Polygamy Advocate

How to afford multiple wives

2012-01-08T13:23:00.002-06:00

It has been argued by many that "although polygamy is valid, a man must be able to financially provide for any and all wives." In past articles, I have dispelled this myth. However, some still use this argument as an excuse to not reap the blessings that Torah-based polygamy offers. Today, I will CRUSH this argument by empowering families to escape the modern world's rat race and live as YHWH intended! http://tinyurl.com/Gold124rush provides you with the ability to retire in as little as 24 months. Just for registering, you are entered into a monthly drawing for $25K! This is a legitimate way to experience freedom, keep Shabbat, tithe and enjoy the blessings of a patriarchal family. YHWH is growing His malchut. Don't allow S.A. tan to rob you of your ability to fully serve our creator through financial hardships. Register today and be on your way to FREEDOM in Torah! Team Yisra'el is going far!

http://tinyurl.com/Gold124rush

Scriptural Marriage At A Glance

2011-08-12T12:15:00.003-05:00

*Note: The rapist panel is slightly misleading. If a man raped an unattached virgin, then that would be true. However, if the woman was married or betrothed then if the rape occurred in the fields, he would be stoned and she would not. If the rape occurred in the city, then it would be considered consensual and they would both be stoned for adultery.

Polygamy headed to America!

2011-08-08T08:10:00.001-05:00

Why I keep my head covered.

2011-08-04T10:26:00.000-05:00

[17] “Do not think that I came to annul the [Torah] and the Prophets. I did not come to annul, but to fulfill. Truly I say to you, until the heavens and earth pass away, not one iota or one tittle shall pass away from the [Torah] until all comes to pass. Whoever then shall break one of these commandments, the least, and shall teach men so, he shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
[Mattithyahu (Matthew) 5:17-19; Green’s Interlinear (smooth translation)]

King James Version not the Only Version

As a young "Christian" man I was taught that it is improper for man either to pray or to prophecy with his head covered, because this is what “Paul” (actually Sha'ul) taught us in the “New Testament” (actually, “the Kethuvim Natsarim,” or Nazarene Writings). I was told that even if “Jesus” (actually Yahushua) had covered His head, being a priest of “God” (actually Elohim), that what “Paul” said overrode what “Jesus” had said, since “Paul’s” writings came later, and the apostles had been given the authority to bind on earth whatever seemed good and right in their eyes.

[19] “And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
[Matithyahu (Matthew) 16:19, King James Version (KJV)]

But as I come to understand the Scriptures somewhat better in recent years, I understand that the actual translation of this passage reads somewhat differently. The Greek translation of the Hebrew original of this text gives a different meaning altogether:

[19] “And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of the heavens, and whatever you bind on the earth shall be having been bound in the heavens, and whatever you loose on the earth shall be having been bound in the heavens.”
[Matithyahu (Matthew) 16:19, Green’s Interlinear (literal translation)]

This passage tells us that since the talmidim (disciples) are being led of the Ruach (the Spirit), they are only going to bind on earth that which has already been bound in the heavens.

This passage says that the talmidim would bind only the will of Elohim, instead of binding the rulings and traditions of men (Talmud). So a more direct rendering should read something more like:

[19] “And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of the heavens, and whatever you bind on the earth shall (already) having been bound in the heavens (has already been bound in the heavens), and whatever you loose on the earth shall (already) be having been loosed in the heavens (has already been loosed in the heavens).”
[Matithyahu (Matthew) 16:19, Green’s Interlinear (my insertions in brackets)]

This interpretation makes a great deal more sense, since one of the first things Yahushua told us in the Beatitudes (Matithyahu 5:17-19, above) is that He did not come to annul either the Torah (the instructions), or the Prophets. And if He did not come to make a bunch of changes to the Torah that He Himself handed down to the children of Yisra'el in the wilderness, then why would Yahushua tell His talmidim to make a bunch of changes to it? It makes no sense.

So was Shaul (Paul) a Heretic for Making Changes?

One of the biggest problems that people experience in coming to understand that the original faith of the Nazarenes is a continuation of the original faith of the patriarchs (rather than a replacement) is understanding Sha'ul’s writings.

At a cursory level of study, everywhere you look it seems that Sha'ul came to annul (do away with) the Torah (the instructions) and the Prophets (Navi'im). He seems to speak against circumcision; he seems to speak against the clean foods laws; and he seems to speak against men covering their heads. He seems to be annulling all kinds of things that are found in the Torah and the Prophets.

But the more that we learn about the faith once delivered to the saints, the more we come to realize that Sha'ul in no wise intended to annul the faith of the patriarchs at all. He did not desire to annul the Torah or the Prophets:

[14] “But this I confess to you, that according to the Way (“Halacha”) which they say is a sect (“minim”), so I worship the ancestral [One], believing all things according to that having been written in the [Torah] and the Prophets.”
[Sefer Acts (The Scroll of the Acts of the Jewish Apostles), 24:14; Green’s Interlinear (smooth translation)]

Sha'ul believed all things that been written in the Torah and in the Prophets, and he worshiped the same Ancient of Days that Yahushua did. Had Sha'ul taught anything other than Torah then Sha'ul truly would have been a heretic; teaching against the words of Yahushua.

But as we come to understand more, we come to know that Sha'ul was not in fact a heretic: It is only that his writings are easy to misunderstand.

[15] And think of the long-suffering of our [Master] (as) salvation, as also our beloved brother [Sha'ul] wrote to you, according to the wisdom given to him; as also in all (his) epistles, speaking in them concerning these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the unlearned and unsettled pervert (twist), as also (they do) the rest of the Scriptures, to (their) own destruction. Then, beloved, you knowing beforehand, watch lest being led away by the error of the Torahless, you (should) fall from your own steadfastness.
[Kefa Bet (2 Peter) 3:16; Green’s Interlinear (smooth translation).]

The Trouble with Translations: The Translator’s Interpretation

Being a pictorial Eastern language, Hebrew is very different from either the alphabetical English, or the alphabetical Greek. Therefore, in translating the inspired Nazarene Writings from Hebrew in to Aramaic, and then from Aramaic into Greek, and then from Greek in to English, lots of difficulties can arise for the translator, which can be solved in various ways, depending upon the translator and his bias, or agenda.

This is no small factor to consider, because in virtually every way, the Spirit asks us to go against what seems natural for the flesh. And being fleshly, the natural man looks for any justification not to have to keep the commandments (mitzvot) of Elohim. Fleshly human beings would rather do what is pleasing to the flesh.

That being the case, a translator can easily want twist the ambiguities present in a translation, in favor of leading us away from our Abba’s Torah, and in favor of some lawless (and more popular) Greco-Roman-Babylonian agenda.

YHWH’s Priesthood Covers Its Head in the Torah and the Prophets

But difficulties in translation aside, we know for sure that Yahushua did not come to annul the Torah or the Prophets (Matithyahu 5:17-19). We also know that He did not want His talmidim (the apostles) to annul the Torah, either, lest they become least in the kingdom. And from this incontrovertible fact we can infer that whatever might seem to annul the Torah or the Prophets must be either a misunderstanding on our part, or else it is an error in the translation.

And if Yahushua tells us that He did not come to annul the Torah or the Prophets, then we should take note of the large number of verses both in the Torah and in the Prophets that tell us that men in Yisra'el are supposed to cover their heads. These passages are too numerous to list them all, but let us examine some of the more critical ones:

Speaking of the Aaronic (Levitical) priesthood, Yahuwah commands through His servant Moshe that the priesthood is to wear a bonnet, or a head covering of some kind, and that this is to be a perpetual statute for Kohenim in Yisra'el:

[9] “And you shall bind on bonnets for them, and it shall be a never-ending statute for them in the cohen’s office.”
[Shemot (Exodus) 29:9; Green’s Interlinear (smooth translation)]

We also read in the Prophet Yeshayahu (Isaiah) that Yahuwah Elohim will also take kohen from the Lost Ten Tribes of Yisra'el (also called “Ephraim”):

[20] “And they shall bring all your brothers (Ephraim) out of all the nations, an offering to Yahuwah, on horses, and in chariots, and on litters, and on mules, and on camels, to My kadosh har Yerushalayim,” says Yahuwah; “As the sons of Yisra'el (Ephraim) bring the offering in a clean vessel to the House of Yahuwah. And I will also take some of them for kohenim, for Levites,” says Yahuwah.
[Yeshayahu (Isaiah) 66:20-21; Green’s Interlinear (smooth translation)]

So if some of us Ephraimites are also to be kohenim, and are to stand in the kohen’s office, then will we not wear the “bonnets,” as commanded in Shemot (Exodus) 29:9? Won’t that be covering our heads?

And through His servant Yehezqel (Ezekiel), YHWH prophesied that those who will serve Him as kohenim, as Levites, [sons of Tsadoq, or “righteous children”)] will wear linen turbans when they serve Him in His Millennial Temple (which sadly is not the same Temple that the Temple Institute is getting ready to build.)

[18] “Turbans (“bonnets”) of linen shall be on their heads, and linen undergarments shall be on their loins. They shall not gird with sweat.”
[Yehezqel (Ezekiel) 44:18; Green’s Interlinear (smooth translation)]

And in any case, whether the Nazarenes (Preserved Ones) of Ephraim are to be taken for Levites or not, YHWH Himself tells us that if we are to obey His voice, then we shall all be to Him a nation of kohenim, and a kadosh (set-apart) nation:

[5] “And now, if you will surely listen to My voice, and will keep My covenant, you shall become a special treasure to Me above all the nations, for all the earth is Mine. And you shall become a kingdom of kohenim for Me, a kadosh nation.”
[Shemot (Exodus) 19:5-6; Green’s Interlinear (smooth translation).]

So if all Yisra'elites are to cover their heads, and the priesthood was to cover its head (and will cover its head once more), then is covering one’s head bad?

And if Yahushua did not come to annul the Torah (“instructions”) or the Prophets, then should we who seek to be kohenim before YHWH also not cover our heads?

Head Covering in the Torah and Prophets

The custom in the Middle East is to cover one’s head, not only to protect from the sun, but also to mop up sweat. It has been that way for a long, long time.

In the Book of Dani'el 3:21, when Nebuchadnezzar ordered Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah (Shadrak, Meshach and Abednego) to be thrown in to the fiery furnace, he ordered them thrown in to the furnace with their turbans on:

[19] Then Nebuchadnezzar was filled with wrath, and the form of his face was changed against Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. He spoke and commanded to heat the furnace seven times more than it was usual to heat it. And he commanded mighty men of valor, who (were) in his army, to tie up Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, to throw them in to the fiery furnace. Then these men were tied up in their slippers, their tunics, and their turbans, and their other clothes, and were thrown in to the middle of the burning, fiery furnace.
[Sefer Dani’el, 3:19-21; Green’s Interlinear (smooth translation)]

As a discipline (or chastisement) for his adultery with Bat Sheva (Bathsheeba, the Daughter of the South), Melek Dawid was forced to flee Yerushalayim, fleeing from his own son Avshalom (the Father of Peace). And when he fled, he went up the Mount of Olives, barefoot, and with his head covered:

[30] And Dawid was going up in the ascent of the olives, going up and weeping. And his head was covered, and he was going barefoot. And all the people who were with him each had covered his head, and had gone up, going up and weeping.
[Shemu’el Bet (2 Samuel) 15:30; Green’s Interlinear (smooth translation)]

And there was someone else who had his head covered, and went barefoot:

Although Yahuwah told Moshe (Moses) to take off his shoes at the time of the burning bush (Shemot/Exodus 3:5), Moshe was never told to take anything off of his head. That is to say that the greatest prophet of the Tanach was told to take off his shoes before Yahuwah, but he was not told to uncover his head, even though he most certainly followed the Middle Eastern custom of the day, wearing a turban both to protect from the sun, and to mop up sweat. So if Moshe and Melech Dawid left their heads covered in Yahuwah’s presence, but took off their shoes in reverence, then why should we do any different?

But doesn’t Paul say to pray with your head uncovered?

Yahushua Himself tells us that He did not come to annul the Torah, or the Prophets. And we can also see that He did not intend His talmidim (disciples or “taught ones”) to do away with the Torah or the Prophets either.

Sha'ul even tells us that he believed all that was said in the Torah and the Prophets, and Kefa warns us that there will be those who are untaught and unstable, who will try to twist Sha'ul’s writings to justify their desires to behave in lawless ways.

And we see this pattern over and over again, don’t we? We see people wanting to be saved in their Torahlessness (lawlessness), rather than wanting to be saved from their lawlessness. We see people who want to believe they are saved, while intentionally violating the Way (“Halacha”) of Elohim.

It is understandable, why people do it. What the Spirit wants is in direct opposition to what the flesh wants. In fact, we even know from Sha'ul’s writings that the flesh is at irreconcilable enmity with the Spirit:

[6] For the mind of the flesh is death; but the mind of the Spirit is life and peace; because of this the mind of the flesh is enmity towards [Eloah]; for it is not subject to the [Torah] of [Eloah], for neither can (it be). And those being in the flesh are not able to please [Eloah].
[Romaya (Romans) 8:6-8; Green’s Interlinear (smooth translation)]

So because this mind of the flesh exists in many who call themselves “believers,” you will hear all sorts of excuses from people who do not wish to adopt the Way of Yahuwah, or the Way of His chosen people Yisra’el (Torah observance). You will hear all kinds of arguments that we do not have to subject ourselves to His rule, or His authority, and yet we can consider ourselves His subjects. This is the folly of pride.

But didn’t Shaul say not to pray with your head covered?

The Nazarene Writings were obviously intended for Yisra'elites of both Houses of Yisra'el (Judah and Ephraim), and they were obviously written in Hebrew (for more information, see “Was the “New Testament” written in Greek?”)And further, the Kethuvim Natsarim were obviously intended as a continuation of the original faith of the patriarchs, rather than as a replacement of them (as "Christianity" teaches).

But the English translations of Sha'ul's “Paul’s” writings seem to indicate that “Paul” was saying that we should not cover our heads in prayer, or when we prophesy. But can that possibly be right? Is that in accordance with the Torah?

If “Paul” wrote contrary to the Torah and the Prophets, then that would make “Paul” writing against the Words of Yahuwah, and against the Words of Yahushua. And that would make “Paul” a heretic. Yet we know that “Paul” was not a heretic. Rather, “Paul is easy to misunderstand, and to take out of context. His writings are easily used to justify a lifestyle of non-Torah-obedience.

So keeping that thought in mind, let us look at the passage in question, that seems to indicate that people ought not to cover their heads:

Confusion over First Corinthians (Qurintaus Aleph)

The reason that Sha'ul writes to the congregation at Qurintaus is that there is a man sleeping with his father’s wife. (for his father was a polygamist) The assembly thinks that they are just “so very spiritual” that they will be able to permit this adulterer to remain within their midst, and that this is the best way to witness to him, by not kicking him out.

Sha'ul writes his first epistle to Beit Qurintaus to tell the congregation that to permit sin in the midst of the camp is not the Hebraic way. Sha'ul writes to the congregation to tell them to put sinners out of the assembly. Sha'ul even says that it may be necessary that the man’s flesh be destroyed, that his nefesh (his soul) may be saved. And he concludes by saying that if the congregation does not put the man out, then when comes he will put the man out himself.

After Sha'ul’s first epistle, the congregation puts the adulterer out, in accordance with the ruling of the Yerushalayim Council in Acts of the Jewish Apostles Chapter 15. But then the man repents, and the congregation at Beit Qurintaus will not let the man back in. And it is for this reason that Sha'ul writes his second epistle to the congregation at Beit Qurintaus, to tell them to let a repentant sinner come back in the camp.

But it is also interesting to note that Qurintaus was (in that day) a center for Hellenic Temple Prostitution, and particularly male temple prostitution to the false “gods” of Apollo, Poseidon, and others. The Hellenic male bisexual temple prostitutes were reputed to cross-dress, and to wear their hair long (though shaven faced), so as to seem more feminine. (Which is where the custom of keeping a shaved face comes from) And while this disgusting practice would go over well in San Francisco or in certain areas of New York today, it is the exact opposite of the Hebraic way, and I am certain that Sha'ul found it to be odious, as it is completely against the Teaching (Torah).

And while returning Ephraimites were permitted to come hear the Torah of Yahuwah preached every Shabbat (Acts 15:21), they had to agree to abstain from the four abominations of adultery, idolatry (spiritual adultery), blood, and unclean meats while they were learning to do all the Torah. And it should be noted that this ruling, having been bound in heaven, is still binding on us today.

The Passage in Question: First Corinthians versus “Qurintaus Aleph”

[1] Be ye followers of me, as I also (am) of [Messiah]. Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. But I would have you know, that the Head of every man is [Messiah]; and the head of the woman (is) the man; and the head of [Messiah] (is) [Eloah]. Every man praying or prophesying, having (his) head covered, dishonoreth his Head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with (her) head uncovered dishonoreth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of [Eloah]: but the woman is the glory of man.
[First Corinthians 11:1-7, KJV]

To read this passage in the English translation of the Greek translation of the Aramaic translation of the inspired Hebrew original makes it seem like Sha'ul is saying that men should not cover their heads while praying or prophesying.

But if Sha'ul is truly saying that men should not cover their heads while praying or prophesying, then Sha'ul is going against the Words of Yahuwah and Yahushua, saying that the commandment for the priesthood to be covered before Elohim is no good. And that would make “Paul” a genuine heretic for writing against Torah, and it would mean that his words could not be inspired. But we know from Kefa Bet 3:16 (2 Peter 3:16) that Sha'ul’s writings are inspired, so this passage in the English must obviously be a mistranslation.

So since we know that this particular translation of the Greek must be a mistranslation, let us look at the literal translation of the Greek “Textus Receptus” (the so-called “Received Text”), as found in Green’s Interlinear:

[1] Imitators of me be, as I also of [Messiah]. I praise but you, brothers, because all things of me you recalled, and as I delivered to you, the traditions you hold fast. I wish but you to know, that of every man the Head [Messiah] is; head and of a woman, the man; (the) Head and of [Messiah], [Eloah]. Every man praying or prophesying down over his head having, shames the Head of him. Every but woman praying or prophesying uncovered with the head, shames the head of herself; one for it is and the same with being shaved. If for it is not covered a woman, also let her be shorn. If but shameful for a woman to be shorn or to be shaved, let her be covered. A man indeed for not ought to be covered (katakalupto) the head, (the) image and glory of [Eloah] being. The woman but glory of a man is.
[Qurintaus Aleph 11:1-8, Green’s Interlinear (literal translation)]

Sha'ul says that a man should not wear his hair down over his head (long, uncut hair) like a woman, as the Hellenic temple prostitutes were known to do. Sha'ul gives us the very definition of "covering" in this passage. "Covering" is referring to hair! It is a shame (sinful) for a woman to cut her hair. He even uses the words "shorn" and "shaved." (Things that could only be done to hair) The uncut hair of a woman is the sign of submission to her "head" (husband (or father, if unmarried)) Then it is a shame (sinful) for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered (with long, uncut hair). Furthermore, the prostitutes of the temple of Diana would shave their hair and offer it as a burnt offering to Diana. It is complete idolatry and rebellion for a woman to cut, trim, shear, or shave her hair! Women have no need of an external "veil". The scriptures plainly teach that "her HAIR was given to her as a covering!"

Now let us examine a second passage in “First Corinthians” Eleven that is also mistranslated in the English of the King James Version:

[14] Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given to her for a covering. But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of [Eloah].
[First Corinthians 11:14-16, King James Version (KJV)]

Once again, this passage seems to support the idea that men are no longer supposed to cover their heads as those “evil Jews” Moseh and Melech Dawid did. And this is one of the passages that replacement theologists (and others who do not wish to keep the commandments of Elohim) seize upon to prove that even if our Mashiach did not come to annul the Torah and the Prophets, then His servant Sha'ul was sent to annul the Torah and the Prophets.

Most who disagree with this teaching are quick to point out Shaul's "Nazerite Vow" saying that he kept his hair long. However, they fail to realize that it would be pointless to take a vow to do something that you already do. When we fast, we do not eat or drink. Yet, it is not our normal state to go without food or drink. The nazerite vow is then "a deviation from the ordinary" just like fasting.

[64] And Rivkah (Rebecca) lifted her eyes, and she saw Yitzhak. And she quickly dismounted from her camel. And she said to the slave, “Who is this man who is walking in the field to meet us? And the slave said, “It is my master.” And she took a veil and covered (kacah) herself.
[B’reisheet (Genesis) 24:64-65, Green’s Interlinear (smooth translation)]

Notice in this account that Rivkah was not keeping her head covered "all the time" by a veil. She put a veil on when she saw Yitzchak coming to meet them. It was a custom for a bridegroom not to see his bride before the wedding. (Which caused problems later for Ya'akov)

This word “cover” is “kacah” (“kasah”), Kaph – Samek – Hay, “to cover” (for clothing or secrecy): clad self, close, clothe, conceal, cover (self). It speaks of wearing a veil down over the head, so as to conceal the head fully, the very thing that Sha'ul says that men are not to do (with their hair).

Sha'ul writes in support of Torah-based customs

Yahushua is on record as being against the customs of men that go against the Torah (Matithyahu 15:3-6, Mark 7:8-13). But was Yahushua against Hebraic customs that have their basis in the Torah? Let it not be!

In his letter to the congregation at Qurintaus, Sha'ul praises the congregation for keeping the Torah-based customs and traditions that were delivered:

[2] I praise but you, brothers, because all things of me you recalled, and as I delivered to you, the traditions you hold fast. [Qurintaus Aleph 11:2 Green’s]

As Yahushua did, Sha'ul writes only against those customs and traditions that go against the Torah. That is why Sha'ul tells the assembly to throw out a bisexual cross-dressing male temple prostitute who wears his hair long like a woman:

If but any thinks contentious to be, we such a custom do not have, neither the [assemblies] of [Elohim].[Qurintaus Aleph, 11:16, Green’s Interlinear].

