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

polygyny

Moderator: Watchman555

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

Postby eriqbenel » 29 Feb 2008, 13:48

principessa-yisraeliana wrote: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.


You missed the part when Paul specifically stated that this was his "personal opinion".


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.


Agreed. But that has NOTHING to do with polygyny, men to that in overwhelming numbers right here in our MONOGAMOUS society. Men behave that way with ONE wife.

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.


I guess I just don't understand why these issues are being linked to a "polygynous minded" man, when the EXACT SAME problems exist with men who have ONE or even ZERO wives.

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.



In fact, a man who is disobedient to YHWH shouldn't bring ONE woman into that. Having multiple wives and being disobedient doesn't make that disobedience WORSE. Disobedience is just as bad if a man is single or has only one wife.

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.



This is just a discussion on a subject. No one here is making it the "most important" thing. On this thread, it is the main topic of discussion. If you would like to discuss a more important topic, then by all means, start a new thread.
Shalom in the name of YHWH,

Eriq

principessa-yisraeliana
Posts: 52
Joined: 18 Oct 2007, 19:23
Contact:

Postby principessa-yisraeliana » 29 Feb 2008, 14:31

Well, I guess there is a problem here in my way of thinking with the idea of the woman 'working outside the home' in a general sense. That brings up a few other issues about the couple's life and Torah walk in general. Most of us are guilty of this/these trangression(s).

I'll explain further:

I believe that we are in captivity - but especially so if we are in the 'system' and have a social security #, birth certificate, etc. I personally don't believe that a man has any business taking a wife or ESP. more than one wife unless he is obeying Torah in the sense of coming out of the Admiralty system. The man should not be participating in COMMERCE (someone with a birth certificate and SSAN is CHATTEL--property of the state.) We are not to be numbered, according to Torah. It also violates the law about being personally liable for our own acts, as the state causes us to engage in commerce (with fictitious entities/fictitious ships of Admiralty) and to participate in INSURANCE which limits our liability. If we use Federal Reserve Notes, we are also in violation of Torah because these are instruments of commerce (commercial paper) and are unjust weights and measures. He should have his own property not investments in the stock market, bank account, etc.

I don't agree with everything that this man, George Gordon, teaches, but he does have a lot of great teachings:

MARRIAGE SERIES by George Gordon

http://db.georgegordon.com/view_prog.php?prog=188

http://www.georgegordon.org

So, unless a man is outside the system and is a man of substance who engages in private business and NOT commerce, I don't think it's profitable under the law to bring women and then children into the relationship. I do know of a situation where a man who was outside the system recently married a woman IN the system, but he is trying to get her OUT and they have land and are engaging in farming. As far as I know, they are not planning to be polygynous, and to me that would be multiplication/magnification of sin/iniquity if he did. FIRST THINGS FIRST!


We should not be engaging in COMMERCE, but rather PRIVATE BUSINESS. We should have PROPERTY that we can weigh or count, in order to be just. We should not be dealing in commercial paper of Federal Reserve Notes. So, to intend to marry a woman and send her out into commerce to earn a living, is unrighteous, in my opinion. This system is being judged, and it is not wisdom to marry and then propagate a clan of your own under you that will eventually be judged in the system. There are exceptions, I'm sure. But I see so many people, especially men, with polygyny on their lips who don't even have property of their own or even a job IN THE SYSTEM! That's insane, IMO! And in my mind, comes of evil. The man should not be using the wife's money to set himself up with another wife! He should be independently able to have his own property and THEN bring a wife into that prosperous setting.

PRIVATE BUSINESS by George Gordon

HOW TO BUY A HOUSE by George Gordon

MY BROTHER BUYS SILVER by George Gordon

COMMON LAW part 1-7, by George Gordon

MAKING MONEY WITH HARD MONEY part 1-7, by George Gordon

UPCOMING DEPRESSION (some helpful ideas) by George Gordon


So, I think that there are more factors to consider before taking a wife, bringing children into the world, etc. I do think that there are situations that are compromised that would be acceptable to the Father, like the situation with the man who married and is trying to get his wife OUT of the system. I don't think that they're planning on family at this point (don't know, haven't asked them), but he is surely not exacerbating the situation by marrying and is actually assisting her to be obedient. How noble!

I think that this polygyny concept is an idol -- way out of priority in the scheme of things! I don't believe that it's unlawful, unless the man is breaking the Law in these areas that I've mentioned or others.

