# The Seer/Volume 1/Number 6/Celestial Marriage

The Seer, Vol. 1, No. 6, June 1853
CELESTIAL MARRIAGE
(Continued from page 80)
If the plurality of wives be a divine institution, why did not the Lord make more than one female for Adam? Because one was sufficient to commence the work of peopling this creation. The Lord generally accomplishes His work through prescribed and fixed laws. The law of generation is the fixed and established method by which males and females have been organized out of the dust, during the last six thousand years. Before this law could take effect, it was necessary that the immortal bodies of the first pair should be formed in a different manner from that of the mortal bodies of their offspring. The first pair being formed by the immediate agency of the Almighty, all others could be formed through the general and fixed laws of generation.
God had the power to form all the inhabitants of the earth in the same way the He did the first pair, but His wisdom dictated their formation by another law. He had power to form a great number of females for Adam, but His wisdom dictated thepage 89formation of only one as being sufficient to commence the great work of the multiplication of the human species.
But does not Jesus, when referring to the union of Adam and Eve, as one flesh, convey the idea that no man was to have more than one wife? No; Jesus was speaking of the Jewish nation, who had been accustomed to give bills of divorcement, and put away their wives; he was showing them that Moses suffered such bills to be given, because of the hardness of their hearts; “but from the beginning it was not so.” He told them that it was unlawful for them to put away their wives, except for the cause of fornication. He “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.” (Matthew xix., 4, 6.) Jesus here vindicates the sacredness and perpetuity of the marriage covenant. He shows that the husband and wife are no more twain, but one flesh. What are we to understand by two becoming one flesh? Does it mean that the male and female lost their identity as persons? By no means. Such a circumstance never happened in any age of the world. Does it mean that they become one merely in their thoughts, affections, and minds? No; it says they twain shall be one flesh: mark the expression, “one flesh,” not one mind. But how can this be possible? Answer; By the sacred covenant of marriage, the woman freely and voluntarily gives herself to the husband; she no longer is her own, neither does she belong to her parents, or to any one else; she has surrendered herself wholly to her husband; she is his helpmate; his wife; his property; his flesh, just as much as the flesh of his own body is his: hence, Paul says, “So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it.”—(Eph. v., 28, 29.) Although she still maintains her identity as a distinct personage, yet she belongs to another, and not to herself; she is his flesh and his bones. He, therefore, that will divorce his own flesh and his own bones, “saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced, committeth adultery.”—(Matthew v., 32.) Now a man that will cause his own wife which is, by marriage, his own flesh, to commit adultery, will be considered as an adulterer himself, and will be judged and condemned with adulterers; for in him is the greater sin, because he compelled his own flesh to commit adultery, by putting her away. And if he should marry, after having put her away, it would be adding sin to sin; for, after having forced his wife to commit adultery, he would now actually commit adultery himself. Hence, Jesus says, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery.”—(Mathew xix., 9.) Thus it will be seen, that a man who unlawfully divorces his wife, although he may remain unmarried, commits a sin equal to that of adultery, for he “causeth her to commit adultery;” and if he marry while in this great transgression, he, of course, would marry contrary to the will of God, therefore, God would have nothing to do in joining him to another, consequently his marriage, not being of Divine appointment, would be considered illegal, and therefore adulterous, like all other marriages wherein the authority of God is not recognized.
Some may pretend to say that if it be considered adultery to marry another, after having unlawfully divorced a wife, then it would be considered adultery to marry another without a divorce, having two or more at the same time. But these two cases are en-page 90tirely distinct and different in their nature. In the first case, a man, before he marries another, is under great transgression, having unlawfully put away his wife and caused her to commit adultery. While under this great transgression, God will not suffer him to be made one flesh with another; and if he marry, he marries independent of the authority of Heaven, and therefore commits adultery. But in the second case, if he marry another when he is not under transgression, through the consent of his first wife, and under the Divine sanction, and by Divine appointment and authority, as the holy Patriarchs and Prophets did, he does not commit adultery. Neither Jesus nor his apostles ever represented a person to be an adulterous man for marrying two wives and living with them, as had been practised by holy men in all previous ages. Such a practice was never condemned. Jesus did not say that Moses suffered a plurality of wives because of the hardness of their hearts, and that it was not so from the beginning. No. He said directly the reverse. It was for putting away wives, and not for taking wives, that Jesus condemned them. This putting away of wives was not only condemned under the Gospel, but it was considered a great evil hundreds of years before Christ. Hear the testimony of the Prophet Malachi: “Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth. For the Lord, the God of Israel, saith that He hateth putting away.”—(Mal. ii., 15, 16.)
As it was considered a very great evil for a husband to put away his wife, so, likewise, it was very sinful for a wife to put away her husband. Jesus says, “If a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.”—(Mark x., 12.)
In addition to the sense already illustrated, a husband and wife become one flesh in another respect. They not only become one flesh by the wife’s giving herself wholly to the husband, but originally the woman was actually made out of the bone and flesh of Adam. The Lord in forming a wife for Adam, did not see proper to construct her entirely out of the ground, but He took one of Adam’s ribs, and, connecting with it the necessary materials, formed a woman, and brought her to the Man; this curious circumstance caused Adam to exclaim, “This is now bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” (Gen. ii., 23, 24.) The woman therefore, by creation, was originally part of Man; the marriage ordinance being instituted to restore to man that part which was taken from him, without which he could not be perfect. When the bone or rib, taken from him, was restored in the form of a female and wife, he could, with all propriety, say that they were one flesh.
That this saying was not only applicable in the case of the first pair, but to all others who should afterwards be married by divine appointment, is evident from the declaration that a man, for this very cause, should leave father and mother, and cleave unto his wife, and they should be one flesh.
But there is still an additional sense wherein the husband and wife become one. They become one flesh in their children. The flesh of both father and mother becomes amalgamated in one in each of their offspring. Here is a union of the flesh of the father with that of the mother, that can never be separated—a union of the flesh of two in one body—a union as perfect as that of Adam’s rib before it was extracted from his body—a union that no power but death can dissolve—a union that will be eternal after the resurrection. Hence the husband and wife become one flesh in their children eternally. The union of husband and wife, therefore, should be as inseparable as their own flesh and bones in-page 91corporated in their children; it should be as eternal as the immortal bodies of their children after the resurrection. No wonder, then, that the Lord “hates putting away;” it is a violation of the eternal covenant of marriage; it is the overthrowing of the great foundation of eternal kingdoms; it is the destruction of an endless increase of posterity, and the rejection of the grand Patriarchal and family order of the Heavens; it is the severing asunder of that which God has joined together for eternity—the rending in twain of his own flesh and his own bones which God had united to be one forever; and in fine, it is the rejection of the Woman—“the glory of the Man”—the only means that God has ordained for the peopling of Worlds—the only stepping stone to an endless increase of dominions—the only medium of an endless continuation of immortal lives. What, therefore, God has joined together as one flesh, let no human authority dare put asunder.
But does not the saying, the “they twain shall be one flesh,” indicate that God did not design more than two to become one flesh? No: it conveys not such idea. Jesus says, “I and my Father are one.”—(John x., 30.) Now this saying did not prevent others from becoming one with the Father and Son; it was just as possible for three, or four, or a hundred, or any other number of his disciples, however great, to become one with Jesus and His Father, as it was for they twain to be one. Indeed, Jesus prays to the Father to make all his disciples one, even as they were one. Therefore because a man becomes one flesh with one wife, it does not prevent him from becoming one flesh with a second. When Jacob became one flesh with Leah, it did not prevent him from marrying Rachael, and Bilhah, and Zilpah, and from becoming one flesh with each of them. Each of the latter three were as much his as the first. The flesh of Jacob and Rachel was incorporated as one in the bodies of Joseph and Benjamin, as much as the flesh of Jacob and Leah was in Judah and Simeon. If it could be said of Jacob and Leah, that “They twain shall be one flesh,” the same saying could be applied, with equal propriety, to Jacob and Rachel—to Jacob and Bilhah—to Jacob and Zilpah; or if he had been paired with seven hundred wives, as Solomon was, it would have been equally applicable to each pair.
In the writings of the New Testament, we have no particular instances mentioned of the plurality of wives, and from this circumstance, some have supposed that such a practice did not exist; but we reply, that there are several books of the Old Testament, also, wherein no instances of such a practice, are recorded, and yet it is well known that such an order was in existence. Therefore, because the writers of the New Testament have failed to mention instances, it is no evidence whatever against the continuation of that divine institution. Why should some sixteen or eighteen of the inspired writers of the Old Testament be entirely silent in regard to a practice which existed under their immediate notice? The silence of the eight writers of the New Testament is no more proof against the existence of the plurality custom under the Christian dispensation, than the silence of double that number of writers is against its existence under former dispensations.
It is supposed by some, because the term wife, instead of wives, is used in the New Testament that no Christians had more than one. But no such inference can be justly drawn on that account. For who does not know that the greatest majority of the Old Testament writers, have used the term wife in the singular number as well as those under the Gospel? There were many people under every dispensation who had but one wife; and for this cause, instructions were most usually given in terms and language suited to the general condition of the people taken as a whole. When Moses gavepage 92laws concerning domestic relations, he most generally used the term wife, instead of wives, knowing that, in the most of cases, the laws regulating one wife, would be equally applicable to a plurality. Hence, he uses the singular number in his instructions in relation to a divorce: the same language is used against coveting a neighbour’s wife; and yet these laws were designed to take effect among polygamists, as well as among families practicing the one wife system. Many other laws were applicable to both systems, and yet Moses uses the singular term instead of the plural. This same custom continued among the writers after Moses; and it was very seldom that the term wives, in relation to individual families, was used, unless in regard to some circumstance or event which especially required the language to be in the plural. The New Testament writers, in giving rules and regulations for the government of families, have followed the same custom as those who preceded them, using the singular number, considering that what was applicable to one wife, was, in most of cases, applicable to a plurality. This method of expressing themselves, therefore, is not the least evidence against the existence of this order of things among Christians. Indeed, we know, that if the Jewish nation kept their law in relation to the childless dead, there must have been thousands of polygamists among them when Christianity was introduced into their midst.
The object of marriage, as has been abundantly proved, is to multiply the human species and instruct them in every principle of righteousness, that they may become like God, and be one with him, and inherit all the fullness of his glory. This being the real object of marriage, a question naturally arises, Have the wicked the same right to the blessings of a numerous posterity, under this divine institution, as the righteous? We answer, that they have not. And we shall now proceed to show from the Scriptures, that the Lord has made a great distinction in regard to this thing, between the wicked and the righteous.
First, We have no example of the wicked ever being married by divine authority. Where have we an instance of this kind? We have abundance of instances where the wicked have been married; but were these marriages by divine appointment? Were they joined together of God? Were the ministers who officiated directed by revelation to join them together as one flesh? We have no instance of the kind in the divine oracles. It is true, the Scriptures tolerate such a practice, the same as God has tolerated the illegal marriages during the last seventeen centuries, and the same as He tolerated the law of divorce among the Israelites because of the hardness of their hearts. He has suffered the wicked to marry, according to human laws and human authority, in order that mankind might not become extinct, the same as he suffered the children of Jacob to sell their younger brother to the Ishmaelites, in order that they might not become extinct by the famine. There are many things that God permits, because of the hardness of the hearts of mankind, that they will be condemned for in the day of judgment. Joseph’s brethren were condemned for their acts, but God caused good to result therefrom; this, however, did not clear them from their guild. So it is in regard to those who have ventured to marry without divine authority, God will cause good to result from the same in the preservation of the human species upon the earth, but the nations of the wicked who have thus violated that divine institution, will be cast into hell, and will lose the blessings and privileges of the righteous who have married by divine authority. Therefore, the fact that God does not join the wicked in marriage, is an evidence that they have not the same privileges as the righteous in this holy matrimonial ordinance.
Secondly, why does not God appro-page 93bate the marriages of the wicked equally with the righteous? Because by their wickedness, they not only bring damnation upon themselves, but upon their children also. The children seeing the wicked practices of their parents, would be very likely to follow their evil footsteps. We see this most abundantly exemplified, not only in wicked families, but among wicked nations. The nations who formerly inhabited the land of Canaan were unworthy of the ordinance of marriage or of posterity, because their children beheld the wicked examples of their parents, and became worse and worse, until their iniquity was full, when the Lord, in order to put a stop to their unlawful marriages, and the multiplication of evil doers, was compelled to destroy husbands, and wives, and children, to the number of many millions. Hear what the Lord said to the children of Israel, concerning them, “But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: but thou shalt utterly destroy them: namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the Lord they God hath commanded thee; that they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should yet sin against the Lord you God.”—(Deut. xx., 16, 17, 18.) When Abram first came into that land the Lord told him that their iniquity was “not yet full.”—(Gen. xv.) But some four or five centuries after this, through the evil practices of their fathers, the children had become fully ripened in sin, and had filled up the measure of their cup. And to prevent the earth from being overrun with this evil race, and corrupting Israel with their abominable practices, it was necessary to utterly destroy every soul that breathed. Instead of the Lord’s considering these nations fit to marry, he did not consider them worthy to live, or their children either, therefore he destroyed them, and gave their land to his people, and promised them on conditions of righeousness, that he would greatly bless their land, and increase their flocks and herds, and their riches and substance. Moses said unto them “The Lord shall make thee plenteous in good, in the fruit of thy body, and in the fruit of thy cattle, and in the fruit of thy ground, in the land which the Lord sware unto thy fathers to give thee.”—(Duet. xxviii., 11.)
Israel, then, because of righteousness, was considered worthy to be blessed with an increase of children, to be multiplied exceedingly, and become as the sands upon the sea shore innumerable; but they were considered worthy of this blessing only on conditions of righteousness: for if they turned away from the Lord, they would be no better qualified to save their children, than other nations. Should they forsake righteousness Moses said that they also should be visited with every kind of plague and curse; and among other calamities he says, “Ye shall be left few in number, whereas ye were as the stars of heaven for multitude.” “And it shall come to pass that as the Lord rejoiced over you to do you good, and to multiply you; so the Lord will rejoice over you to destroy you, and to bring you to nought.”—(Duet. xxviii., 62, 63) Here then we see that it is a cause of rejoicing with the Lord to multiply the righteous, and to diminish the wicked. Multiplication, therefore, was originally only designed for the righteous; but the wicked have presumed to take this blessing to themselves, and have thus been the instruments in bringing hundreds of millions into the world, which God is obliged from time to time to cut off and send to hell in order that the world may not be brought wholly under their dominion, and the curse devour the whole earth as in the days of Noah.
The angels who kept not their first estate are not permitted to multiply. Why? Because of their wickedness. If granted this privilege, they would teach their offspring the same wicked, malicious principles by which they themselves are governed; they would teach them to fight against God, and against every thing else that was good, and great, and glorious. This would not only make all their offspring miserable, but it would greatly enlarge the dominions of darkness; and to prevent all these great calamities and evils, God has wisely ordained to withhold marriage and increase of posterity entirely from them.
God is angry and displeased with wicked men and nations, as well as with the fallen angels, and though he suffers them to marry and to multiply, yet he will bring them to judgment for these things; and will punish them for bringing posterity into the world in all their corruption and wickedness: he will punish them with a double punishment, not only for their own evil deeds, but because they have taughtpage 94their children the same. Their children must suffer as well as they, because their parents ventured to marry in unrighteousness. They and their children in all their generations are preparing themselves for the society of the fallen angels; and with them they will dwell, and like them they will be placed in a condition where they can no more be permitted to multiply. Having once married in unrighteousness, and brought eternal ruin and misery upon their seed, the Lord will no longer suffer them to enlarge their dominions of wickedness, and entail unhappiness and wretchedness upon immortal souls. They have forfeited all right to wives or the law of increase, by their abuses of these things here in this life.
When Noah and his sons were building the ark, all the nations of the earth were marrying and giving in marriage, but their marriages were all illegal, and they only multiplied their posterity to be cut off and to perish out of the earth. God did not sanction their marriages, neither was he pleased with them or their children. Noah and his sons were the only persons worthy of wives or children; they alone had a divine right to marry; and they alone had any legal claim on the Lord in behalf of their children. The most of the people in the days of the Patriarchs had turned away form the true God to the worship of idols, consequently the marriages of all such were unauthorized, and their illegitimate children were multiplied upon the earth to curse the earth with the idolatry of their fathers. David says that “the wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.” Can we then, for one moment, suppose that God is pleased with the multiplication of the wicked? Does it please God to have the wicked marry, when, in so doing, they only increase the number who must be cast into hell? Far be it from us to impute such wickedness to God. That which God requires of the wicked, in the first place, is, to repent and become righteous, and then to marry and multiply a righteous posterity upon the earth: and if they will not do this, it would be far more tolerable for them in the day of judgment, if they would remain unmarried, for then they alone would suffer; but to be the instruments of bringing their own children to eternal ruin will greatly add to their torments. Who can, then, for one moment, believe that the wicked have equal privileges with the righteous in the divine institution of marriage? Who can, with the word of God before them, believe that the wicked ought to multiply upon the earth and raise up candidates for the devil’s kingdom? No person can believe this, who believes the Bible.
Hear what the prophet Isaiah says, concerning the children of the wicked: he declares, “The seed of evildoers shall never be renowned. Prepare slaughter for his children, for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.”—(Isa. xiv., 20, 21.) Now would it not be far better for them not to marry than to be the means of bringing both temporal and eternal judgments upon their children! God is certainly not pleased with their increase, or else He would not prepare slaughter for their children, to prevent them from filling the world with cities; if he were pleased with their increase, the more cities they filled, the better.
The Psalmist, in speaking of both the righteous and the wicked, says, that “Such as be blessed of Him shall inherit the earth; and they that be cursed of Him shall be cut off.” And again he says, “He (the righteous) is ever merciful, and lendeth; and his seed is blessed. Depart from evil, and do good; and dwell for evermore. For the Lord loveth judgment, and forsaketh not his saints: they are preserved forever: but the seed of the wicked shall be cut off. The righteous shall inherit the land, and dwell therein forever.”—(Ps. xxxvii.) Thus we can see what the design of the Lord is in regard to the seed of the wicked: they are to utterly perish out of the earth. Not so with the righteous; God has promised that they shall not only inherit the earth in this life, but they shall “dwell therein forever.”
IN a former part of this treatise, it was shown that adulterers forfeited their lives in ancient times, the reason was because they were not considered worthy of wives or children to perpetuate their names among the righteous: and being unworthy of these blessings, they were unworthy of life; hence they were commanded to be destroyed that they might not transfer their wicked examples to a rising generation. And God was so displeased with adulterers that he prohibited their posterity from the enjoyment of the blessings of his people. Hence, it is said, “Apage 95bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord.—(Duet. xxiii., 2.)
The Jews, as a nation, were adulterers at the time Christianity was introduced among them. Jesus calls them an “adulterous generation.” Consequently they had forfeited all right and title to raise up seed unto Abraham. They pretended to be Abraham’s seed, but they had forfeited that title by their wickedness and adulteries: therefore, “Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham.” “Ye are of your father, the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.”—(John, viii., 33, 39, 44.) Being the children of the devil, they had forfeited all right to the divine institution of marriage. Instead of its being pleasing to God for them to pretend to be Abraham’s children, and to multiply and spread forth their posterity, Jesus said unto them, “Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children. For behold, the days are coming, n which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps that never gave suck. Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us.”—(Luke xxiii., 28, 29, 30.) They had forfeited the blessings of wives and children, and even of life itself, because they were an “adulterous generation,” and full of all manner of wickedness. God would sooner of the very “stones raise up children unto Abraham,” than to have such wicked characters undertake to marry and multiply. Who then cannot perceive that God makes a very great distinction between the wicked and the righteous in regard to marriage and the multiplication of the human species? Those blessings were originally intended for the righteous, and for the righteous only, but the wicked have stepped forward to their own condemnation, and claimed the privileges of the righteous; bringing temporal and eternal judgments upon their generations. Hence, that which is a blessing to the righteous, will prove a cursing to the wicked. The ark of God while it remained among the righteous, brought blessings, and glory, and honour, and great joy; but when it was taken by the Philistines, who had no business with it, it brought cursing, and plague, and desolation, and death, upon their numerous hosts. So will God punish the wicked for daring to claim a divine institution which was only intended for the righteous.
(To be continued)page 96