Sha'ul taught that there was no such custom as a woman cutting her hair or a man not his hair in the assemblies of Elohim. (A custom is a usual practice)

However, Sha'ul did not write against Torah-based customs, nor would he. Aside from his speech on Mars Hill, Sha'ul always went in to the Diaspora synagogues on the Sabbath day. The custom within these synagogues was for Hebrews to cover their heads during prayer, as a sign of submission to Yahuwah’s authority. The men covered their heads, while the women veiled their heads (which is done at least partially to avoid arousing sexual attention from any man but her husband). And this has been Hebraic custom since the days of Melek Dawid, if not before. This is witnessed by the fact that in order to get on to the Kotel (the Wailing Wall) plaza, you must cover your head, even to this day.

But, there will be some who are contentious, saying that we no longer need to cover our heads because “Paul says that Yahushua came to nail the Torah to the Cross.” These will throw out the Torah and the Prophets that Yahushua did not come to annul, simply because they do not understand that Yahushua did not come to annul the Torah and the Prophets.

Would these be impressed to learn that Yahushua our Example almost certainly covered His head, and that He will most certainly cover it again?

On pages 426 to 431 of his book, “[Yahushua] the Messiah,” Alfred Edersheim writes that during the Second Temple period (when Yahushua first came) the Jewish people kept their heads covered. He writes, “In regard to the covering of the head, it was deemed a mark of disrespect to walk abroad, or to pass a person, with a bared head. Slaves covered their heads in the presence of their masters. The ordinary covering of the head was the Sudar, a kerchief twisted in to a turban. A kind of light hat was also in use, either of a light material or of felt. [The rabbis twisted the Sudar] in a peculiar manner, (in order to) distinguish them (selves) from others…. We read besides of a sort of a cap or hood attached to some kinds of outer or inner garments….”

Yahushua also speaks of covering one’s head with the tallit when praying. And He also says not to pray in the same manner as the goyim (the heathen):

[6] “And you, whenever you pray, enter your closet and hold your portal: pray to your Father covertly – and your Father who sees covertly rewards you openly: and when you pray be not stammering as the heathen: who for words of accent, they presume they (are) heard much. So liken not to them, for your Father knows what you seek, ere you ask Him.”
[Mattiyahu (Matthew) 6:6-8, The Aramaic New Covenant (from the Peshitta)]

The Hebraic idiom for bringing ones tallit up over one’s head in prayer is called “entering one’s prayer closet.” And one can imagine that “holding on to the portals” is a reference to holding on to the tallit while davening (rocking back and forth), as is the custom in prayer of the Jewish people, even unto this day.

And it is interesting to note that Yahushua tells us not to be like the heathen. The Greeks have always prayed bare headed.

And, when Yahushua comes back for His bride, He will most certainly have His head covered, for we read a certain reference to Yahushua as the Bridegroom in the Prophet Yeshayahu (Isaiah):

[10] For He clothed me (with) garments of salvation; He put on me the robe of righteousness, even as a Bridegroom is adorned with His ornament, and as the bride wears her jewels.[Yeshayahu (Isaiah) 61:10, Green’s Interlinear]

This word ornament is the Hebrew word “Peh-ehr,” Peh – Aleph – Reish, which is Strong’s Hebrew 6287, “an embellishment, i.e. fancy head dress: - beauty, bonnet, goodly, ornament, tire.” This word is from the root word “Pa-ahr,” (H#6282) meaning, “to beautify,” or “to glorify.” So we can see that Yahushua will wear some kind of bonnet or ornament on his hair when he returns to take His bride.

What is this bonnet?

Interestingly, the “bonnet” that Yahushua will wear is the same “bonnet” that the priesthood (including Ephraim) is commanded to wear in the Prophet Yehezqel (Ezekiel):

[18] “Turbans (“bonnets”) (Peh-Ehrei) of linen shall be on their heads, and linen undergarments shall be on their loins. They shall not gird with sweat.”
[Yehezqel (Ezekiel) 44:18; Green’s Interlinear (smooth translation)]

The other word for “bonnets” is the Hebrew word “Migba-ah,” Mem – Gimel – Bet – Ayin – Hay, Strong’s Hebrew 4021, “a (hemispherical) cap.” It comes from the same as Strong’s H#1389, Gib-ah, meaning “A hillock, a hill, little hill.” This in turn comes from Strong’s H#1375, Geb-iya, “From an unused root meaning, ‘to be convex,’” the very picture of the kippa worn by the Yahudim of today.

[9] “And you shall bind on bonnets (Migba-ah) for them, and it shall be a never-ending statute for them in the kohen’s office.”
[Shemot (Exodus) 29:9; Green’s Interlinear (smooth translation)]

And it should not come as a surprise to any student of the Two Houses that while the House of Ephraim was used to go out and hybridize the whole world with the seed of Yakkov (Jacob), the House of Yahudah was led to remain pure, as they were the ones to keep the Torah, the Hebrew language, and at least some of the proper Torah-based traditions alive, while lawless Ephraim was scattered like seed out in amongst the nations [Hoshea (Hosea) 1]:

[23] So says YHWH T'zvaot: “In those days ten men out of all the languages of the nations (the Ten Lost Tribes of Yisra'el) shall take hold, and will seize the skirt of a man, a Yehudi, saying, ‘Let us go with you, for we have heard that [Elohim] is with you.’”[Zecharyah (Zechariah) 8:23, Green’s Interlinear]

There are many “believers” who have been trained to hate the Jews, and who choose to revile them, despite the fact that their blindness-in-part came from Elohim, so that Ephraim might also have the chance to be saved:

[11] I say then, did they stumble that they fall? Let it not be! But by their slipping away (came) Salvation (Hebrew: “Yeshua”) to the nations, to provoke them to jealousy. But if their slipping away (is) the riches of (the) world, and their default (the) riches of (the) nations, how much more their fullness? For I speak to you, the nations (Ephraim) since I am an apostle (emissary) to (the) nations (goyim)– I glorify my ministry, if somehow I may provoke to jealousy my flesh, and may save some of them. For if their casting away (is the) reconciliation of (the) world, what (then will be) the reception, except life from the dead?
[Romaya (Romans) 11:11-15; Green’s Interlinear (smooth translation)]

This reference to “fullness” is an allusion to the blessings over Ephraim at the time when Yakkov (Israel) blessed Yosef’s sons, putting Ephraim ahead of Menasseh:

[19] And his father refused and said, “I know, my son, I know. He (Menasseh) also shall be a people, and he shall become great. But his younger brother is greater than he, and his seed shall become the fullness of the nations(Hebrew: Melo ha Goyim).

And the jealousy with which Ephraim is to provoke the Yahudim (the Jews) with is an allusion to the Song of Moshe, and to Sefer Hoshea (the Scroll of Hosea):

[21] “They (Yahudah) made me jealous with a no-god; they made Me angry by their vanities; and I shall make them jealous by a no-people; by a foolish nation (Ephraim) I shall make them angry.”
[Devarim (Deuteronomy) 32:21, Green’s Interlinear (smooth translation)]

[9] Then He said, “Call his name, “Lo-Ami” (not My people), for you (are) not My people, and I will not be for you. [Hoshea 1:9; Green’s Interlinear (smooth)]

Ephraim was scattered because they would not keep YHWH’s Torah. They did not want to keep YHWH’s Instructions (Torah), desiring instead to do whatever was right in their own eyes. And, by twisting Sha'ul’s writings, those who are untaught and unstable try to justify the unscriptural position that they can be saved while willfully ignoring the Father’s commandment to cover their head.

The commandment to cover our heads is found in both the Torah, and in the Prophets, and we know that Yahushua our Example did not come to annul the Torah, or the Prophets; and neither did He intend that His servants the talmidim should do so.

And despite the lawless agenda that the "Christian Church" has promoted for centuries, Sha'ul himself tells us that he believed all that is written in the Torah, and in the Prophets. Sha'ul himself, being a Pharisee of the Pharisees, most certainly covered his head. Or what, then, is the “headpiece” in the full armor of YHVH that Sha'ul encourages us to wear?

[17] Also, take up the helmet of salvation(Hebrew: “Yeshua”),and the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of [Elohim]. [Ephesaya (Ephesians) 6:17, Green’s]

Let us Emulate our Example to Provoke our brothers to Jealousy

The House of Ephraim’s job was to hybridize the whole world with Yakkov’s seed (B’reisheet 28:11-15, et al.) But non-selective breeding is not Ephraim’s only job. Ephraim’s other job is to provoke our brothers the Yahudim (the Jews) to jealousy through our fervent observance of our Father’s commandments, as given in the Torah and the Prophets. But how are we supposed to provoke our brothers the Yahudim to jealousy, unless we first obey our Abba’s Torah? How are we supposed to convince them that we actually are Hebrews, unless we look, talk, and act like Hebrews?

I cover my head because I want to please my Master. I want to do my part to move our brothers to jealousy so that they may become saved, even as we shall be saved. But that does not mean that you need to cover your head.

You do not need to cover your head, even though the Torah commands it. You do not need to keep the Shabbat, or the Feasts. You do not need to get circumcised, wear a beard, or observe the Laws of Niddah. In fact, you don’t have to do any single thing that you don’t want to do.

But then, you don’t need to be part of Yahuwah’s covenant people Yisra'el, either...

Polygamist Spotlight #2 - Lamech

2011-08-04T07:41:00.005-05:00

I do not think anyone could write a better article on this subject than Tom Shipley did in his groundbreaking work "Man and Woman in Biblical Law" Below is his article on Lamech edited by me to reflect Hebraic names:

B'reisheet 4:19-24

19 And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah. 20 And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle. 21 And his brother’s name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ. 22 And Zillah, she also bare Tubal-Cain, an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubal-Cain was Naamah. 23 And Lamech said unto his two wives, Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt. 24 If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.

Lamech is the first polygamist mentioned in Scripture. (This does not necessarily mean he was the first polygamist, only the first mentioned.) It is not my purpose here to examine the precise meaning of Lamech’s much-disputed words to his wives. What is important is that Lamech is a perverse character no matter which view of his words one takes. In comparing his crime to Cain’s, we may safely conclude that his act was murder and not merely self-defense or an accidental killing. Lamech was a true son of Cain.*

It is often claimed by biblical commentators that the perverseness of Lamech’s character “proves” that his polygamy was evil, as well. Polygamy, we are assured, is a result of the Fall. Yahuwah, we are told, manifested His way to the sons of men by providing only one woman for Adahm, but perverse Lamech “corrupted Yahuwah’s plan for holy matrimony.” I pointed out in the previous article, “In Defense of Patriarchy and Polygamy,” and in the series of articles, “Patriarchy Before the Fall,” that the relevant and determinative principle concerning polygamy arising out of the creation is the headship of the man. There can be legitimately only one head but many subordinates. I also pointed out the logical fallacy of reasoning from the particular (Adahm) to the universal (all men). Monogamy was no “law” for Adahm; it was a circumstance. (If he was indeed monogamous)

The standard explanation of Lamech’s polygamy is also logically fallacious. The syllogism goes like this:

Major premise: Lamech was evil.

Minor premise: Lamech was a polygamist.

Conclusion: Polygamy is evil.

The logical fallacy lies in the a-priori assumption that all of Lamech’s acts were evil. But good men and evil men have many activities in common; eating and drinking, working and resting, laughing and crying, sleeping and rising, marrying and raising children, etc. The fact that Lamech was evil does not, and cannot, prove that his polygamy was evil, as well. Thus, we see that the above syllogism is “reductio ad absurdum.”

And really, men who are Biblical scholars should set a much higher standard of argumentation for the rest of the assembly than this all-too-typical and shoddy approach to Lamech’s polygamy.

A more likely explanation to account for the inclusion of the fact of Lamech’s polygamy in the

biblical text is to show the contrast between Yahuwah’s goodness toward Lamech and the utter

unthankfulness of Lamech toward Yahuwah; Yahuwah in His providence blessed Lamech with two wives and children by them both, yet Lamech, instead of rendering thanks and praise to Yahuwah, violates a fundamental law against taking human life. Looked at in this light, we can see the true magnitude of Lamech’s perversity.

In any event, the standard approach to Lamech’s polygamy by Christian scholars is not worthy of their profession. The “logic” behind the typical commentary is utterly without merit. It is amazing that those who make this argument are not called to task by other scholars for the “dumbing down” of their profession. But because the anti-polygamy stance within Christian circles is so monolithic, shoddy commentary such as dealt with above is bypassed with hardly a blink of the eye. This constitutes toleration of the practice of “handling the word of Yahuwah deceitfully,” something Christian commentators should not tolerate, either on their own part or others.

(end excerpt)

*I have always interpreted Lamech's words to mean that he killed someone in self-defense. It would not seem strange to me that the first mentioned polygamist would suffer attacks. I know of many today who are attacked for just advocating polygamy. (Myself included)

Unraveling the 1 Corinthians 11 Mystery

2011-08-04T07:01:00.003-05:00

So many people have asked me to explain the meaning of 1 Corinthians 11: 1-16 that I wanted to dedicate a post to it.

Let's look at this passage in context:

1Co 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

(Rabbi Sha'ul said for us to follow him as he follows Messiah – establishing the authority of both himself and Spiritual leaders to come)

1Co 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

(He praises these pagan converts for obeying Torah and following the doctrines that Sha'ul taught)

1Co 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

(Chain of authority = Yahuwah-Yahushua-Husband-wife)

1Co 11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

(He says that praying with a “covered head” is dishonoring to Yahushua. But, what does “covered head” mean?)

1Co 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

(For a woman to pray with an “uncovered” head dishonors her husband and is the same shame as if she shaved her head)

1Co 11:6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

(We will have to read further to establish what uncovered means – but we see clearly that being shorn or shaven is a shame)

1Co 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

(Reasons given for a man not to cover and for a woman to cover)

1Co 11:8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.

(Referring to the creation account – establishing Patriarchy)

1Co 11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

(Further establishment of Patriarchy and the chain of command)

1Co 11:10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

(The Malachim can see an uncovered woman and at a glace know that she is shamefully dishonoring her husband)

1Co 11:11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

(Man is born of woman, woman's sex is determined by her father's sperm – both sexes are necessary and dependent on each other)

1Co 11:12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

(Expounding on the previous verse and adding that Yahuwah is the creator of all)

1Co 11:13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?

(It should be obvious to us what is shameful and what isn't – sadly this sick and twisted world has hidden simple truths from us for so long – in many cases we have forgotten)

1Co 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

(THERE IT IS – the explanation is that we are discussing HAIR as the sign upon a person's head!!! It is shameful for a man to have long hair)

1Co 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

(Again, we see that it is HAIR that is being discussed. A woman should not have short hair)

1Co 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

(If anyone wants to argue, it is not a tradition of the assembly of Yisra'el for a man to sport long hair or a woman short hair Mishle 13:10 states that contention is always a result of pride. Dawid's son, Absolom grew his hair long because he was prideful. Today, women cut their hair so that they can “feel good about themselves” i.e. pride)

So many claim that this passage teaches that a woman should wear a veil, however:

The clear wording of expressions like “cut,” “shorn,” “shaven,” etc. would not apply to a veil. It can only refer to hair.
He is discussing being in subjection to authority and the outward sign of that submission. If he was talking about a veil for women, then a man would not be allowed to wear anything on his head (Kippah, talit, baseball hat, etc.) while praying.
While we do not have the original Hebrew of this passage, both the Aramaic and Greek translations use words that literally mean “uncut” where we see the English word “long” this could not apply to a veil. It means a man must cut his hair and a woman should not cut her hair.

The Scriptural Teaching On Hair

Is it possible that the length of a person's hair could have anything to do with pleasing Yahuwah?

Such an idea may at first seem strange. But before the question is dismissed, it would be wise to consider two statements of Scripture: "If a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him....If a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering" (1 Corinthians 11:14-15).

In the Scriptures, divinely appointed symbols represent kadosh things. The night Yahushua was betrayed, for example, He gave His disciples bread to eat and a cup to drink. The bread, He said, represented His body, and the cup, His blood (1 Corinthians 11:23-25). While the bread and cup are symbols only, the things they represent are so kadosh that those who do not properly respect them are "guilty of the body and blood of the Mashiach" (1 Corinthians 11:27).

Yahuwah has chosen for the length of people's hair to symbolize their relationship to Him and to the authority He has placed over them. This truth is presented in 1 Corinthians 11:3-16.

The Principle of Authority

The subject of 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 is authority: "The head of every man is Mashiach; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Mashiach is Elohim" (verse 3). This verse introduces and provides the basis for the following discussion about covering the head.

"Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head" (verse 4). Yahushua is man's head. It is therefore Yahushua who is dishonored if a man prays or prophesies with a covered head.

"But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven" (verse 5). The man (husband or father) is the head of the woman (wife or daughter). It is therefore the man who is dishonored if a woman prays or prohesies with an uncovered head. This dishonor is the same as if her head were shaven.

Not only is it a shame if the woman is shaven, but it is equally a shame if she is shorn. "For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered" (verse 6). The word "shorn" is simply the past participle of "shear," which means "to cut." This is the meaning of the Greek word keiro, from which "shorn" is translated.

Spiritual Significance

What is the theological basis of this teaching? "For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of Elohim: but the woman is the glory of the man" (verse 7). Yahuwah has chosen that a man's uncovered head reflects His image and glory in man; woman's covered head reflects the glory of man.

This reflected glory is based on the order at creation. "For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man" (verses 8-9). This establishes the patriarchal structure of the family.

That these things are important even in the spiritual realm is revealed in the next statement: "for this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the malachim" (verse 10). Malachim are spirits. It is not just in the physical realm that the authority represented by the length of hair is important; even malachim take note of a person's obedience or disobedience in this matter.

After establishing the divine order of creation and of authority, this passage affirms that the man and the woman are equally important to each other and of equal value in the malchut of Yahuwah (verses 11-12).

The Covering

The inspired Rabbi Sha'ul believed the assembly at Corinth would naturally understand the validity of his teaching on this subject: "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto Yahuwah uncovered?" (verse 13). He did not think this should be a surprise to believers, for the lesson of a clear distinction between male and female in this matter is deeply rooted even in nature: "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering" (verses 14-15).

The words "have long hair" in these verses are translated from the Greek word komao, which means "to let the hair grow." The word "hair" in verse 15 in the phrase "her hair is given her for a covering" is translated from the Greek kome, which refers to uncut hair. This further explains verse 6, which declares it to be a shame if a woman's hair is shorn (cut) or shaven. Her long, uncut hair is a glory to her, for it illustrates her loving submission to her husband or father.

On the other hand, it is a shame for a man if he allows his hair to grow uncut. For a man to cut his hair reflects his submission to Yahushua; uncut hair on a man symbolizes rebellion against Yahushua.

The covering mentioned in this passage is the woman's uncut hair. Verse 15 is the only place the word "covering," a noun, appears in the passage. Previously, the words "uncovered" and "covered" appear. These two words are adjectives; they do not specifically declare what is the covering. But verse 15 specifically says, "Her hair is given her for a covering."

The word "for" is translated from the Greek anti, which means "against" or "instead of." Here the Scripture themselves declares that a woman's long, uncut hair is given to her instead of (for) a covering (veil), and this is the inspired explanation of verses 5 and 6.

Thus, if a woman cuts or shaves the hair on her head, it is in the eyes of Yahuwah a shameful dishonor of her father or husband. If a man allows his hair to grow long, it is a shameful dishonor of Yahushua.

Contention

The passage concludes, "But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the assemblies of Elohim" (verse 16).

Contention is always the result of pride (Proverbs 13:10). If any man proudly argued against this teaching, he needed to realize that none of the assemblies of Yahuwah had a custom of allowing men to pray or prophesy with their heads covered with long, uncut hair. Nor did they permit women to pray or prophesy unless their heads were covered with long, uncut hair.

Conclusion

The sincere person who wishes to please Yahuwah will want to obey His Word in every respect. He will partake of the bread and cup of the Lord's Supper with greatest of reverence, because these symbols represent the body and blood of Messiah (verse 20). And a man will cut his hair, while a woman will allow hers to grow, because these symbols represent their relationship to Yahuwah and to Yahuwah-given authority.

Think Twice before advocating "Biblical Marriage"

2011-08-03T00:54:00.001-05:00

An excellent expose' WRITTEN BY AN ATHEIST!!!

http://www.examiner.com/atheism-in-atlanta/think-twice-before-you-advocate-biblical-marriage#comments

Heritage

2011-08-02T02:55:00.000-05:00

Polygamy is our heritage! As Yisra'el, as descendants of Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov, we have inherited the kadosh lifestyle of our fathers in faith. Don't let S.A. tan and this wicked world deceive you or rob you of what is rightfully yours! Our Abba is married to Oholah the elder and Oholiḇah her sister! Our Savior is coming to claim His brides soon! Woe unto them that call good evil and evil good!!!! Stand proud on the side of Yahuwah! Claim what He has given us! It is OUR heritage, our family, our right! Don't deny His true and faithful word. Accept your birthright in the name of Yahuwah for Yisra'el!

Jewish group promoting polygamy!

2011-07-28T08:13:00.000-05:00

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4100434,00.html

Does Your Bible Not Match Your Own Personal Doctrine?

2011-07-26T22:25:00.003-05:00

Does Your Bible Not Match Your Own Personal Doctrine?

