Marriage Misunderstandings Explained

Pastor David Ministries

https://www.tumblr.com/blog/pastordavidministries
October 2016
In the Bible, the relationship between the church and Jesus
Christ is spiritually portrayed as a marriage. (Rev. 19:7-8; 2Cor.
11:2; Ez. 16:8) The church is the wife (bride) and Jesus Christ is
the husband. (In those days people were considered to be married
from the point of the engagement. The wedding celebration and
consummation usually took place about a year later.) It is very
important that the relationship between a man and his wife be
understood correctly so that people dont misunderstand or
disregard the churchs proper relationship to Jesus Christ. In the
last half century alone there has been an enormous change in the
way people, in the US, handle their marriages.
The essence of what forms or begins a true marriage is a
mutual wedding vow, like a pledge, promise, covenant,
contract or testament, between a man and a woman to stay
united, till death do they part. From the beginning of a marriage
there is an invisible inner seal or bond between a man and his
wife, within their spirits, similar to the seal of the Holy Spirit in a
believer, at the moment of salvation. Son. 8:6 Set me as a seal
upon thine heart, as a seal upon thine arm: for love is strong as
death;. KJV (also: Eph. 1:13; 4:30) Once marriage vows are
exchanged, God takes it into account and considers them to be
married all lifelong until one of them dies. (Rom. 7:2) (see article
on: Salvation)

Only in modern times have there been certificates of marriage

and divorce written by the secular governments. In Bible times
there was no mention of such a thing. In the book of Ruth there
wasn't even a wedding ceremony. Boaz went to the gates of the
city where the city elders regularly gathered and he simply told
them that he was going to take Ruth to be his wife. (Ruth chapter 4)
(In those days, most people couldn't even read and write. Paper
wasn't even invented until 104 AD in China and didn't reach Europe
until the tenth century. Before that, they usually wrote on animal
skins or papyrus plants pressed into strips, both of which were very
expensive and bulky. Occasionally, they wrote on stones, metal
plates or clay tablets. Also, paper itself was very expensive until
the beginning of the 19th century.)
The only thing that could possibly be interpreted as a
certificate of marriage in Bible times was the tokens of virginity
(Deut. 22:14-20), which was probably some sort of cloth with the
evidence of the bride's virginity and witness signatures of people
who were probably standing outside the wedding chamber on her
wedding night waiting for the evidence of the brides virginity on the
designated cloth. (Notice the non-involvement of the government.)
Certificates of divorce, however, were mentioned in the Bible.
(Deut. 24:1) But, these were written by the husband, not by the
government. The husband probably wrote it on an animal skin and
placed it directly into the wife's hand. It was also understood that
those divorces were merely declarations of separation and did not
end the marriage..... Even the US government, last century,
considered a divorce to be nothing more than a declaration of
separation. In those days, the US government did not consider a
divorce to end a marriage. Those Biblical divorce certificates
probably also included some sort of explanation of the wife's bad
behavior, which caused the separation.
In modern times, they do marriage and divorce government
registrations much in the same way that they register the sale

(ownership exchange) of real estate or automobiles. In those

ownership registrations the certificates themselves are not what
constitute true ownership, because those papers can be falsified,
lost or stolen. They merely help to make it more difficult for a thief
to rob the true owner of his rightful property. True change of
ownership is made when two parties come to a mutual agreement
on the terms of a sale and then those terms are transacted
correctly and honestly. Then, and only then, does true ownership
change hands.
Similarly, a governmental certificate of marriage or divorce
does not constitute nor dissolve a marriage. It merely registers
what is supposed to have already taken place (marriage vows
exchanged). Don't forget that marriage registrations can be
falsified too. Every year there are people from other countries who
get false US marriage certificates so that they can obtain residency
and permission to work in the US. Spiritually speaking, those false
marriages are like people who are only Christians by name. They
only know Jesus Christ from far away, the same way that someone
can know any famous person. But they dont have a personal
spiritual relationship with Jesus Christ and therefore arent saved.
(Mat. 13:24-30, 36-43) (see article on: Salvation)
A true marriage, once made, is considered by God to be
equally as permanent as any other family relationship. God takes
wedding vows seriously. Num. 30:2 If a man vow a vow unto the
LORD, 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. Deut. 23:21 When thou shalt vow a vow unto the
LORD thy God, thou shalt not slack to pay it: for the LORD thy God
will surely require it of thee; and it would be sin in thee. KJV
All family relationships are permanent. Try to imagine the
government writing someone a certificate of divorce for their
brother. Would that official piece of paper from the government
mean that their brother is no longer their brother? Certainly not!

Could he ever be their ex-brother? Certainly not! Could he ever be

just an acquaintance? Certainly not! Could he ever be their
cousin? Certainly not! The government would be over-stepping its
bounds by writing such papers. Concerning family matters, the US
government is always butting-in where they don't belong.
The original purpose of those governmental registrations of
marriage and divorce has been lost and forgotten. The government
does not have the authority to make or unmake any family
relationship. Why does the government even have to be involved
in marriage registration, anyway? The US government is always
butting-in where they don't belong, deliberately messing things up.
Most people in the modern culture dont even know what the
original purpose of those registrations was, nor do they understand
that there are people in the government who are intentionally trying
to destroy marriage all together. In modern times, those
registrations only confuse people about the true nature of morality
and marriage. People think that the government seal on a piece of
paper makes it acceptable to renege on a marriage vow. But quite
to the contrary, any secular government claiming to have the
authority to annul (invalidate) a marriage vow is rebelling against
God Himself. Even the US government itself last century
considered a divorce to be nothing more than a declaration of
separation.
In the Bible, a certificate of divorce was to be written by the
husband, not by the government. A good example of a justifiable
divorce involving God Himself is found in Jer. 3:8, when God says
to the nation of Israel: ...... whereby backsliding Israel committed
adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce;....
But notice that immediately after this, (vs. 14) God says: Turn, O
backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you.
Here we see that God considers Himself to be still married to them
even after He had given them a bill of divorce. The divorce is
nothing more than a declaration of separation. The fact that God

considers Himself married to them indicates their true salvation; it

is inappropriate to imagine that they are only saved by name and
not in truth. (Some churches teach that the divorce indicates that
they were never really saved to begin with.) A woman who was
never really married to begin with cannot commit adultery against a
husband she doesn't really have. This passage also shows that the
main purpose of the divorce (declaration of separation) is to
discipline the wife hoping to get her to repent of her hard hearted
disobedience and return to her one and only true husband. (Mark
10:2-12) (Notice before 1964 it was very difficult for women to get
jobs with reasonable pay.) Back then, it was very rare that women
could get a well paying job and live independently from male
supervision, which means that when a man sent a wife out of his
house it was normally a heavy punishment. (see article on: The
Role Of Women Throughout History)
This also shows that the government forcing men to pay
alimony to a rebellious wife is extremely unjustifiable and contrary
to the Word of God. Rebellious wives need to be punished,...... not
rewarded so that they can sit like queens sponging off their
husbands for the rest of their lives without ever having to work. The
government is always butting-in where they don't belong,
deliberately trying to destroy marriages and families. (The word
deliberately indicates that the average American citizen doesn't
know that the US government is full of bad people with bad
intentions.) (see article on: Wolves in Sheep's Clothing) also (see
article on: Fatherhood)
Another example of how a marriage is still binding after a
separation (divorce) is found in Mat. 5:32 .whosoever shall
marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. Adultery is an act
committed by two people, of which at least one must be a married
person. Any man, whether previously married or not, who marries
a divorced woman is marrying someone who God considers to be
another man's wife! It is adultery! (see article on: Correct Divorce)

1Cor. 6:9,10 Know ye (y'all) not that the unrighteous shall not
inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators,
nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of
themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor
drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of
God.
Rest assured, the day is coming when the US government will
fall, (like the twin towers, Bush's 9-11) due to this type of wicked
corruption. (see article on: The New World Order was Prophesied
in the Bible) After the US government falls, (like the twin towers,
Bush's 9-11) what value will those official pieces of paper stating
divorce have? When the government that wrote out those official
divorce (separation) certificates no longer exists, how will those
people perceive their marital status? Governments come and go
and change from one generation to the next, but the Word of God
continues for eternity. Jesus said: Mat. 24:35 Heaven and earth
shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. Mat 7:21 Not
every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the
kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in
heaven. Last century, even the US government did not accept that
a divorce ended the marriage.
Before the last half century, it was included in the wedding
vows that the wife was to obey her husband. In practice, this has
been forgotten, disregarded, rejected or corrupted. The obedience
of a wife to her husband touches on the very foundation of true
faithful Christian life. The church must obey her spiritual husband
Jesus Christ to do God's will. Eph 5:22-24 Wives, submit
yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the
husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the
church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church
is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in

every thing. Titus 2:4,5 That they may teach the young women to
be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be
discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own
husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed. (also: Col.
3:18) God considers it to be blasphemy to disregard this.
Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall
enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my
Father which is in heaven. Among those few cases of Christians
who want to believe that they are obedient to God on this issue, the
understanding of what it actually means in real life for a wife to
obey her husband has been so badly changed, twisted and
corrupted in the modern culture that they cannot distinguish what
obedience really is. Some people even joke about it saying things
like: the husband is the head, but the wife is the neck that turns the
head. BLASPHEMY!!! (Titus 2:4,5 That they may teach the
young women to be sober, to love their husbands, ..... keepers at
home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God
be not blasphemed.)
One of the best examples of how a wife should obey her
husband is how employees should obey their bosses at work.
Everyone likes a job where the boss treats them reasonably and
respectfully. But, if the wives from those modern churches that
think they are obedient to their husbands went to work and obeyed
their bosses the same way they obey their husbands, they would all
lose their jobs. All of those women would get fired! And if those
husbands bossed their wives around like a typical good and
respectful boss at work, those wives would probably go to church
and complain crying that their husband is being a horrible tyrant.
Then, those churches that teach male leadership in the home
would most likely be against the husband and say that he should
make compromises with his wife. (Notice in the Bible a
compromising Christian is called lukewarm, see article on: The
Lukewarm Church.)

