Marriage Misunderstandings Explained

Pastor David Ministries

https://www.tumblr.com/blog/pastordavidministries

Revised
November 2017

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.) Right now, in this life, we (people who are saved) are in the period of
engagement. The wedding will take place when we get to heaven. 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 pro-
per 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 testa-
ment, 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

1
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 expen-
sive and bulky. Occasionally, they wrote on stones, metal plates or clay
tablets. Not only that, but paper itself was very expensive until the begin-
ning 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 wed-
ding chamber on her wedding night waiting for the evidence of the brides
virginity on the designated cloth. (Notice the non-involvement of the govern-
ment.)
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 declar-
ations of separation and did not end the marriage..... Even the US govern-
ment, last century, considered a divorce to be nothing more than a declar-
ation 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 registrations with the
government much in the same way that they register the sale (ownership
exchange) of real estate or automobiles. In the modern ownership regis-
trations 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

2
marriage registrations can be falsified too. Every year there are people from
other countries who get false US marriage certificates so that they can ob-
tain residency and permission to work in the US. (Example: 1990 film
Green Card.) 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 an 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. That is as out of place as the government
making an official declaration that the earth is flat, not round. They have no
business making any such declaration. 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, deli-
berately 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

3
seal on a piece of paper makes it acceptable to welsh on a marriage vow.
But quite to the contrary, any secular government claiming to have the au-
thority to annul (invalidate) a marriage vow is rebelling against God Himself.
Even the US government itself last century considered a divorce to be no-
thing more than a declaration of separation; similar to a modern legal
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 mar-
ried 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 no-
thing more than a declaration of separation. (Also notice that in some chur-
ches a divorced man is considered disqualified from church leadership be-
cause, they say that he doesn't have his house in order. 1Tim 3:5 For if a
man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the
church of God? This type of doctrine would disqualify God from being God,
because God is divorced.)
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 re-
pent 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 wo-
men to get jobs with reasonable pay. Back then, it was very rare that wo-
men could get a well paying job and live independently from male super-
vision, 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

4
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 di-
vorced 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: Cor-
rect 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, dis-
regarded, 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

5
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 chang-
ed, 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. BLAS-
PHEMY!!! (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 hus-
bands, 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 com-
plain crying that their husband is being a horrible tyrant. Then, those chur-
ches that teach male leadership in the home would most likely be against
the husband and say that he should treat her as an equal and make com-
promises with his wife. (Notice in the Bible a compromising Christian is
called lukewarm, see article on: The Lukewarm Church.) They can't
figure it out that in so doing they are also demanding that Christ, as the
spiritual husband of the church is supposed to compromise on 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

6
heaven. People who compromise on Gods will won't enter into the king-
dom of heaven.
Husbands are not supposed to make those types of compromises any
more than an employer should be expected to make those types of com-
promises 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 mar-
riages, in the US. (see article on: The Consequences of Women's Liber-
ation) also (see article on: The Role Of Women Throughout History)
In real life, when husbands do this type of compromise, it ends up
merely to be a denial of his leadership. And, in real life, as soon as he steps
down as leader, the wife takes over. This type of compromise is a fraud/
deception. As in a business partnership, either the one partner takes the
lead or the other partner takes the lead. The idea that both partners share
the lead equally is unrealistic, impossible and irrational. Technically, both
partners have equal authority, but in practical reality one of them must take
the lead while the other follows. Otherwise, they will have nothing but
conflict, stalemates and chaos.
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 wor-
thy 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 un-
selfishly submit herself to her husband's leadership. If this is put into prac-
tice, 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 happi-
est and most secure under the authority and protection of a loving and
mature husband.

7
 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, es-
pecially 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 ver-
ify, 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 re-
sults...... 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 lan-
guage 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.

8
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 there-
fore, 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 controver-
sy 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 ex-
ceed.... 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 indepen-
dently 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 man-

9
ner, it is painful for the wife, but not for the husband, which is the most ad-
visable way that it should be performed.) Also, notice how God establish-
ed 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 sup-
posed 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 tyrant brat 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 per-
manent 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

10
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 moder-
ation to be violence. They considered domestic chastisement with
moderation and self-control to be the antidote for violence. Without this
type of discipline, pressure, conflict and tension build and build until there's
an out-of-control 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 estab-
lished 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 Through-
out all 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 sup-
posed subordinate would just disrespectfully tell the supposed leader to get
lost. (see article on: Domestic Discipline) (see article on: The Lie of Evo-
lution)

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 exper-
ience the same disaster that most modern marriages have experienced. It
would end up even worse 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 they never consider it

11
tyrannical. (Even though it always is tyrannical. The men can't even talk
about it because it is so disgraceful. No accusation could possibly be made,
because the disgracefulness of the whole thing would be intensified, just by
calling it by what it really is.) (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 (spiritually and psychologically)
than a wife dominating her husband. See article on: Correct divorce.)
The churches should know better and yet nobody in any of the chur-
ches does anything about it. Most modern churches are filled with marriag-
es 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 in-
formed of it. Titus 2:4,5 That they may teach the young women to be so-
ber, 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. They don't even want to admit that the pro-
blem really exists, much less do anything about it.
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 want to get married, one of them must leave the
company. Those businesses know perfectly well that the modern way of
conducting marriage with both the husband and wife trying to run things us-
ually 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. How ridiculous can you get?
In competitive pair ice skating, the teachers always tell the male and
female skaters not to get romantically involved. They already know that
most romances end in disaster, so if the romance goes down the toilet, the
skating competition goes down as well. So, if the teachers want their stu-
dents to excel, they have to make sure there's no romance. The world
champion skaters Tessa Virtue and Scott Moir refuse to get romantically

12
involved. (see them on www.youtube.com) But, in countries like Russia or
China the pair skaters usually get married. They don't have this problem
over there, and their skating teachers never get worried about it. Their
marriages seem to make them skate even more in unison. Sad to say,
many people immigrate to the US looking for financial opportunity, but they
don't understand that they have to make a sacrifice. America is a romantic
and spiritual desert.

But, it is true that there does exist at least a few bosses who are in-
deed 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 em-
ployers tend to get abusive, because those laborers are easily replace-
able.)
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 em-
ployees' 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 ridi-
culously ludicrous in the workplace, have actually been accepted as normal
in modern marriages? How is it possible that such insanity could be ac-
cepted as normal and established by force as law by the US government?
The US government is butting-in where it doesn't belong with the deliberate

13
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 was
implemented 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 and
families 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 re-
sponsibility 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, peo-
ple commonly call them irresponsible or dead-beat, 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,
and at the same time making that lunacy unresolvable, by force.)
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)

14
 True marriage is dead, in America. What is called marriage in mo-
dern times is so extremely corrupted, twisted and distorted that it's an in-
justice even to call it by that name. People use the word marriage only out
of long-time 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 mo-
dern 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 over-
come those problems just by being well informed of it? Certainly not! Like-
wise, 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 proce-
dures 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 pre-
sidents 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 ar-
rangement? 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

15
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 husband/wife situation
is a myth. Even simple minded newlyweds can figure out immediately that
having two equal bosses doesn't work. Yet, the media continues to pump
society with this absurd irrational propaganda. Decisions are either one way
or the other. It's either what the one person decides or what the other per-
son decides. This is why the only possible solution is that the husband must
be a 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 compa-
nies, 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 compro-
mise 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 hus-
band 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. Or having two equal bosses in a business.
How ridiculous can you get?
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 leadership is so obvious that every couple recognize
it's impracticality almost immediately after they get married. No exceptions!!
It is obvious to even the couples of lowest intelligence. (Amazingly, despite
its obvious foolish impracticality in real life, this absurd propaganda is con-
stantly being promoted in mass media, especially on TV and in movies,

16
teaching people to accept it.) 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 simple minded (low intelligence) deception in-
tend to produce conflict, chaos, mental illness and destroy marriages. They
know perfectly well that this equality in marriage leadership is low intelli-
gence craziness.
All of this absurdity is nothing more than an illogical and ludicrous de-
nial of correct normal male authority in a marriage. God has given hus-
bands 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 re-
cognize its effect 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)
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 hus-
bands.

17
 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 accustom-
ed 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!!! Wo-
men'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 on the dock 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 under-
stand 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,..... but then it is too late. No progress can be made until the blas-
phemous Titanic of women's liberation hits an iceberg. The iceberg is out
there right now,..... and it's got the name women's liberation written all over
it.
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. Wo-
men 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 chur-
ches: 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

18
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. (see
article on: The Consequences of 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 re-
versal causes physical desire confusion in many people. In the Bible, God
rained fire down from heaven on Sodom and Gomorrah for this type of cor-
ruption, (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 BLAS-
PHEMY!!! God is the one who makes the rules! ...... Especially what hap-
pens to people after they die. (see article on: The Consequences of Wo-
men'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 in-
crease 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 his-
tory, 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. As the role of women changed, and they became
more like men, little by little, the problem of sodomy became more and more
common.
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 boss-

19
es 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 ro-
mantic 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. (Sometimes modern people even go so far as to
call that type of multiple wife marriage a brothel. Notice that in multiple wife

20
marriages the women are not prostitutes. The marriage with each wife is
life-long and clean.)
But, 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 Liber-
ation) 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 get-
ting 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. Re-

21
member, a divorce is nothing more than a declaration of separation. God
considers a divorced woman to be still married until the day her first hus-
band 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 king-
dom 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 ido-
laters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with man-
kind, 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.) Con-
cerning 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)

22
 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 symbolically com-
pared to 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 spirit-
ually 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 wed-
ding celebration and consummation usually took place about a year later.
We are now 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 Chris-
tian 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 wo-
man 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 false idol
worship. Those images of Christ are false and must not be worshiped as
though they were Christ. (Rev 2:14,20)
Furthermore, it must be recognized that at the beginning of the for-
mation of the Roman Catholic Church, at the time that the Roman political
government first stopped persecuting the Christians, there was an abun-
dance of influence from the false pagan religions, at that time. Those pagan
religions had idols of things like a virgin mother holding a savior baby. So,
when they started the Roman Catholic Church, due to the commonly ac-
cepted 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.

23
 On the plus side, the Roman Catholic Church has always had a repu-
tation 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 Thya-
tira 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 for-
nication 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 Notwith-
standing 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 vir-
ginity is exaggerated by claiming it to be eternal; they refuse to recognize
that after Jesus was born she had other children by natural means through
her husband Joseph, thereby losing her virginity after the virgin birth of
Jesus. Mark 6:3; Mat. 12:46-50)
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. She was a normal per-
son, just like anyone else who is faithful to God. Why do they insist on
making her into something that she was not? Prayers are supposed to be
directed to God, not a mortal human dead 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 per-
secution 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 (the word Catholic in Latin means
universal) which, some people say, due to the influence of the customs in
the pagan religions of their time, prohibited all church leaders (priests and

24
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 beginning of the Roman
Catholic Church, the nuns were like holy prostitutes which all the male
members and male leaders of their religion would have intercourse with, as
though they were marrying the religion. There have even been found Ro-
man Catholic Church buildings with secret rooms below for them to practice
this custom. Sometimes they even had a tunnel which went between the
priest's building to the nun's building...... and other underground dirt floor
rooms where they could bury the murdered babies which resulted from this
practice. (Who knows, maybe all of their buildings have them.) (In some of
those pagan religions, at that time, the male members would have inter-
course 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 im-
moral 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 20's and 30's when they prohibited liquor. Li-
quor 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 Ca-
tholic 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. Notice, this is not a comment about every modern Roman Ca-
tholic nun, it is about the original purpose of the custom, and the resulting
common consequences.)
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 be-
cause 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 pa-
gan religions which influenced the formation of their church at the beginning.

25
 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 rea-
son than that she had no sons. Henry wanted sons, and she produced no
sons, only daughters. (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, to be married to more than one woman at the same
time, yet only living with one. (But the US government mistakenly considers
him married to only one woman. The government is wrong and God is right.)
However, 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 expect-
ed to break up; it is adultery. (Breaking up adultery is not the same thing as
breaking up a proper marriage.) 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 contra-
dictions, is that God treats women differently than men. It must also not be

26
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 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 cor-
rect 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 ano-
ther woman instead. Mat. 19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempt-
ing 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 lead-
ers used that law incorrectly to permit men to divorce their wives for every
cause (any reason = dump). 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 hus-
band. (Mat. 19:8) (In those days men were in control of the money and it

27
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 mar-
riage and invalidate (shirk on) their wedding vows. (Even the US govern-
ment, last century, considered a divorce to be nothing more than a declara-
tion of separation, which did not end the marriage.) If a man just throws his
wife out of his house (dumps her) for any insignificant reason 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 cul-
ture 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 hus-
band just didn't like his first wife and he had been taught by the corrupt re-
ligious leaders of that time that the Law of Moses permitted him to freely
divorce his first wife for any reason. (This corruption is the equivalent of how
modern churches accept any divorced and remarried couple simply be-
cause the government has approved it. They accept the errors of the gov-
ernment more than the Word of God. The Word of God is too heavy and
inconvenient for any church in America.) 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 ano-
ther, 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

28
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 wife 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 mo-
dern church, in the US, that would not reject him, even as a visitor?
Certainly not! They would run him out the door. (Yet, they openly permit
men married to other men's wives.)
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 con-

29
text. 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 recom-
mends 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 pro-
moting 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 legal.)
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 these unhappy MCTs. Those Biblical multiple wife marriages were
much happier/healthier (mentally, emotionally and spiritually) (and more

30
pleasing to God) 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 Baptizer 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
most 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 di-
vorced. (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 govern-
ment 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 consider-
ed the wedding vows to be still binding,..... till death do they part. Govern-
ments 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, in some cases, the laws of the government are not in conflict with the
Word of God all Christians should obey the government, but when the gov-
ernment 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 govern-
ment 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

31
option permitted by God, but in no way is it obligatory by God or disobedi-
ence 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 for citizens 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 con-
cerned 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 with-
draw 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 (especially church leaders) 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 them-
selves 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)

32
 There is no sin if a church member has a profitable worldly income,
provided that it is obtained honorably and legally. However, they are in-
structed 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 covetous-
ness 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

33
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.) 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) Some modern churches even go
so far as to teach that it is not possible that a truly saved person could even
get on the wrong path. Thus, they assume that Balaam was not a truly
saved person, and certainly not a prophet of God. Yet, Balaam prophesied
part of the true Word of God. (Numbers chap. 22-24)

In the original Hebrew Old Testament, the two words translated hus-
band ( )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 au-
thority (crown) in the kingdom of God we must voluntarily make the spiri-
tual 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, sepa-
rated 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 tyran-
nical is not correct. Gal. 4:1,2 . the heir, as long as he is a child, differ-
eth 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 relation-
ship. 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

34
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 (which produces
stalemates and dead-locks) 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, con-
flict, pressure 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 re-
cipe 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. It is not logical to think that unknown
men, the keepers of the wall publicly stripped her naked and beat her.
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

35
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 dis-
cipline 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 dis-
cipline of a loving, virtuous and mature husband. When a husband applies
discipline correctly, it can seem very romantic/sexy 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 hus-
bands use when speaking to their wives? How absurd! Isnt it true that
professional football coaches are always pushy and rigorous during train-
ing?
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.

36
 Similarly, the leaders in the military are constantly giving orders. Prac-
tice, practice, practice. There is a certain feeling of security when quality
leadership is applied correctly and vigorously (pushy) with true caring at-
tention (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 be-
fore anything else, even before earthly marriage. Everything else must be-
come 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 per-
mits multiple wife marriages. (But, doesn't recommend it. The spiritual mar-
riage 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

37
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 room-
mates 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.
Or, they're like a bunch of friends who get together to play baseball. They
come and go as they please, and have fun. But they could never be con-
sidered a professional team, even if they were good enough players. All
professional teams have a coach and manager.
The modern concept that the husband and wife should share deci-
sion 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 deadlock stalemates is what would happen. Telling them
that they have to learn to make compromises is stupid absurdity that just

38
prolongs the deadlock. 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 ac-
cepted as normal in marriage? The truth is that it is only accepted as a
theory before marriage for gullible inexperienced people who don't under-
stand it. (But, children can understand it.) After every married couple start
their life together, in reality, the absurdity of this theory becomes obvious
immediately. This theory is an obvious low intelligence 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 in-
dependent and free do whatever they want. This is kind of like the old ex-
ample 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

39
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 propertyjewels, 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 repre-
sentative 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 organiza-
tion such as a marriage cannot maintain order and unity without leadership;
one must be the leader and the other the follower..... And when the hus-
band does not take that position, the wife takes it automatically. (Witchcraft)
Over a century ago, in the US, the automatic male leadership in mar-
riage 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 American legal principle of co-
verture 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

40
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 des-
tructive to good marriage; it was crazy. Notice along with the elimina-
tion 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 elimina-
ted. 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 MCT does in
real life. Rest assured, US marriages didn't fight like that when the laws of

41
coverture were in effect. Unity and independence are opposites of each
other.
Examples of how marriage unity was before the practice of coverture
was eliminated can only be found in writings from that era. In one of the
Sherlock Holmes old books, a wife was talking about her husband saying:
.....he cut himself in the bedroom, and yet I in the dining-room rushed up-
stairs instantly with the utmost certainty that something had happened.
They were so much united in spirit that she could sense in her spirit without
being present that something had happened to him,.... and indeed she was
right.
When wives have money, property or a business apart from the author-
ity 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. Hus-
bands 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 be-
tween 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 educa-
tion 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 uni-
versities can't figure out that if they eat their cake, they wouldn't be able to
preserve it?

42
 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 under-
stand very well that without a leader the twosome won't survive. It is abso-
lutely clear that without a leader there is no hope that they can stay toge-
ther long term. They both reject the ridiculous modern theory that the hus-
band 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, mis-
takenly in the name of equality, not to automatically assume the leader-
ship 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 can
not 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 Conse-
quences of Women's Liberation) Modern churches in the US do abso-
lutely 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 fel-
lowship with church members, even outside of church gatherings. Trouble
is, they are now the majority...... and all those pastors are very much in love
with all that donation money they get that makes them rich and comfortable.
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)

43
 A good example in the Bible of one of those female religious and poli-
tical leaders was queen 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 corrupt-
ing 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 talk-
ing about you the reader. This custom 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 leader-
ship 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 sup-
pression of manliness caused by witchcraft and no part of the kingdom of

44
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 exclud-
ed 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 ex-
perience. But, notice how almost everything is written poetically with meta-
phors 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 trou-
ble 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

45
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. How-

ever, 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 expect-
ed Bill not to write software for other companies anything similar to the
software he was writing for Apple. He wanted Apple to be the best. But,
when Steve discovered that the software Bill was writing for other compa-
nies was very similar to the software he was writing for Apple (too similar for
his liking),...... and that the software from those companies would be strong
competition against Apple, Steve was very angry at Bill and accused him of
not being faithful to his contract. But, he really couldn't say too much be-
cause the main conflict was over the graphical user interface, GUI, which
they both got free from Xerox.
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 com-
panies, as well. (It was understood that this would make all computer
brands compatible, thereby increasing sales for everyone.) 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 per-
son who has made long term non-virtuous habits of lying and showing no

46
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 some-
one wants to marry someone else, they are responsible to verify, over a pe-
riod 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 after-
wards.

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 modern times. Also, if
anything that was intended to be private and intimate is publicized so open-
ly, 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 mo-
vies virtuous habits are often ridiculed or excluded (not even mentioned) 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 rela-
tionship anyway are the only people capable of virtuous habits.
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.

47
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 post-
poned 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
his place. The US is corrupt, like unfertile soil which is not capable of
roducing 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 produce 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 ex-
pect 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

48
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 design-
ed 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

comments for everyone to see:

https://www.tumblr.com/blog/pastordavidministries

or e-mails: pastordavidministries@openmailbox.org
PastorDavidMinistries@protonmail.com
PastorDavidMinistries@tutanota.com

OTHER ARTICLES
at: https://www.hashdoc.com
or: https://www.scribd.com look at bottom.
Sometimes hashdoc is slow, overloaded.
BEST: Google Drive https://goo.gl/992nQY

The Holy Scriptures

http://docdro.id/aoytoK1

The Lie of Evolution

http://docdro.id/8iHTZPE

49
 What About Deborah
http://docdro.id/WZFTPRT

Fatherhood
http://docdro.id/rRBGPzi

The Role Of Women Throughout History

http://docdro.id/y5N76mt

The Consequences of Using Incorrect Terminology

http://docdro.id/iSclIFT

Domestic Discipline
http://docdro.id/1p3ZWPv

The Lukewarm Church

http://docdro.id/8yBgpqf

Correct Divorce
http://docdro.id/ACf0bzC

Baptism
http://docdro.id/A5PGGa4

The Consequences of Women's Liberation

http://docdro.id/mvyN0Kw

The New World Order was Prophesied in the Bible

http://docdro.id/8PCQUwN

Self-Love and Self-Esteem

http://docdro.id/kOEGq3w

Angels are Aliens, Aliens are Angels

http://docdro.id/88ttGOQ

Wolves In Sheep's Clothing

http://docdro.id/aFuq27A

50
 Slavery
http://docdro.id/ULokluY

The Virtues of the Spirit

http://docdro.id/rAyRmTw

The Babylonian and Egyptian Captivity

http://docdro.id/iZXZXo0

The Suffering Of The Great Depression

http://docdro.id/sUSrdWV

Salvation
http://docdro.id/FwIc0hR

Marriage Misunderstandings Explained

http://docdro.id/jPdKvu5

also at:
https://www.scribd.com

https://www.scribd.com/document/356146389/The-Holy-Scriptures-August-2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/356144766/Correct-Divorce-August-2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/356144459/Angels-Are-Aliens-Aliens-Are-Angels-
August-2017

https://www.scribd.com/document/356146540/The-Lie-of-Evolution-August-2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/356146958/The-Suffering-of-the-Great-Depression-
August-2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/356144570/Baptism-August-2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/356145036/Domestic-Discipline-August-2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/356145143/Fatherhood-August-2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/356145494/Marriage-Misunderstandings-Explained-
Aug-2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/356145716/Salvation-Aug-2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/356145838/Self-Love-and-Self-Esteem-Aug-2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/356145975/Slavery-Aug-2017

51
 https://www.scribd.com/document/356146031/The-Babylonian-and-Egyptian-Captivity-
August-2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/356146140/The-Consequences-of-Using-Incorrect-
Terminology-August-2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/356146266/The-Consequences-of-Women-s-
Liberation-August-2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/356143808/The-Lukewarm-Church-August-2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/356146746/The-New-World-Order-Was-Prophesied-
in-the-Bible-August-2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/356146846/the-role-of-women-throughout-history-
august-2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/356147021/The-Virtues-of-the-Spirit-August-2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/356147126/What-About-Deborah-August-2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/356147203/Wolves-in-Sheep-s-Clothing-August-2017

52