Topic: Golden Calf of Monogamy

Proverbs 5:18 Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice from the wife of thy youth.

Brothers and sisters in Christ, we have been misled. The preposition that occurs before "the wife" in the above sentence is NOT "with"! It is as I have written above, "from" as in the sentence "He ate the entire menu from steak to string beans." To put it another way, "He ate the entire menu beginning with steak all the way to string beans."

In other words, it means "beginning with" so that a better translation in modern English would be:
"Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice beginning with the wife of thy youth."
Keep in mind that Solomon had just been warning in verses 3-17 against going with whores and now he is contrasting that a man must instead rejoice, i.e., take pleasure in, his wives, beginning with the wife of his youth, i.e., his first wife. There is absolutely no emphasis in the original verse on any exlusivity to a first wife because the word "with" does not even occur in the Hebrew. The word is "from" as in, "beginning with." I discovered this in my Anderson Forbes Phrase Marker Analysis of the Hebrew Bible. Do not be fooled. One wife and one wife only is NEVER taught in the Bible.

It's impossible not to SEE the implication in the sentence when it is properly translated. "rejoice beginning with the wife of thy youth...." till the wife you take when you're an old guy.

Who was the first woman after Eve's disgrace to be given the HONOR of being mentioned in Scripture? and the second woman after Eve to be given that HONOR? and the third woman after Eve to be given that HONOR? Of whose family were these women members?

The answer is that they were the two wives of Lamech and one of his daughters. Lamech is known for being the first to mention self defense. He says that he is worthy of seventy seven times avenging if the guilty Cain is worthy of seven times avenging. Lamech's wife Adah was the grandmother of those who dwell in tents and raise livestock as well as those who play harp and organ and Lamech's wife Zillah was the mother of the first teacher mentioned, Tubalcain, who taught how to produce brass and iron products. Now women are rarely mentioned in the Bible but in this case it is not only the two wives of Lamech who are given that honor but one of his daughters as well! Naamah, Zillah's daughter is mentioned although nothing further is said about her. HOWEVER, there is a principle that is frequently found and it is this; when something is mentioned three times it is affirming it as very important.

In the paragraph directly following the story of Lamech's wives, the wife of Adam who bore Seth is not even mentioned! If it was Eve, her name was not mentioned. If she was one of Adam's many daughters or even Naamah, the daughter of Lamech, nobody knows for she is simply not mentioned. Keep in mind that the birth of Seth comes 130 years after Adam was created so if you're thinking that when it says, "And Adam knew his wife again" that it's talking of Eve, there is a tiny chance that you're right.

Genesis 4:19-22 And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one [was] Adah, and the name of the other Zillah. And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and [of such as have] cattle. And his brother's name [was] Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ. And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain [was] Naamah.

Genesis 4:24-25 If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold. And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, [said she], hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.

   "We are not going to violate their civil rights until we have an outcry, a complaint, and I've said that from day one." Schleicher County Sheriff David Doran

   Another way to read Doran's statement is this:

   "After we have an outcry, a complaint: WE WILL VIOLATE THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS."

   The likelihood that a child will be abused while in [Texas] foster care is greater than if they were left where they are. (Bolton, Laner, and Gai, 1981; Pryor, 1991; Spencer and Knudsen, 1992.)1
   For the government to remove five hundred and thirty four American (534) citizens in Texas from their homes and put them into the care of homosexuals, fornicators, adulteresses, and worse -- teens with STDs is; well, you tell me what it is. When historians look back at the draconian measures taken against non-Muslims practicing polygamy versus the absolutely blind eye that is turned to Muslims practicing polygamy, and practicing it in nearly every neighborhood in the nation, they will wonder how ours could have ever been called a "Christian" nation.
   Exodus 23:1&2
   Thou shalt not raise a false report: put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness.
   Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; (stealing children) neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment. (trial by the media)
   Our streets are littered with the broken lives of teen prostitutes who may be abused one thousand times with impunity while teens who gave themselves to their one and only husband in purity are locked up. Their crime? Their husband failed to get a government consent form signed and notarized and then presented to a judge, despite the fact that their parents gave their full and complete approval for the marriage. Of course the parents gave their approval, they're part of that same community!
   Before proceeding, we must address one issue which has inflamed the discussion of polygamy, so-called "underage girls" marrying fifty (50) year old men. The first cue that such phrases are spoken by stupid people is the redundancy of "underage girls." The second is that underage is a government definition and has nothing to do with biology. According to the most simple logic, a girl is a girl until her first menstruation. After her first menstruation she is biologically a woman. Furthermore, it has been a long standing legal precedent that by the age of thirteen an individual has reached the age of reason where they will be held responsible for their deliberate actions. Pull out your homeowners insurance policy and you will find a statement very similar to this. "We will not pay for injuries or damages that are caused intentionally, UNLESS, the injury or damage is caused by a child 12 years of age or younger." So we have two definitions, one of them biological and the other psychological which put the age of thirteen as the age at which a female is capable both biologically and psychologically of giving consent. The Apostle Paul says, "I will, therefore, that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully." 1Timothy 5:14 And again Paul says, "She shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. 1Timothy 2:15 Saved from what? -- saved from a life of fornication so that the adversary (Satan or anyone else who opposes righteousness) may not have any reason to attack the virtue of the young women. The Greek word translated as "younger women" is "neos" which means recently come into being, young, youthful, new and in the context of marriage Paul is speaking of women who have recently become women. Ah, so Paul himself says that women should marry shortly after their first menstrual cycle which was also in accord with the Roman requirement that upon reaching puberty every citizen must marry.2 Need I remind you that it's America's current five year gap between biologically becoming a woman and legally becoming a woman (The Marriage Gap) that sets in motion the pattern of fornication from which few American women ever escape? Even then, they escape only by doing what Paul instructed them to do in the first place, by marrying.

Click Here to see a PDF of a typical insurance policy.
Search for "Voluntary Payments" after you have the Insurance Policy in your browser.

