Public article I just posted... enjoy.
https://natsab.com/2021/03/02/six-reasons-why-polygyny-is-not-a-minor-issue/
https://natsab.com/2021/03/02/six-reasons-why-polygyny-is-not-a-minor-issue/
-
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.
Meat Six Reasons Polygyny is NOT a 'Minor' Issue
- Thread starter PeteR
- Start date
Fantastic work here @PeteR !
“Even if never exercised, the man as head of his family must always have the option of polygyny as laid out in Scripture and regulated by the Torah. Not having the option effectively gives his only wife a trump card for all decisions thus making her an implicit co-equal which is anathema to the image of Messiah and the Assembly that Paul describes in Ephesians 5:22-33. True headship demands the option of polygyny.”
... there’s just no way around the fact that monogamy only demand from a wife is to insist the husband submit to her authority (especially once taught the truth concerning marriage and headship from Scripture)... she is in rebellion to her husband and Scripture at this point.
“Even if never exercised, the man as head of his family must always have the option of polygyny as laid out in Scripture and regulated by the Torah. Not having the option effectively gives his only wife a trump card for all decisions thus making her an implicit co-equal which is anathema to the image of Messiah and the Assembly that Paul describes in Ephesians 5:22-33. True headship demands the option of polygyny.”
... there’s just no way around the fact that monogamy only demand from a wife is to insist the husband submit to her authority (especially once taught the truth concerning marriage and headship from Scripture)... she is in rebellion to her husband and Scripture at this point.
A well-written insight. I think it is interesting that even during those Greco-Roman times it was legal and regarded as lawful for a man to have one wife by civil marriage, one wife by domestic arrangement, and one wife as a slave. Every male Roman citizen was permitted three (all in the name of the trinity, I suppose). What I also find interesting (according to the Encyclopedia Brittanica) is that Rome was largely responsible for the origins of the wedding ring, which apparently arose out of the removal of the anklet from a slave to the wrist, and later to the finger as a ring. Fascinating.
Good morning Pete,
As it happens, I was discussing line items 5 and 6 with my wife just this morning before I came across this thread.
100%. If math weren't a thing, I'd give it a 10,000% from enthusiastic agreement.
As it happens, I was discussing line items 5 and 6 with my wife just this morning before I came across this thread.
100%. If math weren't a thing, I'd give it a 10,000% from enthusiastic agreement.
Thank you for putting this post back on my radar...
