If you are willing to rely on scripture alone to defend polygyny, please also be willing to stick with scripture alone, i.e. with what is actually written, regarding female relations.
^^^^ I would encourage you to read the above carefully. God gives explicit instructions about even the most basic human needs and functions, even down to dealing with poop. He gave clear and irrefutable commands against male to male relations, so He didn’t forget to give a law against female to female relations.
If you are willing to depart from scripture alone at any point, you lose the right to appeal to scripture alone for every point. Shalom
Lets just grant that it's only from scripture alone, I would like to ask a few questions and then pose a problem with the logic.
Most of the scripture references I will assume you know and thus will not quote them.
But lets start off with. Plural marriage is completely biblical, we have witness to men having more then one wife, we have Yah describing himself with more then one wife(including sisters) we have Yah giving wives to king David, in so much that he would have given him more. So we have the witnesses to that. 2 or 3 every word shall be established.
Now lets use the "Not real cheating" post as a standard. Women are allowed to go lick each others hidden spots and it's not sin because there is no written law that says specifically that.
Now lets take that study of Romans 1:26-27 that basically proves it's more or less talking about anal.
So the argument goes that because a penis is not involved then technically there is no law so no sin.
Yahusha spoke on this topic of lust, that it's not just the act itself mentioned in the OT it's actually the lust in the heart after the woman regardless of the physical act that causes one to commit adultery in his heart.
We know the law is spiritual.
But with the lust there is no penis involved, it's all in the mind right, and the sins that first happen always start in the mind.
So now can women lust? of course they can... and I hope this is not your position that women can't lust.. and that she's comparable to cows humping each other to show they are sexual active.. But this is not consistent to say that if there is no penis involved it's not sin. You are missing the spirit of the law. In the case of lust, regardless of physical properties of the body it's the desire of something that is perverse. This is why spiritually when they started serving other gods or even thinking about it, they were committing adultery not physically right.
And this standard makes sense.
Nahum 3:5
“ Behold, I
am against you,” says the LORD of hosts;
“ I will lift your skirts over your face,
I will show the nations your nakedness,
And the kingdoms your shame.
Because not everyone is suppose to even see the nakedness.
Titus 2:5 to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.
What does pure mean? pure in spirit, in the heart first and foremost.
1 John 2:16 For all that
is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world
The lust of the eyes and of the flesh is not just for men
Israel as the congregation is spoken of as a women or two women etc. But they spoken as they are lusting and so Yah gives them over.
The women is lusting and therefore it's sin.
If a woman lust for a man it's sin?
If a women lust for an animal to have sex with it's sin?
If a women lust for an angel to have sex with it's sin?
Women lust after women This is okay?
Regardless of the authority given to her or not, her heart needs to be circumcised.
Man lust after man sin.
man lust after woman sin.
Man lust after animal sin..
Man lust after angel sin..
It's the same standard... Yah does not change his standard.. remember there is no male or female in the spirit where we shall go.
If a woman has this dichotomy of the same standard of holiness, purity that Yah has set. Then it's the same standard.
Now back to the "real cheating" post.
You argue that it's ok for a woman to go out and share her nakedness with another woman because there is no penis..
Yet that's the same as the shame that is used.
Are biological sisters allowed to be intimate with each other? there is no law so no sin?
If a man marries them are they then allowed?
Are men allowed to lick each other? because there is no law no sin?
What about men being intimate with women but no penetration? That still throws out the spirit.
Can a brother pleasure her sister? without penetration?
The spirit of the law is being completely thrown out..
It's basically justifying all indecency and is most definitely not pure.
There is a boundary that has been missed and I'm trying to find that.
At most what I can see is that Yah gave women to man, and man gets to make rules for his wives going down the authority chain. But women are not permitted by default to do anything outside of the covenant of a man with any women at all. And under his house he takes upon all guilt of his wife/wives as he is the one in charge.
Hopefully this is written out comprehendible enough to understand my position.
I would have to say no. I have never known a man to have two penises.
I laughed at this...
