polygyny

[kathybyers2000]

I am a woman willing to accept a poly lifestyle, and I assure you I am neither oppressed or depressed. My esteem is no longer my own, but is the esteem of Elohim. For His glory we do all things. Therefore, the answer is no (at least for me).

Shalom,

Kathy

[kickme]

That is the popular explanation.
However, I ask this:
Was Sarah oppressed or depressed?
Was Abigal, David's second wife? She brought along several women knowing full well David might choose them as well as her. She had already been accepted, yet she brought her friends. And Scripture calls her a wise woman. Go figure.... Hmmm.
Also, consider Jezebel. Even though she was a wicked woman, still Ahab had 70 sons. Were they all hers? Was she oppressed and depressed?

[chosen]

i would definately say that the original "jezabel" was "oppressed," not by a man per say, but by unclean(s).

you didn't ask about Leah, Rachael, Milkah, Zilpah? were they?

shalom,

chosen

[kickme]

you are correct, I didn't mention them, but where do I stop with the list?
Hannah was loved, and I'll assume Elkana's other wife was also.
Leah is recorded as being hated, yet interestingly enough, for one hated, Ya`acob was willing to provide for her, give her children, and evidently communicate with her, so it makes me wonder just how hated she was.
And Rachel got dissed on her deathbed, Ya`acob didn't name Benyamin what Rachel wanted to name him.

Jezebel I find to be a fascinating character, for such a controlling woman, I wonder how she managed to get along with the other women....

[principessa-yisraeliana]

Shalom,

not a 'scholar' here, but i shall agree that it
should be agreed upon by each person involved
in the matter.... i realize not all couples are going to be
in 100% agreement on all views -- and the more
that are involved, the 'liiiikeliiihoooood' of a ratio
of disagreement maaaay be higher -- but i believe
this is more than "just one of those little disagreements".

No,.. Scripture -- being Yahuah's Word --
does not condemn the choice and lifestyle of a husband
taking multiple wives.

Personally.. my current view is that
i would rather not be in such a multi-relationship......
to rephrase:
i love all my sisters, but i'm not sharing myyyy dessert tray

TOO FUNNY! I haven't read all the other pages in this thread, but I will add my two cents here as well.

FIRSTLY, I don't believe that Wife #1 should be involved in the choosing of Wife #2. I don't personally know if I would want a polygynous relationship, but if I was prospective Wife #2, I wouldn't want Wife #1 brokering the deal. If the man cannot be manly enough to initiate a ONE FLESH relationship with me where the two of us become one (even if he's one with her---my math isn't adding up here, huh? LOL), then I am not interested. I'm not bargaining for a threesome under any circumstance--ick! I would want my own abode, provision, etc. apart from her. She doesn't have to love me and I don't have to love her....there were always inherent jealousies and comparisons in the polygynous relationships in scripture. (Hannah, Sarah...even Rachel and Leah). Let's not hyper-spiritualize this stuff! People are people!

NEXT--If I am Wife #1, my ketubah should be very specific regarding all aspects of my relationship with him including what portion I am to receive as my upkeep, reaffirming my personal property and other covenants between us. Since we live in a world and country that does not permit polygyny but does tolerate multiple relationships outside the 'officially-sanctioned marriages' -- then it would be VERY important to have the ketubah language stand on its own as a cohabitation agreement and/or pre-nup! Since polygyny is contrary to law here in the United States (and the Common Law Courts are troublesome/ineffective here), then one has to be careful that the terms are not thrown out for reason of an invalid or voided marriage.

Since Torah says that the portion of the first wife shall not be diminished if hubby takes on a second wife, I would want that agreement to be VERY CLEAR. If I do not wish to contract marriage with hubby if he's going to take on a second wife, then that language should also be very plain and I would want to include a built-in remedy (monetary damages as a consequence, and agreement about child custody, visitation, etc. if he breaches our contract and takes another wife and our contract says that he originally said he would not.)

I do have the right to contract for myself (or my father on my behalf, in the traditional setting.) I don't have the right to control hubby's actions. But he will have to be responsible for his breach of our contract, if he acts contrary to what we agreed. Most women fail to properly contract for marriage (or Father fails to do so, on her behalf.)