   Another aspect of the current mob mentality concerning young women marrying fifty (50) year old men is that the public just cannot believe that a thirteen year old woman would be interested in a fifty year old man. Have they never heard of Mick Jagger, he's sixty five years old and man is he UUUGLY! Yet he still has teens swooning over him. The fact is, in the enclosed society of the FLDS, the fifty (50) year old men are the MOST attractive men to their young women. They strut their little industrial complex with a charisma that politicians would envy. Their families are large and happy. They're famous teachers in their community. They are fearless in the face of mainstream society, willing to risk prison for their beliefs. These men are not just desirable to the young women in their society, they're what our mainstream whores would call HOT. (A whore is a woman who has lost her virginity willingly without wedlock.) But here is the issue that EVERY person who claims they are a Christian MUST deal with. The Bible defines marriage. If these women were given to their husbands by their fathers as wives then they indeed are wives and anyone who encourages them to be with another man is guilty of causing them to become adulteresses for they can only be released to marry another man by their husband with his giving them a Bill of Divorcement. If you are one of the mob running to encourage them to forsake their first husband and take another man then you are an accomplice to adultery. Jesus was very strict concerning marriage and He lived in an age where the average woman married at thirteen. At the time of Jesus, the Roman law, referred to as the Lex Papia Poppaea,2 decreed punishments such as the loss of inheritance rights for women who remained single after having attained puberty. Jesus never criticized that law which commanded that a woman old enough to bear children get married. Why would he? That law prevented pre-marital sex. So when Jesus made his pronouncements on marriage those words applied to all marriages, including those with thirteen year old women. Here is what Jesus said, "But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is so divorced commits adultery." Matthew 5:32 The same goes for you; if you cause a woman to be put away from her husband then you also are causing her to commit adultery. This is not a social issue. This is a theological issue and this is an issue of the right of religious groups to separate themselves from fornicators such as nearly every American reading this is.
   Still another hysteria inducing fact is that the Eldorado polygamists had a room in their temple for consummating marriages. For those of you who are so brainwashed by the Roman Catholic marriage ceremonies that today's Protestants gleefully imitate, every typical marriage in the Bible involves the guardian giving the bride and the groom taking her to his tent. What in the world do you think the implication is of what happens in the tent! Duh, what in the world is marriage? Are you dense or something? Marriage involves a willing giving of the bride and a consummation of that marriage. Without the consummation it is not a marriage even according to government law. The Bridal Canopy3 is a remnant of the Bridal Tent3 which was used by the Jews in times past. This Bridal Canopy3 is used in Jewish marriage ceremonies till this day. If you're going to attack the Eldorado group for having what amounts to a Bridal Tent3 then just remember that your attack is anti-Semitic in its roots.
   For those of you who think that the anti-polygamy hysteria is some new thing, please note that anti-polygamy laws have their roots in anti-Semitism and the two Semite groups that have been the brunt of this bigotry are the descendants of Abraham -- Jacob (the Jews), and Ishmael (today's Muslims). Both have a long record of regulated polygamy and both have been the butt of bigoted jokes and worse. It is hate, and hate alone that fuels this group think against polygamy. One thousand years ago Rabbenu Gershom declared that polygamy would be forbidden to Jews in Christian nations. Why did he do this? Well you guess. We see among us five hundred and thirty four American citizens ripped from their homes because of anti-polygamy hatred. If it were not hate that drives this anti-polygamy hysteria then the subject could be discussed openly and without bigoted jokes, accusations, and outright lies.
   To understand the hatred, let me give you an example. Let's say that you and your family chose to live in a neighborhood of five hundred plus like minded Christians and you were all practicing monogamists. Let's say that there was one sixteen year old teenager among you who called the police and said that one of the people in the neighborhood had sex with her after a private marriage ceremony when she was fifteen years old and that her parents knew about it and had approved of it but that they had not obtained a judge's waiver for their daughter to get married at that age. Do you think it would be fair for the government to come into your neighborhood and arrest (that's what it is no matter what else you claim) to arrest, more than five hundred of your neighbors, fellow Americans, yes, AMERICAN citizens, in the largest group arrest in the country in years? Do you think it would be right to take the children of your neighbors who had nothing to do with the fifteen year old's marriage and place those children, all virgins, among some of the most notorious teens of the country? It is a fact that many of the teens in foster care have been placed there because of their own delinquency. Is it right for virgins who have never left their household to be placed among such teens? I have cried over this. If you haven't, may God have mercy on your soul. If you say, "but they were taken out of the homes of polygamists," that's exactly my point. Your hatred for polygamists is so great that you think it's perfectly ok to rip people out of their homes, for what? For being polygamists just like so many Old Testament saints as well as many in the New Testament? Don't you realize that many of Paul's contemporaries were polygamist Christians? If that was not the case then why would Paul have exempted men who were not the "husband of one wife" from the thankless job of Elder, Bishop, and Deacon? He exempted the polygamists because they were being fruitful and multiplying in compliance with God's command and fulfilling that duty was enough to exempt them from unwanted tasks that were to be assigned by Timothy and the other apostles. If the selection was to be only those who were "husbands of one wife" then surely there were enough men with more than one wife that Paul thought it necessary to make such an exemption from troublesome lower offices within the church. Yes, Elder, Bishop, and Deacon were not high offices or they would have been called of God, not appointed by man. Click here to read my article entitled: "The Key to Understanding The Husband of One Wife."
   Now, back to Texas. Isn't it Texas where the governor assumes that teen girls are so promiscuous that he wants to force them to take anti-std immunizations? So the government bans teen marriage, a godly outlet for young women who choose marriage, yet the government not only permits but encourages them to fornicate? Not only does the government encourage their fornicating but they make it legal for them to fornicate with boys who have no ability to support them but make it illegal for stable bread winners to court them and marry them, even when the parents and the girls have given their consent as part of their system of stated community values. What? This has got to be the craziest system man has ever invented; to reward women who have sex with the boys who are least able to support them and penalize those who choose to marry men!

BREAKING NEWS--- Obama State Delegate for Colorado, Rozita Swinton, is the same Rozita Swinton who was arrested for calling in the hoax that triggered the Eldorado raid against peaceful American citizens. Article continues below as originally written on April 7, 2008.

   The quite probably non-existent girl4 who started the Eldorado hysteria is quoted as saying, "Church members told her that if she leaves the ranch, outsiders will ... force her to cut her hair, (TRUE) to wear make up (TRUE) and [different] clothes (TRUE) and to have sex with lots of men. (TRUE)" What is it that is not true about the alleged victim's statement concerning American culture and the environment of foster care today? Everything that this probably non-existent victim was told about the outside world was true. Who is the abuser in this situation? The fact is that American women think it is better to have sex with lots of men before settling on one. Don't you tell me anything different, you fake! Were you a virgin on your wedding night? Look at the actual behavior of people if you want to understand a culture, don't look at what the people in a culture say. We call that baloney. They're full of baloney, spelled BS. Any anthropologist with training knows this. You can go into a country where they say cannibalism is evil but if they're eating their neighbor's liver, don't believe them! When Americans say they believe in waiting till marriage for their first sex, don't believe them. Over ninety percent of Americans have pre-marital sex.5 Face it, we live in a country that says one thing about sex and does another. Forty-five percent of the country says fornication is evil but they fornicate anyway and forty-five percent of the country says fornication is good and they practice what they preach, at least concerning fornication. Now we find America in a situation where its filthy fornicators find a culture within theirs that says and does what it preaches and the fornicators send in armed government officials to arrest and detain five hundred and thirty four fellow American citizens in the most blatant violation of civil rights this country has seen in over fifty years. The pundits are afraid to discuss the issue in a clear and rational way because of the irrational hysteria generated in America by the mere mention of polygamy. Cowards! America's taboo against polygamy has few rivals in the modern world. Americans are willing to suspend the constitution when it comes to polygamists but wait, it's white polygamists who are really the focus of their hatred. "They got our white women in there! They better let lose of 'em or we'll string em up? What white man would do such a thing as have more than one wife! It's plain uncivilized." I can hear them now, their mouths frothing as they hold up their pitch forks... oh yes, it's 9mm weapons they use today. As for the five hundred and thirty- four innocent American citizen detainees in Texas, they remain jailed. What else do you call it when you are held against your own will?
   To quote a man who I was personally introduced to as a paid staffer on his campaign in 1980; "Government isn't the solution to our problem, government is the problem." Nearly every blessed mother in the Bible was a teen bride, usually married within a year or two of her first menstruation. Throughout history the average age of a princess has been between thirteen and eighteen and the same has been true for the common man. Men who break the law when they could have simply gotten a government license to marry their young bride are foolish but they are not brutes. Teen marriage license infractions, for that is all the Texas case concerns, are now being used to prosecute polygamists since prosecutors know that the next polygamy prosecution will be struck down by the Supreme Court. According to Texas law the only thing that stands between a woman under the age of sixteen (16) and her man receiving a marriage license is a court order. Take a look at the statute for yourselves.

Texas Marriage License Requirements

   It is of note that only after the FLDS moved to Eldorado, were Texas marriage laws changed to discriminate against them, raising the age without a court order to marry from fourteen to sixteen. Prior to the 2005 law being passed a woman age fourteen or older could marry simply by producing a properly executed parental consent form. No court order was required. The requirement of a court order was pass by the Texas legislature for the specific purpose of discriminating against the FLDS so that such court orders could be issued for marriage license requests made by any citizens of Texas EXCEPT unless that citizen were a member of the FLDS.
   If men who marry teen brides are brutes then so was President James Monroe who married his seventeen year old bride, Elizabeth Kortright as well as President Andrew Johnson who married his then sixteen or seventeen year old bride, Elizabeth McCardle. Neither did Monroe nor Johnson lift so much as one finger to get a license for their marriages. In fact, the marriage dates of the Presidents before the mid-eighteen hundreds are hard to determine since marriage licenses were not required in most localities. The declaration of the man and woman that they were husband and wife was deemed sufficient. Many states still give an exemption to marriage license requirements to Quakers. If men who marry cousins are brutes then Democrat President Martin Van Buren must also be a brute for he married his first cousin, Hannah Hoes. First cousin marriage which is a marriage that is permitted by the Bible is also the butt of anti-Semitic jokes. If men who marry women who are much younger than they are then President John Tyler must also be a brute for he married the beautiful, Julia Gardiner, who was thirty years younger than he was. Likewise, Grover Cleveland, at the age of forty nine, married Frances Folsom who was just twenty-two years old. June/December marriages are also a favorite topic of jokes by bigots who want to put their noses into the business of other peoples' marriages. This bigotry usually contains slanders against those who might marry their cousins like Jacob did, or who might marry a woman much younger, like Jacob did, or who might marry a woman who was under the age of eighteen, like Jacob did. The fact is, such marriages tend only to come to the attention of the public when they are done by polygamists or when they are done by members of religious groups that condemn fornication and homosexuality. The public considers it vulgar when a monogamist marries his cousin, a teen, or someone much younger but the public considers it evil when a polygamist or religious fanatic does the same.
   Must I bring up the fact that it was King David, the polygamist, who still had enough time with all his wives to write the beautiful Psalms. Do you forget that King Solomon still had time to write the godly and perfect Proverbs and the Song of Songs? Yes, it is a fact that the most poetic and beautiful love poem in the Bible was written by Solomon, the world's most famous polygamist. Furthermore, this King Solomon, wrote Ecclesiastes which was taken by a Sixties band for its melodic words -"To everything - turn, turn, turn There is a season - turn, turn, turn And a time for every purpose under heaven."  Well, it is the season to start recognizing that in a marriage, a man is joined to each of his wives by God, not by man. This is what many of our presidents recognized. Those of you who do not trust God to join you in marriage need our prayers. I don't expect my fellow Americans to agree with me. My fellow Americans refuse to hang the pornographers from the lamp posts along side the CEOs of the major hotel chains in America who pipe in pornography to their hotel rooms. Americans would prefer that one polygamist be sent to prison than one hundred million fornicators be told that sex outside of marriage is a sin but let me put you on notice. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, yes, Jesus Himself, is going to judge you and that day is not far away and He will punish you. Repent. He will punish you for forbidding what the Bible permits and for causing grief and suffering with your backwards and primitive, yes primitive and barbaric laws. For you reward young women with your welfare state who have sex with boys that cannot support them and you punish the wise virgins who choose marriage with an older stable man.
   1 Timothy 4:3 1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

SEND THIS ARTICLE TO A FRIEND! CLICK HERE!

[1] The Welfare of Children by Duncan Lindsay - Published 2003

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

[3] Bridal Tent - "They pitched the tent, the bridal tent, of the Semites, which has survived in the canopy of the Jewish wedding ceremony to our own day." The International Critical Commentary - A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Books of Samuel by Henry Preserved Smith - Professor of Biblical History and Interpretation in Amherst College Published in 1902

[4] Rozita Swinton has been arrested and is currently being investigated for pretending to be a sixteen (16) year old woman; that same "sixteen year old 'girl'" who was the alibi for the Texas Jack Booted Thugs' raid on a peaceful neighborhood in Eldorado to steal over four hundred (400) children from their parents and place them with fornicators, homosexuals, and adulteresses. Rozita E Swinton is also listed on the El Paso County Colorado Democrats website as being a State Delegate from Precinct 269. I called the El Paso County Colorado Democrat Headquarters and spoke with Carol, the woman who answered the telephone, and when I asked her whether that Rozita Swinton who is listed on their website as a state delegate for Obama is the same Rozita Swinton who was arrested for being the polygamy hoax caller she said, yes.

As he that bindeth a stone in a sling, so [is] he that giveth honour to a fool.
Solomon -- Proverbs 26:8
The Texas CPS and Jack Booted Authorities gave honor to a fool, now the ammunition that they intended to fire at their opponents is blowing up in their faces!

[5] Trends in Premarital Sex in the United States, 1954­–2003 Lawrence B. Finer, PhD

Walter C. Kaiser's Hateful Slander of King David

   Walter C. Kaiser Jr. claims in "Hard Sayings of the Bible (1997, c1996) Downers Grove, Il: InterVarsity." that since God never gave permission for polygamy then King David sinned by taking more than one wife. Here is what Mr. Kaiser states:

"No permission can be recited from the text for any such institution or practice."
Kaiser, W. C. (1997, c1996). Hard sayings of the Bible (223). Downers Grove, Il: InterVarsity.

   Mr. Kaiser thinks you and I are too stupid to know that he has changed the definition of sin in order to slander King David. He has changed the definition of sin to:

That which is not expressly permitted. [false definition of sin]

   Does Mr. Kaiser, a man, have the right to change the definition of sin? The real definition of sin is:

That which is expressly forbidden. [correct definition of sin]
Specifically:
To disobey a command of God to do something.
To disobey a command of God not to do something.

   There is no other thing that can be called sin and Mr. Kaiser knows this. Let me repeat, Mr. Kaiser KNOWS the definition of sin. So for what purpose has Mr. Kaiser decided to redefine sin? He has redefined sin in order to create a "straw man." A "straw man" is an imaginary opposition argument that has been created only for the purpose of easily knocking it down, thus the name, "straw man."
   Let's look at how ridiculous Mr. Kaiser's definition is. According to Mr. Kaiser's own definition of sin, the following things are sinful because the Bible does not expressly permit them:

Marrying a woman who has hazel eyes.
Marrying a woman who has a middle name.
Marrying a woman who wears long underwear.

   You can see that according to Mr. Kaiser's own definition of sin, it is a sin to marry at all because unless your specific case is expressly permitted, it's a sin.
   Mr. Kaiser should put his tail between his legs and repent. He knows that he has played a trick to make his point. The trickery he has used is so well known that as I've pointed out, it has a name, "straw man."

Walter C. Kaiser's Hateful Slander of Jacob

   Walter C. Kaiser continues his slander against the Jews in his section about Jacob. He stoops once again to straw man trickery, stating:

   "Polygamy was never lawful for any of the persons in the Bible. There never existed an express biblical permission for such a deviation from the ordinance of God made at the institution of marriage in the Garden of Eden (Gen 2:21–24)."
Kaiser, W. C. (1997, c1996). Hard sayings of the Bible (130). Downers Grove, Il: InterVarsity.

   Now remember, nothing requires "an express biblical permission." Sin is that which is forbidden to do as well as that which is forbidden not to do.
   So what is this "ordinance of God made at the institution of marriage in the Garden of Eden" that Kaiser talks about? Mr. Kaiser wants us to believe that there is some ordinance in the verses he mentions that forbids polygamy but that is not what the verses are about. If Mr. Kaiser had analyzed the Hebrew grammar he would have known that. Hebrew, or any language for that matter, is not made up merely of words to be translated although some armchair theologians would like to think so. To understand any sentence, we must analyze not only the words but the grammar, the syntax, and more. Here are the verses that Kaiser brings up.

Genesis 2:21-24
21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

   Now let's remember, sin is that which is forbidden [forbidden to do or forbidden not to do.]

   What does Genesis 2:24 forbid?
   Genesis 2:24 forbids homosexuality [leave his father] and it forbids mother son incest [leave his mother.]

   What does Genesis 2:24 command?
   Genesis 2:24 commands heterosexual sex.

   The reason for this understanding of Genesis 2:24 is explained in the sentence structure. According to the AFPMA [Anderson-Forbes Phrase Marker Analysis,] the sentence in Genesis 2:24 is divided into two unit phrases:

"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife."

"and they shall become one flesh."

Italicizing the word they reveals the Hebrew meaning.

"and they shall become one flesh."

   In other words, they shall become one flesh as opposed to the man becoming one flesh with his father or with his mother. Look how the sentence reads with that understanding.

   Paraphrase: The reason that a man shall leave his father and his mother and cleave unto his wife is that it is they [the man and his wife] who are to be as one flesh [and certainly the man and his father are not to be as one flesh nor are the man and his mother to be as one flesh.]

   Consider this; the word translated here as "leave" is translated nearly twice as much as "forsake." Now let's read the sentence with forsake instead of leave.

   "Therefore shall a man forsake his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife."

   Does it say forsake all others? No, it doesn't. It says forsake his father [ban on male homosexuality] and forsake his mother [ban on mother son incest.]
   Our God is a righteous God. When God condemned Sodom and Gomorrah with destruction, its people had already broken many laws that were well known to them; laws which were well known to Adam and which he passed down to his descendents. One of the laws that the men of Sodom and Gomorrah broke was the law against male homosexuality which is found in Genesis 2:24 and is found nowhere else in scripture prior to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. We know that the men of Sodom and Gomorrah knew that their homosexuality was a sin precisely because of the account of Genesis 2:24. Adam kept at least an oral record of Genesis 2:24 which was eventually written by Moses. Here is a list of some other laws that the descendents of Adam would have received from Adam.

Sanctification of the Sabbath. Genesis 2:3
Ban on male homosexuality. Genesis 2:24
Ban on mother son incest. Genesis 2:24
The requirement for blood sacrifice. Genesis 3:21, Genesis 4:5
The value of repentance. Genesis 4:7 (salvation by grace)
Ban on murder. Genesis 4:8
Paul encapsulates well the lesson of Genesis 3:21, Genesis 4:5, and Genesis 4:7 when he writes in his letter to the Hebrews, chapter 9 verse 22 "And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission."

   Mr. Kaiser  is left with the fact that the Bible contains no law against polygamy. For those of you who want to use "law of the land" arguments against polygamy, remember; if you argue that polygamy is wrong because it's against the law then you must also argue that George Washington was a traitor and should have been hanged and that the United States is in rebellion against Great Britain and must go back to being a colony.
   How much hatred must Mr. Kaiser have in his heart that he feels the need to use trickery instead of God's word to make his case. Jesus was clear that slander involves hatred.

Matthew 5:22
But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Racac, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Walter C. Kaiser's Hateful Slander of Righteous Abraham

   Mr. Kaiser is not satisfied in having slandered the patriarch of the Jews, Jacob, nor is slandering David, the great writer of the Psalms enough, but he feels impelled to slander righteous Abraham by referring to his marriage with Hagar as cohabitation! Read for yourself:

   "While the Bible does not stop to moralize on Abram’s cohabitation with Hagar, it nevertheless expects each reader to realize that what was taking place was contrary to the will and morality that God approved."
Kaiser, W. C. (1997, c1996). Hard sayings of the Bible (122). Downers Grove, Il: InterVarsity.

   Notice that Mr. Kaiser has to rely on cultural bigotry to get across his point, stating that, "The Bible ... expects each reader to realize that what was taking place was contrary to the will and morality that God approved."

   Mr. Kaiser, the Lord expects us to "realize" no such thing. In fact, the Lord commands us through the Bible:

   Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. Proverbs 3:5

   The foolishness of man perverteth his way: and his heart fretteth against the LORD. Proverbs 19:3

   Do you believe it, Mr. Kaiser? Is man's heart so naturally foolish that it rebels against what the Lord teaches? If you believe Proverbs 19:3 and Proverbs 3:5 then why do you ask men to "realize" i.e., to "lean unto their own understanding?"
   In closing, Mr. Kaiser, who do you think you are? How is it that you are so much greater than the Bible that you can invent new definitions of sin? Is your straw man a nifty little trick that you pull because you enjoy seeing stupid people in awe? Well, it's not so nifty and people aren't so stupid. Compare yourself with the men you condemn:

   Jacob who God Himself gave the name Israel after having wrestled with God! Jacob raised twelve sons from which the nation of Israel and our Lord and Savior, Jesus, trace their roots.
   King David wrote the Psalms!
   Abraham was called the Friend of God!!!
   And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. James 2:23

   Please pray with me for Mr. Kaiser. Pray that Mr. Kaiser will "lean not unto his own understanding" but will lean unto "every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Matthew 4:4b Pray also that he will correct his books and publicly confess that he has sinned by using the trickery of the straw man.

Gynopomorphism Definition:
Attributing the characteristics of a woman to something else.

Andropomorphism Definition:
Attributing the characteristics of a man to something else.

The primary reason that men and women have differences in their understanding of their marriage relationship is that:

Men think that women think and feel like they do. This is known as Andropomorphism.

AND

Women think that men think or feel like they do. This is known as Gynopomorphism.

More on this shortly.

The author, H.D.M. Spence, criticizes King David for something that the Bible NEVER criticized him for, polygamy. The Bible says in 1 Kings 15:5 that

"David did [that which was] right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any [thing] that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite."

The author disagrees with the Bible when he writes,

"David’s public and private career was necessarily the better for the presence in his home of such a woman, {Abigail} though the elevating influence of her character was impaired by his adoption of polygamy. Many are the counteracting influences under which the best of men develope, and Scripture, by thus calling attention to David’s domestic affairs, gives us a clue to some of the circumstances amidst which his virtues and failings appeared."

Again he writes:

"Yet it is open to us to note how, at a time when polygamy was “winked at,” and no sin was necessarily to lie on this account at the door of David, yet by this very thing he was undermining the peace and unity of his own family."

This is double speak. On the one hand Spence says that "no sin was necessarily to lie on this account at the door of David" and on the other he says that David was "undermining the peace and unity of his own family" and that David "impaired" Abigail's "elevating influence." To this I ask, Does Spence think that Abigail was so base as to let her husband David's marriage to additional wives keep her from maintaining a right relationship with her husband and with the Lord? By accusing David he acuses Abigail. Neither can defend themselves here but I would say that the Psalms are quite a defense in themselves against attacks by those who prostrate themselves at the Golden Calf of Monogamy. It is clear in the Psalms that David understood more about a right relationship with the Lord than any of us. Can I get an Amen to that?

Sin is what the Bible calls sin and the Bible never calls polygamy a sin. The nation of Israel came from four wives of the same man. I suppose that Jacob sinned by carrying out the Lord's plan to bless him? To believe such a thing borders on anti-Semitism. By focusing on polygamy and claiming that it was the cause of so many a biblical character's downfall, our eyes are turned away from our own sinful nature as a reason for failure. We are become like the man who stood in front of the temple and prayed "God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men [are], extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican." Christians should pray like the publican whom Jesus praised, "God be merciful to me a sinner."

If you like cultural pap disguised as theology then you will like what Spence has written. If you prefer the truth then find a good Bible and you'll learn that neither Christian monogamy nor Christian polygamy are taught but simply Christian marriage which includes the right of a man to have more than one such marriage at the same time.

Please note that my comments should never be construed to question any author's salvation nor should any reader here question my salvation if they in like fashion disagree with me on the topic of marriage.

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