We're just living in a period of JUDGMENT and the birthpangs of shaking and judgment are going to increase. Obama wants to tax the people 60% of their gross taxable income!
That should show us that we need to EXIT this decaying system!



Hebrews 12:25-29
See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven: Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven. And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain. Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have favor, whereby we may serve YHVH acceptably with reverence and godly fear: For our Elohim is a consuming fire.

principessa-yisraeliana
Posts: 52
Joined: 18 Oct 2007, 19:23
Contact:

Postby principessa-yisraeliana » 29 Feb 2008, 14:44

Eriq,

I don't know most of the people here - just some. I do know people in the Hebraic roots (catch-all term...for lack of another term) that DO make polygyny a primary doctrine that motivates them and is on their lips more than other things. I have a problem with this seeing as that they haven't even managed one wife well, and are considering another and her potential earning power. These issues are of concern to women who perhaps haven't considered all the applications of truth and are considering relocating to be married to such a man.

I agree with you that these issues I bring up can affect all people and unions - but they are MULTIPLIED when you bring more people into the mix. Most men have trouble with one wife, let alone two or more. If a man is relying on a woman's income or labor, then he should not be considering marriage IMO--esp. polygynous.

If a man sins, then his transgression affects himself. If he sins with one wife, his sin is multiplied to affect her and her children. If he sins with more than one wife, the sin is multiplied all the more. Then you have a hotbed of activity that can be multiplied geometrically. This is surely of concern to the Father.

I believe that my points ARE relative to this topic. If the moderator directs me to begin a new topic, then I will gladly do so. Thanks for your post, Cherie

principessa-yisraeliana
Posts: 52
Joined: 18 Oct 2007, 19:23
Contact:

Postby principessa-yisraeliana » 29 Feb 2008, 14:56

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.


Every woman can contract for what she wishes -- hopefully daughters of Sara will contract for a good situation (or their fathers will do so for them). There are men who might take a wife while in bond servanthood/slavery, and she remains the property of the master, as well as the children.

If that is her lot, so be it!

I would hope that women could see that that there is more than just settling to be a second-wife work horse for an unemployed man who has no income of his own. I have seen such a situation, and each woman must go in with eyes wide open.

I don't think that a Proverbs 31 woman is a bad model - she has her own property and enterprise and yet she is all about the needs of her husband as well.

I never said that a woman should be all about materialism - but a daughter of Sara should be provided for and protected. Yeah, even Abraham failed in this regard when he had her lie about being his SISTER and nearly caused a catastrophe had YHVH not stepped in. Other than that, he seems to have taken care of her well and provided well for his family/clan. I haven't seen any modeling of this in those men's lives that I know want to embrace polygyny. Perhaps you or others here are the exception to this??

principessa-yisraeliana
Posts: 52
Joined: 18 Oct 2007, 19:23
Contact:

Postby principessa-yisraeliana » 29 Feb 2008, 15:38

eriqbenel wrote:
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".



Shalom Eriq,

I would disagree about that - the Proverbs 31 woman was able to conduct her own enterprise. And then if the husband is displeased with her and wishes to send her away, her inheritance presumably remains with her father's clan although father would have to pay back the bride price if he gave her a bill of divorcement for legal cause.

Solomon was disobedient and multiplied wives unto himself, but especially foreign wives so as to make compacts with foreign nations for political purposes. We forget the pragmatic, materialistic and contractual nature of marriage. Sure, a woman (her father) can bargain for and contract for anything from bondservanthood/slavery to a prosperous and productive relationship with a king who came forth from Abraham's and Sara's loins.

I would hope that women would contract for something good with a man who was Torah-observant in ALL areas and was a man of substance who managed his household and finance well before she came along. Not where she is eyed for her labor when he's not even working or is financially dependent upon Wife #1. I have seen this situation, and it would have to be corrected before taking a[nother] wife.

Remember - I am not saying that polygyny is not permissible or is unlawful. I believe that it is sometimes unprofitable and even not wise if the man is already out-of-order. Also, I am basing my posts here on some situations that I have personally seen. Perhaps you have other experiences that you have seen where it works super-well. I'm not arguing against polygyny in general!

But the nature of marriage is a CONTRACT and that is not being 'materialistic' in a sinful sense, IMO.

User avatar
Chayil_Ishshah
Posts: 201
Joined: 18 Oct 2007, 17:18
Location: Somewhere in the Americas
Contact:

Postby Chayil_Ishshah » 29 Feb 2008, 16:33

Shalom Cherie,

Ahh, but sometimes one comes into truth at a different rate than another. In other words, I wouldn't say my husband is not providing well for his family just because certain things you bring up haven't been done.