Husbands are not supposed to make those types of

compromises any more than an employer should be expected to
make those types of compromises with employees. It is an
inappropriate denial of correct authority that would cause chaos in
the workplace and destroy most businesses, just as it has already
caused chaos in many marriages and ruined most marriages, in the
US. (see article on: The Consequences of Women's Liberation)
also (see article on: The Role Of Women Throughout History)
The Bible says in 1Cor. 11:3 ....the head of every man is
Christ; and the head of the woman is the man;.... Men have
ordained authority by God over women. It also says in Eph.
5:22-25 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as
unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as
Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be
to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives,
even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
KJV. Notice that the husband is supposed to love his wife so much
that he would be ready to lay down his own life to protect her, if
necessary. Only this type of man is worthy to be the head and boss
of his wife. God asks both the husband and the wife to make a
sacrifice. They both need to be unselfish. The husband must
direct his wife in a truly unselfish loving manner and the wife must
unselfishly submit herself to her husband's leadership. If this is put
into practice, marriages today would have love, peace and
harmony. This is God's short simple recipe for happy marriage that
works! (see article on: The Virtues of the Spirit) God created the
nature of the female to be the happiest and most secure under the
authority and protection of a loving and mature husband.
However, many times there are other negative factors involved
which cause negative results. Most of the time, in the modern
society, one or both of the spouses lacks maturity. Due to the lack
of correct discipline from fathers during childhood, many people

have grown up into adulthood and yet still act childish. (see article
on: Fatherhood) Some adults don't grow up until later on in life
and other adults never grow up at all. If an adult, especially a
husband, is not capable of growing up on his own, then progress is
impossible without outside intervention.
It is not reasonable for a wife to accept a childish spoiled brat
husband for a leader. It should also be noted that every woman is
responsible to verify, over a period of time (recommended one
year), the quality of character of the man she intends to marry. If
she knows he is a spoiled brat before she marries him then she is
equally as responsible for the disastrous results...... and has no
right to complain afterwards.
Jesus Christ said to his wife (bride), the church of the
Laodiceans: Rev. 3:19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten:
be zealous therefore, and repent. KJV The word chasten
() in the original NT language more specifically means to
discipline as a child. It literally uses the Greek word for child as
a verb, which is not done in English. As many as I love, I rebuke
and child: be zealous therefore, and repent. In those days, it
was understood that it is appropriate for an adult who misbehaves
like a child, to be disciplined like a child. It was probably most
common at that time to discipline children with a rod or scourge.
Pro 13:24 He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that
loveth him chasteneth him betimes (early). Pro 22:15
Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of
correction shall drive it far from him.'' Pro 23:13,14 Withhold not
correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he
shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his
soul from hell. Jesus Christ himself made a scourge of small
cords. John 2:15 And when he (Jesus) had made a scourge of
small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep,

and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew
the tables; (also: Mat. 20:19; John 19:1) Also, the same word for
chasten () was used in Luke 23:16,22 just before they
scourged Jesus. Luke 18:33 And they shall scourge him, and
put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again. Therefore,
the English word scourge would be a good translation of what
Jesus Christ said to his disobedient wife: As many as I love, I
rebuke and scourge: be zealous therefore, and repent. Thus, it
can be said that Jesus Christ, as a husband, is going to strip his
wife naked, as it says in Rev. 3:17, and then whip her with a
scourge (whip or belt of some sort). Since the word child is
used, a translation using spank might also be acceptable: As
many as I love, I rebuke and spank: be zealous therefore, and
repent. (see article on: The Lukewarm Church) The purpose of
the whipping is to get the wife to repent, change her disobedient
conduct and return to fellowship with her one and only true
husband. (also see article on: Domestic Discipline)
The idea that it is wrong to use bodily punishment on
delinquent adults is characteristic only of our present century. For
thousands of years it was considered normal to punish delinquent
men physically and publicly. The Word of God agrees with this
custom. Deut. 25:1-3 If there be a controversy between men, and
they come unto judgment, that the judges may judge them; then
they shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked. And it
shall be, if the wicked man be worthy to be beaten, that the judge
shall cause him to lie down, and to be beaten before his face,
according to his fault, by a certain number. Forty stripes he may
give him, and not exceed.... KJV Prov. 26:3 .... a rod for the fool's
back. Lev. 19:20 ....she shall be scourged; Psa. 89:31,32 If
they break my statutes, and keep not my commandments; Then
will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with
stripes. KJV (Also: Prov. 19:29 Neh. 13:25 Prov. 20:30)
However, in most cultures women were not disciplined publicly.

They were usually disciplined privately at home by their

husbands..... or parents, if an adult daughter was not married. In
those days, men were held responsible for the misconduct of their
wives and adult unmarried daughters. Back then, it was very rare
that women could get a well paying job and live independently from
male supervision. (see article on: The Role Of Women Throughout
History)
In the case of wives, God himself established from the
beginning that physical pain should be a normal and regular part of
a woman's marital life. Gen. 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will
greatly multiply thy sorrow (pain) and thy conception; in sorrow
(pain) thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy
husband, and he shall rule over thee. KJV (God designed
intercourse so that when it is performed in a natural normal manner,
it is painful for the wife, but not for the husband, which is the most
advisable way that it should be performed.) Also, notice how God
established from the very beginning that the husband shall rule
over his wife.
All through history the term rule over has always (except in
this last century) meant not only the authority to give orders, but
also the authority to apply punishment in the case of disobedience.
Without the ability to apply punishment it is impossible for anyone
to rule over anyone else. Without discipline the supposed
subordinate would disrespectfully just tell the supposed leader to
get lost. The word desire implies that women crave having their
husbands rule over them, provided that it is done in a loving,
mature, just and respectful manner. Every leader should be a good
and unselfish leader! No wife wants a childish brat tyrant husband
for a leader.
It is the responsibility of women to verify that their prospective
husband is of virtuous character over an extended period of time
before they marry him. (recommended period of one year
demonstrating virtuous conduct.) (see article on: The Virtues of the

Spirit) Any woman who is negligent in verifying the virtues of her

husband before she marries him is equally as responsible for the
disastrous results that follow and would have no right to complain
about his lack of virtue afterwards.
Here are two quotes from American history books referring to
the practice of husbands physically disciplining their wives before
women's liberation in the US.
In Howard Zinns A Peoples History of the United States he
says in chapter 6: The husbands control over the wifes person
extended to the right of giving her chastisement. .But he was not
entitled to inflict permanent injury or death on his wife.. (This
book is on-line at:
http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinnint6.html )
In American Legal History, Law in the Morning of America, on
page 30, William Blackstone is quoted from his commentaries on
law, saying: By marriage, the husband and wife are one person
in law.......The husband also (by the old law) might give his wife
moderate correction. For as he is to answer for her misbehaviour,
the law thought it reasonable to intrust him with this power of
restraining her, by domestic chastisement, in the same
moderation that a man is allowed to correct his servants (slaves) or
children; for whom the master or parent is also liable in some cases
to answer. But this power of correction was confined within
reasonable bounds, and the husband was prohibited from using
any violence to his wife..... (This quote was taken from
Blackstones Commentaries on law and is on-line at The Online
Library of Liberty at: http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?
option=com_frontpage&Itemid=149 ) Notice that they did not
consider domestic chastisement with moderation to be
violence. They considered domestic chastisement with
moderation and self-control to be the antidote for violence.

Without this type of discipline, conflict and tension build and build
until there's an explosion. Also notice that the phrase (by the old
law) is referring to the general understanding, back in those days,
that this custom had been in practice as far back as anyone knew.
They considered it to be an ancient, normal, indisputable and
unquestionable law of nature established by God ever since the
beginning of creation, in the Garden of Eden. Gen. 3:16 Unto the
woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow (pain) and thy
conception; in sorrow (pain) thou shalt bring forth children; and thy
desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. KJV
All through history the term rule over has always meant not only
the authority to give orders, but also the authority to apply
punishment in the case of disobedience. Without the ability to
apply punishment, it is impossible for anyone to rule over anyone
else. Without this type of discipline the supposed subordinate
would just disrespectfully tell the supposed leader to get lost. (see
article on: Domestic Discipline) (see article on: The Lie of
Evolution)
Why is it considered normal for bosses at work to give orders
to their employees, but if a husband were to give orders to his wife
in the same way, many people would say that he is being abusive
and horribly tyrannical? What would happen if a boss married one
of his own female employees? If he stopped giving her orders the
way it is typically done in most modern marriages, what would
happen to his business? His business would experience the same
disaster that most modern marriages have experienced. Even
worse would be if she started bossing him around.
In modern America, most of the marriages have the wife
dominating her husband. She orders him around like she's his
mother and yet nobody says anything about it or thinks it's
abnormal...... and never considered tyrannical. (Even though it

usually is tyrannical. The men can't even talk about it because it is

so disgraceful.) (However, most children tend to recognize this type
of abnormality as being weird. Without even being taught it, most
children know that there's something wrong about a wife who
dominates her husband. Divorce is better and healthier than a wife
dominating her husband. See article on: Correct divorce.)
The churches should know better and yet nobody in any of the
churches does anything about it. Most modern churches are filled
with marriages with wives who dominate their husbands yet nobody
seems to be aware that it is blasphemy, neither do they even care
about it when they are informed of it. Titus 2:4,5 That they may
teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, ...
chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands,
that the word of God be not blasphemed. They usually get upset
at the person who informs them of the problem, but not at the
people doing the problem.
In many modern large businesses they have a regulation that
prohibits anyone in the company from getting married to another
person in the same company. If any couple wants to get married
one of them must leave the company. They know perfectly well that
the modern way of conducting marriage with both the husband and
wife trying to run things usually leads to disaster,..... and they don't
want those conflicts contaminating the work place. Notice that
large businesses never have two CEO's with the same authority,
both trying to run things as it is typically done in modern marriages.
However, this type of absurdity, of having two equal CEO's, is
somehow not so obvious to most people concerning marriage, even
though it really is equally as absurd; both husband and wife
sharing leadership equally like having two CEO's in a company or
two equal presidents of the US.
However, it is true that there does exist at least a few bosses
who are indeed abusive and tyrannical. (This is usually caused by

the presence of an abundance of workers due to the present influx

of immigrants in the last few decades into the US. Wherever there
is an abundance of laborers the employers tend to get abusive
because those laborers are easily replaceable.)
Imagine if it was said that since there really does exist a few
bosses who are abusive and tyrannical, let new labor laws be
passed which deny all bosses the authority to give orders to
employees. It would be an employees' liberation movement
similar to the women's liberation movement back in the 60's.
Employees would be free to do whatever they wanted. If any
employee doesn't like the way their boss treats them, than they can
quit..... and their boss would have to continue to pay them for a
long time. If any boss were to refuse, then he would be labeled an
irresponsible or dead-beat employer and the government would
come and forcibly take enormous quantities of money (double or
triple) from him, demanding that he must be responsible and pay
the employees. (Notice There do exist some countries where the
government forces employers to bear the entire burden of
unemployment compensation, but only temporarily, not for a long
time, as it is done to husbands and fathers, in the US.) Doesn't
everyone know that such absurd laws would cause the collapse of
almost every business in America? It would produce unimaginable
chaos!!! It would cause the worst economic disaster in the history
of the world. (see article on: The Consequences of Women's
Liberation)
How is it possible that such extreme absurdities, which sound
so ridiculously ludicrous in the workplace, have actually been
accepted as normal in modern marriages? How is it possible that
such insanity could be accepted as normal and forcibly established
as law by the US government? The US government is butting-in
where it doesn't belong with the deliberate intention of destroying
marriages. This also causes mental illness. This is not just the
illogical denial of the correct authority of men over their wives and

children, it is an immoral abuse of the law in order to suppress and

disgrace manhood..... and fight against God's standards. (This thing
is caused by satanic people who are intent on fighting against
God's selection of the man as the leader. In Satanism, women are
the leaders: witches) This is the number one cause of the
destruction of marriages in the US today.
How is it that all those people deny that men have such
authority and at the same time demand and charge the men with
the responsibility that goes along with that authority? The mere fact
that they demand such responsibility from men is an open
confession that they really do know that men are supposed to have
the authority that goes hand in hand with such responsibility, yet
they deny it. (When men run away from this lunacy, people
commonly call them irresponsible, but in reality, any normal man
ought to run away from this type of lunacy. The problem is not the
men who run away, the problem is this forcing of lunacy upon the
men who don't know how to resolve the lunacy.)
The people who started it claim to be promoting equality, but
it is very obvious that this is not equality!!! Any of those people
who claim to be promoting equality is a liar. This is a deliberate
anti-Christian attack by satanic people in the government to
sabotage the correct teachings and customs of God. It produces
crazy disorder, mental illness, conflict and contention in homes.
They don't charge men enormous quantities of child support or
alimony because they want to be sure that the children are always
provided for and don't go hungry. They do it because they want to
get wives to fight against their husbands and thereby ruin
marriages and families. This is the number one cause of the
destruction of marriages in the US today.
There has never been an era when marriages were more
unstable and unhappy than now. The divorce rate is the highest it's
ever been. Some of the negative by-products of modern unstable
marriages are the rise of cases of mental illness, the epidemic of

drug usage, alcoholism due to bad crazy family environment and

the epidemic of purposeless suicides among teenagers who were
raised in those unhappy crazy homes. 2Tim. 1:7 For God hath not
given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound
mind. (see article on: Fatherhood)
True marriage is dead, in America. What is called marriage
in modern times is so extremely corrupted and distorted that it's an
injustice even to call it by that name. People use the word
marriage only out of habit. In certain cases, some couples
prepare for divorce even before they get married....... just in case.
A new name should be invented for these types of marriages.
From now on in this article examples of modern corrupt marriages
will be referred to as a Modern Corrupt Twosome, MCT. (see
article on: The Consequences of Women's Liberation)
Would more communication help to overcome the typical
problems in MCTs? That way, everyone would be a lot more
informed of the true extent of the super conflict, chaos and
craziness. Would being well informed of super conflict, chaos and
craziness automatically enable people to overcome those problems
just by being well informed of it? Certainly not! Likewise, a
business that is well informed of its own super chaos won't be able
to stop the super chaos from happening just by being well informed
of it. More communication is only the first step in what is
necessary to resolve the problems. More communication with no
further steps is worse than nothing at all. More communication
followed by corrupt, ludicrous procedures would be even worse.
(like having two bosses trying to run the home at the same time.
Can you imagine the disaster of having two equal presidents of the
US?) It would be better not to know... not to be well informed.....
not to have more communication.
How about a compromise? What if husbands and wives
agreed to compromise exactly 50%? This sort of compromise won't
keep an MCT together any more than keep a business together. Is

it possible to make an employee-employer compromise like this? It

would cause inconceivable chaos and confusion! Is there any
employer who would agree to this arrangement? Neither in an
MCT nor in a business could the conflict and chaos be stopped by
everyone doing whatever they wanted 50% of the time. (In the
Bible, a 50% compromising Christian is called: lukewarm. Rev
3:16 So because thou art lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will
spew (vomit) thee out of my mouth. Lukewarm Christians
nauseate Jesus Christ.) (see article on: The Lukewarm Church)
Expecting a husband to make compromises like that is like
expecting Jesus Christ, as husband of the church, to make
compromises about God's will. Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith
unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he
that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. People who
expect Jesus Christ to make compromises like that will have no
part of the kingdom of heaven. In reality, this type of compromise in
this type of situation is a myth. Decisions are either one way or the
other. It's either what the one person decides or what the other
person decides. This is why the only possible solution is that the
husband must be the loving leader, as the Bible says. That type of
compromise doesn't work, it's impractical and irrational.
This sort of compromise is only supposed to be used
between two opposing organizations or opposing individuals, like
two different companies, separate opposing individuals or two
different countries. This type of compromise must not be used
between two members or groups within the same organization,
such as players vs. coaches on the same athletic team or
employees vs. employers in the same company. This type of
compromise within the same organization would be nothing more
than a denial of the authority of the leadership. How could a
manager possibly get anything done if he had to constantly make
compromises with crazy demanding employees? In marriage it
would be a denial of the authority of the husband over his wife.....

and therefore a denial of the Word of God..... blasphemy and

irrationality.
In reality, the real purpose of this crazy illogical compromise
satanic propaganda is intended to deceive an inexperienced young
husband to not accept his God ordained authority in the marriage
(in the name of equality and nobility) so that, as a result, the wife
will then take the lead. This is not equality nor is it noble, it is a
disgrace to manhood and blasphemy to the Word of God. This
supposed equality is just as foolish as electing two equal
presidents of the US. When any married couple start their marriage
with this belief that they should share the leadership of the marriage
equally, the foolishness of this equality in marriage is so obvious
that almost every couple recognize it's impracticality almost
immediately after they get married. Once the husband declines to
take the lead, the wife automatically starts telling him what to do,
like she's his mother. There is no middle ground. It's one way or
the other. (Equal compromising is a myth that can never apply
realistically in marriage, any more than having two equally
compromising presidents of the US.) Those satanic people who
propagate this deception intend to produce conflict, chaos, mental
illness and destroy marriages. They know perfectly well that this
equality in marriage leadership is foolishness.
All of this absurdity is nothing more than an illogical and
ludicrous denial of correct normal male authority in a marriage.
God has given husbands authority over their wives. To say the
contrary is to rebel against God Himself. It is satanic!!! It is
blasphemy!!! Titus 2:4-5 That they may teach the young women
to be ... keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands,
that the word of God be not blasphemed. Modern church leaders,
in the US, refuse to teach the people this truth. Either that or in a
few cases the modern church leaders teach it correctly and then
the people go home and don't practice what was taught. The
modern habit of putting women in authority positions over men at

work, in government offices and politics has corrupted their

minds..... and the church leaders refuse to recognize it and stand
up against it. When those church leaders see that the people don't
do what they're supposed to do, they don't do anything to stop it.
Most of those church leaders are usually playing Ostrich, with their
heads in the sand, so they don't even know what is going on in the
homes of their church members. Most modern church leaders are
usually making a comfortable income with very little work to do, so
why would they ever want to do anything unpopular and rock the
boat?
Has there ever been a case of church discipline
(excommunication: thrown out) against a wife who did not obey her
husband in any church in America since the women's liberation
movement started? More than likely, no church in American has
ever done such a thing. All of those disobedient wives are always
considered to be good members of their churches, when in fact the
correct thing to do is to have them excommunicated (thrown out)
from the church, especially if they take any type of legal action
against their husbands.
One thing that helps maintain correct male leadership in a
proper marriage is the husband being older than his wife. 1Tim.
2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. KJV Most people
think that it is best if a man and wife are about the same age. But
God designed marriage from the very beginning with the husband
being older than his wife. It is not a sin if a wife is older than her
husband, but it will be much more difficult for the husband to be the
leader, especially in a society full of women who are not
accustomed to all male leadership over women. Remember, if a
wife does not obey her husband, God considers it to be
blasphemy. (Titus 2:4,5)

Some of the people on the Titanic said things like: the

unsinkable ship and God himself could not sink this ship.
BLASPHEMY!!! Women's liberation is a big fat Titanic! Warning!
Warning! Get off that ship as soon as possible! Sooner or later,
every blasphemous Titanic must sink! Notice -- if a warning like
this had been given to all those people boarding the Titanic, would
any of those people, who had already purchased their tickets,
refused to get on? .... What do you think? More than likely, they
all would have gotten on anyway. Likewise, among you people
reading this warning, are there any who reject the modern
women's liberation? ... Probably not,.... in practice anyway
(most people don't even understand what changing this thing would
involve)....... until you hit an iceberg. Sad to say, almost everyone
has to hit the iceberg before they will change anything. No
progress can be made until the blasphemous Titanic of women's
liberation hits an iceberg.
God's statement that: the head of the woman is the man
(1Cor. 11:3), is intended to be applied to all areas of life, not just
marriage. Women are not supposed to have authority over men
in the home, in church meetings..... (1Cor. 14:34,35 Let your
women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto
them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as
also saith the law. 35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask
their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the
church. 1Tim. 2:11,12 Let the woman learn in silence with all
subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp
authority over the man, but to be in silence.) ... at work, in adult
education or in all levels and departments of the government (from
the position of president all the way down to the drivers license
clerk who gives men permission to drive.) This is how things were
in America before women's liberation.
Women in politics should be thought of in the same category
and the same nature as same gender marriages (or romances);

gender role reversal causes physical desire confusion in many

people. In the Bible, God rained fire down from heaven on Sodom
and Gomorrah for this type of corruption, (which is primarily caused
by gender role reversal). Gen. 19 The punishment for this sin is
supposed to be death. Lev. 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind,
as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an
abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be
upon them.) If someone says that God is wrong, they are
speaking BLASPHEMY!!! God is the one who makes the
rules! ...... Especially what happens to people after they die. (see
article on: The Consequences of Women's Liberation)
Back in the 60's, most of the people who were against the
women's liberation movement also thought that it would cause a
considerable increase in sodomy, along with many other
abnormalities. They also had a fear that God would send a horrible
punishment as a result of permitting such behavior. According to
Louis Crompton, Ph.D. on early American history, referring to this
abomination..... in 1776, in the original 13 colonies was universally
subject to the death penalty. If they ever found a man with another
man in bed, both would have been executed. However, later on,
the penalty for this crime was reduced to long-term imprisonment.
As time went by, little by little, the US government decreased the
punishment for this crime to less and less time in prison.
Eventually, they completely repealed all the laws against it.
The subject of same gender marriages is not necessarily
about the legalization of that type of marriage. It is about the
natural human reaction to the practice of giving women dominant
positions over men. Gender role reversal alters many people's
physical desires. Most people exposed to this abnormality don't
know if they're more attracted to the opposite gender, their own
gender, both or neither. The whole idea of female politicians and
bosses over men goes hand in hand with raising many people's
attraction to their own gender, thus increasing the quantity of same

gender romances, who eventually start living together as a result.

Female politicians and bosses at work over men are equally
abnormal and responsible for same gender romantic relationships
>>> cause and effect. (From the position of president all the way
down to the drivers license clerk who gives men permission to
drive.)
It must be kept in mind that the best spiritual condition for any
person is to remain completely unmarried. This is not because
marriage is wrong or sinful, but rather, an unmarried person has
more free time to devote to God's spiritual service, which is better.
Marriage is not prohibited, it is simply less recommended. 1Cor.
7:38 So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that
giveth her not in marriage doeth better. (also: 1Cor. 7:32-35)
Even though it is more recommendable that people stay single,
God has no problem if they decide to get married. Believe it or not,
all through the Bible, God has even permitted men to legally and
honorably marry more than one wife at the same time. (Mat. 25:1;
Song 6:8; Ex. 21:10; Ruth 4:11; Jud. 8:30; 1Sam.1:2; Is. 4:1; 2Sam.
3:2-5; 1Chr. 14:3-7; Num. 12:1-10; Gen. 25:6; 33:5) Women, on
the other hand were never permitted to marry more than one
husband at the same time. Rom. 7:2,3 For the woman which hath
an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he
liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her
husband. 3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to
another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband
be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress,
though she be married to another man.
In those multiple wife marriages, the men were obligated to
stay united with each wife, take turns and not abandon any of them.
That practice was not like the common modern misinterpretation
that the men, in those days, were just very selfish and were

constantly going from woman to woman to woman without any

marital commitment, as though they were no more than dogs that
roam the streets. Quite to the contrary, it is the modern habit that
men are very selfish. They go from wife to wife to wife, and
sometimes woman to woman to woman, all at the same time, like
dogs that roam the streets. (It should also be remembered that war
was much more common in those days (thereby reducing the
quantity men) and most societies had a higher population of women
than men, which means that allowing men to have more than one
wife permitted many women to get married who otherwise would
have had to stay single, because of a shortage of men.)
Some people even inappropriately misuse such words as
womanizer in order to put down any man who would have more
than one woman. The term womanizer is supposed to mean: to
make someone into a woman. As compared to the word
feminism, which is the reverse: to make a man out of a woman.
(see article on: The Consequences of Women's Liberation) The
Bible specifically teaches to make women out of women, and
feminism is considered blasphemy in the Bible. The Bible permits
men to have more than one wife provided they are married properly
with a lifetime commitment. The sin of adultery is when men go
from woman to woman to woman with no commitment whatsoever,
as they do commonly in modern times.
In modern times, the men who try to be respectable imagine
that getting an official divorce piece of paper from the government
declaring that they have permission to shirk on their wedding vows,
makes their conduct moral. But in most cases, they start living with
their new wife even before they receive their official piece of
paper stating divorce for their previous wife. But even if they
don't, this custom of divorce and remarriage at will makes
marriage absolutely meaningless. Why do they even bother with it?
That official piece of paper of marriage or divorce from the
government has corrupted their minds. This flagrant misuse of

those official pieces of paper by the government is immoral! In

comparison, the ancient custom of multiple wife marriages was far
superior and healthier mentally, emotionally and spiritually than
what is happening now in the MCTs, all across America.
Polygamy (multiple wives) for men is a custom accepted by
God. (But not recommended. It is recommended that a person
stays single. 1Cor. 7:38) However, the custom of a man marrying a
divorced woman has never been accepted by God. God has
always considered it to be adultery. Remember, a divorce is
nothing more than a declaration of separation. God considers a
divorced woman to be still married until the day her first husband
dies. (see article on: Correct Divorce) (Only a century ago the US
government considered a divorced couple to still be married.)
But those multiple wife marriages in the Bible were not
considered by God to be adultery. They were legitimate, honorable
and legal. Otherwise, men like Abraham, David, Moses and Jacob
could not enter into the kingdom of God. 1Cor. 6:9,10 Know ye
(y'all) not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?
Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers,
nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor
thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners,
shall inherit the kingdom of God. and Luke 13:28 There shall be
weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and
Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and
you yourselves thrust out. KJV (also: Gal. 5:19-21) Most modern
day church members who reject polygamy for men will indeed be
thrust out of the kingdom of God, while many of those men who
had multiple wives will enter in. Don't forget that most modern
churches are also filled with many people on their second or third
marriage; lots of adultery. (Remember, it is recommended to stay
single and not marry at all. 1Cor. 7:38)
Why did God permit men to marry more than one wife at the
same time? Why and when did that custom stop? Was it God's will

that it stop? Why were women never permitted to marry more than
one husband at the same time? (Remember, it is recommended to
stay single and not marry at all. 1Cor. 7:38)
In the New Testament the only negative mention of this custom
was applied exclusively to the leaders of the church. A church
leader should be: Titus 1:6 ....the husband of one wife..... (also:
1Tim. 3:2,12) (NOTICE: A statement like this would not be
necessary in a society that doesn't legally permit multiple wife
marriages. This indicates that the custom of polygamy was in
common practice at the time that the NT was being written.)
Concerning the church members, the NT is amazingly silent on this
subject. If it is true that polygamy is such a horrible sin, then how is
it possible that the NT does not address this subject at length, in a
society that openly practices it? Why did the NT writers not
consider it important enough to give it any more than just a few
brief lines? (Remember, it is recommended to stay single and not
marry at all. 1Cor. 7:38)
Jesus Christ Himself spoke positively concerning polygamy in
His reference to the ten virgins. Mat. 25:1 Then shall the kingdom
of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and
went forth to meet the bridegroom. KJV The kingdom of heaven
itself is likened unto a man who is going to marry more than one
wife!!! Jesus Christ is spiritually married to the church, which
consists of many persons. The faithful church is united in spirit
only, not in the flesh. Jesus Christ is spiritually married to many
persons all at the same time. (In those days people were
considered to be married from the point of the engagement. The
wedding celebration and consummation usually took place about a
year later. We are not in the period of engagement. The
consummation will not take place until we get to heaven.) This
passage also explains why women can never have more than one
husband at the same time. There is only one Jesus Christ. All
other gods are false.

This is why idolatry is considered to be spiritual adultery.

(Notice this idolatry includes churches that worship idols or
images of supposed Christian characters, like images of Christ or
images of the mother of Christ. Those images of Christ are not
Christ and must not be worshiped as though they were. Is there
anyone who would accept a photo of an unknown woman as a
remembrance of their own mother? Would Caesar have been
happy if they filled his empire with statues of him that didn't look like
him? The early church never made images of Jesus or his mother,
so why do some churches make false images? >>> For the
purpose of idol worship. Those images of Christ are false and must
not be worshiped as though they were Christ.
Furthermore, it must be recognized that at the beginning of the
formation of the Roman Catholic Church, at the time that the
Roman political government first stopped persecuting the
Christians, there was an abundance of influence from the false
pagan religions, at that time. They had idols of things like a virgin
mother holding a savior baby. So, when they started the Roman
Catholic Church, due to the commonly accepted practice of idol
worship, there was an abundance of idols already in existence, so
all they had to do was to chisel off the old names and chisel on the
new names,...... and voil, instantly they had statues of mother
Mary and baby Jesus.
On the plus side, the Roman Catholic Church has always had
a reputation of helping the poor with good charitable works. This
can be seen in the example of the church of Thyatira in Rev.
2:18-29. The church of Thyatira was known to have good
charitable works. Rev 2:19 I know thy works, and charity, and
service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works; and the last to
be more than the first. However, despite this good reputation, they
also had a bad reputation of idolatry. (Idolatry is spiritually
compared to fornication and adultery because it is as though a wife
was with some other man besides her husband. Thus, it is

compared to the worship of some other gods besides the true God;
which is idolatry.) Rev 2:20 Notwithstanding I have a few things
against thee, because thou sufferest (permit) that woman Jezebel,
which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my
servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto
idols. Jezebel, the false prophetess, is represented by the idol
which is falsely called the image of the virgin mother of Jesus.
(Notice how her virginity is exaggerated by claiming it to be eternal;
they refuse to recognize that after Jesus she had other children, by
natural means through her husband Joseph, thereby losing her
virginity after the virgin birth of Jesus. Mark 6:3) The phrase: eat
things sacrificed unto idols is a clear reference to the manner in
which they offer up the communion bread of the Lord's supper to
those false images just before they partake of it. Those images are
not real images of Christ or his mother; they are false images,
idols. (The mother of Jesus was not a goddess anyway. Why do
they insist on making her into something that she was not? Prayers
are supposed to be directed to God, not a natural human woman.)
Going back to the subject of the custom of permitting polygamy
for men, it was not discontinued until after the New Testament was
finished being written. After the NT was finished, there began a lot
of heavy persecution of the church by the Roman government and
most Christians were very poor and could not be concerned about
such things. After that, there was the rise of the state church of
Rome (Catholic) which, some people say, due to the influence of
the customs in the pagan religions of their time, prohibited all
church leaders (priests and nuns) from getting married and taught
the people that the highest level of spirituality is attained only when
a person stays unmarried. In those pagan religions which
influenced the Catholic Church, the nuns were like holy
prostitutes which all the male members of their religion would have
intercourse with, as though they were marrying the religion. There

have even been found Roman Catholic Church buildings with

secret rooms below for them to practice this custom. (Who knows,
maybe all of their buildings have them.) (In some of those pagan
religions, at that time, the male members would have intercourse
with the holy woman of their religion (nuns) right in front of the
idol, in public view.)
The purpose of prohibiting the religious leaders from getting
married is to get people, especially the leaders of the religion, to
participate in this immoral conduct. The very essence of this
custom is to promote fornication. It is human nature that people get
a higher desire for something when it is prohibited. Like, during the
depression when they prohibited liquor. Liquor sold more when it
was prohibited than when it was permitted. The practice of having
holy prostitutes in a religion is even found in Gen. 38:15-21,
where the original Hebrew word for a female holy one is
translated harlot, whore or prostitute in most English Bibles. A
few English Bibles translate it better with cult prostitute. However,
the original Hebrew literally calls her a female holy one, just like
how the Roman Catholic Church calls her a nun, indicating that
she is a supposedly holy woman dedicated to her religion;
offering herself to every male member of her religion.)
The state Church of Rome (Catholic) also refuses to recognize
the teaching of their own Holy Word of God that church leaders
must be: Titus 1:6 ....the husband of one wife..... (also: 1Tim.
3:2,12) (This is found in the Roman Catholic Bible) They have
disregarded the Word of God because they have more respect for
the word of the pope than the Word of God,..... and also they have
more respect for the influence of the false pagan religions at the
beginning. It was mostly the influence of the state church of Rome
(Catholic), in western Europe, that caused the prohibition of
multiple wife marriages, as well as any divorces and remarriages.
It wasn't until many years later that divorce and remarriage were
legally re-instituted in the western European culture, starting with

Henry VIII king of England. However, multiple wife marriages have

never been re-instituted in the western culture. Henry VIII would
have been better off, (more acceptable to God) by marrying
additional wives rather than divorcing his first wife. He divorced her
for no other reason than that she had no sons. (Remember, it is
recommended to stay single and not marry at all. 1Cor. 7:38)
POLYGAMY, MAIN POINT #1 - God's allowing of multiple
wives for men is absolutely indispensable in order to explain why
men can remarry again after a divorce (separation), in a society
that legally permits only one wife per husband at the same time,
provided that he is not guilty in the first separation (divorce). (see
article on: Correct Divorce) (It is not permitted for him to dump his
first wife to marry another.) Any man who is remarried must be
considered, by God, (not by the US government) to be married to
more than one woman at the same time, yet only living with one.
Women cannot marry again under any circumstances, as long as
their first husband is living. Women must wait until their first
husband dies, in order to remarry.
All existing marriages to divorced (separated) women must be
expected to break up; it is adultery. Those marriages must be
recognized as a man inappropriately married to another man's wife.
Rom. 7:2,3 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by
the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be
dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while
her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be
called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from
that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to
another man. also: 1Cor. 7:11 if she depart, let her remain
unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: KJV The only way to
interpret the Bible concerning the subject of marriage and divorce
(separation) without contradictions, is that God treats women
differently than men. It must also not be taken out of context. The
entire New Testament was written to people who were accustomed

to God permitting multiple wives for men. (Remember, it is

recommended to stay single and not marry at all. 1Cor. 7:38)
POLYGAMY, MAIN POINT #2 - It is also very important to
realize that, on the great wedding day of Jesus Christ to the church
in the kingdom of heaven, Jesus Christ WILL have a bride. Rev.
19:7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the
marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself
ready. KJV But rest assured, that many, and probably most, of the
truly saved Christians will be excluded from that wedding
celebration. Is it possible that Jesus Christ, after repudiating His
lukewarm bride, could be standing all by Himself on His great
wedding day, with no bride? (In those days they were considered to
be married from the point of the engagement. The wedding
celebration and consummation usually took place about a year
later.) A disobedient wife cannot render her husband to be
permanently wifeless. No wife has that kind of authority over her
husband. (But, if there are some true Christians who will be
excluded from the wedding celebration, does that mean that they
will be put in hell? No. See article on: Salvation) (Remember, it is
recommended to stay single and not marry at all. 1Cor. 7:38)
A passage like: Luke 16:18 Whosoever putteth away his
wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery must be
understood within the correct context. Jesus was regularly being
questioned by the bad religious leaders of his day who were
constantly trying to find fault with him. This is a clear reference to a
husband dumping one wife just because he wants another woman
instead. Mat. 19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting
him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife
for every cause? The problem was a misinterpretation of the Law
of Moses, which did indeed permit divorce. (Deut. 24:1) Those
corrupt religious leaders used that law incorrectly to permit men to

divorce their wives for every cause (any reason). God's original
purpose of permitting divorce (separation) was to discipline the
wife, hoping that she would repent of her hard hearted
disobedient conduct and return to her one and only true husband.
(Mat. 19:8) (In those days men were in control of the money and it
was very difficult for a woman to get a job that paid reasonable
wages. A wife being put out of the house was a heavy punishment
in those days.)
The divorce was nothing more than a declaration of separation.
God never intended that a divorce would be used to completely
dissolve a marriage and invalidate (annul) their wedding vows.
(Even the US government, last century, considered a divorce to be
nothing more than a declaration of separation, which did not end
the marriage.) If a man just throws his wife out of his house for any
insignificant reason and/or because he wants another woman
instead, then he would be committing a sin against his first wife.
The only way he can legitimately put her out is if she has done
some sort of horrible sin, like: fornication, adultery, theft, witchcraft,
murder, idolatry, etc. (1Cor. 5:10-13; Mat. 19:9; Gal. 5:19-21; Eph.
5:5)
Secondly, the passage above (Luke 16:18) appears not to fit
the culture at the time of Christ. If it was permitted for men to marry
more than one wife at the same time, in those days, then why
would any man leave one wife for another? Why didn't he just
marry them both? First, in those days men were in control of the
family money and most men could not afford the expense of two
wives. Back then, it was very rare that a woman could find a job
that would pay for more than only meager food and scanty clothing,
without enough for rent. (see article on: The Role Of Women
Throughout History) The most probable reason for this
misinterpretation was that the husband just didn't like his first wife
and he had been taught by the corrupt religious leaders of that time
that the Law of Moses permitted him to freely divorce his first wife

for any reason. However, the correct interpretation is that it was

permitted by God for a man to marry additional wives, if he had the
financial capability. But, if a man wanted to dump his first wife for
another, God considered it to be a sin against the first wife.
In the Bible, Abraham, who had multiple concubines, even
apart from Sarah and Hagar (Gen. 25:6), was used as the primary
example of New Testament faith. Gal. 3:29 And if ye be Christ's,
then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Abraham was the father of the New Testament faith. Rom. 4:16
Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the
promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of
the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the
father of us all, KJV (also: Gal. 3:7,14,16; Mat. 3:9; Rom. 4:1-3;
13-22, Luke 13:28)
Yet, if Abraham himself were here today and tried to visit some
of the modern churches, in the US, most of them would probably
not even want him to visit as an observer, much less become a
member and absolutely not become a leader. His multiple wives
and concubines would be too offensive for the modern churches.
What chance would he have of being accepted as a modern church
father of the New Testament faith? Is there any modern church,
in the US, that would not reject him, even as a visitor? Probably
not! They would run him out the door.
What's more, if he tried to ask them questions about their
corruption, they wouldn't even give him the time of day. They
wouldn't even recognize that he spoke anything, much less answer
his questions. He wouldn't be anything more to them than the
breeze that passes by. Jesus Christ gave Satan more respect than
that. At least Jesus answered Satan when Satan asked him
questions. They wouldn't give Abraham the same respect that
Jesus gave Satan. (Mat. 4:1-10) (Remember, it is recommended to
stay single and not marry at all. 1Cor. 7:38)

Mat. 19:5 For this cause shall a man leave father and
mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain (two) shall be
one flesh? KJV Many people mistakenly interpret phrases like
they twain (two) shall be one flesh to mean that a man must have
only one wife. The physical union in marriage is symbolic of the
spiritual union of the church with Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is
united in spirit with many persons, all at the same time, which
clearly demonstrates that the term one flesh does not mean one
wife only. In an earthly marriage a man and wife are only united in
one flesh at the point of intercourse, not continuously. Therefore,
it is possible for one man to take turns with multiple wives and be
one flesh with each of them in their respective turns. (Remember,
the Bible recommends that it is best to stay single and not marry at
all. 1Cor. 7:38)
Most modern Christians automatically assume that polygamy
was not in practice during the writing of the NT. This must not be
taken out of context. In both the Old Testament and the New
Testament this custom was in common practice. Everything that
Jesus Christ said was addressed to people who were accustomed
to permitting polygamy for men. Why did Jesus not consider this
subject important enough to talk about it at length? He never
treated it as adultery. (Remember, it is recommended to stay single
and not marry at all. 1Cor. 7:38)
Another passage that is commonly misinterpreted and taken
out of context is: 1Cor. 7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let
every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own
husband. KJV The subject being discussed in this passage
(context) was celibacy. Some of the Christians in Corinth thought
that all Christians should automatically stay unmarried. But, the
apostle Paul rejected that idea. Does the phrase let every man
have his own wife really mean let every man have only one wife?
Imagine a wedding celebration at the time when they are cutting up
the wedding cake. If someone said, make sure everyone gets a

piece, does that mean, make sure everyone gets only one piece?
Certainly not! If the cake is big enough and they cut small pieces,
its possible that some people could get more than one piece, with
no contradiction against the phrase: make sure everyone gets a
piece. (Remember, the Bible recommends that it is best to stay
single and not marry at all. 1Cor. 7:38)
Also, notice that in the verse above (1Cor. 7:2), the main issue
is to avoid fornication, not to avoid multiple wives. This passage
is more applicable to the Roman Catholic custom of forbidding
marriage for church leaders (priests and nuns). By forbidding
marriage they are actually promoting fornication, for which the
Roman Catholic Church has always been world famous for their
reputation of weakness in this matter. (It is human nature that when
something is forbidden, people get a much more intensive desire
for it.) (Like when they prohibited liquor,..... liquor sold more when it
was prohibited than when it was permitted)
Some people use the problems that those multiple wife
marriages had as evidence that they were corrupt and should be
prohibited. But, if they use this argument, then they must prohibit
all marriages, because they all have problems. Modern corrupt
remarriages, or rather twosomes MCT's (they shouldn't be called
marriages) usually have worse problems than those Biblical
multiple wife marriages, especially concerning the children born in
the unhappy MCTs. Those Biblical multiple wife marriages were
much healthier mentally, emotionally and spiritually in comparison
to MCT's. (Remember, the Bible recommends that it is best to stay
single and not marry at all. 1Cor. 7:38)
John the Baptist never said anything against the common
practice of men marrying more than one wife, but he did speak out
against Herod the king when Herod had married a supposedly
divorced woman. (It was the common practice in those days that
kings had more than one wife, so Herod probably had other wives
too, but John didn't say anything about that.) Mat. 14:4 For John

said unto him, It is not lawful for thee to have her. KJV (Mat.
14:1-12) Some people argue that the woman was not officially
divorced. (Which they cannot show from the Bible.) But, the law of
Moses did not even permit a woman to divorce her husband.....
and a divorce itself is nothing more than a declaration of
separation, written by the husband. Dont forget that the
government did not write certificates of marriage or divorce in those
days. Also, don't forget that King Herod was himself the
personification of the government. Does being the leader of the
government allow him, or any other government leader, to invent
whatever laws they want about marriage and divorce? (Like Henry
VIII did in England.) (Or how the US government now claims to
have the authority to over-rule and invalidate marriage vows.)
If you go back more than a century ago, the US government
had laws concerning marriage, divorce and family life that were
extremely different than present day laws. In those days, the US
government considered a divorce to be nothing more than a
declaration of separation. They considered the wedding vows to be
still binding, till death do they part. Governments are always
changing. Being the government doesn't make them always right.
Therefore, the goal of every faithful Christian must be to follow
God's laws whenever the continually changing laws of man
contradict what God says. (see article on: The Role Of Women
Throughout History) Inasmuch that the laws of the government are
not in conflict with the Word of God all Christians should obey the
government, but when the government contradicts God, Christians
should not follow the corruption of the government.
However, many times there are special cases in which the
government is not completely in accordance to the Word of God
(like when the government only permits one wife at a time) in such
cases it is possible to obey the government without disobeying
God. Multiple wife marriages are an option permitted by God, but
in no way is it obligatory by God or disobedience to God if it is not

practiced. Therefore, in such a case, it is possible to obey the

government without being in conflict with God. Of course, in a free
country like the US, it is possible to request a change in the law in
the legislature.
There still remains the need to explain why, in the New
Testament, only the leaders of the church arent permitted to marry
more than one wife at the same time. First, church leaders are
supposed to be primarily concerned with spiritual matters and not to
be preoccupied with an excess of fleshly or any other worldly
distractions. 2Tim. 2:4 No man that warreth (serving as a soldier)
entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please
him who hath chosen (enlisted) him to be a soldier. KJV Second,
having multiple wives was a sign of wealth in those days and the
church ministry is not supposed to be used improperly to make
church leaders rich. 1Tim. 6:5 Perverse disputings of men of
corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is
godliness: from such withdraw thyself. Titus 1:11 Whose
mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching
things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake. KJV The sin
in question is not adultery, but covetousness. The phrase gain is
godliness is a clear reference to the modern prosperity doctrine
which teaches that Christians ought to be wealthy, thereby teaching
Christians to have an intensive love of money.
Nowadays, there are many church leaders who make a lot of
money in the ministry of Jesus Christ who refuse to teach anything
from the Bible that would make them unpopular...... and risk losing
their good income, with very little work to do. This would include
the US middle class, which is much wealthier than the average
American only 70 years ago,.... unless they were somehow carrying
the cross of Christ,..... which is highly unlikely. Notice that faithful
Christians are commanded to withdraw themselves from such

church leaders. (1Tim. 6:5) This also shows why Abraham was
considered the father (leader) of New Testament faith, even though
he had multiple wives and concubines. Abraham didn't make his
income from church donations. In his case, the service of the Lord
was not what made him wealthy. (Remember, it is recommended to
stay single and not marry at all. 1Cor. 7:38)
There is no sin if a church member has a profitable worldly
income. However, they are instructed to use their money according
to God's will and do good to other people. 1Tim. 6:17-19 Charge
them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor
trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly
all things to enjoy; That they do good, that they be rich in good
works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate (inclined to
impart); Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation
against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.
KJV If the rule of having only one wife applies to church members
as well as to church leaders, than the rule of not making lots of
money must apply to church members as well. Nobody in the
church could have a large income. But, the Bible does not teach
that. (Remember, it is recommended to stay single and not marry
at all. 1Cor. 7:38)
Money is a basic human necessity. Having money is not the
problem. 1Tim. 6:10 . the love of money is the root of all evil:
.. The problem is when people love money more than they love
God. The sin of covetousness is idolatry. Col. 3:5 .
covetousness, which is idolatry: Idolatry is spiritual adultery. (Jer.
3) If anyone loves money more than God, then they have replaced
the true God with a false god: MONEY. Mat. 6:24 No man can
serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the
other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye
cannot serve God and mammon (riches) KJV Mat. 6:19-21 Lay
not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust
doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay

up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust

doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. KJV
One way to know if a person loves money more than God is if they
had to break God's rules in order to get the money they have.
A good example of a religious leader in the Bible who was truly
saved and yet turned out bad was Balaam. He was a true prophet
of God and even prophesied part of the true Word of God.
(Numbers chap. 22-24) But, just like the rich (US middle class)
lukewarm church, Balaam corrupted himself for the love of money
and worldly luxuries, thereby making himself an enemy of God. He
loved money more than God. (2Pet. 2:15 Jude 1:11 Rev. 2:14)
There are few better examples from the Bible of the modern
wealthy (US middle class) lukewarm church leaders than Balaam.
Balaam acted more like a wolf in sheep's clothing than a true
prophet of God. (Outwardly, it is difficult to distinguish between a
corrupt true believer and a satanic spy. Balaam was not a satanic
spy.) Yet God even caused a donkey to speak to Balaam, hoping to
turn him back onto the right path. 2Peter 2:16 ...But was rebuked
for his iniquity: the dumb (mute) ass (donkey) speaking with man's
voice forbad the madness of the prophet. KJV (Num. 22:22-35)
(see article on: The Lukewarm Church)
In the original Hebrew Old Testament, the two words translated
husband ( )and ( )both mean owner and lord and
master. 1Pet. 3:5,6 For after this manner in the old time the holy
women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in
subjection unto their own husbands: Even as Sara obeyed
Abraham, calling him lord:. KJV Spiritually speaking, if we want
to receive an eternal inheritance and authority (crown) in the
kingdom of God we must voluntarily make the spiritual husband

Jesus Christ Lord and owner and master of our lives. 1Cor.
7:22 For he who is called a slave in the Lord is a freed man of the
Lord. And likewise, he who is called a free man is a slave of Christ.
MKJV (Some old Bible versions translate the word slave ()
as servant. The meanings of the words in English have changed
over the years.) Rom. 1:1 Paul, a servant (slave) of Jesus Christ,
called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,. KJV
Here we see that the apostle Paul calls himself a slave of Jesus
Christ.
The modern concept that slavery is automatically abusive and
tyrannical is not correct. Gal. 4:1,2 . the heir, as long as he is a
child, differeth nothing from a servant (slave), though he be lord of
all; 2 But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of
the father. KJV (see article on: Slavery) The Bible treats slavery
the same as a parent-child relationship. There have been some
occasional cases of a parent abusing their child, but that doesn't
mean that parents always abuse their children. Why would anyone
assume that the parent-child relationship is automatically abusive?
(see article on: Fatherhood) Most parents like to spoil their
children.
The primary cause of husband-wife conflict is the removal of
male authority, the ridiculous equal leadership propaganda and
the suppression of correct discipline applied with love and
self-control. When correct discipline with love is absent, then the
situation gets more and more out of control. Chaos, conflict and
tension start and escalate the same way as if you had two equal
presidents or two equal CEO's in a company. Stress builds and
builds until its like a volcano ready to explode. If a husband would
only apply correct normal discipline with loving self-control and
moderation at the beginning of his wife's misbehavior, then
excessive violence, anger and marital separations would not
happen. (see article on: Domestic Discipline)

In the Song of Solomon, which is the only book in the Bible to

address the physical and sensual side of marriage, many figures of
speech and metaphoric symbolisms are used in order to poetically
talk about God's recipe for the maximum marital physical
experience. It does not talk directly about things that should be
private and intimate. In one place, instead of the wife stating
directly that her husband is disciplining her, metaphorically she
talks about the watchmen or keepers of the walls. Song 5:7
The watchmen that went about the city found me, they smote
(beat) me, they wounded (bruised) me; the keepers of the walls
took away my veil from me. KJV (The exact definition of the
original Hebrew word for veil ( )has been lost, that is, the
meaning has been lost over the years. The root meaning implies
something spread like a wide wrapper or large veil. Other English
translations say: mantle or cloak. The Septuagint translates it
using: a light summer garment. The Septuagint was
the Greek translation of the original Hebrew Old Testament in
common use at the time of Christ. The garment could even be
considered a nuptial robe or wedding dress, which obviously
would need to be removed when the couple were alone, thereby
initiating the husband's practice of disciplining her after he had
stripped her naked.)
The cities in those days had walls around them for protection,
which symbolized the husband's protection for his wife, especially
protection against spiritual error. (Like women's liberation.)
Obviously, it is implied that the wife had gone to the limit of
acceptable conduct and needed to be disciplined (and protected
from error). It is also possible that they both simply had a craving
for this type of physical experience, usually started at the wife's
request. The husband is represented by the keepers of the walls.
He smote (beat) her and wounded (bruised) her with physical
discipline after he had removed her garment. It sounds like her
husband stripped her naked (as mentioned in Rev. 3:17) and then

beat her bare behind enough to leave bruises. (Some women

bruise more easily than others.) Notice that her reaction to the
punishment was to get very emotional and love-sick for her
husband. This more than likely implies that the discipline was
started at her request. Song 5:8 I charge you, O daughters of
Jerusalem, if ye find my beloved, that ye tell him, that I am sick of
love. (love-sick) KJV God created women to be the happiest and
feel the most secure, loved, maritally stable and protected under
the authority and discipline of a loving, virtuous and mature
husband. When a husband applies discipline correctly, it can seem
very romantic to both him and his wife. (see article on: Domestic
Discipline)
A husband must actively train his wife to obey him. In every
other area of life leaders know the importance of training
subordinates to obey orders. Bosses at work are always giving
orders and they expect immediate obedience. Every professional
athletic coach knows the importance of giving orders rigorously.
Practice, practice, practice. Can you imagine a professional
football coach speaking to his team members with the same
non-authoritative and non-assertive tone of voice that most
American husbands use when speaking to their wives? How
absurd! Isnt it true that professional football coaches are always
pushy and rigorous during training? Yet, at the same time they
have to show genuine care and concern for all of their team
members needs. (Notice: it is possible to be pushy in a good
way, as well as in a bad way. The best progress is made when the
coach is pushy in a good way. If he's not pushy, very little
progress will be made.) Practical application: in marriage a very
important thing is that the husband should be sure to take
command of the marriage bed, in both a loving and firm way, but
not selfishly.

Similarly, the leaders in the military are constantly giving

orders. Practice, practice, practice. There is a certain feeling of
security when quality leadership is applied correctly and vigorously
(pushy) with true caring attention (love). Is it not true that most
women crave the feeling of security and care that quality leadership
and discipline produce? Women should be getting it from their
husbands. But modern men have been taught ever since childhood
that it's wrong to use that kind of leadership over their wives. Most
women desire that their husbands take command, provided it's
done in a loving, mature and courteous way. Modern husbands
need to be re-trained on how to overcome the incorrect corrupt
teaching they have been receiving ever since they were little boys.
(see article on: Domestic Discipline)
The most important aspect of marriage is unity. The very
nature of God is unity. God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit all in
perfect unity, so much so that all three of them together are
considered to be only one God. 1John 5:7 For there are three
that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy
Ghost: and these three are one. KJV The Word is Jesus Christ,
the Son. John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word
was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1-13) The three
persons constitute one God, just as two persons, man and wife,
constitute one marriage, to the point that some people even call
them one person. Last century, the US law itself referred to a
married couple as one person. Perfect unity can only be known in
the spirit. Jesus Christ alone gives perfect unity. It is a gift from
Him through the working of the Holy Spirit. There is great joy in
perfect unity. In the natural world people only have small tastes of
unity. Jesus Christ gives it in abundance only to those who are
obedient to Him, as a wife should be obedient to her husband.

The desire to have perfect unity must be primarily with Jesus

Christ before anything else, even before earthly marriage.
Everything else must become smaller and less important. Never
forget that earthly marriages are only a temporary similitude of the
eternal spiritual marriage of many persons with Jesus Christ in
order to help us understand it; which is why God permits multiple
wife marriages. (But, doesn't recommend it. The spiritual marriage
with Jesus Christ is best nurtured when a person remains single.)
The most important thing is our eternal condition in the next life.
Mark 12:29-31 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the
commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all
thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the
first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt
love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment
greater than these. KJV 2Cor. 4:18 While we look not at the
things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the
things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not
seen are eternal.
What is the true definition of the term good marriage? Most
working couples, who think they have a good marriage, spend
most of their time at work. It's possible that they could live in the
same house together for years thinking that they have a good
marriage, but are they truly united in spirit? The truth is that they
are no more than good friends. They could even be very good
friends and yet not be united in spirit. They live more like
roommates who get along well.
The US and Canada are two countries that are good friends.
They have lived on the same continent together peacefully for a
long time. But are they united? No,..... they are independent
countries. Nevertheless, suppose they did want to unite. Rest
assured, the very first concern would be about who runs the

government..... Who's in charge. Unity, in any human organization,

must have leadership. Without leadership there can be no unity.
Without leadership they're just friends, who come and go as they
please, without ever experiencing the joy of unity. They're more like
roommates who voluntarily live together and cooperate in paying
the bills.
The modern concept that the husband and wife should share
decision making as though they were both equal concerning
leadership is absurd. Is it possible to have two presidents of the
US with exactly the same power and responsibility? The conflict
and chaos would get out of control. Constant stalemates is what
would happen. Telling them that they have to learn to make
compromises is stupid absurdity that just prolongs the problems.
In the end either one is the leader or the other one is the leader.
Occasionally, two people start a business as equal partners,
but very soon it is necessary for one of them to take the lead and
the other one to follow. They both recognize that reality dictates
one of them must be the leader and the other the follower,
otherwise the business will not survive (they will always end up
fighting). In real life, if the husband does not take the lead then the
wife automatically steps in and takes command, and then starts
bossing him around like she's his mother. (Witchcraft)
Even children, when they play together, in any kind of
organized games, the child with the strongest personality
automatically takes the lead over the other children...... and if that
child does a good job, the rest follow with pleasure. Otherwise, if
two of the children contend for the leadership, all the children know
that the result will be nothing but conflict,........ and having fun
playing games will be out the window. Even children can figure this
out, but somehow adults getting married can't.
Why is this absolute absurdity of sharing leadership
commonly accepted as normal in marriage? The truth is that it is
only accepted as a theory before marriage for gullible

inexperienced people who don't understand it. (But, children can

understand it.) After every couple start their life together, in reality,
the absurdity of this theory becomes obvious immediately. This
theory is a propaganda lie, which has only one function; it is
intended merely to get the inexperienced husband to surrender his
leadership and get the wife to take command. (Witchcraft) This lie
is propagated by satanic people who understand its purpose very
well.
On the subject of unity: Unity and independence are
diametrical opposites of each other. It is a common modern
misunderstanding that spouses think they can be united in
marriage and at the same time be independent and free do
whatever they want. This is kind of like the old example of
someone who has a birthday cake which is so beautiful that they
want to keep it and preserve it. But, on the other hand, they also
want to eat it. Well, if they eat it, then they won't be able to
preserve it. And if they preserve it, then they won't be able to eat it.
It has to be one or the other. When people try to maintain a
marriage united and independent at the same time, it doesn't
work. It produces confusion, conflict and craziness,.... not
happiness and harmony.
In the US, according to the book HISTORY OF THE UNITED
STATES published by the Macmillan Company in 1921 there has
been many changes in the laws concerning women and family life.
In chapter 23 it says: . a married womans personal property
jewels, money, furniture, and the likebecame her husbands
property; the management of her lands passed into his control.
Even the wages she earned, if she worked for some one else,
belonged to him. Custom, if not law, prescribed that women should
not take part in town meetings or enter into public discussions of
religious questions.. (This book is on-line at:
http://history-world.org/USA.pdf) Back then, the US law considered

a married couple to be one person, in perfect union and the

husband was the head and representative of that union. True
union in a marriage must have leadership. Is there any human
organization that can maintain unity with no leadership? Certainly
not!!! If leadership is genuinely good it will produce love, joy, peace
and harmony. (see article on: The Virtues of the Spirit) The
modern notion that a married couple should be perfectly equal
and that the husband should not automatically take the leadership
over his wife is absurd. Has any country in the world ever elected
two presidents with exactly the same authority and responsibility?
In real life, an organization such as a marriage cannot maintain
order and unity without leadership; one must be the leader and the
other the follower..... And when the husband does not take that
position, the wife takes it automatically. (Witchcraft)
Over a century ago, in the US, the automatic male leadership
in marriage was called coverture, which was a legal practice
whereby, upon marriage, a woman's legal rights and obligations
were subsumed by those of her husband, in accordance with the
wife's legal status of feme covert. An unmarried woman, a feme
sole, had the right to own property and make contracts in her own
name. The automatic legal principle of coverture was described
very well in William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of
England in the late 18th century:
By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law: that is,
the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during
the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that
of the husband: under whose wing, protection, and cover, she
performs every thing; and is therefore called in our law-French a
feme-covert; is said to be covert-baron, or under the protection and
influence of her husband, her baron, or lord; and her condition
during her marriage is called her coverture. Upon this principle, of a
union of person in husband and wife, depend almost all the legal
rights, duties, and disabilities, that either of them acquire by the

marriage. I speak not at present of the rights of property, but of

such as are merely personal. For this reason, a man cannot grant
any thing to his wife, or enter into covenant (contract) with her: for
the grant would be to suppose her separate existence; and to
covenant (contract) with her, would be only to covenant with
himself: and therefore it is also generally true, that all compacts
(contracts) made between husband and wife, when single, are
voided by the intermarriage.
As it has been concisely expressed, husband and wife were
one person as far as the law was concerned, and that person was
lead by the husband. A married woman could not own property,
sign legal documents or enter into a contract, obtain an education
against her husband's wishes, or keep a salary for herself. If a
husband permitted his wife to work, under the laws of coverture,
she was required to relinquish her wages to her husband.
After these laws of coverture were terminated in US history,
and before women's liberation started, it was a common practice
that when a couple got married the husband would immediately
forbid his wife from working; unity was considered more important
than extra money. (Don't forget that working women in those days
usually earned very little money.) The men of that time understood
that the termination of the coverture laws was destructive to good
marriage; it was crazy. Notice along with the elimination of the
coverture laws was the elimination of the essence of unity, that is,
the idea that a married couple is one person. Married couples
were no longer united any more than the states of the US could be
united if the authority of the federal government was eliminated.
Then they could no longer be called the United States, they would
have to be called the Independent States of America. And they
would probably end up fighting with each other like the typical US
marriage does in real life. Rest assured, US marriages didn't fight
like that when the laws of coverture were in effect. Unity and
independence are opposites of each other.

When wives have money, property or a business apart from the

authority of their husbands, they are acting independently, which
is the opposite of unity. Unity and independence are
diametrical opposites of each other. It is a common modern
misunderstanding that married couples think they can be united in
marriage and at the same time be independent and free do
whatever they want. Is it possible for a business to operate in this
manner? Can a large business have internal independent groups
using company money obtained in their own department for
purposes outside the control of the company's higher
management? Certainly not! Husbands having authority to give
orders to their wives in regard to their income or business activities
is no more abusive than higher management in a large company
having authority to give orders over the money earned or business
decisions made within individual departments of their own
company. Husbands must have control of the money their wives
earn.
This belief that a marriage can have unity and
independence at the same time is ridiculous. Most women, if they
were given the choice between having a high paying prestigious
profession or having a truly loving and virtuous relationship with a
truly good husband, would choose a loving husband.
Unfortunately, most women think that they can have both at the
same time. Either that or they think they should maintain the
profession just in case the marriage fails, thereby contaminating
the unity of their own marriage, which otherwise could have
succeeded. They think they can be united and independent at
the same time. Despite the higher education of modern women,
they think they can preserve their cake and also eat their cake.
How is it possible that women who received degrees from
universities can't figure out that if they eat their cake, they wouldn't
be able to preserve it? When people try to maintain a marriage
united and independent at the same time it doesn't work. It

produces confusion, chaos and craziness,...... not happiness and

harmony. But, modern highly educated women can't figure it out.
(This comment is not intended to insult women. It is intended to
take note that women need loving husbands to guide them and
protect them from dangerous errors.)
Sad to say, that in most MCT's that stay together long term, in
the US, the wife is in charge. The people who stay together long
term both understand very well that without a leader the twosome
won't survive. It is absolutely clear that without a leader there is no
hope that they can stay together long term. They both reject the
ridiculous modern theory that the husband and wife should
share decision making as though they were both equal
concerning leadership, which they both recognize only produces
chaos and conflict, like the absurdity of having two equal
presidents.
Now that society has trained (brainwashed) men from
childhood, mistakenly in the name of equality, not to automatically
assume the leadership role, the wife automatically takes that
position. This is not equality!!! This is the suppression and
perversion of masculinity. Total equality in leadership is impractical
and absurd!!! Without a leader the twosome cannot survive! They
are more like friendly roommates who stay together temporarily
until the time comes for them to go their separate ways.
Female leadership in marriage is not only a disgrace to
manliness, but it is also blasphemy against the Word of God. (see
article on: The Consequences of Women's Liberation) Modern
churches in the US do absolutely nothing about their church
members who blaspheme God in this manner. MCT's in modern
churches that have the wife dominating her husband should be
excommunicated from the church. They should be thrown out and
denied entrance to church meetings, activities and all fellowship
with church members, even outside of church gatherings.

Female leadership over men is called witchcraft and the

female leader is a witch. All modern churches with female
pastors are corrupt and the female pastors are following Satan.
All of those female pastors know perfectly well that they are
blaspheming God.... and they like it that way. They love to corrupt
Christianity. (see article: What About Deborah)
A good example in the Bible of one of those female religious
and political leaders was Jezebel the wife of King Ahab, who had
spread the worship of the false god Baal in Israel. The end of that
accursed woman would be a very fitting end of all those women
pastors in churches corrupting Christianity. (And female bosses
over men and female politicians.) The man Jehu had her thrown
down out of an upper window of a building, then he had his chariot
horses trample her under their hooves, crushing her bones similar
to what happened to the villain during the Roman chariot race in the
film Ben-Hur. Then the dogs came and ate her. She never had a
funeral nor a burial. 2Ki 9:36, 37 ...And he said, This is the
word of the LORD, which he spake by his servant (prophet) Elijah
the Tishbite, saying, In the portion of Jezreel shall dogs eat the
flesh of Jezebel: 37 And the carcase of Jezebel shall be as dung
upon the face of the field..... So that, if anyone in those days saw
some dog droppings laying on the ground they might say, there lies
Jezebel, as though they were looking at her grave and mocking
her and laughing. How appropriate!!!
Satan has chosen women for leaders because God has
chosen men for leaders. Every person who reads this writing and
insists on continuing in this witchcraft is cursed of God. All you
people who reject these words will burn in hell for eternity. If you
indeed reject these words, then yes, I'm talking about you the
reader. This includes female authority over men in all areas of life;
home, church, work, education, government offices and politics.
The first sin in the Garden of Eden was the man following the
leadership of his wife. Gen 3:17-19 And unto Adam he (God)

said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and
hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou
shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt
thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it
bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the
sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the
ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust
shalt thou return. If Adam had not followed his wife's rebellious
leadership, Eve alone would have died as a consequence of her
sin. After that, God would have given Adam a new wife. (Please
read all of Genesis 3)
Without the obedience of a wife to her husband there is no
unity in a faithful Christian marriage, there is no freedom from the
disgraceful suppression of manliness caused by witchcraft and no
part of the kingdom of God after death, which is eternal. If a wife is
head of her husband, they have both rebelled against God. 1Sam
15:23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is
as iniquity and idolatry. Everyone who follows Satan will not have
part of the kingdom of God. They will be excluded from the
wedding feast of the Lamb and excluded from entrance into the
New City of Jerusalem. (Rev. 19:9; 21:24-27) Rev 21:27 And
there shall in no wise (way) enter into it (New Jerusalem) any thing
that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a
lie......
But, it is not too late, there is still time to repent and get right
with God. Act 26:18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from
darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they
may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them
which are sanctified by faith that is in me. (see article on:
Salvation)

The physical part of a marriage is very important. In the Bible,

the Song of Solomon gives the recipe for the maximum marital
physical experience. But, notice how almost everything is written
poetically with metaphors and symbolism. Each aspect of the
physical relationship is usually portrayed with numerous different
illustrative symbols. For example, it does not say what is the literal
thing that the husband's apples symbolize, but rest assured that
his apples symbolize the same thing as his figs and his tender
grapes. The reader must interpret the literal application, through
the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Marital intercourse itself, which is physical unity, is an
example and illustration of the spiritual unity between the church
and Jesus Christ through the entrance and indwelling of the Holy
Spirit inside of every true believer. John 14:17 Even the Spirit of
truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not,
neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and
shall be in you. KJV This spiritual unity is not possible without
obedience to Jesus Christ, as a wife is supposed to be obedient to
her husband. Jesus Christ is the leader and any true Christian
must be the follower.
But in real life, most modern lukewarm Christians don't even
know what the will of God is, much less are they willing to do it.
They have trouble understanding things that are clearly written
about in the Bible, like how men are supposed to be the leaders of
women. How could they possibly interpret the will of God in
decision making through the leading of the Holy Spirit concerning
things in daily life not clearly written in the Bible? God has selected
the man to be the leader in earthly marriage. This is clearly stated
and yet the lukewarm church has difficulty accepting it,
understanding what it really means and doing it. (The man must be
the leader, especially in the marriage bed.) If they have so much
difficulty understanding things clearly stated, how could they
possibly know what the will of God is for their every day life? (the

leading of the Holy Spirit) Mat. 7:21 Not every one that saith unto
me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that
doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Obviously, another necessary ingredient of unity is faithfulness.
However, faithfulness itself must be more clearly defined because
different cultures have different concepts of what faithful means,
just as different types of business contracts have different
expectations of fulfillment vs. failure of fulfillment. For example,
when Steve Jobs contracted Bill Gates to write software for Apple,
it was understood from the beginning that Bill would also be writing
for other companies as well. However, Steve expected Bill not to
write software for other companies anything similar to the software
he was writing for Apple. But, when Steve discovered that the
software Bill was writing for other companies was very similar to the
software he was writing for Apple (too similar for his liking), Steve
was very angry at Bill and accused him of not being faithful to his
contract.
In comparison, when Bill offered to write software for IBM, he
told them at the beginning that he wanted to sell the exact same
thing to other companies, as well. Obviously, the expectations of
fulfillment of contract were completely different. Thus, the
expectations of faithfulness in marriage in a society that is
monogamous would be different than the expectations of
faithfulness in a society that is polygamous.
Other aspects of faithfulness are self-control and honesty.
Any person who has made long term non-virtuous habits of lying
and showing no self-control in their physical relationships will,
undoubtedly, carry these bad habits into marriage. Before
marriage, it is important to form virtuous habits and not to run
around like a dog that roams the streets. Also, when someone
wants to marry someone else, they are responsible to verify, over a
period of time (recommended one year), that the person they want

to marry has indeed developed virtuous habits. If they don't, that is,
if they jump into a marriage before they really have enough time to
know the other person, then they are equally as guilty as their
non-virtuous marriage partner in the disastrous results that
obviously will follow...... and therefore have no right to complain
about the non-virtuous conduct of their marriage partner afterwards.
Even though the physical part of marriage was invented and
blessed by God, it must still be considered inappropriate to speak
about it as openly and shamelessly as how people commonly do in
the modern culture. Also, if anything that was intended to be
private and intimate is publicized so openly, it always loses it's
intimacy and the spiritual bonding of unity.
There is an overemphasis on the physical in modern times,
resulting in a deficiency of true quality of character development
(virtuous habits), which is necessary to maintain a good marriage
for a life time. On TV and in movies virtuous habits are often
ridiculed or excluded as though they are assumed to be impossible
or non-existent. Either that or they assume that only weirdos and
nerds who couldn't get a romantic relationship anyway are the only
people capable of abstaining.
By acting like dogs that roam the streets and showing total lack
of self-control in their physical relationships they are destroying any
possibility of having a quality life-long marriage; it is something
they will never know. By comparison, people who develop virtuous
habits will have the opportunity for a quality life-long marriage.

FOR YOUNG PEOPLE SEEKING MARRIAGE

1 Faithful Christians must not marry unfaithful Christians or
non-Christians. (1Cor. 7:39)

2 Dating must only be done with an appropriate chaperon or in

the fellowship of a group of other faithful Christians.
3 It is highly recommended that the man be older than the
woman. It is best that they are not the same age. 1Tim. 2:13
For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
4 Absolutely no romantic touching, hand holding or kissing until
their wedding night. 1Cor. 7:1 .... It is good for a man not to
touch a woman. (one thing leads to another, especially alone)
5 The quality of character in both the man and the woman must
be shown to be virtuous over a recommended period of one
year before marriage. (see article on: The Virtues of the Spirit)
6 Faithful Christians must only marry other faithful Christians,
normally found in a faithful Christian church. However, a
faithful Christian church is difficult to find in the US. (And
probably doesn't even exist in the US.) Therefore, it is
recommended that all new marriages be postponed until after
this problem is resolved by Jesus Christ removing all the
corrupt church leaders and replacing them with Shepherd
David. All faithful Christians should now be praying for this
even to happen. (see article on: The Lukewarm Church) (also
see article on: The New World Order was Prophesied in the
Bible) Jer. 16:2 Thou shalt not take thee a wife, neither shalt
thou have sons or daughters in this place. The US is corrupt,
like unfertile soil which is not capable of producing good fruits
or vegetables. It is foolish to plant a garden in such a place.
7 Eze 14:14,16 Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and
Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their
righteousness, saith the Lord GOD. Though these three men
were in it, as I live, saith the Lord GOD, they shall deliver
neither sons nor daughters; they only shall be delivered, but
the land shall be desolate. If someone tries to plant their
favorite fruits or vegetables in unfertile soil, they shouldn't
expect to get nice beautiful juicy vegetables from it. They

should expect to get ugly rotten vegetables that are unfit for
human consumption. The US has the highest rate of divorce of
any country in the world, and therefore it has the absolute
worst soil to plant a marriage in. Unless some special type of
fertilizer is applied first, it would be illogical to expect to have a
good marriage in it. Therefore, it is recommended that all new
marriages be postponed until after this problem is resolved by
Jesus Christ removing all the corrupt church leaders and
replacing them with Shepherd David. All faithful Christians
should now be praying for this event to happen. (see article
on: The Lukewarm Church) (also see article on: The New
World Order was Prophesied in the Bible) Jer. 16:2 Thou
shalt not take thee a wife, neither shalt thou have sons or
daughters in this place. The US law itself is heavily in favor of
wives against their husbands, thereby motivating wives to fight
with their husbands. It is foolish and crazy to have a marriage
under such conditions. All of those laws that have been
deliberately designed to ruin marriages must be removed by
the US legislature before anyone should consider marriage.
(Some of those laws are state laws.)
Recommended free Bible software:
www.e-sword.net or www.theword.net
Also free Bible audio recordings at:
www.audiotreasure.com

https://www.tumblr.com/blog/pastordavidministries
or e-mail: PastorDavidMinistries@tutanota.com

OTHER ARTICLES
The New World Order was Prophesied in the Bible
Pastor David Ministries
Marriage Misunderstandings Explained
Pastor David Ministries
The Lukewarm Church
Pastor David Ministries
Salvation
Pastor David Ministries
Wolves In Sheep's Clothing
Pastor David Ministries
Self-Love and Self-Esteem
Pastor David Ministries
Fatherhood
Pastor David Ministries
The Consequences of Women's Liberation
Pastor David Ministries
Domestic Discipline
Pastor David Ministries
The Consequences of Using Incorrect Terminology
Pastor David Ministries
The Role Of Women Throughout History
Pastor David Ministries
The Suffering Of The Great Depression
Pastor David Ministries

The Virtues of the Spirit

Pastor David Ministries
What About Deborah
Pastor David Ministries
Correct Divorce
Pastor David Ministries
Slavery
Pastor David Ministries
The Lie of Evolution
Pastor David Ministries
The New World Order was Prophesied in the Bible
Pastor David Ministries
Angels are Aliens, Aliens are Angels
Pastor David Ministries