrative in Genesis, God is always described as 'us' and 'our' and not 'me' or 'my':


"Then God (Elohim - uniplural) said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness" (Gen.1:26, NKJV).

But when Paul says, "for us there is one God (Eloah), the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Cor.8:6, NKJV), he is not saying that only the Father is God because the word used here is 'Eloah' (singular) and not 'Elohim' (uniplural). Thus Yah'shua (Jesus) is Elohim but He is not Eloah. That difference is important.


It is clear that God is many-in-one, just as the Bride of Christ is many-in-one.


The word we use to describe this uniplurality is the Hebrew Echad which means both 'one' and 'united' or 'agreed'.


In His High Priestly prayer before His arrest in Gethsemane, Yah'shua (Jesus) prays to Yahweh that His disciples may be "as we are" (John 17:11,21-22). He prays that they may have the same kind of unity or echad as He has with Yahweh His Father. Philip the apostle initially had a problem understanding this concept:


"Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us." Yah'shua (Jesus) said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, 'Show us the Father'?" (John 14:8-10, NKJV).

Now what this does not mean is that Yah'shua (Jesus) and the Father are identical Persons. Yah'shua (Jesus) is not the Father, Yahweh is! What Yah'shua (Jesus) is pointing out is that He and the Father have such unity (echad) that to understand or know one of them is to understand or know the other too.


It often surprises Christians who are not familiar with Hebrew or Greek to learn that a single word can be translated as 'wife' or 'wives', rather like our uniplural English word 'sheep' which can mean either one sheep or many sheep. We don't have a word 'sheeps'. Only the context of the word can tell us whether it is one or more sheep being spoken of.


Let me give you an example which illustrates so well how Bible translators can be biased.


1 Corinthians 7:2 reads in the Greek: "dia de porneia echo hekastos echo heautou gune kai echo hekastos echo idios aner" which all our translations render as follows: "Nevertheless, [to avoid] fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband" making it sound as though a Christian man is only allowed one wife and a Christian woman only one husband. The key word here is gune which means 'woman' or 'wife'. Or does it? The fact of the matter is the word gune can be translated as either 'woman', 'women', 'wife' or 'wives'. In 60% of the cases where it is used in the New Testament, it is translated as 'wives' and in 40% as 'wife'. Thus this passage could equally well be translated:


"Nevertheless, [to avoid] fornication, let every man have his own wives, and let every woman have her own husband".

Gune is an example of a uniplural word like 'sheep'. And since the context does not tell us whether it should be rendered 'wife' or 'wives' the most honest translation would be:


"Nevertheless, [to avoid] fornication, let every man have his own wife/wives, and let every woman have her own husband".
It is here that honesty is required. The translator has to decide which is the most likely reading - 'wife' or 'wives'. Statistically, 'wives' is favoured 3:2. From the point of view of what Yahweh has already revealed about marriage, 'wife/wives' is the most accurate rendering, since a man may have one or more wives. But the translators, being biased in favour of the Roman Catholic-inspired Greek monogamy-only culture, always render the Greek word gune as 'wife'. This, of course, is completely dishonest.


In the negligible number of scriptures in the New Testament used by those who believe in one wife only there are always two possible renderings.


But there's more to this than meets the eye. Taking all the scriptures together, we are forced to one inevitable conclusion: a man with several 'wives' actually only has 'one wife' just as Christ only has 'one Wife', the Church. Thus if I am true to what Scripture says on this subject, it would be more correct to say that I have one wife and three.


Now this may sound strange to a Western-trained mind but really it ought not. When we think of the nation of Kenya, for example, we think of one nation called Kenya containing millions of Kenyans. When we say, 'Japan attacked China' back in the 1930s we know that this was a single nation consisting of thousands of soldiers. And when we say that Hitler attacked Poland in 1939 we know that Hitler didn't do it alone - here 'Hitler' means thousands of nazi soldiers. These are all examples of uniplurality.


As an allegorical Bride of Christ, I know I am one of many. I am His allegorical 'wife' but millions of others are His allegorical 'wives' too. Isabel, Kryztina and Kasia are my 'wives' but they are also the Królewiec 'wife'.


This is the way you have to learn to think when you approach the Hebrew Scriptures and it's frankly the only way you can ever understand the mystery of the Godhead. Thus the great revelation on God - the Shema - is worded clumsily in English:


"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one! You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength" (Deut.6:4-5, NKJV).

Does this mean, as Talmudic Jews claim, that there is only one Person in the Godhead? No, it does not. Rather, it should be literally translated as:


"Hear, O Israel, Yahweh our Elohim, Yahweh is echad. You shall love Yahweh your Elohim with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength".

What this means is that Yahweh is One Person but the Elohim (Godhead) is United.


Paul described the union of a husband and wife, as also Christ to His Church (the Messianic Community of believers), "a great mystery" (Eph.5:32), as indeed it is. And very few have understood it. As one who has several wives who are one wife, this way of living has opened numerous doors of understanding to me, drawn me closer to Yahweh, and made me a better Christian.

Part 2: Defeating the Critics



The majority, as we all know, is not always right. And the majority of Christians (as well as modern Jews) happen to believe that a man is not allowed to marry more than one wife at a time. They're wrong, and in the second part of this little book we will show them why they are wrong.