By The RAMYK Moon 4 Day 25 5971

Since most of you have tragically been taught discipled and even socialized by the Eurocentric western anti Hebraic church, you find yourself in a very strange and even in an uncomfortable position. What do I mean?

Most of you have been taught by blind guides (religious and state) that plural marriage, or polygyny, where a righteous man of faith is married to more than one wife of faith, is either in sin, or a vice that YHWH tolerated in the past, but does not tolerate anymore.

That leaves you with some serious issues when it comes to accepting your Scriptures-Bible as the inspired, infallible and blessed Word of YHWH. The fact remains, that many of the authors of Scripture had more than one wife, including many of the HEROES in the famous Hebrews chapter 11 Hall of Fame of faith. Let's leave out those heroes for a moment and focus in on only the writers-authors of the Scriptures. If what you have been taught is correct, that plural marriage is lustful, sinful, adultery, or at the very best a sinful allowance, or accommodation, for a time, to and for sin, by a holy Elohim, then your'e left without an inspired Bible. Or with a Bible that is tarnished by past allowances for sin. Your "Focus on the Family" has been perverted by false understandings and you have no choice but to be consistent by admitting that if polygyny is sinful, or a sinful past allowance in the Old Testament, then you are left with a Bible written in part by unrepentant sinners, and worse than that, by sinners that YHWH allowed, or used to write His very own Word. Following this faulty logic, which many of you have so foolishly adopted without questions, your Bible is a sinful book and cannot be considered righteous, or set apart, as many of its main authors were by your own flawed definition, lustful, unfaithful to their first wives, or plain out sinners, even after having had an experience with YHWH.

Here then is a list of books that were written by "alleged UNREPENTANT sinners," who continued to sin AFTER their salvation, or their experience of coming to know the Father intimately. If the truth be told, and it is, most of these eternal prophets would be removed from your church, your organization, or personal company!Unless you change your own foolish sinful religious non-Scriptural views, these are the books you will have to remove from your Bible immediately to clean things up, leaving you without a Bible and without the full counsel of YHWH. Ready?

-First Five books-Torah- Author Moses, TWO WIVES-Numbers 12:12 and the Ethiopian.

-Job-The Oldest book 42:10.

-Judges-Written by Samuel son of a polygynous father Elkanah, 1 Sam. 1:2.

-First and Second Samuel-Written by Samuel son of a polygynous father Elkanah, 1 Sam. 1:2.

-First and Second Kings-Written by Samuel son of a polygynous father Elkanah, 1 Sam. 1:2.

-First and Second Chronicles-Written by Ezra 1^st Chronicles 4:18-19. Two Jewish wives Yehudiyah and Hodiyah.

-Psalms-Written by David, husband of many wives 1^st Samuel 18:27.

-Proverbs-Written by Solomon 1^st Kings 11:3. Many wives.

-Song of Songs- Written by Solomon. Many wives.

-Ecclesiastes- Written by Solomon. Many wives.

-Hosea-Gomer and another adulteress 1:3, 3:1-2.

-Boaz 2:8, 2:23-Added Ruth to his set apart wives.

-Justin Martyr admitted that many Messianics [no doubt leaders also] had many wives.

"Your imprudent and blind masters [i.e., Jewish teachers-rabbis] even until this time permit each man to have four or five wives. And if anyone sees a beautiful woman and desires to have her, they quote the doings of Jacob." (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 134).

Therefore it is very safe to assume that some of these apostles with more than one wife wrote parts of the New Testament.Notwithstanding that however, just removing all the books from the first half of the Bible, leave us with NO BIBLE at all. So if you who vehemently oppose YHWH's revealed ways, insisting on your theology over His own Words, then you need a new Bible. That is because you're left with no Bible and that would end your claim to Sola Scriptura! Consider writing your own Bible, as that's in essence what you have already done by disagreeing with YHWH! 2^nd Peter 1:20! Selah!

Russians beating Demographics with Polygamy

2011-07-26T22:17:00.000-05:00

http://rt.com/news/russia-three-andrey-love/

Biblical Plural Marriages - Right or Wrong?

2011-07-13T20:44:00.004-05:00

This is one of the best, most well written articles I have ever been blessed enough to discover. What surprised me the most was the fact that it was written by a woman. This article is a must read for everyone because it brings to light so many scriptural truths not only on the subject of polygamy but the very essence of the issue of obedience to YHWH.

http://webs.dudamobile.com/site/classic?url=http://livingthetorah.webs.com/biblicalpluralmarriage.htm&back=http%3A%2F%2Fwebs.dudamobile.com%2Fsite%2Fwebs_23732061%3Furl%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Flivingthetorah.webs.com%2Fbiblicalpluralmarriage.htm

Your Arms to Israel Nazarene Yisrael Shop

2011-05-31T07:50:00.000-05:00

The Rebirth of Yisra'elite Marriage!

This is a MUST-HAVE book!

Fundraising

2011-04-26T15:04:00.003-05:00

I am raising money in order to buy software that will be used to make educational films and cartoons and to promote these films on the Internet. If you would like to see awareness of polygamy spread FAST, please consider making a donation.

To make a donation, please click on THIS link

Husband of One Wife

2011-04-26T01:39:00.001-05:00

Forced Monogamy

2011-04-24T07:15:00.001-05:00

Sexual Freedom of Torah

2011-04-23T07:00:00.001-05:00

Marriage and Divorce

2011-04-23T04:03:00.001-05:00

Stud Muffin

2011-04-23T00:33:00.001-05:00

Is Plural Marriage Really Illegal in the USA?

2011-04-22T19:41:00.000-05:00

By Ben Szymanski

What Is The Law of the Land?

By The RAMYK-Apostle Rabbi Moshe Yoseph Koniuchowsky

This addendum shows clearly that what is in fact illegal are the current US laws that are unconstitutional, as well as an illegal ban on a practice YHWH blesses and will continue to bless. We have added this for those legal minds that desire to know how to follow plural marriage, yet are concerned with the laws of the land.

It may seem presumptuous for someone with no formal training in the law to write a legal opinion of a practice declared illegal by every one of the fifty states and held illegal by the United States Supreme Court. Recognizing that the blueprint of American government, the fundamental law of our land, was written to the understanding of every common citizen, however, I stand forward as one citizen in defense of the plural family, suggesting that our courts, legislatures, government officials and citizens have never been presented with, nor have they considered the arguments I will present here.

In the United States of America, government is not the law. In this country, government is subject to law, as is every citizen. Here, when government assumes a power not specifically granted by consent of the people government violates the law and any law created under illegally usurped power is not, in truth, law, but a violation of law.

It is assumed by many Americans that the U.S. Supreme Court is the court of last resort in this land. This is not true. Our court of last resort is “We the People.” This court was established by the Declaration of Independence, which declared the people’s right, their duty, to alter or abolish government when it becomes destructive of fundamental human rights. It is not reasonable to assume that any government will police itself. The Constitution has no power unless it is upheld and enforced by the People. No government is policed unless its own citizens police it.

This appeal is presented, therefore, to We the People, with the understanding that every judge, every prosecutor, every legislator and every government executive in the land is a member of this tribunal. I challenge any to publicly refute the reason and logic contained herein.

It is my contention that anti-bigamy statutes in the United States of America are violations of the law of this land, that they constitute violations of fundamental human rights; that patriarchal marriage has never in truth been illegal, but that government, by prohibiting it, illegally persecutes the family unit as a sovereign institution.

Family Sovereignty

Whether you believe in the Judeo-Christian account of Adam and Eve or hold to the Humanist concept of evolution, you must accept the fact that at some point in history, a man and a woman united to form the first unit of civilization on this planet, a family [after Lileth].

This first family relationship rose above the typical animal attractions that draw male and female creatures together for reproductive purposes or mutual survival. The first man and woman to form a family unit were drawn to each other by virtue, by the emotional energy of compassion unique to our species and were bound together by the selfless love this energy feeds.

Call them Adam and Lileth or Adam and Eve; the first couple on earth to form a family relationship did not have a county courthouse to go to for a marriage license, no justice of the peace or minister to perform a wedding ceremony, no county recorder to issue a marriage certificate and record their union. If they did engage in any kind of ritual marking family union, it is doubtful there were mortal witnesses to their sacred commitment and new family identity. In a world utterly void of civil government, they formed and maintained a family unit, the first earthly civilization in microcosm.

This truth is self-evident, that the family defines itself, by virtue, the energy of compassion and the tender emotions that bind individuals into one societal unit.

No civil government, no church, has the power to legislate or decree the love that binds individuals to each other in family relationships. These binding feelings exist only in liberty, by the choice of each individual. Once existent these feelings can be destroyed or abandoned only by the individuals themselves. The family institution exists only in liberty. This is also self-evident.

The family is a self-defined entity, existent by the choice of the individuals involved and held together by love, by virtue in action, by the power of human compassion.

In the early history of man the first families gathered and formed a community. To provide order to their society, each family sent representatives to a community council, forming the first civil government entity. The family existed before and is the founder of civil governments. This truth is also self-evident.

The family is a sovereign entity, self-defined, existing before civil government and independent of its approval. Civil government is a creature of the family, responsible to it, not for it.

The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 16:3)

-The Tenth Amendment of the Constitution-

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

In Reynolds vs. United States (1879), the Supreme Court justices unanimously supported the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Law of 1862 against a constitutional challenge based upon freedom of religion. In his written opinion, Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite argued that every government had the power to decide whether patriarchal marriage or monogamy should be the basis of social life.

Obviously Congress also assumed they had this power when they passed the law, as did President Lincoln when he signed it, yet I would like to ask where in the Constitution was our national government given that power? Where in the Constitution is the federal government given any authority to define or place limits upon the family institution? In reading the Constitution I find no such power delegated to the federal government. I do, however, find two amendments that forbid this power to government.

The Supreme Court is considered our last resort in protecting the individual rights of citizens against the unjust power of government. We have here, however, an instance where that court openly usurped a power never given by consent of the People to dictate and enforce social norms among the citizenry. By assuming this power without the consent of the governed, both Congress and the Supreme Court violated the law.

The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act of 1862 was not law, but a violation of law.

In addition to usurping power to establish social norms in our society, to decide whether patriarchal marriage or monogamy should be the basis of our social life, in passing the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act Congress assumed another power without consent of the governed; the power to selectively breed the American citizenry.

Can a government interfere with an individual’s choice of a spouse without assuming the power of selective breeding, a power that exists only in absolute despotism [fascism]?

Can you deny a black person the right to marry a white person without engaging the power of selective breeding? Can you deny a single woman the right to marry a married man without enforcing this same power? You cannot.

If you deny a woman the right to choose a certain man for a husband, you have asserted the power to deny her every choice you disapprove of, leaving her only your choice of a mate for her. Your power to deny her choice is the power of selective breeding, a power we rightfully exercise over cattle and dogs, but not over people.

The Declaration of Independence asserts this truth to be self-evident, “that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Have the governments of the United States or any of the fifty individual states been granted the power of selective breeding by their citizens?

The burden of proof rests upon civil government. Unless someone can show that this power has been given to government by the people, or can justify anti-bigamy under some specific power granted by their Constitution, every law prohibiting bigamy is unjust and illegal.

The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution reserves all powers not specifically granted Congress by the Constitution to the states or to the people, which is always the case in a territory, where no state government exists.

Thus the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Law of 1862 was and is unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment, as Congress was not given power to interfere with intimate or family relationships among its citizens.

In addition, Congress assumed unconstitutional power by placing prohibition of patriarchal marriage as a condition of statehood for Utah and other states. All prohibitions of patriarchal marriage placed in state constitutions under federal duress are thus null and void.

-The U.S. federal government has no legal power, power granted by the people, to dictate or enforce social norms or traditions.

-The U.S. federal government has no power granted by the people to forbid any citizen the choice of a spouse, be it interracial, same-sex (sadly), or patriarchal.

-The Ninth Amendment-

“The enumeration, in the Constitution, of certain (specific) rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Will someone argue that the “other” rights, “retained by the people” and guaranteed by the Ninth Amendment do not include the right to choose one’s own spouse without government interference?

The Ninth Amendment has been applied to establish and defend the Freedom of Intimate Association, including the right to bear and beget children outside of civil marriage (Eisenstadt v. Baird, 1972). Can the Supreme Court consistently defend the right of a man and a woman to bear a child while denying them the right to establish themselves together with that child in a family unit? Can the court deny the child the right to a complete family with those two parents?

Suppose a man, married with children, becomes involved with a second woman and begets a child with her? He has committed no crime under the law and now has children with two women. Anti-bigamy law denies him the right to family relationships with both women, one woman’s right to a family relationship with the man she has chosen to father her child and the child’s right to a united family unit with both parents. Will someone argue that the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees none of these individuals the right to join together in one family unit?

Please note that anti-bigamy laws do not, cannot deny a man the right to engage in sexual relationships with more than one woman. They only succeed in denying all of these individuals the right to identify themselves as one family unit. An anti-bigamy law is not anti-adultery. Anti-bigamy is anti-family and UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

I submit that the right to unite with others in a plural family relationship is one of the “other rights” protected by the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution and that no government state can constitutionally deny it.

-Conclusion-

Civil government has no power to legislate or destroy the feelings that bind individuals in family units.
The family defines itself from within, by the choice of individuals who generate and maintain tender feelings for each other.
The family is a sovereign institution, existent before and independent of civil government.
Government is a creature of the family, responsible to it, not for it.
Governments are instituted to preserve rights (Declaration of Independence).
Governments are responsible to protect and preserve the family (Universal Declaration of Human Rights).
Government violates law when it usurps power not specifically granted by the people.
Government has no just power to establish and maintain social norms among the people.
Government has no just power to practice selective breeding among the people.
In prohibiting patriarchal marriage, government violates the law.
Patriarchal marriage is legal in the CONSTITUTION'S BILL OF RIGHTS.
Patriarchal marriage has always been legal ordained/allowed by heaven and played out in the earth.

Does the Law of the Land Make Patriarchy Illegal?

Let’s briefly look at the often quoted verses in Romans 13 that allegedly prove that believers, even if being led by YHWH into patriarchal marriage, must “obey the laws of the land.” This catch phrase is designed to try and make Scripture say something that it does not say. As you are about to discover, these verses say absolutely NOTHING about obeying the “laws of the land,” although they should be obeyed, whenever they do not break Yahuwah’s laws, or even His permissible allowances.

13:1-Let every Yisraelite be subject to civil governing powers. For there is no power but from YHWH: the civil powers that exist are ordained of YHWH.

The power, or civil authority is from YHWH. However not every law passed in the land is from YHWH. We must submit to the AUTHORITY and analyze each law that the authority passes to determine if it violates His Set-Apart Word, or not. When Adolf Hitler told Germans it was legal to kill Jews, should Bible believers have obeyed the authority? IT WAS THE LAW OF THE LAND! The obvious answer is no! However when the same German government told citizens to pay taxes, should they have obeyed the law of the land? Yes!

2 Whoever therefore resists the civil power; resists the ordained institution of YHWH: and they that resist shall receive mishpat-judgment on themselves.

As born again believers we are not to resist, or disrespect the civil governing authorities. We need to learn how to obey and submit to the authority without jumping off bridges, if and when they tell us to. If they tell us we cannot marry within the guidelines of Torah, we tell them to take a hike; however, in all other areas where they do not violate, or disallow what YHWH allows, we must obey the governing civil authority. As believers, we need to be able to discern the difference between obeying an “authority structure” ordained by YHWH to avoid anarchy and chaos, as opposed to robotically obeying every single decree that a human civil authority chooses to enact like killing babies and homosexual unions, if and when the specific decree violates YHWH’s Word and allowances, which it clearly does in man made anti plural marriage legislation, which ABORTS the SEED of ISRAEL.

3 For civil shophtim-judges are not a menace to tov mitzvoth-good deeds, but to cause men to fear doing evil. Will you then not be afraid of the authorities? Do that which is tov-good and you shall have tehilla-praise from the same authorities:

In general, the way to keep human authority off your back and out of your private matters is to fear doing evil against YHWH and do His commandments. DO and practice those things that YHWH calls good and you will not have to be afraid of civil authority. Why? Because YHWH will guard you from evil human authority, if and when human authority steps out of line with unjust laws. If you ALWAYS obey YHWH, not only will YHWH guard you, but He will make sure the civil authority will praise you in your devotion to the Creator, even if they refuse to recognize His very existence.

4 For he/it is the eved-servant of YHWH to you for tov-good. But if you do that which is evil, then be afraid; for he/it bears not the sword in vain: for he/it is the eved-servant of YHWH, an instrument to execute wrath upon the one that does evil.

The believer that does evil, or the one who violates Torah, will receive a correction from YHWH through human authority. He bears YHWH’s corrective governing sword to those who practice evil. Evil is defined by Torah alone and not by some nebulous concept called “the laws of the land.”

5 Therefore we must be subject, not only for fear of wrath [from YHWH], but also because of our conscience [based on His Word].

We must be subject to the AUTHORITY itself, not necessarily to every law they pass. Each law they pass must be analyzed in the light of Torah before we make a decision for consciousness sake, whether it can be obeyed, or whether it must be ignored, or even spoken against. This is what Paul is saying! Nowhere does he promote a general robotic submission to ALL the “laws of the land,” which by the way, he himself violated many times in proclaiming the Good News, which is how he wound up in jail! So we see Paul also had to violate some of the “laws of the land,” in order to obey, or follow YHWH’s will for his life.

If plural marriage is His calling for your life, no law of the land can stand in the way. The laws, or allowances of the HEAVENS, ALWAYS supersedes the so called “law of the land.”

6 For this cause pay taxes also: for they [human government] are YHWH’s instruments, attending continually upon this very thing.

A perfect example is taxes. Since Yahushua clearly commanded us to “render unto Cesar,” we must not resist the authority. But if the same authority tells us that we must hire homosexuals to work in our ministries’ and family businesses’, our consciences’ and our YHWH in His Word, does not allow us to obey the authority in that particular matter. In that case, we disobey a law, all the while still submitting ourselves to the general governing authority in all other matters, where conscious and His Word are not violated. If we follow YHWH’s ways all the time (doing tov), He will guard us from bad human authority, or provide a way of escape, so that we will not have the fear of abuse by human authority.

This then at long last is the correct and BALANCED view of civil authority and obeying the so called “laws of the land.” Let’s mature and grow up in Yahushua and learn to discern the difference between obeying the authority and power structure, while discerning each individual law and statute in the light of Scriptural allowances and prohibitions. This is the maturity and balance YHWH seeks for us on this delicate issue, as it applies to patriarchal marriage in western societies.

When done in the Light alone, plural marriage is one such time that we can obey the authority, while ignoring their barbaric and demonic callings to “mandated monogamy,” sterilization, abortion and birth control; demonic callings that stand opposed to the ways of Abraham and Jacob, that today results in a marriage failure rate of about 60-70% and aborted Israelite populations.

And if the truth be told, another 15% are perpetually unhappy, or unfulfilled, but remain together for convenience sake, financial reasons, or for the children’s sake. Surely patriarchal marriage, despite having its own unique troubles and challenges, does not approach those kinds of appalling numbers.

Addendum Two

Scientific Study on Mandated Monogamy by RAMYK

Cheating, lying, adultery and covenant breaking are all around us; mostly they are the bad fruits of man made church and government mandated monogamy statutes. Throw in a 60-70% “divorce on demand” rate and it’s obvious even to the casual observer that men and women have an inclination towards variety, or wandering in their sexual desires. Even many anti plural marriage female proponents claim that they reject plural marriage because it allows men more women, but does not allow them more husbands! That shows us the natural underlying need for variety.

Those who fight to remain monogamous, even in the happiest of marriages (and it is a real difficult lifelong struggle), admit to a life of struggle, work, tension, counseling and wrestling, in order to keep their marriages together. In this struggle, they inevitably feel something is wrong and that if monogamy was the only way to go and if YHWH blessed it alone, it shouldn’t have to feel like hell on earth for some, just to make it last.

Yet these couples have been told that they have no choice in the matter and that their desires for variety, which in all other areas of the human experience are considered the “spice of life,” are somehow evil, or lustful, when it comes to the sexual area.

It is most strange that when it comes to foods, music, art, cars, smells, sights and sounds, variety is considered a virtue and a sign of NATURAL living. Yet when it comes to honoring more than one covenant within a plural marriage arrangement, suddenly variety is forbidden, unclean, unnatural, fleshly and disgusting. Says who? What shameful inconsistency and hypocrisy!

Thanks to some fantastic research that came out in 2001, a top scientist and psychologist that have studied species of all types have found out that most species that YHWH created are not monogamous; and in fact mate often with different partners. Can this explain the underlying problem with mandated monogamy? Homo sapien beings, like all of YHWH’s creation, are created with a NATURAL uninhibited desire for more than one mate and lots of variety. Some may vehemently deny that; but 6,000 years of human behavior belies those self righteous, or self deluded claims. We need to come to grips with this and get real with ourselves, before YHWH can deposit new, or renewed truths in our hearts!

Now we can pursue more than one mate illegally like the world does in their arrogance and rebellion (Yah forbid), or we can once again submit ourselves to YHWH’s Torah and pursue this inbred need in a kosher and sanctified manner. As you read this research below, I want you to ponder the unthinkable.

That it is NOT NATURAL for some men and women to be stuck in a monogamous relationship, when the Creator YHWH placed within each of us the need and desire for variety. Of course we are speaking about a post Edenic fallen world; but the fact remains that is where we live.

That which western society has told us is natural; one man with one woman is according to the latest research of the animal kingdom and human behavior, absolutely incorrect. The two kingdoms (human and animal) are very similar in their created need for variety. This finally explains why the variety of sex practiced within the born again community mimics that practiced in the world and in the animal kingdom.

It’s not that born again believers do not fear YHWH! Indeed most do! But could it be that like other human beings that choose lifetime monogamy, they must contend, suppress and defeat the natural Yah given urge to have more than one mate? How many born again men and women have at some point in the past fantasized about making love to someone other than their lawful spouse? 98%?, 99%?, 100%? Please don’t lie and claim that this has never happened to you! Lying is a sin!

I believe the truth will set you free. I believe now is the time for all of us, or most of us, especially those not celibate, to admit the truth. If we could get away with it, we would opt for multiple sex partners, giving us multiple sexual pleasures from a variety of angles. Every pun intended.

Polygamist Perverts 3 - Return of the miscegenatio

2011-04-22T19:40:00.001-05:00

Polygamy Perverts 2

2011-04-22T13:09:00.001-05:00

Polygamist Perverts

2011-04-22T03:41:00.001-05:00

Bedroom Polygamy Talk

2011-04-22T03:40:00.001-05:00

Marriage and Children at Age's End and the Millenium by Elwiyah

2010-11-17T13:17:00.005-06:00

What up with all these WEDDINGS and CHILDREN being born all over the place????

But as the yamim/days of Noach were, SO shall also the coming of the Ben Ahdahm be. For as in the yamim/days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, UNTIL THE YOM/day that Noach entered into the ark, --- Matt 24:37, 38

With all these weddings and childbirths going on, you would think that the people who are seen so CONFIDENTLY "eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage" while HORRIBLE circumstances are occurring ALL OVER THE WORLD are not the pagans/UNBELIEVERS, but the Nazarene Yisraelites/Believers who are SCRAMBLING to get ECHAD and bear as much "fruit" as possible before the "Final Return"!!!

Can you imagine the PAIRS of people & animals forming in ORGANIZED & SET-APART alignment to ENTER the ark and do the will of Abba YHWH as COMMANDED to Noach?

17 And, see, I, even I, do bring a flood of mayim/water upon the earth, to DESTROY all flesh, in which is the breath of chayim/life, from under the shamayim/heavens; and everything that is in the earth shall die.

18 But with you I will establish My brit/covenant; and you shall come into the tayvah/ark, you, and your sons, and your wife, and your sons' wives with you.

19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shall you bring into the tayvah, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female.

20 Of the fowl after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after its kind, two of every sort shall come to you, to keep them alive.

21 And take for you all food that is eaten, and you shall gather it to you; and it shall be for food for you, and for them.

22 So Noach did according to all that Elohim commanded him; so HE DID.

I don't know of many pagans/unbelievers doing OFFICIAL, Torah-based weddings, and if they are "getting together", they are ABORTING or PREVENTING the zera/SEED from being brought to fruition!!!

WOW!!! Baruk Ha Shem YHWH!!!

Oh, and of course, we're eating and drinking 'cause the Abba YHWH gives us our yomly/daily bread ALWAYS--and always EXTRA on the MOADIM/appointed times!!!!!!

Baruk SHEMO/Blessed be His Name!!!

And woe to them that are with child, and to them that are nursing children in those yamim/days! --Matt 24:17 19

Oh, and THIS doesn't mean, "Get SCARED and DON'T have any children." On the contrary, the Yisraelites that were exiting Mitzrayim were BIRTHING the next generation during their trek and THOSE yeladim/children were the ones that were favored to ENTER Eretz Yisra'el with Yahushua!!!!

Baruk SHEMO, again!!!! HalleluYAH!!!

So the MAIN POINT of all this "COMMOTION" is the RESTORATION of ALL things: And Elohim blessed Noach and his sons, and said to them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. ---Beresheet/Genesis 6:1

________________________________________________________________________

Marriage and Sex in the Millennial Kingdom

Do you still have room to be shocked some more? OK then. Scripture proves that there will be sexual activity amongst married believers in the atid lavoh, or millennial kingdom. Let's see:

Mattithyahu-Matthew 22:23-32:

23 The same day came to Him the Sadducees/Tzadukim, who say that there is no resurrection and asked Him,

24 Saying, Master, Moshe said, If a man dies, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife and raise up zera/seed for his brother.

25 Now there were among us seven brothers: and the first, when he had married a wife, he died and, having no children, left his wife to his brother:

26 Likewise the second also and the third, all the way to the seventh.

27 And last of all, the woman died also.

28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be from the seven? For they all had her as a wife.

29 Yahshua answered and said to them, You are led astray, not knowing the Keetvay HaKadosh /Scriptures, or the power of YHWH.

30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the heavenly malachim/angels of YHWH in the shamayim/heavens.

31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have you not read that which was spoken to you by Eloah, saying,

32 I am the Eloah of Avraham and the Eloah of Yitzchak and the Eloah of Yaakov? Eloah is not the Eloah of the dead, but of the living.

Yahushua answers them precisely according to their question. They asked about in the resurrection. They did not ask about after the resurrection, or the millennium. To verify that they asked the wrong question, Yahushua says their asking about marriage only touched the subject of the resurrection of the dead; nothing else.

What can malachim/angels do that we cannot? They can fly. In the resurrection, we fly out of our tombs and apparently fast.

Since they asked about "in the resurrection", how long does "in the resurrection" last?

First Corinthians-Qorintyah Aleph 15:50-55:

50 Now this I say, Yisraelite brothers, that flesh and dahm-blood cannot inherit the malchut-kingdom of YHWH; neither does corruption inherit incorruption.

51 Behold, I show you a sod-mystery; We shall not all die, but we shall all be changed,

52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye [nano second], at the last shofar: for the shofar shall sound and the dead shall be raised incorruptible and we shall be changed.

53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption and this mortal must put on immortality.

54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

55 O death, where is your sting? O Sheol-Grave, where is your victory?

A twinkling of an eye. So for a brief moment, in the resurrection, people apparently aren't married to their current spouses because death and/or resurrection have freed them from their marriage covenants.

Revelation 20:4: And I saw thrones and they sat upon them and mishpat/judgment was given to them: and I saw the beings of them that were beheaded [by the end time Islamic beast].

10 for the witness of Yahushua and for the Word of YHWH,

11 and who had not worshiped the beast, or his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Moshiach a thousand years.

By necessity, for the millennial Kingdom and beyond, people reproduce and therefore need to be married to reproduce. The church has told us that resurrected beings are void of marriage and sex. Says who? The resurrected human beings live and reign with Moshiach for 1000 years. Are we supposed to believe that the resurrected beings get the short end of the stick and are deprived of heterosexual marriage, while the pagans of the earth over whom we rule, still are granted that privilege and pleasure for 1,000 years?

Exactly who the resurrected are married to only Yahushua knows. Since the Sadducees/Tzadukim asked the wrong question and Yahushua answered their question concerning marriage in the resurrection and not marriage in the millennial kingdom, we will have to wait to find out the answer. We also see that none of the 7 brothers will be married to the woman of Matthew 22, as death will have broken, or ended 7 marriage covenants and the brother (if saved) will be given a NEW bride to repopulate the kingdom with righteous seed.

Married people in this age cannot be changed into eunuchs in the millennium, because that would be unacceptable in the presence of YHWH. Additionally, what blessing is it for a bride to be rendered eternally sterile? If all believers are the collective bride of Moshiach, then they must be blessed with the capacity to reproduce.

Yeshayahu-Isaiah 65:20-24 tells us an amazing truth about repopulation in the millennium on earth:

20 There shall be no more there an infant of just a few days, nor an old man that has not filled his days: for the child shall die a hundred years old; but the sinner being a hundred years old shall be cursed.

21 And they shall build houses and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards and eat the fruit of them [kingdom activity].

22 They shall not build and another inhabit; they shall not plant and another eat: for as the days of an eytz/tree so are the days of My people and My chosen people shall outlive the work of their hands.

23 They shall not labor in vain, nor conceive children for trouble; for they are the zera-seed blessed of YHWH and their offspring remains with them.

In verse 21, it tells us of the labor that the saved will perform (building, planting) and then in v. 23, it says that that labor will not be in vain, as when others in this world take away our efforts. Likewise, when verse 23 says: "nor conceive children for trouble," that doesn't mean that they won't conceive children; the rest of the verse explains that they are the blessed seed/zera and their offspring remains with them. Their offspring (children of conception during the kingdom on earth) will not die. In order to have literal earthly kingdom children, there has to be sex (and of course the ONLY Kadosh-holy pattern of sex in Scripture is heterosexual marriage).

We can safely assume that the kingdom will feature both monogamous and plural marriages, as Torah is eternal, along with its liberal allowances.

The church's myth that we cease to be sexual beings in the world to come is nothing more than another fossilized custom! We will marry and have children in the atid lavoh/millennial kingdom.

So then how do we make sense of Luke's account of the same setting seen in Matthew 22, where Yahushua's reply is a bit more detailed?

Luke 20:34-35:

34 And Yahushua answering said to them, The children of the olam hazeh/this world marry and are given in marriage:

35 But those who shall be accounted worthy to obtain the olam haba-age to come and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:

36 Neither can they die any more: for they are like the heavenly malachim-messengers; and are the children of Eloah, being the children of the resurrection.

37 Now that the dead are raised, even Moshe showed at the bush, when he called the Master YHWH the Eloah of Avraham and the Eloah of Yitzchak and the Eloah of Yaakov.

38 For He is not the Eloah of the dead, but of the living: for all live to Him.

The accounting process still takes place in the twinkling of an eye. During that accounting process there's no time for marriages. The main event at that time is the accounting. If Scripture verifies itself and is harmonious with itself (which it is and does) v. 35 cannot be a negation of marriage! "To obtain the olam haba" refers to something that occurs after the resurrection, which occurs after the accounting of those worthy.

So three events in this order: 1 the accounting, 2 the resurrection, 3 the millennial kingdom (the kingdom to come).

In verse 35: "Neither marry; nor are given in marriage." Our marriage practices in this current world have a lot of rough spots. Our autonomy has often resulted in disaster (even in this world, arranged marriages have better longevity than non-arranged marriages, but still can be problematic).

So whether we choose our marriage partners (marry) in this fallen world, or they are chosen for us by our parents (given in marriage) in this fallen world, the matches for the most part are highly and clearly imperfect. Yahushua in His wisdom knows best. So who we end up married to in the kingdom to come has to be arranged by Him, but not by human arrangement, or autonomy. The marriage in the kingdom is not according to this world's customs and traditions, but according to the Wisdom of Elohim.

By scriptural standards, to really live, to be really living means to reproduce within marriage. And in the kingdom to come, reproduction has to be by a class of marriage that is not of this world. We will have new spouses and new children with whom we will spend eternity. YHWH has promised to make all things new! Revelation 21:5.

There are five positive fruits that result from the teaching of millennial marriage and reproduction:

1. Believers are under far less pressure to hurry up and get married to just any other believer. They know Yahushua will give them the correct spouse/s in the kingdom.

2. Believers who are already in difficult marriages have something to look forward to in the kingdom to come and thereby have more incentive to endure this life.

3. Potential prospective converts are no longer discouraged by the error of thinking the Creator is some sort of cosmic killjoy, who takes sex and marriage out of the reward for faithful believers, leaving it only to the heathen over whom we reign.

4. Since perfection is properly anticipated (for the millennial marriages assigned by Elohim), then the unrealistic expectation for perfect marriages in this world, isn't an added stress factor.

5. Young unmarried believers are no longer under the pressure to have sex at least once before they die, based upon the erroneous fear of a sexless afterlife.

In Evangelical Christian circles, this is even a greater problem because so many are erroneously anticipating a pre-Tribulation rapture. To be "raptured" means no sex ever after the so called rapture. To a young person with pumping hormones, that sounds like hell in heaven. So what do they do? Fornicate with the presumption that they can ask for forgiveness later right before the alleged rapture. The rates of fornication within evangelical circles bear this out.

Speaking of the millennial kingdom, let's take a closer look at Isaiah chapter 4, verses 1-6, a fascinating piece of Scripture. This is one of the clearest evidences that what today is an option, or an allowance (patriarchal/plural marriage) will be the order of the day in the 1,000 year reign of Yahushua over the earth from Jerusalem.

1 And in that day[seventh day millennium] seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own lechem/bread and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by your name, to take away our reproach.

Seven women will be married to one man, not for material benefits, but for kingdom living and the harmony of the Yisra'elite family in the kingdom. Yahushua will work His authority over the earth in the kingdom through plural marriages! Rather than being sinful, plural marriage actually takes away reproach for many women who have been abused and neglected in the Commonwealth of Israel.

2 In that day shall the Branch of YHWH be beautiful and full of tifereth/glory and the fruit of the land[fruits of the Set Apart Spirit] shall be excellent and comely for those that are escaped of Yisra'el.

In context, the glory and beauty of Messiah Yahushua, the fruits of the Spirit and the land of Israel, will be given to those Israelites who are blood washed, who have not only escaped the nations, but in context, are living as glorious examples of plural marriage families, through whom Yahushua exercises His kingdom rule.

3 And it shall come to pass, that he that is left in Tzion and he that remains in Yahrushalayim, shall be called Kadosh-holy, even everyone that is written among the living in Yahrushalayim:

Plural marriage families will live with Messiah in Jerusalem and be called kadosh/holy whose names are written in the Lamb's Book of Life. Note this carefully. Plural marriage families are called HOLY and the majority of kingdom citizens will be living in plural marriage. Unlike this world's sick governments, Yahushua in His kingdom rule will not mandate monogamy and may not even allow it, based on the fact that monogamy brought us the first fallen sinners (Adam and Eve) as well as the first known murderer (Cain). This will be a new start in every which way!

4 When YHWH shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Tzion/Zion and shall have purged the bloodguilt of Yahrushalayim-Jerusalem from the midst of it by the Ruach/Spirit of mishpat/judgment and by the Ruach/Spirit of burning.

When will plural marriage be restored as the order for kingdom living? When both houses are saved and fully washed from all their pagan practices, including state and church mandated monogamy, by the Holy Spirit of burning, or the burning of the filth and pagan practices in both wounded houses of Israel. The daughters (plural) of Tzion-Zion ALL become the bride of Yahushua.

5 And YHWH will create upon every dwelling place of Har Tzion-Mt. Zion and upon her gatherings, a cloud and smoke by day and the shining of a flaming of fire by night: for upon all, the tifereth/glory shall be an eternal Shechinah covering.

YHWH's glory will cover and abide over all those families with seven wives married to one man! Does that sound like plural marriage was a sin yesterday, or is today, or will be in the millennium? Mankind has greatly sinned against Yahuwah, in calling patriarchal marriage dirty and problematic. Are you truly willing to repent of bearing false witness against Yahuwah and His chosen messengers?

6 And there shall be a sukkah for a shadow in the daytime from the heat and for a place of refuge and for a cover from storm and from rain.

This is the promise to all those who have gathered according to the pattern of Isaiah 4:1-6. An eternal tabernacle with Yahushua Himself, as He becomes a refuge to plural married families, who previously had been scorned and ridiculed in this current age.

Another proof that there will be excellent plural marriage sex during the millennial kingdom on earth is seen in the remez, or the hint application of Genesis 1:28:

And Elohim blessed them and Elohim said to them, Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth.

In other words, have sex on biblical Shabbat! The 7^th day Shabbat is a foreshadow of the start of the 7^th 1,000 year period after the creation of Adam and Eve. If the weekly Shabbat was set aside for rest and sexual pleasure, how much more the coming millennial kingdom right here on earth? What do you do on Shabbat, other than rest and congregate? Selah

Even so, come Mar-Yah Yahushua!

A NEW PROPHETIC WARNING TO RETURNING YISRAEL!

2010-11-09T18:53:00.002-06:00

A NEW PROPHETIC WARNING TO RETURNING YISRAEL!

By Rabbi Moshe Koniuchowsky

Would Moses, Noah, Yahushua and Abba YHWH Be Asked to Leave Your Congregation or Hebraic Roots Movement?

Is Your Church Background Still Tripping You in a Full Return to Your Hebraic roots?

Editorial by The RAMYK

Delivered by the authorization of the Burden of YHWH

Moon 8 Day 3 5992 SC

This will be a short prophetic word. The Scriptures need no defense and are clear. I will not list hundreds of verses, as that's been done in the excellent works I list below and also because as a true Torah disciple it's your job to study things out!

There is and most likely will continue to be a major problem with most Messianic synagogues/groups and churches at the end of this age, as there has been for the last 1,700 years. Things will not change much until Yahushua returns and fixes this world's anti-Moshiach world order (See Isaiah chapter 4). Religion and religious traditions die hard and cannot be repaired in most cases. Yahushua could have but chose not to fix religious systems, or secular systems that worked hand in glove with the religious orders of His day to place men in spiritual and even physical bondage. These unholy tandems have motivated and in many cases forced mankind, men and women to sin sexually. Many of you reading this now are sinning sexually, because you have knowingly, or unknowingly bought in to a world order of Greco-Romanism taught by your leaders, or websites online that Yahushua, the prophets of Israel and Moses himself knew nothing about. Yahushua and the prophets HATE divorce and the serial monogamy behaviors that Israelite men desire, which moves them to divorce the wives of their youth, despite YHWH's Word. Religion has twisted the Words of Malachi 2:14-16, teaching that YHWH hates polygamy, seen INCORRECTLY by religion as adultery, but tolerates and even encourages divorce. If polygamy is adultery, then we can throw our Bibles in the trash anon, as YHWH, Yahushua and Moses the author of Torah itself all would be adulterers. How many would attend a congregation where the minister is thrice divorced, but not if he has three kosher COVENANT lifetime marriages and is faithful to them all? Most of you, which is why you need a wake-up call in Yahushua's love and a RETURN to TORAH, not to Torah teachers that miss the mark and are blind guides to the sheep of Yisrael! Do you understand the difference?

Since religion and their systems will be overthrown (not fixed) at Yahushua's coming and His earthly Torah based kingdom, we need to come out of those systems that entice, cause and yes even sanction mankind to sin. The ROMAN-TIC system subscribed to by most of the Messianic and church world is a plain abomination to YHWH. There are many excellent books written about marriage and biblical marriage law. There is no sense in reinventing the wheel in this brief prophetic warning. One of the best books based solely on Scripture is Resurrecting the Biblical Family-Men and Women in Biblical Law by Tom Shipley. See http://www.newcovenantpatriarchy.com

Shipley documents over 40 documented leaders and key men in Israel who practiced biblical patriarchy with YHWH's blessings and without a single word about missing His perfect will or a single word of rebuke.

I suggest attaining a downloadable copy immediately to study the issues from a legal biblical perspective. Yet that is not the point of this warning.

The Torah is clear on biblical marriage. There are no words in Hebrew for monogamy or polygamy just marriage. That should tell us something right there. Moses the author of Torah had 2 wives; this cannot be clearer, even though many twist his words and try to make it seem as if Tzipporah was the Ethiopian woman. Tzipporah was the first at the time of the Exodus and some 11-12 years later the Ethiopian woman appears, and because she was black and a "second wife" they rose up against him, including the leaders and his very own kinsmen. The irony is that while most Messianic and Hebrew roots congregations love and study the Torah, the very author of the Torah would be granted the right foot of fellowship and not allowed to enter most of their places. Add to that list men like Noah (2 wives Sefer Yahshar), Benjamin (many wives Sefer Yahshar), Jacob, Gideon, Abraham, Japheth some of the 12 apostles (see my book) and many others. They would be removed, or prohibited from entering these monogamy only church camps based on their kosher biblical choice of a plural lifestyle. Now ask yourself this poignant question! Do I attend a place of worship that claims to embrace all of Torah and the Neviim, all the while removing the author of Torah, along with the Judges and Neviim of Torah from membership were they physically alive today?

Do you attend or support such a place? Would your pastor, or rabbi welcome all kinds of biblical kosher families, or would he single out people like Noah and Moses and mark them to be ostracized? If Moshe and David and Abraham and many other heroes of the faith would be asked to leave due to their scripturally kosher lifestyle, is that a place where you and your family want to be and want to be supporting? Maybe you should ask your leader the hypothetical question and wait to see their response. Make sure they are not granting you lip service by saying plural families are welcome. They can say that, but when one actually shows up, most succumb to the peer pressure of other members and elders. Rare is the leader that can, or is willing to stand up to these religious lynchings. Those who do will pay a great price in the loss of reputation, the false witnesses that will arise against them and their popularity and yet they are worthy of your love, prayers, compassion and support.

Again the purpose of this short editorial is not to make the case for Scripture. The case is made as any lawyer would by Tom Shipley and also in my 450 page book Sex and the Believer

http://store.yourarmstoisrael.org/Qstore/Qstore.cgi?CMD=011&PROD=1212147193&ADMIN=YES

that has turned these hypocritical congregations and their arrogant anti marriage members upside down. Why would anyone want to attend a group that claims to be Torah observant, or Torah based when the fact is that they would throw Moses, Tzipporah and the Ethiopian woman to the curb together?

And what about Yahushua Himself, a polygamist with two sister wives? Oh you claim to believe and support the TWO HOUSE TRUTH, but deny the TWO SISTER WIVES that Yahushua loves and died to make ECHAD-one family? No friend. You are no true two house believer! Don't be offended be willing to be challenged! You cannot condone the persecution and abuse heaped towards this kosher lifestyle and claim your ministry is to make the 2 sister wives one in Yahushua. Go and learn what this means...I desire mercy and not sacrifice, or messianic trappings for that matter. Hebraic culture is a lifestyle not merely a Jewish arts and crafts experience. Ezekiel 23 and many other Scriptures are CRYSTAL clear. The 2 houses are 2 rebellious sister wives, the daughters' of one mother! Yahushua has come to cry out for both and re-marry-re-covenant (Jeremiah 31:31) both wives in His own righteousness family.

