Divine Patriarch Taught In Scripture

By James on November 20, 2013 in Patriarchy

Divine Patriarchy

As Validated by Scripture












What is Patriarchy? Patriarchy is simply a marriage where the man (not the woman or the children) holds ultimate rule over his home. And yet most today will tell you that marriage is a 50/50 partnership. Sometimes they will even admit that it is the wife who is the head of their home. Yet the scripture teaches something very much opposed to the modern day concept of the liberated woman.






“And Almighty YAHUAH said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.” (Genesis 2:18)“Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” (Genesis 3:16)




These texts from Scripture establish the foundation upon which divine patriarchy is based. The woman was made for the man as a helper to him. Her desire would be toward her husband, who would rule over her. This injunction was given when our heavenly Father YAHUAH cast out Adam and Khawwah (Eve) from the Garden of Eden. This is among one of the first commands given in  Scripture, and it is a command that states that the man shall rule over the woman (not the woman to rule over the man).




Validating Patriarchal Order




There is much evidence that this commandment regarding the authority of the man above the woman is not only in the beginning, but extents for all time. In Numbers 30 (part of the Torah or Law) it tells us if a woman makes a vow, her husband can cancel it on the day that he hears it. But a man’s vows will always stand. “And Moses spake unto the heads of the tribes concerning the children of Israel, saying, This is the thing which YAHUAH hath commanded.




If a man vow a vow unto YAHUAH, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth. If a woman also vow a vow unto YAHUAH, and bind herself by a bond, [being] in her father’s house in her youth; And her father hear her vow, and her bond wherewith she hath bound her soul, and her father shall hold his peace at her: then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she hath bound her soul shall stand.




But if her father disallow her in the day that he heareth; not any of her vows, or of her bonds wherewith she hath bound her soul, shall stand: and YAHUAH shall forgive her, because her father disallowed her. And if she had at all an husband, when she vowed, or uttered ought out of her lips, wherewith she bound her soul; And her husband heard it, and held his peace at her in the day that he heard [it]: then her vows shall stand, and her bonds wherewith she bound her soul shall stand. But if her husband disallowed her on the day that he heard it; then he shall make her vow which she vowed, and that which she uttered with her lips, herewith she bound her soul, of none effect: and YAHUAH shall forgive her. But every vow of a widow, and of her that is divorced, wherewith they have bound their souls, shall stand against her.








And if she vowed in her husband’s house, or bound her soul by a bond with an oath; And her husband heard it, and held his peace at her, and disallowed her not: then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she bound her soul shall stand. But if her husband hath utterly made them void on the day he heard them; then whatsoever proceeded out of her lips concerning her vows, or concerning the bond of her soul, shall not stand: her husband hath made them void; and YAHUAH shall forgive her. Every vow, and every binding oath to afflict the soul, her husband may establish it, or her husband may make it void.




But if her husband altogether hold his peace at her from day to day; then he establisheth all her vows, or all her bonds, which are upon her: he confirmeth them, because he held his peace at her in the day that he heard them. But if he shall any ways make them void after that he hath heard them; then he shall bear her iniquity. These are the statutes, which YAHUAH commanded Moses, between a man and his wife, between the father and his daughter, being yet in her youth in her father’s house.”(Numbers 30:1-16)




That is the command as given in the Hebrew Scriptures. It should be clear from this Scripture that it is the man who rules over both his daughter and his wife (unless she is lawfully divorced from him). But now let us consider what is written in the Messianic writings: “Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.




Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of Elohim of great price. For after this manner in the old time the Qodesh (Holy) women also, who trusted in Elohim, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:” (1 Peter 3:1-5)




Those who say that these texts do not apply today are not truly believing in and following Scripture. The wife is to be “in subjection” to her husband, and this is the clear teaching of Scripture. Wives must recognize that their husband is their head, their master. In fact, the word that is often translated husband is really “master” or “lord” in the original Hebrew.




So, the woman’s place is not just in the home, not just at the side of her husband, but under his subjection. This is the divinely ordained place for the woman to be, just as the man is ordained to be the head. It does not mean she is to be at his “footstool” to be kicked around—that is also an extreme teaching not based on Scripture. She is to be at his side, a little lower than her husband and therefore subject to him. Any other teaching or philosophy (including and especially modern feminism) has no place in the home of the righteous.






A Last Day Prophecy Fulfilled




Scripture prophesied of our day when it was written in Isaiah:




As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.” (Isaiah 3:12)




As difficult as it may be to accept, the man is the head of the woman and of the children. Likewise our heavenly Father YAHUAH is head of His only son Messiah Yahuah-Shua who said “I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just;because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.” (John5:30)




In the world today (with female dominance in almost every area of life, especially in Western culture) this teaching is almost impossible to accept. Yet it is true, the woman is to be subject to her husband. And this is not the arbitrary decree of “chauvinistic” men, this is her position by nature. She was made that way. This subjection is not just in the physical areas of life, but also the spiritual areas.




The man is to be the spiritual leader in the home. And this fact is even confirmed in the Genesis account, for when Adam was asked to name all the animals it was a confirmation of YAHUAH’s command that he was to have dominion over all of YAHUAH’s creation. Does not the fact that Adam also named the woman show that man is also to have dominion over his woman?




If this is not so, then how could a man have the authority to give a name to his woman—or to his children, even above the authority of his wife (as shown in Genesis 35:18)?  When a righteous Hebrew took a wife, he gave something to the father of the bride (called the “bride price”). This is also known as a dowry.




Now notice how YAHUAH likens us to his bride that He has purchased:




“Remember thy congregation, which thou hast purchased of old.” (Psalm 74:2) “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the QodeshGhost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of Elohim, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” (Acts 20:28) “For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify YAHUAH in your body, and in your spirit, which are YAHUAH’s.” (1st Corinthians 6:20)




The Messiah purchased us at a great price, his blood being shed on the cross. As such, he is rightfully the head of the assembly (i.e., church).




This act of purchasing us with his blood is based upon the principle found in the “brideprice” mentioned repeatedly throughout Scripture. But in the literal “brideprice” of Scripture, there is something which is often overlooked.




Notice how Scripture confirms that the “brideprice” may not only apply to one wife, but to more than one:




More Than One Wife?




“If a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.” (Exodus 22:16-17)



This text mentions the actions of a “man” which may lead to a so-called “shotgun wedding”. That is clear enough. And the brideprice is also involved here, for it says that he is to “endow her…according to the dowry of virgins”. But now notice that it does not qualify whether this was a single or married man. He could have been a married man, and this Scripture clearly leaves that point open.




And so, even if he were a married man he would still be required to marry the other woman (unless the father refuses to let her do so). [Please notice that it is a requirement that the unmarried woman that lays with the man must marry the man, subject to her father’s final decision—not hers!] Like the assembly has more than one member in the heavenly family, the earthly family may also have more than one member, even including more than one wife. In this Scripture it is clear that the brideprice is commanded to be delivered. If her father refuses to allow the marriage, the man must still make restitution for the defilement of his daughter. Now we, as the bride of Messiah, are also bought and paid for at a price—and there are many of us, not just one.




We have all already been redeemed, in Messiah, and those who continue to simply follow Him and the leading of His Spirit will gain eternal life. But in regard to the text just quoted in Exodus there is a problem: This text does not say the man had to be single!! It applies to any man, married or otherwise!



