I just recently wrote this paper on Polygyny. Could someone take a look at it for me. My email address is fitz.kjv1611@gmail.com
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Biblical Marriage document for review
- Thread starter Don
- Start date
I don't know if the thread regarding newsletters was the right place to put it, but the mods will move if needed.
Overall, you have some good information. If you haven't already, I would also recommend The Great Omission by Clyde L. Pilkington, Jr. He makes many of the same observations and uses a collection of quotes from various classic and modern authors, as well as educated, professional women in support for polygyny.
As to your paper:
- I would recommend a bit of restructuring. One big helpful thing would be to use section headers, ex: Defining Adultery, Poly in OT, Poly in NT, Modern issues with Poly, etc.
- In a couple places, your paragraph segued into another topic, but then continues the same paragraph. I recommend, once you change topics, ending that paragraph and then resuming your new topic in a new paragraph.
- Some of your explanations were over-explained and felt like riding a freeway cloverleaf. Try being a little more succinct.
- One minor spelling problem: "That is roughly 9,000,000 more women than me." I'm sure there are, but I think you meant men.
- I believe you got your last statement reversed. "With Polygyny it is much easier for some women to find a husband because in the United States the population of men is higher compared to women." You had just stated previously that "The population of women in the USA is about 2-3% higher than men."
- However, I don't think that your last statement should be regarding population statistics. Your last statement will be the last thought your reader has of your paper. With this closing, it makes it sound like the only reason poly is good is basic supply and demand. Restate your thesis for your last line so that ties up all the evidence you've accumulated. Why is poly good? Why is poly not-bad? Is poly a sin? Should poly be encouraged, discouraged? Why did I (your target audience, whoever that is) read this?
As an aside, I also found a reference to a third wife for Moses (in retrospect, maybe a fourth). On alamoministries.com was a reference in Judges 4:11 to Hobab, a Kernite, the father-in-law of Moses. Now, there has been no previous mention of a Kernite wife and some state that the Kernites and Midians are the same, but, even if that's so, Hobab was not Zipporah's father's name. According the Ex 2:18, Zippy's father was Reuel (Ex 2:18). But, then, there are also those who state that Zippy's father was actually Jethro, the priest of Midian (Ex 3:1). Could it be Moses actually had two Midian wives but only Zippy was worth talking about? Then there was the Ethiopian woman. So, to sum up, we have two named Midian FILs, a named Kernite FIL and an Ethiopian woman.
In general, your information and arguments are sound. I'll focus on the negatives here, the stuff that should be changed, and there's a long list of them! But don't let that discourage you, you're on the right track. However as NetWatchR points out, it doesn't read well and needs substantial revision. A few further points:
It only applies if a man believes and claims his daughter is a virgin, marries her off, then the husband discovered that she wasn't. She had presented herself as a virgin yet wasn't. This deception shamed her father and tricked her husband, and resulted in the death penalty.
However in the situation you describe, the woman is known to not be a virgin. No deception is involved. Assuming the man marries her knowing this full well, there is no penalty. Arguably the penalty might apply if the woman and her father conspired to trick the new husband, but in general it would not apply.
This is very important when it comes to rape. If a young woman is raped, by your logic she must either marry the rapist, or remain single, depending on her father's decision, and if she tries to marry someone else she must be stoned to death. This would essentially force fathers to allow their daughters to marry rapists or else be single for ever, and remove the father's authority over the matter, while the entire law is clearly about the father's authority. Rather, if a woman is raped by a man who would be an unsuitable husband, the father has the authority to refuse marriage, leaving the woman free to marry someone the father actually approves of. This understanding is far more in keeping with the loving nature of God.
As you point out, this has serious implications for many modern relationships, so is important to understand correctly.
Again, related, on page 6 you state that a man can only marry a non-virgin widow because of the law of the kinsman-redeemer. In other words, you are stating that marriage of widows is generally forbidden, except there is an allowance for her to marry her father's brother. Where in scripture is there a law against marriage of widows? There is none at all (only the High Priest was forbidden from marrying a widow). The law of the kinsman-redeemer is only an addition to the general permission to marry widows, and ensures that widows in a very specific situation (childless and with an eligible surviving male relative) actually marry. This doesn't actually apply to most widows, it's a very narrow case only.
I have not gone through the document in full, for time reasons and since NetWatchR has already done so. It is very repetitive, for instance Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is referenced and explained multiple times. I think it needs to be completely restructured.
NetWatchR's suggestion to break it up into headings is very good. I'd go further.
- update the spelling in the file name from "polygony" to "polygyny".
- You present "the law of first mention" as an absolutely critical element to biblical study (page 2). It isn't authoritative at all, it is just one of many useful ways to look at something to gain a rounded understanding. This supposed "law" is usually used against polygyny, since the first mention of polygyny is Lamech and he is interpreted as being an evil man, so polygyny is assumed to be evil. So you can twist this supposed "law" to prove whatever you want, either polygyny's validity or invalidity. I suggest removing the strong language in favour of this supposed "law".
- I agree you often jump from one topic to another. For instance, in the second to last paragraph on the second page, you jump from defining adultery (4 sentences) to the length of betrothal period for a woman captured in war, which seems a rather separate issue. Furthermore this does not apply to all foreigners, just women captured in war. This reference makes the paragraph disjointed and confusing - I know you have a point and it does all tie together, but it's too much extra stuff to pull in to one paragraph, and is distracting from your point. This is just one example of many.