Since we know that Yahushua is the express image of YHWH, then YHWH the Father also is A-The Patriarch, as it is He that has sent Yahushua to gather the 2 wayward wives-sticks that He was-is married to. Ephesians 5:22-23 speaks of a mystery between the Bridegroom and His wife, made up of many members, all married to Him simultaneously, not in serial monogamous marriage and divorce fashion, followed by another marriage and divorce. The original model as most assert was not monogamy. If the premise is wrong, the conclusion of a matter will be too. The original model in the Garden of Eden was NOT MONOGAMY OR POLYGAMY. Read that AGAIN!!! It was in fact PATRIARCHY, meaning the woman was made for and as a helpmeet subordinate to the man, under his love and care! If that bothers you, you have discovered the root of the problem with the modern marriage paradigm that most have bought into. Adam's alleged monogamy (we don't know that for sure, as many Jewish sources speak of another wife) was due to circumstance (only one woman around) not to some kind of mandated kosher model, or original pattern. YHWH's original intent was neither monogamy, nor plural marriage. It was pure subordinate patriarchy, where the husband heads the wife/wives, even as Messiah heads the brides of Judah and Efrayim in their own restoration. Again if this statement makes you cringe, you're either a woman who does not understand biblical marriage and family, or a man who has been brainwashed by the apparent evils of modernity and the subtle sound waves of the 'woman's liberation from Yahushua' movement. Both monogamy and polygamy fall under the ORIGINAL PATRIARCHAL MODEL, both being kosher, yet flawed and soiled by mankind. Adam's surroundings and circumstances decided things for him. Are we ever going to get this right, or will we rather continue to argue with YHWH's Word, in the end opposing ourselves and our nation's 2 house restoration? Both monogamy and plural marriage can be His perfect will for you! You must seek it for yourself, not vicariously through a westernized religious leader closed, or blind to the full picture of biblical marriage.

To say that YHWH allowed plural marriage, which is allegedly evil and adulterous, because of men's hearts, is to accuse YHWH of sanctioning, blessing and tolerating evil by allowing evil to procreate and spread in a holy nation, when Scripture clearly states that Abba YHWH is of PURER EYES THAN TO EVEN BEHOLD INIQUITY, LET ALONE TOLERATE IT UNDER SOME SUPPOSED OUTDATED DISPENSATION. Sadly Messianics by and large have adopted this church pabulum without asking any real hard questions, like they do with the false doctrine of all food and pig is now clean in Jesus-Hey-soos Christ. No friends; it has been your religion of choice that has prevented you from coming into social networking and alignment with YHWH. One cannot claim to be Yisrael and a Hebraic roots seeker, all the while dismissing the lifestyle that brought blessing and favor upon our own forefathers. These are the same heroes of the faith listed in Hebrews 11 and yet all of them like Noah and Jeptah and Gideon and Moses himself, along with the living Elohim would be thrust out of most Hebraic congregations. When the author of Israelite life is not welcome, then the place becomes a temple of the dead not the living Elohim.

Now is the time to stand for ALL truth; YHWH is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him, even more than the pressure to be aligned to a ROMANTIC system, that denies the Living Unchangeable Elohim of the Bible, and who in the clearest possible terms through men like Hosea, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Torah itself, portrays Yahushua Himself as a polygamist Patriarch. The theme carries over unchanged into the Brit Chadasha-New Covenant, as seen in MANY places such as Matthew chapter 25 and the 10 virgin parable all married to Messiah, as well as places such as First Corinthians 5:1, one where a son sleeps with his father's wife, not his own mother. The fact that the early Mormons stole and perverted something YHWH blesses is not the issue, but it is our problem, if we as a nation do not reclaim the lifestyle as our fathers' were the ones to whom the lifestyle was initially given to be the blessed seed rather than Esau the cursed seed. The devil has injected Islam with polygamy, so he can take an alternate route to crush the seed (collective) of the woman.......Yahushua and His bride/s (Judah and Efrayim-Joseph).

The Book of Revelation is all about the risen Yahushua instructing (Torah) His various brides in Asia Minor. It is high time grow up and shut out the voices and then yes, even the very congregations that would not have any remorse to shamefully and smugly throw out most of the heroes of our faith. If you are a leader, or pastor, or rabbi I hope you are allowing the Set Apart Spirit to convict you. Or if you know of such a closed minded leader, please forward this to them in hope and love of the kadosh harvest!

And if the truth be told, if Yahushua-YHWH and Moses would not be welcome in these serial monogamist camps with a 60%-80% divorce rate, then neither should you and yours sanction such places by your alignment with them. It is up to the leaders who are rogue, like Miryam, in her opposition to plural marriage, to get into alignment with the Torah and the New Covenant and not for men and women to get into alignment with religion, personal feelings-preferences, or with the big brother secular state by the conduit of their emotions. Selah

May a husband beat his wife?

2010-10-18T19:08:00.004-05:00

I am often asked what separates a Torah-based plural marriage from polygamy practiced by Muslims, Mormons, Asian tribes, etc. One of the differences will be outlined in this post. This video addresses the topic of abuse or battering a wife. While this is acceptable and even encouraged in some religions, the Torah has very clear instructions regarding this matter.

We will look at some other differences in future posts.

Until then, I invite you to join me for Shabbat and Moed services at http://www.yourarmstoisrael.org

Editorial! Sister Wives on TLC Network!

2010-09-26T08:36:00.003-05:00

Editorial! Sister Wives on TLC Network!
By Rabbi Moshe Yosef Koniuchowsky

On another note- As you know our ministry is one of the few that has not ignored, or hidden our heads in the sand about biblical marriages approved by Yahuwah in monogamy and plural marriage, as lived by our patriarchs before there was a Mormon religion. We have been pressured, abandoned and crucified throughout the religious world to do so, but we cannot deny YHWH's Words; for He alone has the right to set opinions for us to adopt apart from our human emotions of control, jealousy and wormwood (IF we are HIS disciples).
Only a few days ago I turned on the tellie, (TV) and watched Nightline on ABC as I was about to retire. I was shocked. I saw something I never thought I would ever see in my lifetime. I saw an interview and preview with a real polygamist family with 4 wives and lots of children. In this family, I saw everything I wrote about in my book Sex and the Believer apart from Shabbat challah and candles. A praying, faithful, responsible, caring and fully functional family, who lived out their biblical calling and conviction without any signs, or allegations of control, compound enclosures, abuse, or child bride taking (illegal as it should be). As you know, over the last 50 years or so, since the advent of modern media, the ONLY time you see a plural family on TV on CNN, MSNBC or some other venue, is when some abuse, or allegations of abuse, make it a nice tasty media matter, like in the current Bishop Eddie Long allegations. Expect to see that drag out for months.
But never did I think I would see the day when a reality show would take place and a plural family, fully and totally loving, caring and functional like any American family, would take the bold risk to open their American homes to a reality show, to invite the public into their private lives. They said they were doing this not for money, but to show truth seekers that most of the garbage you see in the media about plural marriages are only the 'scum of the earth' stories, designed to make you and I hate something YHWH calls holy and the holiness of the ROOT of the Israelite Olive Tree; for if the fathers of Israel are loved and kadosh, so is the entire tree. If polygamy is dirty and perverted, as most of you (me too) have been taught, then the root of the Olive Tree is sinful, making us the branches all sinful! IF and when done right according to Scripture all marriage is kadosh-holy!
We here at YATI Int'l Ministries promote NEITHER monogamy, or plural patriarchal marriage. We simply have taught on biblical sex. What is and what is not kosher! Your brain has already been washed by filth and perversion, with rampant sex and 1 night stands outside of marriage being the norm, by a world that says 1 wife + 5 mistresses=a healthy love life, but a man with 5 covenant "till death do us part "wives according to Torah should be jailed, or labeled-maligned as a pervert . Such is the doctrine that the religious and secular worlds have putted and driven 400 yards into the fairway of your brain. And unless you begin to HUNGER after righteousness, you will remain in a "state-religion" induced anti-Messiah cocktail of perverted views about what YHWH blesses and or curses in human sexuality. Most preachers know about these things I have taught; and in private away from their wives, they will agree with me, but they fear to teach such due to the $ loss and reputation repercussions.
The truth of the matter is we have no horse in this race. We simply promote the entire Word of Yahushua the same yesterday, today and forever, as uncomfortable and as challenging as that may be for some. I rather have man oppose me, than my King oppose me, for simply telling the truth in hope and love.
Frankly, if I did not study the Scriptures for myself over the years and my only view of patriarchal marriage was the crap and lies they show on TV without ceasing about the 2-3% of families that live in some form of abuse, I would be the first in line to oppose it. But how can you and I get our views from the media that mocks us and YHWH and how can we form an opinion apart from the Words of YHWH, as His child and His ambassador? As a child of YHWH, we have been bought with a price and are only allowed one opinion. HIS!

Sister Wives PREMIERES TONIGHT Roman SUNDAY 10 PM EST;check local listings in the USA. Overseas search online for episodes.

Please see Sister Wives at this link http://tlc.discovery.com/tv/sister-wives/

Polygamist Perverts

2010-08-29T18:58:00.000-05:00

"Polygamists are a bunch of perverts!" is the cry heralded by anti-polygamists once they realize that not one verse of scripture supports their position. It is the perfect example of going from the ludicrous to the insane. Let me begin by asking the following two questions:

1) What is the definition of "perverted"?"

I have found that those leveling the accusation rarely know the definition of the word. Perversion, in scriptural use, means "twisted, out of line with YHWH's laws, wicked, etc" Homosexuality is rightly defined as "perverted" because the plain teaching of scripture is that it is sinful. Some other examples of perversion would be sex with a close relative, sex with a menstruating woman, keeping any Roman calendar day as the true Shabbat, adding to or taking away from the word of YHWH, buying or selling on Shabbat, etc. These things are perversions because YHWH says that they are wrong.

Now, if you are calling polygamy perverted, you are saying that it is against YHWH's word. And since that position cannot be backed by Scripture - it is adding to His word. Also, since it is expressly allowed and even sometimes commanded in scripture - it is taking away from His word. Thus CALLING POLYGAMY PERVERTED IS PERVERTED!!! We have already looked at the fact that YHWH himself is metaphorically a polygamist. We have also looked at several men whom the scripture says we will sit next to in the kingdom of YHWH were polygamists. We also know that men like Dawid and Shlomo were polygamists and anointed by YHWH. (Remember the command to "touch not my anointed"?) By your own admission, you are attacking some of the very men that YHWH called "perfect". Are you also implying that YHWH is perverted? (Which is impossible because He cannot sin!)

2) Can Monogamists be perverted?

Also, if you are referring to "abnormal sexual behavior", what makes you think that monogamists are not perverted? While I would be the first to agree that monogamy in itself isn't perverted, I would also be the first to say that forced monogamy IS perverted!

1Ti 4:1-3 "But the Spirit distinctly says that in latter times some shall fall away from the belief, paying attention to misleading spirits, and teachings of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having been branded on their own conscience, forbidding to marry..."

I would also point out that OVER 99% of all crime is committed by monogamists. (True, it is because of forcing monogamy on most of the world's inhabitants. However, it proves that monogamy DOES NOT EQUAL perfect. What is the divorce rate among monogamists? 50-73% in the United States. (I will discuss this in detail in a later article)

Among self-described "kinky" people, they have a saying "YKINMK" which stands for "Your kink is not my kink" Some couples engage in behaviors such as spanking, costumes, role-playing, etc. While these behaviors might be described as "kinky", it doesn't mean necessarily that they are sinful. Without going off on a tangent, let's suffice to say that couples engage in a wide array of sexual activities. The point that I'm making is that unless YHWH forbids something, it is not wrong. Sexual behaviors vary from marriage to marriage, but YHWH's word gives us the groundwork upon which to judge our actions. Adultery is ALWAYS sinful. Why? Because YHWH says so! Homosexuality is ALWAYS sinful. Why? Because YHWH says so! Polygamy is NEVER sinful. Why? Because YHWH did not say it was - not even once!

There is nothing "perverted" about polygamy. If I, as a married American man decided to have 10 girlfriends on the side and managed to keep it a secret from my wife, I would be considered a "stud" by the standard of society. But, if I loved and honored those ten women, if I married them and took them into my home, if I kept no secrets from my first wife, if I supported them and any offspring and raised and nurtured them in the fear and admonition of Yahuwah - 90% of those who call themselves "Bible believing Christians" would call me "perverted." Yes, I would have sexual relations with all ten of them, however, any thrill would be quickly outlived by the day-to-day care and duties I would take upon myself as their husband. Polygamy isn't a one night stand, it is a lifetime commitment. Taking a wife or wives must be considered carefully - it is above all additional souls that a man will be responsible for and for whom he will give an account. To cheapen polygamy by referring to it as "perverted" is to cheapen marriage itself. It would be like comparing "Holy" matrimony with a rumble with your secretary. If a man marries, either one woman or many, he must do so for more than sexual reasons. She/they isn't/aren't a sex toy(s), she/they are a real flesh and blood human being(s). Do monogamists marry for sex? Yes! Unfortunately, many do. But when the initial thrill wears off, where do they find themselves. Polygamists aren't all perfect, and some make the same mistakes as monogamists. But, we should never dare to utter a word against what YHWH has called Kadosh!

Our very definitions of right and wrong must come from unleavened whole-wheat scripture, not our human desires or sinful society's standards. What HE says is right is ALWAYS right. What HE says is wrong is ALWAYS wrong. YHWH never permitted sin and will never permit it.

For those who have blasphemed YHWH and His word by calling polygamy perverted, I remind you of His mercy and call you to repentance before it is too late!

Polygamist Spotlight #1 - YHWH

2010-08-08T08:08:00.003-05:00

For this week's article, I have decided to begin a series called "Polygamist Spotlight." Each of these articles will take a look at a polygamist in Scripture. The first polygamist that we will shine our spotlight on is the most significant example and makes all arguments against polygamy null and void. The creator Himself, the Most High El, YAHUWAH is a polygamist!

We are commanded to "Be kadosh, as I am kadosh." No one can argue that YHWH is not kadosh, is not our PERFECT example, is a sinner, is a pervert, etc. However, any anti-polygamist will not realize that when they attack polygamy they are attacking YHWH Himself!

Yeḥezqĕl 23:1-11 And the word of יהוה came to me, saying, “Son of man, there were two women, daughters of one mother. And they whored in Mitsrayim, they whored in their youth. There their breasts were handled, and there their maiden nipples were squeezed. And their names were: Oholah the elder and Oholiḇah her sister. And they were Mine, and they bore sons and daughters. And their names: Shomeron is Oholah, and Yerushalayim is Oholiḇah. And Oholah whored while she was Mine. And she lusted for her lovers, the neighbouring Ashshurians, dressed in purple, officers and rulers, all of them desirable young men, horsemen riding on horses. So she gave her whorings on them, all of them choice sons of Ashshur. And with all for whom she lusted, with all their idols, she defiled herself. And she did not forsake her whorings from Mitsrayim, for in her youth they had lain with her, and they squeezed her maiden nipples, and poured out their whorings on her. Therefore I have given her into the hand of her lovers, into the hand of the Ashshurians, for whom she lusted. They uncovered her nakedness, they took away her sons and daughters, and slew her with the sword. And she became a byword among women, and they executed judgments on her. And her sister Oholiḇah saw this, yet she became more corrupt in her lust than she, and in her whorings more corrupt than her sister’s whorings..."

Yermeyahu 3: 1-14 Elohim said, “If a man puts away his wife, and she goes from him and becomes another man’s, does he return to her again? Would not that land be made greatly unclean? But you have committed whoring with many lovers. And would you return to Me?” declares יהוה. Lift up your eyes to the bare heights and see: where have you not lain with men? Besides the ways you have sat for them like an Araḇian in the wilderness. And you made the land unclean with your whorings and your evil. Therefore the showers have been withheld, and there has been no latter rain. You have had a whore’s forehead, you refuse to be ashamed. Shall you not from now on cry to Me, ‘My father, You are the guide of my youth? ‘Does one bear a grudge forever? Does one keep it to the end?’ See, you have spoken and done the evils that you could.” And יהוה said to me in the days of Yoshiyahu the sovereign, “Have you seen what backsliding Yisra’ĕl has done? She has gone up on every high mountain and under every green tree, and there committed whoring. And after she had done all these, I said ‘Return to Me.’ But she did not return. And her treacherous sister Yehuḏah saw it. And I saw that for all the causes for which backsliding Yisra’ĕl had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a certificate of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Yehuḏah did not fear, but went and committed whoring too. And it came to be, through her frivolous whoring, that she defiled the land and committed adultery with stones and wood. And yet for all this her treacherous sister Yehuḏah has not turned to Me with all her heart, but falsely,” declares יהוה. And יהוה said to me, “Backsliding Yisra’ĕl has shown herself more righteous than treacherous Yehuḏah. Go and proclaim these words toward the north, and say, ‘Return, O backsliding Yisra’ĕl,’ declares יהוה, ‘I shall not look on you in displeasure, for I am kind,’ declares יהוה, ‘and I do not bear a grudge forever. ‘Only, acknowledge your crookedness, because you have transgressed against יהוה your Elohim, and have scattered your ways to strangers under every green tree, and you have not obeyed My voice,’ declares יהוה. “Return, O backsliding children,” declares יהוה, “for I shall be a husband to you, and shall take you, one from a city and two from a clan, and shall bring you to Tsiyon..."

Throughout Scripture, YHWH compares His relationship to His people to a marriage. Although the comparison is only metaphorical, we see here that He includes polygamy in that metaphor. Is there any place in Scripture where YHWH makes a metaphorical analogy of Himself as a sinner? NO!!! He never describes himself as a thief, adulterer, murderer, etc. However, He has no problem identifying Himself as a polygamist!

Notice that YHWH describes himself as being married to two women simultaneously and they both bear Him sons and daughters. They were both "HIS" at the same time! Notice also that these metaphors which describe marriage, adultery, whoring, polygamy and divorce are EXPLICITLY used to demonstrate the lawfulness and unlawfulness of the acts that they represent! YHWH's use of describing Himself as a polygamist is His own "seal of approval" on the issue of polygamy!

Tom Shipley writes "When God compares idolatry to whoredom in order to condemn idolatry, it is manifest that whoredom or adultery is presupposed as evil. When God compares His covenant with Israel to a man marrying a woman, it is manifest that marriage is presupposed as good. In a metaphor or parable there must be a correspondence of that which is good and evil both in the representation and in the thing represented. Without such correspondence, the metaphor or parable is reduced to absurdity and meaninglessness. Therefore, when the righteous and holy God depicts Himself as a polygamist married to two women, the logic of the metaphor requires us to presuppose the goodness of polygamy. To paraphrase Adams, “It is plain from this evidence that polygamy was considered a natural option
for God to use in referring to His relationship to Israel. The figure of polygamy would explain
nothing, but only confuse the reader if polygamy were unlawful. The very least we can say is that in these prophets, by His recognition, adoption and (implied) endorsement of polygamy, God placed His approval upon it.” The same logic that Adams applies to divorce in this metaphor must, of necessity, apply to polygamy. Ezekiel 23 and Jeremiah 3 provide powerful, indeed conclusive proof for the thesis that polygamy is a valid option for a man. Echoing Adams, it is “inconceivable” that it could be otherwise. What shall we say then to those who condemn polygamy? Quite simply that in doing so they condemn God Himself. There cannot be any stronger proof required for the validity of polygamy than this. The “monogamy only” position is thus utterly devoid of any merit at all and is shown to be the substitution of the word of man in place of, and in defiance of, the word of God." (From Man & Woman in Biblical Law)

There you have it. Case closed! How can anyone argue the fact that in opposing polygamy, they are in direct opposition to YHWH and His word!

We will continue our look at the polygamists mentioned in Scripture in future editions.

Defining our terms

2010-07-21T23:54:00.007-05:00

A reader wrote to me to ask me to explain some of the terminology used on this blog. They were confused not only by the Hebrew, but also by the very word "polygamy." So, here is a short explanation of the terms used here.

First of all, I only use the proper name of our creator. His proper name is used nearly 8,000 times in the Tanak (Hebrew Scriptures consisting of the Torah, the prophets and the writings commonly incorrectly called by Christians "The Old Testament") Yet His name is hidden in almost all English translations by the title "LORD" or the pagan word "God." It is the Hebrew letters Yud, Hey, Vav and Hey and is pronounced "Yahuwah." Sometimes on this blog I express it as YHWH (to stand for the Hebrew letters) and in scriptural references in the Hebrew as יהוה

Also, when manifested in flesh, I do not use the pagan name "Jesus" instead I use the name that He was called while on earth and the ONLY name that can bring salvation "Yahushua" or יהושע

Most Scriptural references come from either the RSTNE or The Scriptures. Both translations use the original Hebrew names (as I attempt to do throughout this blog). These translations are used except where otherwise stated. In the event of any cross-postings by other authors, I shall take the liberty to correct any other forms used. Thus, I shall consistently use the original Hebrew names of other people mentioned in Scripture. (i.e. "Avraham" = "Abraham"; "Ya'akov" = "Jacob" etc.

The word "polygamy" as used in this blog means "Scriptural polygamy" (except where otherwise stated). Please do not confuse this with Mormonism, Islam, or some "free sex" group. It simply means one man married to more than one woman. The word itself means "many marriages" or more correctly "plural marriages." This is what I mean when I say "polygamy" - One man in a "one flesh" marital covenant with more than one woman.