I was married previously - that man was an unrighteous king (of his home).

At risk of playing the 'comparison game', I will state emphatically that my husband provides wonderfully. I'm a stay-at-home wife and home school my remaining at-home child.

When we are blessed with more truth from Yahuah we take steps to enter into that truth. I believe it's about His timing and His will.

HalleluYah,

~dawn

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

Postby eriqbenel » 29 Feb 2008, 17:14

principessa-yisraeliana wrote:Well, I guess there is a problem here in my way of thinking with the idea of the woman 'working outside the home' in a general sense. That brings up a few other issues about the couple's life and Torah walk in general. Most of us are guilty of this/these trangression(s).

I'll explain further:

I believe that we are in captivity - but especially so if we are in the 'system' and have a social security #, birth certificate, etc. I personally don't believe that a man has any business taking a wife or ESP. more than one wife unless he is obeying Torah in the sense of coming out of the Admiralty system. The man should not be participating in COMMERCE (someone with a birth certificate and SSAN is CHATTEL--property of the state.) We are not to be numbered, according to Torah. It also violates the law about being personally liable for our own acts, as the state causes us to engage in commerce (with fictitious entities/fictitious ships of Admiralty) and to participate in INSURANCE which limits our liability. If we use Federal Reserve Notes, we are also in violation of Torah because these are instruments of commerce (commercial paper) and are unjust weights and measures. He should have his own property not investments in the stock market, bank account, etc.

I don't agree with everything that this man, George Gordon, teaches, but he does have a lot of great teachings:

MARRIAGE SERIES by George Gordon

http://db.georgegordon.com/view_prog.php?prog=188

http://www.georgegordon.org

So, unless a man is outside the system and is a man of substance who engages in private business and NOT commerce, I don't think it's profitable under the law to bring women and then children into the relationship. I do know of a situation where a man who was outside the system recently married a woman IN the system, but he is trying to get her OUT and they have land and are engaging in farming. As far as I know, they are not planning to be polygynous, and to me that would be multiplication/magnification of sin/iniquity if he did. FIRST THINGS FIRST!


We should not be engaging in COMMERCE, but rather PRIVATE BUSINESS. We should have PROPERTY that we can weigh or count, in order to be just. We should not be dealing in commercial paper of Federal Reserve Notes. So, to intend to marry a woman and send her out into commerce to earn a living, is unrighteous, in my opinion. This system is being judged, and it is not wisdom to marry and then propagate a clan of your own under you that will eventually be judged in the system. There are exceptions, I'm sure. But I see so many people, especially men, with polygyny on their lips who don't even have property of their own or even a job IN THE SYSTEM! That's insane, IMO! And in my mind, comes of evil. The man should not be using the wife's money to set himself up with another wife! He should be independently able to have his own property and THEN bring a wife into that prosperous setting.

PRIVATE BUSINESS by George Gordon

HOW TO BUY A HOUSE by George Gordon

MY BROTHER BUYS SILVER by George Gordon

COMMON LAW part 1-7, by George Gordon

MAKING MONEY WITH HARD MONEY part 1-7, by George Gordon

UPCOMING DEPRESSION (some helpful ideas) by George Gordon


So, I think that there are more factors to consider before taking a wife, bringing children into the world, etc. I do think that there are situations that are compromised that would be acceptable to the Father, like the situation with the man who married and is trying to get his wife OUT of the system. I don't think that they're planning on family at this point (don't know, haven't asked them), but he is surely not exacerbating the situation by marrying and is actually assisting her to be obedient. How noble!


All of this is just fine, but you are putting two issues together that don't belong. What if a man is already married, in any form, before he comes into this righteous knowledge? Should he then divorce his wives? No.

And to talk about "FIRST THINGS FIRST", a man can do all of these things above and still have a hard heart, and not be loving toward his wife or wives. A man can do all of that and still treat women like slaves. So "FIRST THINGS FIRST" in terms of taking a wife isn't about your monetary living status, it is about your loving and compassionate and heart status.


I think that this polygyny concept is an idol -- way out of priority in the scheme of things! I don't believe that it's unlawful, unless the man is breaking the Law in these areas that I've mentioned or others.



This is a contradiction! Polygynous can't be an "idol" and be "lawful" at the same time.

Eriq,

I don't know most of the people here - just some. I do know people in the Hebraic roots (catch-all term...for lack of another term) that DO make polygyny a primary doctrine that motivates them and is on their lips more than other things. I have a problem with this seeing as that they haven't even managed one wife well, and are considering another and her potential earning power. These issues are of concern to women who perhaps haven't considered all the applications of truth and are considering relocating to be married to such a man.



Maybe you would do well to just teach women to obey the Torah rather than being the "polygyny police". :)

I agree with you that these issues I bring up can affect all people and unions - but they are MULTIPLIED when you bring more people into the mix. Most men have trouble with one wife, let alone two or more. If a man is relying on a woman's income or labor, then he should not be considering marriage IMO--esp. polygynous.


A woman should be willing to give of all of herself and substance to the marriage and man should be able to depend on that. A woman should depend on a man to do the same thing. The point is, the old "what's mine is mine and what's his is mine" attitude isn't the way to go in a righteous marriage.

What each has or acquires is brought the husbands table of benefit for the entire house.

If a man sins, then his transgression affects himself. If he sins with one wife, his sin is multiplied to affect her and her children. If he sins with more than one wife, the sin is multiplied all the more. Then you have a hotbed of activity that can be multiplied geometrically. This is surely of concern to the Father.

I believe that my points ARE relative to this topic. If the moderator directs me to begin a new topic, then I will gladly do so. Thanks for your post, Cherie


I didn't say they weren't relevant. you seemed to indicate that the topic of polygyny was insignificant and there were more important things to discuss. I merely suggested that you may want to start a discussion of more important things on a new thread.

If not, then by all means, continue with your personal womens liberation crusade!


Every woman can contract for what she wishes -- hopefully daughters of Sara will contract for a good situation (or their fathers will do so for them). There are men who might take a wife while in bond servanthood/slavery, and she remains the property of the master, as well as the children.

If that is her lot, so be it!

I would hope that women could see that that there is more than just settling to be a second-wife work horse for an unemployed man who has no income of his own. I have seen such a situation, and each woman must go in with eyes wide open.



I hope that no woman will be a "ONE WIFE work-horse".

Not only that, you talk about "being unemployed" and then talk about not being part of the system! If even if you have your own business, you can't have an income without doing business in the system.

It seems to me that you have women focused on "income", which to me isn't the most important thing. It is the same mindset of worldly women.

I don't think that a Proverbs 31 woman is a bad model - she has her own property and enterprise and yet she is all about the needs of her husband as well.



That's not correct. What the woman in Proverbs does is all about benefit her "house", not the empowerment of herself...

I never said that a woman should be all about materialism - but a daughter of Sara should be provided for and protected.


Wrong. A daughter of YHWH should "help" provide for her house and follow the leadership of her husband, insomuch as the husband follows the leading of the Holy Spirit.

Yeah, even Abraham failed in this regard when he had her lie about being his SISTER and nearly caused a catastrophe had YHVH not stepped in. Other than that, he seems to have taken care of her well and provided well for his family/clan. I haven't seen any modeling of this in those men's lives that I know want to embrace polygyny. Perhaps you or others here are the exception to this??


YHWH stepped in on Avraham's behalf because he loved him. If there had been "catastrophe", it would not have come upon Avraham or his house, but upon those who violated his house.

I understand that your limited experiences may have sparked your desire to crusade on behalf of oppressed women everywhere, but their empowerment doesn't come from "income" or "contracts" or any such thing. It comes from a dedicated and diligent relationship to YHWH and obedience to His Torah.


Shalom Eriq,

I would disagree about that - the Proverbs 31 woman was able to conduct her own enterprise. And then if the husband is displeased with her and wishes to send her away, her inheritance presumably remains with her father's clan although father would have to pay back the bride price if he gave her a bill of divorcement for legal cause.


You may disagree but you are wrong.

The woman in Proverbs 31 contributed her gain to the house. And if a man divorces a woman, the father doesn't have to pay back, the father only pays back if the woman wants to divorce HIM.

Solomon was disobedient and multiplied wives unto himself, but especially foreign wives so as to make compacts with foreign nations for political purposes. We forget the pragmatic, materialistic and contractual nature of marriage. Sure, a woman (her father) can bargain for and contract for anything from bondservanthood/slavery to a prosperous and productive relationship with a king who came forth from Abraham's and Sara's loins.



What are you talking about? Solomon had no negotiated "contract" with 1000 women! What Solomon had was a sexual appetite to big for his own good. And just like today, he exposed himself to gold digging whores that were all to willing to satisfy that appetite. The status they enjoyed or not enjoyed was the status he allowed them to have, not a part of some contract. Get real.

I would hope that women would contract for something good with a man who was Torah-observant in ALL areas and was a man of substance who managed his household and finance well before she came along. Not where she is eyed for her labor when he's not even working or is financially dependent upon Wife #1. I have seen this situation, and it would have to be corrected before taking a[nother] wife.

Remember - I am not saying that polygyny is not permissible or is unlawful. I believe that it is sometimes unprofitable and even not wise if the man is already out-of-order. Also, I am basing my posts here on some situations that I have personally seen. Perhaps you have other experiences that you have seen where it works super-well. I'm not arguing against polygyny in general!

But the nature of marriage is a CONTRACT and that is not being 'materialistic' in a sinful sense, IMO.



Wrong again. The nature of marriage is RELATIONSHIP and LOVE, not contract. To marry someone automatically implies a "contract" or "covenant" of loving relationship and communion. Finance, should not be a primary issue. That is a bad, bad premise to teach women and I hope women don't take heed to that message.
Shalom in the name of YHWH,



Eriq

TrueGirlPower
Posts: 39
Joined: 19 Feb 2008, 00:49
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Contact:

Postby TrueGirlPower » 29 Feb 2008, 20:07

eriqbenel wrote:Sisters,

Many women believe that if a woman is willing to accept being in a marriage where there is more than one wife, it means she is either in an oppressive culture OR that she has very low self esteem....

What do you think? Is a woman willing to accept polygyny a oppressed or depressed woman?


Mmmm well, that could be true; however, I also believe it depends on the woman's understanding. A lot of women find it VERY hard to even looking into this very subject, but if one is willing to look and let Scripture be the guide, their minds would be open to it. That doesn't mean every woman should be apart of this kind of relationship, but they should be open minded and accepting to the men and women who do live in a poly life style.

Shalom!
Adrianne ~

principessa-yisraeliana
Posts: 52
Joined: 18 Oct 2007, 19:23
Contact:

Postby principessa-yisraeliana » 29 Feb 2008, 20:14

I think that this polygyny concept is an idol -- way out of priority in the scheme of things! I don't believe that it's unlawful, unless the man is breaking the Law in these areas that I've mentioned or others.



This is a contradiction! Polygynous can't be an "idol" and be "lawful" at the same time.

MY REPLY: That is absurd - anything can be an idol if truth is not rightly divided and wrong emphasis is placed.

Eriq,

I don't know most of the people here - just some. I do know people in the Hebraic roots (catch-all term...for lack of another term) that DO make polygyny a primary doctrine that motivates them and is on their lips more than other things. I have a problem with this seeing as that they haven't even managed one wife well, and are considering another and her potential earning power. These issues are of concern to women who perhaps haven't considered all the applications of truth and are considering relocating to be married to such a man.



Maybe you would do well to just teach women to obey the Torah rather than being the "polygyny police". :)

MY REPLY: That is a rude statement, Eriq, even if you couched it in smileys! :) :)

I agree with you that these issues I bring up can affect all people and unions - but they are MULTIPLIED when you bring more people into the mix. Most men have trouble with one wife, let alone two or more. If a man is relying on a woman's income or labor, then he should not be considering marriage IMO--esp. polygynous.


A woman should be willing to give of all of herself and substance to the marriage and man should be able to depend on that. A woman should depend on a man to do the same thing. The point is, the old "what's mine is mine and what's his is mine" attitude isn't the way to go in a righteous marriage.

What each has or acquires is brought the husbands table of benefit for the entire house.

MY REPLY: I disagree. I believe that your view is based upon Western culture and current cultural practices living in America at this time in history (under Admiralty law). I don't believe that your view is scriptural -- marriage to a virgin was usually contracted with the FATHER. If the daughter was to inherit property (lands, chattel) of her father's tribe, then if the marriage didn't work out, the tribal inheritance wouldn't be confiscated by the husband who gave her a get. The laws of inheritance in Israel would not be complied with in this circumstance. Remember, it's the FATHER generally contracting with the potential hubby. Those issues of 'control' you are accusing me of really are deflected off to the MAN contracting with the man. Marriage IS a contract based on PROPERTY! Hopefully, the contract will be like Sarah as princess and not as Hagar, etc. Marriage is hopefully about LOVE, but not always. But it is always about PROPERTY!!!!

If a man sins, then his transgression affects himself. If he sins with one wife, his sin is multiplied to affect her and her children. If he sins with more than one wife, the sin is multiplied all the more. Then you have a hotbed of activity that can be multiplied geometrically. This is surely of concern to the Father.

I believe that my points ARE relative to this topic. If the moderator directs me to begin a new topic, then I will gladly do so. Thanks for your post, Cherie


I didn't say they weren't relevant. you seemed to indicate that the topic of polygyny was insignificant and there were more important things to discuss. I merely suggested that you may want to start a discussion of more important things on a new thread.

If not, then by all means, continue with your personal womens liberation crusade!


MY REPLY: If you are fair-minded and reasonable, you will see that I don't say that people cannot be scripturally involved in polygynous relationships. I didn't say that I wanted to go and discuss something more important, I definitely am wishing to discuss THIS issue. These other side issues play into ALL marriage discussion, and especially polygyny because it involves a lot more people who can be potentially affected (more wives, more children affected.) There is at least one man on this list who is not in the Social Security system as far as I know. Don't know him very well, but I believe that he does own land, have his own private business, etc. If this man chooses to have more than one wife and can provide for them according to scripture, then I believe that he is scripturally righteous in doing so. But a man who can't even support one wife - and wants to bring more into the situation is out of order. Can you not concede to this?

Re: "personal liberation crusade" ... scriptural adherence and knowledge IS liberating to all who embrace its wisdom. I hope that you are not inferring that I am a woman's libber - cuz that's not true and I am offended if you are accusing me of that.



Every woman can contract for what she wishes -- hopefully daughters of Sara will contract for a good situation (or their fathers will do so for them). There are men who might take a wife while in bond servanthood/slavery, and she remains the property of the master, as well as the children.

If that is her lot, so be it!

I would hope that women could see that that there is more than just settling to be a second-wife work horse for an unemployed man who has no income of his own. I have seen such a situation, and each woman must go in with eyes wide open.



I hope that no woman will be a "ONE WIFE work-horse".

Not only that, you talk about "being unemployed" and then talk about not being part of the system! If even if you have your own business, you can't have an income without doing business in the system.

It seems to me that you have women focused on "income", which to me isn't the most important thing. It is the same mindset of worldly women.


MY REPLY: Yes, a man in the system but unemployed even in that system and receiving govt. assistance is at a much lower rung than a man who has his own property and is outside the system. There are about 12 million people or more in America who are not a part of the Social Security system and live life every day using property and conducting private business on their own. My point is a situation I know of where the man has no property, IS in the system, the wife supports him or the govt., and he's wanting another wife. I don't believe that should occur until he is a man of substance to marry #2. I think that he actually agrees and is trying to do this very thing -- get into order first, which I commend. I am focusing on income because scripture focuses on it when it says that a man who takes another wife should not diminish the portion of the first wife. This is why this topic came up. It is not worldly--this attitude that you keep on fomenting is not a Hebraic mindset. Of course their are other considerations to marriage, mono or poly. But we haven't been discussing them right now. We are discussing this because I brought up the issue that I don't see those who say they obey Torah following this scripture when they plan to take another wife or talk about it. YES, YOU CAN DO BUSINESS (PRIVATE BUSINESS) WITHOUT BEING IN THE SYSTEM. You are uninformed on this topic, Eriq. That is why I posted the links on the other page, to give proper FOUNDATION to what I am saying here.



I don't think that a Proverbs 31 woman is a bad model - she has her own property and enterprise and yet she is all about the needs of her husband as well.



That's not correct. What the woman in Proverbs does is all about benefit her "house", not the empowerment of herself...

MY REPLY: She saw that HER gain was good. She benefited herself, her house, her husband and was a credit to all. A woman in the Middle East in those times could be a woman of substance in her own right. But I concede that you and perhaps even others here don't want to open their eyes to this. If people want to eek out a meager existence and be married to a man who is flaky and won't provide consistently for his family, then they are free agents to choose what they wish. Let them have a good ole time and don't let me get in the way of their happiness and success, by all means! Get after it!



Solomon was disobedient and multiplied wives unto himself, but especially foreign wives so as to make compacts with foreign nations for political purposes. We forget the pragmatic, materialistic and contractual nature of marriage. Sure, a woman (her father) can bargain for and contract for anything from bondservanthood/slavery to a prosperous and productive relationship with a king who came forth from Abraham's and Sara's loins.



What are you talking about? Solomon had no negotiated "contract" with 1000 women! What Solomon had was a sexual appetite to big for his own good. And just like today, he exposed himself to gold digging whores that were all to willing to satisfy that appetite. The status they enjoyed or not enjoyed was the status he allowed them to have, not a part of some contract. Get real.


MY REPLY: Get real? That's really polite of you, Eriq. Wow, you are such a considerate man. Yes, his marriages were compacts with other nations/govts.!

Heres an excerpt from aish.com (and I'm sure that there are many more places to find this info, if one will look):

"The first question is why did Solomon "need" so many wives? The answer has nothing to do with love. Throughout history the overwhelming reason for marriage amongst nobility and royalty was to create political alliances. The Middle East in Solomon's time is made up of many city-states and all the kings of these city-states want to send their daughters to marry King Solomon and in this way form an alliance with him."


I would hope that women would contract for something good with a man who was Torah-observant in ALL areas and was a man of substance who managed his household and finance well before she came along. Not where she is eyed for her labor when he's not even working or is financially dependent upon Wife #1. I have seen this situation, and it would have to be corrected before taking a[nother] wife.

Remember - I am not saying that polygyny is not permissible or is unlawful. I believe that it is sometimes unprofitable and even not wise if the man is already out-of-order. Also, I am basing my posts here on some situations that I have personally seen. Perhaps you have other experiences that you have seen where it works super-well. I'm not arguing against polygyny in general!

But the nature of marriage is a CONTRACT and that is not being 'materialistic' in a sinful sense, IMO.



Wrong again. The nature of marriage is RELATIONSHIP and LOVE, not contract. To marry someone automatically implies a "contract" or "covenant" of loving relationship and communion. Finance, should not be a primary issue. That is a bad, bad premise to teach women and I hope women don't take heed to that message.

MY REPLY: I believe that you are not only incorrect in this, but are naive as well. It doesn't IMPLY a contract, it is a contract. It is a bargain for exchange - an exchange of mutual promises. Part of those promises have to do with property/provision and inheritance. Our Israelite forefathers knew this. I hope that young women will have fathers who will give their daughters to be married to men who can be responsible and provide for them. Scripture, both old and new, directs men to provide. Women/Father's of women would do well to consider this and not overlook the provision factor when considering a potential mate. BTW...arranged marriages don't HAVE to be about love, but they are about contract. Marriage is always about property because it is necessary for the man to provide.


CONCLUSION:
I THINK THAT WE HAVE BEEN AROUND THE OLE MOUNTAIN HERE ENOUGH TO KNOW THAT WE DISAGREE ON SOME ISSUES - I'D RATHER AGREE TO DISAGREE AND DISCONTINUE ANY MORE DISCUSSION. FOR ONE THING, YOU ARE INCREASINGLY ADDING JABS AND RUDE STATEMENTS INTO THE CONVERSATION AND I DON'T WANT TO ARGUE OR FEEL OFFENDED WITH YOU. A PERSON IS NOT RIGHT BECAUSE THEY SAY, "YOU ARE WRONG." THAT IS NOT A REASONABLE RESPONSE, AND WE ARE GOING DOWN THAT PATH. I ALSO FEEL THAT YOU ARE MIS-CHARACTERIZING ME IN THIS DISCUSSION, SO I'D MOST LIKELY RATHER END IT HERE IF IT'S JUST REHASHING THE SAME OLD POINTS OF DISAGREEMENT.

TrueGirlPower
Posts: 39
Joined: 19 Feb 2008, 00:49
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Contact:

Re: Sister Sledge..?

Postby TrueGirlPower » 29 Feb 2008, 20:20

principessa-yisraeliana wrote:
Torahwoman wrote: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 :P :lol:


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!


AMEN SISTER!!!

TrueGirlPower
Posts: 39
Joined: 19 Feb 2008, 00:49
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Contact:

Postby TrueGirlPower » 29 Feb 2008, 20:30

principessa-yisraeliana wrote:
Debbie wrote: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.


Actually, that is very true. us women have (in ways) put ourselves up in God's place; we're #1. We SHOULD NOT E-V-E-R be #1 is a man's life. YHWH our Abba should ALWAYS be #1 in his life, as will as OUR lives.
Us women need to BACK down and let our husbands do what Yah called them to do; be a man. MEN, however need to MAN UP; stop letting your wife(s) or fear of women get in the way of what Yah has CALLED and ORDAINED you to be; a MAN, THE HEAD.

Shalom & hugs!
Adrianne ~

principessa-yisraeliana
Posts: 52
Joined: 18 Oct 2007, 19:23
Contact:

Postby principessa-yisraeliana » 29 Feb 2008, 20:44

Chayil_Ishshah wrote:Shalom Cherie,

Ahh, but sometimes one comes into truth at a different rate than another. In other words, I wouldn't say my husband is not providing well for his family just because certain things you bring up haven't been done.

I was married previously - that man was an unrighteous king (of his home).

At risk of playing the 'comparison game', I will state emphatically that my husband provides wonderfully. I'm a stay-at-home wife and home school my remaining at-home child.

When we are blessed with more truth from Yahuah we take steps to enter into that truth. I believe it's about His timing and His will.

HalleluYah,

~dawn


I understand what you are saying - but I also believe that you and your hubby are on your way and have your own land and animals, correct? And you are trying to move into more truth. I am in the same situation - I see where I need to be and acknowledge that I am in captivity and need RELEASE from Him to come out. It is my prayer to be out of the system and have my own animals, property, garden, etc. and be debt-free. I am content in His provision, even if we must be nomadic at some point, but if there is ability to prosper, then desiring property is not unrighteous but a BLESSING, IMO!

But I'm saying, if I was a man and didn't even provide for ONE WIFE, and then thought to get another but wasn't considering first to take care of those other areas that are truly unlawful, then I am unwise and potentially heading for disaster (especially given our current climate in the world.) If a man is in the system, not working, dependent upon the income of his first wife, he has no business considering Wife #2!!!

I HAVE HEARD OF MORE THAN ONE SITUATION IN REAL LIFE WHERE THIS IS TRUE! IT SHOULD NOT BE!

Brother Eriq criticized my 'limited' exposure to Hebraics engaging in or considering polygyny, but he doesn't even know any Torah observant polygynous marriages by his own admission. I'm concerned about some situations that I have run into...and that's why I'm bringing up the issues. I think that my concerns are valid, especially when you consider that there are lives affected by this/these men's decisions! Not only affecting the women but all the children that come from the unions.

We are all moving into more truth and more obedience! That's a beautiful thing. And in that light, scripture says that the husband is not to diminish the portion of the first wife when marrying the second. That was one of the main things I was trying to bring up...and which I don't really hear when I hear of people speaking of polygyny. Others that I have queried about their experience with those considering polygyny have said the same thing to me as well!

[ALL THAT SAID, I NEVER SAID I WAS AGAINST POLYGYNY!]

So, if we're in the system, all we can do is try to become more and more obedient as we have mercy and favor from above to be delivered - and that may mean waiting until a future EXODUS where YHVH releases us with a mighty outstretched arm and fury poured out! Ezekiel 20.

I await that day!!! :) HalleluYAH!

principessa-yisraeliana
Posts: 52
Joined: 18 Oct 2007, 19:23
Contact:

Postby principessa-yisraeliana » 29 Feb 2008, 20:59

TrueGirlPower wrote:
principessa-yisraeliana wrote:
Debbie wrote: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.


Actually, that is very true. us women have (in ways) put ourselves up in God's place; we're #1. We SHOULD NOT E-V-E-R be #1 is a man's life. YHWH our Abba should ALWAYS be #1 in his life, as will as OUR lives.
Us women need to BACK down and let our husbands do what Yah called them to do; be a man. MEN, however need to MAN UP; stop letting your wife(s) or fear of women get in the way of what Yah has CALLED and ORDAINED you to be; a MAN, THE HEAD.

Shalom & hugs!
Adrianne ~



There are times when we can speak up - and it's not wrong for a man to listen to US...
For instance, YHVH commanded Abraham to follow Sarah's counsel, at one point saying, "In all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice" (Genesis 21:12)

That came directly from the Almighty to Abraham - so it's not wrong for men to listen to their wives and follow her counsel at times, too!

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

Postby kickme » 01 Mar 2008, 14:17

holy crap!!
why are you guys trying to invalidate each other's thought processes by dissecting each and every point in each other's posts??!!!!

this thread has been hijacked!!!!

principessa-yisraeliana
Posts: 52
Joined: 18 Oct 2007, 19:23
Contact:

Postby principessa-yisraeliana » 01 Mar 2008, 17:18

I know, you're right, I jumped ship -- it got too ridiculous. People will enter into the relationships they wish -- so be it!

Let YHVH deal with each of us on what we need to be walking in the fullness of His truth! :)
I will sift the house of Ephraim among all nations, as grain is sifted in a
sieve; yet shall not the least kernel fall upon the earth. (Amos 9:9)


Return to “Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron