The Covenant Family

The Covenant Family

And the Promise of a Chosen People Published by: Jonathan Martin The 5800 Project Press 12302 Glenn River Dr. Houston, TX 77050 Copyright © 2013 by Jonathan Martin All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise in any form or by any means without the prior written consent of the Publisher, excepting brief quotes used in reviews and for the purpose of teaching.

THIS BOOK IS NOT TO BE SOLD. THE HEBREW MARRIAGE and Design are trademarks of The 5800 Project Press (USA) Inc. From The Messianic Obeisant Society of Truth Hebrew-Israelites of Greater Houston The 5800 Project Press Printed in the United States of America

We Are Beautiful People, Aren’t You Tired of Fighting?

We Should be Praising the Lord...

-the poet Lo

Table of Contents Introduction Chapter One: The Creation of Marriage Chapter Two: The Righteous Order Chapter Three: A Gender Role Reversal Chapter Four: Woman as a Deity Chapter Five: The Dynamics of Divorce Chapter Six: The Scriptural Evidenc of Polygyny Chapter Seven: Recapitulating the Family Structure Chapter Eight: Examples of Our Ancestors Chapter Nine: When the Law Commands Polygyny

Chapter Ten: The “One Flesh” Understanding of Family Chapter Eleven: My Wife the Unbeliever and the Stry of Job Chapter Twelve: A Polygynous God

Introduction

Let’s acknowledge the monster in the room. Marriages today are totally messed up. The statistics in support of the fallout, the failure of marriages in the United States, as well as elsewhere, are appalling. Even worse, despite all of the counseling and books, classes, and tricks of the trade at our disposal, there still seems to be no cure-all, no remedy, no definitive solution to ending mankind’s matrimonial slump. Why is this?

What is it about marriage in general that makes it so humongous and daunting a leap? Why do people place so much emphasis on wedding ceremonies, and all the little intricate details included with it? Why do most marriages fail? What is marriage anyway? These questions and more, along with some very important truths is what The Hebrew Marriage series is all about.

Before we can formulate any solutions, before we can pinpoint the problems, we must first identify what

marriage really is, and where it comes from. Wikipedia. com gives a definition of what marriage is that comes as close to truth as mankind can get without a scriptural understanding. It states that “marriage is a social union or legal contract between individuals that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or subculture in which it is found. Such a union may also be called matrimony, while the ceremony that marks its beginning is usually called a wedding.”

People marry for many reasons, most often including one or more of the following: legal, social, emotional, economical, spiritual, and religious. These might include arranged marriages, family obligations, the legal establishment of a plutonic family unit, the legal protection of children, and public declarations of love. Marriage practices are very diverse across cultures, taking on many forms, and are often formalized by a wedding ceremony.

The act of marriage usually creates normative or legal obligations between the individuals involved. In some societies these obligations also extend to certain family members of the married persons. Almost all cultures that recognize marriage also recognize adultery as a violation of the terms of marriage, and divorce as the legal end of the marriage contract. External recognition can manifest in a variety of ways. Some examples include the state, a religious authority, or both. Marriage is often viewed as a contract.

Ironically, the reasons why people get married,

as afore mentioned, are the very same reasons why people also divorce. So, what does Wikipedia say about divorce? “Divorce or dissolution of marriage is the final termination of marriage, canceling the legal duties and responsibilities of marriage and dissolving the bonds of matrimony between married persons.”

Wow! What a mouthful. It’s no wonder why people don’t know what they’re getting into when they say their “I do’s.” The truth is, mankind has taken something as simple as marriage and complicated it with our own thoughts, amendments, and intentions. For this cause, many people get involved with marriage contracts not fully knowing what a marriage is, and not fully prepared or equipped to make the marriage work.

Chapter One: The Creation of Marriage

To gain a complete understanding of marriage, we must first come to grips with what the Creator, who is also the creator of marriage, intended for marriage to be. His many examples of marriage throughout Scripture give us in-depth insight into what has been ordained, and what has been forbidden. Once we completely remove ourselves and our thoughts out of the equation, the true definition of marriage can be absorbed.

For example, some people will argue that the Most High did not ordain divorce, or polygamy. They believe that He only “tolerated” the two practices because of certain loop-holes in the Written Law that some men found and manipulated. Now, would the Creator allow mankind to manipulate Him or an institution He has ordained? Would He create something that is imperfect?

Would He allow man to corrupt His way and go unpunished? Would a righteous man knowingly and willfully

pervert a righteous institution? I think not.

The misapplication of Scripture has made the waters rancid for all believers around the world, since the beginning. And with all of the modern-age distractions, contortions, and socially acceptable misbehavior, it is no wonder why the social bonds of mankind are diminishing.

Come and take a journey with us, as well delve into the true ordination of marriage. Discover what the Bible truly says about marriage, and how it is to work, as we examine the first marriage, perfect marriages throughout the Bible timeline, and seek to understand what the New Testament writers were trying to convey.

What the Most High Prescribed

“It is not good for man to be alone...” These words, uttered by Yah, the Most High, began the creation of the marriage union. He spoke the institution into existence even before the creation of the woman (whom Adam was to marry). From the beginning, the Most High had intended for man to be with woman in a social union. He spoke against homosexuality in Scripture, as He also forbid man from all other forms of union, but man and woman were designed to be compatible and complimentary to each other.

Not even the animals were we allowed to unite, according to Scripture; nor the fabrics that made up our

clothing. We weren’t allowed to mix with our neighboring nations, or mix weights, or seeds in the field. Even day was designed to be separated from the night, and light from darkness. Only with mankind and womankind was there strict permission to unite.

The Three Steps of Marriage

Marriage in the Bible realm happened in three separate and necessary steps. The first step was the engagement. There were many reasons why people were first betrothed to each other before they got married. Several places in Scripture mention a “betrothal” agreement or “vow” between some male and female persons. The second step to marriage was the officiating of a marriage covenant. This was usually accompanied by a marriage ceremony, where the families of the marrying persons would meet and eat and celebrate the union. Lastly, was the consummation of the marriage through the act of sex.

An example in Scripture that proves that an engagement vow was common among the Hebrews can be found in Deuteronomy 22:22-24.

“If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel. If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in

the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die… because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife…”

There is no extraneous word in Scripture. This passage of Scripture clearly differentiates between a “married” woman and a “betrothed” woman. But, both women are still a man’s wife. The Most High, through Moses, is making it clear here that married women and engaged women are both bound by the same marriage stipulation.

Sex is not a Marriage Covenant

Many will argue that in the Bible days, in order to be married, two people simply needed to have sex.

They say that the act of sex binds two people together, and therefore, they have become “One Flesh,” husband and wife. This caveman mentality counterfeits the marriage partnership arrangement. The Most High did not intend for Tarzan to go around hitting hapless Jane over the head with a wooden club. The fact is, Yah intended for marriage to be a public act of commitment through a covenant. Secretive sexual encounters were strictly forbidden, and it was only because such encounters did happen, that men were required to marry those girls after having sex with them.

A virgin will remain a virgin even after her wed-

ding day until the time when she and her husband come together to consumate the marriage. The act of sex and the marriage covenant are two separate things. Adam and Eve were husband and wife even before they had sex. According to Scripture, Adam called Eve his wife before they came together to conceive Cain.

Proof of marriage not being the act of sex can be found in many places throughout Scripture. For the sake of time, we will discuss this one. In Matthew 1:18-19, Scripture reads, “When his [Yahoshua’s] mother was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child... Then Joseph, her husband... sought to divorce her privately.”

So, Joseph and Mary had not yet had sex, but Scripture still calls him her husband, and he had the legal authority to dissolve the marriage through divorce.

Betrothed women and married women were both held accountable to the same marriage law. Sexual relations outside of a marriage covenant is called fornication, or adultery if the woman was married or betrothed to some other man. Only because in some instances, women who were neither married nor engaged were having sex, the law required these men to marry these girls.

But why? Why did the Law instruct men marry the damsels they had sex with? The simple answer is – to protect the women. We will explain the reasons for this protection in a later chapter.

The Three Stages of Divorce

In the same way marriage is initiated in three separate and necessary stages, so also is true of divorce.

The process of divorce began with a “putting away” of the spouse, or a separation agreement.

According the Law, men were allowed to put their wives away if they found something displeasing about them. This separation could last for as long as the spouses wanted it to. If, after a separation agreement has been enacted, the marriage could not be reconciled, the marriage can be completely ended with a “Bill of Divorcement.” Then the man must send the woman away and his obligation to her is completed. The Putting Away, the Issuance of the Divorce Decree, and the Sending Away are the three stages of Divorce. We will discuss divorce in more detail in a later chapter.

Multiple Wives and Concubines in Scripture

Much controversy has arisen about the nature of plural marriage and concubines in Scripture. But, before we open the floor for a heated debate over whether polygamy was, is, or should be an acceptable practice, let’s just look at what a plural marriage and a concubine was in the Bible day. We will discuss what Scripture and the

Most High have to say about “polygyny” later on.

Many men throughtout the Bible realm had more than one female sexual partner. These men acquired additional female partners through marriage, as a wife, or as a concubine. Concubines came about through the acquisition of a debt, as a maidservant, a bondmaid, or even as a spoil of war. Let’s note the differences.

A wife received a marriage contract. A concubine generally did not receive a contract, and was considered the human property of the man she served and had sex with. Maidservants were women that tended to the feminine needs of men’s wives and did other tasks in the household. They were usually acquired through marriage agreements, the “bride’s maids.” If their mistress was barren, or did not want to bear children, the maidservant could be given to her mistress’s husband.

Any child she conceived was considered that of her mistress.

Bond maids were typically the property of a man or woman that were acquired as the payment of a debt.

They could be temporary property, or become permanent property, and they were echanged by their families to cover the costs of debts or endowments.

For instance, if a man dung a pit, and his neighbor’s cow fell into the pit and died, the owner of the pit might instruct his daughter to work for the man whose cow was killed in order to reimburse the man for the economic loss of his cow. The two men would draft a bond agreement, and the girl would be exchanged.

But don’t fret ladies, men were exchanged as

well. Read the following examples from Scripture: “Exo 21:7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.”

“Exo 21:30 If there be laid on him a sum of money, then he shall give for the ransom of his life whatsoever is laid upon him.”

“Exo 22:3 If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.”

“Deu 15:12 And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee. “ “Deu 20:13-14 And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.”

“Deu 21:10-13 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she

shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.”

A captive was a female slave seized during war times. While maidservants, bondmaids, and captives could become concubines or wives, at the man’s discretion, wives could not be demoted to a lesser status, (Exo 21:10) nor was a woman of a lesser status able to be demoted, but, in whatever other status a woman belonged to her man the man had the power to delegate if he so chose.

The man was free to bare children through these additional female partners, and they fell under his dominion in a hierarchy of their own, starting with his wives, and proceeding downward in rank from concubines to bondmaids. Scripture doesn’t make mention of any further hierarchal structure, such as first wife or second wife like in Mormon plural marriages.

It doesn’t appear, for example, that Leah had any more rights, privileges, or ruling authority than Rachael.

Wives did, however, have dominion over concubines, which were usually their own handmaid or a captive her husband had born children with. We could endeavor to say, as some instances in Scripture imply, that married women also had dominion over female servants. These lesser women were even given to the husband by the

wife as an extension of her glory, which was the case for Sarah with Hagar, and Leah and Rachael with Zilpah and Bilhah.

Chapter Two: The Righteous Order

The Most High prescribed a set rule in which man was to govern himself and everything under his dominion - the entire lot of creation. This is what is meant when saying “the Righteous Order.” Yah commanded man to “multiply, replenish the earth, and subdue it.”

It is in accordance with this righteous order innately programmed into all men, why men desire to multiply. This command to “multiply” can be understood simply: have sex, bare numerous children. The dynamics of multiplication in this sense requires three attributes: a multiplier, a multiplicand, and a product.

Yah commanded man to use the things around him, his dominion, his environment, his instinctive driving nature, and his woman, to be a producer. This is how man glorifies Yah, by producing multiple children to replenish and subdue the earth; by sowing seeds and producing the yield of the earth. Yah therefore pro-

grammed into the nature of a woman to be a helpmeet for the man; to help her man meet this most basic and ongoing a task- to help man be productive in the multiplying of his kind to replenish and subdue the earth.

No one thing in creation produces on its own, without some form of help; in and of itself. So Yah, knowing that man could not fulfill his duty to produce on his own created the woman, a creature unmatched in her ability to nurture, console, and help her mate to be productive. This was the sole purpose for the creation of the woman. She was man’s companion for the work of multiplying, replenishing and subduing the earth. “Therefore, a non-productive man, regardless of how handsome or strong or smart he is, soon becomes unattractive in a woman’s eyes if he cannot or will not produce.” – Louis Farrakhan.

In the beginning, Adam was given full ruling authority over Eve, Genesis 3:16. Yah had given the Law to the man, and said for him to give it to the woman, but when Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden, Yah had to reiterate His righteous order. The Bible says that after God created the man, He gave the man power and dominion over the fowls of the air, the fish of the sea, and every creeping thing that crawled upon the earth. So, if Yah gave man power and dominion, then a man must exercise power and dominion, especially in his own house with the members and property of his household. The hierarchy can be defined as such: Yah rules over man; man rules over woman; woman rules over her children; and mankind over the rest of cre-

ation.

In a marriage in a family construct, each partner and member has a crucial role to fulfill, and, as it was in the olden days, it is still necessary to maintain these roles in a marriage, if we ever expect to live in a family environment.

We fail to realize that it was the Most High, and not man, that designated gender roles. The Bible says in Genesis that the Most High made woman to be man’s companion and helper. He placed in woman a capacity to be submissive, nurturing, and compassionate. Furthermore, after man’s downfall in the Garden, the Most High further subjugated the woman, to a role of domination, where she was to be ruled over by men. Let’s explore the reasons why.

For starters, it was the woman, Eve, that was beguiled by the serpent to eat of the forbidden fruit.

In other writings, like the Testament of Reuben, we are warned that women are more given to seducing spirits than men, and thus, sins of the flesh. To these spirits and sins, women are more easily influenced than men.

Satan had to, by necessity, approach Eve to cause man’s ultimate sin. Had he come to Adam directly, he would have been shut down. So, by Yah placing the woman under man’s rule, she would have protection from not only physical dangers, but also from the spiritual and immoral lures of the devil.

The man, taking on the role of his wife’s father, could correct her if she were to stray away or into something that she might not perceive as an attack by the

Adversary. Under man’s rule, she might not have the freedom she desires, but she certainly won’t blithely wander into deceit.

To this extent, the dynamics of the marriage institution in ancient times have been wrongly portrayed as sexist and restrictive to women. Proponents of the idea that women should be free of man’s (which is really Yah’s) restrictions preach that a woman and man are equals, intellectually, socially, and literally, despite the obvious physical inabilities of womankind, as compared to men. The Feminist Revolution in America has taken the woman out from under the covering, protection, and rule of the man, and allowed her the freedom to exercise a right of dominion that she did not have in the past – that the Most High did not approve or condone for her; that has been allotted only to the man.

A Blast From the Past

In Biblical times, when a Hebrew man wished to have the hand of a Hebrew woman in marriage, he or some member of his family would visit the father of his future bride to discuss the proceedings that would be necessary for her hand.

During this meeting he would explain his intent, and the price he would have to pay for his bride would be negotiated. (The Dowry of Virgins, Exo 22:17) If an agreement was made between the father and the

groom, the groom then made a visit to his intended bride to present himself to her with plans of their future commitment to each other, should their desires be mutual.

Upon presenting to her his plans, and seeing her response, he would pass a cup of wine to her. This was the moment of truth for their course of action. To drink of the cup would be her acceptance to his proposal and a lifelong commitment to him. To pass on the cup would end the relationship.

This moment in her life was very important. To drink from the cup meant betrothal, the establishment of a marriage vow, and she was set apart exclusively for her husband. The groom’s promise or vow would sound similar to this passage of Scripture, taken from John 14:1-3.

“Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father’s house are many rooms: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.”

The moment she drank from the cup her intentions were clear, and when the price was paid, the vow was sealed. She was betrothed to him, separated from the world as she then waited for his return. She was not officially his wife, but she was then a bride in waiting who the groom could then divorce, if any unfavorable thing arise.

The groom would then return to his father’s

house to prepare the bridal chamber (the Huppah) and the bride continued waiting until word came from the groom’s relatives or best man that the preparations were complete and the groom was on his way.

The betrothal, which took place some time before the marriage, was a kind of solemn marriage contract, but preliminary to its final consummation. During this time of preparation, which could be a day, a week, a month, a year or longer, the bride would wait and put together her wedding dress, in preparation for her groom’s return. During his absence she wore a veil to cover her head and face, a symbol of her set-apartness, and would not be seen by other suitors.

Her commitment was played out during this waiting period and none were allowed to interfere. Her bride’s maids sought to her every needs during this time, the costs of which were usually covered by the dowry which the groom’s family paid. The bride was prepared for her husband by day, and waited at night with her lamp light on in anticipation of his coming, listening for the shout, night after night, not knowing when or at what moment he would come.

When the preparations for the bridal chamber were finished according to her father’s approval, a torchlight procession led by the groom, with his “Best Man” and members of the groom’s wedding party proceeded to the home of the bride to claim his waiting wife. This event usually happened at night and the bride needed to be ready at a moment’s notice, for her only announcement came by a shout from the best man.

The bridesmaids, who often held candles, awaited the coming of the groom with the bride and accompanied her to the marriage feast. They were usually virgins and would become the property of the groom during the marriage ceremony. Brides from wealthy families usually had quite a few bridesmaids. They stayed with the bride indefinitely, rather than returning back to the bride’s father’s household. This was one way the groom acquired handmaids and/or concubines. They were covered as part of the dowry he paid for his wife.

The marriage feast was a celebration of the conjoining of the two households, and after a big dinner the bride and groom were escorted to and from, all around the town at night in a palanquin, a portable enclosed bed carried with poles on the shoulders of four or more persons. These percessions would usually include all the bride’s maids, groom’s men, friends and family of both sides, and music, marching down the streets by candlelight with the people announcing the names of the married couple.

After the official dinner and parade of the marriage ceremony were completed, the married couple was escorted to the huppah, where the father had prepared the bridal chamber. They would consumate the marriage and the bride remained hidden within the Huppah for seven seven days of uncleanliness, after which the Groom brought her out unveiled. Now the people could see the bride without the veil as she joined the groom’s family and became acquainted with the people she would spend the rest of her life with.

The circumstances of the parable of the ten virgins were taken from the marriage customs among the Hebrews.

“Matt 25:1 -7 Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.

And five of them were wise, and five were foolish.

They that were foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them: But the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps.

While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept.

And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him.

Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps.”

In ancient times, a female child was betrothed to a man by the time she had her first menstrual cycle.

The girl’s father would give his female child away to a man, who was often a close friend of the family (who had probably been promised the girl’s hand in marriage since her birth,) and her new husband would adopt her, taking on the role of her father. This act of “giving ones daughter away” is actually where the symbolism we still practice today in wedding ceremonies comes from. The “giving away” of a girl to a man signifies that this new man has vowed to adopt the father role over the female child, bringing her into his house where she continues to do what she had been brought up doing. She helped in her father’s household, and now she would do the

same for her husband.

It should come as no surprise then, that a woman’s role to her husband in ancient times was similar to a daughter’s role to her father. This resulted in part from the extreme age difference between men and women at the time of their marriage. Although it may seem strange to us, most women were married off between the ages of thirteen to seventeen years of age, to men that were generally between thirty and fifty years old.

In the westernized world we live in today, marriage and sexual relations with a girl as young as thirteen years old seem strange and would land a man in prison. Historically, however, mothers would train their female children from the days of their youth to serve in a household, passing down traditional customs of how to cook, clean, sew, care for children (mainly through caring for their younger siblings), and would probably explain to the girls the mechanics and physics of sexual relations.

Modern Marriage, Modern Woman

Not withstanding that this is how marriage was in the Bible realm, during a time when the Hebrews’ marriage traditions were in accordance with Yah’s righteous order, the modernized, fully liberated, independentminded, feminist, idealistic woman this culture perpetuates would rather have a career than be a homemaker.

She wants to have a social life outside of the home or family structure, and she desires to be successful in the new business industrial commercial age. She no longer wants to submit to the rule of a man, for she has been taught that she is now man’s equal; a mutual partner in the modern relationship hierarchy. Women now see themselves as man’s co-ruler, but this idea can be found nowhere in Scripture.

Chapter Three: A Gender Role Reversal

In a society like ours, which has passed laws that empower women to strive to be man’s equal, we have seen gender roles swop, because the woman has rebelled against her true nature to nurture, and the man does not have the knowledge or means to establish and maintain his own rule, or cope with women, empowered by the radicalization of the Feminist Movement.

The woman in turn, has used her newly attained status as an “equal” to put the man into a condition where she can gain the upper hand over him, asserting herself as the ruler of a dominion that includes her man, complete with her own household, and she purposefully involves herself only in relationships where she can have total control.

Even further, radical liberated woman has now convinced herself that she is man (a producer), and not only his equal. Many millions of women have turned to

homosexuality. They dress in the attire of men, act accordingly, and even seduce feminine women into being their wives. This deviance from the course of proper human sexuality has created an immoral and reprobate influence amongst the expanse of black culture. This socalled “new age” movement is known as androgyny.

A Brief Understanding of Androgyny

Androgynous men and women are becoming more prevalent in today’s society and are the latest progeny of the Feminist Liberation Movement. Their right to “come out of the closet” is often even more protected by the mainstream society than the rights of regular, feminine woman or people of color.

Androgyny refers to the style of dress and appearance of those who have combined both masculine and feminine traits; a kind of unified gender that defies social roles, psychological attributes associated with gender, and the natural separation of the sexes as prescribed by the law of Yah. Being androgynous has taken on a much trendier meaning in the twenty-first century. It has become hip for people to experiment with an androgynous lifestyle.

It allows them to comfortably incorporate the best of both worlds: to have the rulership of man’s dominion, along with the right of woman’s liberation. Androgyny has become more than just a fashion. Men have begun

to disguise themselves as women, and women as men.

It is sometimes difficult for normal men and women to determine their actual gender.

These people have actually deceived themselves into thinking they are of the opposite gender, despite their psysiological reminders of the contrary, and these so-called “trans-sexuals” are compelled to promote this lifestyle through the media to other non-homosexual, non-androgynous people. Gay and lesbian couples can even adopt chldren!

For evidence of this social prevalence to bring androgyny to the masses, we need only turn on the television. Shows like House Hunters, ABC, MTV, and the OWN Network openly support homosexuality and transgenderism. Their effectiveness has succeded in changing the legal definition and acceptable of marriage and morality, a paradigm that results in a culture-wide psycho-sociological shift in the understanding of the pairing bonds of man and woman.

People that encounter these androgynous and homosexual advocates find themselves outmaneuvered and overwhelmed by others that defend and promote a lifestyle of abnormal human relationships, with the socio-political legislative support that protects them.

This system of heinous and deplorable deceit is a total rebellion against Yah. And androgyny and homosexuality have spread comparatively like an outbreak of a virus, where each infected person leaves in their wake a trail of other infected people, all stemming from the Liberation Movement

that first liberated the woman.

Powers of the Feminist Revolution

Women that live in liberated westernized states enjoy many of the freedoms denied to women that live in cultures of subjectivity. There is no stigma against having multiple sexual partners, and they have access to various other powers and privileges that persist to keep them, and the family structure in chaos.

On the contrary, in many Muslim countries, for instance, women are not allowed to own property, receive their father’s inheritance, participate in politics, attend college, or even walk down the street, in some extreme instances, without the accompaniment of a man.

But, as absurd as this may seem, women are actually safer by these standards - less prone to predation by men. Women are raped less often; they are not having children out of wedlock, or having sex with any and every man they choose. Their virginity is guarded and maintained until marriage. Chastity among women is held to high esteem by their families. Dishonoring themselves could even have them killed!

Feminist revolutionaries will always argue this point - that they shouldn’t have to trade in their freedom for protection, but this, their “freedom,” comes at the cost of the man’s dominion, and has further complicated the righteous order by extending to the man many

rules brought into law by the powers of the Feminist revolution; the very same restrictions and confines that women sought to free themselves from - that once only women had to endure. If, by one law, man has rulership over woman, then the laws that free women only do so by limiting the rulership of the man. This has proven disastrous for marriage and the family structure. How? By placing on man the burden of having to submit to the laws that liberate women, what has come of that is a complete shift in the power structure; a complete gender role reversal.

Think back to what the Righteous Order is. Yah rules over man, man rules over the woman, women rule over their children, and mankind over the whole lot of creation. The prophet Isaiah writes in Isaiah Chapter 3 verse 12 that “ women rule over them [men].” This goes against the very nature in which Yah has designed us, for a woman cannot respect a man that she rules over.

For her dominion is over children, and before she can rule over the man, he must first become her child.

Broken Family Homes

The prophet Isaiah further reveals some interesting things about the dynamics of our unhealthy and abnormal family structure.

Isaiah 3:12 “As for my people, children are their oppres-

sors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.”

Isaiah 42:22 “But this is a people robbed and spoiled; they are all of them snared in holes, and they are hid in prison houses: they are for a prey, and none delivereth; for a spoil, and none saith, Restore.”

Isaiah 51:20 Isa 51:20 “Thy sons have fainted, they lie at the head of all the streets, as a wild bull in a net: they are full of the fury of the LORD, the rebuke of thy God.” In our societal paradigm, African-American youths kill each other in the streets and are carted away to prison in disturbing numbers. This is a direct result of our Trans-Atlantic slavery experience and the programming which we received afterwards, which has caused further crumbling of our family dynamics.

Slaves were, at one time, forbidden to marry. We were regularly regarded as beasts, equal to that of a man’s livestock; even made to procreate like breeding horses. Our children were sold into slavery; men were far removed from the family construct, and women were left vulnerable to predation and exploitation by white slave owners who raped and pillaged them.

The absence of black men left women having to fulfill the man’s role as protector and guardian. Willie Lynch, infamous slave owner and mathematician, explained that by entreating male slaves to horrific tor-

ture and death, the women would instinctually seek to protect their children. So, in removing her reliance on the black man, by removing him from the home, she becomes the ruler, and usurps dominion over the entire household.

After suffering the many atrocities of Trans-Atlantic slavery, the postbellum abolitionist world ensured that black families, already in disarray, would never be mended or repared. Plantation owners and others that had once profited so much from the exploitation and misuse of blacks now saw them as pitiful pests. Black men that attempted to enter the workforce were, for the most part, completely uneducated, penniless, and solely dependent on the handouts and generosity of their white neighbors.

Freed slaves meant that the backbone of economies was no more, and carefully calculated maneuvers at holding black men down were commonplace. Living as indentured servants or untrained migrant workers, blacks had been completely and utterly maimed. Black men, those that survived the Jim Crow days, did not possess the necessary tools, neither intuitive nor mechanical, to sustain themselves or support their households.

For this cause, black women had to go to work as housekeepers in the homes of whites, or work as prostitutes, or in some other service capacity. While working for these white women, who themselves desired to attend college, serve in the military, and be free from under the burden of white men, black women began to

gleam independence from black men. And, when white women finally achieved their liberation, via the Woman’s Liberation Movement, the doors were also opened for black women, who had learned and adopted the radical liberationist mindset of the white woman, leaving the black man behind.

A Generational Curse

You may ask, as many have also argued, why black men have faired so poorly in the world? How has the black man been left behind or held back? The answer is so simple.

We have been trodden down so long, so indoctrinated by the lies of our oppressors, so convinced of our inferiority, so assimilated into the dominant culture, that we have lost our way, the way of the Most High, and now we “grope about, as the blind gropeth in darkness, never prospering in our ways: and only oppressed and spoiled evermore,” Deut. 28:29.

Louis Farrakhan spoke that “the only way we can be free is to break the magnetic attraction between the black man and the nation that is our oppressor. We have to stop ourselves from looking to him who has done everything in his power to destroy us to fulfill our needs.”

We must find this fulfillment in Yah and each other.

Although we may find ourselves disagreeing on many of the issues presented in this book, one thing we

should be able to conclusively agree about is the broken and oppressed condition of our people. We are racially marginalized, disproportionately unemployed, sick, impoverished, incarcerated, and systematically and socially engineered by the supernatural powers of government, economics, politics, and the media to remain quiet, subservient, and totally disenfranchised in the nations where we currently reside.

We are deprived of culture, knowledge of self, knowledge of the Creator, and a legitimate means of an educational and economic system to provide this sustenance. Black men are disproportionately represented as uneducated, effeminized, and criminally inclined by the same supernatural powers that be. As a result, the youth embody these ideologies and perpetuate these curses from generation to generation. The dire need for an immediate and significant change should not be a matter of debate.

We deserve a human identity and cultural inheritance that is not predetermined by a slave master or socially engineered buffoonery, employed by the same entity which underhandedly funds the perpetuation of black inferiority concepts. Our responsibility to our brothers, sisters, mothers, and fathers is self-preservation. There must be an organized means of providing sustenance for our own.

We are obliged by the Creator to do this, despite our differences. The book of 1 Timothy 5:8 reads, “And if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his own household, he has denied the belief and

is worse than an unbeliever.”

Blacks need an alternative to the street life and the blood-thirsty corporate world which statistically testifies of its racism and its unworkable nature for black men, who are three times more likely not to be hired than whites. The black household must be rebuilt, and not even the Creator would encourage us to do otherwise. If we don’t do it, who will? Can we stand by and watch the system devour the moral fabric of our children? If we do, we are equally as guilty.

Chapter Four: Woman as a Deity

Throughout human history, many cultures, all inspired by Satan, have worshipped womankind, adulating her position of rulership and power. She was seen as the bearer of life, the fountain of blood and water, and her vagina was revered as the source of all things good and evil for its ability to drive all men - the powerful, the wise, and the strong - mad. It had the power to create and destroy.

“Queen of Heaven” worship began with Nimrod’s wife Semiramis. Nimrod was the first man to be worshipped as a man-god-king. His wife was praised in the same way. After Esau killed Nimrod, Semiramis inherited his throne and power. She was perhaps, the first ruling queen in human history.

In some historical contexts, Semiramis is also said to be Nimrod’s mother. Many ancient pagan cultures practiced this custom, of the son marrying his mother.

The mythological story of the Greek king Oedipus tells a tale of a boy killing his father and marrying his mother.

This is a form of ascension, for as his mother becomes his wife, he in turn, has no parents, validating his sovereignty as a deity.

In the movie, “The Matrix,” Morpheus and Trinity are shown standing over Neo once he was unplugged and transferred out of the machine world. Neo burst out of an amniotic sack, passed through a water way (a birthing channel) and was brought into the real world.

(The robotic arm that plucked him out of the water even looked similar to an umbilical cord.)

“We have done it,” Morpheus gasped, as he and Trinity peered down at Neo. Neo was a baby in the real world, as Neo literally translates to “new” in Latin. Morpheus, taking on the role of his adopted father, had to teach Neo about the Matrix. If Morpheus was thus his father, then Trinity was definitely his mother, for it takes both a man and a woman to bring forth a child. This is why he said, “We have done it.”

Notice that during the course of the movie, Neo and Trinity hook up and eventually get married. The trilogy ends with Neo giving his life to save all of mankind.

The close parallel of this movie’s story to that of Yahoshua the Messiah is not by coincidence; it is by design.

And the prevalence of “Queen of Heaven” worship has been brought to recognition in every aspect of Westernized society.

You Shall Be “Like God”

The serpent told Eve that she would be “like God” if she ate of the forbidden fruit. If the woman had not sinned, she would always have obeyed man with humility and meekness, and her domination (her subjection) would have been no grievance to her. But her sin gave her the awareness to perceive that she was in some way “inferior” to man. This inferiority complex she learned was the result of Satan’s trickery.

The knowledge she obtained by eating the fruit opened her mind up to the endless possibilities of her freedom and liberation. She had acquired the necessary analytical tools to make decisions for herself; seemingly without consequence. After all, she was now “like god.”

She was now in a position of power with no need to answer to anyone about anything.

It became an imperative of Yah to put woman back in her place. As He could not, rather - did not, usurp from her the knowledge she had so vehemently coveted, He opted to tell her where she belonged, to put her back into her place in the righteous order. This He saw the need to do directly, and is the only time in Scripture that Yah ever gave the law directly to the woman. “…and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee,” Yah told Eve. Sin and folly make our obligation to obey Yah’s commandments and statutes

hard to bear. If Eve had not eaten the forbidden fruit, and tempted her husband to eat it, womankind would never have complained about their subjection.

You see, the beguilement the devil pulled, the lie he told, the trick he played on the woman was making her think that she did not have to be ruled over, regardless of who the ruler was, for a god is the highest ruling authority. He didn’t tell her that she would be “like man,” ruling over women, but subject still to Yah, but that she would be like “Yah,” ruling with insuperable dominion.

Yah had other plans for womankind, and regardless of her status, acquired wealth, knowledge, or any political power she might have assumed, she was always going to be ruled over because that was the nature of her design.

So, in letting her keep the knowledge she coveted Yah made having to submit a harsh punishment, therefore, it ought never to be complained of. Women who despise and disobey the commandment to submit to their husbands, who also domineer over them or seek to have rulership of their own, do not realize that they not only violate a divine law, but also thwart a divine sentence. They are living in total rebellion against Yah. Furthermore, Yah tells the woman that she shall from now on give birth in pain. Why? In trying to be “like Yah,” the woman was trying to take Yah’s dominion and inheritance from Him. So, because she sought to take Yah’s dominion from Him, the only way for her to have her own dominion was by giving birth to it in great

pain; a constant reminder of where her place was to be in the hierarchy of the righteous order.

Satan’s Deception Prevails

Satan’s fall from grace was due to his rebllion against Yah. He did not want to surrender his rulership over to mankind. “Why should I bow down to man,” Satan asked Yah in defiance. “He is a lesser being that I. He should bow down to me.”

Satan himself coveted Yah’s highest authority, and because Yah casted him out of heaven (the highest heaven mind you) Satan has made it his personal quest to get man to submit to anything and anyone but Yah. “Since I can’t have your dominion, you Yah cannot have it either...”

This is why Yah so explicitly talks about idolatry and idol worship in the Scriptures. He knew that Satan was trying to corrupt mankind’s way, by getting him to serve idols to profane Yah and take away Yah’s dominion. We perpetuate this great sin even to this day.

Take an in-depth look at western wedding traditions, for instance. The man bends down onto one knee to propose to his woman. This is an act of reverence to a god, for he has lowered himself to her, elevating her to a higher ruling authority over him in the righteous order hiearchy. He places his future and all he has into her

hands, under her dominion, and awaits her decision. she has total ruling power then to decide the outcome of the relationship. And once this power dynamic is established, she rules the relationship and the man forever.

Many people are depicted worshipping the ancient gods, goddesses and kings of Egypt, Persia, Babylon, Assyria, Greece, and Rome kneeling down on one knee the very same way. Look at some Egyptian hieroglyphs.

The wedding ceremony itself is a big fiasco. The man is usually standing in the front of the chapel, and when the woman enters, everyone has to stand and honor the nobility of the woman, who is decorated with a train that symbolizes her royalty, a veil for her holiness and purity; she is announced with a pompous interlude, and she walks a path laden with flower pedals. She is the centerpiece of the whole event. This custom is the same pagan “Queen of Heaven” worship that was required for Semiramis.

The Roman Catholic Church practices “Queen of Heaven” worship along this same paradigm. The Virgin Mary is held to higher esteem than Yahoshua, the Messiah, even though Catholics purport to follow the Bible; and the Messiah was clearly the central figure of the New Testament. Some of Semiramis’s known counterparts around the world are Innana, Ishtar, Isis, Astarte, Iswara, Cybele, and the Statue of Liberty.

Lady of Liberation?

The Statue of Liberty is the symbolic representation of America. She stands as “Lady Liberty” or “Lady of Liberation.” Her depiction is that of Nimrod’s wife Semiramis.

We must ask ourselves what we have really been liberated from. We are so “free” in America, so what have we been freed from? Great Britain perhaps? The American Revolution, the nation’s fight to be free from the unfair taxations Great Britain was imposing on the colonists, is assumed to have freed us from England, but it did not free us from taxation. We still pay numerous unjustified taxes, we are not free from the laws that are mirror images of the laws of England, we are not free from a utilitarian form of government. So what does this “Lady of liberty” remind us we are liberated from?

The answer is: Yah’s Laws. Many Bible prophets discuss the similarities between the Great Whore and womankind. We learn in Revelation that the Great Whore is not a person, but a nation, anthropomorphized to depict her sinful nature, (Rev 17:18). “This is her representation throughout all the earth,” some translations of Zechariah 5:12 read.

Egyptian obelisks, like the Washington Monument in Washington DC, which represent the male sexual organ, allude to the act of sexual intercourse (or fornication) between the Great Whore and the nations

of the earth. Freedom from Yah’s divine law, the Torah, has given Americans the opportunity to make their own law, rulership of the people, by the people, without any regard to what was prescribed by Yah. As this refers to modern women, whom have been liberated, they have no desire to fulfill their obligation of subjectivity. No king would willingly surrender his throne to live as a servant. America has given women the right and opportunity to ascend to the throne of rulership and they no longer care to live according to the righteous order. When they cannot find a man who will live as subject to them, these liberated, androgynous women resort to pursuing other women and their “independent woman” mindset.

Chapter Five: The Dynamics of Divorce

Let’s switch gears for a moment. It should be obvious that with all of the discrepancies people have concerning marriage, that the concept of divorce would also be trivial. Therefore, it is befitting to discuss what exactly divorce is, who can divorce, and how it all works.

The first and most important question we should ask is “Did the Most High even allow for married couples to divorce?” The short answer is yes, definitely, for Scripture explicitly says in Deut. 24:1-4 that “if a man find no favor in his wife that he could divorce her, and that she could go and be some other man’s wife.”

What is amazing is how men like to add extra restrictions on women. Some teach that a woman cannot remarry while her former husband is still alive, or that she was not able to issue her husband a bill of divorce.

On the contrary, although it was unusual for women to serve a writ of divorce to their husbands (mostly be-

cause she did not have an inheritance and could not own any property) women were allowed to issue writs of divorce to their husbands. Also, no restriction can be found in Scripture that prohibits a woman from marrying again, even while her former husband is still alive.

Putting Away Versus Sending Away

I have stated clearly that there are three stages to both Marriage and Divorce. Also, that mankind has conbined all of these steps into one act, and thus taken the entire concept of the marriage covenant out of context.

We should have gained a skillful insight into the dynamics of marriage from the previous chapters. I suggest thet each person that reads this book does so from Chapter one through the end. From the foundation we have established on what marriage is, we can begin to understand how divorce is supposed to work.

Let’s gleam a better understanding b addressing specific examples from the Scriptures.

In Malachi 2:16, the Bible says that Yah hated the “putting away” of wives. This concept of “putting away,” which we discussed briefly before, has an even deeper understanding. Recall what we mentioned as the three stages of divorce; putting away, issuance of the writ, and finally the sending away. Married couples were permitted to separate from each other under the Written Law.

During this separation, which was similar in ways to being legally separated today, the man and the woman could live in separate places while they sought to reconcile their differences. If they could reconcile, they would come back together and their marriage would continue.

If they could not or did not want to reconcile, they could issue each other writs of divorce and go their separate ways.

So why then did Yah hate the putting away if He allowed it? Well, Scripture says that Moses allowed men to put away their wives, but from the beginning it was not so. In putting away their wives, men began to deal treacherously with their women. Some men would separate from their wives, never intending to reconcile with them, and would only leave them in a state of limbo, staying separated from them forever.

In doing this, the women could never remarry because they would be guilty of adultery. The men, however, could freely take on new brides. This was a treacherous act to Yah. The New Testament writers explain this “putting away” debacle further.

The Chief Priests once came to Yahoshua to discuss divorce and the putting away, in accordance with the Law. Matt 19:3 -9 “The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.”

Now, it would seem that in this instance, Yahoshua is saying something that goes against the Law of Moses. Namely, that Moses allowed men to “put away” their wives, but Yah perhaps had not intended for such.

However, the error in this passage of Scripture is not with Moese or Yahoshua; it is in the translation, either by mistake or intent.

The New Testament does not stay true to the three stages of divorce, although it does stay true to the three stages of marriage. What!? An error in the New Testament translation! That’s absurd right. Right? Let’s look at another instance of the same encounter where Yahoshua seems to say something completely different.

Matt 5:31-32 “It hath been said, Whosoever shall

put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

What’s going on here in these two passages of Scripture? Think back to Malachi 2:16. Why did Yah hate the “putting away” in the first place? It was called a treacherous act because it caused women to commit adultery. If the man separated from his wife, intending never to reconcile with her, he should “give her a writing of divorcement” (Matt 5:31) rather than harden his heart (Matt 19:8) and force her into a situation where he could abuse the law concerning adultery.

You see, the men were separating from their wives for long periods of time to cause them to commit adultery. Remember that men could marry as many times as they so chose, but their evil intent was to hurt their wives by leaving them single and unloved, away from their husbands and households. This is why Yah hated the putting away.

It does appear, from Yahoshua’s explanation, that men were putting their wives away and divorcing them for petty reasons. Perhaps he didn’t like her food, or she had scars from giving birth, or for any number of contentious reasons, and Yah saw that men were dealing treacherously with women, manipulating them with divorce under the Law and the customs of the time.

No Benefits For Women

Although women were allowed to divorce their husbands, she wouldn’t just issue her husband a writ of divorce if she got sick of him. To understand her dilemma we have to understand the times.

A divorced woman had no place to live, and usually returned to her father’s house, if he was still alive. If her father was dead, then her eldest brother, who was ruling in their father’s stead, might be able to accommodate her in his home, or she might find accomodations in the home of another of her siblings or distant relatives.

For all intrinsic purposes, divorced women had no property, money, or inheritance, and her children would generally stay with their father, the man she was divorced from. Needless to say, being divorced didn’t benefit the women very much at all. She would be left in a destitute state, without the covering of a man to protect her and care for her. For this same reason, Yah charged the Israelites to care for widows, who could fall into the same state as a divorced woman, although due to a different set of circumstances.

In our society, where women are allowed the same privileges as men, you can now see how this has empowered them to rebel against the man and the righteous order the Most High had prescribed in the beginning. Now that they can own property, now that

they can move into their own dominions and they can put the man away with no fear of being destitute themselves, our women have grown emboldened and haughty.

I can’t say that any women would want to revert back to the biblical system because it will strip them of their power, and their ability to rule in what Scripture alloted as man’s dominion.

Chapter Six: The Scriptural Evidence of Polygyny

Continuing with our established motif, that is, to better understand the Biblical applications of marriage, re-marriage, divorce, plural marriage, and the family structure, let’s look at some of the evidence in support of Yah’s acceptance of plural marriage.

There are four distinct forms of plural marriage.

Polygyny is the only form deemed acceptable in the Bible. This is when a man has multiple “gynos” or women, taken from the Latin word for the female sexual organ.

Polyandry, “andry” denoting the male’s sexual organ, is when a woman has multiple husbands.

Polyamory is a sexual relationship that includes multiple men and women in a community marriage. The fourth form of polygamy, more ambiguous than the others, is where there are no determinable marriage covenants amongst the people of a particular community.

Each sexually mature person is promiscuously free to

consummate with whomever whenever and whereever they so chose.

To the extent that all these forms of polygamy exist, polygyny is the most common form of plural marriage, and no one can find any instance in Scripture that explicitly prohibited or implied prohibition of the practice.

Many people have said, trying to justify their resistance to the practice that “polygyny might have been acceptable in the Old Testament, but now we live under a new covenant, the New Testament, and this covenant strictly encourages monogamy.”

Now, the New Testament writers taught only the “Old Testament” laws, in truth, and there is only one covenant. Yah had never intended to do away with one and initiate another. But this argument is better left for discussion in another book of this series. (See the footnotes at the end of the book for information about other books in this series.)

Nevertheless, to resolve some of these discrepancies, we will explore some of the concerns many New Testament believers have with polygyny from a New Testament standpoint.

1 Corinthians 7:2

1 Cor. 7:2- “Let every man have his own wife, and every woman have her own husband.”

Monogamists often quote this scripture as teaching against polygyny. However, the Greek words that are used for “his own” and “her own” are different, not just in gender, allowing for the possibility that different rules apply to the different sexes.

In fact, the Greek word for “her own” in this passage is used in Romans 14:2 to represent a servant and “his own” as “his only” master. Paul could have used the same word twice in 1 Corinthians 7, but chose not to.

This shows that a man belongs to his wife in the same way a master belongs to his servant. A servant can have only one master, but a master can have many servants.

In the same way, a woman can have only one husband, but a man can have many wives. The use of different Greek words here, when the same word could have been used, actually supports polygyny.

1 Timothy 3:2

1 Tim. 3:2- “The husband of one wife…”

Before monogamists close the book, let’s look at what the actual words here mean. Aner (G435) is a Greco-Aramaic word that is translated as “husband.”

Aner simply means “Male,” and since there was no separate word that meant “husband,” Aner is translated to “husband” only when the context of the words makes it clear that a “married man” is being referred to. So, to be

true to the actual meaning of the word, we will translate this word as “man.”

The word translated as “wife” is “goonay” (G1135). This is a much more specific word that always means “a married woman,” or, more specifically, a woman to whom sexual relations are forbidden to all but her husband. It is a woman who belongs to a man through marriage.

So, what about the word for “one?” This is where things get interesting. The word in this verse is “mia” (G3391). It is an ordinal number meaning “first.” Isn’t it peculiar that the word “first” is used instead of the word “heis” (G1520) which is the numerical word for the singular value of “one.” Heis is the very word used in the same letter in 1 Tim 5:9 to describe the wife of one (heis) husband. Almost the exact same phrase but two different words are used for “one,” by the same author in the same letter.

The Israelite concept of marriage would mean that a man could have many wives but a woman could have only one husband. The same person used two different words in the same letter - first and one. He must obviously have meant two different things. If we then construct the phrase according to the actual definitions of the words, we get “a man married to his first wife.”

This sounds quite different from “the husband of one wife.” Therefore, the author is explaining that in order to be an overseer, a man must know how to be responsible for his own family. He must be a married man that is not divorced from his first wife. It makes no

difference if he has one wife or ten.

If the author had wanted these verses to clearly mean that a bishop could have one and only one wife, then he would have more than likely used the Greek word “heis.” The Greek word “heis” is used 282 times and is always the numerical value of “one.” If the author had clearly meant to portray the meaning of only “one” singular wife, it is logical that he would have used “heis” instead of “mia.”

Monogamy and Infamy

It has been asked why the translators did not just translate “mia” as “first” if that was the meaning. We can only postulate that by the time the Greek writers were translating the original New Testament letters into Greek that they had already adopted “monogamous only” marriage practices.

As we all know, apostasy began very early as reported by several New Testament writers. “The mystery of lawlessness was already at work” within just a few years following the Messiah’s death, burial and resurrection. This prevalent belief in “monogamous only” marriages would have necessarily colored the opinion and translation efforts of any Greek writer.

Even if a person holds to the belief that these scriptures mean that a leader in the assembly cannot

have more than “one” singular wife, then it is inferred that it must be acceptable for the regular members to have more than one wife. Otherwise, why say this at all?

Either way, whether it means only “one” wife for bishops, or that the Bishops must still be married to their “first” wives, it actually proves that polygyny was acceptable during New Testament times, for at least the members, if not the leadership.

Writer and blogger Dan Savage wrote that “we have been imposed on the man the monogamous expectation of marriage. Men were never expected to be monogamous from the beginning. Men had concubines, mistresses and access to prostitutes, until everybody decided marriage had to be egalitarian and fairsey...”

It does make sense that we try to investigate the beginning of our culture’s “monogamous only” mindset.

If polygyny was a “back in the day” sort of thing, when and how did monogamy become the acceptable practice? How did western cultures get so caught up in the correctness of monogamous marriages and so sure that polygynous marriages were wrong?

As is the case when we research so many other topics, we find the hand of the Roman Catholic Church is involved. It was the Roman custom to have only one wife, and it was a form of “Queen of Heaven” worship, men romancing women, pursuing women, getting down on one knee (in worship) to propose marriage, putting her up on a pedestal, and giving her the pre-eminent leadership role in the relationship. “...for a man cannot serve two masters?” (Matt 6:24)

Furthermore, proposing on one knee is clearly idolatry, and can be found in depictions of people, mostly men, worshipping Diana and Aphrodite, Rhea, and in many other pagan feminine goddess worship. Thus, this is not what Yah had intended, as He makes it clear that the woman was created second to be a helper to the man, and is to submit to him in all things.

It was the Roman Catholic Church who brought about “forced monogamy,” and the dissolvable marriage contract to the state as opposed to the “marriage covenant” before Yah. All the while, even married Roman men kept many pagan practices, such as homosexuality and celibacy for priests. In the Hebrew culture of priesthood, marriage was required for the Levite priests. As in many things, we find the Catholic Church doing and enforcing the opposite of what Yah intended.

Consider these instances in Scripture.

Matthew 19:3-9 “Have ye not read, that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh.”

Some will argue that “God only made one man and one woman in the beginning.” Also, that “‘a man should cleave to his wife and they twain shall be one flesh.’ For those who can’t seem to understand mathematics, ‘twain’ means ‘two,’ not three or more. The only way a marriage should become three or more is through the process of rendering children.”

The truth is, however, that Matthew 19:3-9 incidentally is not discussing marriage, whether monogamous or polygamous, but is actually discussing divorce.

This seems to be a popular scripture to be used against polygyny, but it is a most weak argument as this is not the subject of this conversation in the Scripture, and the use of it here is out of context totally.

Let’s look at Genesis 2:24. The Messiah quoted from Genesis 2:24 in Matthew 19:5. In this scripture, Yah has just completed the making of Eve from Adam’s rib and now gives the woman to Adam and instructs that all men are to leave the companionship of their parents and instead become adjoined to a woman. Does this imply only one woman? Not specifically.

Remember that some people have argued Old Testament versus New Testament. Scripture in each testament must harmonize, and if Genesis 2:24 implies only one wife, then this conflicts with the 5 or 6 examples of when keeping the Law or Torah could cause a man to have to take on more than one wife. Since scripture must harmonize, Gen 2:24 cannot mean that a man can only take one wife, because the Law in so many other places says otherwise.

Remember also that two or more witnesses must establish all things, and there are no witnesses in the Torah that specifically say that a man can only have one wife, or that taking more than one is wrong; simply none.

We have to ask ourselves, therefore, would God give Moses a conflicting command? Would Yah cause

Moses to write something that would violate the Torah?

If Yah’s word is infallible, and “written in the heavens forever,” then it cannot change and it cannot contradict itself; Mal. 3:6.

Moses was Yah’s chosen servant, Yah’s handpicked leader of all Israel, the only other man besides Yahoshua and Adam that Yah talked with “face to face,” and the one Yah chose to write down the words in Gen 2:24. This same Moses was a polygynist!

Would Yah choose a man who had multiple wives himself, to write down words saying that a man could not have multiple wives? No, that would be a confusion!

Anyone saying that the meaning of Gen 2:24 is that a man can only have one wife, knowing that the man Yah specifically chose to write down the words had multiple wives is clearly confused and we all know that confusion is of the Adversary.

Moses, of all the men in the world, knew Yah best as Yah spoke to him directly and clearly, and if he had multiple wives, then I am certain that he knew that is was acceptable to Yah. Yah also warns us against speaking against His servant, Moses, the polygynist; so be forewarned.

Chapter Seven: Recapitulating the Family Structure

As we take stair steps upward in our journey of rediscovery into our ancient connection to Hebraism, the biblical understanding of marriage, remarriage, plural marriage and divorce, we have inevitably arrived at this point. As we have read from the Willie Lynch letter on “the makings of a slave [population],” the social pairing bonds – that moral fabric that upheld the dynamics of black families throughout our culture – have been exploited and tampered with, to destroy that which was once there, and to supplement it with a self-destructive counter cultural economic. Thus, our new system of organization and operation has produced or resulted, rather, in a repelling duality between the man and the woman.

While in essence, these two people should - by the very nature of their creation one from and for the other - be equal and persistent counterparts, drawn to

each other by a sustainable and ever so biased attraction and magnetism, their inclination now, under the auspices of the paranormal programming that was imposed on them, has made them to each other repulsive and estranged, diametrically opposed and conflicted.

This potent and baneful ideology is the poison that has left the black family structure in ruin.

Historically, black men have been systematically killed, first by slave owners and others that sought to instill a culture-wide racial inferiority complex, and then by the Jim Crowism at the turn of the twentieth century.

Today, and of the times during the more recent past, black men are dying in the streets in record numbers from disease, drugs and crimes and illness related to the subculture, black men are being incarcerated at higher rates, younger and younger in age while also having to serve longer and longer sentences. Young people (men and women) are turning to homosexuality at an ever-increasing rate, or adopting the culture propagated by the mainstream media that promotes female independence and male hooliganism. Even more, blacks are now starting to involve themselves in more interracial relationships.

All of these factors have placed single heterosexual blacks into a rapidly decreasing pool of available suitable partners. As our life partner options dry up, those that are left without a compatible match are forced into a never ending cycle of competition and pressure.

Such competition and pressure amongst us is ultimately disastrous to the health of the fabric of the family dy-

namic.

Why? Because with this sense of urgency placed on fitting yourself to a mate before someone else makes them unavailable, people will tend to make hasty decisions, fall in love too fast without first establishing the rapport of the relationship, and attach themselves to men or women that are not inclined to sharpen themselves.

Under such conditions, where couples are not equally yoked, the lacking partner might have to do very little to attain the favors of the other, because they will be more lenient than usual to keep the relationship alive. How does this affect the “health of the fabric?” If we view marriage from a context of only one man and one woman, we are left with a dilemma: there aren’t enough good brothers or sisters to go around. In the back of their minds, each will say, “My partner is not exactly what I want, but what is the alternative?”

They will drop their standards and settle for a partner that is below their expectations – that they are unequally yoked with - because there are no other suitable partners to select from. The end result of this paradigm is that it creates a moral decay in the immediate family structure and etches into the minds of those family members a sour predisposition to the future establishment of familial ties. A corrupted tree can only produce corrupted fruit.

Why are our homes broken? Because we have harvested corrupted fruit, and because we have sown these corrupted seeds in our homes, the familial ties

that once bound us have been loosed. This has been and is the flaw of the marriage and family concept that we have adopted, that was taught to us by people that wanted to destroy us. And there is no need to argue this point, for the evidence presents itself.

Ask any black person about their family. What you will hear will be appalling. Record numbers of divorce, fatherless households, incarcerations, extramarital affairs, and the list goes on. Some statistics state that seventy percent of black women are single, which makes sense if you consider that more black men are in prison than are in college. There are more black women in churches than men too, so going to church doesn’t guarantee a woman that she will find a suitable partner, especially considering that many of the men and women attending churches now a days are homosexual.

All of these problems, which are far too numerous to continue to address, culminate at one conclusion, that is, if we are ever to repair our people as a whole, we must drastically redefine and reshape our family structure.

Reshaping Social Pairing Bonds

We must come to understand, as men and women, divinely unified and opposite, that our concepts of Mr. and Mrs. Right are astutely underhanded at best.

Our desire to have aesthetically pleasing mates

is part of a flawed social dialectic, deprivative, ameliorated, and falsely glammorized by mainstream Western culture - a culture that has subjugated us and oppressed us; that cannot be tolerated in the assembly of Yah. It is based completely on the works of fiction and devoid of any positive spiritual influences.

The concept we construct of who our ideal mate will be, how they will be, how they should look, and what kind of job they need to have can leave us prone and vulnerable to manipulation, compulsion, and chaos.

In other words, if we base a person’s attractiveness as a mate on the presentation of their physical specimen or other carnal attributes, people that are attractive by these terms are usually are the worst people for us.

Conversely, unattractive people may sometimes be the person that complements our personality or situation the best, and our attraction to the opposite sex should never be based on the presentation of their physical specimen, or the carnal attributes of the facade they perpetuate, but rather on their spiritual maturity and their ability to produce.

Competition among the sexes for the available stock of suitable partners removes the natural drive that makes people want to get up, do better, and produce.

While some will compete, others easily take advantage of them and the desperation that ultimately develops.

They can then play games, refusing to commit until they have to.

Our oppressors, more precisely, those in opposition to the will of the Most High, have created for them-

selves what they feel a man should be, what a man is not, and have put stipulation over all the things certain men (men of a certain color) can do. He is so against anybody else being a producer in his world but him, that he uses any means necessary to crush, to maim, to supplant, and to hinder another man’s ability to create and produce.

America was created as the perfect system in which the elite few can hold and control all of the keys of production, leaving the rest of us no choice but to turn to them for a job, one that continues and grows their product, but leaves us utterly indentured “bondmen and bondwomen, with no one to save us” (Deut.28:68).

The righteous order of man has been crippled by forcing him to assimilate into the ways of an immoral society. He is expected to uphold the standards of this nation in the way he works, the way he thinks, and the way he rules in his dominion. He is rewarded for his adherence to this system and punished for his insolence.

This corrupted ideal manifests itself in his relationship with his woman and family as well.

Saving Our Families Through Polygyny

It may be hard, at first glance, for some of the readers of this book to attribute so many of the prob-

lems with black people to the marital and familial ties – or the lack thereof, that we adopted as a result of our Diaspora. After all, if we number out some of the big issues, the black male incarceration rate versus college enrollment, for instance, or the percentage of single black women, homosexuality, the drug subculture, fatherless homes, extramarital affairs, Jim Crowism, and our self-destructive practices – how do any of these things related to one another?

It will no doubt be even more difficult for other readers to see that reinstating the Torah and the practice polygyny is the cure for all of these pertinent problems. It is my prayer that we can begin to challenge our opposition to polygyny and consider how this practice has been misrepresented. Western societies are the most amoral and secular in the world. Isn’t it strange that they are one of the biggest opponents to the marriage of a man to more than one woman?

I have made specific arguments for so-called “Black” or African-American men in this presentation.

Some people will argue that Black men have had it no worse than any other ethnic demographic. Some will claim that the social paradigms I have illustrated in this presentation can be applied to all men and all women.

For any argument that may come of what has thus far been presented, let me supplement it with the following statement: People tend not to understand Scripture, prophecy, and the purpose of “God” (Yah) because people tend not to understand who His chosen people are. Once,

however, we begin to see that He chose the HebrewIsraelites as His chosen people, that He set aside specific blessings and curses for them based on their obedience and/or insolence, and we realize that these chosen people are specifically African Americans, then we can see why the Adversary has targeted African Americans so precisely, and, why and how getting us to stumble and keeping us down and out of order is so paramount to him.

Responsibility and Accountability Through Polygyny

You would think that a country that has little to no morals, profits from warmongering and the drug trade, that openly accepts same sex marriages, and has few laws against abortion or sodomy, that glorifies and praises people’s fornication and promiscuity, would have no problem with a man marrying multiple women. (If multiple wives was in fact sinful.)

Why has America and other western powers so vehemently denied polygynists proliferation, but have all the while supported and accepted homosexuality and trans-genderism? Doesn’t that seem more than a little odd to you?

It is not against the law of this land for a man to live with, or have sexual relations with two or more women at the same time. However, he may be in trou-

ble if he chooses to call them his “wives” rather than roommates or girlfriends. Crazy huh? They would rather a man have nine expendable whores with no obligation to provide for them than have nine virtuous wives that he must protect, care for, and nurture.

An example of this is Hugh Hefner, the publisher of the infamous Playboy Magazine, who travels all about the country with his nine “kittens,” without any legal persecution by the law. In fact, many people support, condone and praise men like Hugh Hefner for their irresponsible sexual liaisons.

Our society allows men and women to sleep with as many people as they wish without a marriage commitment, but we have also sought to prohibit a man from taking lawful responsibility for the women he has sexual relations with. This is in direct violation of Torah, Deut. 22:28, and the true reason this country and the westernized world is so opposed to polygyny is because they are also so very opposed to Yah and His laws. They have sought liberation from Yah’s laws and have passed decrees in direct opposition to Yah to profane Him and kindle a fire in His wrath.

Isa 5:20 “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”

Chapter Eight: Examples of Our Ancestors

In the contemporary study of marriage, we find that there are several notable people within Scripture which seem to prosper despite their polygynous lifestyles.

Some people have asked about specific situations concerning polygyny involving people in Scripture. They have sought to understand how particular situations are not a problem with the institution of polygyny, but rather a character flaw of the individual. We all know about Abraham, Sarah and Hagar, and how their polygynous endeavors ended sourly. Jacob supposedly experienced hardships with his two wives and concubines, as did David and Solomon with all their wives and concubines.

But they all had more than one woman and Yah clearly did not ever condemn them at any point for having more than one wife.

Let’s address the most common examples. As you

read these examples from the archives of our ancestors, remember that Yah cannot sin and cannot therefore condone or instruct men in how to sin. It is against His very nature.

Abraham, the Father of Many Nations

People argue that even though Abraham was Yah’s friend and was righteous, he made a grievous mistake when he went into Hagar. He sired a child that he thought would become his heir, but the child of promise was Isaac, not Ishmael. For this cause, Ishmael hated Isaac and had to be cast out of his father’s house, because had he remained, the emnity between Ishmael and Isaac, and Sarah and Hagar would have grown.

Should we therefore condemn Abraham for marrying Hagar, when Yah did not? Should we blame Abraham for all that the Hebrews suffered down through the years, to all that is going on today due to the Middle East conflict? What a horrible misfortune to burden Abraham with.

If marrying a second wife, Hagar, was so horrible that it caused all this evil against Israel then that would be unrighteous. However, there is no question that Abraham was indeed a righteous man, even in having more than one wife, as Yah’s word defends him very clearly and strongly in Gen. 26:5.

What could be more simple or plain than this?

Abraham had three wives and an unnumbered amount of concubines, and yet in Gen. 26:5 Yah says that Abraham kept His charge, His commandments, His statutes and His laws. Clearly then, having at least three wives is within Yah’s Law, otherwise, Yah would have been lying, which we know is not possible.

Jacob, the Father of Yah’s Chosen People

Some have argued that when Jacob took two wives, each was vying for his favor over the other. Since Rachel’s womb hadn’t been opened up, she gave him her handmaid to bear children for her, and, therefore, find favor in his eyes. Then Leah became jealous and gave him her handmaid so she could find more favor.

The struggle between the two didn’t cease until Rachel died in childbirth. But even then, there was strife and jealousy among the children.

As with Abraham, how can you condemn the Father of Yah’s chosen people? When Jacob’s name was changed to Yisrael, it was changed from “One who supplants” to “One who rules with El.” Who would want to speak evil of a man who is said to rule with Yah, or that is clearly portrayed as being in the Kingdom to come?

(Matt. 8:11.)

There are several misguided statements made about Jacob and his wives that warrant comment. First of all, in the olden days, a woman’s value was in her

ability to give her husband children. What Rachel did in giving Jacob her handmaid was normal and acceptable.

And, since Leah had already given Jacob far more children than Rachel, there was really no reason why she would also give Jacob her handmaid as well, to punish or outperform her barren sister to receive Jacob’s favor.

Even as Jacob had to uphold the honor of his wives, not vexing Leah by marrying her younger sister first (Lev 18:18), it was not a contest with Leah or Rachel, but a desire to please and serve their husband that led them to do this honorable thing.

In fact, this type of “surrogate motherhood,” if it were dishonorable or an abomination to Yah, then there must be some scriptural references in the Law that say so, but there are none. All women should work hard to please and serve their husbands.

David, Many Wives a Blessing From Yah

Those that argue against polygyny refer to the problems David suffered with his many wives and children even though he was a man after Yah’s own heart, (1 Sam. 13:14).

The word “heart” in Hebrew also has the meaning of wisdom, understanding, courageousness and merciful. So, it can be said that David has wisdom and understanding like unto Yah’s, and yet he had many wives and concubines. Never did Yah condemn him for this.

In fact, Yah is the one who gave David the wives of Saul, and said that He would have given him more wives if he had so asked, (2 Sam. 12:8). Now, would Yah give a man something that was a sin for him to have? No way!

Solomon, A Heart Problem, Not a Wife Problem

Still, dissenters argue that Solomon outdid them all with 700 wives and 300 concubines. They say that his many wives turned his heart away from Yah to the destructive practices of idolatry.

The truth is, that while Solomon is called the wisest man in the Kingdom, he does appear to be guilty of violating the law against multiplying horses and wives to himself (Deut 17:17), and of violating Yah’s command not to intermarry or make allegiances with certain wicked nations (Deut 20:15-18). Scripture never says that he repented, which in the end is what caused him to fall away from Yah. However, Solomon’s relationship with Yah was up to him, and not his wives. If he chose to turn away from Yah, then it was not their fault, nor the fault of the polygynous lifestyle he chose.

If this polygynous lifestyle was to blame for a man’s falling away from Yah, then a man who has only one wife and who subsequently turns away from Yah would make monogamy wrong as well. Used in this sense, it sounds irrevocably absurd, and we know that it is a misapplication of Scripture. The fault was in Solo-

mon’s heart, not in his marriage.

Other Prophets, Kings, and Judges Who Endorsed Polygyny in Scripture

Gideon Judges 8:30- And Gideon had threescore and ten sons of his body begotten: for he had many wives. He was highly regarded as a man of Yah. Elkanah 1 Sam. 1:2- Had two wives, Hannah and Peninah. Hannah was chosen to be the mother of the Prophet Samuel, a truly great prophet of Yah. Caleb 1 Chronicles 2:46-48- Caleb is recorded as having two concubines. This is despite the fact that he was one of only two men of his generation allowed to enter the Promised Land (Joshua son of Nun being the other). Yah did not appear to hold his polygyny against him.

Ashur 1 Chronicles 4:5- Ashur had two wives, Helah and Naarah.

Rehoboam 2 Chronicles 11:17-23- He had 18 wives and sixty con-

cubines, which he took when he was being a good king, walking in the ways of his father for three years. Where is the sin in this verse?

Abiyah 2 Chronicles 13:21- Abiyah had 14 wives.

Isaiah Isa. 4:1- End time prophecy revealing that multiple women will be married to one man for protection.

Joash 2 Chronicles 24:2-3- And Joash did that which was right in the sight of Yah all the days of Jehoiada the priest.

And Jehoiada took for him two wives; and he begat sons and daughters.

Job Job 27:15- Speaks of a man whose “widows shall weep.”

Yah, the Most High In Jer. 3:6-10- Yah portrays Himself as a polygynist. If Yah would portray Himself as such, and He is sinless, can polygyny be wrong? In Jer. 31:31-32 and Ezek. 23 Yah does it again.

Yahoshua Matt. 25- Yahoshua tells the polygynous parable of the ten bride’s maids.

Chapter Nine: When the Law Commands Polygyny

As I have mentioned in chapters past, there are several places in Scripture where the Law commands ploygyny. If, per chance, we assume that polygyny is a sin, that Yah only “tolerated” the practice, why then would He give Moses and the Israelites a law that would leave some men, men in these examples, with no other choice by to take on an additional wife.

Example #1: Ex. 21:10- If he take him another wife, her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.

This word was given to Moses by Yah and is retold to the people of Israel immediately following the 10 commandments. It does not say that “if a man take him another wife, that he is wrong and should get rid of one

of them!” The absence of Yah’s condemnation of a man taking in another wife is acceptance of the practice.

Not only does Moses not say that this is wrong, (and wouldn’t this have been a darn good opportunity to do it,) but he gives commands to govern just exactly how a man should treat his first wife when he does take on another one.

Proponents of “monogamous only” marriages have said that this scripture indicates that Yah only “accepted” this behavior at this time because men did not have the Set-Apart Spirit and because of the hardness of their hearts. They do not realize that what they are saying is that Yah allowed a sin, and then gave instruction of how a man should behave in the sinful act. How Preposterous! If it had been a sin, Yah would have said so directly. He cannot even draw near unto a sinful person, and would never condone or instruct a person to sin. It is totally against His holy nature for this to be true. The true believer should just take the scripture for what it says. Yah allowed men to have more than one wife and chose to regulate their behavior in the marriage. It was allowable then and it is allowable now.

The proponents of “monogamous only” marriages would also have you believe that men like Moses, Abraham, David, and others who had multiple wives will not see the Kingdom. Scripture will prove that this is untrue.

These men, who lived polygynous lives will also be in the coming Kingdom, because they were considered righteous, in spite of the fact they had more than one wife.

Example #2: Deut. 17:16-17- But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as Yah hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way. Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.

Anti-polygynists claim that this scripture teaches against a man having more than one wife, but I submit that just as verse 16 does not mean that a king cannot have more than one horse (he shall not multiply horses to himself), then verse 17 does not mean that a king cannot have more than one wife. Again, the law seeks not to condemn a man for having more than one wife, but to regulate the acceptable practice of having more than one wife. In fact, this verse is not talking about marriage at all. Rather, this verse gives us a restriction against political alliances.

In the past, kingdoms would intermarry for protection. For example, let’s pretend that kingdom A was at war with kingdom B. Kingdom A brought 60 thousand soldiers to battle, but kingdom B could only gather 30 thousand. Obviously, kingdom A would win the war.

But, the king of kingdom B had previously married the daughter of the king of kingdom C, and when the king of kingdom C learned that kingdom B was at war, he sent

his 40 thousand soldiers to war against kingdom A. A very good example of this political alliance can be found in the story of Abraham and Lot in Genesis 14:1-9. Yah did not want the Hebrews making political alliances because He was our protection and He wanted us to trust only in Him. Whenever the Hebrews grew confident in their own military might, Yah would punish them. Proof of this can be found when reading about how King David tried to number the troops in 1 Chronicles chapter 21.

This is also the law King Solomon was guilty of transgressing, just to point it out. He had 700 wives, which were princesses of other nations, and 300 concubines. The vast majority of this wedding were for political and military reasons. Selah.

Example #3: Deut. 21:15-17- If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn: But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for his is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.

The first 6 words of this portion of the Torah say

it all… “If a man have two wives…” Yah does not have Moses finish the scripture by saying “then he has sinned and should get rid of one.” This verse is an instruction in the Law itself to any man with “two wives.” If polygyny was a sin, then it would not be possible for a “man to have two wives” in the Law. The subject is concerning the firstborn male, but in the process it discusses the clearly acceptable act of a man having more than one wife. Again, the law seeks to regulate the practice, but does not condemn it.

Example #4: Deut. 22:28-29- If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

This law governs the case of a man, any man, taking advantage of a virgin and stipulates that if he lies with her then he must marry her. At no point does it say that this applies only to single men or men who have not yet married. In the case of a man already married, who lay with a virgin, he would be commanded to take her as a second wife. So, this is a case of the Law commanding polygyny in certain circumstances. What if a married man lays hold to a virgin that is not betrothed?

He would have to pay the bride’s price for the girl, and

never be able to put her away. Now, it would be a sin if a man in this circumstance did not marry the virgin, but it is not a sin to marry the virgin without regard to whether she is his first wife or a subsequent wife.

Another angle on this law is that it was written to protect the women, who in this circumstance may not be able to find another man who would marry her because she is no longer a virgin. If this law did not apply to a man already married, then it only “halfway” protected the women. However, Yah does not do things “halfway.” Just as in Examples 1 and 3 on the previous examples and the upcoming Example 5, these laws were written for the protection of women and children and to make men, whether single or married, responsible for their actions.

Example #5: Deut 25:5- If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife and perform the duty of an husband’s brother unto her.

Again, in this circumstance, the Law does not specify that “only unmarried brothers” were to marry their dead brother’s wife. Those opposed to polygyny say that this scripture means that the brother is just to take care of the dead brother’s wife. However, in numerous ways this scripture clearly denotes marriage to

the dead brother’s wife and all that is involved in the marriage union. The words “go in” unto her in verse 5 is from Strong’s #935 “bo,” as used also in describing the “going in” or sinking of the sun down into the horizon at the beginning of a day. This is clearly representative of the sexual act. Besides that, it states clearly that the reason for taking the dead brother’s wife in marriage is to “perform the duty of a husband’s brother” which is the marriage act designed to create children for the dead brother and prevent his name from being lost.

The argument that the living brother is merely feeding and clothing the dead brother’s wife does not hold any water. And, since it does not specify that only “single” brothers must marry a dead brother’s wife, there could be instances when this law will cause a monogamous marriage to end up being polygynous (such as if all the brothers are already married). Therefore I ask you, can the Law which is Holy and Good cause evil or sin? We all know that it cannot, therefore, having more than one wife must not be against the Law or sinful. Yah would never have issued this command if this were so.

Example #6: Lev. 18:18- And you shall not marry a woman in addition to her sister as a rival while she is alive, to uncover her nakedness.

This portion of the Torah again seeks to control

“who” or “for what reason” a man takes an additional wife, not “whether or not” he can take a second wife.

If it were against Yah’s Law to have 2 wives, then this scripture would be totally extraneous, would it not?

So, why would the Law say not to marry sisters if it was against the Law to have more than one wife at all? Do you believe that any of Yah’s word is extraneous? It was allowed for a man to take a second wife, and even a sister to the first wife, but not for the purpose of “vexing” or causing a rivalry between sisters.

Recall what happened with Jacob, Leah, and Rachael. Laban, the two girl’s father, explained that he did not trick Jacob, but that it was the tradition to marry the elder off before the younger, so as to not bring the elder to shame. This is explained in detail in the book of Jubilees chapter 28:1-7.

Example #7: Deut. 23:2- A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of Yah; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of Yah. Based on the above verse, illegitimate children were unable to enter the congregation of Israel for ten generations. If polygyny was wrong, then the offspring would be illegitimate, and therefore, the entire nation of Israel (and Yah’s own people) would not have been able to enter the congregation of Israel since Jacob/Israel had multiple wives and all his children came from his

polygynous relationships. Also, David had other wives before Bathsheba, Solomon’s mother. Therefore, if having multiple wives was wrong, then Solomon, King of Israel and an ancestor of Yahoshua, couldn’t have been a part of the congregation of Israel. Since this cannot be possible, you must admit that polygyny is not wrong.

Also, recall that David, after committing adultery with Bathsheba, watched in horror as the child they made died. Yah proved that bastards, children made through adulterous relationships would not be tolerated. But Solomon, who was conceived by David and Bathsheba aftershe had been made a widow and properly remarried, went on to rule in Israel.

Chapter Ten: The “One Flesh” Understanding of Family

As promised in recent chapters, we must look at several issues concerning marriage in Scripture that have proven very inconsistent in their interpretations.

Now, I mentioned this concept several times already, so what does “one flesh” actually mean? This singular concept has perhaps ignited the most controversy between polygamists and monogamists.

There are four basic understandings of the phrase “one flesh.” First is in the physical understanding. In simplest terms, this phrase means to join the flesh of two individuals, as in sexual intercourse. Throughout the Old and New Testament this phrase refers to sexual unions.

Paul speaks of a man who sleeps with a prostitute as being “one flesh” with her, (1 Cor. 6:16-17). If the man that Paul speaks of is a married man then he is officially “one flesh” with his wife through the act of sex, although he is also “one flesh” with a prostitute. Therefore, he

can and is “one flesh” with more than one woman.

The point is that “one flesh” does not imply a mutually exclusive relationship. A man can have more than one wife and be “one flesh” with each of them respectively, according to Paul’s explanation.

Secondly, there is a spiritual understanding of “one flesh.” In 1 Cor. 6:17, each believer is described as being “joined to” or “one flesh” with the Messiah.

You may very well be “one flesh” with the Messiah, but that does not preclude my also being “one flesh” with the Messiah. Here we see that the Messiah’s spiritual union with many members of His body is not unlike a plural marriage, and of course, no sin is ever attached to our Messiah and Savior. The Messiah is capable of being joined with me and with you in the same spiritual sense. This spiritual understanding could be likened to a mother’s relationship with multiple children. Her unity or oneness with one child does not exclude her from being united with other children in the same manner. In this sense, a man can also be “one flesh” or in spiritual unity with more than one wife.

Third, there is an understanding of “one flesh” in terms of the extended family or kinship that was experienced in biblical days. Marriage was the joining of whole families, clans, tribes, and not just between a man and a woman. Marriage was a social arrangement that provided for the preservation, continuation, and protection of families and clans against physical or spiritual attacks from outsiders. In this sense, a man could be “one flesh” or could offer kinship protection to more than one wife.

This is still important and relative today as there are more single women than men, and these women that have been victimized either by the ignorance or uncaring of today’s world really need this type of kinship protection.

Lastly, is the understanding of “one flesh” that defines the genetic makeup of the child. A man and a woman combine their flesh into one flesh through a child. Therefore, based on the foregoing understanding of the term “one flesh” we can see that it does not imply an exclusive relationship, and that a man can be “one flesh” or joined or united with more than one woman in a physical, spiritual, familial, and genetic manner.

The Trouble of Monogamy

People in the western world know very little about what actually goes on in polygynous partnerships. Most married couples declare boldly that they are totally against letting their spouses take on a second partner. But this understanding is due to an inability to see past their own faults and insecurities and recognize polygyny’s true benefits.

Polygyny is the solution to the social dilemma in the black community. African Americans are faced with a social problem that is unique to our culture. As we

talked about the shortage of suitable partners, we have evolved a paradigm that has proven only to destroy the very fabrics of the familial relationships that have built us up and ensured the survival of our people in times past.

Polygyny can be the best way to go for blacks if it is not abused. The whole purpose of polygyny is to benefit the women and children, and not the man. It ensures that women, as many as want to be married, are not living in poverty or fear, through the oversight of their husband. It ensures that the largest possible proportion of children have a balanced and complete parental basis, influenced by the nature of nurture gained from the mother, and the direction and rulership experience of the father.

Imagine for a minute how women can obtain the benefits of polygyny. There are several norms that persist amongst men and women in relationships. A man’s responsibility is mainly just to go to work and provide for the bulk of the financial expectation. His obligations usually end there. But women in our society, while desiring also to have careers, are still expected to be homemakers, mothers, and lovers. This is a tremendous burden for one woman to bear.

Think back to the chapter about woman being a deity. Because woman has been liberated, because she only involves herself in relationships where she has total rulership, or, because the only men she can find are not exercising their obligation to rule over their household, the woman has taken the leadership role. She is the

master of the household, she has established her own dominion, and she knows that her man, subservient to her, could not remain and would not remain her subject if there was another woman in the relationship.

It is only because of a woman’s selfishness - in that she has competed against other women to obtain the favors of her husband - that she doesn’t want to “share” him; to share rulership over him. She knows that if she rules over him, any other woman introduced into the relationship would also rule over him, or, to gain his favor over that of the first wife, the second would give the man whatever he desired to turn his heart more toward her. The man, now seeing that he doesn’t have to work as hard for the favors of the one as he does for the other, would seek to serve the one that is easier. Thus, the competition for partnership would continue indefinitely. “No servant 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...”

Luke 16:13.

In refusing to share her husband with another woman, she has no reason to think that she would lose his favor without first ending the relationship. But, by not sharing her husband she also has no means of sharing the responsibilities and expectations placed upon her in the household, which never change whether she rules or he does. Her jealousy and selfishness has caused her to be overburdened by the work of the household and her career, leaving her tired and stressed, and repulsed at the man, whom she feels has

done very little to help her.

This is exactly the trick the devil pulled on the woman. He had her thinking that she could be the ruler, without having to maintain her role as helpmeet. He told her that she could be the master, but failed to mention to her that she would also still be the servant, and that no matter what she had, where she was, or what she was doing, she was always going to be ruled over, because it was the nature of her creation.

Now she bitter at the man, and he is also unhappy, and seeking for the favors of women whose favors are easier to obtain, and he begins to step outside of the marriage. Extramarital affairs lead to divorce, divorce to single family homes, single family homes to children raised in unbalanced familial structures, and imbalance in the family structure to the deterioration of the moral fabric of the family and it’s members. Cause and effect.

Everyone Benefits of Polygyny

It is amazing how our marriages being out of order can cause so many problems. How many times can these problems be reiterated in this book before we can start to draw the conclusion that there is only one solution? That solution is the reinstatement of polygyny in our communities.

We can only specifically diagnose the problems

in so-called African American families. What will work for our culture may be be beneficial for others, as each culture comes with it’s own set of problems, circumstances, and dialectics. Based on our set of circumstances, polygyny will truly work in reestablishing healthy and plutonic familial relationships and redefine social and community norms.

Yah’s Law effectively regulates polygyny. We need to reshape our mentality to be in a polygynous relationship. The problem with polygyny is that our people have been taught self-destruction and not self-preservation.

We talked earlier about what happens when women and men compete; how forming social pair bonds from this type of paradigm is flawed. Empowering one sex over the other creates a negative influence that can only result in more of the same moral decline we have suffered since slavery. We should watch for abusers and seek to manifest a marriage system where men can of right be rulers and that women can benefit from rather than be exploited by.

Generally speaking, what a man benefits from a polygynous relationship pales in comparison to what a woman benefits. Adding wives is added responsibility, a greater demand on that man’s means of production; a strain on his income. Sure, he can have sex with as many women as he was married to, but having multiple sexual partners is really not a “benefit.” In fact, he doesn’t actually need to be married at all to have multiple sexual partners.

One of the most frequently voiced reasons by

women for opposing polygyny is that they don’t want the man trying to have sex with both of his partners at the same time, as in an orgy or “menage a trois.” A menage a trois is whether a person has sex with more than one partner simultaneously. It literally means “an act of three.” Women fear that it they allow their husbands to take on more wives, he will try to engage in this explicit and lurid act.

From the perspective of Scripture, men could not have sex with more than one of his wives or concubines at the same time, because this would cause the women to be engaged in a homosexual act, which violated the Law. Women also fear that a man might use his position in the relationship to oppress one or all of his wives in various other ways, But a man of Yah would not mistreat his wife because they are one flesh, nor would he deflower a woman and leave her, beat her, or subject her to any form of sexual slavery or servitude, (Deut 22:13-19). The only true benefit for the male partner of a plural marriage relationship was in having multiple children. He gained no other advantage or benefit whatsoever.

On the outside looking in, people may see a man with multiple wives as a man’s man, as somebody that has a woman to cook, a woman to clean, a woman to do his laundry, and options when it comes to sex. And, if wife A starts nagging, the man can simply find utopia with wife B. But again, scripturally, this does not hold to par. In every instance of polygyny found in the Bible, polygynous partners all lived under the same roof, and

a man could not remove himself from his wives, lest he intended to separate from them or divorce them.

Women are the true benefactors of this type of relationship. If the duties and expectations of being wife and mother in a single household were shared amongst multiple women it would be much less of a burden on the women. Now, while one desired to bear children, the tasks of the household like cooking and cleaning could be the responsibility of another wife. Perhaps one wife wanted to go to college, or start a career. While pursuing this she could rest assured that her family had a woman in the household that could maintain the tasks that she could not. It is hard to imaging the burden on a woman that tries to balance her career, her kids, being pregnant, homemaking, and sexual relations with her partner all at once.

So for the woman, a polygynous marriage meant she could reap several benefits. Namely, she became part owner of everything her husband and sister wives owned, whether gold and silver, land, clothing, and livestock. She could render children properly, which served as a sign of her glory and favorable relationship with God. Her parents could revel in the joy of their grandchildren, (which was another important tradition of the culture), and the woman was able to exercise her rulership over what is her proper dominion, children.

Having many wives and children was a sign of a man’s wealth. He would need a lot of sustenance to provide for so many individuals. Being wealthy was not a prerequisite to adding wives. Rather, having a large

family meant that the man was prospering in some way or another. Each individual household had to decide how much sustenance it needed to function adequately.

Families were only as large as they could be provided for. To say that the man had to be rich (in some particular salary bracket) to add wives doesn’t correctly describe how the system of adding wives actually worked.

Children also benefited from polygynous marriages. They had multiple nurturing mothers to care for them in the case of their mother being pregnant, at work, in school, deceased, or in any other way incapable. They had numerous brothers and sisters for friendship, protection, and as mentors. And, in cases where a mother and child might be in a household without a father, if the mother married a man, she would have a husband and her son would have a father, even if the man is husband and father to others already. Yah strictly instructed us to look after widows and the fatherless.

Selah.

Chapter Eleven: My Wife the Unbeliever and the Story of Job

No woman can produce. Despite all of the jobs they might work, college degrees they might have obtained, no woman will ever be a producer because it was not the objective of her design. A car cannot fly because it was not designed for flight. We should, therefore, pay particular attention to the story of Job, in order to understand the inferiority of women. She is the weaker vessel, physically, and more importantly, spiritually. She does not have the ability to endure the hardships, trials, and tests that man contends with, be them physical or spiritual.

When the Adversary tempted Yahoshua those three times, he offered Yahoshua the entire world, in exchange for Yahoshua’s service (worship). The only way the Adversary could actually give Yahoshua the entire world is if he actually owned it. Had the devil not truthfully been in possession of the world, Yahoshua

would have simply responded, “how can you give me what isn’t yours in the first place?” This wasn’t the trick to play on the one person that had the ability to see through the devil’s deceit. No, Satan offered Yahoshua the world because Satan actually owns it and has the authority to give it to whomever he chooses to.

“Have you considered my servant Job?” When the angels came to report to Yah, the Adversary came also.

He reported that he had been “travelling about, seeking whom he may devour.” The Adversary has one mission: to separate man from Yah. Remember, man is the glory of Yah in the same way children are the glory of their mother, that same way woman is the glory of man. If the Adversary can get man to profane Yah then he has devoured or taken Yah’s dominion for his own.

There are several ways the Adversary can get at man to cause him to profane Yah. The most successful way is by beguiling the man’s wife. This is the devil’s oldest and most effective tactic. Eve thought that she could be “like god.” But what attribute of godliness would she have? Would she be able to create worlds? Would she be able to see the end from the beginning? Would she be able to raise the dead or heal the sick, heal the blind or deaf or lame? Not at all. The only way Eve would be “like god” was in her position of authority over man.

Scripture says that Eve gave the fruit to her husband and he did eat. Today, with liberated women running loose in the world, women have continued to revel in Yah’s dominion—over man. The Adversary has usurped man’s dignity by giving women a means with

which to exercise continual dominance over man. Women hold more degrees than men, fewer women have criminal records than men, and our society has parameters in place that guard the woman’s rights to rule more than a man’s.

For the Hebrew man, so-called African American and black, who is striving to follow Yah, the devil treats him like the devil treated Job. Satan will take everything from a righteous man to try him. A man’s job, his health, his children, his wife, his possessions, his dominion, are all taken away in order to get the man to wane in his faith—to lead him “to curse Yah and die.”

Many women will say that they don’t understand how their men can’t find jobs. All the woman can see is the fact that she has a job and that jobs are out there to be had. She feels that her man isn’t trying hard enough to find work. She feels that her man wants to be dependent on handouts, or charities from others, or that he doesn’t want to have rulership of his own dominion. So she profanes her man. And, just like Job’s wife did, she encourages her man to profane his God. The truth, Satan doesn’t need to attack the woman. He already knows how weak she is because he was present at her creation. Satan attacks the head—man.

Kill the head and the body will wither. Satan also knows that the woman is not going to understand that He is the reason why her man is out of work; he is the reason her man cannot produce. Women don’t understand that her having a job does not make her a producer, that it is not in her design to produce; that she should use her

job to help her man - who has been entreated like Job produce rather than try to produce on her own.

Women don’t understand that the devil is going to give her a good job to make her doubt her husband’s ability to produce, to throw her out of order. Women don’t understand that they have been again beguiled by the serpent into thinking that having a job is the means of producing. So, their mindset is one that suggests this: since I have the job, I must be the producer. If I am the producer, then the dominion is mine to exercise. This is how women profane their husbands. This is the deceit the serpent told Eve. Therefore, our wives have become unbelievers.

They do not believe in Yah or the man of Yah because they depend fully on the means of production supplied by the devil in the devil’s world. The serpent didn’t care about Eve. He didn’t care about Job’s wife. Satan knew from the moment he approached Eve and took all he took from Job that the woman would break first, and that she would spread that virus to her husband. So, we as Hebrews can tend to learn from both Adam and Job. As an apple tree can only yield apples, the means of the devil’s production can only yield destruction.

The wife of a righteous man must understand that the reason her husband is unemployed is because of his righteousness. She must realize that the devil is going to take the world from him just as he took it all from Job, to make the man fall like Adam fell. That is the devil’s sole purpose—to cause man to fail. Once man fails, so to will the woman fail, and their children, and the rest of

mankind.

Indentured Servants, Modern Slaves

African Americans have gradually migrated away from skills jobs and occupations. At one time, when all we knew was working with our hands, we were able to provide for ourselves and our families by contracting ourselves out to do work as carpenters and other skilled labors.

We have been misinformed into thinking that education will be our salvation. The degrees and statuses we all strive to attain have only succeeded to make us indentured servants and modern slaves. We go to work at jobs where we are overworked and underpaid, where our coworkers of other races may not have the same educational credentials as us, and where no product is ever produced. If we get fired or resign, there is no skill or tangible commodity that we can take to employ or empower ourselves. We have produced nothing, nor been taught the science of production, nor even seen or known that there is a product. All we have is the record of our servitude to offer to the next task master that we seek to hire us.

Working a job is thus, a form of slavery, where the product being produced doesn’t truly benefit the people who produce it. Most jobs do not create a product. Working at a job doesn’t produce anything. Hav-

ing a job does not make one a producer. We simply oversee Master’s products. We keep Master’s records, watch over Master’s crops, protect Master’s house and children, and serve [our] enemies which the LORD shall send against thee, in hunger, and in thirst, and in nakedness, and in want of all things: and he shall put a yoke of iron upon thy neck, until he have destroyed thee.” Deut 28:48.

No one is more guilty of this than the black woman. Whereas a woman should use her recourses to help her husband become the producer, she turns to her boss to provide for her; she helps him to produce. She sees that Master is the only asset, and she helps him meet his goals. She turns her eyes away from her husband, whom she believes cannot produce the way he boss can. “Her eye shall be evil toward the husband of her bosom,” Deut 28:56, for her lord, the owner of the company she works for, is the producer, and she is helping him meet his production. So, a married woman relying solely on her job and her boss could also be a form of adultery.

The Willie Lynch letter clearly explains the exploitation of the woman in the workforce as well. Read this excerpt closely: “You must use the female vs. the male, and male vs. the female. You must also have all your white servants and overseers distrust all blacks but it is necessary that your slaves trust and depend on us. They must love, respect and trust only us. Understanding is the best thing, therefore, we shall go deeper into this area of the

subject matter concerning what we produced here in this breaking process of the female nigger. We have reversed the relationships. In her natural uncivilized state she would have a strong dependency on the uncivilized nigger male, and she would have a limited protective tendency toward her independent male offspring and would raise the female offspring to be dependent like her. Nature had provided for this type of balance. We reversed nature by burning and pulling one civilized nigger apart and bull whipping the other to the point of death - - all in her presence.

By her being left alone, unprotected, with the male image destroyed, the ordeal caused her to move from her psychological dependent state to a frozen independent state. In the frozen psychological state of independence she will raise her male and female offspring in reverse roles. For fear of the young male’s life, she will psychologically train him to be mentally weak and dependent but physically strong. Because she has become psychologically independent, she will train her female offspring to be psychologically independent. What have you got? You’ve got the nigger woman out front and the nigger man behind and scared. This is a perfect situation for sound sleep and economics. [Economics is literally defined as “the means of production”] Before the breaking process we had to be alertly on guard at all times. Now we can sleep soundly for out of frozen fear, his woman stands guard for us, he cannot get past her early infant slave molding process. He is a good tool, now ready to be tied up to the horse at a

tender age. By the time a nigger boy reaches the age of sixteen, he is soundly broken in and ready for a long life of sound and efficient work and the reproduction of a unit of good labor force. Continually, through the breaking of uncivilized savage niggers, by throwing the nigger female savage into a frozen psychological state of independency, by killing of the protective male images, and by creating a submissive dependent mint mind of the nigger male savage, we have created an orbiting cycle that turns on its own axis forever, unless a phenomenon occurs and reshifts the position of the male and female savages.”

We have all inherited lies. We have been deceived into thinking that we have been set free from slavery when the reality is that we are more in bondage now than ever before. We are bound to our jobs, to a system of rulership where we are not allowed to produce for ourselves, on our own. We are bound to task masters that ensure that we are good servants, laboring on their modern plantations, underappreciated and exploited. Of this the Bible says “all our labours, shall a nation which thou knowest not eat up; and thou shalt be only oppressed and crushed always...” Deut 28:33.

Chapter Twelve: A Polygynous God

Wow, what a journey of discovery we have taken.

We are now equipped with the knowledge needed to take all of the information we have learned to better understand what our relationship to Yah must be. Did you even know that the nation of Israel was betrothed to the Most High through the vow made between Yah and Abraham, and married to Yah with the inception of the marriage covenant, enacted under Moses in the wilderness. Yes, and what is even more interesting is the fact that Yah become a polygynous husband to the nation of Israel, after the people divided into the northern and southern kingdoms. Let’s look at this in Scripture.

When we read Genesis chapter fifteen, verses 1 through 18, we find that Yah has chosen Abram to bring forth a righteous nation. Nationhood is the promise, and Abram, who has no nation of his own, believes that Yah will build this nation and give them the land of Canaan

to dwell upon. In verse eighteen, the Scriptures state that Yah made a covenant with Abram, enacting the first step of the marriage covenant. Recall that marriages signified the joining of two households, and that during the engagement period, the bride could be seen by no more suitors. This is why Yah would always appear to Abram and reiterate His covenant with him, to remind him that he was to be set apart for Yah Himself. “I have betrothed you to myself,” Hos 2:19. Yah constantly repeats this covenant with Abram and Abram’s descendants.

The second step of the marriage act is the official declaration of nationhood, under the leadership of Moses. Why did it take so long for Yah to establish the nation? Remember that the bride and her bride’s maids had no idea when the bridegroom would come back to receive her. They had to wait and watch for the signs of his coming. This time came during the days of Moses.

Yah called Himself by “the God of your fathers, of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” this to remind Moses of the covenant He had made so many years ago. The ideals of this promise between Abraham and Yah had been passed down through the generations, just as an inheritance was passed down from father to son. This inheritance is what Ishmael and Isaac, Esau and Jacob fought over. All of the Children of Israel likely knew about this covenant.

In Exodus chapter 19 we read of the officiating of the marriage covenant between Yah of the Children of Israel. Compared to a modern marriage ceremony,

where the bride and groom say their “I do’s” here we see the Children of Israel also agreeing to the terms of the marriage covenant.

“In sickness and in health, til death do us part?”

“I do.”

“And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the LORD commanded him.

And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD.” Exo 19:7-8 Here underlined are the terms of the marriage agreement and the bride’s response. So the Children of Israel this day were married to the Most High Yah, they here are first recognized as a nation, fulfilling Yah’s promise, and any other god or idol they worshipped would be a violation of the marriage covenant; it would be to them like committing adultery.

The consummation of the marriage covenant between the Nation of Israel and Yah did not come for many more years, until the days of King David, when the Israelites had conquered the land from all of the Canaannites. It would take them nearly eight hundred years to consummate the marriage. We consummate our marriages through the act of sex, which seals the marrige covenant with the blood of the woman, and the uniting of the two fleshes into one flesh, physically and

spiritually.

Now obviously, the Nation of Israel did not have sex with Yah. Their marriage was consummated by the fulfilling of the promise to establish a priestly nation.

Solomon built the temple, and Yah blessed the nation in its shortlived days of righteousness, until the people’s leaders caused them to error and sin and commit adultery.

Scriptural evidence of this can be found in Jeremiah chapter 3, where Yah makes a very revealing plea to the children of Israel, whom have divided themselves into two kingdoms. He says: They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man’s, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted? but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith the LORD. Lift up thine eyes unto the high places, and see where thou hast not been lien with. In the ways hast thou sat for them, as the Arabian in the wilderness; and thou hast polluted the land with thy whoredoms and with thy wickedness.

Therefore the showers have been withholden, and there hath been no latter rain; and thou hadst a whore’s forehead, thou refusedst to be ashamed.

Wilt thou not from this time cry unto me, My father, thou art the guide of my youth?

Will he reserve his anger for ever? will he keep it to the end? Behold, thou hast spoken and done evil

things as thou couldest.

The LORD said also unto me in the days of Josiah the king, Hast thou seen that which backsliding Israel hath done? she is gone up upon every high mountain and under every green tree, and there hath played the harlot.

And I said after she had done all these things, Turn thou unto me. But she returned not. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it.

And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

And it came to pass through the lightness of her whoredom, that she defiled the land, and committed adultery with stones and with stocks.

And yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah hath not turned unto me with her whole heart, but feignedly, saith the LORD. And the LORD said unto me, The backsliding Israel hath justified herself more than treacherous Judah.

Go and proclaim these words toward the north, and say, Return, thou backsliding Israel, saith the LORD; and I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you: for I am merciful, saith the LORD, and I will not keep anger for ever.

Only acknowledge thine iniquity, that thou hast transgressed against the LORD thy God, and hast scattered thy ways to the strangers under every green tree, and ye have not obeyed my voice, saith the LORD.

Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion: Jer 3:1-14 May Yah’s mercy endure forever! What a statement this is. It is the plea of a heartbroken husband, pleading with his wife to stop committing adultery, but turn back to him because he loves her so much. Notice here that there are two wives, Israel, the northern kingdom and Judah, the southern kingdom. Yah Himself had two wives, sisters; what a polygynous God we serve.

Selah.

Translational Errors

We can clearly see that Yah and the Nation of Israel were married. And although some will say that this has been take out of context, the rebels, the words of Scripture certainly allude to the fact that some type of marrige relationship is understood.

Now, some translations will read slightly different at verse 14 of Jeremiah chapter 3. “Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; and I shall rule over you...”

People will argue that this is not about marriage. But Yah also told Eve that Adam would “rule” over her. So, this rulership, truthfully, can only be applicable to a marriage covenant. Here is verse 14 of Jeremiah chapter

3 in some other widely used translations: (ASV) Return, O backsliding children, saith Jehovah; for I am a husband unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion: (BBE) Come back, O children who are turned away, says the Lord; for I am a husband to you, and I will take you, one from a town and two from a family, and will make you come to Zion; (Brenton) Turn, ye children that have revolted, saith the Lord; for I will rule over you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you in to Sion: (CEV) You are unfaithful children, but you belong to me.

Come home! I’ll take one or two of you from each town and clan and bring you to Zion.

(Darby) Return, backsliding children, saith Jehovah; for I am a husband unto you, and I will take you, one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion.

A Covenant Remembered, A Remnant’s Return

How amazing. Our relationship with Yah is just like that of a wife to her husband. Israel cheated on Yah by worshipping other gods. This was adultery, and so Yah

put them (us) away, issued a writ of divorce, and sent the nation away into slavery.

But now He is calling for us to return back to Him to be His bride. HalleluYah. This is why there are so many so-called African Americans awaking to the knowledge that they are truly the Hebrew Israelites of old, not spiritually, and coincidentally, but in the true and literal understanding of the words of Yah through the testimonies of His prophets.

As we return to His covenant, we must first learn that those people of the promise spoken of is us. We must acknowledge our own sins, and the sins of our forefathers, whose generational curse we suffer from, and then seek to cleanse our body, mind, and spirit through the act of immersing. We must live by the covenant we swore to in the days of our ancestors, and learn to serve Yah and Yah alone in spirit and in truth.

We must remember and uphold our promise to be a righteous and priestly nation, and to minister to the world how to worship our Husband and Mighty One, the Creator of all things.

Only the Israelites can receive this promise, not a Christian, or Jew, or Muslim, or no other nation not called by Yah’s name. Salvation is of the Hebrews, and the Hebrews alone. This is the Promise of Yah to Abraham, to Abraham’s descendants, the so-called African Americans, the lost and forgotten Hebrew Israelite Nation. Selah.

Scriptures That Illustrate the Marriage Covenant Between Yah and the Nation of Israel

Jer 31:32 Isa 54:5 Hos 2:19-20 Jer 31:1 Jer 34:14 Exo 19:5 Exo 24:6-8 Deu 5:3, Deu 29:1 1 Ki 8:9 Eze 16:8 Eze 16:60-62 Heb 9:18-22 Psa 45:10-17 Eze 16:8 Hos 2:19-20 Joh 3:29 2 Cor 11:2-3 Eph 5:25-27 Eph 5:32 Isa 54:5 Isa 62:3-5 Jer 3:14-15 Joh 3:29 Rom 7:4 2 Cor 11:2

Eph 5:25-27 Rev 19:7-9 Rev 21:2 Rev 21:9-10