Lynn Baber… for love of God and horses

Following the original post there was a lengthy comment from ‘Mark’ and my initial reply. His comment began, “Close, but no cigar.” Mark and I have exchanged emails a couple of times and I wanted to share the basics on the blog itself. If anyone feels led to chime in, you are welcome.

I want to thank Mark again for his thoughtfulness. He didn’t want to ‘hijack’ the blog so emailed me privately. There are a couple of themes that have come through in our exchanges. One point Mark makes is absolutely on-point. I never disagreed with it; I just skipped a step in my narrative, as it were.

Civil license not required to satisfy God

This point is that God does not require a civil marriage license. In my suggestion to ban civil marriage in favor of the ‘holy estate’ it is true that a couple could be married without a civil license. The civil license entitles them to civil benefits and legal recognition of their contract. It is usually the case that a marriage would also be recognized civilly, but as Mark pointed out, it wouldn’t be mandatory.

Discussion on polygamy

The other statement I made that Mark takes issue with is, “Marriage is as ordained by God and specifically defined in the Bible as one man and one woman. I’m sure you don’t need me to make a specific citation.” I believe Mark’s position is that polygamy is the message of scripture and monogamy simply an option.

Here is the text of Mark’s last response:

With all due respect, I will simply respond that you CANNOT do so, Lynn, because no such citation exists. In fact, the opposite is undeniably true (regardless of what Caesar’s State-approved Church tries to teach)!

There is no REQUIREMENT for a marriage license — UNLESS you want Caesar’s “blessing”, instead of God’s! Whether it’s tax breaks, or other “socialist safety net” things that ultimately derive from coercion, fraud, or faith in “another master”, the act of asking for permission from Caesar to marry implies a choice itself: that “law of the land” in preference to the Law of God. (I often add, with a bit of sarcasm, that here in New Canaan – er, Amerika – one can “sleep with” anyone or anything now, so long, of course, as “it’s only about sex!” It only becomes a “crime” when a Believing man decides to call himself a “patriarch” and actually provide for and “cover” a second helpmeet! Or teach “forbidden Bible verses”, soon. Again, this becomes a longer discussion; but if you really want to read something that will give you pause, look at the very next chapter in Exodus after the ‘ten commandments’. (Ex. 21) It’s about slavery, among other things. Note specifically that if that master “give his servant a wife”, that the wife and subsequent children BELONG TO HIM! (It adds a new meaning to the warning that they are “without excuse”.)

Rather than write a book (which I’m working on, but it’s not finished yet I’ll simply attach an article about marriage that I put together not too long ago. It was NOT intended to address the question of WHY God does not mandate “monogamy” (indeed, no such distinction even exists in the Biblical Hebrew language!) but why a proper understanding of what He DID Write is so important! There are a number of “golden calves” on pedestals in this former Republic, some of them put up centuries ago by an official “State Church” that decided to ignore Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32 – among many others!

Suffice it to say that I’ll issue a challenge: While marriage is a Covenant between one man and one woman before God, there is NO place whatsoever in Scripture where God makes a prohibition against a man having more than one such Covenant! Unlike male homosexuality, which God not only proscribes (five times, at least) but calls “abomination”, he not only provides direction for the practice (Exodus 21:10; Deut. 21:11, 15; the “Law of the Levirate”, etc, etc.) but calls Himself a Husband of two wives (Jer. 3, Ezek 23) and gives David, a “man after God’s own heart”, multiple wives Himself. (II Sam. Even our Savior — in spite of attempts to make His parable “PC” — clearly talks about being a Bridegroom to five prepared virgin brides.

Feel free to write if you’d like exhaustive detail. Or check out a website that I frequent as well: www.BiblicalFamilies.com

I will respectfully add that while I have seen people refuse to read what Scripture actually says, I have not known anyone to honestly argue the “traditional” monogamy-only doctrine from the text without eventually realizing that what Yeshua/Jesus said was True:
“Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.”

God’s Word is utterly consistent about marriage, as in all things.

Here’s my response to Mark’s citations:

Genesis 4:19 “Lamech married two women…” This is the introduction of polygamy into history. Whether Lamech was correct in his decision is not stated.

Exodus 21:10
A woman is free to leave her husband with her property and children if he takes another wife… I don’t read this as a marital option ordained by God if the first wife is free to refuse to participate.

Jeremiah 3: I did not see the relevance. (?)

Ezekiel 23: There are two promiscuous sisters used in allegorical fashion to show God’s disgust with Samaria and Jerusalem. Again, I was not able to bring this scripture into the discussion as I see it framed.

These are my citations:

Genesis 2:23-24
Here is where God gives Adam a wife and says the two shall become one flesh. Adding another wife would make a very strange ‘one flesh.’

1 Corinthians 7:2
“…each man should have his own wife, and each wife her own husband.” So, no sharing allowed here as I read it.

I Corinthians 7:4
This is the verse that says the wife’s body belongs not only to her, but to her husband; his belongs not only to him but to his wife. Again, not much room for sharing…

1 Timothy 3:2
elders must be “the husband of one wife.” That seems pretty clear to me.

All references in the New Testament are singular, “wife.” The law was fulfilled in Christ, and we are His bride (singular.)

I absolutely invite Mark to reply, and will extend that invitation in a personal email. There a several places he has referred me to for more information that I have not yet visited. (I will.)

The bottom line is that I stand by my original post. Mark may certainly stand by his. Mark has been a challenging and thoughtful partner in a discussion I wasn’t expecting. But then, that’s the beauty of a blog.