Jacobs_Trouble: It is suffice to acknowledge that it is from the Holy Bible "that sincere men will justify having multiple wives." I would agree that it is a prudent approach to concede that "God does indeed accept polygamy" and that it is a "very obvious biblical fact". If the goal of the above article is to prove a fallacy then it is still smeared with smut. Private interpretations are not suffice. Whereas it may well be true that many men from ancient historical times and men in the Old Testament era and biblical culture did not marry all of their wives in a covenant relation it is imperative that it is understood what marriage actually is, from that era up to this New Age.

What marriage of historical times has in common with this modern era and how far "back to the garden" we might feel it is necessary for us all to return to (past) would actually depend on what the Living Word has determined for our destiny (future). Is it a return to Eden or, something even inconceivably greater? Do we all just get to fly around naked, donning halos and strumming harps or does our God have something more profound in store for us? I am calling this particular article "smut" because I find it is the slanted sort of slime laid out to misdirect the path of those who would take the sword of truth to the razor's edge to dare define how many angels are able to dance on it. Only Jesus knows the answer.

I think it suffice that the command to be fruitful and multiply is not yet retracted from the Word, despite the things Paul spoke by permission. Blood is a precious substance. This much I know about the beginning: The Adam was indeed naked and the MOTHER OF ALL LIVING (so much for Lilith) was too. These children got to romp around with the animals and grow things in a garden. Some passage of time after, things changed and the vacation was over and they hard to get down to some hard, labor and eat bread in the sweat of their faces; and since then the Adam has undergone several dramatic changes throughout the dispensations, the Great Deluge being one of them.

Here is a thought: God told the Adam to be fruitful and to multiply before the curse, yet he cursed Eve with multiplied sorrow AND conception. That God had not intended Eve to conceive with such frequently prior to the transgression is also obvious. Yet the Adam was to be fruitful and multiply. We can pose all sorts of arguments for and against Bible polygyny prior to the great transgression but what matters is what God not only accepts but also sanctifies and blesses. What many fail to realize is that what the past, present, and future have in common with respect to BIBLE MARRIAGE is l'basar echad (One Flesh); which is plainly exemplified throughout the scripture. Whether it is carnal marriage or whether it is sanctified does not take away from the fact that it is marriage. Nonetheless if such "marriage" is also to be honorable and undefiled and sanctified of God someone in that marriage must also be annointed of God.

This is what the New Covenant is addressing spiritually and this is the proverbial "reproach" that the seven women in the book of Isaiah chapter four are actually trying to deal with with. Suddenly it becomes evident to these particular souls in jeopardy that without a godly man in their lives there can be no sanctification. I find it difficult to believe that these ladies have no regard for God considering it would reflect a return to the Ancient Land Marks that actually define what God's plan for the Adam after the great transgression and after the resurrection of Christ should be. With respect to godly polygyny, I would still find myself well enough to bear with those sorry souls who continually fail to grasp within their hearts and minds that marriage need not be reduced to a carnal equation -- even with respect to wives plural. 

I do not say that those who have never known a man (or a woman) cannot also be sanctified by God. The Apostle Paul addresses the matter quite thoroughly in 1 Corinthians chapter 7, for it is clear that this is a letter that was written to the Church and not to the dead, but to the living. How missionaries would allow for the husbands of wives plural in the land where such lifestyles are commonplace and disallow them in North America smacks of utter hypocrisy. Far too many of our well churched North American sisters and brothers are in no position to lift up their heads and thrust out their chests in the pretentious pride of living a lie they would call "monogamy" when in truth, it is no such thing but only after a similitude.

I refuse to accept any rebuttal from those individuals who did not both marry as virgins and remained chaste to one another only to the day of that challenge. That takes care of well over ninety percent of the church populace. These self-righteous puritans would certainly do well to accept the humility of their own shame before God before they would be so quick to thrust their pious fingers in the direction of those who would practice godly polygamy! I have witnessed far too many of these sanctimonious pretenders feigning the false sanctification of filthy monogamy while they, themselves, were once, or still are polygamists... or even worse... adulterers and fornicators and liars and hypocrites. This sort of condemnation is nothing less than impudent popery.

Paul understood that not all have the same gift. Some may very well have the gift of MONOGAMY and I would most certainly commend that loving couple in the Lord who acheived such a blessing as to both marry as virgins filled with the Holy Spirit, and baptized in the name of Jesus prior to the occasion. This does not mean that there is no sanctification for those individuals who do not receive such a glorious gift. I would agree that if a husbandman from Africa had three wives and he should receive the Holy Ghost since he believed and is baptized in the name of Jesus, his children and his wives will be sanctified because that is what is written in 1 Corinthians 7. The burden of proof is upon the disputers of the scripture to prove otherwise.

I challenge any man or woman who married as a blood-bought and baptized virgin in the Holy Ghost (their only spouse being likewise) to step forth to debate the matter with me. The rest of them clearly can not bring forth a true witness. How can anyone bring forth a true witness when they, themselves, have not followed in the path wherein they have chosen to witness but only feign to walk in proxy, knowing that they, themselves, have no such covenant with their own spouse? Or how can a celibate brother or sister tell a man or woman without the gift of celibacy that monogamy is the only acceptable answer for them when they, themselves, have never known it or practiced it? Talk is cheap. How is it that we should turn the matter of the flesh to the glory of a female mockery of circumcision? Have we not yet learned that no flesh should glory?

I do not mention this often because it is to the shame of the Church: nonetheless the WIDOWED and the FATHERLESS and the POOR are not being tended to in a godly way as they should be. Even those patriarchs who understand should also know what I am getting at because the matter is biblical in every respect. Read the book of Ruth. The time to return to the Ancient Land Marks is long overdue. It is not enough for these licensed and paid religionsists to toss these poor souls into the jaws of the dragon (even Caesar) to expect or even pretend that secular government should sanctify them.

WAKE UP NORTH AMERICA! THE TIME IS SHORT!