That not only gives validation to the second marriage (polygyny) but also validates the headship of the man (patriarchy) all in one stroke! Since Yahuah-Shua is also described as in a spiritual marriage to His bride (the assembly) this point also validates the divine nature of polygyny. Whether married or not that man who took hold of that virgin was still required to pay the brideprice and may also end up taking her as another wife.




Here we see there is a dowry, or brideprice, for virgins, and in this instance even though the man might not be allowed to marry her, he still has to pay the dowry because he has defiled her. Even Adam had to pay a price for his mate (part of his flesh). And this is not just a type, but it has now become a reality.




So now it should be clear and the words should sink into our minds—Scripture allows a man to have more than one wife, but a wife can only have one husband. This is an everlasting truth to be applied in all ages, for this fact is confirmed right here in these two Scriptures (Exodus 22:16-17 and Numbers 30:1-16). This truth is at the very heart of divine patriarchy, for in a matriarchal dominating exclusive marriage a woman would never permit her husband to take another wife. Yet this is in contrast to the clear teaching of Scripture, for Scripture clearly allows a man to take more than one wife:




“If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of


marriage, shall he not diminish.” (Exodus 21:10)




“If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn: But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.” (Deuteronomy 21:15–17).




The Law of YAHUAH is very clear on this point, that a man may have more than one wife. But does Polgyny (technically polygyny) really validate divine patriarchy? Yes, according to this Scripture in Exodus 22:16-17, it does. The man (who may already be married) pays a brideprice to the father for his daughter (if she is still under his authority) just as YAHUAH has paid a price to redeem us to Him. The fact that Scripture clearly affirms a man can have more than one wife (in this and other verses) is conclusive evidence that patriarchy (with it’s potential for polygyny) is the righteous standard, not matriarchal domination and most certainly not feminism.




Did Polgyny Cause the Universal Flood?




Here is one rather popular teaching in Messiahianity that is used to dismiss the practice of Polgyny as being either sinful or of a lower standard. That teaching says that Polgyny was tolerated by YAHUAH our creator, but monogamy is the ideal. One of the texts which is used to support that view is the account concerning the flood. It is believed by many Messiahians that the flood was sent (in part at least) because of the so called sin of Polgyny.






Notice the text that is used:




“That the sons of the Almighty saw the daughters of men, that they were fair. And they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose.” (Genesis 6:2)




One question that is asked is “How come none of these polygamous ‘sons of


Elohym’ entered the ark if they were walking in the will of the Almighty?” When we read this text we need to make sure that we do not put our own interpretation upon it before reaching a conclusion. The fact they took many women (polygamous) was only part of the story, for the issue of key importance was that they took “all whom they chose”! What was happening then in the time of Noah was the same as today.




Today men have become so evil that every time they see a beautiful woman they feel in their heart it is only right for them to take that woman and use her for their pleasure without consideration of whether or not someone else has authority over her. Even if they do not carry out their intentions, it is only because they fear retribution from the local authorities that they do not always act upon them. That is why the Messiah condemns the Pharisees by declaring that it is a sin to even look with desire upon a married woman (which most women of age at that time were).




And yet a young virgin is under the authority of her father (unless she has no father) and therefore his permission must be granted before she can be given as a wife to a man. And a woman that is married is under the full authority of her husband, therefore she is not permitted to allow another man to take her (which would be Adultery). So why must so many men assume that every woman they see is “fair game” when Scripture declares it not to be so? And if the man is part of Israel he is not allowed to have relations with a woman who is of the descendants of Canaan even if she is a single virgin, for that would be fornication (as in the case with Esau). Before the flood this prohibition against marrying the sons of Canaan would have most likely applied to the descendants of Cain.



Now having studied out the nature of marriage, we should by now know that men and women are different. The needs of men can sometimes be very high. Because of the high level of testosterone the man may need to have the company of more than one woman. This is a concept which we cannot condemn, for it is part of his nature. What we must maintain is that in the Scriptures YAHUAH has given strict rules governing sexual activity, such that a man is free to take a woman so long as she is not married to another man and so long as he is able to secure her release (through the bride price) from her father.





The dowry is not required if she is divorced, widowed or is an orphan (more specifically, without a father)—in these cases he only needs to receive the permission of the woman herself. These things have been clearly shown in the Scripture mentioned earlier—Numbers 30.




However, the text in Genesis says “they took women for themselves of all whom they chose”. Those who are familiar with Scripture should know that the Torah itself (which Genesis is certainly a part of) does not condemn a man for taking more than one wife. Moshe (Moses) himself (the author of Genesis) took more than one wife (see Exodus 2:21; 18:2, and Numbers 12:1). Therefore to argue that this text is a condemnation or in any way a slight against Polgyny would clearly be contradictory.




The fact that the preflood generation took more than one woman is only part of the story. It only became a sin when they took “all whom they chose”. For if the issue here were primarily against Polgyny then how could YAHUAH condemn the human race for this issue alone while permitting it in others whom Scripture declares to be among the righteous? Abraham, Jacob, Moshe (the author of the Torah himself), and many other noble patriarchs of Scripture practiced Polgyny and yet were not condemned in any way for that practice.




In choosing wives for themselves these “sons of the Almighty” committed sin in that they did not discriminate between the righteous and the wicked, married and unmarried, etc. They set no boundaries in that they took any and “all whom they chose”. To prove this point let us consider these statements: A: “This red car belongs to me”. B: “These two red cars belong to me.” C: “Any and all red cars belong to me.” Question: Which of these statements is clearly false? Answer: C. “A” could be true because it is certainly possible that someone can own 1 car. “B” can also be true because it is not out of the ordinary for someone to own 2 cars. “C” cannot possibly be true because no one can own ALL the red cars in the world!




This statement here is false and shows sin in the heart, since it is not possible. If he should try to enforce his claim to owning all red cars in the world he would be a thief. So, when a man decides in his heart that he can have all the women of the world that he chooses his sin is apparent to all. But if he should rightfully have 2 or more women then it is not a sin anymore than for a man to claim to have full ownership of 2 or more cars.




Here is another question: “How come only the monogamous men and their


singular wives entered the ark which would carry the righteous from the old world into the new?”





To use Noah and his monogamous sons example of having only one wife would also not prove that monogamy is better than Polgyny since it is only circumstantial evidence. For example, If we should find there is a righteous man mentioned in Scripture who chooses not to travel does that therefore prove that it is a sin to travel?.




There were also those who took special vows, like the vow to not use wine or the fruit of the grape. Does that therefore mean that all are forbidden from partaking of wine? Certainly not! There is no prohibition against a man who chooses to travel, just as there is no prohibition against a man for drinking wine. Drinking wine is permitted, but getting drunk is clearly a sin. Travel is never condemned, except during certain appointed times (such as Sabbath).



And if a man is responsible for those in his care (Exodus 21:10) and he is careful to choose from among the righteous (Genesis 24:3, 37; Genesis 26:34-35; Numbers 25:1-3), and does not take a close relative (Leviticus 18) or a woman that is already married (which would be adultery, Exodus 20:14), it is certainly permitted that he may take more than one wife. Example alone is not enough to prove a point, for if we use that argument here we could justify many of the “examples” given to us in Scripture which are clearly evil! We must compare “precept” with “example” before forming our final conclusions on any matter, especially something as important as marriage.




Here is another comment: “Perhaps Polgyny could be likened to gluttony. There’s nothing wrong with eating and drinking…until it is done in excess.


