• 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.

Polygyny led to downfall?

Lila

Lila

Member
Female
A good friend of mine shared the conclusion on polygyny (as I have mentioned it as something I agree with) saying that in fact the downfall of Israel came with all the 'wives' and 'concubines' of the men that happen to have more than one.
Also, I got know that apparently polygyny is against the laws of the heart. If a man takes a vow to love and cherish a woman but looks at other women, knowing that it will hurt her, he has not cherished her...

This was only a written conversation so I didn't have to instantly give feedback. I was wondering though what you guys would comment on this as I find myself "on the fence".
 
Well, my first thoughts on the matter is a DEEP CURIOSITY on where your friend finds a basis for this conclusion she (he?) has come to. I can't think of any place in the bible that states that, or even hints at it.

Aside from that I would have to say that Israel's usual downfalls had to do with idolatry, worshiping other gods, and not observing the commandments (notably the Sabbath years). Their final and most famous downfall was due to "not knowing the hour of their visitation " aka when Jesus arrived showing Himself to be Messiah at what is called the triumphal entry. (Luke 19)

It would be quite a stretch for me to believe that of all the things God castigated Israel for, the real reason for it would be for a group of people indulging in something He did not at all prohibit.

But, if a man breaks faith with his woman (and by that I mean breaks his word to her), I will agree that he isn't cherishing her like he ought to.


EDIT

Ok. Israel's 'final' downfall hasn't occurred yet. I suppose the words 'final' and 'most famous' are sort of subjective for me.
 
What a speedy response! I suppose the conclusion that my female friend has stated is a result of an interpretation. Are we all not subject to understanding of things anyway?

I do appreciate though your straightforward answer which not only appeals to me but also clarifies a few things. Thank you.
 
Yeah I've seen no scripture where any form of downfall, Israel or otherwise, was ascribed to having all those darn wives and concubines. The closest case was Solomon ignoring the prohibition against taking *foreign* wives and *following their gods* (see Slumber's allusions to idolatry). Point of fact in God's correction of David about the whole Uriah matter he said that he had *given* David multiple wives and *would have given him more* had he but asked. Also see Joash. He married two wives of the high priest's choosing and everything he did as long as the priest lived was "pleasing in the sight of God".

Additionally, the logic (and I use the term loosely) is flawed because were it not for all those wives and concubines rattling about many of the most key figures in the Bible wouldn't have ever been born. Most notably Jesus himself came from a bloodline of David, but not from David's first wife. Not saying God couldn't have made other arrangements, but he didn't choose to. He instead blessed the polygynous line.

It is also a major (and false) assumption to say that looking at another woman (presumably with the intent to marry her) automatically hurts a first wife. That is a blanket statement and a lie. My wife is not into pain of any sort, yet she is looking forward to having a sister wife and in point of fact makes recommendations of potentials she thinks I would click with.

Not to sound harsh to them, but your friend's assertions seem like the same kinds of assumptions made from cultural indoctrination and preconception that I so often hear. They make these bold statements and either offer no scriptural evidence whatsoever, or only the most flimsy and illogical attempts to match a verse to the things they "already know" and feel no need to "prove".
 
I'm glad if it helped!

And yes'm. I consistently find myself trapped in a web of my own presuppositions.
 
UntoldGlory said:
.... God couldn't have made other arrangements, but he didn't choose to. He instead blessed the polygynous line.
Click to expand...

This point of view wouldn't have occurred to me had you not pointed it out, thank you!
That friend of mine hasn't had a healthy marital relationship ever, just break ups which of course is another reason for such conclusions of hers but it was interesting talking to her about it until she brought up the points that I couldn't deal with...
 
If I had to guess I would say that your friend's basis for this was after the return from the Babylonian exile when many of those living in Israel were found to have foreign wives are were required to give them up. Its a troubling and difficult passage, however has nothing to do with polygyny. Even the monogamous of these marriages were condemned. This was around the time of Nehemiah.

Your friend has a point about the vows. Most men have taken a vow to forsake all others. I don't. Have a clear answer there. I don't think those are vows that God takes seriously though. He defined marriage and He does not accept our legal finagling and attempts to redefine it.
 
Slumberfreeze said:
...Aside from that I would have to say that Israel's usual downfalls had to do with idolatry, worshiping other gods, and not observing the commandments (notably the Sabbath years)...
Click to expand...

Definitely this. Every time God punishes someone or group of people, we are told quite plainly why they are being punished. To my knowledge, you will not find one punishment, nor threat of punishment, without knowing exactly why.

In fact it's usually reiterated more than once. "Did it not tell you if you do X this bad thing will happen? So because you did X, this bad thing will happen. And once you stop doing X this bad thing that is happening because you're doing X will stop." To paraphrase.
 
Also, to look at and desire another woman knowing it hurts one's wife means that you're not cherishing her is a multi - faceted web.

1. Why assume that every patriarchal husband is doing this in a way that steamrolls over the objections and opposition of his wife?

2. If I will be held hostage to the accusation that I am not cherishing my wife whenever she would (not saying my wife would, just making a point) throw an emotional fit over a direction I believe I need to lead us in, then who has seized control of my family? And who has surrendered it? I can no more afford a child's temper tantrum to dictate how we run our home than I can allow one from my wife or even myself.

3. Besides, cherishing doesn't mean you never walk down a difficult road together, but it is about how you bear them up along the way.
 
ZecAustin said:
If I had to guess I would say that your friend's basis for this was after the return from the Babylonian exile when many of those living in Israel were found to have foreign wives are were required to give them up. Its a troubling and difficult passage, however has nothing to do with polygyny. Even the monogamous of these marriages were condemned. This was around the time of Nehemiah.
Click to expand...

Good point, thanks for that. I couldn't work out what passage may seemingly fit this idea but you cracked it for me. :)
 
jacobhaivri said:
1. Why assume that every patriarchal husband is doing this in a way that steamrolls over the objections and opposition of his wife?

2. ...

3. Besides, cherishing doesn't mean you never walk down a difficult road together, but it is about how you bear them up along the way.
Click to expand...

1. - there wasn't an assumption of any sort I remarked the unease to her I was experiencing in that instance.
3. - well, I wouldn't describe my husband walking down the road together, rather leaving me to it and proceeding on his own accord. So what my friend said in that context was more on spot than not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top