Here you basically claim that it is completely unlawful to marry a non-virgin, all non-virgins must be stoned to death if they marry. What about widows, like Abigail or Ruth? What about reformed harlots, like Rahab? Clearly it is entirely fine to marry a non-virgin. So what is the punishment you refer to actually for?Don said:
It only applies if a man believes and claims his daughter is a virgin, marries her off, then the husband discovered that she wasn't. She had presented herself as a virgin yet wasn't. This deception shamed her father and tricked her husband, and resulted in the death penalty.
However in the situation you describe, the woman is known to not be a virgin. No deception is involved. Assuming the man marries her knowing this full well, there is no penalty. Arguably the penalty might apply if the woman and her father conspired to trick the new husband, but in general it would not apply.
This is very important when it comes to rape. If a young woman is raped, by your logic she must either marry the rapist, or remain single, depending on her father's decision, and if she tries to marry someone else she must be stoned to death. This would essentially force fathers to allow their daughters to marry rapists or else be single for ever, and remove the father's authority over the matter, while the entire law is clearly about the father's authority. Rather, if a woman is raped by a man who would be an unsuitable husband, the father has the authority to refuse marriage, leaving the woman free to marry someone the father actually approves of. This understanding is far more in keeping with the loving nature of God.
As you point out, this has serious implications for many modern relationships, so is important to understand correctly.
Again, related, on page 6 you state that a man can only marry a non-virgin widow because of the law of the kinsman-redeemer. In other words, you are stating that marriage of widows is generally forbidden, except there is an allowance for her to marry her father's brother. Where in scripture is there a law against marriage of widows? There is none at all (only the High Priest was forbidden from marrying a widow). The law of the kinsman-redeemer is only an addition to the general permission to marry widows, and ensures that widows in a very specific situation (childless and with an eligible surviving male relative) actually marry. This doesn't actually apply to most widows, it's a very narrow case only.
I have not gone through the document in full, for time reasons and since NetWatchR has already done so. It is very repetitive, for instance Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is referenced and explained multiple times. I think it needs to be completely restructured.
NetWatchR's suggestion to break it up into headings is very good. I'd go further.
- Without looking at the document, write down the key topics you intend to cover, as 4-6 headings, on separate sheets of paper.
- Print the whole document onto one-sided paper.
- Cut out each paragraph and stack it under each of the relevant topic headings.
- Take each topic and related stack of paper individually. On the rest of the paper under each topic heading, take key notes that state only the critical points you wish to make from the stack of clippings from your original document, with no repetition. Discard the clippings.
- Type up just what you have written down on your new pieces of paper as a fresh document.
Last edited:
Personally, I read it that Reuel acted as Zipporah's father, then Jethro later acted as her father. There are a few options here: Reuel may have had two names, also being called Jethro. Reuel may have died, and Jethro was his eldest son and heir and thus assumed the role of FIL. Or, Reuel may have been Zipporah's grandfather and gave her to Moses in his authority as tribal head, with Jethro being Zipporah's actual father so later assuming the role of FIL. But whatever the reality, both act as the father of Zipporah, so don't suggest two wives. This leaves Moses with three wives - Zipporah, a Kernite, and an Ethiopian.
On the whole, your arguments seem sound, and your exegesis is sound, but everything seems jumbled. It's mostly a stream of consciousness masquerading as a scholarly treatise. Keep in mind that I did not read every line (the structure prevented easy reading) so, this is based on impressions from a cursory reading.
Some personal preferences:
1) You slip in and out of your personal narrative throughout. Maybe make your personal narrative a preface with its own page.
2) I agree that it lacks headings/subheadings, and thereby structure for the reader.
3) Address OT and NT separately rather than toggle back and forth between the two. You presented large swaths of OT in your NT arguments that served to be redundant.
4) You will need to establish the harmony of OT/NT more clearly, though, as you transition.
5) You somewhat cited a study on male DNA in females in your "one flesh" argument. Something as scientifically important as this needs a citation of the actual study, not an online article referencing the study.
You did your Berean homework in studying this out. Now, if you wish to share this with a larger audience, or even just with members of your congregation, you need major tidying up.
Please don't take any of this as negative, it's just "constructive criticism"
As an aside, it's interesting to note that those coming to this conclusion seem to be very fundamental believers (at least from observations) and not moderate or liberal theologically.
I see your kjv reference in your email. Most folks who identify with the 1611 are some of the most fundamental and socially conservatives folks out there. How do you think this will go over with your kjv1611 brethren???
I see your kjv reference in your email. Most folks who identify with the 1611 are some of the most fundamental and socially conservatives folks out there. How do you think this will go over with your kjv1611 brethren???
Thanks for all the suggestions. I will work on them. I am not sure how it will go over with my KJV brethren. I am sure I will be criticized for it but I changed my mind because I saw it in the bible could defend polygyny biblically.
After you edit that, go back and look on the forum here regarding "What constitutes a marriage?" There was some serious debate on whether sex, covenant, or some combination of both institutes a biblical marriage.
You stated in your paper that two teens engaging in sex begins a marriage they are both obligated to into adulthood (whether or not they become legally married). Some might disagree. I don't know how to link to that forum, so just look for it......or moderator, can you link it for me????