NEXT -- I have noticed that men in polygynous relationships in America (Utah, Arizona, etc.) that are highlighted in the news seem to have certain characteristics in common. They seem to wish to have lots of free/varied sex as a priority and they seem to want lots of women FOR LABOR! It seems like a very abusive, oppressive type of arrangement. I'm not trying to say that this is what all Torah-observant polygynous relationships are like, but I do see elements of this mentality here and there when I hear men discuss their intentions re polygyny. These men one sees in the news articles about 'polygamy' seem to be ego-centric, lustful, abusive, etc. Any polygynous relationship of Torah-observant believers should be of the quality where the women are treated as SARA----AS PRINCESSES AND QUEENS! Not slave labor, not as sex slaves and NO INCEST, of course!

AGAIN -- I think that most men in North America do not have enough prosperity and resources to practice polygyny! The woman should not be slave labor - the patriarchs were men of substance and also gave servants to their wives. If one considers the laws of a woman's monthly, a woman should be able to be set apart for quite awhile during the month. Who is going to do the work if she has no helper IF THE HUSBAND IS MARRYING HER FOR HER LABOR. IT JUST SHOULD NOT BE SO! Except, of course, failure to properly contract will leave a woman in a state of being a second-class citizen.

It's the MAN's DUTY to provide substance for his wife or wives, and a true patriarch will be a man's man and provide what he is required to.

These are just some of my thoughts re this topic. I am reminded of Nathan going to David, and that YHVH told David that he gave him his predecessor's concubines...and if that were not enough [he would have given more]. YHVH would not have done that if it was against His will and laws!

I just personally do not think that most men can make this work properly in today's economy, society, etc. and meet his Torah-mandated burden to properly provide. We're in captivity and the men should be diligent to provide, and prepare us for what is ahead that we might be delivered from this upcoming holocaust. If someone wants to engage in polygyny, I'm not really against it. Then again, I do agree with the other poster here that there are scriptures that would show that polygyny is not the ultimate and is actually problematic. I believe that the TWO (not three) BECOMING ONE is a huge 'type' in scripture with very beautiful and amazing symbology and meaning. But I also agree that there is generally no prohibition against polygyny and no penalty for it in the law, except where hubby fails to provide properly and perform HIS duties.

BUT ONE WIFE IS PLENTY, IMO! I DON'T THINK THAT MOST MEN CAN HANDLE ONE WIFE, LET ALONE TWO...OR MORE!

[principessa-yisraeliana]

Eriq,
It seems you are assuming I have been hurt, anti-man, marriage, whatever ! I think we'll leave the orders of telling the ladies to give me a hug, that option to them.
Not all women desire marriage Eriq. This is something some men think. Some women does not need a man to succeed in their lives, and does not desire marriage. And then theres women who readily look forward to being a wife and living a full happy life.
I travel all across the USA and minister to women, and have been doing this for 20 years. I have met woman from all walks of life, and have shared their fears, tears, and questions of why their marriages have failed, why their husbands cheated on them or walked out on them. And then,I meet women all the time also,who are 100 % happy in their marriage and love their husbands dearly.
And this is wonderful. Praise Yahuah.
But my friend, I am a very independent woman, and I don't need a man for any reason to make me any happier then I am today. I have one covering, and that is Yahshua.
Did true girl power have your question pegged right ? Seems she did.

YES! It takes a very independent woman to be involved in polygyny, actually. Or alone. Or in a traditional marriage as well. As Eric pointed out, the common misconception we females have is that the man is to be all about OUR emotions, needs, etc. We really need to be as Esther -- who prayed and fasted for FAVOR with her husband, the king, and waited for him to extend his sceptre of favor toward her.

As females, we normally do not think this way in American (Western) culture. It's foreign to us.

[kickme]

I have noticed that men in polygynous relationships in America (Utah, Arizona, etc.) that are highlighted in the news seem to have certain characteristics in common. They seem to wish to have lots of free/varied sex as a priority and they seem to want lots of women FOR LABOR! It seems like a very abusive, oppressive type of arrangement.

You know, I work my arse off for my family, am I in an abusive, oppressive relationship?

[principessa-yisraeliana]

I have noticed that men in polygynous relationships in America (Utah, Arizona, etc.) that are highlighted in the news seem to have certain characteristics in common. They seem to wish to have lots of free/varied sex as a priority and they seem to want lots of women FOR LABOR! It seems like a very abusive, oppressive type of arrangement.