Nothing wrong with marriage…until it is done to excess.” Certainly, anything can be done to excess—the question we need to ask is “where do we draw the line”. Based upon Scripture, this line cannot possibly be drawn at just one wife! If Polgyny is likened to gluttony, then the natural conclusion to this statement is that all polygamous men are gluttons.




Since gluttony is a sin, we would have to conclude that Polgyny is also a sin. And since Abraham, Jacob, Moshe, and David (to name only a few) practiced Polgyny, we would have to conclude that Abraham, Jacob, Moshe and a host of other “saints” were really gluttonous sinners!! Do you see where this leads? To equate Polgyny to gluttony would cause us to falsely conclude that the greatest men of YAHUAH were continually practicing and living in sin.




Yes, I agree, the men mentioned in Genesis 6:2 were (among other things) gluttonous. But to equate Polgyny directly with gluttony is to go beyond what that text will actually support. A polygamous man can certainly be gluttonous, but the fact that he is polygamous does not prove that he is also a glutton. Monogamous men can also be gluttonous, but his monogamy cannot be proven to be the cause of his gluttony.






Conclusion: The Genesis account of the pre-flood world and the sins regarding intermarriage cannot in any way be applied to condemn or lessen the sanctity of a polygamous marriage, since Polgyny is never on its own (whether in the TaNaK or the Messianic Scriptures) classified as a sin.




Matriarchal or Patriarchal—Strange Circumstances




Now some may wish to go to the accounts of the patriarchs and take note of the fact that in many cases of polygyny it was some strange circumstance which caused the man to become polygynous. They may even conclude that the woman, not the man, desired to have a plural marriage—a so-called “Matriarchal” order. Well, yes the situations were strange (Abraham is lead to it through his wife Sarah, and Jacob is tricked into it by Laban and later added concubines at the prompting of his wives).




However, regardless of how they came to have that type of marriage the fact remains that they did have a polygynous marriage. And the men (as patriarchal fathers) still had the authority to decide how many wives they would take (based on Numbers 30:1-16).




In regard to Jacob and Laban, it is clear that Laban did him a great injustice by deceiving Jacob. In spite of the fact Laban was cheating him of his just wages, in spite of the fact that Jacob listened to his 2 wives and added 2 more concubines (lesser wives), YAHUAH still blessed him abundantly with children and with great wealth. YAHUAH even blessed the children of the concubines! And so, there was no sin involved in this decision to take other wives. In regards to Sarah, Abraham was still the head of the house and he certainly could have refused to go along with her suggestion of taking a second wife. It was still his choice, and he chose to follow her suggestion.




The headship and Patriarchal order of authority mentioned in Numbers 30 still stands. As mentioned earlier, according to Numbers 30 the man could negate the vows of his wife on the day he hears it. But the vows of a man stand firm, for nowhere in Scripture is a woman allowed to negate the vows of her husband. Yet in a family (or society) which does not allow Polgyny, this commandment cannot possibly be obeyed.




For instance, if a patriarchal man vows to take a second wife this vow cannot even (according to the Torah of Scripture) be questioned by his wife. But a man who is part of a matriarchal family order cannot do this. His vow would be canceled by his matriarchal dominating wife, who will promptly leave him and file for a divorce if he even attempts to fulfill his vow!!1 This is also contrary to Scripture, and more specifically cannot be valid because of the very nature of male domination as given in Numbers 30. So, a woman cannot divorce her husband, according to Scripture!






1For a man to marry another wife (according to Scripture, Numbers 30) it does not require the permission of his wife, but I highly recommend you patiently educate your wife on this subject and keep her informed of your plans and desires! This is not like bringing home a stray pet! 2 Although Scripture does not permit a woman to divorce her husband, neither does it permit unrestrained evil on the part of a husband. The husband is also subject to a “higher power”.




“If a man vow a vow unto YAHUAH or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth.” (Num 30:2)




Is Monogamy the Ideal?




Now, let us address a common response from most people when this subject comes up.  Often, people come to the Scriptures realizing that Polgyny was allowed and so the most often used explanation as to why Polgyny should no longer be practiced is that Polgyny was tolerated then but monogamy is the ideal. Is that true? Notice how this issue is dealt with in a popular Bible Dictionary, and we will make comments on this afterward:




“concubines, or secondary wives, acquired by purchase or as war booty, and protected by laws of rightful inheritance (Deut. 21:15-17), were commonly accepted in O.T. society. But it is possible to trace in the O.T. a trend toward monogamy. The Deuteronomic Law (remembering Solomon’s excesses) forbade kings to take several wives (17:17).




Prophets like Hosea preached monogamy as a symbol of the faithful union between Elohim and His people. Malachi (2:14 ff.) took monogamy for granted. For security large families (see FAMILY) were essential in early Hebrew society, and concubinage contributed to this end. Although O.T. law codes discouraged Polgyny, an explanation was offered (Gen. 16:1-3). The ideal woman of Prov. 31 moved in a monogamous society. By N.T. times Jewish husbands usually had one wife; N.T. teaching advised monogamy.”3




Friends, this reference work clearly indicates that Polgyny was allowed in Scripture. However, it is full of errors in regard to the true teachings of Scripture. Note their commentary: “it is possible to trace in the O.T. a trend toward monogamy”. Really? I haven’t seen it. “The Deuteronomic Law remembering Solomon’s excesses) forbade kings to take several wives (17:17).” This is also a misleading statement. Solomon’s excesses were wrong, but that text does not condemn a man for taking several wives. “Prophets like Hosea preached monogamy as a symbol of the faithful union between Elohim and his people.” Friend, how can this be the case when it is clear from Hosea 3:1-3 that Hosea took another woman as a wife without divorcing his first wife—clearly showing Hosea was polygamous!! Some say he took back his first wife in this chapter.




But the context shows clearly that this was another woman, simply because he preludes the second marriage by saying “I will love the unloved, I will say to No-People-of Mine, ‘You are my people’, and he will answer, ‘You are my Elohim’” (Hosea 2:23-25, Jerusalem Bible) He then gave his new wife detailed instructions in Hosea 3:3, showing that she was a new member to his household and so


needed special instructions.




If she were the same woman he married first this type of instruction would not have been needed. “Malachi (2:14 ff.) took monogamy for granted.” When you read the context of Malachi 2 it is clear that Malachi was condemning the divorcing of the first wife, or “wife of your youth”. It has nothing to do with monogamy. “Although O.T. law codes discouraged Polgyny. . .” Did they? Where? O.T. law never discouraged Polgyny—in fact the man who wrote it (Moses) had 2 wives himself! “The ideal woman of Prov. 31 moved in a monogamous society.” Friends, the ideal woman of Prov. 31 is just that—the ideal. We are all hoping for the ideal. But the statements made in that chapter neither endorse monogamy nor condemn Polgyny. “N.T. teaching advised monogamy”.




As we will see later in this study, N.T. teaching advised “marriage” and actually endorsed both of these forms (monogamy and Polgyny)! It neither condemned Polgyny nor monogamy, since both of these terms are not even to be found in Scripture—only marriage, whether with one or with many. In Scripture there is no term to differentiate between these two forms of marriage! When Polgyny is objected to on the basis of the theory that “in an ideal world, without sin, we would have no Polgyny” it is evidence of a lack of understanding concerning true righteousness. The main problem with this objection is that it makes an assumption that Polgyny is less pure than monogamy—thereby inferring Polgyny is sin. Yet according to Matthew 5:37 anything that is less than straightforward is sin.




Likewise, sin is defined as “the transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4). Yet Polgyny is not a transgression of the law—since the law (Torah) repeatedly gives regulations and in one case even a command which may require Polgyny to fulfill it (the Levirite marriage)!! Since divine patriarchy (the headship of the man) is established before the fall of man (Genesis 2:18), and clearly taught in both the Torah (Numbers 30:1-16) and Messianic Writings (1 Peter 3:1-5), it would be wrong to say Polgyny would not have been available in Eden since the Creation account show it to be the outgrowth and validation of divine patriarchy!




We say that on the order of authority as given in Numbers 30 as it relates to the Torah requirement of a dowry by ANY MAN [married or not] to be given to the father of a woman that the man has had relations with. If patriarchy [the divine headship of a man] were not in effect, the woman in this case would have had the final say in this matter (not her father or her husband, as Scripture clearly teaches in numbers 30).




Another similar claim is that “Even though Scripture allows Polgyny, monogamy is the ideal form of marriage”. In this claim at least Polgyny is allowed, but the problem here is of a more subtle nature. Here the problem with this claim is that it is an overthrow of the Scriptural concept of morality and ethics. If something is moral it is also right and proper. Something that is immoral is by that very definition unrighteous and improper.




1 John 3:4 says simply “whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law”.




Since both Polgyny and monogamy are in harmony with the teachings of the “law” (that is, the “Torah”) it is clear that making one of these less perfect than the other would be in contradiction to the teachings of Scripture. You cannot moralize concerning the Law by saying there is one part of that law which is better or worse than the other—it must all be either good or bad.



“But let your communication be, Yea, Yea; Nae, Nae; for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.” (Matthew 5:37)



That type of moralizing on the part of some people shows that they are not defending monogamy but instead they are really judging the law. It is a corruption and perversion of truth and blurs the distinction between truth and error, sin and righteousness. True, the law points out evils which must be punished (some more so than others) but that same law never says Polgyny is an evil to be punished, nor does it prescribe even the slightest punishment for practicing that form of marriage. To take the position that “monogamy is better than Polgyny” knowing what the Scripture clearly teaches on this matter will eventually lead such a person into lawlessness and rebellion from YAHUAH.



Monogamy and Polgyny are both equally righteous in the sight of YAHUAH and in harmony with His Law (Torah), and which one of these forms of marriage the righteous may choose to follow has more to do with circumstances and situations than upon our regard for ethics. Not that we are applauding situation ethics—that is not the object at all. What we are recognizing is that we, as sons of YAHUAH, have an obligation to render aid to those who are in need. And if the best way to help someone is to marry them, then so be it!



If there is a righteous woman who needs the care of a righteous man, and the person most qualified to be her husband happens to be married, then we at least have one instance in which it may be good for the man to take a second wife. At the same time we recognize that not all will be prepared for that type of marriage or may not desire to have a polygamous relationship. We can respect that. We all have freedom of choice in regards to which type of marriage we will have, but we also have a responsibility to follow the golden rule.






If a man needs another wife and if there is a woman who needs a righteous husband (but cannot find one who is not already married) then we must seek to go above our false rationalizations and at least allow other people a chance to “get a life”—even if we are not able or willing to take that step ourselves!




Remember, YAHUAH will judge us according to our deeds and if we tempt others into sin or stand in the way of the happiness of others (by denying them or condemning their right to marry), then we will have to give an answer for our own sins in the judgment to come. So that the point will not be forgotten, Scripture makes no difference between “polygamous” and “monogamous” marriages. In fact, those terms are completely absent from Scripture.




Again, here is another text which speaks of marriage:




“So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.” (1 Corinthians 7:38)




Remember, Shaul was writing this at a time in history when polygynous marriage was allowed among the Jews. If he had wished to condemn polygynous marriage he surely passed up plenty of good opportunities to do so!




The Two Shall Be One Flesh




In the beginning there were 2, male and female—a monogamous pair. Yet, this does not prove monogamy is the only way that marriage is sanctioned by our heavenly Father. There are those who will go to the creation account and attempt to use that as proof that the ideal marriage from the beginning of creation was “monogomous” only.




Our heavenly Father created one male and one female, which appears to imply that this is the only normal form of marriage. But the point that is often missed is that this was only a condition and a circumstance—it was not a command. Notice what the text in Genesis says and we will examine it further:




“And YAHUAH Elohim 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; And the rib, which YAHUAH Elohim had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his woman: and they shall be one flesh.” (Genesis 2:21-24)










You will notice in the last verse we used “woman” in the place of what is usually termed “wife”. The reason for this is simple—the Hebrew word that is often translated “wife” really means “woman” (ishishaw). To translate it as “wife” is really not a valid translation for that is simply an interpretation. The closest the Hebrew ever comes to saying “wife” is ishishaw baali (“woman owned by a master”) found in a few verses of Scripture.




Now let’s talk about that last verse where it says “they shall be one flesh”. Many people argue that this proves monogamy is the original plan and ideal form of marriage as given in Scripture, and that this text somehow proves this point. But let us now look at some other texts which speak of this same concept of becoming “one flesh” and see if we can discover what this proves or does not prove.




The first text we will go to is found in Matthew 19. Notice what the Messiah himself says about this:




“And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore Elohim hath joined together, let not man put asunder. “ (Matthew 19:4-6)




Notice that when a man cleaves to his wife (and in the Greek it can be translated “wife” or “woman”) they become one flesh. So it is the act of cleaving to the woman which brings about the one flesh experience. Well, that stands to reason since it is really impossible for a man to have this “one flesh” experience with more than one woman at a time—is that not correct? And then what of this last statement “What therefore Elohim hath joined together, let not man put asunder”.




The question we need to be asking here is “just how does the Almighty join together a man and a woman?” Friend, I think you know the answer to this—it is through sexual intercourse. The Creator has placed within the mind of men and woman a natural desire which (when used properly) will eventually lead to courtship, betrothal, and ultimately marriage. And intercourse alone does not constitute marriage, for without a valid commitment between a man and a marriageable woman it becomes fornication. Of this many will agree.




But remember the Messiah has said in addition to this “let not man put asunder”. The context of this statement is in regard to divorce, but lest we forget at the time this statement was made it was permitted that a man could have more than one wife. Would this command also apply to a marriage of that type?






Friends, to be consistent with Scripture it would certainly have to! Whether a man has one wife or more, he must not “put asunder” (divorce) any of those who are worthy of him and that he has sexually taken (which is truly marriage, in the Biblical sense) except in the most extreme circumstances (because of fornication, which is generally defined in Leviticus 18).




And anyone who attempts to put asunder a relationship based upon their false belief that it is sinful for a man to have more than one woman is in violation of this very text that is so often used to prove monogamy is the ideal form of marriage!




Did you get that? When the Messiah says do not “put asunder”, friends, he is talking directly to the preachers and teachers and mother-in-laws and father-in-laws of this world who tell the woman that she has to leave “that lecherous man” of hers because he took another woman (unmarried) and supposedly committed adultery! Marrying more than one woman is not adultery, not according to the teachings of Scripture.




Now let us look at the third text:




“Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Messiah? shall I then takethe members of Messiah, and make them the members of an harlot?YAHUAH forbid. What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot isone body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. But he that is joined untoYAHUAH is one spirit. Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth iswithout the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against hisown body.” (1Corinthians 6:15-18)




In the previous text we have determined that it is through sexual intercourse that a man and woman become “one flesh”. This text in 1 Corinthians confirms this point and adds even more. In this text it is confirmed that a man can become one flesh not only with a legitimate wife but also with a harlot. Now in the context of this statement, his actions would clearly constitute “fornication”. But the point we need to emphasize here is that the “one flesh” experience can be made several times with different women.




With that in mind, let us now reconsider the first text of Genesis 2 which says that the man and woman would become one flesh:




“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his woman: and they shall be one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24)








The reference from 1 Corinthians 6 shows clearly that this “one flesh” experience can be experienced with more than one person (the only limitation is to 1 man and 1 woman at a time). And the Messiah’s statement in Matthew 19 shows that it is YAHUAH which has put within our very being the desire to mate, “What therefore Elohim hath joined together, let not man put asunder. “ (Matthew 19:4-6) This text confirms that it is a natural desire placed within the heart of men and women to mate, and when they have mated (whether it is his first or second or tenth wife) “What therefore Elohim hath joined together [through sexual intercourse] let not man put asunder”. So, Scripture is clear that the “one flesh” experience can happen more than once. Unless it is a sinful relationship such as fornication, adultery, incest, etc., the command of the Messiah is “let not man put asunder”, whether with one or many women!




Polgyny Not Listed as a Sin




Nowhere in Scripture do we have a command against polygyny. Nowhere in Scripture is polygyny listed as a sin. In fact, we have several commands which may require polygyny to fulfill them!! Examples include the verse quoted earlier {Exodus 22:16-17) as well as the Leverite marriage (Deuteronomy 25:5-10) And in the list of sins which are given in the Messianic writings, polygyny is clearly not listed, but fornication, adultery, murder, envy, etc. are very prominently mentioned.




“For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Elohimhead; so that they are without excuse: (21) Because that, when they knew Elohim, they glorified [him] not as Elohim, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. (22) Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, (23) And changed the glory of the uncorruptible Elohim into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. (24) Wherefore Elohim also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: (25) Who changed the truth of Elohim into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. (26) For this cause Elohim gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: (27) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. (28) And even as they did not like to retain Elohim in [their] knowledge, Elohim gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;




(29) Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,(30) Backbiters, haters of Elohim, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, (31) Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: (32) Who knowing the judgment of Elohim, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that


do them.” (Romans 1:20-32)




There is no Polgyny listed as a sin in this list, but “envy” (jealousy) is listed along with “murder”, “fornication”, and “maliciousness”! “




[This] I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. (17) For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. (18) But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. (19) Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are [these]; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, (20) Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, (21) Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told [you] in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of Elohim. (22) But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness,faith, (23) Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. (24)




And they that are Messiah’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. (25) If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. (26) Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.” (Galatians 5:16-26)




No Polgyny listed here either.




“But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; (4) Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.(5) For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Messiah and of Elohim. (6) Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of Elohim upon the children ofdisobedience. (7) Be not ye therefore partakers with them.






(8) For ye were sometimes darkness, but now [are ye] light in the Lord: walk as children of light: (9) (For the fruit of the Spirit [is] in all goodness and righteousness and truth;) (10) Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord. (11) And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove [them]. (12) For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret. (13) But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light. (14) Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Messiah shall give thee light. (15) See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise, (16) Redeeming the time, because the days are evil. (17) Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord [is]. (18) And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit; (19) Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord; (20) Giving thanks always for all things unto Elohim and the Father in the name of our Master Yahuah-Shua; (21) Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of Elohim.” (Ephesians 5:3-21)




Those who wish to condemn others who may desire to have a polygynous marriage need to address the fact that not a single statement in the Messianic writings or Scripture give any direct condemnation against polygyny. But, it is interesting that “hatred”, “envy”, “variance”, “strife”, “debate”, “jealousy”, etc. ARE mentioned as sins which will prevent those who practice them from entering into the kingdom of heaven.




Why do people often become upset when this subject of Polgyny arises, yet never deal directly with these other issues of such obvious sins (even if they are present within their own home or assembly)? Surely we should at least make these other issues of equal importance, should we not?




Patriarchy is Even Written in the Stars!




One example in nature is worth considering: In the dark ages the laws against Polgyny were adopted at about the same time people accepted the idea that the sun revolved around the earth. Yet our solar system has one sun and several planets revolving around it. While it is possible, it is unlikely that a solar system with only one planet is the norm. As in a marriage, the planets (wives) are subject to their husband (the sun). And each planet has those under its authority—moons (children). Like mothers and planets, some have more children than others and some are barren (no moons). To reverse the order of that would place this earth in the center of the universe, with devastating results! And yet the sun itself is also subject to a higher power (the galaxy).




Should it veer off its intended path it could be destroyed along with all those allied with it. Yet it does not mean the man can do what he wants. The man is also subject to following the laws of nature just as the sun must follow its prescribed circuit in its path through the cosmos. So patriarchy can even be seen in the stars!4 In nature, friend, Polgyny is the norm. Over 80% of mammals are polygamous by nature. One of the exceptions to this rule is the wolf, which is highly monogamous.




A female wolf will win the attention of the pack leader and once their mating is consummated she will jealously guard the attention of her male and prevent him from mating with other wolves. They are extremely territorial and have been known to kill one another to prevent the male from mating again. Is it any wonder that Scripture rightly identifies the “wolf” as the spiritual perpetrators of evil, while the highly polygamous “sheep” are identified as righteous?




In the knowledge of genetics we know that in order to start the process of procreation” it only requires 1 male and 1 female. From that point on a monogamous only marriage is not the only way legitimate offspring can be born. Another reason why a woman could not also have more than one husband is because it would clearly bring confusion of seed (the men would not know which child belongs to them). And a woman who allows more men to have relations with her does not in any way improve her chances of pregnancy nor the number of children that will be born. The result is only confusion and disharmony, for it indicates that there is a broken headship in such a family structure.




Such a relationship would be totally out of YAHUAH’s order and not in harmony with nature. Yet the man, in contrast with the woman, is fully capable of producing offspring almost every day of the year. And since he is the head of his family, it is just as easy to lead 4 wives as it is to lead 1. So polygyny is actually quite a natural way of life. And we have the testimony of the Scriptures that it is not a sin for a man to have more than one wife, and no condemnation against polygynous marriage exists in all the Scriptures—therefore rendering that argument mute. In fact, Polgyny as a word or concept is not in Scripture at all. That is a fairly modern term. All that the Hebrews understood was marriage, with one or more.




Now notice this Scripture and consider this point—it says that the man needs “an help meet” not “the one and only help meet”:




“And Almighty YAHUAH said, it is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. . . . ” (Genesis 1:18-19)




If Adam was to have only that one help meet and she was to be his only wife, then why would this text say simply “an help meet”? How many “help meets” does this text imply that Adam may have needed?






Obviously, it leaves wide open the door for Adam and all those after him to have many “help meets” (wives)—although, again, we have no proof that Adam ever took another wife. Likewise, we have no proof to the contrary! But the fact that Adam and Noah and his 3 sons were probably monogamous does not prove conclusively that Polgyny is a sin (or even less desirable). That is just the form of


marriage which they chose to or were constrained by circumstances to have.




Polgyny in the New Testament




A common response to all these arguments regarding plural marriage is that “we are no longer living under the old testament”. Well, first I have to disagree. Messiah says in Matthew 5 that he came not to destroy the “law or the prophets” but to fulfill. The “law” is the Torah or first 5 books of Scripture. The “prophets” is a reference to the “Neviim” or prophetic writings which include 21 books from the so-called “old Testament”. This makes for a total of 26 books [originally 24 books] which we must (along with the Messiah) hold in supreme authority and highest esteem among all books—for this, Messiah says, will never be taken away or changed. He says that those who teach against the “Law” and the “Prophets” would be “least in the kingdom of heaven”.




Doesn’t seem like an optional point, right? It is not optional and the law has not changed—although there are those who “think to change times and laws” (reference Daniel 7:25).




However, in addition to this we have some clear evidence from the New testament not only that plural marriage is allowed but that it was even being practiced by the Messianic believers at that time.




In 1 Corinthians 5:1 it says “It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife.”




2 points we need to make here:




1. The expression “father’s wife” is common in Scripture and refers to a woman who is a second wife, but not the biological mother of the person in question.




“And it came to pass, when Israel dwelt in that land, that Reuben went andlay with Bilhah his father’s concubine: and Israel heard it.” (Genesis 35:22)




“And Saul had a concubine, whose name was Rizpah, the daughter of Aiah: and Ishbosheth said to Abner, Wherefore hast thou gone in unto myfather’s concubine?” (2 Samuel 3:7)






“And Ahithophel said unto Absalom, Go in unto thy father’s concubines, which he hath left to keep the house; and all Israel shall hear that thou art abhorred of thy father: then shall the hands of all that are with thee be strong.”  “So they spread Absalom a tent upon the top of the house; and Absalom went in unto his father’s concubines in the sight of all Israel.” (2 Samuel 16:21-22)




Remember, not everything that happens in the stories of Scripture are role models for us to follow—especially here in these texts. The reason for mentioning these texts is because they speak of a “father’s concubines”. A concubine is really a lesser wife, one who is also married to a certain man, but does not have inheritance rights like a primary wife. In most cases, concubines were merely bond-slaves who are taken as a wife.




Anyway, these statements (when compared to 1 Corinthians 5:1) show that at the time the letter to the Corinthians was written Polgyny was allowed while at the same time fornication was condemned in the most forceful terms. If a son went “into” his “father’s wife”, and that woman was not his biological mother—then it is clear that his father had more than one wife. While a “father’s wife” could also be a “step mother” (by divorce or death of a former wife) the fact that Polgyny was common during those times (as shown in the Scripture examples above) and divorce less common, it is more likely that she would be a second wife.




2. The word for “wife” is “gune” and can be either singular or plural. So this text could have easily been translated “father’s wives”. At any rate, while condemning fornication this text shows that polygynous marriage was still practiced (and with good conscience) among the early believers.




3. In Matthew 22:24 the Messiah is challenged by the Sadducees in regard to the


issue of the Levirite marriage of a man to the wife of his now dead brother (Deuteronomy 25:5-10). In his challenge he gives a very interesting answer that (based on our current translations) raises questions of its own.




The essentialpoint, however, is that in his response he does not in any way challenge the teachings of Scripture. Therefore, since we know that the Levirite marriage commandment of Deuteronomy 25 could potentially lead to a polygamous marriage—it is clear that the Messiah at least passively endorsed Polgyny by the fact that He did not here challenge it’s validity at all.




4. In Matthew 19:29 and Luke 18:28-30 we have a curious statement from the Messiah which indicates that in Paradise those who forsake all for his kingdom will receive manifold more blessings (and in one text it says 100 fold) both now and in the eternal kingdom.




Notice what it says:




“Then Peter said, Lo, we have left all, and followed thee. And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of Elohim’s sake, who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting.” (Luke 18:28-30)




If we are to receive manifold in this present life, then that means we will receive everything listed many times over, including many more wives! And since the word for “wife” can be either singular or plural, even in the text itself the word could just as easily have been translated “wives” as well as “wife” (or “woman” or “women”). Since the context suggests the items listed are mostly “plural” (. . .parents. . . brethren . . . children) it would not be wrong to translate “gune” as “wives”. “There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wives, or children, for the kingdom of Elohim’s sake, who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting.”




But the use of the word “manifold” makes this point even more emphatic. According to this text, a man can not only have more than one wife in this life but may also in the life to come and in greater abundance! Matthew 19:29 says basically the same thing except that it uses the term “an hundred fold” in referring to the blessings to be received in paradise. So, even in the New Testament the question of multiple wives is really very clear—although many may not be able to see it unless they look closely without prejudice at these various texts. The reference to 1 Timothy 3:2 seems to imply that a Bishop should only have one wife.




“A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach.” (1Timothy 3:2)




If we follow this reading of the text, would the Messiah (who was presumably unmarried) be eligible to be a bishop? Remember, it says he has to be husband of “one wife” so a celibate as well as a polygamous husband would not qualify—if that is the meaning of the text! Well, that reading is actually not the best. First problem—in regards to Polgyny this text (as read literally) actually allows a man other than a Bishop to have more than one wife. Second, the word translated “one” in the Greek (Mia) is often translated as “first”, so this text could therefore be translated “A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of (his) first wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach.” (1Timothy 3:2) That phrase “husband of one wife” (and others like it) would more likely be a reference to a man who does not forsake the “wife of his youth” (as declared in Malachi 2:14-16) through an illegal (by Torah standards) divorce.




Issues Regarding the First Dominion




There is the teaching in Scripture concerning “First” dominion. Some have taken this teaching to mean that in the original creation there were certain actions which were not permitted and not considered righteous that in our current faulty, secondary dominion would be permitted. There is only one text which speaks of this “first dominion” so we will quote it for your review:




But in the last days it shall come to pass, [that] the mountain of the house of YAHUAH shall be established in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall flow unto it. And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of YAHUAH, and to the house of the Elohim of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of YAHUAH from Jerusalem. And he shall judge among many people, and rebuke strong nations afar off; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. But they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree; and none shall make [them] afraid: for the mouth of YAHUAH of hosts hath spoken it. For all people will walk every one in the name of his Elohim, and we will walk in the name of YAHUAH our Elohim for ever and ever. In that day, saith YAHUAH, will I assemble her that halteth, and I will gather her that is driven out, and her that I have afflicted; And I will make her that halted a remnant, and her that was cast far off a strong nation: and YAHUAH shall reign over them in mount Zion from henceforth, even for ever. And thou, O tower of the flock, the strong hold of the daughter of Zion, unto thee shall it come, even the first dominion; the kingdom shall come to the daughter of Jerusalem.” (Micah 4:1-8)




This text tells us plainly that the first dominion will be returned to the “daughter of


Jerusalem”. While we can agree that paradise will be vastly different than our current life, the rules (or “standards”) upon which people will live will be the same as the rules which they (the righteous “remnant”) follow during this first life. It states quite emphatically in that very chapter that “the law” (that is, the “Torah”) will go forth from Zion”. If this is true, and since we know that even the Torah allowed for divorce (in certain extreme circumstances) and also allowed the taking of additional wives, this prophecy in Micah would be made to contradict itself if the first dominion contained rules which contradict the Torah.This teaching of a first dominion is often presented with the concept of a so-called “higher standard” which was given to us in Eden and will be restored at the second coming of the Messiah. In many areas we can certainly agree, for example, thorns. In the original creation, thorns and thistles did not exist—but after the fall they grew profusely.


