As Ordained by God in the Garden of Eden

Copyright Etc.

All material on Website Copyright 1997-2021 Don Milton – All Rights Reserved except for KJV Bible verses. Wherever context allows, we will not use the English title “wife” as it is not found in either the Hebrew or the Greek and brings to mind rights that a woman was never given by God and which destroy marriages. It will take time to go through all the articles to make these changes. In the Bible, when you read the word wife/wife’s/wives/wives’ the underlying word is simply female. Greek gyne and Hebrew ‘ishshah. Yes, the word “wife” was invented and has come to assign nonsensical privileges, even rights, not found in the Bible.

Who’s Online?

Total users online: 1
Guests online: 1
Registered online: 0;


1 2 3 5
  • At birth a woman is estimated to have six million oocytes (pre-eggs) in her uterus. She is born with all the oocytes (pre-eggs) she will ever have and by puberty 90 percent of them are gone, vanished, having been absorbed by the body
  • Men, on the other hand, produce millions of sperm every day. It takes only one of those millions to impregnate a woman.
  • Therefore Adam did not have just one woman taken from his side. He had all the women to whom Eve would give birth taken from his side.
  • So for those who say, “If God wanted Adam to have more than one wife then why didn’t God take more than one wife from Adam’s side. The fact is, God took all the wives who would ever live from Adam’s side for once Eve was created with millions of eggs, the women from those eggs were likewise created with millions of eggs. Down to the billions of women on earth today.


  • After Eve ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, the Lord said to her, “I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children.”

Is there an implication in this verse that Eve had already brought forth children before the fall in an easy manner, maybe as a litter as large as those of the most fertile animals, thirty or more children at once? That question is for another discussion.

Just so you know.

Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

“Thelyphthora; Or, a Treatise on Female Ruin,
Its Causes, Effects, Consequences, Prevention, and Remedy”
Written by the famous 18th century evangelist Martin Madan
Is Now Available to Read!

Click Here for Thelyphthora! – Volume I

  Click Here for Thelyphthora! Volume II

 Click Here for Thelyphthora! Volume III

   Martin Madan, was a famous preacher during the 18th century and his hymns are with us still today.22 Like others who have achieved great fame, the Reverend Martin Madan was no longer called by his name but was known simply as the Counsellor.43 This referred to his ability to present the gospel in the same way that he had presented his cases before a jury. However these jurors were made up of the many truth seekers who attended his grand revivals and it was they who were on trial. Madan effectively presented the case that if they would but plead guilty and throw themselves upon the mercy of the Judge, yea, at the feet of Jehovah Himself, then Jehovah’s Own Son, Jesus the Savior, who’d died in their stead, would pardon them.44 In this way, many a juror among those listening was convicted, found guilty, and pardoned. Those who were lost now walked in fellowship with the Lord, forgiven of their sins, cleansed by the blood of Jesus!45 The reason that we’ve heard so little of the once famous Reverend Martin Madan is because of the Great Methodist Cover-up. The cover-up did not begin until after the death of the final polygamist in a string of polygamists associated with the Wesleys. The most famous of those being:

The Reverend Martin Madan – polygamist in beliefs only, having written three theological volumes on the subject.

The Reverend Westley Hall – brother-in-law to Charles and John Wesley by his marriage to Martha. He was an outspoken polygamist both in theory and in practice. He held many preaching positions during his lifetime and had children by Martha as well as by his other wives.

Samuel Wesley – Son of Charles Wesley. Outspoken polygamist in theory and in practice and father to Samuel Sebastian Wesley, composer of the still famous hymn – “The Church’s One Foundation.” Samuel Sebastian Wesley was the son of Samuel through his second wife, Sarah Suter Wesley.

   Part of the “remedy” for female ruin that the Reverend Madan gave in his book was polygamy. He put forth in his book that the ban on polygamy that was originally put in force by the Roman Catholic popes had been the cause of widespread prostitution and fornication. He roundly criticized the banning of taking more than one wife, an activity that Jesus used in metaphor without criticism.
[Jesus praised the five brides in the story of the ten virgins for keeping plenty of oil in their lamps while they waited for their polygamous husband.]
In addition to his talents in preaching and writing, the Reverend Martin Madan was a great musical arranger as well as a hymnist and lyricist. The following words to a famous hymn were written by the Reverend Martin Madan:

“With th’ Angelic Hosts proclaim,
“Christ is born in Bethlehem!”

   It was in 1760 that Martin Madan introduced those two lines as they are sung to this day in the hymn, “Hark! the Herald Angels Sing.” The rest of the words to that hymn were primarily written by Charles Wesley whose own sister married the polygamist, Westley Hall.
Martin Madan also wrote the words and music to “Now Begin the Heav’nly Theme” which is more often known by the name “Redeeming love” and which was clearly inspired by his charitable ministry to those who had escaped the bonds of prostitution. I have not included a link to the music since I haven’t been able to find a rendering that does it justice. It is a simple tune (unlike most of Madan’s work) and great skill is required to perform simple tunes eloquently. Read the words of my favorite stanza from Redeeming Love which appealed then as they do now to the lost, that they would accept God’s grace and “taste redeeming love.” AMEN!

‘Ye, alas! who long have been
Willing slaves to death and sin,
Now from bliss no longer rove,
Stop and taste redeeming love.'”

The Reverend Martin Madan’s musical score to Jesus, Lover of My Soul is a joyous composition with four unique parts written for the base, alto, tenor, and soprano. It can be sung a cappella or with accompaniment. Too complex for most modern choirs, it is seldom sung today. The more commonly sung tunes used to accompany the words to Jesus, Lover of My Soul penned by Charles Wesley are just that, common. They make the tune sound sad while Charles Wesley wanted it to be a joyous and upbeat celebration of our Lord’s love for us. The Reverend Martin Madan surely produced the joyous tune that Charles Wesley had wanted in his, first, in his original; Jesus, Lover of My Soul. It is one of the most delightful pieces of music I have ever heard and if you’re a musician like me, there is no doubt you’ll agree.

You can listen to the Reverend Martin Madan’s composition for Jesus, Lover of my Soul by clicking here: Jesus, Lover of My Soul Listen and be blessed, I was.

You can read the words and view the musical score to Jesus, Lover of My Soul by Clicking Here. It is beautiful to hear but extremely difficult to sing. I still can’t master the base and can only admire anyone who can sing any of the other parts.

Another example of Madan’s ornate style of composition is Before Jehovah’s Awful Throne. With his composition Madan calls us to be joyously in awe of our LORD. To listen to the composition, “Before Jehovah’s Awful Throne” Click Here.

To read the words and view the musical score to Before Jehovah’s Awful Throne Click Here.

The Reverend Martin Madan was a well accepted and much beloved Christian Evangelist of his time. Not only did he know the Wesley family intimately but he was God Father to Charles Wesley’s son, Samuel, a gifted musician, and took him along with him to various social functions. Samuel Wesley became a polygamist in theory during the life of his God Father, the Reverend Martin Madan but only became one in practice, in so far as we know, decades later.
In addition to being an extremely close friend of the Wesleys, the Reverend Martin Madan was a close friend to Handel, the famous composer of the masterpiece; “The Messiah.” It was the Reverend Martin Madan who comforted Handel in his last days.
It’s clear that up to the moment he published Thelyphthora in 1780 that the Reverend Martin Madan was well respected. He founded the London Lock Hospital. In 1758, 22 years before he wrote that book, he was appointed the Chaplain. London Lock was the first voluntary hospital that treated venereal disease.28 In fact, an English word was coined because of the Reverend Martin Madan’s work. A “Lock hospital,” according to Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary copyright 1998 is “A hospital for the treatment of venereal diseases.” To this day, the administrators of such hospitals can only pray that they’ll have a fraction of the success that the Reverend Martin Madan had during his years at the Lock. It was during his ministerial duties there that he gained a great deal of first hand knowledge about the consequences of fornication and prostitution. Shortly after Madan’s arrival, the institution opened a new building and it became known as “The Female Hospital.” He built a chapel associated with the hospital which could seat up to 800 people and it received enough tithes to become a source of support for the hospital. Prior to the Reverend Martin Madan’s ministry, there were virtually no English churches that sang hymns. They sang Old Testament Psalms set to music. That’s much different from today where our hymns combine verses with biblical concepts that call us to repentance or worship. A hymn can be likened to a Bible study set to poetry and music. If one says there’s no need for hymns then one must also say there’s no need for Bible study leaders or for pastors. The hymn provides a way for biblical concepts to be presented in poetry set to music. Many lost souls that have been deaf to all other forms of preaching, have been converted by the hearing of a single hymn. It was at the Reverend Martin Madan’s church, the Chapel at the Lock, that the singing of hymns first took hold as part of Christian worship in England.31 The members sang from a hymnal that Madan, himself, had published. He published the hymnal as a benefit to future generations as well as to raise money for the hospital.32 From the Chapel at the Lock, Hymn singing spread quickly through the English speaking world with Madan’s hymnal the standard. His mastery of musical worship brought thousands to the Chapel at the Lock and his hymns have brought many more thousands to a saving knowledge of our Lord.32 In less than thirty short years from the first printing of Madan’s hymnal, fully two thirds of the hymns sung, even in the parishes of the Church of England, had been arranged by Madan himself. His hymnal had become the core of the Church of England’s hymnal.33 The Baptist’s hymnal came out twenty five years after Madan’s.34
Sadly, the loving man who published the first and greatest English hymnal, the man who sparked the singing of hymns in the church; London’s most brilliant preacher and England’s most outspoken Christian critic of the decline in morality during the 18th century,22a, 22b, 22c the God Father of Charles Wesley’s own son, was cast aside because of his pity for the women who came under the bondage of prostitution; for wanting the men who knew them only as their mistresses to take them as wives. That was his supposed “sin.” Of course you and I know that’s not sin but to preach righteousness as he did is a badge of honor. Wouldn’t you love to have known that man? Well now you do – Martin Madan – Famous 18th century Evangelist and servant of God Most High.

Click Here! Read Thelyphthora!

A Partial List of Books written by the Reverend Martin Madan follows:

An Account Of The Death Of F. S Who Died April 1763, Aged Twenty-Six Years. In A Letter To A Friend.

Christian and critical remarks on a droll, or interlude, called The minor Now acting by a company of stage players in the Hay-market; and said to be acted by authority. In which the blasphemy, falsehood, and scurrility of that piece is properly considered, … By a minister of the Church of Christ.

Every Man Our Neighbour A Sermon Preached At Opening Of The Chapel, Of The Lock-Hospital Near Hyde-Park

An exhortatory address to the brethren in the faith of Christ, occasioned by a remarkable letter from Mr. Foote to the Rev. author of Christian and critical remarks on the minor.

A funeral sermon on the much lamented death of the Rev. Mr. Thomas Jones, who departed this life June 6, 1762. in the thirty-fifth year of his age. To which is added, an elegy, and an hymn, sung at his funeral. By the Reverend Mr. Maden,

Justification by works, and not by faith only, stated, explained, and reconciled with justification by faith, without works. Being the substance of a sermon on James ii. 24. preached at St. Vedast’s Church, Foster-Lane, February 8, 1761. By the Rev. Mr. Madan.

A letter to David Garrick, Esq; occasioned by the intended representation of The minor at the Theatre-Royal in Drury-Lane. By the Reverend Martin Madan

Letters to Joseph Priestley, LL.D. F.R.S. occasioned by his late controversial writings. By the Rev. M. Madan By the Reverend Martin Madan
Read this Great Work! Available Now – Click Here!

A new and literal translation of Juvenal and Persius; with copious explanatory notes, … In two volumes. By the Reverend Martin Madan

Poemata partim reddita, partim scripta. By the Reverend Martin Madan

A Remarkable and surprising account of the abandoned life, happy conversion, and comfortable death of Fanny Sidney, a young gentlewoman, who died in London in April, 1763, aged 26 years. By the Reverend Martin Madan

A scriptural comment upon the thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England. By the Reverend Martin Madan to the Right Hon. Henry, Lord Apsley, Lord High Chancellor of Great-Britain, and to the Lock-Hospital, near Hyde Park Corner.

Thoughts on executive justice, with respect to our criminal laws, particularly on the circuits. Dedicated to the Judges of Assize; … By a sincere well-wisher to the public. By the Reverend Martin Madan

A treatise on Christian faith, extracted and translated from the Latin of Hermannus Witsius. By the Reverend Martin Madan

Thelyphthora; Or, a Treatise on Female Ruin, Its Causes, Effects, Consequences, Prevention, and Remedy. By the Reverend Martin Madan
Click to read Thelyphthora! Available NOW!

Note: Copyright Don Milton 1998 – 2009

Dear Pastor Don:

I was divorced from my first husband for fornication so it was a Biblical divorce. I then got married to a second man and he divorced me for fornication as well. After that I repented and came to know the Lord. Can I remarry my first husband?

Fickle in Philadelphia

Dear Fickle in Philadelphia:

You may not remarry your first husband. The Bible’s laws o­n morality apply whether you have been born again or not. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 addresses this issue.

Deuteronomy 24:1-4 “When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give [it] in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s [wife]. And [if] the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth [it] in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her [to be] his wife; Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that [is] abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee [for] an inheritance.”

Now we can’t know God’s reason for defining this as an abomination but we can guess. The Muslims have the exact opposite law. The Koran says that for a man to remarry a woman that she MUST first have been married to another man. Let’s look at what would happen if we followed Koranic law instead of Biblical law.

John goes to a popular nightclub and sees a beautiful girl, Sheila. John marries Sheila and gives her 400 dollars for her wedding gift. In the morning John divorces Sheila because she has the wanton eyes of an easy girl. (Of course she would. Marriage wouldn’t change that.) Then Sheila goes to the same nightclub again and this time marries Fred. Fred also gives Sheila her 400 dollars as a wedding gift. In the morning Fred divorces her for the same reason that John divorced her. Now the next Friday, John returns to the nightclub and marries Sheila again. You see what is going o­n? In fact, by permitting a man to remarry a woman who has been remarried and divorced from another man, the Koran is permitting a type of prostitution that is disguised. The Bible FORBIDS prostitution and FORBIDS marrying a woman over and over which is simply a tricky way (pun intended) to engage in (pun intended again) prostitution. The nightclub owner instead of providing a way for people to meet is more likely operating a prostitution ring.

Note: Pastor Don Milton writes about various Christian Marriage topics. Pastor Don believes God and does not follow the culture. How about you? Are you ready to follow the Bible and nothing but the Bible?

If you have questions or comments concerning this article please send a message to Pastor Don using the button at the lower right.

I apologize in advance for the briefness of this article. I will be expanding on it within a few months at most. There are many more reasons than the ones I have presented here that prove there are times when divorcing a wife without any sin on her part is permissible, even righteous. Take the example of a young man who has been married only a few months when he is brutally mutilated, his sexual organs removed and his tongue cut out. Should his twenty year old bride be denied a divorce and a remarriage for as long as the husband is alive? To answer that, we must ask Jesus’ purpose in requiring a reason for divorcing a wife. Was his purpose to protect women or was it to cause them extreme anguish? Was His reason for saying that a man may not divorce his wife unless she committed fornication to destine a righteous wife to a life of misery? The husband who has been mutilated has already been given that destiny. God forbid that the butchers who mutilated him should be given the power through a false application of Scripture to deny his young bride a divorce and remarriage. Would it be cruel for a wife to accept a divorce from such a husband? It depends on what you mean by cruel. From whose perspective? Could a wife who was forced to continue in a marriage where the husband could not meet his sexual obligations to her retain her chastity? It is doubtful. If, therefore, it is likely that the husband would be rendered an unwilling witness to his wife’s adulteries, would it not be better that he divorce her before the adultery take place before his very eyes? Better that she should appear cruel by accepting a divorce from him than become an adulteress.
I’m sure you can think up many more verses that give permission in such circumstances to the husband to provide his wife a Bill of Divorcement. One such verse would be Luke 14:5 where Jesus “answered them, saying, Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the Sabbath day?” Honoring the Sabbath is one of the Ten Commandments and yet Jesus says it can be broken to do certain types of good. In that light, let’s proceed with this study, and again, I apologize that this article could not be provided to you in a more thorough fashion but it is of such great importance that even in this abbreviated form I felt it needed to be published. I pray that no reader will think that this gives them or anyone else permission to divorce. I do not have the power to permit or forbid divorce. A husband is the only one who can divorce and the Lord provides us the Bible which each of us must read in humility and come to our own conclusions as to when a husband can actually provide a Bill of Divorcement.

Can a Woman Divorce Her Husband?

   Can a woman divorce her husband? This question involves the very nature of marriage which is a metaphor for our relationship with our Lord Jesus but before I give the long answer to this question I’ll give you the short answer and some alternatives.
No, a woman may not divorce her husband. A woman may leave her husband and a woman may ask her husband to divorce her but she may not divorce him. [This is because a marriage is a unilateral contract. I’ll discuss this later in this article.]
Paul makes this understanding of marriage in Romans 7:3 when he writes:

“So then if, while [her] husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.”

So if a woman can’t divorce her husband then what are her options when she is married to a man who is unwilling to treat her as a wife or to a man who has defiled himself? Let’s take the simplest case; a woman who is married to a man who has defiled himself. In such a case it would not be surprising that a wife would no longer want sexual relations and if she did not want any further sexual relations with the defiled husband then she would be left in a horrible situation of being married but with no outlet for her sexual needs. Here are some examples of defiled men from which such a wife might want a divorce. The penalties for these defilements are also given.

A husband who has defiled himself sexually by laying carnally with another man’s wife. [An adulterer]
Penalty: Death by stoning for the man as well as for the other man’s wife. [Leviticus 20:10]

A husband who has defiled himself sexually by laying carnally with the widow of his father.
Penalty: Death for both the widow and for the stepson. [Leviticus 20:11]*

A husband who has defiled himself sexually by laying carnally with the widow of his son.
Penalty: Death for both the widow and for the father-in-law. [Leviticus 20:12]*

A husband who has defiled himself by laying with a man as with a woman. [A homosexual – The Bible calls this an abomination and calls such men dogs.]
Penalty: Death Penalty [Leviticus 20:13]

A husband who has defiled himself sexually by laying carnally with both a woman and her daughter.
Penalty: Death by fire for both the man and the two women. [Leviticus 20:14]

A husband who has defiled himself by laying with an animal. [The Bible calls this confusion.]
Penalty: Death [Leviticus 20:15]

These are clear cases of defilement and the complete list is much longer than this. If a woman asked her husband to give her a Bill of Divorcement in such cases she would not be sinning nor would the husband be sinning by giving her a Bill of Divorcement. Jesus forbade men to give a Bill of Divorcement for the hardness of their hearts but He did not forbid them to give a Bill of Divorcement out of the tenderness of their hearts. In a moment of tenderness for a wife, a wife who does not deserve a defiled husband, the defiled husband may even desire to give his wife a Bill of Divorcement. If we were living in a righteous nation, a nation that followed God’s laws and carried out God’s punishments, the wives of such men would not have to seek a Bill of Divorcement since their husband would be put to death and the wives would then be free to remarry. A defiled husband in virtually every country escapes the death penalty so he certainly has no cause to cry injustice if his wife uses extreme tactics to get  him to provide her with a Bill of Divorcement. If God had His way, the man would be given the death penalty.
There are other types of men who have not defiled themselves but who are incapable of providing their wives with their marital rights. Wives would not be sinning to ask such men to provide them with a Bill of Divorcement. Here is a short list of some men who are incapable of providing sexual satisfaction to their wives.

Men whose schizophrenia or other mental impairment results in violent behavior.
Men who are chronic alcoholics or drug addicts.
Men who are physically abusive.

Situations that fall short of what I have described above require a serious analysis before a wife asks for a Bill of Divorcement. The last thing that any man or woman wants is to find themselves party to a divorce which should never have occurred, for once a woman is divorced she cannot remarry her former husband if she has had sexual relations with another man. [Deuteronomy 24:1-4]
To sum up, I’ve shown here that even though a woman can’t divorce her husband she can righteously pursue a Bill of Divorcement and in Western nations it is very easy for her to make life intolerable for a husband if he refuses to provide it. Now I’ll explain why a woman cannot divorce her husband.
Marriage is a unilateral contract in that it involves three things: Payment, Acceptance, and Possession:

Payment: Bride’s Price

Acceptance: Father Gives the Bride Away. In the case of a father with a deflowered virgin he is required to give the daughter in marriage or he will be guilty of prostituting his daughter. “Do not prostitute thy daughter, to cause her to be a whore; lest the land fall to whoredom, and the land become full of wickedness.”Leviticus19:29 The word which is transliterated as “chalal” and translated into English in the King James as the verb “prostitute” is translated more accurately in the Strong’s concordance: to profane, make common, defile, pollute, to violate the honour of, to dishonour, to violate (a covenant), to treat as common. It would be impossible for a father to remain in good standing with his community if he did not give his daughter in marriage to the man who deflowered her for that would mean he was planning to give a defiled daughter to some other future husband for she would be defiled to anyone other than the first. He would be forcing her to be profaned. The sad fact is that nearly every church and nation of the world has fallen into this wickedness but nations have the authority to enforce God’s laws and they must use severe action such as the threat of corporal punishment when a man refuses to declare a woman to be his wife after having taken her virginity or when a father refuses to give his daughter in the same instance. Proverbs and many other scriptures can be used for the basis of demanding punishment of those who allow the land to be defiled.

Possession: Sexual Union

Whether the sexual union takes place before the payment and acceptance or afterwards, God’s law requires that indeed the man declare the woman to be his wife. Only when the sexual union under discussion here was between a believing man and a heathen woman would it be deemed fornication. (See Ezra 10:10-11 on the invalidity of marriages between believers and heathens.)

Exodus 22:16 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.

Marriage is a Unilateral Contract

As in all unilateral contracts, only the one who has made payment can release what he has made payment for, in this case, a wife.

Marriage includes two additional stipulations to this unilateral contract.

1.) If the woman is a slave wife, which applies to any woman who did not willingly become a wife, her husband must not diminish her marital rights in the event that he takes an additional wife. Marital rights are food, clothing, and sexual relations. [Exodus 21:10]

If the man diminishes the marital rights of a slave wife after taking an additional wife then he must release his slave wife, i.e., provide her with a Bill of Divorcement.

2.) The husband has sole authority over his woman.

The man may divorce a wife who puts herself in situations by speech or action which increase the likelihood that she will not be exclusively his. A woman who seeks the advice of other men in regards to her marriage is fornicating for she is looking up to another man for advice. This is why I refuse to counsel married women. The Bible clearly forbids this. [1 Corinthians 14:35] ” And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.”

It’s sad that marriage is so misunderstood that Christians must re-learn what their own Bible teaches them. Custom and tradition now overshadow the marriage ceremony to the point that the simplest of transactions has been made complex by ministers who seek to inject their own hocus pocus when even the ceremony is not required. Payment, Acceptance, and Possession are all that’s required for a marriage to be valid. Woman was made for man, not man for woman despite the confused ideas of men who think that they are God’s gift to women. The first step toward wonderful friendships and wonderful marriages is to understand what is taught by the Bible and to follow it. Most men will agree with me that women are God’s most beautiful creation and that most of them will live up to their title, helpmeet. Learning what the Bible says about our relationships is the first step in making sure that we do the right thing when our marriages, courtships, and friendships are strained.

Additional references are:
Matthew 19:8,9

Note: Copyright 2007 – Pastor Don Milton – All Rights Reserved

If one of the spouses in a Christian marriage gets married to someone else, is the marriage void and is the innocent spouse free to get married to another in the Lord?

The Bible gives no exception to the laws of marriage whether a couple is Christian or not. It is only a husband who may divorce his wife. A wife may not divorce her husband. A wife who has sexual relations with another man but has not been freed to remarry with a Bill of Divorcement from her husband is an adulteress and the penalty for the wife and the man with whom she has had sexual relations is death. Now neither you nor I can take the law into our own hands but death by stoning is the biblical penalty for adultery.

Leviticus 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Do we dare to change the definitions of adultery? Adultery always involves a married woman with a man who is not her husband. A married man who has sexual relations with an unmarried woman is not committing adultery. Certainly if she is not a virgin [I’ll address this later in the article] he is committing a fornication worthy of church discipline but it is not adultery and it is not as serious as the case of a wife who has sexual relations with someone other than her one and only husband. Now listen, this is where people get confused. Murder is a horrible thing. It requires the death penalty according to the Bible. Is beating a man till he has black eyes and multiple bruises on his face a horrible thing? Of course it is! Does it require the death penalty? NO! The same logic applies to the difference between a wife having sexual relations with another man and a husband having sexual relations with another woman. Both are sins but the one sin is worthy of death while the other is worthy of some lesser punishment. Men and women naturally know that there is a difference between a man who has sex with women other than his wife and a woman who has sex with men other than her husband but what we naturally know is not at issue. What is at issue is what the Bible says and it simply is not adultery when a married man has sexual relations with a single woman and when a married man gets married to an additional wife it is no sin at all. It is marriage. It is not against what the Bible teaches. Now, concerning a married man who has sexual relations with a virgin.

Exodus 22:16 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.

Notice, it does not say “if a man that is not betrothed.” The woman must not be betrothed and she must be a virgin [maid] for this verse to be understood to mean that the man must declare his marriage to her, that she has indeed become his wife, but there is absolutely nothing said about the marital status of the man. We must take this to mean exactly what it says unless we are not the “Bible believing Christians” we claim to be and what it says is “if a man.” The man here described is any man who is not forbidden to marry her by the incest laws given in the Bible. Whenever the Bible uses the Hebrew word which is transliterated ‘iysh and has it followed by a verb, it is translated as “if a man” or “whosoever” and then the verb. In this case it is ‘iysh pathah and as we have seen this translates as “if a man entice.” We see ‘iysh nathan in Exodus 22:10-11 “if a man deliver.”

If a man deliver unto his neighbour an ass, or an ox, or a sheep, or any beast, to keep; and it die, or be hurt, or driven away, no man seeing [it]:[Then] shall an oath of the LORD be between them both, that he hath not put his hand unto his neighbour’s goods; and the owner of it shall accept [thereof], and he shall not make [it] good.

The phrase “if a man” that is found in both Exodus 22:10 and 22:16 as well as many other verses signifies that what follows, applies to all men and not just a select group of men. So married or not, a man who deflowers a virgin must declare his marriage to her and upon declaring that she is his wife their congregation must acknowledge that they are indeed married. A wife who does not like the fact that her husband has married a second wife has no valid reason to ask him for a divorce unless he stops providing her with the same amount of conjugal rights that she had before he took the second wife or if he decreases the amount of money set aside to take care of her food and clothing.* If he fails to do these, she can demand that her church and the civil authorities put whatever pressure is needed to force her husband to give her what is her due. Thirty-nine lashes to the husband would probably be sufficient to persuade the husband to render unto his wife her due benevolence. Divorce is such a horrible alternative that it makes sense to use corporal punishment against husbands who refuse their first wife her due benevolence after they have taken another wife. A discussion of the appropriateness of corporal punishment shall be provided in another article. Until a few hundred years ago it was considered a standard mode of punishment for certain crimes and if used it is valid according to many verses in the Bible, particularly in Proverbs.

*Exodus 21:10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.

Let’s not forget, if he provides her all this, she will not have any valid reason to ask him for a divorce but every wife is free to leave her husband as long as she doesn’t take another man. Wives are not slaves and since Paul states that a wife may indeed leave her husband he is clarifying that it is only the husband who must provide conjugal duties and this accords well with the fact that nowhere in the Bible does it state that a wife must not diminish her “duty of marriage” for a wife does not have any duty she must perform. The man may simply take another wife if he finds himself in the unhappy situation of living with a wife who has no interest in marital affections.

1 Corinthians 7:10,11 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

Divorce for cause [see Matthew 5:32] was not abolished by the New Testament so 1 Corinthians 7, verses 10&11 are discussing departure without cause. Notice how simply Paul puts his paraphrase of Exodus 21:10, “let not the husband put away his wife” but his wife can depart as long as she remains single. If a man could not marry more wives then Paul certainly would have taken this opportunity to write a reciprocal verse such as: [not in the Bible->] “if he depart, let him remain unmarried, or be reconciled to his wife.”[<-not in the Bible] Of course no such verse is found in the Bible and Paul does not make such an instruction.

We must remember that in all cases, the woman must not be a heathen or the marriage is void from inception. “Strange” refers to those who have not adopted the worship of Jehovah and only Jehovah.

Ezra 10:10-11 And Ezra the priest stood up, and said unto them, Ye have transgressed, and have taken strange wives, to increase the trespass of Israel. Now therefore make confession unto the LORD God of your fathers, and do his pleasure: and separate yourselves from the people of the land, and from the strange wives.

What about repentance? If an adulterous wife repents must the husband take her back?
Click Here to Read the Answer.

   “Having more than one wife could be part of that epic drama the Lord has put you here to enjoy.”
Those words are found on the back cover of Pastor Don Milton’s Polygamy Adventure novel, Prince of Sumba, Husband to Many Wives.
Now to most of us, the words polygamy and romance don’t go together but Pastor Don has set out in Prince of Sumba, to prove that polygamists have hearts, consciences, and ethics, every bit as much as monogamists do, if not more. In addition to the 385 footnotes of historical and biblical documentation, Pastor Don Milton uses the characters in his novel to entertain the reader with lively conversations, including one discussion on whether the Protestant church has censored, erased from history, and even killed Christians who have written in favor of polygamy.
From the mouth of Ruth, the daughter of the novel’s polygamist, we learn about the Reverend Martin Madan, who founded the Lock Hospital, the first hospital for the treatment of women with venereal disease. She relates how he published the first popular hymnal that included both hymn tunes and words, how he composed more Christian hymn tunes than any composer of his era other than Handel, and that Handel himself raised funds for Madan’s hospital. Ruth goes on to make the claim that seminaries have refused to document Madan’s contribution in their histories of Christianity because of the books he published defending polygamy. Astoundingly, we discover that Madan was the godfather to the son of Charles Wesley, Samuel Wesley. And that Samuel had a son through his polygamous marriage to Sarah Suter, Samuel Sebastian Wesley, who composed “The Church’s One Foundation is Jesus Christ Her Lord.”
On a more conventional note, the book provides a verse by verse description of many of the central beliefs of Evangelical Christianity with some fantastic conversion testimonies to accompany them, including one titled Cherry the Harlot, a heart rending account of a prostitute turned evangelist.
The story is told by Ish, the missionary, whose wife, Mary, accompanies him to polygamous Mindanao. Ish’s reactions to the Christian women who want him for their husband are unpredictable and his wife, Mary, is endearing as she responds, mostly with humility, to the polygamists around her.
Author, Don Milton, has been a taxi driver, business owner, and minister. He now exercises his gifts in the gospel ministry of Don has published numerous books on the topics of Christian marriage and courtship as well as Law and Justice. Don received his Bachelor of Arts in Linguistics at the University of Washington and has studied five languages.

Note: Prince of Sumba, Husband to Many Wives is NOT about FLDS or Mormon polygamy.

Contact: Don Milton           Telephone: Upon Request           Leave a Message for Pastor Don Milton Lower Right

John’s wives were so delighted to actually have Christian visitors, that they didn’t mind that Mary was talking about them. In fact, it was energizing them. John nodded his approval as his wife, Peesha, now took a softer approach.
“Mary, when you were a toddler, if you had an ice cream cone, would you share it? Probably not, I wouldn’t have either. But what if you had ten gallons of ice cream and no freezer? I think even a toddler would share the ten gallons, and if she didn’t, what a shame, for what was left over would just spoil. John is like that ten gallons of ice cream and it would break my heart to put him on ice. It’s just not natural. Men are different.”
“My Ish is not like that.” I wasn’t sure if it was John or myself who was being insulted but it was clear that Mary was worn out from our discussion. Even so, she had enough energy to take one last jab.
“What were you thinking, Ish, writing a book on polygamy!”

“Any historian who had truly studied first century Rome, would have read much of the Lex Papia Poppaea, the Roman marriage law which included rewards for having many children and penalties for remaining single. It’s also clear that this is why Paul defended celibacy, not to promote celibacy as a permanent state, but in reaction to certain of the regulations in the Lex Papia Poppaea. If a single man between the age of puberty and sixty was to receive an inheritance, he would lose it if he didn’t get married within one hundred and twenty days. The same applied to single women between the age of puberty and fifty. Paul simply wanted to make sure that no man would marry out of compulsion from the government but would marry only out of a compulsion from God to be fruitful and multiply. We certainly know that Paul never meant for any woman to be without a husband. He clearly stated, ‘I will, therefore, that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.'”

You may not have sexual relations with the sister of your wife while your wife is still living. It is incest.

Leviticus 18:18 Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex [her], to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life [time].

In short, marrying two sisters at the same time is a violation of the laws against incest. You are forbidden to do it. There are some who enter into a semantic type of nonsense concerning this verse while ignoring the context. They claim that if a man doesn’t set out to vex his wife by marrying her sister that he’s not violating Leviticus 18:18 but that’s not the point of this verse. Leviticus 18:18 is a law against committing a particular type of incest. The context in which this incest law is found is within a long list of incestuous bans.

Leviticus 18:14 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father’s brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she [is] thine aunt.

This is speaking of after the uncle is dead. During the life of the uncle it would be adultery but this has no limit such as in the ban on uncovering the nakedness of a wife.

Leviticus 18:16 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother’s wife: it [is] thy brother’s nakedness.

Again, this is speaking of after the brother is dead for during the life of the brother it would be adultery and this also has no limit such as in the ban on uncovering the nakedness of a wife.

Now let’s look at the verse in question:

Leviticus 18:18 Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex [her], to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life [time].

To uncover whose nakedness? If we are using the context of the verses that precede Leviticus 18:18 then we are forced to specify that the “her” is the current wife. Like this:

Leviticus 18:18 Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex [your wife], to uncover [your wife’s] nakedness, beside the other in her life [time].

You see, the wife of your sister is “your wife’s nakedness.” In other words, it is incestuous.

This case could be put on a test as follows:

Question: What is the only incestuous relationship that ceases to be incestuous after the death of your wife?

Answer: Marriage to your wife’s sister.

Note: Copyright 2007 Don Milton All Rights Reserved.
All Copyright Laws Apply – Thou Shalt Not Steal

Martin Luther often put a political spin on religious ideas as you will see from reading the following letter in which he and his fellow theologians gave consent to a polygamous marriage. I have only included the last portion of that letter as it includes the sections where Luther and his fellow theologians gave their approval of that polygamous marriage. The letter was written and signed by Luther and other well known theologians of the reformation, some of whom attended the marriage as well. Enjoy reading.

XXI. But after all, if your Highness is fully resolved to marry a second wife, we judge it ought to be done secretly, as we have said with respect to the dispensation demanded on the same account, that is, that none but the person you shall wed, and a few trusty persons, know of the matter, and they, too, obliged to secrecy under the seal of confession. Hence no contradiction nor scandal of moment is to be apprehended ; for it is no extraordinary thing for Princes to keep concubines; and though the vulgar should be scandalized thereat, the more intelligent would doubt of the truth, and prudent persons would approve of this moderate kind of life, preferably to adultery, and other brutal actions. There is no need of being much concerned for what men will say, provided all goes right with conscience. So far do we approve it, and in those circumstances only by us specified ; for the Gospel hath neither recalled nor forbid what was permitted in the law of Moses with respect to marriage. Jesus Christ has not changed the external economy, but added justice only, and life everlasting, for reward. He teaches the true way of obeying God, and endeavors to repair the corruption of nature.

XXII. Your Highness hath therefore, in this writing, not only the approbation [approval] of us all, in case of necessity, concerning what you desire, but also the reflections we have made thereupon; we beseech you to weigh them, as becoming a virtuous, wise, and Christian Prince. We also beg of God to direct all for his glory and your Highness’s salvation.

XXIII. As to your Highness’s thought of communicating this affair to the emperor before it be concluded, it seems to us that this Prince counts adultery among the lesser sort of sins ; and it is very much to be feared lest his faith being of the same stamp with that of the Pope, the Cardinals, the Italians, the Spaniards, and the Saracens, he make light of your Highness’s proposal, and turn it to his own advantage by amusing your Highness with vain words. We know he is deceitful and perfidious, and as nothing of the German in him.

XXIV. Your Highness sees, that he uses no sincere endeavor to redress the grievances of Christendom; that he leaves the Turk unmolested, and labors for nothing but to divide the empire, that he may raise up the house of Austria on its ruins. It is therefore very much to be wished that no Christian Prince would give into his pernicious schemes. May God preserve your Highness. We are most ready to serve your Highness.

Given at Wittenberg the Wednesday after the feast of Saint Nicholas, 1539. Your Highness’s most humble, and most obedient subjects and servants,


I George Nuspicher, Notary Imperial, bear testimony by this present act, written and signed with my own hand, that I have transcribed this present copy from the true original which is in Melancthon’s own handwriting, and hath been faithfully preserved to this present time, at the request of the most serene Prince of Hesse ; and have examined with the greatest exactness every line and every word, and collated them with the same original; and have found them conformable thereunto, not only in the things themselves, but also in the signs manual, and have delivered the present copy in five leaves of good paper, whereof I bear witness. GEORGE NUSPICHER, Notary.

You have just read the letter of Martin Luther, et al, concerning the proposed marriage of Philip, Landgrave of Hesse, with Margaret de Saal. It was taken from:
The History of the Variations of the Protestant Churches By Jacques Benigne Bossuet – Bishop of Meaux,
“One of his most Christian Majesty’s Honorable Privy Council, Heretofore Preceptor to the Dauphin, and Chief Almoner to the Dauphiness.”
In Two Volumes – Translated from the last French Edition. VOLUME I Published 1836

The Marriage Contract of Philip, Landgrave of Hesse, with Margaret de Saal.
In the name of God, Amen. Be it known to all those, as well in general as in particular, who shall see, hear, or read this public instrument, that in the year 1540, on Wednesday, the fourth day of the month of March, at two o’clock or thereabouts, in the afternoon, the thirteenth year of the Indiction, and the twenty-first of the reign of the most puissant and most victorious Emperor Charles V, our most gracious lord; the most serene Prince and Lord Philip Landgrave of Hesse, Count of Catznelenbogen, of Dietz, of Ziegenhain, and Nidda, with some of his Highness’s Counsellors, on one side, and the good and virtuous Lady Margaret de Saal with some of her relations, on the other side, have appeared before me, Notary, and witness underwritten, in the City of Rotenburg, in the castle of the same city, with the design and will publicly declared before me, Notary public and witness, to unite themselves by marriage; and accordingly my most gracious Lord and Prince Philip the Landgrave hath ordered this to be proposed by the Reverend Denis Melander, preacher to his Highness, much to the sense as follows :” Whereas the eye of God searches all things, and but little escapes the knowledge of men, his Highness declares that his will is to wed the said Lady Margaret de Saal, although the Princess his wife be still living, and that this action may not be imputed to inconstancy or curiosity; to avoid scandal and maintain the honor of the said Lady, and the reputation of her kindred, his Highness makes oath here before God, and upon his soul and conscience, that he takes her to wife through no levity, nor curiosity, nor from any contempt of law, or superiors; but that he is obliged to it by such important, such inevitable necessities of body and conscience, that it is impossible for him to save either body or soul, without adding another wife to his first. All which his Highness hath laid before many learned, devout, prudent, and Christian preachers, and consulted them upon it. And these great men, after examining the motives represented to them, have advised his Highness to put his soul and conscience at ease by this double marriage. And the same cause and the same necessity have obliged the most serene Princess, Christina Duchess of Saxony, his Highness’s first lawful wife, out of her great prudence and sincere devotion, for which she is so much to be commended, freely to consent and admit of a partner, to the end that the soul and body of her most dear spouse may run no further risk, and the glory of God may be increased, as the deed written with this Princess’s own hand sufficiently testifies. And lest occasion of scandal be taken from its not being the custom to have two wives, although this be Christian and lawful in the present case, his Highness will not solemnize these nuptials in the ordinary way, that is, publicly before many people, and with the wonted ceremonies, with the said Margaret de Saal; but both the one and the other will join themselves in wedlock, privately and without noise, in presence only of the witnesses underwritten.” After Melander had finished his discourse, the said Philip and the said Margaret accepted of each other for husband and wife, and promised mutual fidelity in the name of God. The said Prince hath required of me, Notary underwritten, to draw him one or more collated copies of this contract, and hath also promised, on the word and faith of a prince, to me a public person, to observe it inviolably, always and without alteration, in presence of the Reverend and most learned masters Philip Melancthon, Martin Bucer, Denis Melander; and likewise in the presence of the illustrious and valiant Eberhard de Than, counsellor of his electoral Highness of Saxony, Herman de Malsberg, Herman de Hundelshausen, the Lord John Fegg of the Chancery, Rudolph Schenck ; and also in the presence of the most honorable and most virtuous Lady Anne of the family of Miltitz, widow of the late John de Saal, and mother of the spouse, all in quality of requisite witnesses for the validity of the present act. And I Balthasar Rand, of Fuld, Notary public imperial, who was present at the discourse, instruction, marriage, espousals, and union aforesaid, with the said witnesses, and have heard and seen all that passed, have written and subscribed the present contract, being requested so to do; and set to it the usual seal, for a testimony of the truth thereof. BALTHASAR RAND.

You have just read the polygamous Marriage Contract of Philip, Landgrave of Hesse, with Margaret de Saal. It was taken from:
The History of the Variations of the Protestant Churches By Jacques Benigne Bossuet – Bishop of Meaux,
“One of his most Christian Majesty’s Honorable Privy Council, Heretofore Preceptor to the Dauphin, and Chief Almoner to the Dauphiness.”
In Two Volumes – Translated from the last French Edition. VOLUME I Published 1836

A final note concerning the polygamous marriage of Philip, Landgrave of Hesse. There cannot be a claim that this was simply a divorce which was called polygamy. Philip’s wives lived with him and both had relations with him. During the seven years following Philip’s polygamous marriage, nine children were born to him by his wives; Christina of Saxony and Margaret de Saal. Each one of these nine children was conceived after the polygamous marriage had taken place. Between his two wives, Philip had a total of nineteen children; twelve sons and seven daughters. May we all be so blessed!

1 2 3 5


A real man gives to his family and community while a wimp takes all for himself.

— Pastor Don Milton, Christian Marriage Website Archives