Some prefer the use of the word "polygyny" so as to distinguish from polyandry (one woman with several men). However, polygyny means "many women" and leaves out the concept of marriage entirely. Hugh Hefner (Playboy magazine founder) has "many women" but he is not the husband of most of them. So, I avoid the use of the word altogether as it loses focus on the concept of marriage. Polyandry is completely non-existent in Hebrew thought. It would be called "adultery" and so I feel no need to distinguish between the two.

One last term to address is "Polyamory" which means "many loves" and usually refers to some group sex situation. This is not what this blog is about! Although a man can have "many loves" (within the context of marriages), I don't use the term to avoid confusion with perversion.

I hope this short explanation is adequate for those readers who are unfamiliar with the Hebrew Scriptures or the terms used in this blog. If I have failed to address anything that requires further explanation, please don't hesitate to contact me.

Marriage and Divorce

2010-07-18T08:57:00.007-05:00

Many polygamy opponents will admit that YHWH HATES divorce. Yet, they do not stand against this evil while hypocritically condemning polygamy which is NOT condemned by YHWH. I think it's time in our discussions to do a study on the topic of divorce.

Before we can adequately define divorce, we must first look at what constitutes a marriage. Is it only a sexual union? Is it a governmental decree? What ingredients are necessary to consider a couple "married?"

The first recorded marriage in Scripture takes place in B'reisheet 2: 18-25:
"And יהוה Elohim said, “It is not good for the man to be alone, I am going to make a helper for him, as his counterpart.” And from the ground יהוה Elohim formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all livestock, and to the birds of the heavens, and to every beast of the field. But for the man there was not found a helper for him, as his counterpart. So יהוה Elohim caused a deep sleep to fall on the man, and he slept. And He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. And the rib which יהוה Elohim had taken from the man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man. And the man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. This one is called ‘woman,’ because she was taken out of man.” For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, yet they were not ashamed."

In this very first example of a marriage, we learn many valuable lessons.
1) YHWH thinks it is NOT good for a man to be alone.
2) The purpose of a woman is to be a helping-counterpart to the man.
3) Woman was made out of man's rib.
4) Woman is "bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh" to man.
5) The generic name of the female gender "isha" means "taken out of man"
6) YHWH brought the woman to the man and gave her to him.
7) Man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife.
8) Man and woman "shall become one flesh."
9) Man had a job before he had a wife.
10) The animals were not considered suitable counterparts to man.

We could certainly expand on this list, but these are the major points from this passage. How many anti-polygamy people will bother to stand up for these truths? How many will see a wife disobeying her husband and keep silent. How many speak out against bestiality? How many will see couples with unemployed men and/or couples living with the man's parents and say nothing? These things are directly against scripture! Hypocrites! How shall you escape damnation?

Also, from this passage I want to point out that it is YHWH who brought the woman to the man and gave her to him to be his wife. There was no government involvement! Remember when Yahushua said "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto YHWH the things that are YHWH's." (Mattithyahu 22: 21b) Marriage completely belongs to YHWH! The government has absolutely nothing to do with marriage! Yet, how many anti-polygamists hypocritically claim that polygamy is illegal and therefore sinful while breaking the Savior's command to render to YHWH what belongs to Him! If the government made bestiality or homosexual unions legal, does that constitute a legitamite marriage? NO!!! So then why do we assume that government legitimizes a marriage or has the power to grant a divorce? Because we live in a "backwards" (crooked/perverse) generation! (Acts of the Jewish Apostles 2:40)
As we continue through Scripture, we see hundreds of examples of men "taking wives." We see several examples of wives giving their husbands their slave-girls to take as wives. We see Hagar taking a wife for her son, Yishmaʽĕl. We see in B'reisheet 24:67 "And Yitzchak brought her into his mother Sarah’s tent. And he took Rivkah and she became his wife, and he loved her. Thus Yitzchak was comforted after his mother’s death." Yet we do not see any examples of a wedding ceremony. It then becomes clear that prior to Torah, what constituted marriage was 1) sexual union and 2) commitment.
At the giving of the Torah, we have what has become the model for the modern wedding ceremony. The Shidduch is the matchmaking process. The Vort is the engagement or betrothal period. The ketuvah (contract) comes from the covenant that YHWH made with Yisra'el. The Bedekin is the "veiling" process that is done in remembrance of Laban's trickery of Ya'acov. The Chupah represents the house that the couple will share and is derived from the cloud that covered Har Sinai. The kiddushin is the giving of money, jewlry, dowry, or other item of value as a symbol that the bride will be provided for throughout the marriage. The Sheva Brachos "seven blessings" are recited and the groom breaks a glass in remembrance of the destruction of the temple. Finally, the Cheder Yichud (room of privacy) allows the couple to be alone for a period of time where they (at least symbolically) consummate the marriage. All of these things are TRADITION based upon the giving of the Torah. They are not mandatory to constitute a legitamite marriage, only tradition for a public ceremony.
The Torah itself gives us many rules to govern marriage. For example, marriage between close relatives are now forbidden. Regulations were also put in place to govern polygamous households, such as Devarim 21:15-17 “When a man has two wives, one loved and the other unloved, and they have borne him children, both the loved and the unloved, and the first-born son is of her who is unloved, then it shall be, on the day he makes his sons to inherit his possessions, he is not allowed to treat the son of the beloved wife as first-born in the face of the son of the unloved, who is truly the first-born. “But he is to acknowledge the son of the unloved wife as the first-born by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the beginning of his strength – the right of the first-born is his. " Notice that the purpose of this rule is to protect the inheritance of the firstborn. However, the rule itself makes clear that polygamy is just as valid as monogamy. However, there is no specifics given to govern HOW a marriage occurs. We, as part of Israel, are to understand that YHWH is our matchmaker and joiner. He alone bonds us into marriage. And so, aside from certain restrictions, marriage is defined as YHWH joining together a man with one or more women. Our part in the joining takes place when there exists 1) sexual union and 2) commitment.

To summarize what has been said, marriage is Scripturally defined as YHVH joining one man to one or more women who are eligible to marry in accordance with the rules of Torah and who make a commitment to live as husband and wife accompanied by a sexual union for the purpose of raising godly seed.

There is no government involvement whatsoever, for marriage belongs to YHWH not to government! A man may be "legally" married to another man, his sister, his mother, or a sheep - however this is NOT a legitimate marriage!

Now that we can properly define a marriage, we may look at the issue of divorce. Obviously, someone who is not legitimately married cannot be legitimately divorced. Also, as we have seen, government has no power to marry, therefore it has no power to divorce. Since marriage belongs to YHWH, He alone governs the rules of divorce. What does His word say constitutes a legitamite divorce?

Deu 24:1-4 “When a man takes a wife and shall marry her, then it shall be, if she finds no favour in his eyes because he has found a matter of uncoveredness in her, and he shall write her a certificate of divorce, and put it in her hand, and send her out of his house, and if she left his house and went and became another man’s wife, and the latter husband shall hate her and write her a certificate of divorce, and put it in her hand, and send her out of his house, or when the latter husband dies who took her to be his wife, then her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her back to be his wife after she has been defiled, for that would be an abomination before יהוה. And do not bring sin on the land which יהוה your Elohim is giving you as an inheritance."

In order for someone to be legitimately divorced, the man must 1)write a certificate of divorce 2) place it in her hand and 3) send her out of his house.

Notice also that according to YHWH's laws:
1) a woman cannot divorce her husband
2) the wife doesn't get the house, it is she who must leave his house.
3) government plays no role in divorce
4) the only valid reason for divorce is when a husband finds a "matter of uncleanness" in his wife.

I call your attention now to the conversation that Yahushua had with the Pharisees.

Mattithyahu 19:3-9 "And the Pharisees came to Him, trying Him, and saying to Him, “Is it right for a man to put away his wife for every reason?” And He answering, said to them, “Did you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? “So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what Elohim has joined together, let man not separate.” They said to Him, “Why then did Mosheh command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” He said to them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts, Mosheh allowed you to put away your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. “And I say to you, whoever puts away his wife, except on the ground of whoring, and marries another, commits adultery And whoever marries her who has been put away commits adultery.” Here we see that Yahushua confirms that the only legitimate reason for divorce is when the wife commits adultery.

So then, a legitimate divorce according to Scripture consists of 1) the wife committing adultery 2) the husband writing a "get" (bill of divorce) 3) the husband placing the get in her hand 4) the husband sending her out of his house. Further - If the woman is re-married and divorced again, the original husband can never take her again to be his wife under penalty of death.

Government plays no role in marriage and divorce. The acts of marriage and divorce are clearly spelled out in YHWH's word. Now think of this: How many "legally" divorced women "re-marry" other men. In fact, if no get was written by her husband, she is still married to him. She is now living in adultery according to YHWH, yet perfectly "legit" in the eyes of society and the law. How many millions are committing adultery right now because of ignorance to YHWH's eternal laws? How many "preachers" are adulterers because of allowing government to define marriage and divorce instead of scripture? How many anti-polygamists themselves are nothing more than adulterers and/or condoning adultery? Haven't they read (1Co 6:9-10) "Do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the reign of Elohim? Do not be deceived. Neither those who whore, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor greedy of gain, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers shall inherit the reign of Elohim." Millions are going to an eternal lake of fire for their Torahless ways! Yet there are some who will condemn polygamy as "sinful" while ignoring adultery. So many nations will be judged for re-defining YHWH's definitions of marriage and divorce!

We must be vigilant in keeping to YHWH's definitions of marriage (which includes polygamy) and divorce! We must not let man, society or government redefine these meanings and we must speak out against what is wrong and sinful in the eyes of YHWH!

The Husband of one wife.

2010-07-11T08:35:00.005-05:00

What about 1 Timothy 3:2 which states that a "bishop" or "overseer" must be the "husband of one wife?" Isn't this a ban against polygamy in the Brit Hadashah?

Anti-polygamists are really trying to grasp at straws with this explanation. Because they cannot find a single verse of scripture which condemns polygamy, they attempt to use this verse as an implied command. When we look closer at this verse and read it in context, it becomes clear that it has nothing whatsoever to do with polygamy.

1) CONTEXT - In 1 Timothy 3: 1-10 we see that Rabbi Sha'ul is giving the qualifications for a man to serve as overseer of the local assembly.

1Timmothy 3:1-10 "Trustworthy is the word: If a man longs for the position of an overseer, he desires a good work. An overseer, then, should be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, sensible, orderly, kind to strangers, able to teach, not given to wine, no brawler, but gentle, not quarrelsome, no lover of money, one who rules his own house well, having his children in subjection with all reverence, for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how shall he look after the assembly of Elohim? Not a new convert, lest he become puffed up with pride and fall into the judgment of the devil. And he should even have a good witness from those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. Likewise attendants are to be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for filthy gain, holding to the secret of the belief with a clean conscience. And let these also be proved first, then let them serve, if they are unreprovable."

The first thing that must be pointed out is that if Sha'ul is banning polygamy for an overseer, it proves that there was polygamy in the assembly and further proves that it was NOT banned for all! Also, if a man must be monogamous to become an overseer, why is there not a requirement for him to REMAIN monogamous? Should he take a second wife, we would expect to see that he would thus loose his position. However, no such thing is mentioned.

But let's take a step back and find out what is being said here.

I must call your attention to the phrase "if any man desires the office of overseer, he desires a good work." People today have no idea what that means. When they hear the word "overseer" or "bishop" they immediately think of a modern day pastor sitting at the head of some congregation being honored and supported by his subordinates. Others may picture the televangelist with his hands covered in gold rings calling for people to donate to his needy ministry. That is NOT what this means at all! Being an overseer in the early assemblies was a very difficult job. Sha'ul implies as much by his "selling point" that the office is a "good work." The overseer was much the same as a modern sheriff or district attorney who functioned within the local assembly. It was an unpaid position, lacking the reverence we see given to modern pastors. Sha'ul then would not be banning an assembly overseer from being a polygamist in light of other assembly leaders in the TaNaK who were. Avraham, Dawid, Gideon, etc were all polygamist overseers of the congregation of Israel. Sha'ul would have no historical reference to make such a ruling.
Secondly, if this "implied ban" were required for ALL of the congregation then so would the other qualifications in this passage. By that logic, ALL who followed the way would be required to be married and have a family. If it is sinful for a congregation member to be a polygamist, it MUST THEN be sinful for him/her to be single and/or have disobedient children. You cannot have it both ways!

2) MEANING - What do the actual words in this passage mean? We have seen that an overseer is nothing like the modern wolf in sheep's clothing pastor. Let's define the other words in this phrase to get a better idea.
a) husband - "aner" simply means "man" or "male" it is translated "husband" when the context makes clear a married man is implied. However, there was no real word for "husband" at the time. This is a modern invention. So, to be true to the meaning we must translate this word as "man."
b) wife - "gune" is a more specific word which DOES imply a married female. (This is true the Scriptural context of a marriage) As opposed to "woman," "female" or "virgin" which are all status-distinguishing, a wife is a woman who belongs to a man (i.e. someone with whom sexual relations are forbidden to all but her "husband")
c) one - "mia" is an ordinal word meaning "first." I find it amazing that this word is used instead of the word "heis" which is the Greek numerical word for the singular value of one. That is the very word used in the same letter in 1 Timothy 5:9 to describe the "wife of ONE (heis) husband!" Almost the exact same phrase, but two different words are used for "one." The Israelite concept of marriage would mean that a man could have many wives, but a woman could have but ONE husband.

If we then construct the phrase according to the actual definitions of the words we get "a man married to his first wife." This sounds quite different than "the husband of one wife." To be an overseer, the man must know how to be responsible for his family. He MUST be a married man! It makes no difference if he has one wife or ten! If anything, this could be used to argue a ban on divorced men serving in the office of overseer. This falls perfectly in line with the other requirements which show the character of the man (as opposed to his marital status).

To further illustrate that Sha'ul wasn't banning polygamy, let's look at another verse:

1 Corinthians 5:1 "It is commonly reported that there is whoring among you, and such whoring as is not even named among the gentiles, so as one to have his father’s wife!"

Here, Rabbi Sha'ul is condemning someone in the assembly who was having relations with the wife of his father. This was prohibited in Vayikra 18:7-8. ‘The nakedness of your father or the nakedness of your mother you do not uncover. She is your mother, you do not uncover her nakedness. ‘The nakedness of your father’s wife you do not uncover, it is your father’s nakedness."

Notice that "mother" and "father's wife" are two separate people. Sexual relations are forbidden with either your mother or your father's wife. Sha'ul is condemning this forbidden act of fornication. Here is the perfect time for him to condemn polygamy (which was obviously going on the "New Testament") while addressing this reported concern, yet only the fornicating son is criticized. Nowhere is the slightest hint of the polygamist father being in the wrong in any way.

3) HISTORICAL - We have just seen a shining example of polygamy in the Brit Hadashah. The first century C.E. was when the sodomite Greeks and Romans began to make forced monogamy laws. This was because they saw that women were becoming more powerful with the freedoms they found in polygamous households. Women were viewed in these pagan societies as "a necessary evil to ensure procreation." In the Greek/Roman view, restricting a man to one wife would ensure him progeny while keeping the women as domestic slaves who would then be solely responsible for bearing and raising the children, cleaning house, washing, cooking, helping in the fields, etc. This was in sharp contrast to Israelite women who shared these duties with their sister-wives allowing them the time and freedom to pursue other endeavors. Love and romance would be found through homosexual relations with other Greek/Roman men. Forced monogamy has plagued this earth with untold misery and sin and has been the overwhelming force used to suppress women.

Some, such as pastor Don Milton, have pointed out that Sha'ul's seeming ban was actually a response to the Roman Lex Papia Poppaea edict of the first century.

We have seen that Rabbi Sha'ul was NOT banning polygamy to either the Overseers or the general assembly. The verse in question seems to be making the character of the potential candidate for the office come into question. For another view on this verse, I direct you to THIS article.

Oh see how they lie!!!

2010-06-26T08:10:00.010-05:00

Imagine my righteous anger when I read THIS article! It was written by s.a.tan's minister Herbert W. Armstrong. In the article he claims:

1) Avraham was NOT a polygamist.
2) Yitzchak had only one wife
3) Ya'akov had only one wife after conversion
4) Polygamy was a worldly custom not permitted to Israeli kings.
5) Dawid repented of polygamy
6) Concubines were not allowed
7) YHWH condemned the "sin" of polygamy
8) Polygamy was not the "original intent" of marriage
9) Yahushua is not a polygamist

Let's expose these blasphemies to the light of truth one at a time:

1) Avraham was NOT a polygamist

While Mr. Armstrong may think that all of his readers are simpletons, I have the proof of Scripture bearing testimony against him.

B'reisheet 16:3 "And Sarai, Aḇram’s wife, took Haḡar her female slave, the Mitsrite, and gave her to her husband Aḇram to be his wife, after Aḇram had dwelt ten years in the land of Kenaʽan."

Now, To me it seems plain that since Abram's 1st wife Sarai GAVE him his 2nd wife Hagar - that makes him married to two women at once! i.e. he WAS a polygamist.
Did YHWH condemn this heinous "sin?" NO!!! In fact, he was given the brit milah (covenant of circumcision) while married to BOTH of these women without a single word of "You disgusting pervert, how dare you take two wives!?!" Mr. Armstrong called Avraham "The father of the faithful" an adulterer and claimed that his son Ishmael was "illegitimate." I challenge you reading this today to find one verse of scripture that names Avraham an adulterer! This is the man that our savior promised the faithful would sit with in the reign of Elohim! I wonder if Mr. Armstrong's lies will comfort him in the lake of fire?

Revelation 21:8 “But as for the cowardly, and untrustworthy, and abominable, and murderers, and those who whore, and drug sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, their part is in the lake which burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death.”

Let's also not forget that Avraham had at least one more wife and at least two concubines! (See B'reisheet 25: 1-6) He definitely was a polygamist and not an adulterer!

2) Yitzchak had only one wife

While it is true that Yitzchak married only Rivkah, this doesn't condemn polygamy in the slightest. If anything, it stands as proof that monogamy is a valid form of marriage (contrary to modern FLDS teachings which state that a man must take a minimum of three wives to obtain salvation). Armstrong goes on to make an allegory concerning Yahushua and the assemblies. (more on that latter)

3) Ya'akov had only one wife after conversion

What a stretch of both logic and reason to make claims such as "Leah was Ya'akov's only true wife" when scripture tells us that he took TWO wives and two slaves who bore him children. How can he claim to know that "In YHWH's sight he wasn't married to Rachel?" This is the basis of all anti-Semitic beliefs! YHWH's chosen people came from the offspring of these four women of Ya'akov! Armstrong then purposely takes events out of chronological order. Please note that Ya'akov is blessed by YHWH by having his name changed to Yisra'el WHILE HAVING TWO WIVES AND TWO SLAVE-GIRLS WHO BORE HIM CHILDREN!!! Again, not once is he condemned or punished for polygamy! Mr. Armstrong, you are of your father the devil!

4) Polygamy was a worldly custom not permitted to Israeli kings.

What a foot-in-the-mouth argument! Assuming it is true that KINGS couldn't marry more than one woman - what about the other millions of Yisraeli men who weren't king? If YHWH had to make a special law for the king, did he forget about the common man? Since I am not King of Israel, may I have plural wives, Mr. Armstrong? However, he makes one out-of-context citation:

Devarim 17:17 “And he is not to increase wives for himself, lest his heart turn away"

So then, a king may have only one wife because it says "He is not to increase wives for himself." Strangely, he makes no mention of what comes immediately before and after that quote.

Devarim 17:16-17 “Only, he is not to increase horses for himself, nor cause the people to return to Mitsrayim to increase horses, for יהוה has said to you, ‘Do not return that way again.’ “And he is not to increase wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor is he to greatly increase silver and gold for himself. "

So, there you have it! The King of Israel was limited to one wife, one horse, and one piece of silver and gold. What a moron! See how he purposely omitted these things because it throws some light on the true meaning. But the key to what is really being said lies in the previous verses:

Devarim 17:14-15 “When you come to the land which יהוה your Elohim is giving you, and shall possess it and shall dwell in it, and you shall say, ‘Let me set a sovereign over me like all the gentiles that are around me,’ you shall certainly set a sovereign over you whom יהוה your Elohim shall choose. Set a sovereign over you from among your brothers, you are not allowed to set a foreigner over you, who is not your brother."

The issue here is idolatry. No foreigner was to rule as king who was not of the covenant people. Horses were a common gift (bribe) to kings. Wives were sometimes taken for diplomatic reasons, money was also something that was used to bribe. Notice the reason for not multiplying wives was so that his heart wouldn't be turned away. This was the case with Shlomo who married many PAGAN women who turned his heart away to serve strange Elohim. (see #6 below) This was not a ban on polygamy, this was a warning not to be persuaded into idolatry. Because the king ruled the people, this special admonition was given to him because of his potential to lead all of Israel astray (as we see many times in Scripture) For another perspective on this issue read THIS article.

5) Dawid repented of polygamy

Again, with complete lies and twisting of Scripture, the liar Armstrong claims that Dawid repented for his "sin" of polygamy. The "sin" of Dawid was ADULTERY and MURDER!!! Bathsheva was the wife of Uriah. Dawid had sexual relations with a married woman. This is ADULTERY!!!! The king then had Uriah sent to the front lines where he would be abandoned and killed. This is MURDER!!! YHWH would then send Nathan HaNavi to him to tell him the story of a rich man with many flocks and herds and a poor man with one ewe. He did not say that it was wrong for the rich man to have flocks. What was wrong was that the rich man stole the poor man's one ewe and used it to have a feast. Look at the condemnation given to Dawid (who was already a polygamist)

2Shmuel 12:8-9 ‘And I gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your bosom, and gave you the house of Yisra’ĕl and Yehuḏah. And if that were not enough, I also would have given you much more! ‘Why have you despised the Word of יהוה to do evil in His eyes? You have killed Uriyah the Ḥittite with the sword, and his wife you took to be your wife, and you have killed him with the sword of the children of Ammon."

Did YHWH condemn Dawid for polygamy??? NO!!! In fact he says "I gave you wives and would have given you much more!" He wasn't condemned for the wives he had given to him by YHWH! He was condemned for Adultery and Murder and punished by having his child die. This is what Dawid repented from. Adultery and murder. NOT polygamy!!! Dawid was called PERFECT by YHWH himself WHILE HE WAS A POLYGAMIST!!! The score is now YHWH's word 5 - Armstrong's lies 0!

6) Concubines were not allowed

The minister of s.a.tan, Armstrong now uses the "proofs" that Dawid put away his concubines and his son, Shlomo did evil in the sight of YHWH by taking so many wives and concubines.

2Shmuel 20:3 "And Dawiḏ came to his house at Yerushalayim. And the sovereign took the ten women, his concubines whom he had left to look after the house, and put them in a protected house and supported them, but did not go in to them. So they were shut up to the day of their death, living in widowhood."

This was done in response to what his son, Abshalom had done to them.

2Shmuel 16:21-22 "And Aḥithophel said to Aḇshalom, “Go in to your father’s concubines, whom he has left to look after the house. And all Yisra’ĕl shall hear that you have made yourself a stench to your father. And the hands of all who are with you shall be strong.” So they pitched a tent for Aḇshalom on the top of the house, and Aḇshalom went in to his father’s concubines before the eyes of all Yisra’ĕl."

His other claim is that Shlomo HaMelech did evil by being polygamous. Let's see what the Scriptures say:

1 Melachim 11:1-11 "And Sovereign Shelomoh loved many foreign women in addition to the daughter of Pharaoh: Mo’aḇite, Ammonite, Eḏomite, Tsiḏonian, and Ḥittite women; from the nations of whom יהוה had said to the children of Yisra’ĕl, “You do not go into them, and they do not go into you, for they shall certainly turn away your hearts after their mighty ones.” Shelomoh clung to these in love. And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines. And his wives turned away his heart. And it came to be, when Shelomoh was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other mighty ones. And his heart was not perfect with יהוה his Elohim, as was the heart of his father Dawiḏ. And Shelomoh went after Ashtoreth the mighty one of the Tsiḏonians, and after Milkom the abomination of the Ammonites. Thus Shelomoh did evil in the eyes of יהוה, and did not follow יהוה completely, like his father Dawiḏ. Then Shelomoh built a high place for Kemosh the abomination of Mo’aḇ, on the hill that is east of Yerushalayim, and for Moleḵ the abomination of the children of Ammon. And so he did for all his foreign wives, who burned incense and slaughtered to their mighty ones. Therefore יהוה was enraged with Shelomoh, because his heart had turned away from יהוה Elohim of Yisra’ĕl, who had appeared to him twice, and had commanded him concerning this word, not to go after other mighty ones. But he did not guard what יהוה had commanded. And יהוה said to Shelomoh, “Because you have done this, and have not guarded My covenant and My laws, which I have commanded you, I shall certainly tear the reign away from you and give it to your servant."

Was Shlomo's sin polygamy or idolatry? Even a third grader could answer that question. His sin was marrying pagan women out of the nations from which Israel was commanded not to marry. These pagan women turned his heart away from YHWH to follow strange elohim. Had he married 700 Israelite women, would there have been a problem? NO!!! Again, the Anti-Polygamy movement uses deliberate lies to attempt to legalize their unscriptural pagan Roman custom.

7) YHWH condemned the "sin" of polygamy

Not one verse of scripture can be given in support of this statement. I challenge you to find it! See THIS article to find out the true sin of polygamy.

8) Polygamy was not the "original intent" of marriage

I have these articles posted to deal with this topic.

9) Yahushua is not a polygamist

Lastly, Armstrong contends that Yahushua is not a polygamist. His proof texts are that Yahushua is to marry the twelve tribes of Yisrael and that ministers are to be the husband of one wife. As I was already planning articles on these very topics, I will refrain from commenting on them here.

The Anti-polygamy pagans cannot prove their side from scripture. They must make up their "facts" and twist scripture around to their own destruction. Herbert Armstrong is a perfect example of these tactics. The witness of YHWH's word proves that polygamy was NEVER condemned or called sin. The only sin here is lying!

The Polygamy Sin!

2010-06-19T14:27:00.007-05:00

Many opponents of polygamy claim that it is sinful. If this is true, we certainly must speak out against evil. However, if this is a false claim, then we must speak out against lies! Either way, if you are "bible believer" you have been commanded to have your voice heard.

Yeshayahu 58:1 “Cry aloud, do not spare. Lift up your voice like a ram’s horn. Declare to My people their transgression, and the house of Yaʽaqoḇ their sins."

Where exactly does Scripture condemn polygamy?

Hmmm?

Well???

I'm waiting...

Nowhere?

Correct! There is NOT ONE single verse of scripture that says "Thou shalt not marry more than one woman at a time."

This should throw up some red flags to the thinking! If scripture NEVER ONCE condemns polygamy, what gives you the right to do so?

Let's keep a running tab of offenses as we continue our study. So far, those who claim that polygamy is sinful are guilty of:

1) Lying
Revalation 21:8b “... and all who tell lies, their part is in the lake which burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death.”

2) Adding to the word of YHWH
Devarim 4:2 “Do not add to the Word which I command you, and do not take away from it, so as to guard the commands of יהוה your Elohim which I am commanding you." Footnote: See also 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19.

Keep those in mind as we continue.

Others have claimed that YHWH "tolerated" the sin of polygamy in "Old Testament" times.

Since when did YHWH EVER tolerate sin?
Eating forbidden fruit - Nope
Murder of Hevel - Nope
Evil hearts in Noach's time -Nope
Tower of Babel - Nope
Sodom and Gomorrah - Hell Nope!
Sin of Achan - Nope
Enslavement of Israel by Pharoah - Nope
Murmuring against Moshe - Nope
Not keeping the Sabbatical year - Nah, ahh
Idolatry - BIG 'OL NOPE
King Sha'ul not obeying the voice of the prophet - Negative
King Dawid committing Adultery and murder - Nope
Other kings of Israel not obeying Torah - Nope
Cḥananyah and his wife lying to Kepha - Nope
Moneychangers at the temple using false weights - Nope
The wicked dead at judgment - Sorry...

As you well know, I could make this list go on, and on , and on, and on...
We know that YHWH never tolerated sin of any kind! And we know He NEVER changes. Therefore, If he tolerated polygamy - it is NOT a sin! Indeed, if He did tolerate sin what would be the point of dying on the cross? His sacrifice and His blood are an immortal testimony to the fact that He DOES NOT TOLERATE SIN!!!

Let's now look at three of the many people who's name you are besmirching by suggesting that polygamy is somehow sinful.

1) Moshe - Moshe was the ONLY man ever to speak to YHWH face to face! (Shemot 33:11)
He spent 40 days and nights on Mt. Sinai with YHWH-Twice!!! (Shemot 24:18; Shemot 34:28-29 and Devarim 10:10) He is "The Lawgiver." The one who physically wrote the Torah. He is the one who received the tablets of stone on which was written the command "Thou shalt not commit adultery." The one who lead Israel across the Yam Suph. The one who was shown the pattern of the Mishkan in the heavens. The one who's face was illuminated with the glory of YHWH! The one who counseled YHWH's people in GREAT matters. The one for whom YHWH took revenge on Korach. The one that our Master said if they refuse to hear him - they will not hear anyone coming back from the dead. The one referred to as a "friend of YHWH!" This man, who knew the will of YHWH better than any other mortal man before or after him was a polygamist! If polygamy was sinful, THIS is the man who would know that. However, we see that he himself practiced polygamy.

Shemot 2:21 "And Mosheh agreed to dwell with the man, and he gave Tsipporah his daughter to Mosheh." (see also Shemot 18:1-6)

B'midbar 12:1 "Now Miryam and Aharon spoke against Mosheh because of the Kushite woman whom he had taken, for he had taken a Kushite woman."

Now, if Moshe was a sinner because of his polygamous lifestyle, we would expect to see YHWH's condemnation and punishment, but we do not. We would expect to see Yahushua and/or His talmidim distancing themselves from Moshe, but we do not. We would expect to see his name blotted out from the heavens in eternity, but we do not. In fact, we see the opposite:

Rev 15:3 "And they sing the song of Mosheh the servant of Elohim, and the song of the Lamb, saying, “Great and marvellous are Your works, יהוה Ěl Shaddai! Righteous and true are Your ways, O Sovereign of the kadosh ones!" Those that overcome the beast will stand on a sea of glass and fire and "sing the song of Moshe" who is STILL called the "servant of Elohim!"

How DARE YOU speak evil of Moshe by calling polygamy a sin! Repent before it's too late!

Let's go one step further-

When you are reading the Torah and you see such things as the creation account of Ahdahm and Chavah, the account of Lamech, "If a man has two wives", "one flesh", "if he take another wife", "Do not multiply wives", and "do not commit adultery" keep in mind that Moshe, the kadosh POLYGAMIST servant of Elohim who's songs will be sung by the overcomers in eternity wrote those things!!!

2) Avraham - Avraham was called out of an idol worshiping family to become the first Hebrew. Most of our children sing the song "Father Abraham had many sons" which recounts YHWH's promise to Avraham to make him into a great nation that would be as numerous as the stars in the sky and the grains of sand on the shores. His faith and obediance was tested by YHWH telling him to sacrifice is son, Yitzchak. Yitzchak himself was a miracle child given to Avraham when he was 100 and his wife, Sarah was 90. He was called the "faithful friend of Elohim" and is still known as the father of the faithful. Yet some would have us believe that he is a sinner because he took three wives - Sarah, Hagar, and Keturah.

The renewed scriptures bestows upon him such titles as "Our Father", and "friend of Elohim." It says that his faith was imputed for righteousness and he is one of the examples of faith mentioned in Hebrews 11 (along with Sarah).

Another polygamist was Avraham's grandson, Ya'akov (Jacob).

3) Ya'akov - Ya'akov is the grandson of Avraham who had his name changed to Yisra'el (Prince of Elohim) as a blessing after wrestling all night with a messenger. He is the one who worked twenty years for his father-in-law in exchange for his FOUR wives Leah, Rachel, Bilhah and Zilpah along with flocks and money. Out of this polygamous houshold the twelve tribes of Israel were birthed, YHWH's chosen people. Both Avraham and Ya'akov are claimed by YHWH as His very own on numerous occasions when He declares "I am the El of Avraham, the El of Yitzchak and the El of Ya'akov" They were obviously servants of the most high. Yet, some would claim that the very chosen people of YHWH came from an adulterous, sinful patriarch!

What did our Master, Yahushua promise His faithful followers?

Mattithyahu 8:11 “And I say to you that many shall come from east and west, and sit down with Avraham, and Yitzchak, and Yaʽakov̱ in the reign of the heavens, "

Wait! He promised those who would follow Him would sit with these "sinful" polygamists as their reward???

You heard from the Master's mouth (which contained no guile). Our Master didn't seem to think of these polygamists as sinners, why would you? In fact, I would soberly warn you that unless you admit that polygamy is kosher and Holy - you will not be sitting with these men in the kingdom!

There is one more extremely lame attempt to "prove" that polygamy is sinful. The "proof" that is offered is the account of Lamech, the first named polygamist in the Torah. The argument goes like this: "Lamech is the first named polygamist in Scripture and he was a murderer, therefore polygamy is sinful because it is associated with murder and only an evil murderer would engage in polygamy" Besides the obvious logical flaws there, and the fact that we have seen examples of Kadosh, righteous men who were polygamists, let's look at the passage in context:

B'reisheet 4:18-24 "And to Ḥanoḵ was born Iraḏ. And Iraḏ brought forth Meḥuya’ĕl, and Meḥuya’ĕl brought forth Methusa’ĕl, and Methusa’ĕl brought forth Lemeḵ. And Lemeḵ took for himself two wives, the name of one was Aḏah, and the name of the second was Tsillah. And Aḏah bore Yaḇal. He was the father of those who dwell in tents, with livestock. And his brother’s name was Yuḇal. He was the father of all those who play the lyre and flute. As for Tsillah, she also bore Tuḇal-Qayin, a smith of all kinds of tools in bronze and iron. And the sister of Tuḇal-Qayin was Naʽamah. And Lemeḵ said to his wives, “Aḏah and Tsillah, hear my voice! Wives of Lemeḵ, listen to my words! For I have killed a man for wounding me, even a young man for hurting me. “For Kayin is avenged sevenfold, and Lemeḵ seventy-sevenfold.”

First things first! (pun intended) If we follow the logic (or apparent lack thereof) of the argument then we must make further conclusions:

a) The first born child mentioned in scripture was a murderer, therefore it is a sin to have children.
b) The passage above contains many "first mentions" in scripture, therefore because of their association with a "murderer": dwelling in tents is sinful, keeping livestock is sinful, playing a lyre or flute is sinful, and smithing tools in iron or bronze is sinful. Do you see how stupid that sounds?

Furthermore, from a reading of this passage, it sounds more like a case of self-defense than murder. Perhaps it is a shadow of the attacks that polygamists would suffer for years to come by the young and immature?

Those making this argument are ignorant of the very definition of sin. What is sin? It is transgression of the commands of YHWH given to us in His Torah. We are not free to define things arbitrarily as "sin." It is up to YHWH's word to do that! His word never once defines polygamy as sin. His word condones polygamy as valid. His word gives us commandments to regulate marriage including that to more than one wife. His word commands polygamy in at least one instance. His word defines sin and allows polygamy. Who are you to change that?

If polygamy is sinful, why did YHWH bless those that engaged in it?

B'reisheet 24:1 "And Avraham was old, advanced in years. And יהוה had blessed Avraham in every way." (including his marriages)
(Before Avraham had Hagar given to him, YHWH told him "“I am Ěl Shaddai – walk before Me and be perfect" Apparently Avraham didn't find it less than perfect to take a second wife, or a third)

B'reisheet 28:1-4 "And Yitzchak called Yaʽakov and blessed him, and commanded him, and said to him, “Do not take a wife from the daughters of Kenaʽan. Arise, go to Paddan Aram, to the house of Bethu’ĕl your mother’s father. And take a wife for yourself from there, from the daughters of Laḇan your mother’s brother. And Ěl Shaddai bless you, and make you bear fruit and increase you, and you shall become an assembly of peoples, and give you the blessing of Avraham, to you and your seed with you, so that you inherit the land of your sojournings, which Elohim gave to Avraham.” "

That blessing was indeed given:

B'reisheet 28:10-17 "And Yaʽakov went out from Be’ĕrsheḇa and went toward Ḥaran. And he came upon a place and stopped over for the night, for the sun had set. And he took one of the stones of that place and put it at his head, and he lay down in that place to sleep. And he dreamed and saw a ladder set up on the earth, and its top reached to the heavens, and saw messengers of Elohim going up and coming down on it. And see, יהוה stood above it and said, “I am יהוה Elohim of Avraham your father and the Elohim of Yitzchak. The land on which you are lying, I give it to you and your seed. And your seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and you shall break forth to the west and to the east, to the north and the south. And all the clans of the earth shall be blessed in you and in your seed. And see, I am with you and shall guard you wherever you go, and shall bring you back to this land. For I am not going to leave you until I have done what I have spoken to you.” And Yaʽakov awoke from his sleep and said, “Truly, יהוה is in this place, and I did not know it.” And he was afraid and said, “How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of Elohim, and this is the gate of the heavens!”"

This promise was made before Ya'akov had ANY wives.

B'reisheet 32:26-29 "And He said, “Let Me go, for the day breaks.” But he said, “I am not letting You go until You have blessed me!” So He asked him, “What is your name?” And he said, “Yaʽakov.” And He said, “Your name is no longer called Yaʽakov, but Yisra’ĕl, because you have striven with Elohim and with men, and have overcome.” And Yaʽakov asked Him, saying, “Please let me know Your Name.” And He said, “Why do you ask about My Name?” And He blessed him there.

This was AFTER Ya'akov had taken FOUR WIVES and had children with each of them. So, again we see YHWH's blessing being poured out on a polygamist! Does YHWH bless sinners?

Isra'el was to be a light to the nations, an example for all the earth to follow. Are you sure that polygamy is sinful when you consider the origins of the nation of Israel through whom our Messiah came?

2Ti 3:16-17 "All Scripture is breathed by Elohim and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for setting straight, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of Elohim might be fitted, equipped for every good work."

Why would YHWH inspire polygamous men such as Moshe, Dawid, Shlomo, etc to write polygamous things such as laws governing multiple wives, polygamous poetry, etc in His Kadosh, perfect word to make us "equipped for every good work" if polygamy was somehow wrong or sinful? I'll allow the Ruach to answer that question for you.

Tehillim 33:4 "For the Word of יהוה is straight, And all His works are in truth"

Yochannan 17:17 “Set them apart in Your truth – Your Word is truth"

2Timmothy 2:15 "Do your utmost to present yourself approved to Elohim, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly handling the Word of Truth."

Ya'akov 3:2 "For we all stumble in many matters. If anyone does not stumble in word, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle the entire body. "

Remember our list? Let's check it. Someone who claims that polygamy is a sin is guilty of:

1) Lying
2) Adding to the word
3) Attacking the anointed of YHWH
4) Mishandling the word of Elohim
5) False preaching
6) Spreading false doctrines

IS THERE A SIN ASSOCIATED WITH POLYGAMY????

YES!!!! There certainly is:

Yeshayahu 5:20 "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! "

The polygamy sin is calling polygamy sin!!!

-

Original vs current plan for marriage

2010-06-19T09:37:00.003-05:00

One of the most commonly attempted arguments against polygamy makes the assertion that polygamy is supposedly not the "original plan of YHWH for marriage". This assertion is based solely upon two sequential factors.

1. Yahushua's reference to "in the beginning" in Verse 4 of the Mattithyahu 19:3-9 passage, and thus,

2. the "Beginning" story: Ahdahm and Chavah.

That "in the beginning" phrase, which Yahushua used there, of course, was only addressing divorce, not polygamy.

Moreover, there is an additional very exegetically important matter to note about all this. Namely, the very story of "the beginning" (with Ahdahm and Chavah) ---indeed, the entire book of Genesis (which in Hebrew is called B'reisheet which means "In the beginning")--- was written by Moshe. And Moshe was a polygamist with at least two wives! Certainly, the very mortal author of the story "in the beginning" would know what he wrote and whether his own polygamy was not part of "YHWH's plan" (if it was not)!

Accordingly, it is clear that that phrase, "in the beginning", is simply not relevant to the topic of polygamy, anyway.

Nevertheless, though, that phrase is what forms the basis for the subsequent factor pertaining to Ahdahm and Chavah.

Namely, the argument asserts that, because the Scriptures only record that YHWH seemingly only made "one Chavah" for Ahdahm, that somehow implies an "original plan of YHWH for marriage" only for monogamy. The resulting implied speculation from that is that polygamy is to be perceived as somehow against that perceived "original plan of YHWH for marriage".

Upon deeper investigation, however, that speculative assertion does not hold up.

If doctrine would hold people to a perceived "original plan of YHWH", then at least two things must also be binding upon mankind. For examples,

1. people must only walk around in nudity, and

2. people must never die.

Of course, to suggest such things is an absolute absurdity.

According to the Scriptures, the reason that those two examples are obviously not binding as doctrine is because of Ahdahm's sin. That sin of Ahdahm had forever after changed (as it were) the "plan of YHWH" as applies to us for doctrine.

The Torah informs us that "the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23). From that, the Scriptures further explain that, "Wherefore, as by one man [[ i.e., Ahdahm ]] sin entered the world, and death [[ entered the world ]] by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." (Romans 5:12.)

When Ahdahm sinned, death entered in.

Ahdahm's sin is why we now die. And it is also why we now wear clothes rather than remaining nude, according to B'reisheet 3:21.

The fact that we now wear clothes and do die is the proof that we are no longer under any perceived "original plan".

So what has YHWH planned for us instead? He gave us "the second Ahdahm", which is Yahushua, that we might have life everlasting in Him.

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

The first Ahdahm brought death by his sin. The second Ahdahm, which is Yahushua, brought life by His righteousness.

"Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual,
but that which is natural;
and afterward that which is spiritual.
The first man is of the earth, earthy:
the second man is YHWH from the heavens.
1 Corinthians 15:46-47.

Ahdahm was of the flesh, while Mashiach is of the Spirit.

Because Romans 8:1 shows us that we are to walk in the Spirit and not according to the flesh, we are certainly NOT supposed to follow after the example of the first Ahdahm (who was of the flesh), but after the second Ahdahm (who is of the Spirit), which is Yahushua.

With this now realized that we follow after the "second Ahdahm", Yahushua, we look to Yahushua as the example set for us in the true and current "plan of YHWH for marriage". And this is explicitly confirmed and explained for us in Ephesians 5:22-25.

"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto YHWH. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as the Mashiach is the head of the assembly: and he is the Savior of the body. Therefore as the assembly is subject unto Mashiach, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Yahushua also loved the assembly, and gave himself for it".
Ephesians 5:22-25

This is very explicit. The "plan of YHWH for marriage" is detailed as being modeled after, not the example of the first Ahdahm (of flesh) and his wife Chavah, but after the example of the second Ahdahm, which is Yahushua (of Spirit) and His assemblies.

Following this model, each husband is to love his wives as selflessly, "footwashingly", and life-givingly as Yahushua so loves the assemblies (that He laid down His life in the depth of such love). So too, each wife is to love her husband as each assembly so loves the one and only Yahushua HaMashiach.

As there is only one Mashiach for the assemblies, there is only one husband. And as there are more than only one assembly loved by Mashiach, it would not be sinful if there be more than one wife, of course.

This is confirmed, of course, by the Parable of the Ten Virgins in Mattithyahu 25:1-13. The Master Yahushua HaMashiach described Himself as the polygamist Bridegroom for the "five wise virgins", which are the assemblies.

So, in conclusion, what we see is that the "plan of YHWH for marriage" is very explicitly NOT after the model of the fleshly, death-causing first Ahdahm and his (Scripture-recorded) apparent "one" wife, Chavah.

Rather, the Scriptures are clear that the current "plan of YHWH for marriage" is after the model of the Spiritual, life-bringing second Ahdahm, Yahushua, and His assemblies.

This article is copied from http://www.biblicalpolygamy.com/exegesis/original-plan-of-god-for-marriage/ with unauthorized edits. (Changing the names to the Hebrew, etc)

Adam the Polygamist?

2010-06-18T14:00:00.002-05:00

One of the most often used attacks on Polygamy is the "original intent" argument. Proponents state that "in the beginning YHWH created Ahdahm and Chavah (a.k.a. "Eve") so his original intent was for mankind to be monogamous." However, we shall see how utterly absurd this position is in reality.

1) First of all, anyone claiming the "original intent" argument would have to agree that YHWH's original intent was for mankind to live naked in Gan Eden. If you think that we must follow some contrived "original intent" doctrine - preach it to me from the nudist colony! (one located in the garden of paradise, please) So, immediately, from a logical standpoint, this argument is completely illogical.

2) Secondly, the very statement of the argument is incorrect! YHWH did NOT create Ahdahm and Chavah as two separate beings. He created Ahdahm (male and female)* from the dust of the ground and breathed into him the breath of life. Chavah was taken from man's side. (i.e. she was already a part of him) So, in essence, Ahdahm's first wife was himself. Think of how cells reproduce. One cell doubles and splits giving us two cells. This process continues repeating millions of times until we have an organ, a system, and finally a full human being. Ahdahm was created alone but containing male and female within him. To this day, a man contains x (female) and y (male) chromosomes. A woman contains only x chromosomes and does not contain the genetic information to produce a male offspring. The sex of children comes from the genetic information of the father. A man HAD to be created first because only a man could bring both sexes into existence.

*B'reisheet 1:27 - And Elohim created the man in His image, in the image of Elohim He created him – male and female He created them.

B'reisheet 5:2 - Male and female He created them, and He blessed them, and called their name ‘Ahḏahm’ in the day they were created.

3) The creation order itself implies a patriarchal structure. This is confirmed in I Corinthians 11:3 - "And I wish you to know that the head of every man is the Mashiach, and the head of woman is the man, and the head of Mashiach is Elohim." Most believers would agree that we are saved through Messiah's imputed righteousness. Let's take a look at Romans 5:12-21:

For this reason, even as through one man sin did enter into the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned – for until the Torah, sin was in the world, but sin is not reckoned when there is no Torah. But death reigned from Ahḏahm until Mosheh, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Ahḏahm, who is a type of Him who was to come. But the favorable gift is not like the trespass. For if by the one man’s trespass many died, much more the favor of Elohim, and the gift in favor of the one Man, יהושע Mashiach, overflowed to many. And the favorable gift is not as by one having sinned. For indeed the judgment was of one to condemnation, but the favorable gift is of many trespasses unto righteousness. For if by the trespass of the one, death did reign through the one, much more those who receive the overflowing favor and the gift of righteousness shall reign in life through the One, יהושע Mashiach. So then, as through one trespass there resulted condemnation to all men, so also through one righteous act there resulted righteous-declaring of life to all men. For as through the disobedience of one man many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the One many shall be made righteous. And the Torah came in beside, so that the trespass would increase. But where sin increased, favor increased still more, so that as sin did reign in death, even so favor might reign through righteousness to everlasting life through יהושע Mashiach our Master.

After reading the above passage, let me ask a question: Who first ate the forbidden fruit?

I Timothy 2:14 "And Ahḏahm was not deceived, but the woman, having been deceived, fell into transgression."

B'reisheet 3:6 "And the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, and she took of its fruit and ate. And she also gave to her husband with her, and he ate."

Clearly it was Chavah that sinned first. Yet, it is Ahdahm alone that is condemned for the sin and held responsible. How can this be?

"If Ahdahm was not the lawful authority over Chavah before the fall, then Ahdahm’s sin could not logically be imputed to Eve or his other descendants. If Ahdahm’s authority over Chavah is denied, then the imputation of Ahdahm’s sin to his other descendants is denied as well. And if the imputation of Ahdahm’s sin to his other descendants is denied then what was the point of Yahushua’s death on the cross?!!! It would have been to no avail! There would have been no imputed sin to atone for! If the doctrine of Ahdahm’s headship over Chavah is denied, then we are left logically without a Besorah (Gospel)!
Thus, the doctrine of patriarchy, of the man’s headship over the woman, cannot be repudiated without repudiating the doctrine of redemption, as well. This reveals the fundamental foundation of heresy this argument implies. Tamper with the doctrine of patriarchy, and you tamper with the Besorah. There is no rational way around this fact. Patriarchy and the Besorah are bound together like the twin strands of the double helix." - Adapted from "Man and Woman in Biblical Law" by Tom Shipley.

Shipley goes on to identify six aspects of creation which teach Patriarchy:

1. B'reisheet 2:18, which tells us that the woman was made “for (the man)” creating a hierarchy. 1 Cor. 11:9 "For man also was not created for the woman, but woman for the man."
2. B'reisheet 2:21-23, which tells us that the woman was made from the man. 1 Cor. 11:8 "For man is not from woman, but woman from man."
3. The temporal sequence of the creation of the man and woman. 1 Tim. 2:13 "Because Ahḏahm was formed first, then Chavah"
4. Ahdahm’s naming authority and his naming of woman, both in her generic and personal aspect. B'reisheet 2:19 "And from the ground יהוה Elohim formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name." B'reisheet 2:23 "And the man said, “This one is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. This one is called ‘woman,’ because she was taken out of man.”" B'reisheet 3:20 "And the man called his wife’s name Chavah, because she became the mother of all living."
5. YHWH’s act of bringing the woman unto the man. B'reisheet 2:22 "And the rib which יהוה Elohim had taken from the man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man."
6. The name of “Ahdahm” itself.

If there is an "original intent" that we may gleam from the creation account, it is Patriarchy.

Eph 5:22-24 "Wives, subject yourselves to your own husbands, as to the Master. Because the husband is head of the wife, as also the Mashiach is head of the assembly, and He is Saviour of the body. But as the assembly is subject to Mashiach, so also let the wives be to their own husbands in every respect."

YHWH has legitimate authority over us because He is our creator.
Revelation 4:11 “You are worthy, O יהוה, to receive esteem and respect and power, for You have created all, and because of Your desire they are, and were created.” He breathed the breath of life into man and took woman from man. He brought the woman to the man (in the manner a father transfers authority over his daughter to the husband by "giving her away" at a wedding). He allows Ahdahm to name her. And He commands wives to obey their husbands to this day as the Yisra'elite assembly is to obey Yahushua, her husband. Scripture clearly teaches Patriarchy (the headship of the man over the woman). The laws of the Torah allow, regulate, and in at least one instance, command polygamy. Every Israeli male is a potential polygamist because of the patriarchal structure of society in Torah. Yet, any woman taking more than one husband is ALWAYS condemned as an adulteress - and punished with death. A Master may have many slaves, but not a slave many Masters.* A King may have many subjects, but a subject may not have many kings.**

*Mattithyahu 6:24 “No one is able to serve two masters, for either he shall hate the one and love the other, or else he shall cleave to the one and despise the other."
**Mattithyahu 18:23 "Because of this the reign of the heavens is like a certain man, a sovereign (singular)who wished to settle accounts with his servants.(plural)"

Patriarchy is headship. A leader may have many followers, a general may have many soldiers, the one in charge may have many subordinates. An employer may have many employees, etc. While you may think "I could work several jobs and therefore have more than one employer" let's see what happens there:

Let's say I work for Bill. Bill has fifty employees. Bill is the one in authority in that relationship. To each of his fifty employees, he is the boss. (headship) If while working for Bill, I get a second job working for Jack, I am creating a NEW union of which Bill is not a part. (adultery). If I work for Bill as a driver for his delivery company and I work for Jack as a vendor for his storefront. That is two separate jobs, two separate unions. Bill may even fire (divorce) me because of my unfaithful moonlighting. Bill may hire another ten employees without it affecting the employer/employee dynamic of our relationship. But I could never take ten more jobs from ten more employers without it having a negative effect on my employment with Bill, my service to Bill, my time and mental energy and labor that I trade with Bill for the paycheck he gives me in exchange.

The creation account clearly teaches the "original intent" of Patriarchal male headship and that headship may have many subordinate helpers!

4) My next question to someone claiming "original intent monogamy" is: "If Ahdahm is our role model, can you please prove to me in scripture that Ahdahm remained monogamous?"

While it may be true that no other wife is mentioned by name (in translations), let's look at some facts:

A - Ahdahm was commanded to "Be fruitful and multiply"*
* B'reisheet 1:28 "And Elohim blessed them, and Elohim said to them, “Bear fruit and increase, and fill the earth and subdue it, and rule over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over all creatures moving on the earth.”" (increase "rabah" means to gather into heaps, multiply greatly, it is an exaggerated multiplier. "Fill the earth" means literally that; FILL the earth. This was to be accomplished by "bearing fruit" literally to bring forth from his zera.)

B - Sarah is often credited for being the oldest mother in scripture at age 90. Sarah showed surprise, and even disbelieving laughter when told that she would give birth to a son in her post-menopausal years. However, what about Chavah who supposedly gave birth at age 130? Where does the number 130 come from? Adam was 130 when Sheth was born. Chavah was a few hours to a few weeks younger, depending on how long it took for Adam to name the animals. Therefore she also would have been approximately 130 when Sheth was born IF she was the mother of Sheth.

B'reisheet 2: 18-22 "And יהוה Elohim said, “It is not good for the man to be alone, I am going to make a helper for him, as his counterpart.” And from the ground יהוה Elohim formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all livestock, and to the birds of the heavens, and to every beast of the field. But for the man there was not found a helper for him, as his counterpart. So יהוה Elohim caused a deep sleep to fall on the man, and he slept. And He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. And the rib which יהוה Elohim had taken from the man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man."

YHWH would have been cruel to allow Ahdahm to suffer in loneliness for very long. His paradise would have seemed like a prison. (Let alone the 40+ years he would have waited if Chavah was younger than Sarah at the time of Sheth's birth) Are we to believe that Ahdahm happily spent 40+ years naming animals and searching for a helper among them? She must have been made immediately after the naming of the animals which would put her at the same age as Ahdahm. That would make her 130 years old at the time of Sheth's birth, if she was still living. What do I mean IF she was still alive? Scripture rarely mentions the times of women's deaths. (Rachel being a notable exception and it probably due to the fact that she died during childbirth) However, with Chavah, she isn't mentioned again by name after the births of Kayin and Hevel.
Look at the account of Sheth's birth:

B'reisheet 4:25 "And Ahḏahm knew his wife again, and she bore a son and called his name Shĕth, “For Elohim has appointed me another seed instead of Hevel, because Kayin had slain him.”"

See the word "again" implying that this is Chavah who bore him Kayin and Hevel? The Hebrew word is "OD" which means "repeatedly" or "for a long time." The Hebrew word "yada" is translated "knew" but it means "to know intimately or sexually" Let's read that verse again using the literal translation: "And Ahḏahm made love to his wife for a long time and she bore a son and called his name Shĕth, “For Elohim has appointed me another seed instead of Hevel, because Kayin had slain him" Now the sentence carries some ambiguity. The "me" in the sentence is referring to Ahdahm according to Hebrew grammar. It doesn't say "To Chavah." This, accompanied with the lack of a name for "his wife" leaves open the interpretation that it could be someone other than Chavah. While I cannot make the claim that Ahdahm was with certainty a polygamist, no one can say with certainty that he wasn't. Let's also remember that people of this time had very long lifespans, so while it is possible that Chavah had died, it is unlikely.
*For more info on Ahdahm's wives see "The Rebirth of Yisra'elite Marriage."

Let's look at B'reisheet 46:29: "And Yosĕph made ready his chariot and went up to Goshen to meet his father Yisra’ĕl. And he appeared to him, and fell on his neck and wept on his neck a long time."

You guessed it! There is the word "OD" again. Now let's read it the way it is translated in B'reisheet 4:25 - "And Yosĕph made ready his chariot and went up to Goshen to meet his father Yisra’ĕl. And he appeared to him, and fell on his neck and wept on his neck again"

Reading the word "OD" translated "again" doesn't make any sense in this verse, because Yoseph hadn't wept on his father's neck before. See how the translation of one tiny word implies a completely different meaning? Now look at B'reisheet 4:2 "And again she gave birth to his brother Hevel. And Hevel became a keeper of sheep, but Kayin became a tiller of the ground."
How many times did she give birth to Hevel? She hadn't given birth to him before! This is a different Hebrew word from the previous verses we have explored. The word here is "yasaph" which means "to add or increase." A good translation never forces a conclusion that isn't there in the original manuscript. Translating "OD" as "again" in B'reisheet 4:25 forces us to conclude that it is Chavah, but that isn't conclusive in the Hebrew. It is even worse in the KJV which adds the words "she said" into the verse. That addition also changes the meaning of the verse and implies that it is Chavah speaking. Those words are NOT found in the Hebrew!

To recap, we know that Ahdahm was 130 years old when Sheth was born. If Chavah was still alive, she was also 130 at the time of Sheth's birth. "X-ian" pastors and "bible scholars" claim that Sarah was the oldest mother in scripture. They must either stop calling Sarah the oldest mother or admit that Ahdahm had more than one wife - they are mutually exclusive!

The next question then is "Whom did Ahdahm marry?" He could have married his daughter, granddaughter, great-granddaughter, etc. These acts were allowable at the time because the law banning these practices were not given until Shavuot on Har Sinai.*

*Vayikra 18:6 ‘No one is to approach anyone of his own flesh to uncover his nakedness. I am יהוה
Vayikra 18:17 ‘The nakedness of a woman and her daughter you do not uncover, nor do you take her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter, to uncover her nakedness. They are her relatives – it is wickedness.", etc.

Uriah is the only man in all of Scripture that it tells us had one and ONLY one wife. The Torah never claims this about Ahdahm. To claim that a man can only have one wife because Ahdahm only had one wife is ridiculous because it wouldn't apply to Ahdahm who had no such role model to set precedent.

Ahdahm was kicked out of Gan Eden after the fall. (clearly NOT YHWH's original intent) So, who's to say that YHWH wouldn't have taken other wives from Ahdahm's side from his other ribs had the fall never occurred? Didn't he have 24 of them? To say that monogamy was the "Original intent" is presumptive at best and blasphemous at worse!

Next, how do we know that Chavah didn't give birth to daughters before the fall? Ahdahm could have potentially taken dozens of his daughters as wives before leaving the garden. The only commandment at the time was to not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. There was no command against marrying daughters then. Romans 5:13 says "for until the Torah, sin was in the world, but sin is not reckoned when there is no Torah."

Well, what about B'reisheet 2:24? I hear you asking about that. Let's look at that as well:
"For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife, and they shall become one flesh."

Ah-ha! See! It says "wife" - singular! It says "one flesh" - singular. What about that, you perv?
I have been asked this on a number of occasions. Let's examine it further, shall we?

This is a statement of generic fact. There is male and female and they are heterosexual. Man is to cleave to his wife - not another man. Marriage is designed to be permanent. Does it mean that a man is allowed only one wife because the word here is singular? Turn with me to Mattithyahu 22:39:

“And the second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself.’

Clearly the word neighbor is singular. Does this mean that I can only love the neighbor to my right and must hate the neighbor to my left? In the words of Balki from "Perfect Strangers": "Don't be ridiculous!!!" Neighbor is the TYPE of person I must love. In the same way, wife is the TYPE of person I must cleave to and with whom I am to be one flesh! Besides, if a married man has sex with a prostitute, doesn't he become one flesh with her as well as with his wife? 1 Corinthians 6:16 "Or do you not know that he who is joined to a whore is one body? For He says, “The two shall become one flesh.”" It is entirely possible for a married man to have sex with a prostitute. How then is it not possible for him to be joined to another wife? Yahushua himself is joined to each member of Israel. We are each his bride. He is a polygamist! Now, X-ian, I ask you, WWJD?

The next point is that Ahdahm and Chavah had to be the most fertile people ever! They were commanded to "fill the earth." Do we believe that aside from Kayin, Hevel, possibly Sheth and two daughters for wives for her sons that she was barren? Five children born to the most fertile person ever? How is that filling the earth? If she had one child per pregnancy and got pregnant after weaning each child - she would have a baby on average of every three years conservatively. Now, divide 130 by 3 and you get about 43 potential births. Subtract the five that are assumed and you get 38 additional daughters. And that isn't including any daughters born to those women! Why daughters? Because no sons are mentioned other than Kayin and Hevel prior to the birth of Sheth. Sheth himself isn't mentioned having a son until 105 years old. Are we again to believe that in the 105 years before fathering Enosh that he either didn't have relations with his wife or that she was barren? We are told that he had additional sons and daughters after Enosh's birth. Anyone in their right mind wouldn't expect a happy, healthy man to wait until age 104 before marrying and producing children. Why then assume that Chavah didn't have daughters before the birth of Kayin? In fact, take a look at what she says at his birth: “I have gained a man from יהוה
At Kayin's birth, she acquired a male. This only seems like something to say if you have given birth to nothing but daughters previously. Remember that she was promised male seed that would bruise the head of the serpent. This is what she had been waiting for, or so she thought.
So, if she wasn't barren and gave birth to only daughters in those years, did YHWH create women who would never have a husband? Daddy was already married and there were no other males on earth! Without polygamy in mind, YHWH seems very cruel indeed.

A thorough search of Scripture will reveal that other than women of the unbelieving nations, if an Israelite woman had only daughters she is not mentioned! So, just because Ahdahm isn't mentioned having other wives, doesn't mean that he didn't. They would not have been mentioned if they bore him no sons. We are told to accept that the most manly specimen of mankind was not impregnating his wife or wives on a regular basis. We are told that AFTER the birth of Sheth, Ahdahm had sons and daughters. So then Chavah, now over 130 years old gave birth to at least four more children, if she was Ahdahm's ONLY wife!

In addition, Ahdahm's daughters would have begged him to give them children because they were born so many years ahead of their brothers. Look at the example of Lot's daughters who, when they thought that he was the last man on earth, took him for a husband and bore Moab and Ammon. It only took them a few days to take action. Their biological clock was ticking loudly and they thought they would be the end of humanity unless they had children. How much faster would Ahdahm's daughter's chosen him as a husband KNOWING with CERTAINTY that he was the only man on earth? There was no condemnation for the daughters of Lot, because such relations weren't forbidden yet. In fact, YHWH gave an inheritance to Lot's children - the Land of Ar. Look at how Lot's daughter's are quoted:
B'reisheet 19:31-32 "And the first-born said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is no man on the earth to come in to us, as is the way of all the earth. “Come, let us make our father drink wine and lie with him, so that we preserve the seed of our father.”"
The rationale of Lot's daughter's was to give their father progeny (male offspring). This would have been Ahdahm's daughter's rational also since there was no other man before Kayin. Why would they think this in spite of the knowledge that Ahdahm had their mother, Chavah? It didn't seem to matter to Lot's daughters. It wasn't one of them who laid with their father - it was both of them. Besides, a man is designed to have MANY children. One man can impregnate thousands of women per year. Whereas a woman can only have eight-tenths of a child per year on average. In terms of "filling the earth," polygamy just makes sense!
Also, it would make sense that any daughters born after the exile of Cain would marry their father over a banished murderer. Ahdahm would again be the last man, so to speak, before the birth of Sheth.
Lastly - there is another crazy assumption that if Ahdahm had more than one wife, Scripture certainly would have mentioned it. Why crazy? Because Ibtsan gave birth to thirty sons and thirty daughters, 60 children in all and not even one wife is mentioned! I defy any "monogamy only" person to make the case that he had only one wife! He was a judge of Israel, so I also defy you to make the case that polygamy is sinful! Look also at Abdon who had forty sons! (Shoftim 12: 8-14) Explain to me how it is possible that he had only one wife at a time!

5) Finally, look at the consequences of the claim that you are making. If Ahdahm and Chavah were indeed lifelong monogamists and they are the example of perfection and the will of YHWH, then you must conclude that:
1) It is through this "example of the perfect will of YHWH", through this ideal monogamous marriage that sin entered the world, causing mankind to be lost and creating the need for Him to lower Himself by becoming flesh, and allowing others to mock Him, spit on Him, abuse Him, and put Him to death"
2) Though this role-model of "monogamous perfection" a murderer was born of the union.

Anyone making the claim of "original intent" as an argument against polygamy should hang their heads in shame and REPENT! Scripture teaches no such thing. Ahdahm was made in the image of YHWH the polygamist! (Yeḥezqĕl 23; Yirmeyahu 3; Mattithyahu 25)

1 Paraphrased from "Prince of Sumba" by Don Milton.