But before I do, let me say this: the fact that a man is allowed to have more than one wife doesn't mean that everyone should, any more than someone who has turned 16 or 18 (depending what country you live in) must get married at once. It is my belief - and many who subscribe to the doctrine of plural marriage agree with me - that most men are quite incapable of successfully managing a marriage with more than one wife. As I look at the moral degradation everywhere it is also becoming painfully obvious to me that an increasing number of men and women aren't even capable of living monogamously. Your average 21st century man or woman lacks the basic skills of relationship-building. Most people need to become human first, and that requires intensive discipling and healing.


I have been involved in marriage apologetics now for a very long time. The arguments advanced by those who reject plural marriage are always predictably the same and always weak. Because they are in a minority, those who practice plural marriage have been forced to dig into their Bibles with a motivation that the majority, preferring the support of numbers rather than facts, rarely have.


I wish to briefly look at the most commonly used arguments now. People come up with novel twists which I shall not be examining but which are all treated on the FICP web page at www.nccg.org/fecpp. By the time you have finished you will come to realise that plural marriage is built upon a solid, biblical doctrinal rock.

Chapter 11. One Flesh



"Then the man [Adam] said, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman [Eve], because she was taken out of Man". Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh" (Genesis 2:23-24, RSV).
This, and parallel passages in Matthew 19:5-6, Ephesians 5:31, and Mark 10:8, are used to advance the argument that it is only possible for a man to be one flesh with one wife and that this excludes the possibility of plural marriage.

The Hebrew for "one flesh" is l'basar echad. As you will recall from Chapter 10 when we talked about the mystery of echad, this is a word that can variously mean 'one' or 'united' - it can also under certain circumstances be translated as 'first'. Basar can mean 'meat', or the whole 'body' or 'person'. The expression l'basar echad is a well known Hebrew euphemism or polite way of saying the 'pudenda' or 'external sexual organs'. In its simplest meaning, then, l'basar echad means to sexually unite viâ their sexual organs. Verse 24 may therefore be accurately rendered as:

""Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves, clings or adheres to his wife, and they become united sexually".
Though there is no doubt that there is a mystic union between husband and wife whereby two become echad or one (which is the sense of Christ's teaching in Matthew 19:5-6 and Mark 10:8) on the physical level - which is what this verse is describing - here Adam is describing the fact that he is enjoying sexual union with Eve as a lawful spouse which marks the final break from the authority of their parents over their lives.

To summarise: 'one flesh' means to have sexual intercourse on the physical level, and to enjoy a mystic communion as echad or a 'oneness' on the spiritual level. Echad means two or more in one - it does not mean a single entity like "one tree" or "one cow" for which we have another Hebrew word, yachid. Does this being "one flesh" mean that a man can only have sexual union with one woman? Not according to Paul:


"He who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body. For it is said, 'The two will become one flesh'" (1 Cor.6:16, NIV; cp. Eph.5:31)
Now we all know that uniting (becoming echad) with a prostitute is against Yahweh's commandments and sinful because this is not a marriage with covenants. Nevertheless it lays to rest the lie that a man cannot be "one flesh" with more than one woman at a time. A married man with one or more wives can lawfully be "one flesh" with them all and attain a mystic echad union, as Christ enjoys with His uniplural Bride (us), and he can be sexually united or "one flesh" with a prostitute and, by extension, with another man's wife ... this time unlawfully. Or he can be "one flesh" with an unmarried woman (fornication) and thus be obliged to marry her, whether he is already married or not (Ex.22:16).

Christians are supposed to be in a "one spirit" echad relationship with Christ as His Bride (1 Cor.6:17) in the same way one or more women are supposed to be in a "one flesh" echad relationship with her/their husband. That is all being "one flesh" means.

Finally, let us not forget that the man who penned the verse in Genesis - Moses - was himself plurally married with two wives - Zipporah the Midianite and an Ethiopian woman (Ex.2:16-21; Num.12:1). Would Yahweh get His prophet to write a Scripture limiting a man to only one wife and then punish that prophet's sister (Miriam) and brother (Aaron) for complaining that he had two wives? Shouldn't it have been the other way round? Shouldn't Yahweh have thanked Miriam and Aaron instead of chastising them, and then ordered Moses to put aside his second wife?


"Then Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married; for he had married an Ethiopian woman ... So the anger of Yahweh was aroused against them, and He departed. And when the cloud departed from above the tabernacle, suddenly Miriam became leprous, as white as snow. Then Aaron turned toward Miriam, and there she was, a leper" (Num.12:1-2, 9-10, NKJV).
Well, Yahweh didn't thank Miriam but punished her. He vindicated His prophet. When people make 'one flesh' out to be a monogamy-only passage they are accusing Yahweh of hypocrisy and duplicity! Shame on them!

Chapter 12. Unisexual Commandments?




Some commandments in the Bible are for men and women, some for men, and some for women. An argument used by those against plural marriage is that passages specific to one gender apply, in fact, to both genders. This doctrine is called 'gender mutuality'. However, this is obviously not true for all commandments where different rôles are given by Yahweh to men and women, respectively.


"If a woman has a discharge, and the discharge from her body is blood, she shall be set apart seven days ... if any man lies with her at all, so that her impurity is on him, he shall be unclean seven days" (Lev.15:19,24, NKJV).
One of the laws of sexual purity that Yahweh has given is that a husband shall not have sexual intercourse with his wife while she is menstruating. Now obviously this only applies to women since men don't menstruate! Similar laws apply to women concerning purity after birth:


"Then Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying, "Speak to the children of Israel, saying: 'If a woman has conceived, and borne a male child, then she shall be unclean seven days; as in the days of her customary impurity she shall be unclean ... She shall then continue in the blood of her purification thirty-three days. She shall not touch any hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary until the days of her purification are fulfilled. But if she bears a female child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her customary impurity, and she shall continue in the blood of her purification sixty-six days" (Lev.12:1-5, NKJV).

When Yahweh cursed the world after the Fall in Eden, men and women were cursed in different ways:


"To the woman He said: "I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; In pain you shall bring forth children; Your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you." Then to Adam He said, "Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat of it': "Cursed is the ground for your sake; In toil you shall eat of it All the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you, And you shall eat the herb of the field. In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread Till you return to the ground, For out of it you were taken; For dust you are, And to dust you shall return"" (Gen.3:16-19, NKJV).

The headship of the man over the woman, which we discussed earlier, is clearly stated. The woman is to bring forth children and be ruled by him, and he in his turn is to have the responsibility of being the family provider. For both it will not be easy.


The monogamy-only people often claim that Yah'shua the Messiah (Jesus Christ) changed everything. They often say that Christ has annulled the curse so that the man is no longer the head of the woman - husband and wife are now coequal, they claim, which somehow implies only monogamy is acceptable. The lie is, however, given to this assertion by the Apostle Paul who declares:


"Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Saviour of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything" (Eph.5:22-25, NKJV).

Has the relationship between husband and wife/wives changed? No it has not. It is exactly the same under the New Covenant as in the Old. Man is still the head and man still has the right to take one or more wives. Only now an extra responsibility falls upon the man:


"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the Church (Messianic Community) and gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious Church (Messianic Community), not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself" (Eph.5:25-28, NKJV).

It is wrong, furthermore, to say that male headship is a fruit of the Fall. It isn't. The husband was head of the wife before the Fall, and will be so in eternity. Genesis plainly states that Eve was made as a helper or assistant for Adam (Gen.2:20) and it was the woman who was brought to the man, not the man to the woman, or both to each other (v.22). Helpers or assistants are always subordinate to those they are helping or assisting.


The only gender mutuality found in the Bible concerns salvation:


"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Yah'shua the Messiah (Christ Jesus)" (Gal.3:28, NKJV).

This passage does not revoke husband-wife rôles. If it did, it would contradict what Paul said to the Ephesians, and Scripture does not contradict itself. Men and women are equal before Yahweh - of exactly the same worth, and receive salvation on precisely the same terms - but in the marriage relationship the husband is the head as Christ is the head of the Church (Messianic Community).

Chapter 13. The Truth About Adultery



Because male-female rôles are different in a biblical marriage relationship, what may be adultery for a woman may not necessarily be adultery for a man. Most Christians are entirely ignorant as to what the Bible says about this subject and teach a doctrine of adultery which has been invented by the monogamy-only people.


"The man who commits adultery with another man's wife, he who commits adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress, shall surely be put to death" (Lev.20:10, NKJV).

"If a man is found lying with a woman married to a husband, then both of them shall die -- the man that lay with the woman, and the woman; so you shall put away the evil from Israel. If a young woman who is a virgin is betrothed to a husband, and a man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he humbled his neighbour's wife; so you shall put away the evil from among you" (Deut.22:22-24, NKJV).

These two passages comprehensively define what adultery is. The only modification that has been made to this was made by Yah'shua (Jesus) who spared an adulteress' life on condition that she never sinned in this area again, thus revealing the mercy and forgiveness of Yahweh whilst not minimising the seriousness of this moral transgression (John 8:3-12). We need to be perfectly clear what adultery is. A married or unmarried man commits adultery if he has sex with another man's wife (as King David did with Bathsheba, wife of Uriah) and the woman also becomes an adulteress. Yahweh describes this as a great evil. This is true whether the woman is fully married (having consummated the relationship per pro Genesis 2:23-24) or is betrothed (having entered marriage vows in the presence of witnesses without the relationship having been consummated). This is the only definition of adultery in the Bible.


Though it may surprise most Christians brought up in the European-American monogamy-only mindframe, a married man does not commit adultery if he has sex with an unmarried woman! This transgression is called fornication. The punishment under the Torah (Law) was not stoning to death but an obligation to marry the unmarried woman by taking her as a plural wife! (see Deut.22:28-29) Whether he is single or married, if he sleeps with her without the proper marriage vows, he is committing fornication and not adultery (see Gal.5:19 - "Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness.." - NKJV). Adultery and fornication are not the same. (Note: Rape is not fornication and one who is raped is not obliged to marry her rapist).


In pointing these facts out we are not trying to suggest that fornication is not a sin, or that Yahweh is giving licence to married men to sleep around. Far from it. Paul calls fornication a "work of the flesh". Men do not have the right to sleep around. But they do have the right to take a second wife provided the regulations established by Yahweh are properly observed which we have already discussed. If any person declares plural marriage to be adultery, he is a liar, and - if they know the truth of Yahweh's Word - will, if they do not repent, share the same horrible fate:


"... the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death" (Rev.21:8, NKJV).

How do you imagine Yahweh will view someone who accuses a man with several wives of being an adulterer when His Word justifies such a man and defends him, and when that person has been confronted with the truth of that Word? Will Elohim (God) look favourably on him? It is one thing to be ignorant, for then Yahweh is merciful and overlooks our transgressions (Acts 17:30); but once we know the truth, it is a terrible thing to deny it.


Plural marriage has never been, is not, and will never be, adultery!. Yahweh has sanctified biblical marriage - a man married to one or more women within sensible limits - with His Word, and woe unto any man or woman who defies Him!


Adultery is a serious crime against the Creator. In fact, there are two kinds of adultery in the Bible - there is adultery in marriage between men and women, and there is spiritual adultery when a believer breaks His covenants with Yahweh through His Son Yah'shua (Jesus). When a man or woman accepts Yah'shua (Jesus) as His Lord and Saviour, he enters into an allegorical marriage covenant with Him, as we have seen. He becomes a part of an allegorical plural bride. Christ's obligation to the believer is to grant pardon and salvation; the believer's obligation is to be an obedient allegorical wife in all things. That obedience entails obeying the Creator's commandments. Christianity is not, as many false Christians teach, simply accepting the Messiah (Christ) as Lord and Saviour and doing nothing else. What, then, is a Christian? The Bible tells us:


"Here is the patience of the saints; here are those who keep the commandments of Elohim (God) and the faith of Yah'shua (Jesus)" (Rev.14:12-13, NKJV).

"Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city. But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie" (Rev.22:14-16, NKJV).

"And the dragon was enraged with the woman, and he went to make war with the rest of her offspring, who keep the commandments of Elohim (God) and have the testimony of Yah'shua the Messiah (Jesus Christ)" (Rev.12:17, NKJV).
These Scriptures, and many others, are quite specific: We are saved by faith in the Messiah Yah'shua (Christ Jesus), which is Christ's gift to us; our obligation, as a faithful allegorical Wife, and as one who will be granted the right to partake of the Tree of Life (eternal life) and enter the city (the paradisaical New Jerusalem, heaven), is our obedience to His Torah (Law) - His commandments. Anyone who tells you that we are not obligated as Christ's allegorical uniplural Wife to obey all the commandments is a liar. This obligation is repeated so many times in both the Old and the New Testaments that only the wilfully blind, or those being led by a false spirit, will ignore or dispute it, taking scriptures out of the context of the whole in order to justify the sins of their rebelliousness:


"Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He who says, "I know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of Eloah (God) is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him. He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked" (1 John 2:3-7, NKJV; also 3:22,24; 5:2-3; 2 John 6; John 15:10, etc.).

The punishment for spiritual adultery is no less than for physical adultery. To deny Yah'shua (Jesus) and Yahweh, having had a clear revelation of who They are, is to deny the Ruach haQodesh (Holy Spirit) which is unpardonable, and is punishable by spiritual death, because it is an allegorical marriage covenant. That is why Israel was punished so harshly when she turned to idolatry because Yahweh divorced her (Jer.3:8ff).


No man with more than one wife was ever put to death in biblical times for committing adultery. Ever. Yahweh, as we have seen, gave King David his wives and promised him more. Would our Heavenly Father conspire to make a man commit adultery? God forbid! If plural marriage were adultery or sinful in any way, would the Most High Creator God, Yahweh-Elohim, depict Himself as being allegorically married to two sister-wives? (Ezekiel 23:4, Jeremiah 3:6-14; 31:31-34) Would He use parables and analogies of Himself committing adultery or sin? Of course not! Would He reward His servants with several wives if doing so were a sin? Of course not! And were plural marriage a sin, then many of Yahweh's greatest men, whose works we are commanded to imitate (e.g. Abraham, John 8:39), would be hell-bound. God forbid!

Chapter 14. The Husband of But One Wife



Even though as it presently stands in the many English translations we have and contradicts everything else that Yahweh has said about marriage, adultery, and fornication, one passage in the New Testament is so rendered as to make it clear that Elders and Deacons may only have one wife:


"Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife ..." (1 Tim.3:2, NIV).

For most anti-polygamists, this is the scripture (and its parallels in v.12 in Titus 1:6) they wave in glee, believing that it proves their point. But actually such translations as these just create more problems for those opposed to biblical marriage because they contradict everything else written on the subject in Scripture.


The NIV, and other translations like it, perfectly illustrate the bias of English language translators. For one thing, the word 'but' isn't in the original. So a more honest rendition, which we find in most other translations, would be:


"Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, ..."

Does this mean, then, than an overseer (bishop, pastor, elder) is only allowed one wife? Is Paul underlining the "one wife" part to make sure that leaders have no more that one wife? Was there a 'problem' with polygamy that needed addressing that caused him to choose these particular words? Why didn't he just say, "Now the overseer must be above reproach, married, ..."? Or might the word construction "husband of one wife" actually mean something different in Greek?


The answer to our question is given by the Bible itself and is ludicrously simple. A couple of chapters later in the same letter to Timothy, Paul writes:


"Do not let a widow under sixty years old be taken into the number [of widows], and not unless she has been the wife of one man" (1 Tim.5:9, NKJV)

Now why didn't Paul write "... unless she has been married"? The problem was unmarried women pretending to be widows and getting financial support from the Church (Messianic Assembly). Why the construction, "the wife of one man"? Were there women living polyandrously - having more than one husband? Of course not! Polyandry didn't exist in either Israel or the Greek and Roman world! Polyandry was forbidden by both Hebrew and Greek culture and punishable by death because it was regarded as adultery in both.


The answer is so simple. "The husband of one wife" and "the wife of one husband" can only mean "married". So why not just write "married"? Simply to emphasise the gender of the one being spoken of - in the first instance, a man, and in the second, a woman. This was simply a figure of speech meaning "married". The correct translation of all three passages, including the one about the widows, should therefore be:


"A bishop then must be blameless, married (the husband of one wife), temperate, sober-minded, of good behaviour, hospitable, able to teach" (1 Tim.3:1-2).

"Let deacons be married (the husbands of one wife), ruling their children and their own houses well" (1 Tim.3:12).

"For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you-- if a man is blameless, married (the husband of one wife), having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination" (Titus 1:5-6)

"Do not let a widow under sixty years old be taken into the number, and not unless she has been married (the wife of one man), well reported for good works" (1 Tim.5:9-10).

These passages have nothing to do with polyandry or polygyny. All they are saying is that for a man to qualify as the leader of a congregation (Overseer, Bishop, Elder, Deacon) that he must first be married because the leadership rôle is not unlike that of an allegorical husband to a congregation which is an allegorical uniplural wife.


Some apologists for plural marriage dissect these passages and devote much time to studying words like "one" which they say can also mean "first", so that the passages are actually saying that a leader should be faithful to his first wife. This is certainly possible. However, the simpler explanation is, in our view, the most plausible one: "the husband of one wife" is simply a figure of speech or colloquialism meaning "married". It fits in with everything else the Bible says about marriage and contradicts no earlier revelation. Furthermore, many Bible commentators understand these passages to mean just this: men must be married to qualify as congregational leaders, the same requirement made by Judaism of Rabbis at the time. And as I have argued in an article elsewhere, it is responsible leaders of congregations who are the most qualified to live plural marriage, for they can set an example in their own home with multiple wives as to how the Body of Christ should live together in peace, harmony and echad (oneness).

Chapter 15. Do Not Multiply Wives



In the Torah - the Law given to Moses by Yahweh - kings are warned not to take too many wives:


"When you come to the land which the Yahweh your Elohim (God) is giving you, and possess it and dwell in it, and say, 'I will set a king over me like all the nations that are around me,' "you shall surely set a king over you whom Yahweh your Elohim (God) chooses; one from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you may not set a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. But he shall not multiply horses for himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt to multiply horses, for Yahweh has said to you, 'You shall not return that way again.' Neither shall he multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away; nor shall he greatly multiply silver and gold for himself" (Deut.17:14-17, NKJV).

There are many Christians who say that this means a king cannot have more than one wife, nor any other man. But this is a very stupid thing to say, because if this is right, it means that a king cannot have more than one horse or more than one piece of silver or gold. The word rabah, which we translate into the English "multiply", means to 'increase to a very large number'. In other words, kings are told not to be greedy because it will turn their hearts away from Yahweh. Solomon disobeyed this commandment, married one thousand wives and concubines - many of whom were pagans - and was led into idolatry. This particular sin - which was both marrying too many women and marrying pagans, is spoken of elsewhere:


"In those days I also saw Jews who had married women of Ashdod, Ammon, and Moab. And half of their children spoke the language of Ashdod, and could not speak the language of Judah, but spoke according to the language of one or the other people. So I contended with them and cursed them, struck some of them and pulled out their hair, and made them swear by Elohim (God), saying, "You shall not give your daughters as wives to their sons, nor take their daughters for your sons or yourselves. Did not Solomon king of Israel sin by these things? Yet among many nations there was no king like him, who was beloved of his Elohim (God); and Elohim (God) made him king over all Israel. Nevertheless pagan women caused even him to sin. Should we then hear of your doing all this great evil, transgressing against our Elohim (God) by marrying pagan women?" (Neh.13:23-27, NKJV).

What caused Solomon to fall was clearly in marrying pagan women, not for being polygamous per se. It is not a sin to have more than one horse, more than one wife, or more than a certain amount of gold or silver. When these things become wrong is when we want too much of them - in other words, when we get greedy, because greed turns men's hearts away from Yahweh. And in the case of polygamy, marrying an unbeliever is likely to turn your heart away too (see 1 Kings 11:2-4).


Another line of attack is a proverb of King Lemuel:


"Do not give your strength to women, Nor your ways to that which destroys kings" (Prov. 31:3, NKJV).

Is this a passage a condemnation of polygamy? If it is, then it contradicts everything else that has been said on marriage, for God's Word does not contradict itself! What we have to do is look at those passages which speak of kings and women and see what they say. We have already looked at two. We have seen warnings to kings not to marry too many women and not to marry pagan women. According to the great Bible Commentator, Matthew Henry, this is a mother's warning to her son, the heir-apparant,


"... not [too] be soft and effeminate, nor spend that time in a vain conversation with the ladies which should be spent in getting knowledge and despatching business, nor employ that wit (which is the strength of the soul) in courting and complimenting them which he should employ about the affairs of his government. "Especially shun all adultery, fornication, and lasciviousness, which waste the strength of the body, and bring into it dangerous diseases. Give not thy ways, thy affections, thy conversation, to that which destroys kings, which has destroyed many, which gave such a shock to the kingdom even of David himself, in the matter of Uriah. Let the sufferings of others be thy warnings." It lessens the honour of kings and makes them mean. Are those fit to govern others that are themselves slaves to their own lusts? It makes them unfit for business, and fills their court with the basest and worst of animals. Kings lie exposed to temptations of this kind, having wherewith both to please the humours and to bear the charges of the sin, and therefore they ought to double their guard; and, if they would preserve their people from the unclean spirit, they must themselves be patterns of purity. Meaner people may also apply it to themselves. Let none give their strength to that which destroys souls" (from Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible: New Modern Edition, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1991 by Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.).

The warning is clearly against having too many women to satisfy sexually as this would wear the king out (as it evidently did Solomon who laments the folly of lust in Ecclesiastes), and getting side-tracked from one's responsibilities as a national leader. And hinted within it is a warning against adultery (the cause of David's fall) and harlotry. Nowhere is sensible polygamy warned against!

Whether we are men in influential vocational positions that require us to give proper attention to our duties, or just ordinary men living a simple life pleasing to Yahweh, we are warned not to do anything that would distract us from our first love, Yah'shua the Messiah (Jesus Christ):


"Nevertheless I have this against you, that you have left your first love. Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place -- unless you repent" (Rev.2:4-6, NKJV).

If taking more than one wife would lead you away from Christ, don't become a polygamist! Since none of us knows exactly how many wives we can reasonably love and take care of without neglecting our duties and responsibilities as leaders in our homes, churches (assemblies), jobs or communities, common sense alone should tell us that we should consult with Yahweh before taking another wife into our household. He knows best. If He gives you permission, take another wife. If He doesn't, don't. Technically, you may take a sensible number (the recommended limit is seven - Isaiah 4:1) but you may have weaknesses or other problems that would prevent you from taking more than one or two. Only Yahweh knows. Check with Him first, and get counsel from other mature believers.


True, a man is not allowed to multiply wives - that is, he is not permitted to marry an excessive number, but that does not necessarily mean a man is not entitled to have more than one. The Scriptures are very clear about that.

Chapter 16. Toleration and Evolution



A Christian woman who objected to plural marriage told me that society had "evolved away" from polygamy to the superior monogamous relationship. This was after we had examined all the scriptures on the subject and she could not refute what the Bible taught. My answer was that society has also "evolved" into accepting homosexuality and many other sinful practices and I asked her if we should accept homosexuality on the same basis. She had no answer. I also asked her to show me where the Bible teaches anything about social evolution superseding Yahweh's Torah (Law). She could not.


As we saw earlier, Elohim (God) does not change - He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. True, there are some instances where, we are told, Yahweh gave some harsh laws to the Israelites because of the hardness of men's hearts, but these Yah'shua (Jesus) later modified to as to reflect Yahweh's original intent. He tightened up on the lax divorce laws (making them stricter), told people to love their enemies rather than to seek revenge on them, and many other enlightening principles of truth. But nowhere did He ever change the marriage laws which Yahweh originally gave, and which, as we have seen, make provision for plural marriage as an acceptable and divinely ordained institution.


An argument advanced by both Catholic and Protestant writers is that Yahweh 'tolerated' polygamy whilst enshrining monogamy as the ideal standard to which all good, spiritual men should aspire. And whilst such a theory may sound 'reasonable' it is actually a blasphemous libel on the character of Yahweh.


El Elyon, the Most High God, said to His prophet Malachi:


"For I am Yahweh, I shall not change, and you, O sons of Ya'aqob (Jacob), shall not come to an end" (Malachi 3:6, ISRV).

His Son, Yah'shua (Jesus), likewise is "the same yesterday, and today, and forever" (Heb.3:8, KJV). Yahweh's counsel - His thoughts - are applicable to all generations (Psalm 33:11). Solomon knew that, and we should also, if we claim to believe in the same God, when he said:


"I know that whatever Elohim (God) does is forever. There is no adding to it, and there is no taking from it. Elohim (God) does it, that men should fear before Him" (Qoheleth/Ecclesiastes 3:14, ISRV).

Now if Yahweh-Elohim were to change His marriage laws, or to 'tolerate' sinful practices, would people fear Him any more? Would they respect Him? Do you respect those who keep on "changing the rules"? Were He to change in one single thing, Jacob would "come to an end", and that is in contradiction to what He has said about Jacob and Israel in the last days and in the eternities.


Let us oblige those who claim to believe in the Bible to accept that Yahweh does not "change His mind" or "fiddle with the rules":


"Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning" (James 1:17, NKJV).

"El (God) is not a man to lie; nor a son of man, to repent [change direction]! He has said, and would he not do it; or spoken, and would not confirm it?" (Bemidbar/Numbers 23:19, ISRV).

To say that Yahweh tolerates polygamy whilst setting up monogamy as the ideal is the same as saying that he does not demand absolute obedience to His commandments or that He gives us the freedom to sin or that man is not capable of obeying them. That is like saying that homosexuality is permissible but that heterosexuality is better. Would you trust such a liberal, wishy-washy God? However you view it, such a proposition is a blasphemy. It is saying that God is incompetent and can't frame absolute rules.


The trouble is He does frame absolute rules - some may be provisional, in which case He says so - but never has He said that plural marriage is 'provisional' or 'permissible' whilst being discouraged. Sin is sin. He says that sin merits death. Would He thereafter tolerate sin? Of course not! Would He deliberately keep people ignorant? Of course not! Is man incapable of being forced to live monogamously, thus requiring a temporary, permissive polygamy statute? Of course not! That is the same as permitting polytheism whilst "recommending" monotheism! We could go on, could we not, and list one preposterous proposition after another based on this foolish, false and blasphemous Western 'Christian' doctrine.


"Thus Eloah (God), determining to show more abundantly to the heirs of promise the immutability of His counsel, confirmed it by an oath, that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for Eloah (God) to lie, we might have strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us. This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast" (Heb.6:17-19, NKJV).

Anyone who claims that Yahweh has permissive, temporary moral laws is a liar and in need of repentance. His morality does not change. And that goes for His marriage laws especially. Marriage always has been - and always will be - one man married to one or more women within sensible limits and according to His will.


Yahweh does not change. That is established beyond dispute if you believe that the Bible is His Word. His moral laws do not change. His ethics do not change. Sin does not change. What was sin ten, a hundred, a thousand, or ten thousand years ago is still sin today, and what was not sin then is not sin today. All that has changed are the shadows and types which the Old Covenant pointed to and which are fulfilled in Christ - those observances which pointed to His death and resurrection such as animal sacrifice, circumcision, and the Levitical Priesthood which administered it. All the rest remains, as He Himself declared:


"Do not think that I came to destroy the Torah (Law) or the Prophets [Old Testament]. I did not come to destroy but to complete. For truly, I say to you, till the heaven and the earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall by no means pass away from the Torah [Law] till all be done" (Matthew 5:17-18, ISRV).

What was it that made the Old Testament incomplete? The Messiah (Christ)! Yah'shua (Jesus) made the pre-Messianic Scriptures complete. His atonement abolished certain ritual ordinances but the moral and ethical law - which includes marriage - is just the same. And there isn't a word in the Bible to refute that truth.


Where, then, have Catholicism and Protestantism gone wrong? They have, quite simply, twisted the meaning of the apostle Paul and given the impression that there are two different sets of rules and - by implication - two different Gods: a harsh Old Testament one and a much kinder New Testament one. But ... Yahweh has not changed! The God of the Old Testament and the God of the New are identical - they are one and the same. As I mentioned earlier, how utterly absurd to think that a polygamous family was "tolerated" by Yahweh until the cross and then, suddenly, that man became a sinner!


Has, as Protestants teach, Yahweh suddenly through Christ eliminated the Torah (Law) so that we are no longer accountable to it? Is that what Paul actually says? Does that mean that everything Yahweh spoke before been replaced by something else - what some call "faith" and others "Christ's (new) commandments"? Does this mean we don't have to worry about what is written in the Old Testament any more? And is this what Yah'shua (Jesus) meant in Matthew 15:17-18? Does this mean, after all, that Yahweh does change? Does it mean that He does add and subtract from what He has spoken before, even though He has categorically said He does not? Who are you going to believe - a theologian or God Almighty? What, then, if certain writings of Paul appear to contradict what Yahweh and Yah'shua (Jesus) have said? Shall we reject Paul (as many who are called Ebionites do) or shall we take a closer look at these controversial passages and see what they really mean? What will you do?


These are questions that many honest and sincere believers are doing today. They are challenging the priests and theologians of the churches and taking the time and making the effort to find out for themselves. And they have been more than rewarded.


I do not have time to go into this subject in this book which is about biblical marriage other than to say that Paul never says that the Torah (Law) has been abolished even though this is what we have been told He said since the Reformers came onto the scene 500 years ago and tried to undo the mess made by the Catholic Church but ended up going to the opposite extreme.


I assure you most solemnly that Yahweh, our Father in Heaven, has not changed because He says so and not me. I do assure you that His marriage laws have not changed either. He never tolerated sin and never said that His laws "evolve" at the whim of men. Rather, it is men, influenced by demons, who have changed Yahweh's Laws and made up their own:


"Now the Ruach (Spirit) expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry ..." (1 Tim.4:1-3, NKJV).

If anybody forbids you to marry one wife (compelling you to be celibate) or more than one wife (compelling you to be monogamous), know that they are being led by "deceiving spirits" and the "doctrine of demons". Be patient with them, gently instruct them in love in the truth of Yahweh's unchanging Word as summarised in this and other books, and then leave them to Yahweh with their own consciences. For they must either make peace with the truth or become an enemy of the Cross and of all righteousness, living with a seared conscience.


We both know what Biblical marriage is. It is up to people to accept of reject it, and take responsibility for their actions:


"Now the purpose of the commandment is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from sincere faith, from which some, having strayed, have turned aside to idle talk, desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm. But we know that the Torah (Law) is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the Torah (Law) is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed Eloah (God) which was committed to my trust" (1 Tim.1:5-11, NKJV).

Chapter 17. Obedience to the State



One of the favourite accusations that some people level against those practising multiple marriage is that it is illegal to have more than one wife in Western countries as well as many Eastern ones and that this is in violation of Paul's injunction to the Romans:


"Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from Eloah (God), and the authorities that exist are appointed by Eloah (God)" (Rom.13:1, NKJV).

The trouble with this kind of argument is that preaching Christianity is illegal in some countries too. It is illegal for Christians to assemble to worship in them, or build churches, or hold baptismal services. It is illegal in some countries for a Christian to convert a Muslim. There are many laws in many countries which would make preaching, let along living the Gospel, impossible without breaking the Law. If Christians had obeyed the unrighteous laws of the former Soviet Union, tens of thousands of souls would never have been won for Christ by the unregistered Baptist Churches there.


In order to understand what Paul meant when he said that we should obey government authority we have to understand also what he did not mean. The first Christians were banned by the Talmudic Jewish leaders of the day from preaching the Gospel of Christ, but they broke these rules nonetheless. For their defiance, they were dragged into religious courts (the Jewish equivalent of the Catholic Inquisition), charged with rebellion against the legal authorities, beaten, and sometimes murdered. What was the response of these disciples?


"We ought to obey Eloah (God) rather than men" (Acts 5:29, NKJV).

There you have it. Two apparently contradictory passages of Scripture. But are they? What did Paul actually mean when he wrote to the Romans? Was he disagreeing with the first disciples who predated him? Hardly, since he was one of those officers who enforced this inquisition and actually presided over the stoning of righteous Stephen, for which he bitterly repented later. He most certainly did not still agree with the charge of rebellion against the de facto authorities. What aspects of the "governing authorities" were Christians expected to be subject to then, as today? He answers that question to the Romans:


"Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honour to whom honour" (Rom.13:7, NKJV).

Here you have a list of the Christian's obligations to the state:



(1) The payment of taxes (see Mt.22:21);

(2) The payment of customs duties or levies;

(3) Respect and honour for the offices of government.

What Paul is saying is that whilst we have certain obligations to the government they are not absolute. Our minds, hearts and spirits belong to Him and to no state - it is our choice to whom we give these things. Even if we despise and hate a government because it is wicked, we are nevertheless to continue to pay taxes and levies (even if they are unrighteous) and to show respect for the offices of state (even if the officers are evil). In short, what Yahweh is saying is that in the absence of a theocracy (where Yahweh personally rules both spiritually and temporally though His ministers) we are to acknowledge the need for law and order of a secular type, even if it is poor or even plain evil. A communist or fascist government is better than no government at all where anarchy prevails. This is pretty much the sentiment of the apostle Peter who wrote:


"Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, whether to the king as supreme, or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good. For this is the will of Eloah (God), that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men -- as free, yet not using liberty as a cloak for vice, but as bondservants of Eloah (God). Honour all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear Eloah (God). Honour the king" (1 Peter 2:13-17, NKJV).

We are entering a time where government is not only becoming more and more evil but all governments are rapidly heading towards merger into a single World Government which the Bible says will be ruled by the 'beast' who will persecute believers to death. If the governments of today - or the governments of tomorrow - order us to deny the Law of Yahweh we are under absolutely no obligation to obey them. The Roman Empire tried to force the first Christians to worship the Roman gods in addition to their own and they rightly refused and paid with their lives. We are nowhere commanded to unconditionally obey every statute of government because we should obey Yahweh before men.


Polygamy may be 'illegal' in most countries, but so what? Governments do not in any case have the right to legislate marriage in the first place. As it is written:


"Therefore what Eloah (God) has joined together, let not man [or the state] separate" (Matt.19:6, NKJV).

It follows from this that there are marriages which Yahweh joins together and marriages which He does not. Until about 300 years ago, the state was not involved in joining marriages at all, even in the Christian West. Even Priests weren't needed. And in the heyday of Catholic rule in Europe where the Roman Church insisted in conducting all marriages, not everyone yielded. Thus the Normans, who lived in northern France in Normandy, typically married à la danoise ('like the Danes') in contracting marriages without the state or the church.


You do not need the state's licence to marry. And since these days the state rarely prosecutes those 'living together', an option followed by many who practice multiple marriage is not to tell the state about their unions at all. None of my marriages are registered with the state, but in Yahweh's eyes I am married because I have fulfilled the biblical requirements to enter into a covenants with my wives - and they with me - in the presence of two witnesses, to be faithful for life and into the eternities. As far as the state is concerned I am single, but as far as Yahweh is concerned I am married with three wives.


Because there are certain tax advantages from being married, many who have several wives 'legally' marry at least one of them according to the rules of the state. That is their choice. My own opinion is that I want the state to be as little involved with my marriage as possible so I tell them nothing. That may not, however, be an option in every country. Each man must act according to his conscience and local conditions.


You do not need the state to sanction your marriage. If 'Christians' say you are living in fornication or adultery, you can politely tell them that they do not know their Bibles and educate them as to the truth. If they tell you that you are a bigamist (which in most countries is a 'crime') you can again inform them that you are not breaking the law because have not married them according to men's laws but Yahweh's. Do not be intimidated by slander or scripture-twisting.


Some polygamists in the West are trying to make plural marriage legal. We respect their right to maintain that belief but this is not our position. We don't even think it is the government's right to legislate monogamy.