Another example would be divorce. Messiah says in Matthew 5 that divorce was permitted because of the coldness of men’s hearts but that “from the beginning it


was not so”. While it is certain that divorce was never a part of the original plan of


YAHUAH, it must be understood that this was only true because the conditions in that environment did not require it. Anytime sin comes into being (as it originally did in heaven) divorce will also come into being. In fact, divorce is merely the separation of 2 opposing parties—and sin is certainly to blame in most every case of divorce. Yet we know that there was war in heaven before the creation of man—so when did sin begin, in the first or second dominion?




The fact that Satan was “cast out” of heaven could be considered a form of “divorce”, could it not? Yet did this not happen before Adam was created, in the first dominion? In paradise, while evil did not exist divorce could not possibly exist. But when sin comes into being out of necessity divorce also comes into being. If sin should somehow return in the future kingdom of YAHUAH, then these laws regarding divorce may also be required. It is not a law written in stone which says to the eternal dweller of paradise “do not divorce, for that is a terrible evil”! So, while it is true that divorce will not normally exist in paradise, it is not something which is forbidden by Scripture.




So you see, the difference between the first dominion and our current dominion is not a difference regarding “standards” or “rules” or “laws”. The difference is that in this current dominion mankind has been placed under a “curse” so that he is not able to experience the fullness of his potential. In paradise restored, Eden (with it’s great blessings) will be returned to us and all of our potential will be expanded many times over! But YAHUAH’s “standards” or His “rules” do not change because He does not change—they all remain the same. Therefore, since Polgyny is allowed in Scripture it will also be allowed in paradise restored.




In regard to this issue (polygyny) we must come to terms with the fact that it is never once condemned in Scripture. YAHUAH is not a respecter of persons! He does not judge one generation with one rule or standard which is not applicable to another generation. If He did this, He could be accused of being “partial” in His judgment and this would cause yet another rebellion in heaven by yet another accuser. Remember, sin is the transgression of Torah and Torah permits a man to have other wives.




“For I am YAHUAH, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.” (Malachi 3:6)




If Polgyny were permitted by YAHUAH in the past, it will also be permitted in paradise—when and as conditions exist that will favor or require it. Those who feel that all this talk of patriarchy is simply “Mormon Polgyny” in disguise fail to consider that whatever teachings the Later-day Saints got from outside of Scripture, this does not apply to the issue of Polgyny.






Polgyny is permitted in Scripture, and no competent theologian could possible deny this obvious fact. Since I am not a believer in the “Book of Mormon” that argument of “Mormon Polgyny” is irrelevant. This is at least one area in which they were basically right, for nowhere in Scripture does it teach that Polgyny is a






Now some will say, “Could it be that in our modern day Polgyny is just not needed nor necessary? Maybe it was only for those times when the world was just beginning and raising children was of key importance?” Well, that’s a good point. I think, however, that this next witness will give the final proof that will settle this question showing that the righteous in these last days will still be taking more than one wife. In fact, it is the women who will be seeking this out, not the men! Here is the text which shows this to be true:




“And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel; only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach. In that day shall the branch of YAHUAH be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the earth shall be excellent and comely for them that are escaped of Israel. And it shall come to pass, that he that is left in Zion, and he that remaineth in Jerusalem, shall be called holy, even every one that is written among the living in Jerusalem: When YAHUAH shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall have purged the blood of Jerusalem from the midst thereof by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning.” (Isaiah 4:1-4)




First of all, this prophecy is clearly given in reference to the last days, for it says “he that is left in Zion, and he that remaineth in Jerusalem, shall be called holy, even every one that is written among the living in Jerusalem. . .” This is paralleled in Revelation when it says, in reference to the “New Jerusalem”: “And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie; but they which are written in the Lamb’s book of life.” (Revelation 21:27)




So, this point establishes the time frame for the prophecy—the very last days. And it also establishes for us the fact that only the righteous will enter the gates of that city. Since these men who take seven women will also be “living in Jerusalem” their act of taking seven women each cannot possibly be anything less than Qodeshand righteous!




Next, we know that these women are requesting marriage to these men because they point out 2 of the 3 things required by a husband to supply to a wife. These women were willing to provide their own food and their own clothing, but they did not say anything about the “duty of marriage” (sexual relations) since obviously that would be provided by their husband:


“If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.” (Exodus 21:10-11)




“And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel; only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.” (Isaiah 4:1)




We know that these men are among the righteous because they are called in verse 3 “holy” and these seven women took hold of the men “to take away our reproach”. This can only be done through marriage to a righteous Israelite and the bearing of children. And although some might argue that this text is really talking about “serial marriage” (i.e., marriage—divorce—remarriage) it is clear from the context that these men were “holy” and that 7 women took hold of the same “holy” man at about the same time! It clearly says “And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man. . .” It happens “in that day” and so context shows it happened in a short amount of time.




Since these men are “holy” (Qodesh) they would not be engaged in any sort of “serial monogamy”, like forsaking “the wife of thy youth” (as Malachi 2:14-6 states) or the “first wife” (as 1 Timothy 3:2 states). Therefore, we can safely conclude from these verses that in the last days many a righteous man will have more than one wife.




Since this prophecy also leads us directly into the kingdom of heaven, therefore in the first dominion restored polygyny will also be permitted for those whom it is given. Just remember that it is not for everyone and we are in no way suggesting that all the righteous will have multiple wives in the kingdom of YAHUAH. But surely some will (possibly many), and for those who will live that way and live in harmony with the Torah YAHUAH’s blessings will be upon them.




Marriage from the Beginning




As it is written:




“So the Almighty created man in his own image, in the image of the Almighty created he him; male and female created he them. And the Almighty blessed them, and the Almighty said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” (Genesis 1:27-28)




“And the children of Israel were fruitful, and increased abundantly, and multiplied, and waxed exceeding mighty; and the land was filled with them.” (Exodus 1:7)




So, it was very simple—man was to populate the earth. “Be fruitful, and multiply…” is what the Scripture commands. But society wishes to place limits on this, from fear that one or more groups will take over society—but that fear is unfounded, since society has already been overtaken by the society of the wicked!




Now there is a text in Scripture which tells us more about the sins during the time of Noah, which some have stated included the sin of Polgyny. But we will look at that here and see what the Scriptures will and will not support.








“And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of the Almighty saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.” (Genesis 6:1-2)




According to this text the sin of the time of Noah was in “taking wives of all which they chose”. In other words, unrestricted access to women—ALL women. That was their sin, and it basically led to adultery (taking a married woman) as well as sodomy (homosexuality) and fornication. The Messiah said concerning this time:




“But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.” (Matthew 24:37-39)




It is not a sin to eat. It is not a sin to drink. It is not a sin to marry. The sin of the people living “before the flood” was that they did all of these things to excess.



Now let’s use the example of eating—is it alright to eat one meal a day? Well, most will say yes. How about 2 meals? Of course, they will say. What about 3 meals? Yes, even 3 meals a day is good. So, how many wives is it acceptable for a man to take?




And who will be the judge in the matter? In choosing wives the issue which caused the people to commit sin was not in the number of wives, but the kind of wives: the people committed sin in that they did not discriminate between the righteous and the wicked, married and unmarried, virgin or prostitute, etc. They set no boundaries in that they took any and “all which they chose”. They were gluttonous and covetous in all things, and this was their sin.








So, the people did not sin by having a second wife (provided she was not already


married). Having more than one wife was no more sinful than eating 2 or 3 meals a day. So long as our appetite for these things is kept under control and reasonable limits are set, it is not a sin.




Those who claim that both Adam and Noah are examples for us to show us that monogamy is the pattern of heaven have simply added to Scripture more than what is there. Scripture only teaches that these men (and their sons) had one wife. Scripture does not teach that they were condemning others for taking more than one wife. All it proves is that they chose to have only one wife. Since divine patriarchy is still in effect, they could just as well have decided to take another wife and it would not have been sin for them to do so.




Maybe they did not do this because they could not find a suitable mate other than the one they had. Maybe they did not do this because the one wife they had was able to satisfy all their needs. Maybe it was not necessary for Adam and Noah to have more than one wife because it was simply not a part of their particular nature to do so. Whatever the reason, the apparently monogamous marriage of Adam, Noah and his 3 sons does not prove monogamy is the ideal, for the texts in question do not in any way glorify or lift up that particular type of marriage. They just plainly state that these each had a wife and it says nothing else beyond that.




As said earlier, nowhere in Scripture do we have either the terms monogamy or Polgyny—these are modern terms only. And if it were true that YAHUAH destroyed the world with a flood even partly because of Polgyny being a sin, then He would have to apologize to many of those people since He clearly allowed the Hebrew Patriarchs to do the exact same thing, and never once condemned it! Our heavenly Father YAHUAH does not change!!




Today the righteous patriarchal man should be allowed to follow the Scriptures in the pursuit of his fulfillment of the divine mandate of Genesis 1:27. If he desires and needs and is able to provide for additional wives as he is called by his heavenly Father YAHUAH, and he could (through his genius and their assistance) provide for them, then it is acceptable.




Yes, it is true that men have perverted the marriage institution—but this is done in all kinds of marriages, by both men and women and by both conventional and plural marriages. So this cannot be used as an excuse to condemn Polgyny. And for this purpose, (to populate the earth and bring joy to the people) YAHUAH our heavenly Father created the first woman from the side of the man.




Some might argue that he only made one woman, using one rib, therefore the man should have only one wife, and that this was the original plan in the garden and we should return to that original plan.




However, there is really no evidence for that. That is just an opinion that cannot be proven. Remember, the statement that “two shall become one flesh” can apply to Polgyny also since the man can become “one flesh” separately with each of his wives. If we were to use the logic that everything in Eden is a pattern for us to follow, then we would also have to say that we should walk around naked like they did in the garden of Eden, and eat only fruit like they had in the garden. Another “condition” that existed in the garden of Eden was that brothers might have had to marry sisters in order to procreate.




So does that mean “incest” should be allowed now because it appears to have been allowed at the beginning? [Of course, given the long lifespan of early man it could very well be that a man could marry a second or third generation descendant—therefore avoiding incest.] The Torah, of course, specifically teaches against Incest (Leviticus 18:6), Group Sex/Lesbianism (Leviticus 18:18), sex during menstruation (Leviticus 18:19), Adultery (Leviticus 18:20), and Homosexuality (Leviticus 18:22). These and many other such things are called sins, yet nowhere is Polgyny called a sinful practice in either the Scriptures or the Messianic writings. At the same time, the Torah permits the marriage of one man to more than one woman:




“If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.” (Exodus 21:10-11)




Here are some other points we can consider. The word “monogamy” is not even in the Bible; neither is the word “Polgyny”. So, nowhere in Scripture does it make any difference between a monogamous marriage and a polygynous marriage. Clearly then, Adam’s (and Noah’s and Noah’s sons) apparent “monogamy” was not a “rule” or a “commandment”—it was merely a circumstance. Therefore, whenever the Bible says “marriage” it could either be referring to a monogamous or polygynous marriage! An example of this is in Hebrews 13:




“Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers YAHUAH will judge.” (Hebrews 13:4)




Since the Bible NEVER makes any distinction between monogamous and polygynous marriages, and uses the phrase “honourable in all”, we can therefore safely say that the message of this text is that “polygynous and monogamous marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled”. The word “in all” can also be translated “in total” or “totally”, so this text could also be translated as given below:




“Marriage is totally honourable, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers YAHUAH will judge.” (Hebrews 13:4)




Marriage is “totally honorable” and the “bed undefiled”. Since a marriage at that time could either be monogamous or polygamous, this text makes it clear that polygamous marriages are also “totally honorable”. And since they are “totally honorable” then that also means they are “totally honorable” both here in this life as well as the life to come.




There can be no other conclusion to this matter of Divine Patriarchy and the first dominion than this. In the restoration of the first dominion in the kingdom of YAHUAH the taking of more than one wife by one man will be permitted, just as the Torah (which permits this) will go forth from mount Zion:




“For the law (Torah) shall go forth of Zion, and the word of YAHUAH from Jerusalem.” (Malachi 4:2)




Turning the Hearts of the Sons to the Fathers




The term “Patriarchy” is usually applied in reference to the originators of the Hebrew people—Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. But in a wider sense we are using that term to apply to a principle which is found both in the Scriptures and in the Hebrew culture—the headship of the father. The word “patriarchy” itself comes from the word root of the Greek word patriarche which means “father” or “progenitor”. In the Hebrew the word for father is “Awb”, the first word in the Hebrew alphabet—where we get the word “Abba” in English. Now notice the Scripture:




“But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall. And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith YAHUAH of hosts. Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments. Behold, I will send you Eliyah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of YAHUAH: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.” (Malachi 4:2-6)




How do we, in these last days, turn the heart of fathers to their children? How do we turn the heart of children to their fathers? One thing is for certain, while the mothers are also deserving of our love and attention—we are not commanded to turn our hearts to our mothers. It is already natural for us to turn our hearts to our mothers. But it is to the fathers that we need to turn our attention, and not just our earthly fathers. We should turn to our spiritual fathers (the patriarchs of old, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc…) many of whom took more than one wife. And ultimately we should turn our thoughts to our heavenly Father as well.






Does modern day feminism turn the hearts of the children to the fathers? No, feminism turns the hearts of the children to the mothers and makes the mother the “center” of the proverbial universe! Divine Patriarchy, by re-establishing the man as the head of the home is the only valid way in which the hearts of the children can be turned to the fathers, and likewise the heart of the fathers turned to the children. Today the world is in chaos and turmoil.




It is easy for us to say that this is just the result of sin, but let us focus in on the primary cause of this “sin”. It has been shown, for example, that when houses of prostitution are forbidden the statistical numbers of rapes increase incrementally. Not that we are in support of prostitution, but it does show that when we try to legislate our “morality” in opposition to the nature of a man and forbid him from legitimately taking the leadership of his home, forbid him from having more than one wife, and forbid him from teaching his children we are forcing him into a position of moral compromise.




The result is increase in rape, murder, and many other crimes of like nature. It is not that we endorse these evils, we are merely pointing out a major “cause and effect” relationship. So is it any wonder that the earth is indeed under a “curse” now because the hearts of the children are turned away from their “patriarchal” fathers?




Turning the hearts of the children to the fathers applies to more than just their own earthly fathers, who often do not even rightly represent our heavenly Father. The primary application of this prophecy is to the ancient patriarchs of old, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and many of the other ancient fathers who led the people in the paths of righteousness.




And did not many of these patriarchs have more than one wife? Did they not, according Numbers 30, have final authority in their home? Were they not among the righteous? And is this not the subject of this paper which you are now reading, the restoration of the patriarchal order (as prophesied in Malachi)?

About the Author

JamesView all posts by James


Add comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *