"The fear of יהוה is the beginning of wisdom, And the knowledge of the Set-apart One is understanding"

polygyny

Moderator: Watchman555

kathybyers2000
Posts: 103
Joined: 23 Oct 2007, 13:32
Location: Indiana
Contact:

One common misconception...

Postby kathybyers2000 » 01 Feb 2008, 13:39

That most people have is that a house with more than one wife is chaos. I used to believe as much also, however, what I learned is that I was the one in a state of chaos and my mind was placed there at the thought of another lady being in "my" space. But YHWH has prepared me for a possible addition to our home and I find more shalom within than I have ever known before. This can also be said for the families that I know that live poly. There is not a whole bunch of fighting and "control" issues going on. Indeed, we are talking about a place where the women are in deep DEEP submission, not only to YHWH, but also to their husband. When a lady is in this level of submission she is no longer willing to place herself in the "controllers" seat.

This concept is terrifying to many women. The thought of sharing their husband is just more than they can bare (BEEN THERE!!! (I raise my hand) . I believe that Eriq made a reference to this. This actually goes back to the times of Zeus and his wives. The goddess Hera (goddess of marriage) was his second wife (and sister) and fought for monogamy (out of jealousy). It is the first place in history that any woman was placed in such an authoritative position to work to decide the fate of all men. Hera desired to be worshiped by Zeus and he was busy most times with other wives, mistresses or rulings that she was not as sought as she would like. Thus it lead to the pounding of the idea of monogamy. Until that point in history women didn't have much at all to say about who their husband married. But with Greek beliefs women were "equal" creatures and could make up their own rules of engagement (which is the case with the order to remain monogamous). It most certainly does stem back to a woman who wanted her man all for herself. And the ruling to remain monogamous does stem back to paganism. It is very interesting to learn the roots of it.

Sharing what I have been blessed with in the last year. This is an emotional issue. I am thankful to have had my emotions put in check as far as this issue is concerned. And I repeat, it is nice to be in a place where I am not viewed as evil for believing in polygyny.

shalom,

Kathy
Last edited by kathybyers2000 on 01 Feb 2008, 15:34, edited 3 times in total.

eriqbenel
Posts: 269
Joined: 19 Oct 2007, 20:28
Location: Jonesboro, GA
Contact:

Postby eriqbenel » 01 Feb 2008, 14:26

Shalom...

Eriq, in error you accuse me,
which action, i am aware, is done
possibly without intent.
To say that "i don't want to share"
-- stated with complete and direct
reference to a husband,
let the unclean spirits
read and beware of trying to
ensnare me
-- is not being selfish, furthermore,
i am not nor is my personal choice
'rooted in paganism'. i simply and with authority
do not receive the opinionated curse
(regardless of whether you understand it to be,
the 'curse' being another topic altogether)
and i do pronounce over it that it is bound
in captivity to Yahusha Mashyach.
It went for a.... little plane ride. Razz Very Happy


Penny,

I wasn't "accusing" you of anything. I was simply responding to your opinion. It was a general response to everyone toward the subject.

Other than that, I have no idea what the rest of that post means. It seems you took a loooonnnnngggg plane ride on that one! :lol:
Shalom in the name of YHWH,

Eriq

chosen
Posts: 99
Joined: 20 Oct 2007, 03:54
Location: southeast ahia

decalogue stone

Postby chosen » 01 Feb 2008, 15:39

these are the "laws of the land" that i live in.

http://economics.sbs.ohio-state.edu/jhm ... lunas.html

Shalom,

chosen

YHWHsavesdotcom
Posts: 26
Joined: 24 Jan 2008, 00:41

Postby YHWHsavesdotcom » 02 Feb 2008, 18:47

Marriage is a temporal, ante-typical institution.

We are created to be married to YHWH...as he was alone, and love MUST share as part of his nature, it was not good for him to be alone and he created man for the same reason he created woman.

Yahwshua shall be the perfect Bride of YHWH and we shall be his perfect bride and we all become ONE...THIS IS ETERNITY

Just my two cents :D

ObedYah

kickme
Posts: 132
Joined: 29 Dec 2007, 18:48

Postby kickme » 02 Feb 2008, 19:42

Um, that's not what he said or did.
He said "it is not good for man to be alone"
He created "flesh of my flesh, bone of my bone, she shall be called Woman, because she came from man"

Indeed!
Temporal, you are correct, it is for time, nonetheless, it is real in this time.

eriqbenel
Posts: 269
Joined: 19 Oct 2007, 20:28
Location: Jonesboro, GA
Contact:

Postby eriqbenel » 02 Feb 2008, 22:01

Indeed!
Temporal, you are correct, it is for time, nonetheless, it is real in this time.


He didn't say it wasn't real for this time. He just said it was temporal.

ObedYah,

That is actually a very good point. And the Scripture allows in this "temporal" institution, for a man to have multiple wives. In fact, as marriage is a reflection of the body's relationship to YHWH, a man with more than one wife accentuates that image, IMO.
Shalom in the name of YHWH,



Eriq

YHWHsavesdotcom
Posts: 26
Joined: 24 Jan 2008, 00:41

Postby YHWHsavesdotcom » 04 Feb 2008, 15:54

Perhaps eriq, but I would suggest that since none of us are perfect, we merely strive toward the perfection for which we have been created, that if in fact there is not complete harmony in our home (which is difficult enough with but one wife) then perhaps we are not bringing him any glory at all by having more; and by so doing we sin...and why? for the sake of pleasing flesh rather than spirit?! :shock:

Luneee
Posts: 107
Joined: 12 Jan 2008, 02:45
Location: Acts 17:28

Postby Luneee » 04 Feb 2008, 16:18

YHWHsavesdotcom wrote:Perhaps eriq, but I would suggest that since none of us are perfect, we merely strive toward the perfection for which we have been created, that if in fact there is not complete harmony in our home (which is difficult enough with but one wife) then perhaps we are not bringing him any glory at all by having more; and by so doing we sin...and why? for the sake of pleasing flesh rather than spirit?! :shock:


Just a thought. Is taking one wife a sin, if it is for the sake of pleasing flesh rather than spirit?

:)

Jay Vincent.

kathybyers2000
Posts: 103
Joined: 23 Oct 2007, 13:32
Location: Indiana
Contact:

for the sake of pleasing flesh

Postby kathybyers2000 » 04 Feb 2008, 16:25

Do men take wives for the sake of pleasing flesh? Has any man here done that?

Just wondering.

Shalom,

kathy

chosen
Posts: 99
Joined: 20 Oct 2007, 03:54
Location: southeast ahia

marriage

Postby chosen » 04 Feb 2008, 16:25

1Co 7:8 And I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am,
1Co 7:9 but if they do not have self-control, let them marry, for it is better to marry than to burn.

~C:D

YHWHsavesdotcom
Posts: 26
Joined: 24 Jan 2008, 00:41

Postby YHWHsavesdotcom » 04 Feb 2008, 16:59

Great questions! I'm not the 'conformity police' and I do not myself obey anyone who sets themselves up as such. Clearly we have freedom IN Messiah...you will stand or fall before the judge as I will...i can only worry about myself and for me, I will remain as I am NOW as regards this issue :D

Torahwoman
Posts: 69
Joined: 19 Oct 2007, 23:42
Location: moving
Contact:

Postby Torahwoman » 04 Feb 2008, 19:52

Shalom,
i shared the view i hold on the matter,
and the view was misjudged as being pagan
or out of fear or weakness. i assure
anyone reading this, that NONE of that
is the case with me. No one has yet given
Scriptural proof that the view i hold is wrong
or fearful or 'selfish' in Yahuah's eyes. i did not,
nor do not judge anyone for wanting
more than one wife if that is his preference
and i did not nor do not judge any woman
who wants that lifestyle.
Please, do not refer to a woman who
does not share the 'multi-wife' view
as holding on to paganism, nor as being weak,
nor misunderstanding, nor judgmental.
The 'multi-wife' view has not been attacked by me
on this forum, nor anywhere else recently,
please do not resort to diminishing or insulting
the view i hold. The view of 'one wife only for one man'
is every bit as Scripturally-solid as the view
that having more than one was allowed by Yahuah.
i also ask that any replies not be attempts
to 'soften' or downplay what already has been unfairly
assumed toward the 'one wife' view.
If that is complied with, i would very much appreciate it.

i used to have very strong objections against
the multi-wife issue, misjuding it, and being
very vocal about that. But Yahuah showed me kindness
and told me to not judge those who choose that lifestyle.
But that does not make the view i hold less Scriptural ---
and it is in fact, Scriptural, and is in fact Yahuah's
original design.
And Brother ObedYah's point
of 'time' being relative --- Yahuah's concept of time
versus ours --- fits wonderfully in this:
If Yahuah's original plan was 'one man and one wife',
then in His concept of time, it is very much still in effect.
He does not condemn for taking more, rather He allowed it
and for His purposes sometimes.
He could easily have created more than one wife
for Adam in the very beginning, but He did not.

And as far as the flesh goes -- it's a two-way street.
Men and women both have somewhat to answer for,
when problems arise.

i have at least equal amount of shalom in the view i hold,
certainly no less, as anyone who believes and chooses
what they do.

i share this not only for my behalf, but i know
other Sisters who also have much shalom
in the choice they make or have made to be
in a 'one wife' household. It should not be treated
as 'lesser' or 'weak'.
Let us not seek to diminish someone else's view
in any way. Use only absolute Scriptural proof --
and not personal opinions, commentaries, etc. --
if the other's view is unScriptural.

Penny
Ps. 139:1 "O YaHUaH You have searched me and know me."

User avatar
Watchman555
Posts: 183
Joined: 18 Oct 2007, 16:57
Location: Northeast Indiana
Contact:

Postby Watchman555 » 04 Feb 2008, 22:13

Romans 14:14-23:
14 I know and am persuaded in the Master Yahusha that none at all is common of itself. But to him who regards whatever to be common, to him it is common. 15 And if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not by your food ruin the one for whom Messiah died. 16 Do not then allow your good to be spoken of as evil. 17 For the reign of Elohim is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Set-apart Spirit. 18 For he who is serving Messiah in these matters is well-pleasing to Elohim and approved by men. 19 So, then, let us pursue the matters of peace and the matters for building up one another. 20 Do not destroy the work of Elohim for the sake of food. All indeed are clean, but evil to that man who eats so as to cause stumbling. 21 It is good not to eat meat or drink wine, nor to do whatever by which your brother stumbles. 22 Do you have belief? Have it to yourself before Elohim. Blessed is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. 23 But he who doubts, if he eats, is condemned, because it is not of belief, and all that is not of belief is sin.

Matt. 22:23-33:
23 On that day Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Him and asked Him, 24 saying, “Teacher, Mosheh said that if anyone should die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife and raise offspring for his brother. 25 “And there were with us seven brothers, and the first died after he had married, and having no children, left his wife to his brother. 26 “In the same way the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. 27 “And last of all the woman died too. 28 “At the resurrection, when, whose wife of the seven shall she be – for all had her?â€

kickme
Posts: 132
Joined: 29 Dec 2007, 18:48

Postby kickme » 04 Feb 2008, 22:33

yuppers, that's what we look forward to.
for now though, we are where we are supposed to be, that is, in the flesh.

of course we all marry for lust. then again, look closely at the definition of the word translated lust.
lust in and of it'self is not evil, it's only even when it is covetous of something that belongs to someone else.

Now, back to the fact we all marry for lust, and should. If one does not greatly desire their companion, they best not be with them. And I'm referring to the relational aspect when I say this. The rest comes naturally, and should, but in it's turn. Not first priority. Relational comes first, and that's an intense thing, way more than the physical aspect. Headship, communication, feelings, sharing, that's all intense stuff. Get it right!!
See, I speak to myself, y'all can listen in if you like

As far as marrying because they cannot contain, think about it. If one has so much love to give that they burst at the seams, it would be wrong not to share it. I dare say Shaul was speaking of this, not the boinking. Fullness does lead to sharing and caring, only selfishness leads to hopping around.

well, that's my 2 cents

Luneee
Posts: 107
Joined: 12 Jan 2008, 02:45
Location: Acts 17:28

Re: for the sake of pleasing flesh

Postby Luneee » 05 Feb 2008, 01:05

kathybyers2000 wrote:Do men take wives for the sake of pleasing flesh? Has any man here done that?


The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing.

In other words, this is one of, if not THE main thing for a man.

Jay Vincent.


Return to “Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron