polygyny

[eriqbenel]

True Girl Power wrote:

How can is be horrible is Scripture says this is so? Isn't denying this "picking and choosing" what Scriptures you (or anyone) will obey?

You wrote in response to my comment that it is "horrible" to suggest that marriage is all about property.

My answer is, "No". It is not "picking and choosing" because the Scriptures do NOT teach that marriage is "all about property". That is a horrible and foolish notion.

Sucks, YES, but the truth of the matter is; it happens. Like take a girl who was not married and had sex; her virtue is gone. Being that she is no longer a virgin, it would be HARD to marry her off. In many cases, the father could not afford her anymore, hence she was sold into slavery.

Again, not only is this a ridiculous notion, it is NOT what Scripture teaches. If a man has sex with a woman to defile her, he MUST marry her OR if the father refuse to let her marry him, then the man MUST pay a "virgins wage" to the father. THAT is Scripture. I don't know where you and Cheri are getting these false ideas...

No father in his right mind is heartless and cruel enough to sell his daughter into slavery because he can't afford her. And you can't find any instance in Scripture where this is so.

I wrote:

Is 291K ALL you ladies are worth? I "thinketh noteth"... what a silly notion..

Adrienne replied:

The husband was to pay the bride's father the bride price; that is in scripture. You deny this?

No. I don't deny this. But this is only one aspect of the marriage process. It is not what marriage is ALL ABOUT. To believe that the entire institution of marriage is about money and that love, compassion and relationship are second hand by products that may or may not be relevant. THAT is what I deny.

I believe that the Messiah's demonstration of love and compassion is the ultimate example to a husband of what YHWH intended in Genesis. Cheri has reduced this example to a "Tina-Turner-whats-love-got-to-do-with-it" proposition.

Eriq, come on. I'm sorry but name calling? That's like being an immature child throwing a temper tantrum when he isn't getting his way. We’re all adults here; please can we act like mature people here?

I didn't call her any names. What I did was define her position according to the Scripture. It is Scripture that calls what she is teaching heresy. It is the same type mentality of Jezebel. Then on top of all of this, she claims to be a direct descendant of King David that can't help being focused on being treated like a Queen because it's in her DNA. That's delusional!

What is shallow and immature is to have ANY aspect of life focused on money and finance. Or have you not read the Messiah's words in Mattiyahu chapters 5 and 6?

The point is, yes the wife and child become the sole property of the husband, UNLESS the husband cannot comply with the marriage contract/covenant he and she (or he and her father) made. The husband HAS TO provide for HIS family; failure to do so is a breach of the marriage contract/covenant. Just like the wife having sex outside of her marriage is a violation of the marriage contract/covenant; only in case of sex outside of marriage (on HER part) results in HER death. That is all scriptural fact. Why argue about it?

Why do you feel the need to explain these things to me? Have you been reading the entire thread?

I do not dispute the husbands fiduciary duties in a marriage. What I DO dispute is the notion that "property" and "finance" are what marriage is all about. Adam and Chavah is the first example of marriage and that is not what there marriage was about. That idea is NOT "Scriptural fact".


[quote]Truth is, not everyone can marry for “loveâ€

[principessa-yisraeliana]

[quote= Eriq]

I believe that the Messiah's demonstration of love and compassion is the ultimate example to a husband of what YHWH intended in Genesis. Cheri has reduced this example to a "Tina-Turner-whats-love-got-to-do-with-it" proposition.

No, I haven't...but Rebekah did not even know Isaac when she was chosen and accepted Abraham's offer (thru his servant) of marriage. Because Yahuah was the initiator and author of the union, THERE WAS LOVE and blessing there. But it's not because they first 'fell in lust/love' and had to be persuaded that there was romantic love there before they proceeded.


Love shows itself in action. Yahshua loved us, and died for us. A father loves his virgin daughter and will help her to choose a suitable mate who will provide for her and the future offspring, which are the progeny and future of the families. That is another huge form of love. A good father will also ensure that the young man buys the cow and doesn't just get ahold of the milk for freeeee.


I have worked amongst Middle Eastern people quite a bit and have seen quite a few arranged marriages. Once you have seen how ecstatic and happy and contented they are, it remains indelibly imprinted in your mind. I was quite amazed at how special it was to them and how they prized their spouses.


You consistently mischaracterize me, but that's ok, Eriq. I'm content to let Yahuah judge between us in the matter.

[eriqbenel]

... Rebekah did not even know Isaac when she was chosen and accepted Abraham's offer (thru his servant) of marriage. Because Yahuah was the initiator and author of the union, THERE WAS LOVE and blessing there. But it's not because they first 'fell in lust/love' and had to be persuaded that there was romantic love there before they proceeded.

Yitzak and Rebekah are not the ultimate example of marriage. Messiah and the assembly are. That was true in that case, but that case is not where we build Scriptural doctrine. The SUM of YHWH's word is truth.

Love shows itself in action. Yahshua loved us, and died for us. A father loves his virgin daughter and will help her to choose a suitable mate who will provide for her and the future offspring, which are the progeny and future of the families. That is another huge form of love. A good father will also ensure that the young man buys the cow and doesn't just get ahold of the milk for freeeee.

Agreed. I am not suggesting that love is just "warm fuzzies", but it isn't "dollars and cents" either!

I have worked amongst Middle Eastern people quite a bit and have seen quite a few arranged marriages. Once you have seen how ecstatic and happy and contented they are, it remains indelibly imprinted in your mind. I was quite amazed at how special it was to them and how they prized their spouses.

I am TOTALLY in favor of arranged marriage. But even arranged marriage doesn't always mean that the couple is hidden from one another until the wedding day... In most cases, they do get a chance to meet and sometimes get acquainted under supervision long before the actual marriage.

You consistently mischaracterize me...

I have only gone bywhat you have posted here. If I have mischaracterized you, either I have missed something or you have not thoroughly explained your position.

[principessa-yisraeliana]

Eriq,

I think that you have missed something and also I may also have not thoroughly explained my position. It's very difficult to go back and forth where things are chopped up with small comments like this.

I gave some links to George Gordon's programs. There is a lot of context to what I'm saying that is nearly impossible to write here. And if I tried, I feel as though I'd be harassed the entire way! I would love for you to listen to his programs I've highlighted earlier in this thread. (I don't agree with him on everything, BTW..but he has a lot to say that is awesome.)

Perhaps also the thing that started this off was that my initial post was not in the same 'feel' as the ones prior to it. It probably had a tone to it -- and that might have set you off. I am new here (originally signed up in October of last year, but didn't come back until now) and so I didn't really know everyone here and it does take some time to get the feel of who's who and context of the threads.

We keep going back and forth here, but it's like lines in space that never intersect! :)

I'm not saying all marriages are arranged. I never said that all marriages contracted for are with virgins, etc. But all marriages are a contract, and are based upon 1) agreement of the parties (or their agents) and 2) penetration. Once that occurs, the woman and her offspring are HIS responsibility to provide for and are his property, not her father's responsibility any longer.

Yes, the ultimate relationship template is Yahshua and His Bride. Scripture says that we are a purchased possession, bondservants of Messiah Yahshua, and owe Him a debt of our entire life. Even though this is true, He sacrificially loved us and purchased us with His own life.

So, both aspects of the marriage contract are true at the same time -- we are His property, are purchased and serve Him....but He loved us first and we love and adore Him as our response. It is not burdensome to serve Him...because He always gives us more than we could ask or hope for in every way. He is an amazing husband and provider!

However, the situations in scripture (i.e. Yitzak and Rivkah) were given for our example that we might learn from them. I think that when Rebekah saw her betrothed and knew him right off that it was amazing.

I'm not saying marriage is only about the MONEY issue, Eriq. But we cannot negate the financial and provision aspects of marriage.

It is complex - because humans are complex and have great worth in His eyes. But the scriptures are a LAW BOOK, and it speaks in legal terms. Our current society abhors those labels of humans as servants, slaves, subjects or 'property'. And yet, we are servants of our masters/employers, we are not 'free' citizens as we think, but are chattel of the state if we have a birth certificate and SSAN. (See the other article I posted in this section -- "How you became a Commodity.")

Gotta run - just some initial thoughts after reading your post. Probably my writing was strong and bold in the initial posts and perhaps you reacted to that...? If so, I apologize. If you spoke with me on the telephone, my voice is not at ALL like that....and since I work in the legal profession my writing style is probably dry also.

Have a nice evening,

Cherie

[eriqbenel]

Perhaps also the thing that started this off was that my initial post was not in the same 'feel' as the ones prior to it. It probably had a tone to it -- and that might have set you off. I am new here (originally signed up in October of last year, but didn't come back until now) and so I didn't really know everyone here and it does take some time to get the feel of who's who and context of the threads.

We keep going back and forth here, but it's like lines in space that never intersect!

I perceived,

"I am woman, hear me roar! Men pay homage to the Queens of the earth!" tone…

that is just not what the disposition of a woman of YHWH should be.

2:5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of YHWH be not blasphemed.

3:1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
3:2 While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.
3:3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
3:4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of YHWH of great price.
3:5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in YHWH, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:
3:6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him Master: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.


However, maybe I misunderstood and over-reacted. If so, I do apologize.

I'm not saying all marriages are arranged. I never said that all marriages contracted for are with virgins, etc. But all marriages are a contract, and are based upon 1) agreement of the parties (or their agents) and 2) penetration. Once that occurs, the woman and her offspring are HIS responsibility to provide for and are his property, not her father's responsibility any longer.

I don't disagree with this. However, I would add just a few points. These are not disagreements, just "additions" to your point.

1) The "penetration" can be all that is necessary to enact an official marriage. What if a woman is a virgin/widowed only child and her father is dead or inaccessible? A man could take her to wife without a "contract".

2) The term "arranged" marriage implies an "agreement" of contract. But who is the "agreement" between? It is between the father and the groom or the groom's family. So what does the woman have to say about it? Nada.

Now, here is where I may start to disagree… I will pose my disagreement in the form of a question(s)

Should only the wealthy men be allowed to marry? Messiah said, the poor are with us "always".

My point is this, you pointed out that a man had the right to "sell" a daughter into slavery, but at the same time you insist that a woman assert her "right" to a financially handsome "contract".

In an "arranged" marriage situation, the woman has no part in the negotiations, hence the term, "arranged". If she can't keep herself from being sold into slavery, she certainly can't lobby for a FAT contract!

By the same token, it would be disparaging to think that all of the "poor" men with a righteous and loving soul would be "disqualified" for marriage. I don't believe this is what the Torah intends.

So, both aspects of the marriage contract are true at the same time -- we are His property, are purchased and serve Him....but He loved us first and we love and adore Him as our response. It is not burdensome to serve Him...because He always gives us more than we could ask or hope for in every way. He is an amazing husband and provider!

As I pointed out earlier, there are "poor" people in the assembly of Messiah. Messiah said so Himself. He even gave instructions on how we are to treat the poor.

He is just as much an "amazing" husband to the "poor" as He is to the rich. I wouldn't gage His "amazing-ness" by how much wealth He has provided me.

I'm not saying marriage is only about the MONEY issue, Eriq. But we cannot negate the financial and provision aspects of marriage.

We may have a different definition of the "financial provision" aspects of marriage. These Scriptures apply to the married as well:

Philipians
4:11 Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content.

1 tim.
6:8 And having food and raiment let us be therewith content.

Hebrews
13:5 Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.



Let me be clear. I am not saying that people should be poor, I am just saying that it is ok if "poor" men get married too! A lack of finances doesn't make a marriage any less righteous. But if a man of means loves his wife, he should certainly "put his money where his mouth is".

It is complex - because humans are complex and have great worth in His eyes. But the scriptures are a LAW BOOK, and it speaks in legal terms.

Correct. See the Scriptures above.

Our current society abhors those labels of humans as servants, slaves, subjects or 'property'. And yet, we are servants of our masters/employers, we are not 'free' citizens as we think, but are chattel of the state if we have a birth certificate and SSAN. (See the other article I posted in this section -- "How you became a Commodity.")

I am completely on board with you regarding this. But I think it is a separate issue.

Gotta run - just some initial thoughts after reading your post. Probably my writing was strong and bold in the initial posts and perhaps you reacted to that...? If so, I apologize. If you spoke with me on the telephone, my voice is not at ALL like that....and since I work in the legal profession my writing style is probably dry also.

You're right. It is sometimes difficult to grasp the "tone" of a person in a short post. I reiterate my previous apology as well.

[kickme]

I have to agree that there were arrangements for the poor.
I don't know if Ya`acob was rich or poor, but we see Laban making accomodations for him. He was able to work for 7 years for Laban in lieu of the dowry. (Dowry is a whole other subject, from my understanding it was not a payment to the father so much as a safe deposit in case the husband defaulted in caring for his wife. Then the father had means to care for her at the husband's expense. Thus Rachel and Leah's complaint that their father had spent their inheritance.)

OK, that was one.
Another was the post I made previous, that if a man contracted for a woman for a wife for his son, then the son rejected the woman, and the father then mistreated the woman, at that point she was free to go without the dowry price. So a poor man could get a woman without the high money investment. And she could rejoice she found a good man to care for her instead of the master she had before.

So I see Torah taking care of the poor in at least these two ways. To say nothing of the widow who's husband died childless and the brother was required to marry her and raise seed for his brother....

[TrueGirlPower]

True Girl Power wrote:

How can is be horrible is Scripture says this is so? Isn't denying this "picking and choosing" what Scriptures you (or anyone) will obey?

You wrote in response to my comment that it is "horrible" to suggest that marriage is all about property.

My answer is, "No". It is not "picking and choosing" because the Scriptures do NOT teach that marriage is "all about property". That is a horrible and foolish notion.

Yet you "clam" that marriage is 'all about love'. Ummm no... it isn't. Sorry, but if you knew anything about human history (not calming I know a lot of it myself), but to say "ALL" marry for "love" is a hot load of bull-honk.

I wish all could marry for "love" but not all do.
Just because you 'say' something does not make it true...

Did Jacob love Leah? No, he loved Rachel. IF he 'loved" Leah, he would have married her and wouldn't have given Rachel a second thought.

Gen 29:25 And it came to pass,1961 that in the morning,1242 behold,2009 it1931 was Leah:3812 and he said559 to413 Laban,3837 What4100 is this2063 thou hast done6213 unto me? did not3808 I serve5647 with5973 thee for Rachel?7354 wherefore4100 then hast thou beguiled7411 me?
Gen 29:26 And Laban3837 said,559 It must not3808 be so3651 done6213 in our country,4725 to give5414 the younger6810 before6440 the firstborn.1067

Please show me where Jacob 'fell madly in love' with Leah, and married her for THAT reason?

Sucks, YES, but the truth of the matter is; it happens. Like take a girl who was not married and had sex; her virtue is gone. Being that she is no longer a virgin, it would be HARD to marry her off. In many cases, the father could not afford her anymore, hence she was sold into slavery.

Again, not only is this a ridiculous notion, it is NOT what Scripture teaches. If a man has sex with a woman to defile her, he MUST marry her OR if the father refuse to let her marry him, then the man MUST pay a "virgins wage" to the father. THAT is Scripture. I don't know where you and Cheri are getting these false ideas...

No father in his right mind is heartless and cruel enough to sell his daughter into slavery because he can't afford her. And you can't find any instance in Scripture where this is so.[/quote]

Just because it doesn't say that in those exact words, does not make it any less true. Just look at human history.
Honestly, take the sky; we know it's blue. Just because it does not say "the sky is blue" in scripture does not make it any less true.

Again, just because you refuse to believe it or deny it, does not make it true. It WAS a SAD fact of life for some. Prob still happens in some third world countries today. Can you imagine the AGONY a father and esps a mother would have, if they had to give up a child like that? WOW, I COULD NOT do it! But for some, they realize that by giving up their child, MAYBE the child will have a better life than they. You can't deny this; look at adoption agencies today; the same applies for the parents who give up the babies.

I wrote:

Is 291K ALL you ladies are worth? I "thinketh noteth"... what a silly notion..

Adrienne replied:

The husband was to pay the bride's father the bride price; that is in scripture. You deny this?

No. I don't deny this. But this is only one aspect of the marriage process. It is not what marriage is ALL ABOUT. To believe that the entire institution of marriage is about money and that love, compassion and relationship are second hand by products that may or may not be relevant. THAT is what I deny.

I believe that the Messiah's demonstration of love and compassion is the ultimate example to a husband of what YHWH intended in Genesis. Cheri has reduced this example to a "Tina-Turner-whats-love-got-to-do-with-it" proposition.

Eriq, you are putting words into my mouth that I did not say. Where have I (or Cherie) ever said “marriage is all about the money a man makesâ€

[kickme]

Maybe we should define love:
Is it infatuation that matures?
Is it what most people nowdays call lust?
Is it the drive inside the brings commitment to care for?
Is it an emotion?
Is it choice, ie a logical choice?

Now, with those questions in mind:
Did Ya`acob love or hate Leah? Yes, I know Scripture says Leah was hated, but was that her perspective (feeling) or was it reality? I can hardly think that someone who was willing to provide for a woman, give her children, raise those children and from appearances do what any reasonable husband would do actually hated/despised her. Favorite? No, but I suspect the Hebrew word for hated isn't used in the same context as our English word. (I have a feeling I'll see a long dissertation on that one)

[Watchman555]

Shalom Eriq and Cherie~

I'm very pleased to see that the differences are being dealt with. I feel it is an excellent example how when we are quick with words before we fully understand the whole picture from the other perspective.

Again, thank you for being humble enough to resolve this situation in a loving manner.

Praise Yahuah,

~Greg

[principessa-yisraeliana]

Shalom Eriq - Wow, this thread picked up steam, so for right now I'll just comment on the fact that I agree with you about the penetration point. I would like to go back to the scriptures and look at 'if a man rapes a woman but she doesn't scream' issue re that. Implied consent? Consent meaning tacit agreement and not necessarily a 'written contract'. With a virgin it signifies blood covenant.

Also, please remember my concerns are not as to whether polygyny is permissible in Torah--I've never refuted this, and we are in agreement there (even tho I think that it may be lawful but not profitable in many situations!) My foremost concerns are about the handful of real life situations that I know of where men are wanting another wife when their respective lives are actually in total shambles. Actually, those are the only polygynous situations that I have known of personally (and I remember that you also said that you did not know of others that are working that are Torah-observant.) This is a huge doctrine gaining ground in our Hebraic movement(s) restoration and no wonder this thread has mushroomed into so many pages.

And, my views on our present status as chattel in the beast system gives me great concern--I think that's an area where I'm seeing "DANGER DANGER" and want women to seek out men who have their homes and lives in order first before jumping into something disastrous. Polygyny is not for everyone because it's difficult -- and I feel that "Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for you to remain as you are." (as Paul said) UNLESS the man is outside the system and is well-able to care for ALL the wives and children.

Of course, Paul said that this was not a command, but his wise counsel to the believers of that time.

Perhaps your and my counsel to women considering leaving their father's homes and going into a polygynous situation under such circumstances would be different.

Shabbat Shalom - Cherie

p.s. I'm reminded of the scriptures "A gentle answer turns away wrath" and to teach patiently. Guess it's easy to get out of control in media such as this because nonverbal communication is approx. 95% of communication between people and the words themselves are like 5%. When we can't pick up on the intonation and other nonverbal cues for context of the words, it can be very misleading. I promise that I'll try harder to understand your and other's points of view and reference and seek more clarification before going forward. Also, to point out and underscore areas of agreement for building blocks of understanding between us. Thanks again for your kind and conciliatory words. Much appreciated.

[principessa-yisraeliana]

Maybe we should define love:
Is it infatuation that matures?
Is it what most people nowdays call lust?
Is it the drive inside the brings commitment to care for?
Is it an emotion?
Is it choice, ie a logical choice?

Now, with those questions in mind:
Did Ya`acob love or hate Leah? Yes, I know Scripture says Leah was hated, but was that her perspective (feeling) or was it reality? I can hardly think that someone who was willing to provide for a woman, give her children, raise those children and from appearances do what any reasonable husband would do actually hated/despised her. Favorite? No, but I suspect the Hebrew word for hated isn't used in the same context as our English word. (I have a feeling I'll see a long dissertation on that one)

Those are some great questions and observations, IMO. My thought would be that love involves both, because love in its purest sense involves commitment to action to be borne out, and since we are complex creatures possessing a mind/will/emotions then we also have emotions coinciding with our commitment to love.

I am reminded of this passage from the Song of Solomon:

Song of Solomon

5Who is this that cometh up from the wilderness, leaning upon her beloved? I raised thee up under the apple tree: there thy mother brought thee forth: there she brought thee forth that bare thee.

6Set me as a seal upon thine heart, as a seal upon thine arm: for love is strong as death; jealousy is cruel as the grave: the coals thereof are coals of fire, which hath a most vehement flame.

7Many waters cannot quench love, neither can the floods drown it: if a man would give all the substance of his house for love, it would utterly be contemned.

I would enjoy hearing more of your thoughts on this topic, as it tied into what Eriq said.

[eriqbenel]

Adrienne wrote:

Yet you "clam" that marriage is 'all about love'. Ummm no... it isn't. Sorry, but if you knew anything about human history (not calming I know a lot of it myself), but to say "ALL" marry for "love" is a hot load of bull-honk.

I wish all could marry for "love" but not all do. Sad
Just because you 'say' something does not make it true...

Dear Sister Adrienne,

There is a difference between marrying “forâ€

[eriqbenel]

And, my views on our present status as chattel in the beast system gives me great concern--I think that's an area where I'm seeing "DANGER DANGER" and want women to seek out men who have their homes and lives in order first before jumping into something disastrous. Polygyny is not for everyone because it's difficult -- and I feel that "Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for you to remain as you are." (as Paul said) UNLESS the man is outside the system and is well-able to care for ALL the wives and children.

Of course, Paul said that this was not a command, but his wise counsel to the believers of that time.

Fair enough. For women who are ignorantly "leaping" before they look, I would say this is wise counsel.

Perhaps your and my counsel to women considering leaving their father's homes and going into a polygynous situation under such circumstances would be different.

Maybe. I would approach the counsel based on the heart and intent of the parties involved more so than the finances involved. Would I included finances in the discussion? Yes. But I don't think I would insist on a certain standard of finance, but I would make sure that all parties understood the finances as they ARE and admonish them to enter in with eyes open.

[principessa-yisraeliana]

You have to admit, it is rather humorous to think that we have two women here crying out, "We're property" and a man indignantly declaring that to be appalling, LOL! ;-)

I still think that we have some areas of disagreement, like the slavery/servant/handmaiden issue and the fact that marriage joining families was a business and political decision as much as anything else. Goes back to the discussion on "love" -- what is love, and what if a person stops "loving" the other spouse even though married. There is a commitment of the will and agreement, whether in writing such as a ketubah or constructive agreement inherent in the actions of the parties (implied consent--female didn't scream her protest of 'rape'.)--and the parties are still obligated to perform according to the commitment even if they no longer "love" one another. Until divorced.

There is also the instance of booty of war -- the foreign women were to have their heads shaved, etc. and then became integrated into the tribes as their "???" Wives? Concubines/servants? Etc.?

And kickme already discussed this passage that clearly showed that a man was able, under the Torah, to sell his daughter to be a female servant:

kickme
OK, here goes, in Ex. 21, immediately following the passage about the bondservant who became a lifelong servant out of love for his master:

Exo 21:7 “And when a man sells his daughter to be a female servant, she does not go out as the male servants do.
Exo 21:8 “If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who has engaged her to himself, then he shall let her be ransomed. He shall have no authority to sell her to a foreign people, because of him deceiving her.
Exo 21:9 “And if he has engaged her to his son, he is to do to her as is the right of daughters.
Exo 21:10 “If he takes another wife, her food, her covering, and her marriage rights are not to be diminished.
Exo 21:11 “And if he does not do these three for her, then she shall go out for naught, without silver.

And we have Mordechai that arranged for Esther to become part of the Persian kings 'harem' and she found favor in the kings eyes more than the others. She certainly had no idea of 'love' in our traditional Western sense, and neither did the king, of course. As a matter of fact, at any time she could be killed for coming into his presence w/o his calling for her, but she took the chance anyway.

I personally like the "love" concept you espouse, because I'm a Western-oriented female and it's our custom here. I don't think that it's necessary for marriage.

One thing I have discovered, though, is that as I have learned my own genealogy over the years, I can see how "attractive" my own tribesmen are to me and I think that there is a natural desire to be around those of one's own DNA. Maybe some of what "love" is - is actually Yah's own design to have us attracted to and in relationship with those with whom He would like us to be fruitful and multiply.

Finally, I would say that the Muslims are really big on this right now - I have spoken with men who are actively seeking wives in order to populate the earth and take over. One affluent professional Muslim man that I know is not having such an easy time of it, however! Easier said than done.

I think that we agree on some points, Eriq but still have some differences in emphasis, etc. We agree that there are many types of marriages and different methods of taking a wife (father contracts, man goes into her and she becomes his wife, rape of a virgin and then the man must take her as his wife, widow such as Abigail agrees to be married of her own accord, etc. etc.)

Thanks for the discussion,

Cherie

[eriqbenel]

There is also the instance of booty of war -- the foreign women were to have their heads shaved, etc. and then became integrated into the tribes as their "???" Wives? Concubines/servants? Etc.?

That's a nice play on words!

Anyway, I understand all the "business" of marriage, etc.. I just believe that IN YHWH, in the BODY OF MESSIAH, our focus is love, especially in marriage because that relationship is a reflection of what Messiah has done for us and our relationship to Him.

In fact, the "business" aspect of marriage is to accomodate the political and administrative order of life due to mankind's sinful nature. Because of sin, there has to be "rules".

I believe YHWH's goal for us is to operate in love and without sin, so that rules and penalties of relationship and service to one another become less necessary. That's not Western, that's "NORTHERN"!

Meanwhile, until that day comes, we have to obey the rules as they are. But if we focus on the goal, we might get there a little faster.