biblically speaking

[The Revolting Man]

I was about to say that you don't need polygyny to build tribes and I was going to point to myself as an example, but then I realized that having built my tribe through three different women that was kind of nonsensical. There's a Ukranian guy named Semenyuk though who is a great example.

 

[Pacman]

I was about to say that you don't need polygyny to build tribes and I was going to point to myself as an example, but then I realized that having built my tribe through three different women that was kind of nonsensical. There's a Ukranian guy named Semenyuk though who is a great example.

I have a friend with 11 children. Only one woman. They commonly refer to themselves as a “clan”

 

[PeteR]

Ahhh- so you're saying these roots actually started in Greek culture and morphed into the Roman and then into western?--right? So were the Greeks the ones who originally decided the tribes had to go if they were to gain control?

Not saying they were trying to eliminate Israelite tribalism, but general tribalism and move to the political city.state model they developed. Whole a side topic, it is touched on in a book I have recently acquired for this very topic...

 

[PeteR]

As seen above, Aristotle, in Politics, argued in favor of monogamy as a foundation for the city.state. Image below mentions but fails to denote that it was polygamy in Scripture that built the house... house of Jacob, house od David etc and could build wealth and power, precisely why the Greek, and therefore Western, mindset hates it.

As a side note, I need to track down Politics to see if Aristotle articulates why monogamy. Hoping he does as that becomes the smoking gun for why the Borg, as @mystic refers to the system, cannot tolerate poly... they lose control.

 

[rejoicinghandmaid]

I have a friend with 11 children. Only one woman. They commonly refer to themselves as a “clan”

There are several families in our area with 8 - 10 + children and one wife.

 

[rejoicinghandmaid]

As seen above, Aristotle, in Politics, argued in favor of monogamy as a foundation for the city.state. Image below mentions but fails to denote that it was polygamy in Scripture that built the house... house of Jacob, house od David etc and could build wealth and power, precisely why the Greek, and therefore Western, mindset hates it.

As a side note, I need to track down Politics to see if Aristotle articulates why monogamy. Hoping he does as that becomes the smoking gun for why the Morg, as @mystic refers to the system, cannot tolerate poly... they lose control.

@Ancient Paths--thanks so much. I read all you made available. It's very easy to see how we've gotten to where we are. Interesting that it states, "And the Bible had properly defined this household to be monogamous." Of course this dates from the times when few people had copies of their own Scriptures so it was very easy to tell the populace WHAT the Bible said. This idea of monogomy has been parroted down through the centuries. Notice also the the Muslims embracing polygomy are portrayed as being "developmentally backwards". It is no wonder we are fighting the uphill battle today! Those who walked away from Scripture are STILL telling us what it says and doesn't say. They are still telling us we are wrong for believing and desiring to practice what Scripture says is acceptable!

 

[IshChayil]

Seems like both Abraham and Jacob waited for their wives assent before ‘husbanding’ their handmaids. This could be because the handmaids belonged to the wives not the husband so may have limited application

An interesting thing happens linguistically here I think you'll appreciate.
The word for "handmaiden" when she "belongs" to a women is usually shifchah, in my translations I translate it "a virgin servant". When a master sleeps with her, we see (usually) the synonym ammah used.
Generally the words break down as well that the shifchah serves just females in the house; there is a safe distance from the men (not like Romans bathing with slave girls for example), and an ammah serves the whole household as she already belongs to a man there is a proper boundary in the distinction to prevent a master from sleeping with her (she's either his or someone else's). When Sarah complains about Yishmaeyl she says "this son of an ammah will not inherit with my Jacob!".

English bibles usually render both just "maidservant" or something of the sort.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Very nice. Thanks Ish

 

[IshChayil]

@Ancient Paths--thanks so much. I read all you made available. It's very easy to see how we've gotten to where we are. Interesting that it states, "And the Bible had properly defined this household to be monogamous." Of course this dates from the times when few people had copies of their own Scriptures so it was very easy to tell the populace WHAT the Bible said. This idea of monogomy has been parroted down through the centuries. Notice also the the Muslims embracing polygomy are portrayed as being "developmentally backwards". It is no wonder we are fighting the uphill battle today! Those who walked away from Scripture are STILL telling us what it says and doesn't say. They are still telling us we are wrong for believing and desiring to practice what Scripture says is acceptable!

One thing I have found incredibly annoying about being told what scripture says, is that even in my all Greek United Bible Societies text of the New Testament (used by many translators), all Greek, no English,
they made sure to insert English section headings summarizing the sections. Can you believe it? The names of the books are even in Greek only yet they wanted to make sure to steer translator & scholar thinking by injecting extra-biblical ENGLISH language summaries section by section to keep everyone inline.

 

[IshChayil]

We suborn culture to scripture, not scripture to culture. Everything we know about these cultures comes either from scripture or highly suspect human sources. We already have the scriptures and we can't trust the humans. Outside sources can be interesting background, or they can just as easily be background noise.

I think you are missing Veritas' point bro.
It's not that culture is superior to scripture; it's that it is a very true reality that it is nearly impossible to interpret scripture devoid of culture. Often we don't even know we are doing it; otherwise how could so many denominations full of G-d fearing men and women disagree on lots of verses. To each person it obviously means such and such.

The snapshot of Jewish culture which Veritas is discussing as perhaps being closer to the text is a 2nd century or earlier snapshot. In the 1st century Jews still believed in Binatarianism, and most knew that the memra "the word" of G-d was a physical presence with a mind. I think sometimes folks react to the "Jewish culture is closer" but usually what is meant is "Jewish culture back then".

If modern Jewish culture has grown and evolved and many things are incorrect, then how much more so cultures which were seeded in paganism originally.

To continue on his theme, there is much that can be explained in the bible when we understand the culture of the day. The prophets usually speak 1st to the immediate audience then to us millennia later. I think in our modern arrogance we often consider our generation as more important than the generations who directly received the prophetic messages. That said, scripture often times is dealing with the culture at hand in terms they would understand and cultural nuances they would understand and when we transport that to a modern, Romanized/Euro-centric culture (and at times modern Jewish culture influenced by places Jews have lived) we sometimes get it wrong. The intent was for the believing world to graft in to Israel, not the other way around. The divorce from the roots/trunk of the olive tree has robbed modern Christianity of many benefits of their heritage, polygamy among them.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I think you are missing Veritas' point bro.
It's not that culture is superior to scripture; it's that it is a very true reality that it is nearly impossible to interpret scripture devoid of culture. Often we don't even know we are doing it; otherwise how could so many denominations full of G-d fearing men and women disagree on lots of verses. To each person it obviously means such and such.

The snapshot of Jewish culture which Veritas is discussing as perhaps being closer to the text is a 2nd century or earlier snapshot. In the 1st century Jews still believed in Binatarianism, and most knew that the memra "the word" of G-d was a physical presence with a mind. I think sometimes folks react to the "Jewish culture is closer" but usually what is meant is "Jewish culture back then".

If modern Jewish culture has grown and evolved and many things are incorrect, then how much more so cultures which were seeded in paganism originally.

To continue on his theme, there is much that can be explained in the bible when we understand the culture of the day. The prophets usually speak 1st to the immediate audience then to us millennia later. I think in our modern arrogance we often consider our generation as more important than the generations who directly received the prophetic messages. That said, scripture often times is dealing with the culture at hand in terms they would understand and cultural nuances they would understand and when we transport that to a modern, Romanized/Euro-centric culture (and at times modern Jewish culture influenced by places Jews have lived) we sometimes get it wrong. The intent was for the believing world to graft in to Israel, not the other way around. The divorce from the roots/trunk of the olive tree has robbed modern Christianity of many benefits of their heritage, polygamy among them.

I'm sorry but I won't go there, and you know that from many other conversations we've had. If it's not in the Book then it's interesting background at best. No one gets to be between me and God. Not modern day churchians, nor popes, or kings or preachers or denominations, not even 2nd century Jews.

 

[FollowingHim]

To put it a different way, we all wear glasses when we read scripture, glasses formed by our presuppositions and culture. For example, whenever we read a passage, we interpret the words in it based on the definitions we know from our culture. The classic example here being that when most Christians read "the two will become one flesh" they think "monogamy" and think that the text has actually stated and proved that because the two have become one flesh, isn't it obvious, it's there in the text! Case closed, the Bible says it so it's true... That's reading it through cultural glasses, but not realising that you are doing so. While someone from a polygamous background, or who has studied this enough to form a polygamous mindset, no longer reads it in that way.

We should not however be simply finding which glasses are the best glasses to wear (for instance switching to looking at it from what we think is an ancient Jewish perspective). Firstly because our understanding of historical cultures may be wrong, and secondly because even that culture may have got things wrong because of THEIR glasses being different to Adam's (for instance). We shouldn't advocate looking at it from only one perspective.

However, if we look at an issue from multiple perspectives, we can gain a more well-rounded understanding, and possibly spot flaws in our initial interpretation that we never realised even existed.

Here's another example: the word "dragon". Many readers will read that and think "a mythical creature". Others will conclude that it must be figurative, so read it as "a demon". Others will read it as "a real, possibly extinct creature" such as a dinosaur. Others will read it as "a snake". And so forth. Your first impression of the verse generally depends on your cultural background and personal biases (e.g. a young-earth creationist is more likely to read "dinosaur", while an old-earth believer is more likely to read one of the other options). In reality, it's probably best to consider what the verse might mean with each of the above options, and see which makes most sense - that's looking through all the glasses in turn and trying to figure out what the truth in the middle is.

It's also important to understand what the author probably meant when they wrote down a particular word (e.g. "concubine" or "handmaid"), because there's a good chance that our "plain reading" of the text is biased by our own cultural baggage associated with such words. But as we don't know ancient cultures for certain, we can't just pick one 100% true perspective and completely switch to that viewpoint, but rather can take multiple perspectives on the issue into consideration as we ponder the meaning of the text.

And all of this is so we can understand the Bible as accurately as possible, because ultimately it is only what the Bible says that matters.

 

[FollowingHim]

Brilliant post @mystic.

The good and humble folk who are our allies — even when they (or we) seem at odds with one another — include all who care first about people and their humanity.

In politics, the so-called "far left" and "far right" (I'd call them the "true" left and right) actually have more in common with each other, and with true Christians, than they do to the so-called "left", "centre" and "right" (the mainstream socialists and fascists that call themselves the "left" and "right" in mainstream Western politics). Both communists and libertarians truly care about people. They almost universally oppose war. They almost universally support freedom on personal matters such as marriage, sex and drugs. They want to radically change the government system because they see how it harms people. They just disagree (strongly) with what would be the best changes to achieve this.

While the "centre" are the oligarchy (and their unwitting supporters) who ultimately care only about power, and use democracy to give an illusion of choice and get people all worked up over issues that don't matter, to keep themselves in power and keep anyone else out. Whoever is in, the country gradually slides in the same statist direction, just with different flavours from election to election. They just have to keep out the true communists, libertarians and true religious conservatives, because they'd all ask difficult questions about how people are affected by their policies, and stop the wars that keep the elite in power and make them rich.

Sorry for the political tangent, I just got on a roll there...

 

[IshChayil]

I'm sorry but I won't go there, and you know that from many other conversations we've had. If it's not in the Book then it's interesting background at best. No one gets to be between me and God. Not modern day churchians, nor popes, or kings or preachers or denominations, not even 2nd century Jews.

Language gets in the way at times right?

 

[rockfox]

The Jewish family model is structured to deal with inheritances that pass to the grandchildren from (possibly) multiple wives. The daughters portion of her fathers inheritance was entrusted to her stewardship in the form of a Dowry which she was to manage for the benefit of her children only, not for the benefit of the sister wives children or the benefit of the husband.

Where do you get this information? Jewish family model from which time period? Documented where?

Seems like both Abraham and Jacob waited for their wives assent before ‘husbanding’ their handmaids. This could be because the handmaids belonged to the wives not the husband so may have limited application

These events always struck me as odd in the OT; sort of out of place, not something talked about in the law itself. I later figured out this was because the practice was a common cultural/legal one brought by Abraham from his culture. You get some details on how it was practice code of Hammurabi. It also goes into dowry practices.

the dowry and anything pertaining to it would not be under his authority unless she preferred it that way

Not necessarily true. To use modern legal terms, it could also been held in trust by the husband with him (rather than her) exercising fiduciary responsibility.

Scripture doesn't say either way; it only hints at dowry. One might construe Proverbs 31 as an example of her managing the dowry. But that isn't specified. However the code of Hammurabi makes it clear that the husband controlled the dowry; and hints that she lived on it after her husbands passing. It was inherited, not by grandchildren, but by the children upon her death. Everything else (excluding bridal price, dowry, and fields gifted to her) was the estate of the man and passed to his children at his death. She has control of the dowry after the husband's death, though there are some exceptions and it might be that it too is held in trust by her brothers, next husband, or son's.

And that was a non-Roman semitic culture which greatly influenced the Hebrews in many different ways.

So called “Biblical” principles that conform more to Roman Law than Jewish Law can scarcely be called Biblical

As I document above, you're constructing a false dichotomy here. Not just in regards to the details of inheritance. But a wife's stewardship of the dowry does not mean that the idea that "a woman is either under her husband or fathers authority or she’s not and in rebellion" is false under Jewish law (whatever that is) or the Bible. The very necessity of specifying she controlled it is indicative of her general position in the authority.

Roman Law is structured specifically for matriarchy to succeed.

How do you get that exactly? Rome was highly patriarchal, particularly in the early period (this changed in ways with time of course). While monogamy does limit patriarchy, it does not necessarily make a matriarchy.

 

[rockfox]

As seen above, Aristotle, in Politics, argued in favor of monogamy as a foundation for the city.state. Image below mentions but fails to denote that it was polygamy in Scripture that built the house... house of Jacob, house od David etc and could build wealth and power, precisely why the Greek, and therefore Western, mindset hates it.

Now this is very interesting. This brings to mind two questions:

First, how would the character/structure of a nation be different if it was founded on polygamy?

Second, why was limiting polygamy so important for church and state power? Is this just about limiting the potential scope of power by houses or is there something more? And what was different about these houses from modern day? Like, in America our children often live nearly completely separate lives from their parents; they aren't much of a house and their power and wealth don't combine (except after death, and even there in a large family the wealth mostly dissipates). Having multiple wives, and more children, would only exacerbate this effect.

 

[PeteR]

Answering the second may help flesh out the first....

Israel was never designed to be a democracy. God's desire was a theocracy that would be managed by a monarchy. The future is monarchy under the rod of the Messiah.

The Greco-Roman ideal was democracy that manifested as the wiser representative republic. Edom seems to have begun the Democratic rulership based on the non-patrilinear rulership in Genesis while God goes about building a house.

Both models have flaws exacerbated by human sinfulness, but, if people are walking and acting righteously,patriarchal polygamy seems to offer the moat personal and tribal freedom. When it goes bad, well, read parts of the book of Judges.

What is significant about poly is strong central leaders that grow up and prove themselves in their clans and tribes as wise, discerning and warlike men whole not closing the door onlessers that God can raise up... Judges, Gideon.

It is interesting to note the many YouTube videos coming out of the black community promoting polygyny for economic and power reasons in addition to taking care of the absent man problem.. As they articulate, a generational wealth and power base can be assembled pretty quickly. Three or four wives equals one homeschooling/daycare mom with the rest developing multpple streams of income to add to his... invest in and build family businesses and properties.

On a national scale this breaks the controls of church and state self appointed power bases as clans connect and build tribes with a competing worldview....'

In a nation of our size, we have to take a multigeberational approach and pray Abba shows favor and gives time, though my personal suspicion us that this is about Him preparing His people to be regathered...

 

[The Revolting Man]

Answering the second may help flesh out the first....

Israel was never designed to be a democracy. God's desire was a theocracy that would be managed by a monarchy. The future is monarchy under the rod of the Messiah.

The Greco-Roman ideal was democracy that manifested as the wiser representative republic. Edom seems to have begun the Democratic rulership based on the non-patrilinear rulership in Genesis while God goes about building a house.

Both models have flaws exacerbated by human sinfulness, but, if people are walking and acting righteously,patriarchal polygamy seems to offer the moat personal and tribal freedom. When it goes bad, well, read parts of the book of Judges.

What is significant about poly is strong central leaders that grow up and prove themselves in their clans and tribes as wise, discerning and warlike men whole not closing the door onlessers that God can raise up... Judges, Gideon.

It is interesting to note the many YouTube videos coming out of the black community promoting polygyny for economic and power reasons in addition to taking care of the absent man problem.. As they articulate, a generational wealth and power base can be assembled pretty quickly. Three or four wives equals one homeschooling/daycare mom with the rest developing multpple streams of income to add to his... invest in and build family businesses and properties.

On a national scale this breaks the controls of church and state self appointed power bases as clans connect and build tribes with a competing worldview....'

In a nation of our size, we have to take a multigeberational approach and pray Abba shows favor and gives time, though my personal suspicion us that this is about Him preparing His people to be regathered...

I'm going to quibble with ine detail here but I think it's an important distinction. Monarchy was not God's first plan. He brought them in to the land as an arnachist commune, cue the the Monty Python jokes (again). They werr warned what would happen when they demanded a monarchy in order to be like the peoples around them.

 

[PeteR]

I think the plan was always a king, just in His timing, not the people's.... but, that's quibbling..

Still, the entire thrust of Scripture, from the very first letter, a giant ב, is building a house and we see that at multiple levels that really get defined at Abraham, Jacob and David.

The whole macro effect and outworking as opposed to the enemy's imposed monogamy system has been a point of fascination and study for me lately. Trying to really get a grip on big picture implications.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

I think the plan was always a king, just in His timing, not the people's....

I’d agree, but it was a very specific King who would also be known as the Peace of Jerusalem.