MemberAugust 19, 2020 at 7:07 am
Is polygyny a marriage option for today? Why or why not? Please use scriptures to justify your position.
MemberAugust 19, 2020 at 7:20 am
Polygamy is totally acceptable. In fact, the Lord encouraged it:
Genesis 1:28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
It’s natural for women to seek out the most high value male, both in the animal kingdom and mankind. So it’s only natural for multiple women to gravitate towards one man.
1 Kings 11:3 He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray.
<font face=”inherit”>So I would encourage brothers to marry more than one wife, IF you can afford it and only IF your wives agree to it. Do not </font>pursue<font face=”inherit”> multiple women if you’re not serious about marriage or creating a family. That’s my take on it.</font>
MemberAugust 19, 2020 at 8:20 pm
“It’s natural for women to seek out the most high value male, both in the animal kingdom and mankind. So it’s only natural for multiple women to gravitate towards one man”. ? I’m curious.
Because that’s not a verse of scripture . How did you come to the conclusion that because animals do it, it’s natural for humans to do it ? Where did you get this idea that women gravitate towards one high choice male the way animals do ?
God created us in his image and likeness ; not the beasts of the fields image and likeness. But I digress because I believe you are fully convinced that polygamy is natural and godly. I just wish you actually had scripture that supported your view as well.
MemberAugust 20, 2020 at 5:55 am
I don’t need scriptures to support my arguments. YOU do! Because you’re the one trying to assert that polygamy is a sin. I’m saying it’s a natural part of human nature. This is simple biology and behavioral science. Women only want to procreate with the strongest and most capable man they can find. That’s why a billionaire can have multiple women at his mansion all of them fighting for his attention and affection. In the hopes that he’ll pick one of them to be his wife and he’ll make babies with her. It’s called “hypergamy”.
MemberAugust 20, 2020 at 6:19 am
MemberAugust 20, 2020 at 6:23 am
Umm what? Is it my fault that women marry up and men marry down? Don’t blame me, I didn’t make the rules. Yes, in an “ideal” world it would be one man, one woman. But this isn’t an ideal world. It’s every man for himself. And if that means one man gets to marry 5 women, then so be it. I’d marry 1,000 women if I could. But I’m too broke for that so I guess I’ll have to settle for one…or maybe two if I’m lucky. 😄👌
AdministratorAugust 20, 2020 at 7:09 am
MemberAugust 20, 2020 at 10:46 am
Now, just think if you had a Rolls Royce given to you like that one king in Africa with 15 wives, I didn’t hear not nary one of the complaining. They be like “I just take may ‘Now Serving’ ticket and get in line for the love and affection.”
MemberAugust 20, 2020 at 11:58 am
LOL! “Adam and Eve, one woman one man, polygamy is adultary, wah wah wah.”
MemberAugust 20, 2020 at 7:04 am
That “look” is Hilarious!
MemberAugust 20, 2020 at 7:57 am
I feel you sis. To each his own….I don’t even like my chips double dipped, so it’s a no for me. Ewwww.
MemberAugust 20, 2020 at 8:05 am
Oh please! I bet if your celebrity crush, who you knew was already married or in a committed relationship. I bet if he asked you to marry him, you’d do it willingly.
MemberAugust 20, 2020 at 8:31 am
Are you referring to me bro Nfaly? LOL… I care not for “celebrity” dear brother. You shouldn’t assume we are all such slaves to our flesh. Isn’t this entire walk with the Most High about our spirits RULING our flesh? I’m more enticed by intelligent conversation but, to each his own, right? I’ll let you guys keep discussing this matter. Shalom…smile.
MemberAugust 21, 2020 at 4:39 pm
Lol! Stop. You just exposed how fleshly you really are.
MemberAugust 20, 2020 at 8:05 am
Sis 🤫 A wise man feareth, and departeth from evil: but the fool rageth, and is confident.
MemberAugust 25, 2020 at 11:08 pm
MemberAugust 22, 2020 at 8:24 am
Hello, Sister DeeAnna. Here are some Scriptures to support the righteousness of polygyny:
The first point I’d like to make is that the Towrah was given to our people to instruct us in righteousness. This means that it is the Towrah, and not our opinions, that defines what is morally right and wrong in the sight of the Most High. That the Towrah indeed defines righteousness is confirmed in Deuteronomy 6:25, Deuteronomy 4:8 and Luke 1:5-6, among many other passages.
The second point I’d like to make is that sin is biblically defined as transgression of the Law. I have studied this matter (polygyny) extensively, and I am yet to find a single passage in the Towrah or otherwise that even suggests polygyny is a sin. Let us not elevate our feelings or opinions above the counsel of the Most High, especially when we know that we are the ones who have fallen away and lost our way.
The third point I’d like to make is that polygyny is a very common practice among many Israelite groups on the African continent. Those groups are of course closer to our culture and heritage than we are in many ways; we would be wise to learn from them when it comes to marriage.
With that out of the way, let’s take a look at what Scripture has to say about polygyny.
STATUTES THAT LEGISLATE POLYGYNY
We’ll begin with a pair of passage from the Towrah, which, again, defines Yah’s righteousness:
Exodus 21:7011 — 7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. 8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. 9 And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. 10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. 11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.
Deuteronomy 21:15-17 — 15 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: 16 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: 17 But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.
The passages above (which are both from the Towrah) picture polygyny without even the slightest hint of condemnation. They simply use the language “If he take him another wife” and “If a man have two wives”, clearly indicating that, according to the Towrah, it is a man’s natural prerogative to have plural wives. This tells us that polygyny is understood to be part and parcel of the biblical definition and understanding of marriage. There are more verses that picture polygyny, albeit in a less obvious way, and I will share some of these below…
PASSAGES THAT WOULD REQUIRED OR PERMIT POLYGYNY UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES
The below passage deals with the subject of leverite marriage. It requires a man to marry his kin’s widow if her husband dies without leaving a son/heir:
Deuteronomy 25:5-6 — 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. 6 And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel.
The important thing to note about this passage is that it does not include an exemption for men who are already married. In other words, if a man who already has a wife is required to marry his kin’s widow according to this statute, then he would of course end up with two wives. While this might be an issue for some in the world today, it is not an issue with Yah.
Below is another passage that requires a similar conclusion:
Deuteronomy 21:10-13 — 10 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, 11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; 12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; 13 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.
Here the Towrah legislates how a man of Israel is to take a captive woman to be his wife. Note again that there is no exception for a man who is already married. In simpler terms, if a man who is already married goes to war and finds another wife, he is free to marry her according to the Most High. This passage and the previous one are further proof that Yah and His Law have no issue with plural wives.
POLYGYNY HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT
Here is another passage that shows that polygyny is part and parcel of the biblical definition and understanding of marriage. It is from the sexual laws/prohibitions found in Leviticus 18:
Leviticus 18:7-8 — 7 The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. 8 The nakedness of thy father’s wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father’s nakedness.
Verse 7 above speaks of not uncovering one’s father’s nakedness, and the woman in view is clearly the person’s mother. However, Verse 8 seems to be saying the exact same thing: don’t uncover your father’s nakedness. Now, while it might on the surface appear as though the Towrah is repeating itself here, saying the same thing twice, it is not. The first woman in view in Verse 7 is the mother of the man to whom the Law is addressed; whereas the woman (or women) in view in Verse 8 are clearly his father’s other wife/wives. This correct understanding of the passage is brought out in the New Living Translation (NLT) version of this passage (see below):
Leviticus 18:7-8 (NLT) — 7 “Do not violate your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; you must not have sexual relations with her. 8 “Do not have sexual relations with any of your father’s wives, for this would violate your father.
The NLT similarly more faithfully renders another passage in the Towrah as follows:
Deuteronomy 27:20 (NLT) — 20 ‘Cursed is anyone who has sexual intercourse with one of his father’s wives, for he has violated his father.’ And all the people will reply, ‘Amen.’
What is clear from the above is that polygyny is woven into the biblical understanding of marriage, and this is evident in Yah’s Towrah, which, again, defines His righteousness (not ours).
POLYGYNY IN THE KINGDOM
In the passage below we see a prophecy of the Kingdom to come, and it features seven women who wish to become the wife of one man:
Isaiah 4:1-2 — 1 And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach. 2 In that day shall the branch of the Lord be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the earth shall be excellent and comely for them that are escaped of Israel.
Further to the clear instance of polygyny pictured above, what is also evident is that these women view the idea of being one man’s wife as a positive thing, stating that marrying him will take away their reproach. The passage then goes on in Verse 2 to describe this time as a time when the branch of Yah will be “beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the earth shall be excellent and comely“. All of these positive ideas are clearly connected with the idea introduced in Verse 1: polygyny.
YAH WOULD HAVE GIVEN MELEK DAWID (KING DAVID) MORE WIVES
In the passage below the Most High speaks to Melek Dawid through the Prophet Natan (Nathan). The setting of this episode is Yah speaking to Melek Dawid just after he had sinned by murdering Uriah the Hittite and taking his wife. Be sure to pay attention to the highlighted portions of text:
2 Samuel 12:7-9 — 7 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; 8 And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things. 9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.
In the passage above, we see Yah, speaking through the Prophet, declaring that He is the One who gave Dawid Melek Sha’ul’s (King Saul’s) wives. (Let me say that again; it was Yah who gave these wives/women to Dawid.) Moreover, Yah further declares that if all that Dawid was given wasn’t enough, He would given him even more! The passage then goes on to talk about how it was evil for Dawid to have killed Uriah and taken his wife. Here are some important takeaways from all this: (1) Yah had no problem with Melek Sha’ul having plural wives; (2) Yah had no problem with Melek Dawid having plural wives; (3) it was Yah who gave Sha’ul’s wives to Dawid; (4) Yah says that He would have given Dawid even more wives if he had wanted; and (5) polygyny is not considered to be a sin (or evil) by Yah and His Prophet as murder and adultery are.
THE SCRIBE CONFIRMS YAH’S POSITION ON POLYGYNY
And if the above were not enough proof, the passage below confirms that Melek Dawid did that which was right (or righteous) in the eyes of the Most High, with the sole exception of his sins regarding Uriah and Bathsheba. This of course means that Dawid’s polygyny was indeed right in the eyes of the Most High:
1 Kings 15:5 — 5 Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.
YAH DECLARED HIMSELF A POLYGYNIST
In all of the passages below, Yah describes Himself as the husband of two wives, Yisra’el (Israel) and Yahudah (Judah). Now we all know that Yah is perfect; so, if He is going to describe Himself as a polygynous man, then we have no business thinking the practice is anything but righteous:
Jeremiah 3:8,10,14 — 8 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. [………] 10 And yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah hath not turned unto me with her whole heart, but feignedly, saith the Lord. [………] 14 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:
Above there are two women to whom Yah is married. The language is clear.
Ezekiel 23:1-4 — 1 The word of the Lord came again unto me, saying, 2 Son of man, there were two women, the daughters of one mother: 3 And they committed whoredoms in Egypt; they committed whoredoms in their youth: there were their breasts pressed, and there they bruised the teats of their virginity. 4 And the names of them were Aholah the elder, and Aholibah her sister: and they were mine, and they bare sons and daughters. Thus were their names; Samaria is Aholah, and Jerusalem Aholibah.
Above there are two women to whom Yah is married. The language is clear.
Jeremiah 31:31-32 — 31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:
Again Yah is married to two women, and says He was a husband to “them”.
Ezekiel 16:1-50 — This passage is another one where Yah describes Himself as being married to two women simultaneously; but it’s too long to post here.
MASHIYACH USES THE IMAGERY OF POLYGYNY TO DESCRIBE HE KINGDOM
In the Parable of the Ten Virgins (see Matthew 25:1-13), Mashiyach uses the imagery of polygyny to describe the Kingdom. In point of fact, the man in the parable who is engaged to ten virgins simultaneously, and who ends up marrying five of them, is obviously representative of the Messiah Himself! Now, like virtually all of them, this parable of course has many layers and meanings; but what is undeniable is that it is a clear endorsement of polygyny by our Mashiyach.
YAH USES POLYGYNY TO BUILD HIS NATION
Finally, the fact that Yah uses polygyny to create the nation of Israel is very noteworthy. Yah is all-powerful and could have used any scenario He wanted to orchestrate the genesis of our nation; but He chose to do so with a man with two wives and two concubines. Perhaps Yah chose this way because He Himself is a polygynist, and wished to reflect this heavenly reality in the family of the man He chose to build His nation: Ya’acob/Yisra’el.
I hope this helps those of you looking for a scriptural understanding of polygyny. I’m happy to answer any questions and to share more.
MemberAugust 22, 2020 at 6:40 pm
Are you saying this is a commandment and that men have to do this? And what if the wife doesn’t agree? Can she leave ? I still don’t agree. I’ll have to ask Yah for myself because I’m not too sure about this.
MemberAugust 22, 2020 at 8:16 pm
There is no commandment in the Towrah for a man to have more than one wife. (Technically speaking, there isn’t even a specific commandment for a man to get married at all.) However, we are commanded to be fruitful and multiple, and the most fruitful family structure is a polygynous one! Polygyny has a big role to play in how we rebuild our nation as we progress through this Great Awakening. Yes, it’s an adjustment for us in the West; but it’s an adjustment back to our culture, and back to the ways of the Most High.
To the second part of your question, if a wife is truly born again and has truly submitted to the will of the Most High, and is truly living our culture, then she would not disagree. A mature woman who knows she has a good husband and loves him would want for him to marry again; so another fellow Israelite sister can share in the joy of her family, and so the nation can grow. This is selfless love between sisters. However, if a wife disagrees to such an extent then I suppose she can leave, but she’d be doing so out of rebellion against the Most High and her husband/head. Plus, she’d still be married to the man she left anyway.
What makes polygyny (or any marriage) work is the people. Mature people who understand the Towrah, understand the culture, understand their roles as men and women, and are secure in those roles and in themselves. Not every man is ready to be married, let alone have multiple wives; and not every woman is ready to be a biblical kind of wife. But we ought to strive to be mature believers in this Great Awakening.
MemberAugust 30, 2020 at 6:58 pm
The times have changed I highly doubt there is a need to be as fruitful as it was back in moses’s time and etc so that doesn’t seem like a feasible argument. I think at this day and age, for a man to have the desire to be with more than one woman is out of greed and lust and act of the flesh. Which the Bible says to avoid…
MemberSeptember 2, 2020 at 11:56 am
Hi, Sister @GlenCoco / Martica. The operative terms in your post are definitely “I highly doubt”, and “I think”. That’s just it; these statements are your own opinion. To your first comment about times having changed, the reason why polygyny is righteous and lawful has nothing to do with the fact that it is an effective way to be fruitful and multiply. The reason it is righteous and lawful is because the Towrah OKs it. (See my posts elsewhere in this forum where I go through a number of Scriptures to establish the righteousness and lawfulness of the practice.) Secondly, the Bible is what defines our morality as believing Israelites, and the Bible is very clear on polygyny. Just because you think that greed, lust and the flesh are the only reasons why a man would want more than one wife in this day and age does not make it true. It is important when approaching the Bible to distinguish between opinion and fact. Hope this helps.
MemberAugust 28, 2020 at 3:26 am
This is the very first time that I read someone Scripturally correct regarding this issue. Eventhough, I still think that Israelites today should live up to the higher standard that Yeshua established : one man and one woman as in the beginning (Mathew 19:4-12). The passage of Isaiah 4:1 regarding the daughters of Sion fighting for a single man it was actually a curse not a blessing as you pictured in your dissertation. The context is Isaiah 3:16-4:1 (the curses) and Isaiah 4:2-6 (the blessings). If Revelation is the restoration of the perfection established in the Garden of Eden, in Yeshua’s Kingdom, the standard will be back again one man will be for one woman.
MemberAugust 30, 2020 at 5:29 am
Shalowm, Brother @Gamal / Jimmy. Thank you for your kind compliment. All the glory goes to Yahueh in Yahushua Mashiyachenu. I, however, have a few responses to some of the points you raised in your post.
Regarding your suggestion that Yahushua sets a higher standard—that standard being monogamy—in Mathew 19, you are incorrect. Please pay attention to the context of the passage. Mashiyach here is asked a question about divorce, not monogamy or polygyny; and His answer is no doubt given with the focus of the question in mind: divorce. To interpret or use this passage as a polemic against polygyny is to take it out of its context, and that is a recipe for errant conclusions. Nothing that our Mashiyach says in response to the Pharisees in this account undermines the lawfulness or righteousness of polygyny, nor do His statements here establish monogamy as some sort of biblical ideal. Remember, this is the same Yahushua who later (see Matthew 25:1-13) describes His Kingdom using the imagery of polygyny. He is not double-minded, Brother. Again, what is going on in Matthew 19 has nothing to do with monogamy or polygyny; it is about divorce, and our Mashiyach references Genesis 2 to teach His audience that a husband and his wife (or wives) are to stay together. As I have shared elsewhere on this forum, a man with multiple wives becomes one flesh with each of them when he lays with them, for the first time and thereafter; and the ideal of Scripture is that he put none of them away. Therefore, if a man has seven wives, then he ought to stay married to them all.
Regarding your statement that, “the daughters of Sion fighting for a single man it was actually a curse not a blessing as you pictured in your dissertation”, unfortunately you are in error here as well. In the context of the passage, the curse is clearly the situation these seven women find themselves in before they married the one man; and what eventually took away that curse (and brought the blessing in its stead) is their marriage to him. This is why the women ask the man to [take away [their] reproach” by marrying them; they do not say that he causes or bring reproach by doing so. It is then after this marriage occurs that the Prophet tells us that, “In that day shall the branch of the Lord be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the earth shall be excellent and comely for them that are escaped of Israel.” (Isaiah 4:2) Your suggestion here is evidently that polygyny is part of the curses outlined from the previous chapter, but that is not what the passage states at all, even when we begin in Isaiah 3:16. Again, what was the curse is the condition that led to the scarcity of men (see Isaiah 3:25), which led to these women being single; and what took away the curse—or their reproach—was polygyny.
Finally, you claim that in Revelation the standard of monogamy will be restored, calling this standard perfect. Do you have any biblical evidence to support the idea that monogamy will be restored at the end of the age, or, for that matter, that it is a perfect standard according to the Most High? What we can say, however, and so based on the Scriptures, is that Revelation prophesies the future establishment of the Kingdom of our Mashiyach (Revelation 20:4). Now, if the establishment of this Kingdom meant the restoration of monogamy as a perfect standard as you claim, then Mashiyach would not have used the imagery of polygyny to describe His Kingdom. We would have the Parable of the One Virgin instead of the Ten, or, at the very least, only one of the ten would have made it. (See my post above where I expand on this idea—refer to Matthew 25:1-13.) Furthermore, if monogamy were the Most High’s perfect standard as you claim, He would never have described Himself as a polygynist in Scripture. We know that men are not without sin (Romans 3:23; Romans 5:12; Jeremiah 17:9), but the Most High is all perfect (Psalm 18:30; Deuteronomy 32:4), and He would not so boldly and repeatedly profess His own polygyny were the model not part of His perfect understanding of marriage. (See my post above where I expand on this idea—refer to Jeremiah 3, Ezekiel 23, Ezekiel 16, and Jeremiah 31.) And finally, if monogamy were the Most High’s perfect standard as you claim, then He would not have permitted polygyny in His Law. Scripture tells us that the Most High’s Law is perfect (Psalm 19:7), holy (Romans 7:12) and righteous (Deuteronomy 6:25), but you are suggesting that He left some of the perfection out. I beg to differ. Yah has an issue with eating swine and he forbade it in His Law. Yah has an issue with Sabbath breaking and he forbade it in His Law. Yah has an issue with adultery and he forbade it in His Law. Had he had an issue with polygyny, He would not have been shy about making that clear to us.
Hope all this helps.
MemberAugust 30, 2020 at 9:05 am
@BroEliyahu thanks again for your response… this is getting so interesting. I wish we could organize a Zoom call, since, sometimes writing through a phone’s keyboard doesn’t allow me to expand properly as I wished.
1- I agree with you, having multiple wives is not a sin, but I do not think is the desirable status for every man. You did not catch the whole meaning of Mathew 19:11-12. If Yeshua is advocating for celibacy is for a reason. I still believe he is promoting one man and one woman for ever (the issue here is divorce and picking and dropping wives as our heart desires). Conclusion of this portion: marry yes, but if you divorce you won’t be able to marry AGAIN and not sin without a justified reason (Mt. 19:9). Celibacy would be even better, but VERY FEW are meant to do that (Mt. 19:11-12), that would only happen in the millennium (Mt. 22:28-30)
2- the curses of the daughters of Sion is them not being able to marry anyone due to the scarcity of men, that is why they will scheme and plot to marry the scarce and valuable men by gathering in groups of seven ( see verse 25 and 26). The blessing is that Yah will protect again Israel like He did in the wilderness
3- multiple wives was mainly for those rich and wealthy that could really provide for multiple families (Dt. 17:14-17) because according to Scriptures there are 3 things we must provide to each wife: sex, clothes and a house (Ex. 21:20)
4- the 10 virgens were friends of the bride, not the bride herself… I will come back to you later about this. They represent the 10 lost tribes and since He divorced them, as He himself has order, He cannot remarry her… no time now. Will develop later with Scriptures
MemberAugust 30, 2020 at 10:13 am
Shalowm, Brother @Gamal / Jimmy. Thanks for your reply. Please see my numbered responses to your four broad points below:
1 – I am aware of Matthew 19:11-12, but it was not relevant to address this passage specifically in response to your earlier comment. Really and truly, my post was in response to your claim that Matthew 19 presents monogamy as a biblical ideal, when it most certainly does not. You seem to have totally shifted the focus of the discussion this claim that you made, to the question of whether or not every man should marry, or whether or not every married man should be a polygynist. These specific concerns were frankly never part of the original discussion; but, just to be clear, I never stated that having multiple wives is something that every man should do, nor did I suggest that every man must marry. The only point I was making is that nothing in Matthew 19 supports your claim that monogamy is a biblical ideal. Finally, you can believe that Mashiyach is “promoting one man and one woman for ever” if you want, but that simply is not what the text says. As I said before, to interpret the passage in question as a polemic against polygyny is to take it out of its context, and that is a recipe for errant conclusions. I also would not go so far as to say that Mashiyach is “advocating for celibacy” in Matthew 19:11-12; His statements here are nowhere near that forceful.
2 – Part of the curses pronounced in Isaiah 3 is indeed a scarcity of men. We know this from the curse declared against the daughters of Tsiyown (Zion) in Isaiah 3:25: “Thy men shall fall by the sword, and thy mighty in the war.” The natural result of this curse is the women bearing the reproach of being single and unable to bring forth seed to the nation, which scenario is presented in Isaiah 4:1, and which is remedied by polygyny, resulting in the beautiful and glorious outcome presented in Isaiah 4:2.
3 – First of all, I agree that a man must have a certain level of wealth in order to practice biblical polygyny. However, your appeal Deuteronomy 17:14-17 to support this point makes no sense. The passage of Deuteronomy 17:14-20 is directed to the Kings of Israel and outlines certain statutes specific to them. It has nothing to do with the ordinary men of our nation. However, to your point, we can indeed infer from Exodus 21:10 that a man must be sufficiently established in order to properly possess multiple wives, but that was never in dispute here. What I was responding to was your claim that monogamy is a biblical ideal, which it is not. In addition, your statement about Exodus 21 is incorrect for two important reasons. First of all, you refer to Verse 20 of that chapter, which has nothing to do with marriage or polygyny. (I am assuming you meant Verse 10.) Secondly, then, and more importantly, the statute in Exodus 21:10 does not require a husband to provide each of his wives with a house as you claim; what he must do is provide each wife with food, raiment/clothing and her duty of marriage, which is a reference to sex. Having said all that, I agree with your point that plural wives is for those who can afford it; but, again, that was never in dispute here. What I was responding to is your suggestion that monogamy is a biblical ideal, which it most certainly is not.
4 – The ten virgins in the parable in question were absolutely not “friends of the bride”. I appreciate that this is what many Christian churches and denominations teach, and that some modern translations even go so far as to render the word “bridesmaids” as opposed to “virgins” (see the NLT and ISV); but this is not what the text actually says. These are ten brides prepared to marry one man, and five of them make it and end up going in with the Bridegroom to the marriage. The easiest way of proving this is by examining the passage closely as it reads in English. We first note that the parable opens with these virgins going forth to meet the Bridegroom, not the bride. As a matter of fact, there is no mention of a bride anywhere in this passage at all! (One would think that since this parable is about marriage, and if these women are friends of the bride as you claim, that there would be at least one mention of or reference to the bride somewhere. However there is not. And the reason why is of course because the virgins are the brides!) As the narrative continues, we next learn that the virgins are called to go out and meet the Bridegroom (again, not the bride) (vv. 5-6); and they eventually go in with the Bridegroom to the marriage, and the door is shut (vv. 10). Again, there is no mention of a bride anywhere, because the virgins are the Bridegroom’s brides! Beyond that surface-level review, a cursory analysis of the Greek text further confirm this fact. The Greek lema translated into virgins in this passage is “parthenos” (παρθένος) [Strong’s G3933]. It is always translated “virgin”/”virgins” in the KJV, and refers to a marriageable maiden. Then, when you check how this word (Strong’s G3933) is used throughout the Septuagint, it confirms the same. These virgins are simply not friends of the bride, Brother, despite how uncomfortable the idea of them all being brides to one man might be to our Western sensibilities. And given that they are all brides, this parable has huge implications for how we understand the place of polygyny in the Kingdom.
Hope this helps.
MemberAugust 30, 2020 at 11:19 am
Brother @BroEliyahu as I said, I really would like us to have a conversation about it on Zoom. Let’s schedule and program. I have so much to comment…
1- you want to dissect and classify all subjects into single boxes, but it doesn’t work like that. Multiple wives, monogamy and celibacy are all interrelated.; all pertaining to lifestyles (33%, 66% and 100% fruitful to the Kingdom- reference to the parable of the seed in the field), so Matthew 19 is pertinent to the discussion.
2- all 3 patriarchs, and Yeshua, represent all 3 lifestyles I have mentioned: (1) Yeshua 100% dedicated to the Kingdom by his celibacy; (2) Abraham and Isaac 66% by his monogamy (Abraham didn’t marry Agar, and when he did marry Quetura, Sarah was already dead) and (3) Jacob 33% and his “forced” polygamy (he only wanted Rachel). They were all faithful to Yah, but we can see the outcomes of the marital decision of each and everyone of them. As I told you, it is not a sin… but polygamy will not allow you to be as fruitful to the Kingdom as monogamy, and the same if we compare to celibacy.
3- virgins are the good translation of the parable, I do not have any problem with it. But you cannot base your conclusions in translations only without considering culture. Have you researched on eastern world weddings? How the whole thing happened? The parables were taught to people immersed in a time and a culture…
4- you did not comment on the divorce of the northern Kingdom (10 tribes, that parallel the 10 virgins) found in Jeremiah 3 and its relation to Deuteronomy 24:1-4
MemberAugust 30, 2020 at 11:52 am
Shalowm, Brother @Gamal /Jimmy. Like I said before, much of what we are discussing is tangential to the original point. You earlier made the claim that monogamy is a biblical ideal, and my first response was addressing that claim specifically. Regarding Zoom, let’s get a private message thread going and set that up. Having said that, please see my numbered responses below:
1 – We are indeed supposed to meditate on and dissect the Scriptures. How else will we develop a deep understanding of these matters? To prove the value of this approach, your began your first message to me in this thread with the words, “This is the very first time that I read someone Scripturally correct regarding this issue”. Rest assured, Brother, that I would not have been able to present that scripturally correct message had I not dissected the Scriptures and put things into their correct boxes. Yes, polygyny, monogamy and celibacy can all fall under the general heading of marriage, but they are still at the same time fundamentally different things. Sure, Matthew 19 is pertinent to a general discussion about marriage, and it can even be relevant to a discussion about polygyny, but what it does not do is establish monogamy as a biblical ideal, which is what you claimed in your original comment. I have no problem with a man choosing to be celibate if that is where the Most High leads him; and I have no problem with a man having one wife; but what I take issue with is the notion that monogamy is a biblical ideal. This is simply not the case.
2 – Regarding Abraham, he was not monogamous. He did marry Hagar. What is your basis for claiming he didn’t? According to our culture, when a man possesses a maidservant and lies with her, she becomes his concubine, which technically speaking is a wife. Regarding Ya’acob, yes, he was tricked into polygyny, but he was not forced. He could have walked away and left by himself when he realised he was tricked into marrying Leah. Alternatively, he could have settled for Leah and left with her only. And still further he could have refused when his wives gave him their concubines to marry, but he did not. The fact that neither Abraham nor Ya’acob refused when their wives gave then their handmaids to marry says a lot about our culture. Finally, I agree that a man who is celibate will tend to have more time to dedicate to the Kingdom than a man with many wives, but that was never under dispute.
3 – You say you are happy with the word “virgins”, but you do not concede that they were not bridesmaids. And what do you mean I cannot draw conclusions without considering culture. My very simply point is that the virgins pictured in the parable are brides of the Bridegroom. I showed this using two basic methods; I do not need to present a thesis on Eastern marriage customs to further prove the point.
4 – I’m aware I did not comment on those things; but, again, they are not relevant to the original discussion. My only point in responding was to refute the claim that monogamy is a biblical ideal, because it is not.
MemberAugust 30, 2020 at 2:00 am
@BroEliyahu , I read every comment in this thread and respect how you used Scripture to bring this topic out.
While you were firm in some places, you weren’t heavy-handed or disrespectful.
This was a great breakdown using the instructions of The Most High, and also examples in Scripture to bring clarity to what is clearly a highly debated topic.
Israel, may we all learn to search precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little and there a little.
MemberAugust 30, 2020 at 5:11 am
Thank you for your kind compliment, Bro @YorubaOfYahudah / Yemi. All praise to Yahueh Elohenu! I am happy you were able to gain from what I have shared and I hope the same for others on this thread. My prayer for our people is the same: that we learn to search the Scriptures precept upon precept, and that we learn to do so dispassionately.
MemberSeptember 2, 2020 at 5:01 pm
I’ve been trying to understand this topic. With all that you laid out help me understand 2 references to marriage with one person, and this is no shade, I just want to understand.
“Now, to deal with the matters you wrote about. A man does well not to marry. But because there is so much immorality, every man should have his own wife, and every woman should have her own husband. A man should fulfill his duty as a husband, and a woman should fulfill her duty as a wife, and each should satisfy the other’s needs. A wife is not the master of her own body, but her husband is; in the same way a husband is not the master of his own body, but his wife is. Do not deny yourselves to each other, unless you first agree to do so for a while in order to spend your time in prayer; but then resume normal marital relations. In this way you will be kept from giving in to Satan’s temptation because of your lack of self-control.”
1 Corinthians 7:1-5 GNT
“The king is not to have many wives, because this would make him turn away from the Lord; and he is not to make himself rich with silver and gold.”
Deuteronomy 17:17 GNT
“This is a true saying: If a man is eager to be a church leader, he desires an excellent work. A church leader must be without fault; he must have only one wife, be sober, self-controlled, and orderly; he must welcome strangers in his home; he must be able to teach; he must not be a drunkard or a violent man, but gentle and peaceful; he must not love money;”
1 Timothy 3:1-3 GNT
“There is a deep secret truth revealed in this scripture, which I understand as applying to Christ and the church. But it also applies to you: every husband must love his wife as himself, and every wife must respect her husband.”
Ephesians 5:32-33 GNT
I understand if someone wants to be an overseer it’s specific to one wife. But when Paul is speaking on marriage in Corinthians he clearly is speaking of one man and one woman and then being equal in how they are with each other. And in Ephesians he starts off speaking to husbands and wives plural bedside he was talking to the church as a whole, then it ends with husband singular and wife singular.
As well, in my eyes most of those marriages to multiple women had drama! Solomon married all those women and had those concubines and it drove him away from Yah. This is just my perspective. How do we rectify multiple spouses in the New Testament when there’s no mention of it, at least from what I can see?
MemberSeptember 3, 2020 at 1:59 am
Sister @ladygrace / Lydia, I very much appreciate your comment, especially the tone and spirit in which it is made.
I will begin by answering your last question first, as that will help to set the tone for the rest of my response. You ask, “How do we rectify multiple spouses in the New Testament when there’s no mention of it, at least from what I can see?”. First of all, I would just like to highlight the humility in your inclusion of the qualifier, “at least from what I can see”. It’s good that you’re willing to admit that there might be something there that you’re not currently seeing. I will do my best to show you that polygyny was indeed part of the New Testament understanding of marriage. How we can discover this is by paying close attention to certain statements made about marriage throughout. I will share a few examples below:
1 Corinthians 7:10-11
10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: 11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
In the passage above the Apostle Sha’ul speaks from the Law and instructs his audience in how they are to deal with separation among believers. Both the husband and wife are advised not to separate, but only the wife is told that she must either remain single or return to her husband if she does depart. This directive is clearly non-gender neutral, and we can see that the rules for women/wives are not the same as the rules for men/husbands. Now, the reason why a woman must either remain single or return to her husband if she departs is because her departure does not annul her marriage covenant (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:39). This means that a woman who departs as described above is still married to her husband, despite the separation. However, the same can be said the other way around. That is to say, if a man’s wife departs from him, he still remains married to her. However, such a man is not told that he must either remain single or return to his wife. (This is only said of the woman.) The reason why this is the case is naturally because he can have more than one wife. Therefore, if a man’s wife departs from him and he marries another (which is not forbidden above), then such a man would have two wives.
Another clear example of a non-gender neutral statement/directive that deals with marriage in the New Testament is 1 Corinthians 7:39 below:
1 Corinthians 7:39
39 The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.
Notice again that what is said here only applies to the woman, and not to the man. It states that a woman is bound to a single man as long as he lives; but it says no such thing to the man. Naturally, the reason why a husband is not said to be bound to a single wife as long as she lives is because of the reality of polygyny, even in a New Testament context. And we find the exact same thing in Romans 7:2-3 below.
2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. 3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
Though not apparent on the surface, if we take the time to consider the details of the above passages, it is clear that men and women are not considered equal partners in marriage, and the rules that apply to one do not apply to the other. More specifically, we see that these passages limit a woman to a single husband, but they do not limit a man to a single wife. The reason behind this is because polygyny is still considered part of the biblical definition and understanding of marriage, even in a New Testament context. As a final point, please note that in each of the above passages, the Apostle is teaching directly from the Law, showing that the Towrah does indeed apply to us as believers under grace. (For more on this, see a study I posted in the Bible Study forum called, “Obedience Under Grace”.)
To keep things tidy and easier to follow, I will respond to each of the verses you posted one by one as separate replies to your original post.
MemberSeptember 3, 2020 at 2:01 am
@ladygrace / Lydia.
1 Corinthians 7:2 (KJV)
2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
Now, I have already shared in my previous message how Sha’ul confirms the lawfulness of polygyny in a New testament context in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11; 1 Corinthians 7:39 and Romans 7:2-3. Regarding 1 Corinthians 7:2, while this passage on the surface might appear to be in support of monogamy, there is still a clear distinction between men and women when we pay attention to what is going on in the Greek. (Also note that this passage—1 Corinthians 7:2—is found in the same chapter where we find 1 Corinthians 9:10-11 and 1 Corinthians 7:39, which have already been discussed, and which establish polygyny as a NT reality.) Considering the underlying Greek text now, we note that the Apostle uses the Greek word “heautou” (ἑαυτοῦ) [g1438] to refer to how a husband owns his wife; whereas he uses the word “idion” (ἴδιον) [g2398] to refer to the way how a wife owns her husband. These are not only different words, but they are entirely different part of speech altogether; and they actually convey two very different kinds of ownership. (It gets even more interesting when you dig into the specific meaning of these two words, but to do so in this message would make it far too long.) Now, if the intent behind the Apostle’s message here was to convey that husbands and wives are equal and in marriage, and that the way a husband owns his wife is the same way that a wife owns her husband, then he most certainly would not have chosen two drastically different Greek words to convey this ownership on either side. This is in fact a very deliberate choice on Sha’ul’s part, and it is used to convey a very important idea: what a wife is to her husband is not the same as what a husband is to his wife (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:3). (Note that the Apostle makes this deliberate distinction elsewhere in his epistles when discussing the dynamics of marriage, and I will touch on that when I address Ephesians 5 in a separate message.) Therefore, while it seems as though a wife owns her husband in the same way that a husband owns his wife when we read 1 Corinthians 7:2 in our modern translations, this is evidently not the case. This may not apparent to us when reading the passage in English, but it would have been obvious to Sha’ul’s original audience, who would have either read, or listened to this epistle being read, in Greek. Naturally, the reason why the way how a man owns his wife (or wives) is fundamentally different from how a wife owns her husband is because of the reality of biblical polygyny. This is something that Sha’ul clearly understood (recall 1 Corinthians 7:10-11; 1 Corinthians 7:39, and Romans 7:2-3), and this is evident from his deliberate choice of vocabulary here in 1 Corinthians 7:2.
MemberSeptember 3, 2020 at 2:13 am
Hi again, @ladygrace / Lydia.
Deuteronomy 17:17 (KJV)
17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.
For starters, we note that Deuteronomy 17:17 is a law for the Kings of Israel; it is not for the other men of our nation. Read from Verse 14 of Deuteronomy 17 for that context. Having said that, however, this passage does not forbid the King from having multiple wives, it forbids him from “multiplying wives”. It might seem on the surface like having multiple wives and multiplying wives is the same thing; but it is not. The easiest way to show that having multiple wives is not forbidden for Kings is to look at the example of Melek Dawid (King David). We learn in 2 Samuel 2:2 (see below) that at the time Dawid had two wives, and we later learn in 2 Samuel 5:13 (see below) that he took even more wives and concubines of an unspecified number. (It is important to note here that his wives and concubines in this second instance were “out of Jerusalem”; this will become relevant later.) However, none of this was against the Law of the Most High (1 Kings 15:5—see below). We also learn in 2 Samuel 12:8 that Yah Himself would have given Dawid more wives if he had only asked, further proving that Yah has no problem with polygyny at all, and that it is not a violation of the Towrah for a King to have multiple wives.
2 Samuel 2:2
2 So David went up thither, and his two wives also, Ahinoam the Jezreelitess, and Abigail Nabal’s wife the Carmelite.
2 Samuel 5:13
13 And David took him more concubines and wives out of Jerusalem, after he was come from Hebron: and there were yet sons and daughters born to David.
1 Kings 15:5
5 Because David did that which was right in the eyes of Yahueh, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.
So, if it is not a sin for the King of Israel to have multiple wives, then what is Deuteronomy 17:17 talking about when it forbids the King from multiplying wives. The fact of the matter is that multiplying wives, in context, has nothing to do with having more than one wife at all; rather, it refers to the common ancient practice of taking treaty wives from foreign nations as part of political, economic and military alliances. This is where the King of one nation would marry a woman from another nation as part of some deal that would guarantee him and his people favour. To my thinking, there are two main reasons why Yah did not want our Kings to engage in this practice: the first is because Yah wanted our Kings to rely on Him alone, and not place their trust in foreign nations and such treaties and deals (cf. Deuteronomy 17:18-20); and the second is that Yah did not want our Kings to marry foreign women for fear that they would turn the heart of the King and the people away from Him, and after other gods (cf. Deuteronomy 7:1-5 and Exodus 34:11-16). A clear example of this kind of marriage in Scripture is found in 1 Kings 3:1 (see below), where Melek Shelomoh (King Solomon) made affinity with Pharaoh, King of Egypt, and took his daughter to wife. The ultimate result of this and other such marriages that Shelomoh made was that his heart was turned away from the Most High (1 Kings 11:1-4—see below). This is in contrast to Melek Dawid, who took his additional wives and concubines from Jerusalem; that is, from among our people (recall 2 Samuel 5:13).
1 Kings 3:1
1 And Solomon made affinity with Pharaoh king of Egypt, and took Pharaoh’s daughter, and brought her into the city of David, until he had made an end of building his own house, and the house of Yahueh, and the wall of Jerusalem round about.
1 Kings 11:1-4
1 But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites: 2 Of the nations concerning which the Lord said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love. 3 And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart. 4 For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with Yahueh his Elohim, as was the heart of David his father.
Note from the above passage that Melek Dawid’s heart was perfect with Yah even though he had multiple wives, further proving that Yah has no issue with Kings (or ordinary men) having more than one wife. Furthermore, I think we can safely say that part of the reason why Dawid’s heart remained true to Yah is because he took women from among our beautiful sisters, as opposed to from foreign nations as part of treaties and deals.
Finally, I note that you used the Good News Translation in your original post; but this is not a good translation here at all. It uses the language, “The king is not to have many wives”, which is very misleading. (Remember that King David had many wives and was not in violation of the Towrah in this regard—2 Samuel 5:13.) The KJV here is a much more faithful to the original meaning of the passage in Hebrew, where it says that a King must not “multiply wives to himself”. The fact that this passage is talking about the unique phenomenon of multiplying wives, and not simply about having multiple wives, is also apparent when we read the Septuagint version of this passage, where it states, “And he [the King] shall not multiply to himself wives” (Deuteronomy 17:17a, Brenton).
MemberSeptember 3, 2020 at 4:37 am
@ladygrace / Lydia.
1 Timothy 3:2 (GNT)
2 A church leader must be without fault; he must have only one wife, be sober, self-controlled, and orderly; he must welcome strangers in his home; he must be able to teach;
Reading this passage as it is written here in the Good News Translation (GNT), the restriction to only one wife is clearly only for so-called church leaders. Therefore, what we would conclude is that men who are not church leaders would be permitted to have multiple wives, which would of course be an endorsement for polygyny—albeit only for men who are regular church members. I do note, however, that you have essentially in agreement with this point based on what you say in the opening of the second-to-last paragraph of your original post: “I understand if someone wants to be an overseer it’s specific to one wife”. Nonetheless, there are some serious issues with the GNT translation of the verse in question. I will explain what I mean by that below, but first, let’s take a look at how the KJV renders 1 Timothy 3:2:
1 Timothy 3:2 (KJV)
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
Paying attention to the wording of the KJV above, we note the exclusion of the word “only”. Unlike the GNT, this version of the text does not say that a church leader must have “only one wife”, it says that a Bishop must be “the husband of one wife”. The thing is, the GNT rendering of this passage is based on a particular biased interpretation, and that interpretation is simply not faithful to the original text. In point of fact, not one of the Greek words that properly convey the idea of “only” appears in the underlying Greek text of 1 Timothy 3:2; so we can be certain that the intended meaning is not that a leader of the Assembly must have only one wife. (Note that the main Greek words that convey the meaning “only” are “monon” (μόνον) [g3440] and “monos” (μόνος) [g3441], and neither or these is anywhere to be found in 1 Timothy 3:2.)
Now, the phrase “one wife” (KJV) above comes from the Greek “mias gynaikos” (μιᾶς γυναικὸς), which is composed of: (1) the Greek word “mias” (μιᾶς), which in turn comes from lemma “heis” (εἷς) [g1520]; and (2) the Greek word “gynaikos” (γυναικὸς), which comes from the lemma “gynē” (γυνή) [from g1135]. The key to understanding what is really being said in this passage—as well as similar ones like 1 Timothy 3:12 and Titus 1:6—lies in understanding the Greek word “heis” (εἷς) [g1520]. The issue, however, is that this particular word is a very versatile one that is applied in myriad ways. For example, it can be used emphatically to refer to a single thing, where it is found in the phrase “one thing” in Matthew 21:24; but it can also be used in such a way that its numerical connotation is weakened, such as in Matthew 8:19, where it is found in the phrase “a certain Scribe”. This is why “heis” is sometimes translated as the cardinal one in the KJV; but it is also sometimes translated simply as, “a”, the indefinite article. Beyond these two, there are instances where “heis” also conveys the idea of the ordinal one; as in, “first”.
What can we conclude from all this? For starters, the Greek phrase “mias gynaikos” (μιᾶς γυναικὸς) should not be rendered “only one wife” as it is in the GNT of 1 Timothy 3:2 (as well as in the GNT translation of 1 Timothy 3:12 and Titus 1:6). Had Sha’ul wanted to convey this idea, he would have likely done so using either the Greek word “monon” (μόνον) or “monos” (μόνος), as he does in the following examples:
In 1 Corinthians 7:39 with the phrase, “only [g3440] in the Lord”;
In 1 Corinthians 9:6 with the phrase, “I only [g3441] and Barnabas”; and
In 2 Titus 2:20 with the phrase, “in a great house there are not only [g3440] vessels of gold and of silver”.
Based on my understanding of the Greek, the Towrah and our culture, my take is that the phrase “mias gynaikos” (μιᾶς γυναικὸς) as found in 1 Timothy 3:2, 1 Timothy 3:12 and Titus 1:6 is telling us that a Bishop, Deacon or Elder of the Assembly of Israel should be the husband of a wife; or, in other words, that he should be married. This basic understanding finds support in the well-established translation of the Greek lemma “heis” into the indefinite article, “a”, in English. It further finds support in the reason that Sha’ul gives for this directive in 1 Timothy 3:5: “For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of Elohim?”. Basically, because the Assembly of Israel is the bride of the Most High and He our husband, any man who wishes to take on a position of leadership in that Assembly must himself know what it means to be a husband, and a good one for that matter! However, there is nothing inherent in this understanding that requires a man to be married to only one wife.
MemberSeptember 3, 2020 at 5:54 am
@ladygrace / Lydia.
32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.
The reason why the words husband and wife here are in the singular is because the Apostle is speaking to believers in his audience on an individual level. This is why he uses language like, “let every one of you in particular“. It therefore makes perfect sense contextually to use grammatically singular nouns here. However, there is nothing inherent in this wording that precludes or prohibits polygyny. This is not a statement that monogamy is some sort of biblical ideal; it is simply a statement made to the Assembly members at Ephesus on an individual level.
In my earlier response on 1 Corinthians 7:2, I highlighted how Sha’ul’s use of two different Greek words to refer to ownership in marriage for men and women telegraphs the lawfulness of polygyny in a New Testament context. Well, here in Ephesians 5, the Apostle uses the same two words—“heautou” (ἑαυτοῦ) [g1438] and “idios” (ἴδιος) [g2398]—in the same way to communicate the very same idea. That is to say:
(1) In Ephesians 5:28, when the Apostle says, “So ought men to love their [g1438] wives as their own [g1438] bodies“, he twice uses the Greek word “heautou” (ἑαυτοῦ) to refer to a husband’s ownership of his wife; whereas
(2) In Ephesians 5:22 and Verse 24, when the Apostle says, “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own [g2398] husbands“, and “so let the wives be to their own [g2398] husbands in every thing“, the Apostle uses “idios” (ἴδιος) to refer to a wife’s ownership of her husband.
Again, this is a deliberate choice on the part of the Apostle, and this distinction would have been obvious to his original Greek-speaking audience. These two Greek words in fact convey two drastically different types of ownership on either side. As stated previously, the reason why the way how a man owns his wife (or wives) is fundamentally different from how a wife owns her husband is because of the reality of biblical polygyny.
Finally, to your point that such passages indicate that husbands and wives are “equal in how they are with each other”, this is simply not the case. If men and women were equal partners in marriage as you suggest, then why does Sha’ul teach that the husband is the head of the wife in the same way that Mashiyach is the head of the husband and the Father the Head of Mashiyach? (see 1 Corinthians 11:3 and Ephesians 5:23) And why does Sha’ul repeatedly instruct wives to submit and be obedient to their husbands (see Ephesians 5:22-23, Colossians 3:18 and Titus 2:3-5), but never instructs husbands to do the same with their wives? And why does Kepa (Peter) teach that wives are to be in subjection to their husbands, and that wives should refer to their husbands as Lord (“‘Adown” in the Hebrew) after the example of our foremother Sarah? (see 1 Peter 3:1-6)
MemberSeptember 3, 2020 at 6:40 am
Alright, @ladygrace / Lydia. This is finally my final response to your post.
To your point that “most of those marriages to multiple women had drama”, while this may be the case when we consider some of the prominent examples in Scripture, this is not an indictment of polygyny itself as an institution. You should also consider the examples of polygyny in Scripture where there isn’t the slightest hint of an issue, like with Gid’own (Gideon) (Judges 8:30-31); as well as all those historical instances of polygyny that do not even get a mention in Scripture. (This practice would have been much more widespread that many realise, like it is among our family in Africa today.) Moreover, beyond all that, there is something terribly wrong with the logic of your argument here. You’re essentially making the point that because there are examples of tumultuous polygynous situations in Scripture, that somehow suggests there is an issue with polygyny itself. This is a fallacy. What about the one-man-one-woman situations in Scripture that also result in turmoil? Take for example Yitschak (Isaac) and Ribkah (Rebeca): their two sons were enemies while alive and their descendants are still enemies to this day. Does this mean that a man having one wife is somehow inherently bad? Of course it doesn’t. And what about Adam and Chawah (Eve)? That was another family with one wife, and their son ended up committing the first murder and killing his brother. And even before this family gave rise to the first murder, Adam and Chawah’s decisions led to the fall of all mankind. Does this mean that a man having one wife is somehow inherently bad? Of course it doesn’t. Nobody uses such examples to argue that monogamy is inherently wrong or dangerous. Likewise, we should not use examples in Scripture where polygyny results in drama to decry the practice. Polygyny is part of the biblical understanding and definition of marriage, and it is perfectly lawful and righteous in the eyes of the Most High.
Regarding your comment that “Solomon married all those women and had those concubines and it drove him away from Yah”, when we pay close attention to what Scripture actually says about what turned Melek Shelomoh’s (King Solomon’s) heart away from Yah, it was not the fact that he had multiple wives, it was that he married “many strange women” (1 Kings 11:1). This goes back to my earlier point on the proper interpretation of what it means for a king to “multiply wives” (Deuteronomy 17:17). Recall that the reason why this command/prohibition was given to the king was so that “his heart turn not away” (Deuteronomy 17:17). Well, Shelomoh did not heed this warning and his heart was indeed turned away (1 Kings 11:4). But here it the critical point, Shelomoh’s father before him, Melek Dawid, also had multiple wives (2 Samuel 2:2; 2 Samuel 5:13), but Scripture is very clear that his heart was not turned away from the Most High. This is made abundantly clear in 1 Kings 11:4,6 where we learn that Dawid’s heart was perfect with Yahueh (vv. 4), and that he went “fully after Yahueh” (vv. 6), and all this despite the fact that he was a polygynist. Therefore, we cannot and should not conclude from the example of King Shelomoh that having multiple wives turns a man’s heart away from the Most High. Based on the counsel of Scripture, Yah is 100% fine with polygyny.
Well, Lydia, that is pretty much it as far as my response to your post goes. I hope that my answers have been helpful as you continue to seek understanding on this topic.
Finally, I have posted a study in the Bible Studies forum where I go through a number of passages of Scripture to establish the lawfulness and righteousness of polygyny. I would recommend reading it to further your knowledge of this subject from a biblical perspective. It can be found at the following link: https://hebrewsphere.com/forums/discussion/establishing-the-lawfulness-and-righteousness-of-polygyny-with-scripture/
MemberSeptember 3, 2020 at 9:26 am
Thanks for all your extensive research on the matter and your responses.
I dare not say that polygamy is a sin. I can’t find any text. I will not lie on TMH and put words in His mouth, or any of the apostles. After reading all your responses, I respect them and have my thoughts about them which is a personal not biblical preference. What I will say is this…
Both parties must have an understanding and be in agreement. The issue must not be forced. Both parties should pray, seek Yah’s face and hear from the Holy Spirt and be led by it in ALL things! This is not meant for everyone (cause I don’t share, and that’s a deal breaker for me ), and it should not be forced on anyone rather the woman or man who desires it. I believe if it’s a deal breaker, then the parties should ways and move on to someone who agrees.
As well, these men need to be able to fiscally support the amount of wives and children he has. And isn’t there a financial transaction given to the brides father from the husband?
A lot of this stuff in my opinion that worked back then, doesn’t work now because of where we live, the laws involved, etc.
I respect your thoughts and opinions on the topic, and it would be great if all of us could learn how to have respectful debates and conversations that don’t make people feel less than or stupid or disrespected.
MemberSeptember 3, 2020 at 10:00 am
Shalowm, Sis @ladygrace / Lydia.
Thank you for your response and your kind words. Yet again you have shown great maturity in the tone of your response that a lot of sisters could learn from. It is also good that you are able to differentiate between what the Bible says and your personal preference. I agree with you when you say it would be great if we could have more respectful debates and conversations, especially about Scripture. My hope is that the way how we have conducted ourselves here will serve as an example for others.
Having said all that, I have a few comments in response to some of what you’ve shared:
A big part of this Great Awakening is our returning to our culture, which is founded on the Towrah. What that means is that the way how we view marriage needs to change. After all, the family is the building block of the nation, and marriage is the institution that holds the family together. Now, one of the axioms of Israelite culture, and indeed Israelite family structure, is patriarchy. What that means in respect of polygyny is that the choice of whether or not a husband takes an additional wife, or additional wives, is his and his alone. A man need not consult his wife in this matter. However, a righteous man who follows Mashiyach, follows the Towrah, and is steeped in our culture will not choose unwisely. Similarly, a righteous man who follows her husband as he follows Mashiyach and the Towrah, and is steeped in our culture, will not object to polygyny based on personal dislike. You see, sister, the only reason why we so often have such a negative reaction to polygyny is because of the indoctrination of our oppressors; the very same people who told us that we were nothing and that Jesus was White. Things like a husband leading and supporting his family, and the dowry (the financial transaction you made refence to), are all part of the picture of how Israelite family should look—and so too is polygyny.
Finally, I respect your respect for my thoughts and opinions on the topic; but what I have shared with you is not mine. This is the position of Scripture on the matter. May the Most High truly transform us by the renewing of our minds! In Yahushua Mashiyachenu, amen.
MemberAugust 30, 2020 at 6:55 pm
What distinguishes polygamy from acts of the flesh? Your argument is that the desire to be with more than one woman is common but is what’s common, moral? The Bible states in Matthew 7:14 because straight is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Also, when the Bible speaks of a wife, it’s never plural. And since the beginning in genesis, if it was gods intentions for each man to be with more than one woman, why did he not give Adam multiple women from the start? He just gave him eve. He said that when you have sex with someone it places you in a covenant and you become one.
MemberAugust 31, 2020 at 5:20 am
Hello Sis. Where’s your scriptural proof that a man having multiple wives is a sin? What man received judgement in the scriptures for marrying more than one wife? Our forefathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob all had multiple wives and the most high considered them to be so righteous even so to bear the chosen seed through their bloodline. What scriptural proof do you have that they received judgement for having multiple wives? Also Deuteronomy 21:15 “If a man haue two wiues, one beloued and another hated, and they haue borne him children”. This is clearly in the law. The Lord spoke it to Moses in the wilderness on Mt Sinai. It’s not a mistake the Lord said “TWO WIVES”. There’s plenty of brothers on here that showed scriptural proof on why its lawful and not a sin but no female, outside their own opinions, has yet scripturally proved why its not lawful and a sin. What’s the judgement, specifically from the most high, for a man having multiple wives?
MemberSeptember 2, 2020 at 12:14 pm
Hello again, @GlenCoco / Martica. Again, the commonality of the desire is not what makes polygyny righteous and lawful, and indeed moral; what makes polygyny righteous, lawful and moral is the fact that polygyny is sanctioned and endorsed by Yah’s Law. He’s the one who sets the standards and He is the ultimate judge (not you or me); and He is perfectly fine with a man having multiple wives.
You say that when the Bible speaks of a wife that it is never plural, but this is not the case. I would suggest you study this topic more deeply. Here are a sampling of passage that speak of plural wives (note that these are all from the KJV, unless otherwise stated):
Exodus 21:10: “If he take him another wife”
Leviticus 18:8 (NLT): “Do not have sexual relations with any of your father’s wives”
Leviticus 18:11 (NLT): “any of your father’s wives”
Leviticus 20:11 (NLT): “by having sex with one of his father’s wives”
Deuteronomy 21:15: “If a man have two wives”
Deuteronomy 27:20 (NLT): “one of his father’s wives”
Judges 8:30: “for he had many wives”
1 Samuel 1:1-2: “And he had two wives”
1 Samuel 25:43: “and they were also both of them his wives”
1 Samuel 27:3: “David with his two wives”
2 Samuel 5:13: “David took him more concubines and wives out of Jerusalem”
(There are many more examples, by the way)
Regarding your question about the garden, please see my pasted comment to another post on the thread below. This will help you to understand why Yah gave the first man one wife, but yet still sanctions and endorses polygyny in His Law of righteousness. Believe it or not, it’s not a contradiction on His Part. Yah is not double-minded:
[BEGIN PASTES MESSAGE]
I have a few comments for you to consider in regards to the bearing that the events in the garden ought to have on our understanding of biblical marriage, and polygyny in particular.
For starters, we know that the hierarchy goes like this: Father, Son, Man, Woman (1 Corinthians 11:3); and because Yah is an Elohim of order, we find the same pattern as we go down this hierarchy, such that the covenant relationship between the Father and the Son reflects that between the Son and man, and that between the man and woman.
Now, when we examine the account of creation in Genesis 1 and 2, we note that Yah created one man first, then one woman, and then He gave them the command to be fruitful and multiply. By virtue of the fact that the Most High gave the first man and woman this command, it is clear that He intended for more than one man to walk the earth in covenant relationship with Him—yet He created only one man to begin with. I hope you see where I am going with this; the point is, that one man was created in the beginning does not establish some sort of one-man-only ideal, for all things must begin with one. Therefore, in the same way that Yah created one man for Himself in the beginning, but intended for there to be more, the fact that He gave the first man one wife does not preclude polygyny as being inherent in His original design. Again, all things must begin with one. In other words, and in simpler terms, the fact that Yah gave that first man one woman does not mean that He did not intend for man to have more than one wife in the progress of time. In point of fact, that Yah eventually sanctions and endorses polygyny throughout the Law and the Prophets proves that it was indeed in His original plan. After all, the Most High’s Law is perfect (Psalm 19:7), and He does not change for anyone (Psalm 33:11; Ecclesiastes 3:14; Malachi 3:6a), despite what some may claim (Romans 3:4).
Finally, if you will permit me, I will extend that hierarchy one more level to include children; as in: Father, Son, Man, Woman, Children. When we consider this fifth tier, we see the same pattern again, where many women have multiple children. As a matter of fact, the command to be fruitful and multiply is best fulfilled by a women who has multiple children, as opposed to one. In much the same way, going one step up on that hierarchy, the most effective and efficient way for a man to be fruitful and multiply is to have multiple wives. No, I am not saying that a man must have multiple wives, but my point nonetheless stands. And when men and women come together such that a man has multiple wives and each wife has multiple children, we are being as fruitful and multiplying as much as can be! Again, polygyny is not for everyone, but it is perfectly in keeping with the Most High’s will.
[END PASTED MESSAGE]
Hope this helps.
MemberAugust 19, 2020 at 7:43 am
What if your wife doesn’t agree? I see the obvious reasoning of why it would be wise to make sure the wives could get along but does the first (or second etc) wife have a say so (vote) in that decision? It’s true that Sarah, Rachel, and Leah gave their handmaids to their husbands to be wives but would it have been wrong for the husbands to take other wives without the approval of their current wives?
MemberAugust 19, 2020 at 7:46 am
To be honest, it’s not even her decision. But, Christ speaks as if he wanted us to have one when he said that we commit adultery if we divorce a wife and marry another woman.
MemberAugust 19, 2020 at 8:14 am
Would a man really be loving his wife as Christ loved the church if she disagreed with him getting other wives and he went ahead and did so anyways. The scriptures clearly suggest in the New Testament one woman to one man . Christ himself has one bride not multiple brides. When he referred to lusting after a woman and committing adultery in the heart, if it’s okay for a man to have multiple wives why would it even matter if a man looked at another woman in lust. And finally there is not one clear instance in the New Testament of polygamy.
MemberAugust 19, 2020 at 9:43 am
The man has the authority of the household though. There is no 50/50. A husband can inquire of his wife for advice, but that does not mean he has to take it and go with it. But our society today, and its culture. I do not see how one could live a pylygmous lifestyle in a monogamy culture anyway – unless youre Pastor Dowell.
MemberAugust 19, 2020 at 11:12 am
That is what I said. The husband can inquire of his wife’s opinion but ultimately he has the final say. Even God allows us to speak and pray to him.
MemberAugust 19, 2020 at 11:16 am
Brother, we are to be in the world not of the world. A big part of this awakening is reclaiming and living our culture, which is based on the Towrah. No point being woke if we just gonna continue living like Westerners and Christians.
MemberAugust 19, 2020 at 9:46 am
If the church (the wife) disagrees with Christ (the husband), is Christ obligated to obey the church?
MemberAugust 19, 2020 at 11:11 am
And the man is subject to God. The women is subjected to her husband but that husband is subject to God to actually go to God to get wisdom. Christ subjected himself to the father.
Some men do not do this, they get wisdom from the world( misogyny) and run their homes in that manner which isn’t loving your wife like Christ. Wanting to rule over but not in the same estate that Christ did. Jesus washes his bride as a man with humility led by God. Not with pride and arrogance. The woman is a weaker vessel to be led with godly wisdom and insight which the man should go to God to receive. Furthermore, any man that feels they need more than one wife needs to check if they are in the spirit.
MemberAugust 19, 2020 at 11:13 am
Hi, Sister Theresa.
Another interesting question we could pose would be, “would a wife really be loving her husband as Israel is to love Mashiyach if she selfishly objects to him marrying a second wife, especially when polygyny is perfectly in keeping with Yah’s Law and will?” I would say no. This topic (polygyny) is one that I’ve studied extensively with my wife, and we are now very excited about the prospect of adding another wife to the family. It’s all about where your heart is at. And if a woman is being led by a righteous man, and if she is for Yah and His Law, and if she if for her husband, and if she if secure in herself as a woman and a wife, then she will welcome her husband taking additional wives with open arms.
Regarding your comment that Mashiyach (Christ) has one bride, this is definitely not the case. Take for example the Parable of the 10 Virgins (Matthew 25:1-13), which Mashiyach uses to describe the Kingdom. In this parable there is one man (who represents the Messiah) who is about to marry ten virgins. This is a clear instance of a NT passage in support of polygyny. Finally, that fact that Mashiyach uses polygyny yo describe the Kingdom supports the prophecy we find in Isaiah 4:1-2; here we learn that, in the Kingdom, seven women will take hold of one man and marry him, and such a thing is described by the Prophet as “beautiful and glorious” (vv. 2). Beyond this, there are plenty of other examples where Mashiyach (who is the Elohim/God of the OT) describes Himself as the husband of two wives. I would direct you to Jeremiah 3, Ezekiel 16 and Ezekiel 23. A fourth example can be found in Jeremiah 33:31-33, where the Most High talks about the New Covenant with Israel and Judah (the two wives). Here, at the end of Verse 32 He describes Himself as a “husband to them” (emphasis added).
To your point about the NT suggesting one woman to one man, this is not the case. The principle of polygyny can be found in the non-gender neutrality of certain statements made about marriage in the NT. Three examples are Romans 7:1-3, 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, and 1 Corinthians 7:39 (see the brief discussion below).
1) Romans 7:1-3 speaks about a woman being bound to one husband for life, but it does not say the same thing about a man being bound to one woman for life. The reason why is of course because a man can have more than one wife simultaneously. Sha’ul (Paul) was of course well aware this.
2) Secondly, in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, Sha’ul teaches that if a woman departs from her husband she must either remain single or return to her husband; however, he does place the same restriction on the husband. Now, the reason why a woman must either remain single or return of her husband if she departs is because she remains married even though she departs; and since a woman can only have one husband simultaneously, she can’t marry anyone else. However, the fact that there is no restriction placed on a man who departs from his wife is telling. He is permitted to marry again even though he is still married to the first wife.
3) Thirdly, in 1 Corinthians 7:39, the Apostle again teaches that a wife is bound to a single husband for life, but the same is not said in the inverse. Again, the reason why is because a man can have more than one wife simultaneously, while a woman cannot.
Finally, regarding your comment about a man looking at another woman with lust, you’ve misunderstood Matthew 5:28. I can post a follow-up comment on this if you like.
Hope that all helps!
MemberAugust 19, 2020 at 1:47 pm
Show me one instance in either the OT or NT where polygamy is prohibited. Look at any African culture. Polygamy is wildly practised. No one even questions it. It’s only in these Western societies where marriage and long term commitment is rare enough anyways that polygamy is looked down upon as “lust” or “infidelity”. Because that stuff is the cultural norm. The difference between infidelity and polygamy is infidelity is going outside the confines of marriage, whereas polygamy is within the confines of marriage.
MemberAugust 20, 2020 at 9:00 am
MemberAugust 21, 2020 at 4:38 pm
I agree sis. Good point you made.
MemberAugust 28, 2020 at 2:14 am
I take his reference to lusting after another woman as meaning a married woman. Someone else’s wife. You could be right though.
MemberAugust 30, 2020 at 7:02 pm
Her opinion and feelings should have bearing on the situation. Let’s not look over all the scriptures that mention how a man should treat his wife. If you are treating her with love and respect as he said to, you wouldn’t have that stance..
MemberSeptember 2, 2020 at 12:18 pm
I appreciate what you’re saying here, @GlenCoco / Martica, but the fact of the matter is that if a woman is a believing Israelite, confesses faith in Mashiyach, follows Yah’s Law, and embraces our culture, then she will not say no. A mature, secure and righteous wife would relish the idea of her husband having more mature, secure and righteous wives. Sadly, however, this is not a perspective many of our sisters in the West can grasp. The indoctrination of this Greco-Roman culture is quite strong; but many of our sisters are indeed breaking those chains.
MemberAugust 19, 2020 at 10:23 am
The wife has no say in the matter. Our culture is patriarchal and the husband is the head of the family. It is his choice whom he marries, and he need not consult his existing wife (or wives) before marrying another one. In 1 Samuel 25:42 Dawid did not consult with his previous wives before he married Abigayil. The reason why is because it is his prerogative to marry whom he wishes.
Hope this helps.
MemberAugust 21, 2020 at 4:36 pm
It is really not the man’s choice who to marry if you really want to get technical. It’s the Lords decision on whom you marry. Especially sense God is your head. You don’t get go out and pick and choose whom you would like to marry. God is the one who tells you who to pursue and which one is your wife because He knows who you are compatible with. He sees better than we can.
MemberAugust 19, 2020 at 1:38 pm
My friend, did I not say “IF”. I would never encourage anyone to take more than one wife if they cannot afford to maintain multiple households both emotionally and financially. And if any of the partners disagree. Other than that men, have as many wives as you can. I personally want two wives, and I want at least 5 kids.
MemberAugust 19, 2020 at 7:50 am
Isn’t that within the context of divorcing for a reason other than fornication?
MemberAugust 19, 2020 at 8:07 am
So here it says “they two shall be one”. I personally don’t think its wrong if both are consenting. But to the You can do it even if she doesn’t want to doesn’t line up with the Word.
MemberAugust 19, 2020 at 10:00 am
Key words you said are “I. Don’t think”.
Can you show me an example in the scriptures of a polygynist marriage within Israel that was frowned upon by GOD because the wife (or the other wives) disagreed with it?
MemberAugust 19, 2020 at 10:06 am
I said ” I 👉🏽personally👈🏽 don’t think it’s wrong”. But the part of “it doesn’t matter whether she agrees with it or not” was shown wrong by the scripture of men love your wives as yourself further more as Christ loved the church, even dying for it.
MemberAugust 19, 2020 at 10:23 am
For her to agree or disagree is irrelevant of a husbands love for her. Christ loves us, but that does not mean he inquires of our opinion to make moves. Wives are a helpmeet. Even Paul said women are the weaker vessel. That is not to degrade women, we all have our part. But me not honoring the request or opinion of my wife is not a sign that I do not love her.
MemberAugust 19, 2020 at 12:06 pm
The fact that the passage says “they two shall be one flesh” does not mean that Sha’ul is arguing for monogamy. Even in a polygynous situation a man is “one flesh” with each of his wives. There is nothing whatsoever in the “one flesh” idea that suggests that a man can or should have only one wife.
MemberSeptember 2, 2020 at 11:26 am
If this is the way it should be how you are making it seem, why did god not present multiple women to Adam from the beginning? After all, most of the arguments I see men mentioning is the need to repopulate, Adam and Eve were the first to be created, if it was of as much importance, god would have took multiple ribs from him and created multiple woman and told him to have at it..
MemberSeptember 2, 2020 at 12:19 pm
Hello again, @GlenCoco / Martica. I already responded to this question in one of your earlier posts; but, for the sake of convenience, I will respond again here below:
Hope this helps.
MemberAugust 19, 2020 at 1:52 pm
That’s why I said “IF”. Because if your wife doesn’t agree to you marrying another woman, then that’s not a second marriage, that’s a side chick. I’m not against men having multiple women so long as everyone is on the same page and everyone agrees to it.
MemberAugust 20, 2020 at 7:39 am
A man having multiple wives is no different than the women that have had multiple partners in their life. Divorce – remarry, divorce- remarry. Even some of yall so that today I’m sure. You get tired of the guy or something then drop the “relationship” and find someone else. Why do women judge this life style when they’ve had multiple partners already?
MemberAugust 20, 2020 at 8:45 am
MemberAugust 20, 2020 at 9:06 am
A woman is only meant to have one person. The dna a man sticks into a woman stays with her forever. While women complain about how men have multiple wives, yall complain due to jealousy and because you want him for yourself, but no man wants a woman that has had multiple partners in her life. That’s just nasty. Why do you think the bible speaks so highly on a virgin? A woman that has had other partners has become defiled and unclean.
MemberAugust 20, 2020 at 10:24 am
Brother have a blessed day.
MemberAugust 21, 2020 at 4:25 pm
“A woman is only meant to have one person” A man is only meant to have one person as well. Just like women you all can contract sexually transmitted diseases as well. About your comment about jealously it’s not even about that. It’s just disrespectful to bring another woman in the house all in the name of “polygamy” which is really lust for you. How can you do marriage vows with your first wife then go ahead and marry ANOTHER when you haven’t even kept your marriage vows with the first wife? That doesn’t make any sense. Just sounds like adultery to me. If you can go ahead and marry another woman then how is fornication any different besides you not being married to that person? It’s no different. It is adultery and the most high does not agree with that. There’s a lot of things that He allowed in the Bible but He didn’t stand for it. You looking at Africa as an example saying it’s widely practiced there then in the same breath blame them for selling our people. How are you looking to them for an example when they themselves are still in poverty and being destroyed for what they’ve done? You don’t make no sense sir. The most high Himself even gets jealous when we have other gods or is involved in idolatry. You are too have one wife. Paul could have very well said “love your wives” but he said love your WIFE as Christ loves the CHURCH. Check your heart motivates. I agree that the Bible says women are the weaker vessel but a lot of you act weak and fall faint to your flesh and this is just prove of it. If God said women can have another husband a lot of you wouldn’t be giving polygamy a second glance.
MemberAugust 30, 2020 at 7:14 pm
Lol. You are totally tripping behind that keyboard.. you sound very sexist. What’s sad is most men speak and think like you. Not good.
MemberAugust 30, 2020 at 7:11 pm
🤨 That comparison makes no sense, in the women’s case, she’s not with more than one man at a time regardless…
MemberAugust 20, 2020 at 5:19 pm
These laws will be reinstated once we return to nationhood
Deuteronomy 21:15-17 KJVS
 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 he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.
MemberAugust 20, 2020 at 5:23 pm
Now to actually answer the question from a standpoint of our current situation I would say it’s “complicated”. Our gender roles aren’t defined and both our men and women lack The understanding to successfully pull it off. Polygyny is for NATION BUILDING. It is not for pleasure. Polygyny when executed LAWFULLY helps expand the household and enrich the children. It’s not about having a different woman every night.
MemberAugust 21, 2020 at 4:16 pm
I personally feel like why a lot of men vouche for polygamy is because of lust. It’s nasty. Just think about all of the STDs that can occur with you sleeping with two different women every night. You aren’t interested in “building a empire” in fact if you care that much about doing that a empire can be birth through one women. Many cases were one woman has had 46 children. God is the one who opens and closes the womb of a woman. So if He wants to you to build a “empire” then He is very capable of building one through literally one woman.
MemberAugust 21, 2020 at 11:59 pm
So your best argument against polygamy is STD’s? Really? People already have STD’s without marriage anyways, so what difference does it make if you’re married to someone who does?
MemberAugust 21, 2020 at 4:30 pm
HA! I wish I would have another woman in my home and knowing that my so called husband is in the same bedroom with another woman it’s just weird and nasty in my opinion. Y’all wanna know where polygamy came from? It came from Satan himself. Just look in the Bible. The very first time you hear about polygamy is when the fallen angels came down and took as many wives!!! You hear that? Wives!!! As they wanted! Last time I checked the devil and the most high does not have the same mind. Anything the enemy has done the Lord does not agree nor stand with it. The fallen angels saw beautiful women had sex with many women and the earth was almost destroyed. I’m only 19 and this can be really damaging to other young girls who’s coming into the truth hearing that y’all already wanting wives then having the nerve to convince your wives of doing this filthy mess. Polygamy was practiced and came from Satan. “Debate” destroyed! 🤗
MemberAugust 21, 2020 at 5:15 pm
I’m not sure if you really destroyed the “debate”. The fallen angels taking wives created abominations (the Nephilim). Those were creatures (offspring of angels and human) that were causing havoc on the Earth and The Most High destroyed them. Men taking multiple wives isn’t going to create the Nephilim. What you are talking about is more like bestiality rather than adultery.
MemberAugust 21, 2020 at 5:25 pm
My point is that when you first see polygamy it is introduced to us by Satan. As far as I know the first one who did polgamy were the fallen angels and like I said they took as many beautiful wives as they liked. Not only were they lusting but they were also looking to build their so called empire with a bunch of nephilim demons. And it’s still being practiced today by Satan. Go online and look at many testimonies by people who were in the occult. Many people have told similar testimonies of how they gotten married to Satan. This is Satan also taking on multiple wives and marrying lots of people including children. What I said still stands and what Satan is doing and his fallen angels are also polygamy. You all think just because the Most High didnt really do anything about it that it’s justifiable. Please show me in scripture where the Most high liked polygamy ? Everytime you see polygamy something bad has happened. Doesn’t matter how you twist or flip it. If Satan did it why would God want us doing it ? Can you answer me this.
AdministratorAugust 21, 2020 at 5:27 pm
Show us the scripture where we FIRST see it with Satan.
MemberAugust 21, 2020 at 5:50 pm
I think you may be speculating that polygamy began with the fallen angels because it said they took “wives” in Genesis 6. It says that the Sons of God took wives but it didn’t say that each Son of God took multiple wives. Even if you were looking to the Book of Enoch as a reference, it didn’t say that each Son of God took multiple wives.
Look at it this way. If you said that all of your male cousins took wives, you wouldn’t be meaning that they took multiple wives. You would simply be saying that each of them have a wife.
I’m not saying either way that the fallen angels had multiple wives or not, but to say that they did would be speculation.
MemberAugust 21, 2020 at 11:51 pm
“Debate destroyed…” okay then, show me one verse in the OT or NT where God explicitly forbids polygamy. I’ll wait…
MemberAugust 22, 2020 at 8:52 am
Careful what you wish for, lol.
AdministratorAugust 21, 2020 at 5:24 pm
A lot of these women are already sharing men even if they don’t know it… and what do they do when they find out? Run to another man that they’ll probably share with another woman.
I keep asking just one woman to show me a man that for a 100% fact has not cheated, but I’ve yet to find a woman that can show me. I’ve heard men claim they don’t cheat, but of course they got cheated on.
If you’re gonna bounce from cheater to cheater… might as well stay with the original cheater and work it out.
MemberAugust 21, 2020 at 5:28 pm
AdministratorAugust 21, 2020 at 5:33 pm
The flesh issue is women having the absurd idea that there is a man that only wants one woman. I 100% guarantee you that if all of the delusional women and the men that claim they don’t cheat moved to an island and left everyone else behind… people would still get cheated on because the idea of monogamy is unrealistic 90% of the time.
MemberAugust 21, 2020 at 5:40 pm
The flesh issue is the excuses we make to not control our own fleshly lust. Jesus said die to your flesh.
MemberAugust 21, 2020 at 5:44 pm
I agree sis!
MemberAugust 21, 2020 at 11:55 pm
Exactly! Women got this thing twisted. They think monogamy is natural and polygamy is not. It’s actually the other way around. I gave plenty examples in both the animal kingdom and humanity where the alpha male had all the women chasing after him, and like you said, sharing him. But despite this, the women remain intent on arguing otherwise. I’m still waiting on those verses where the Most High forade polygamy the same way he did adultary. Ladies?…
MemberAugust 30, 2020 at 7:22 pm
We are not animals. We are humans. With supposed morals. How can you compare us to animals?? God did not present cats and dogs with a Bible and rules and commandments to follow 🤦🏽♀️ There is no excuse for you attempting to act like a literal wild animal and be with whomever you want. You only think this if you suffer from delusion which very well may be the case
MemberAugust 21, 2020 at 5:37 pm
Before I reply I wanted to ask you are you able to make this an app for phones?
And you can’t be serious right now lol. There are man out there who in fact have never cheated on their wives or girlfriends. Just because you can’t remain faithful and put your flesh in check doesn’t mean that there are men out there who are doing so. Aren’t we supposed to be walking in the spirit of the The Most High? I’m sure as you get closer to Him your desire to cheat or go with another woman will be gone. We are constantly getting washed daily by the Lord. It is called Lust! That’s why a lot of men cheat. We obviously live in a fallen world. Your logic doesn’t make any sense.
AdministratorAugust 21, 2020 at 5:41 pm
An app is coming.
As for the rest, find me the man that has never cheated. Bring him here and let him testify on his own behalf. This is something women are never able to do because in almost every case, y’all never know this mythological man personally. It’s always the man of someone you know and almost never the man women are with when they make this claim.
The other problem is the Bible contains instructions for how to treat the 1st wife if a man takes a 2nd wife. And yet, many women never acknowledge that part when they claim it’s of the flesh and the Devil. Show me that using only scripture with zero explanation.
MemberAugust 21, 2020 at 6:38 pm
Okay please show me that in scripture. And even if we did bring a man here to show you that they have never cheated what would that do for you? Would that change your mind ? Would you change your views about polygamy. Just because you say that majority of men cheat that means that all men should cheat? Does that make any sense to you? So if majority of men jump out the window that all of a sudden means all men should be jumping out the window ? Remember we live in a fallen world and God even said many will go to hell. Does that mean we should all walk in that same direction and go to hell ? Like I’m really not understanding. But okay.
AdministratorAugust 21, 2020 at 7:06 pm
There is no “even if” because you can’t. How did I know you weren’t talking about a man you’re with, but some mythological man that doesn’t exist? Because I hear this same thing from women over and over again. If he wasn’t a myth y’all would present him.
MemberAugust 21, 2020 at 11:00 pm
There is a “Even if” If you assume that I’m talking about some “mythological man” why ask me in the first place to present him if you already got your mind made up that he would be false anwyays? Which is why I asked would me presenting him even change your mind or cause you to look at polygamy different which is what we are talking about in the first place. Just stop. Lol gone somewhere.
MemberAugust 22, 2020 at 4:22 pm
Let me crawl out from under this bus Dante tried to throw me under lol. I have never cheated on a woman and know plenty men that haven’t either.
Now, if you’re making the argument that men naturally have the capacity to entertain multiple women then I get where you’re coming from. But cheating is a choice.
MemberAugust 22, 2020 at 2:24 pm
Whoa brother. I’ve never cheated on anyone. Tje closest I’ve done is revenge cheat but that person was still cheating lol. (Back before I came up out of the world) Other then that, I’ve never cheated. You’re gonna plant an idea into these women’s minds and cause them not to trust their husbands.
MemberAugust 30, 2020 at 1:20 pm
What’s for you the definition of cheating?
MemberAugust 21, 2020 at 5:38 pm
And so you admit that polgamy is just an excuse and a way of cheating ? I’ll show you the verse where Satan was the one who started polygamy.
AdministratorAugust 21, 2020 at 5:43 pm
That’s not what I said at all… my statement is clearly point out that women are 100% cool with sharing their man… as long as they don’t know. It’s the knowing part that bothers yall because until yall find out… it’s almost always all good for a time.
Then when y’all find out… you go choose the same kinda man that cheats again. So yall bounce from relationship to relationship that involves multiple women. Why is that?
MemberAugust 21, 2020 at 6:34 pm
I don’t know who you associate yourself with or who you know but that’s definitely not all women. In fact usually when women find out that men cheat they give them another chance to try to work things out. That doesn’t mean they want to share their men or all of a sudden they are okay with their man cheating. If that’s not what you’re saying then I apologize cause I’m not trying to put words in your mouth but I’m confused as to why you brought up women going back to men to cheat it seems like you’re trying to justify cheating or imply that we might as well go along with polgamy sense women stay with men who cheat or sense women don’t know men cheat anyways. That doesn’t make sense to me. Again not all women are like that. I personally have never dated anyone and I don’t believe that we should date. I believe that God chooses our spouses for us.
MemberAugust 30, 2020 at 7:20 pm
Sooo because most men cheat or have been with multiple woman at a time, that makes it ok?? Y’all are in for a rude awakening when it’s time for you to be judged.. your thinking is jaded. I see most men make excuses for pleasing their flesh
And have the nerve to try and justify it using the Bible. There is absolutely no need for polygamy anymore, the world is very much so populated.. and most of you men justifying this topic probably don’t even have a pot to piss in better yet, the ability to take care of multiple women and kids. 🤦🏽♀️ Greed and lust, all it is at this point
MemberSeptember 2, 2020 at 11:31 am
What your mentioning is not even of holy origin. You’re trying to justify something using negative aspects.. I don’t think it’s any woman’s intention to “share” her man. And whether a woman personally chooses to put up with that mess or not is totally her decision. And if you’re gonna root for polygamy at least do it right, it clearly states in the Bible if you are going to take on another wife than you should have the means to clothe, feed, and house her. Most of the men cheating and messing with multiple women don’t even have a pot to piss in.. therefore, you are just giving in to acts of the flesh and lust which is sin.
MemberAugust 21, 2020 at 6:34 pm
YAH’s intention and will is pretty clear in my opinion, He created Adam then He created Eve so that Adam would not be lonely.
Eve is Adam‘s help meat and His wife, the Scripture says that a man should leave his mother his father and cleave to his wife not wives. Not because YAH, tolerates something does not make it His will, He gives us free will to choose.
One man and one woman, if TMH’s desire was for Him to provide multiple wives for Adam to become ”One” with, to be fruitful, to multiply and replenish the earth this would have been established from the beginning.
It is my belief that TMH is opposed to polygamy, however this is simply my humble interpretation of the scriptures.
And while I’ve said all of that I’m not implying that polygamy is a sin.
MemberAugust 21, 2020 at 7:23 pm
God is the one who gave Adam “1” wife. (Genesis 2)That is obviously true. He is also the one who told Moses that “IF” “a man have 2 wives then…..” ( Deuteronomy 21:15 ) IF is a condition. If yes or if not. Therefore, a possibility of more than 1 does exist. He also gave David, Saul’s “wives” AND offered him “more” if those (and other things) weren’t enough. (2sam12:4) So……tell me since God does not change (Malachi 3:4)……was he anti-polygynous during the time of Adam? Pro-polygynous during the time of Moses and David? And then went back to being anti-polygynous today? The fact that polygyny was a part of our culture is a HUGE RED PILL for most to swallow (some men and many women). Just keep in mind that the truth is still the truth regardless if our FEELINGS approve or not. Understandably, the combination of polygyny(not polygamy) mixed with unrighteous men would be an added disaster in our communities. However, when mixed with the proper understanding and authentic application of the scriptures then I believe God would bless our communities and others as a side effect. (Because he blesses obedience according to his standards) IM NOT SAYING EVERYONE HAS TO PRACTICE POLYGYNY. All I’m saying is that since God didnt and doesn’t condemn it then who are we to?
MemberAugust 21, 2020 at 7:31 pm
I agree sis! Expect I do think that polgamy is sin. Wouldn’t that still be fornication and adultery. Like you’re married and sleeping with two women. It’s sin.
MemberAugust 21, 2020 at 7:40 pm
I have two questions for you based on this last comment you made.
1. Since you believe polygamy is a sin, where is it in the Bible that says that? King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines and the thing that was a sin in those marriages and relationships was the fact is that he supported their idolatry.
2. Do you understand what an adulterer is when it comes to biblical terms? I ask because you seem like you are applying today’s definition of adultery to biblical adultery.
MemberAugust 21, 2020 at 7:44 pm
I want to answer your question but I’m not gonna do so on here. I don’t want this conversation to get away from the true essence or purpose of having these types of discussions or dialogue.
Let’s connect and I will private message you on here and we can continue this.
How does that sound? Lol
MemberAugust 21, 2020 at 8:12 pm
If a man is sexing a single woman then that is fornication. If he is sexing a woman who is already married or engaged then that is adultery. If he is sexing multiple women and all of them are his wives then he/nor them is guilty of adultery or fornication.
MemberAugust 21, 2020 at 8:28 pm
How is sexting a single woman “fornication”? Also, go look up that word “fornication”. Its not what you think it is.
MemberAugust 21, 2020 at 8:46 pm
Just tell me then. Is it marriage?
MemberAugust 22, 2020 at 2:26 pm
Marriage is when you go into that woman.
MemberAugust 22, 2020 at 2:58 pm
I don’t think that’s right. Marriage is the duties of a wife to a husband and a husband to a wife. King Solomon had wives to whom he was married to and concubines who he wasn’t married to. However, he went into all of those women. Hagar was never married to Abraham but she was given to him in order to have a child.
MemberAugust 22, 2020 at 3:03 pm
And Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his WIFE.
And yes, Solomon had thousands of wives and concubines. Nevertheless, there had to be an agreement involved. A consent from both parties.
MemberAugust 22, 2020 at 3:48 pm
I stand corrected on Hagar. I thank you for providing the exact scripture.
I’m still confused on how marriage extends to King Solomon’s concubines. When you look at the Strong’s for wife, it uses marry and married in quite a few definitions. If you look at concubine, the only other real definition is paramour and that is someone who is having sex with a person who is married. Is there a scripture that says that the agreement of a concubine is marriage or is this an educated guess?
MemberSeptember 3, 2020 at 5:27 am
Shalowm, Bro @Terence
This is in response to your question as to whether or not there is a scripture that says that the agreement of a concubine is marriage.
Scripture doesn’t state that explicitly, but we can infer that this is the case from looking at how the Hebrew words for wife and concubine are used. For example, in Genesis 25:6 Hagar and Keturah are both referred to as concubines using the Hebrew word, “piylegesh” (h6370); but just 6 verses earlier in Genesis 25:1, the same Keturah is referred to as a wife using the Hebrew word, “‘ishshah” (h802). In addition, as someone stated elsewhere, we also see that Hagar—who, again, is called a concubine (“piylegesh”) in Genesis 25:6—is said to have become Abraham’s “wife” (“‘ishshah”) in Genesis 16:3. You see, according to the Towrah and our culture, when a man possesses a maidservant and lies with her, she becomes his concubine, which technically speaking is a wife. In other words, “concubine” is just the term used to refer to a wife who is a servant. Because there is already a legal relationship between a man and his female servant, the act of the betrothal and the subsequent consummating the marriage is just a formality, and there is no need for an additional agreement, at least not based on what we see in the text. When we read Genesis 21:7-9, we learn that a man who buys a female servant has the right to betroth her to himself, or even to his son.
Hope this helps.
MemberAugust 21, 2020 at 8:56 pm
He said “seXing” not “sexting”. However, you are absolutely right when it comes to the word fornication. Fornication, at the time the Bible was translated to KJV, was more on the lines of sexual immorality, i.e., prostitution.
It hasn’t been until recent years that fornication was attributed to sex between two people who were unwed.
MemberAugust 21, 2020 at 9:06 pm
Im not trying to be contentious but can you tell me if sex between 2 nonmarried ppl is not fornication then what is it? Marriage?
MemberAugust 21, 2020 at 9:10 pm
You’re in adultery.
MemberAugust 21, 2020 at 9:28 pm
That is the modern-day definiton not the biblical one.
MemberAugust 21, 2020 at 9:30 pm
It should still be avoided. Sex SHOULD take place within the confines of marriage.
MemberAugust 21, 2020 at 9:26 pm
It is just sex. Some sex is fornication. For example, ritualistic sex acts in paganism is fornication. The exchange of sex for money is fornication. Rape is fornication. Unwed sex is just sex.
MemberAugust 21, 2020 at 9:42 pm
MemberAugust 30, 2020 at 1:29 pm
Sexing multiple wives?? This is crazy talk… an agreement has to be made with each an everyone of them and their respective fathers should be monetarily compensated and willing to give them away to you.
MemberAugust 21, 2020 at 8:20 pm
MemberAugust 22, 2020 at 12:05 am
Show us the verses that prove it is a sin. No one cares what you “think” or what you “believe”. Let’s see what the scriptures says. I used scriptures to back up my arguments, so where’s yours’?
MemberAugust 22, 2020 at 12:02 am
“It is my belief that TMH is opposed to polygamy…” okay, show us the verses where the Most High forbid polygamy in the Bible.
MemberAugust 27, 2020 at 10:36 am
You are correct. God intentions were made clear. But when he visited the mountain and tried to talk to the children of Israel , THEY chose to put FLESH Moses over them when they said “We too scurred to listen to the Most High, Moses. You talk to him and tell us what to do” That is where ALL the confusion and the gender roles came from. Even the Messiah said “MOSES , BECAUSE OF THE HARDNESS OF YOUR HEARTS, SUFFERED IT, BUT FROM THE BEGINNING IT WAS NOT SO” . So, if people truly wanted to know the will of the Father on this matter, they would go back to the very beginning. But lust and perversion has blinded some. I personally will never respect a man who has more than one wife. I will never marry a man who already has a wife. This planet has almost 8 billion souls on it . That “replenish the earth” argument doesn’t fly. When the Messiah returns, he will silence them all. That’s why I will not argue. Once I see it for what it is, I’m out.
MemberAugust 30, 2020 at 7:16 am
Hello and shalowm, TruthHurts O.
Hope this helps someone out there.
MemberAugust 21, 2020 at 8:42 pm
1 Corinthians 10:23
1 Corinthians 6:12
That’s my position on polygymy.
MemberAugust 21, 2020 at 8:56 pm
When a woman knows her worth, in her Father’s eyes, she will only accept His very best for her. And, a man who takes the attitude that a woman has no choice in any area of her life, is not a man that values that woman the way the Father values her. I say keep it moving.
MemberAugust 21, 2020 at 9:16 pm
You said a lot that could be addressed but i will say this because it’s late for me. 1 man and 1 woman was what God created in the beginning. He also created them naked! Should we all walk around naked as well?
MemberAugust 21, 2020 at 9:23 pm
This post was for India Lin’s underneath this one.
MemberAugust 21, 2020 at 9:26 pm
Exactly that’s what He created in the beginning that He is original design and intent. Unfortunately sin entered into the world and now we live in a fallen world. So whats your point. Maybe you should go ask your friend @Dante this question because he seems to believe that just because lots of men who aren’t cleansed by God btw haven’t even given their lives to God cheats that every man in the world should follow suit and cheat or that they just have to cheat. Thats just nonsense.
MemberAugust 21, 2020 at 9:37 pm
Polygyny is not about quenching some lustful desire but its conceivable that some would pursue it for that purpose. However, just because something can be used for sin doesn’t mean that it will be.
MemberAugust 21, 2020 at 9:27 pm
Teri, women lose not one drop of worth if they were to be in a polygynous marriage and no one ever said that the women can’t make any decisions and has no input. In all fairness, those are extreme exaggerations.
MemberAugust 21, 2020 at 8:59 pm
Like many have said before God created Adam and Eve only. If He wanted to add more than one wife He would have done so. Just like how everyone says that God created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve for homosexuality the same applies to polygamy. That is His original design and intentions from the very beginning. Yes its true that a lot of godly men in the bible did have a polygamous relationship but it all resulted in conflict and in madness. Take Sarah and Abraham for example. Sarah was the one who gave Abraham the idea to sleep with Hagar because she could not have a child and did not wait on Gods promise which resulted in Hagar bearing Abrahams child and guess what Hagar started to be ugly to Sarah and thought that she was better because she had Abrahams child. Thats where competiton and jealousy comes into all of this. In a polygamous relationship there will always be some sort of ungodly jealousy and competiton which will result in disaster. God Himself clearly had stated that His promise would only come through Sarah. Jacob only wanted to be married to Racheal but was TRICKED into marrying Leah. He ended up with about 4 wives but only wanted one. Davids polygamy caused a lot of Drama and led to Amnons rape of Tamar. Shall on continue? A lot of you talking about a second wife but probably can’t even andle ONE woman and fiances aren’t right. Not being mean I’m just telling it like it is. Incest was also okay at one point in the bible but God stopped it because people started to use it for their own lusts and pleasure. Marriage is not only about pleasure its also a spiritual thing. You being joined with more than one woman can cause spiritual problems. You cannot emotionally pour yourself out and be there for two full grown women at the same time. Are you God? Can you be there for everyone at once? No you cannot. If you want to practice polygamy then thats on you. I don’t want people coming around me doing all that. Just thinking of the emotional turmoil the children will be. Smh.
MemberAugust 21, 2020 at 9:55 pm
As a spiritual reminder, I would be really careful when talking about what The Most High’s intentions are. We know we exist for His pleasure. He gives us rules, blessings, and punishments. We only know his intention if it is in scripture. We know that there is scripture appears for the example of homosexuality:
Lev 20:13 KJV: If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
However, I have not seen the scripture forbidding polygamy. Maybe I missed it and you can point it out. If there is no scripture then we can’t say His intent:
Isa 55:9 KJV: For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
Keep that in mind when you say what His intention is.
You may be absolutely right in the wisdom for avoiding polygamy but that doesn’t imply it as being a sin.
MemberAugust 22, 2020 at 7:35 pm
Hi, India Lin. Please see my responses to your post below:
Your suggestion that the “Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve” argument can be applied to polygyny to make the case that it is not the will of the Most High shoes a serious lack of understanding. How we know homosexuality is against the will of Yah has nothing to do with rhymes people make up about Adam and Eve; we know it’s against His will because it is forbidden in His Towrah (Leviticus 18:22; Leviticus 20:13). Similarly, the way how we know that polygyny is indeed the will of the Most High is because it is endorsed in the Towrah time and time again (see my longer post above in this thread). (Remember, the Towrah defines the Most High’s righteousness; not ours.) If you are uncomfortable with polygyny and wish to argue against it, that’s your prerogative (though you’d be ill-advised to do so); but please don’t presume yourself to have a better insight into the will of Yah than His own Towrah.
You say that polygyny in the Bible always resulted in conflict and madness. You also say that in a polygamous setting there will always be some sort of ungodly jealousy and competition. These comments are simply not true. For starters, you are conveniently overlooking the examples of polygyny in Scripture where there isn’t the slightest hint of an issue, like with Gid’own (Gideon) (Judges 8:30-31). In addition, what about all the instances of polygyny in Scripture that do not even get a mention? (This practice would have been a lot more widespread that many realise, like it is among our family in Africa today.) Are you suggesting that all of these families would have been plagued by turmoil on account of their polygynous nature? ‘Cause that would be ridiculous. Moreover, beyond all that, there is something terribly wrong with the logic of your argument here. You’re essentially making the point that because there are examples of tumultuous polygynous situations in Scripture, that somehow suggests there is an issue with polygyny itself. This is a fallacy. What about the one-man-one-woman situations in Scripture that also result in turmoil? Take for example Yitschak (Isaac) and Ribkah (Rebeca): their two sons were enemies while alive and their descendants are still enemies to this day. Does this mean that a man having one wife is somehow inherently bad? Of course it doesn’t. That’s silly! And what about Adam and Eve?! That was another family with one wife; their son ended up committing the first murder and killing his brother, and even before that Adam and Eve’s decisions led to the fall of all mankind. Does this mean that a man having one wife is somehow inherently bad? Of course it doesn’t. It’s still just as silly!
You say that Melek Dawid’s (King David’s) polygyny caused a lot of drama and led to Amnons rape of Tamar. This is simply not true at all. It was not Dawid’s polygyny that brought calamity upon his household, it was his adultery against, and murder of, Uriah the Hittite. This is very clear when you read the judgement pronounced against him in 2 Samuel 12:7-12. Another way of proving this is to show that Dawid had plural wives before he committed those grave sins against Uriah—and he was not condemned for it! (To illustrate the point, we know that Dawid was married to Michal in 1 Samuel 18:27, and that he was married to Abigail in 1 Samuel 25:42.) If polygyny was the issue here, Dawid would have been judged long before 2 Samuel 12, but he wasn’t. All this proves that it was adultery and murder that Dawid was judged for, and that brought calamity upon his household and the nation, not the fact that he was a polygynist. For you to suggest otherwise tells me you are letting your bias against polygyny cloud you understanding of the text.
You say that “a lot” of us in the chat arguing for the righteousness of polygyny can’t even handle one woman and are not financially secure. First of all, I highly doubt that you’re aware of the financial situation of a lot of the men in this forum. But secondly, and more importantly, do you think that’s how you as a young woman should be talking to Israelite men? Especially men you don’t even know?
I agree with your comment that marriage is not only about pleasure but is also spiritual. However, what you’re failing to see is that polygyny is part of that picture. Polygyny is part and parcel of the biblical definition of marriage, and it is just as spiritual as a one-man-one-woman scenario.
Next, you say that a man being joined with more than one woman can cause spiritual problems. Do you have any biblical evidence to support this, or is this just your opinion? You also say that a man cannot emotionally pour himself out and be there for two fully-grown women at the same time. Now, I am not sure where in the Bible it says that a man is to pour himself out emotionally for his wife or wives; but surely a man can be there for two women at the same time. (Perhaps you’ve not yet met a true Bible-minded patriarch.) A good way to understand how a husband can adjust to take care of multiple wives is to consider how a mother naturally adjusts to take care of multiple children. Some women even give birth to triplets and are able to care for all of them simultaneously during those most tender stages. A man who is well equipped (in terms of spiritual and emotional maturity, leadership ability, and finances) can do the same for plural wives. It happens all the time all over the world.
Finally, to your comment about the turmoil children would (supposedly) go through in a polygynous family, I will say this: It is better for children to grow up in a family with ten righteous wives who love the Most High and His Word, than a family with one wife who is jealous, selfish, insecure, immature, and hates polygyny. This walk is about being transformed by the renewing of our minds, not conforming to the culture, mindset and spirit of our oppressors.
Log in to reply.