You know, I work my arse off for my family, am I in an abusive, oppressive relationship?

I don't know you - I don't even know if you are male or female. I would not be able to answer that question for you.

It seems that you took everything that I said on the subject of polygyny, and twisted it to apply narrowly to YOUR situation when I clearly stated that I was referring to the types of polygynous relationships that are highlighted on news stories such as in Utah and Colorado City, AZ, etc. These famous cases are always shown as being full of incest, women supporting the man, men keeping a tight, controlling reign on their wives. They also initiate their own daughters sexually before marrying them off. That is the context of my statement, NOT MEANING TORAH-OBSERVANT POLYGENOUS RELATIONSHIPS THAT ARE OBEYING THE LAW IN ALL THEY DO.

It seems like you are just searching for something to be contentious about, 'kickme'. With everything I wrote, I would have hoped that you could have picked out something else of substance to comment on. Sorry you misunderstood.

However, if you are a female, then I might comment that perhaps you got what you contracted for [or failed to contract for, like most of us American females]. Females who descend from Sara deserve to be treated well and will contract (traditionally thru their fathers on their behalf) with a man of substance like Abraham who will provide well for them. Others do not so well...but may feel quite content with their lot. No worries - different strokes for different folks! Even if a woman has servants, a Proverbs 31 woman is active and busy and works hard.

My comment was about the polygamy cases in the news, be assured.

[principessa-yisraeliana]

you are correct, I didn't mention them, but where do I stop with the list?
Hannah was loved, and I'll assume Elkana's other wife was also.
Leah is recorded as being hated, yet interestingly enough, for one hated, Ya`acob was willing to provide for her, give her children, and evidently communicate with her, so it makes me wonder just how hated she was.
And Rachel got dissed on her deathbed, Ya`acob didn't name Benyamin what Rachel wanted to name him.

Jezebel I find to be a fascinating character, for such a controlling woman, I wonder how she managed to get along with the other women....

I would respectfully disagree with the characterization of Elkanah and his treatment of his wives. I think that there is enough there that you can read between the lines. He clearly gave Hannah a portion (double) in anger and possibly sadness to make up for her situation. The word for 'worthy' to describe portion has this connotation. He felt that his love should be enough to make up for 10 sons...that is a lot! He did this year after year, and the result was that Penninah despised her and was her ADVERSARY. Generally, that is because of inequitable treatment, sin or mismanagement of the relationships. We don't know if Penninah came first, but if she did, then it fits the situation that I was previously referring to in my post--that the portion of the first wife must not be diminished according to Torah.

Of course, this is speculation based upon hints in the passage, and also observations of human nature. But I don't know if we can assume that Penninah was 'loved' or was simply provided for according to her husband's obligations to her being met.


4And when the time was that Elkanah offered, he gave to Peninnah his wife, and to all her sons and her daughters, portions:

5But unto Hannah he gave a worthy portion; for he loved Hannah: but YHVH had shut up her womb.

6And her adversary also provoked her sore, for to make her fret

[Chayil_Ishshah]

Shalom,

Personally, I think Sarah's reasoning for the second wife was skewed. She wanted Abraham to have "the appointed" son so badly she turned to a fleshly way of doing so, instead of waiting on Yahuah. It did backfire on her.

If she had sought Yahuah on it the answer could very well have been different.

I think we, as children of Yahuah, should be willing to do whatever Yahuah wants us to do. Otherwise, we are drawing the line with Him, in my opinion.

"I'll follow You as long as I don't have to "fill in the blank". This is not only regarding this topic, but others as well. How much truth do we want?

~d

[principessa-yisraeliana]

I don't think that polygyny is MANDATED for anyone in scripture - except in the case of a brother becoming a kinsman redeemer for his dead brother's wife.

Other than that, I think that there is evidence that a) remaining single altogether or b) a man to have one wife is actually preferable.

I still maintain that, in our present dire situation in the world, it's a difficult lifestyle to set up and maintain and still be Torah-observant as far as providing a living for so many people. And I don't know of any man who has said that he wants to practice polygyny that is doing a bang-up job of supporting the first family, let alone more.

I agree with what you wrote above, and how much truth do these men want? Truth enough to get them their fantasy of varied sex...without the responsibility? That would be disobedient and lustful and not doing whatever YHVH wills--because He is very clear on the subject of providing for family and not diminishing the portion of the first wife when choosing a second.

The men I have known who talk about polygyny rabidly don't even work consistently, are living in the 'system' with no regular income or small income, don't own much property in their own right, are dependent upon their wives for $$, are not managing even the first family w/o problems, or the wife leaving him with the kids to separate or divorce, etc. It would seem that there are many other areas of scripture that must be obeyed and not just this ONE NOTE THAT THESE GUYS KEEP SINGING cuz they want more sex and more women. Like not practising usury(not paying interest), no insurance (being personally liable for one's obligations--no limited liability), not use unjust weights and measures (Fed. Reserve Notes), not being numbered (Social Security and Birth Certficate), being a lender and not a borrower....etc. etc.

If a man cannot be fully compliant with Torah in these and other areas, he doesn't have any need to bring more women and children into the equation--IMO. It's OK to talk about being "obedient" to YHVH in the area of polygyny, but not these other areas? That does not sound consistent.

I'M NOT AGAINST POLYGYNY -- JUST WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE OBEDIENCE, REASONABLENESS AND LESS WACKINESS IN THE HEB ROOTS MOVEMENT IN THIS REGARD. THIS POLYGYNY DOCTRINE IS WAYYYYYY OUT OF IMPORTANCE ON THE LIST OF THINGS I HEAR BELIEVERS IN THIS MOVEMENT WANTING TO BE "OBEDIENT" TO.

WOE UNTO THEM WHO GIVE SUCK IN THAT DAY....

I think we have a lot more to be taking care of in our lives than embracing polygyny.

[kickme]

I don't know you - I don't even know if you are male or female. I would not be able to answer that question for you.

It seems that you took everything that I said on the subject of polygyny, and twisted it to apply narrowly to YOUR situation when I clearly stated that I was referring to the types of polygynous relationships that are highlighted on news stories such as in Utah and Colorado City, AZ, etc. These famous cases are always shown as being full of incest, women supporting the man, men keeping a tight, controlling reign on their wives. They also initiate their own daughters sexually before marrying them off. That is the context of my statement, NOT MEANING TORAH-OBSERVANT POLYGENOUS RELATIONSHIPS THAT ARE OBEYING THE LAW IN ALL THEY DO.

My comment was about the polygamy cases in the news, be assured.

Sorry, I wasn't meaning to incite, but rather provoke thought
In any relationship, whether it be mono or poly, it seems the woman are offended that the men 'require' them to work, but see no problem requiring their men to work to support them. So I think it's funny that any woman would be offended by news stories about men requiring their women to work.
Now, I don't pay attention to news so much, so I really don't know what stories are in the news. In one of your posts you did refer to men being poly but not being willing to provide, so maybe that's what you are referring to: men who are lazy and expect to sit around while the women provide for them. If so, I understand better why what I said might have come across differently than I intended it to.
Just for the record, I do work very hard, and I do require all the members of my family to pull their own weight. No, nothing unusual, just chores, picking up after themselves, etc. I'm probably hardest on myself. It's not unusual for me to put in 12 hour days and then come home and do paperwork and bidding. I don't expect that of anyone else in my family, and I share your disgust for those who abuse the welfare system in general, and those who just refuse to work in particular.

As far as incest and 'initiation' of their daughters, well, that's just disgusting. Shame on society really though, because if poly was legal, these people wouldn't have to hide or fear, so incest would probably lower in frequency to some of the 'redneck' areas. I live close to Amish people, and because they shun society, incest tends to be higher there as well. Once one goes into a subculture, it does seem to breed certain harmful behaviors.

Shalom principessa-yisraeliana, I'll try to explain myself a bit clearer in the future Welcome to the forum.

[principessa-yisraeliana]

Sorry, I wasn't meaning to incite, but rather provoke thought
In any relationship, whether it be mono or poly, it seems the woman are offended that the men 'require' them to work, but see no problem requiring their men to work to support them. So I think it's funny that any woman would be offended by news stories about men requiring their women to work.

Oh, thanks for making that clearer. I guess that you are right, we probably have a different view regarding the roles of men and women. I'll explain my view more clearly:

I believe that women are meant to minister to men---take care of their needs, not just sexual, but very much their ego and esteem needs. As a woman, I am successful if my husband is thought well-of in the gates, and if he has every reason to expect that I will comport myself properly in the community (to make him look good) and be exclusive for him. I should measure up to the Proverbs 31 standard. A Proverbs 31 wife is not lazy by any standard!

What does the female get from the man? She is his completer, not the converse! She gets SEED. She is a wombed man, woman. She takes the tiny sperm from him and then creates another complete human being out of it. She takes a house that he provides and makes a home out of it. She (or her maids) take the meat/food he gives and cooks a wonderful meal. In present society, she takes his provision (paycheck, allowance, whatever form) and makes a better life for them. She enhances whatever provision he gives.

What does she need or deserve from the union? His provision and protection. If she has this, she can be active and busy (not lazy) and will multiply his efforts, all the while making him feel like a conqueror and a king in his own realm. Women need security.

I'm not advancing the notion that a woman should be LAZY. Just that they are entitled to provision and protection from the man. Women these days are often expected to provide an income, take care of the children, and be all things in the bedroom for the man and yet they are not really getting what THEY NEED. Security--provision and protection.

I think that scripture supports this view:

Exodus 21
10If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.
11And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money. (I take that to mean her father did not have to refund the dowry/bride price, as the unlawful behavior was not a breach on her part, but his, as he did not continue to provide these things in the manner that she previously received/contracted for before he took another wife.)

Dowry - (mohar; i.e., price paid for a wife, Gen. 34:12; Ex. 22:17; 1 Sam. 18:25), a nuptial present; some gift, as a sum of money, which the bridegroom offers to the father of his bride as a satisfaction before he can receive her. Jacob had no dowry to give for his wife, but he gave his services (Gen. 29:18; 30:20; 34:12). Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary


1 Timothy 5:8
But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.


(The firstborn MALE receives the double portion of the inheritance. Why? Because it is his obligation to step in the stead of his father and take care of the widows, etc. of his own HOUSE and tribal clan. No welfare system, because it was the MAN's job to provide!)


So, if a male, a polygynist, requires that his wives work in the world to support his family as well as minister to his needs, care for his children, etc., then I believe that he is out of order. The woman should have her own inheritance that is NOT mingled with his money, and then if he divorces her, she should keep her own money and not decimate his overall finances (as is the case in most divorces in the Admiralty courts today. But she should be able to consider a field and purchase it...plant a vineyard....and see that HER gain is good. NOT WORK TO INCREASE HIS NET WORTH and then risk at some point being thrown out into the street along with the children and live off of an award of child support (a pittance) because the husband basically stole from her during the marriage because she had to work to support his arse and not have her own gain!)


A Proverbs 31 wife is industrious, but has her own money and gain! The quality of life is very high for HER household - the entire household is clothed in scarlet (she has her own home, presumably NOT shoved in with the other wives, excepting her own servants, if she was smart and blessed in marrying...)

10 [c] A wife of noble character who can find?
She is worth far more than rubies.

11 Her husband has full confidence in her
and lacks nothing of value.

12 She brings him good, not harm,
all the days of her life.

13 She selects wool and flax
and works with eager hands.

14 She is like the merchant ships,
bringing her food from afar.

15 She gets up while it is still dark;
she provides food for her family
and portions for her servant girls.

16 She considers a field and buys it;
out of her earnings she plants a vineyard.

17 She sets about her work vigorously;
her arms are strong for her tasks.

18 She sees that her trading is profitable,
and her lamp does not go out at night.

19 In her hand she holds the distaff
and grasps the spindle with her fingers.

20 She opens her arms to the poor
and extends her hands to the needy.

21 When it snows, she has no fear for her household;
for all of them are clothed in scarlet.

22 She makes coverings for her bed;
she is clothed in fine linen and purple.

23 Her husband is respected at the city gate,
where he takes his seat among the elders of the land.

24 She makes linen garments and sells them,
and supplies the merchants with sashes.

25 She is clothed with strength and dignity;
she can laugh at the days to come.

26 She speaks with wisdom,
and faithful instruction is on her tongue.

27 She watches over the affairs of her household
and does not eat the bread of idleness.

28 Her children arise and call her blessed;
her husband also, and he praises her:

29 "Many women do noble things,
but you surpass them all."

30 Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting;
but a woman who fears YHVH is to be praised.

31 Give her the reward she has earned,
and let her works bring her praise at the city gate.

[kickme]

Cool! I think we agree on pretty much everything.

I do have questions about the following paragraph though:

So, if a male, a polygynist, requires that his wives work in the world to support his family as well as minister to his needs, care for his children, etc., then I believe that he is out of order. The woman should have her own inheritance that is NOT mingled with his money, and then if he divorces her, she should keep her own money and not decimate his overall finances (as is the case in most divorces in the Admiralty courts today. But she should be able to consider a field and purchase it...plant a vineyard....and see that HER gain is good. NOT WORK TO INCREASE HIS NET WORTH and then risk at some point being thrown out into the street along with the children and live off of an award of child support (a pittance) because the husband basically stole from her during the marriage because she had to work to support his arse and not have her own gain!)

See, I don't have any issues with a woman working outside the home in any relationship be it poly or mono. If, and I say if: the man is ok with the situation the woman is working in, and the woman feels safe where she is working, the children are taken care of by either a trusted family member or one of the other wives, and the final if being that the man isn't using her to make up for his own inadequacy, then I don't have a problem with it.
After all, what does it matter who helps grow the children's inheritance? As the children are older and are able, shouldn't they also contribute to both their own future and that of the rest of the family? To me it just makes sense to have the whole family involved in the betterment of each individual in a family.
If one really is concerned that equity isn't being shared properly, then it should be discussed. The sad thing about this is so many times jealousy clouds thinking patters, so even if the husband were to try to make sure things were done in a fair and reasonable manner, it is quite possible that somebody wouldn't be happy anyway, be it a wife or a child.
And that's part of the reason Yahweh said if a man has a favorite wife, he dare not favor the younger son of the favorite, but must give the inheritance to the eldest by birth.

OK, done with that.

I'd just like to comment on Hannah. KJV says Hannah got a worthy portion, other translations say double portion. Yet the word used is also translated anger, wrath, nostril and that sort of thing. Yet the context demands that somehow it was special. I don't know if it was a consolation thing or what. Either way, I don't see that this relationship was abnormal because Hannah wanted to have children, Elkana seems to have shared that desire. I'm sure there was lots of frustration on both of them, because Hannah knew it was her body that was unable because Elkana fathered children to the Pennaniel and Elkana really wanted to give Hannah children.
I'm not really sure why Pennaniel tormented Hannah so, the reason isn't given, but I suspect it has something to do with the human nature of always wanting to be better than another. Which I believe is the reason Scripture says that those comparing themselves among themselves are not wise.

[eriqbenel]

FIRSTLY, I don't believe that Wife #1 should be involved in the choosing of Wife #2. I don't personally know if I would want a polygynous relationship, but if I was prospective Wife #2, I wouldn't want Wife #1 brokering the deal. If the man cannot be manly enough to initiate a ONE FLESH relationship with me where the two of us become one (even if he's one with her---my math isn't adding up here, huh? LOL), then I am not interested.

Shalom Sister,

I believe you have an incorrect view of what "one flesh" means.

In the parallel verses from Matthew and Mark, we find Messiah making reference to the same Scripture from Genesis 2, describing the "one flesh" relationship between man and woman. He was not discussing Polygamy, but rather He was answering a question about divorce. He never mentioned Polygamy at all, although He certainly would have done so if Elohim were making such a radical move away from something already written in His Word.

If Messiah was going to institute a change in the Torah regarding Polygamy, this is where we would expect to find it. Yet He made no attempt to correct or change this practice as He had corrected His questioners about divorce. His choice to refrain from doing so allowed levirate marriage, along with its resulting Polygamy, to stand as a legitimate component of the Jewish social structure.

But does the statement "the two shall become one flesh" mean that a man can be "one flesh" with only one woman? Certainly not, since Paul warns against becoming "one flesh" with a whore. One could certainly do this while being married to another.

Do you not know that your bodies are members of Messiah? Shall I then take the members of Messiah and make them members of a whore? Let it not be! Or do you not know that he who is joined to a whore is one body? For He says, "The two shall become one flesh". And he who is joined to the Master is one spirit. (1 Corinthians 6:15-17, The Scriptures)

Paul understood that the passage in Genesis was a statement concerning sexuality. When you think about it, prostitution is really a worldly substitution for marriage. What if two different men lay with the whore? Aren't they both "one flesh" with her, or are we not to believe the Scriptures? Paul's usage of the phrase "the two shall become one flesh" demonstrates that it was and is a purely sexual statement, regardless whatever it may point to in terms of spiritual things.

In fact, Messiah had the perfect opportunity to speak against Polygamy, if ever He was going to, when He was questioned about levirate marriage. Under the Torah, if a man died without an heir, his brother was required to marry the dead man's wife and raise the first son as heir to the dead brother. This law relied on Polygamy, because in most cases, the living brother would already be married and the dead brother's wife would have to come into the family by a polygamous marriage.

What do you think the bridegroom did with his virgins? "Those who were ready went in with him to the wedding feast". They went in and were joined together with Him to become ONE FLESH! As a pattern, this parable teaches us that the marriage of the Bridegroom is polygamous. Therefore, it is within the divine nature for men and women in Messiah to be polygamous.

Which of the virgins becomes "one flesh" with the Bridegroom? Obviously all of them! Just as Ya’aqob was "one flesh" with Rachel, he was also "one flesh" with Leah, "one flesh" with Bilhah, and "one flesh" with Zilpah. Scripturally, a husband is "one flesh" with his first wife, and if he takes a second wife, he and the second wife are "one flesh" as well. Therefore each wife becomes "one flesh" with her husband.

-------------

I'm not bargaining for a threesome under any circumstance--ick! I would want my own abode, provision, etc. apart from her. She doesn't have to love me and I don't have to love her....there were always inherent jealousies and comparisons in the polygynous relationships in scripture. (Hannah, Sarah...even Rachel and Leah). Let's not hyper-spiritualize this stuff! People are people!

Not "always". We don't see any among Solomon's wives, and he had more than anybody.

Nevertheless, when there are jealousies and comparisons, they are "inherent" to polygyny, they are "inherent" to unrighteous human behavior overall. As believers, we are commanded to get rid of these negative attributes from our behaviors whether we are in a polygynous relationship or not.

If this type of behavior is not a part of who you are in Messiah, then it should not effect you in a polygynous relationship.

NEXT--If I am Wife #1, my ketubah should be very specific regarding all aspects of my relationship with him including what portion I am to receive as my upkeep, reaffirming my personal property and other covenants between us. Since we live in a world and country that does not permit polygyny but does tolerate multiple relationships outside the 'officially-sanctioned marriages' -- then it would be VERY important to have the ketubah language stand on its own as a cohabitation agreement and/or pre-nup! Since polygyny is contrary to law here in the United States (and the Common Law Courts are troublesome/ineffective here), then one has to be careful that the terms are not thrown out for reason of an invalid or voided marriage.

IMO, this is a shallow premise to enter into a marriage relationship. If I had "cattle on a thousand hills", I would want to marry a woman who had that mindset entering into it.

As I pointed out in an earlier post, the marriage relationship is not all about the comfort level of the wife. Nor is it the wife who sets the family agenda.

If the husband is taking care of you, all of the "property" is his. To start out making demands as to how it is to be administered is the "wrong foot" to put forward.

What every family should be about is each one helping the unit to live righteously before the Father and to "bear one another's burdens".

Since Torah says that the portion of the first wife shall not be diminished if hubby takes on a second wife, I would want that agreement to be VERY CLEAR. If I do not wish to contract marriage with hubby if he's going to take on a second wife, then that language should also be very plain and I would want to include a built-in remedy (monetary damages as a consequence, and agreement about child custody, visitation, etc. if he breaches our contract and takes another wife and our contract says that he originally said he would not.)

Again, the woman was created to be a "help" suitable to the man. This means the wife doesn't set the agenda. The woman who strives to do so is operating out of order and should not be a "wife" at all.

I do have the right to contract for myself (or my father on my behalf, in the traditional setting.) I don't have the right to control hubby's actions. But he will have to be responsible for his breach of our contract, if he acts contrary to what we agreed. Most women fail to properly contract for marriage (or Father fails to do so, on her behalf.)

The problem is when women try to use the ketubah as a means of "control", which is what you are really doing here.

NEXT -- I have noticed that men in polygynous relationships in America (Utah, Arizona, etc.) that are highlighted in the news seem to have certain characteristics in common. They seem to wish to have lots of free/varied sex as a priority and they seem to want lots of women FOR LABOR! It seems like a very abusive, oppressive type of arrangement. I'm not trying to say that this is what all Torah-observant polygynous relationships are like, but I do see elements of this mentality here and there when I hear men discuss their intentions re polygyny. These men one sees in the news articles about 'polygamy' seem to be ego-centric, lustful, abusive, etc. Any polygynous relationship of Torah-observant believers should be of the quality where the women are treated as SARA----AS PRINCESSES AND QUEENS! Not slave labor, not as sex slaves and NO INCEST, of course!

I do know of polygynous practice in the US, but don't know of ANY that are Torah-based. There may be some, but we don't hear about those. Because a Torah-based polygynous marriage wouldn't have "slave labor" and "incest".

Unless one has lived in an environment where this practice occurs, the only thing we know of it is what is portrayed in the media. And the only reason you would see some of it in the media is BECAUSE of the negative. The media is not known for its rush to spread "good news".

"We interrupt this program to bring you breaking news. A man in Salt Lake City, Utah has married three women. Rather than sexually using them in fornication and leaving them to raise bastard children alone while he continued on his sexually immoral way like men do in the monogamous areas, this man has actually decided to MARRY these women and be a father to his children.

Recent reports say that he is a good man who has intelligent, submissive wives that love one another and teach their children in righteousness. Stay tuned to action news at 11 for more information. Now back to our program."

In any case, I believe you've got the whole idea backwards. The purpose of the wife is to serve the husband and submit to his agenda, not to be put on a pedestal and catered to like royalty. The husband duty is to serve his wife with love and compassion, leading his family in the path of righteousness, not to spend his life trying to shower her with monetary gifts.

AGAIN -- I think that most men in North America do not have enough prosperity and resources to practice polygyny! The woman should not be slave labor - the patriarchs were men of substance and also gave servants to their wives. If one considers the laws of a woman's monthly, a woman should be able to be set apart for quite awhile during the month. Who is going to do the work if she has no helper IF THE HUSBAND IS MARRYING HER FOR HER LABOR. IT JUST SHOULD NOT BE SO! Except, of course, failure to properly contract will leave a woman in a state of being a second-class citizen.

A man could marry ONE woman to be "slave labor". There are men who treat ONE wife this way. So it's not about the number of wives, it's about the mentality of the individuals involved.

I am certainly not suggesting in any way a wife be "slave labor", but if a man has more than one wife, then those women share the wifely duties. In other words, unless ALL of the wives experience their "monthly" at the same time, then there is always someone available to do the "work".

Do you think David had a "servant" for each of his hundreds of wives? I doubt it, I guess he was a "slave driver".

It's the MAN's DUTY to provide substance for his wife or wives, and a true patriarch will be a man's man and provide what he is required to.

This term "provide" needs to be examined. If you mean that we have land and resources that "we all work together" to maintain and meet our needs… then yes.

But if you mean the wife sits back and waits for her servants to bring her whatever she commands, courtesy of the wealth of her husband… then that is false. And any woman, whether she is ONE wife or part of multiple, who enters into marriage with that expectation is a Jezebel.

I just personally do not think that most men can make this work properly in today's economy, society, etc. and meet his Torah-mandated burden to properly provide.

I personally think that most women in today's economy, society, etc. have a warped idea of what "properly provide" means.

Then again, I do agree with the other poster here that there are scriptures that would show that polygyny is not the ultimate and is actually problematic.

It is only "problematic" when those involved have a "problematic" attitude toward the situation.

I believe that the TWO (not three) BECOMING ONE is a huge 'type' in scripture with very beautiful and amazing symbology and meaning. But I also agree that there is generally no prohibition against polygyny and no penalty for it in the law, except where hubby fails to provide properly and perform HIS duties.

I have already addressed the "one flesh" issue, but I will add that if polygynous marriage went against YHWH's concept of "TWO BECOMING ONE" as you see it, then YHWH would be inconsistent and illogical for condoning it and legislating it's practice in Torah.

The truth is, it is your concept of "two becoming one" that is in error and inconsistent with Torah and YHWH's idea of marriage.

BUT ONE WIFE IS PLENTY, IMO! I DON'T THINK THAT MOST MEN CAN HANDLE ONE WIFE, LET ALONE TWO...OR MORE!

It's a shame that men need to "handle" women at all. Women should be able to "handle" themselves and conduct themselves righteously within a marriage.

But you are correct, when women are high maintenance, materialistic, contentious, jealous and un-submissive, then they are hard to "handle", even one.