• 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.

Christian dude w/ 39 Wives!

Welcome to the website. More importantly, welcome to the Lord! Glad you are here.

This post got posted because it is so UNUSUAL, and therefore -- interesting. Have no fear. No-one is expecting you to get in line to be #40! LOL
 
Might I gently remind... that King Solomon (Mr. Wise Guy) had multiple groups of 40 wives, and there is no indication that he violated the command in Exodus to properly care for them all. The biblical problem he had was that he allowed idolatry to enter his household, violating the order of bringing 'unbelievers' into his family (being unequally yoked together with unbelievers follows this principle).

So, it would seem to me that we need to line ourselves up with what that proper care actually means - that seems the point of conflict. Perhaps we have different standards or expectations than what ought to be. As one foreign saying goes "they aren't hungry and they aren't homeless"... in other words, no reason to complain. The cultural practice of monogamy gives such luxury to individual spouses, maybe the idea of making do with less is not understood...?

Of course, Solomon was King, so I assume a lot of his marriages were women who gained financial benefit that set them up for life. There are women who go into monogamous relationships for the same reason, marry a rich man even if, or especially if, he's about to kick the bucket, and be set for life... something like that. Different women are happy with different things. Women have been pumped with the idea of expecting certain things... I just question whether it's valid.
 
Beta said:
Might I gently remind... that King Solomon (Mr. Wise Guy) had multiple groups of 40 wives, and there is no indication that he violated the command in Exodus to properly care for them all. The biblical problem he had was that he allowed idolatry to enter his household, violating the order of bringing 'unbelievers' into his family (being unequally yoked together with unbelievers follows this principle).

So, it would seem to me that we need to line ourselves up with what that proper care actually means - that seems the point of conflict. Perhaps we have different standards or expectations than what ought to be. As one foreign saying goes "they aren't hungry and they aren't homeless"... in other words, no reason to complain. The cultural practice of monogamy gives such luxury to individual spouses, maybe the idea of making do with less is not understood...?

Of course, Solomon was King, so I assume a lot of his marriages were women who gained financial benefit that set them up for life. There are women who go into monogamous relationships for the same reason, marry a rich man even if, or especially if, he's about to kick the bucket, and be set for life... something like that. Different women are happy with different things. Women have been pumped with the idea of expecting certain things... I just question whether it's valid.
Click to expand...

Solomon violated it as far as I see it.

10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.
Exodus 21:10-11 NIV 2011

8If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.
Exodus 21:8 KJV

14 When you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you and have taken possession of it and settled in it, and you say, “Let us set a king over us like all the nations around us,” 15 be sure to appoint over you a king the LORD your God chooses. He must be from among your fellow Israelites. Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not an Israelite. 16 The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the LORD has told you, “You are not to go back that way again.” 17 He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold.

18 When he takes the throne of his kingdom, he is to write for himself on a scroll a copy of this law, taken from that of the Levitical priests. 19 It is to be with him, and he is to read it all the days of his life so that he may learn to revere the LORD his God and follow carefully all the words of this law and these decrees 20 and not consider himself better than his fellow Israelites and turn from the law to the right or to the left. Then he and his descendants will reign a long time over his kingdom in Israel.
Deuteronomy 17:14-20 NIV 2011
 
DiscussingTheTopic said:
Beta said:
Might I gently remind... that King Solomon (Mr. Wise Guy) had multiple groups of 40 wives, and there is no indication that he violated the command in Exodus to properly care for them all. The biblical problem he had was that he allowed idolatry to enter his household, violating the order of bringing 'unbelievers' into his family (being unequally yoked together with unbelievers follows this principle).

So, it would seem to me that we need to line ourselves up with what that proper care actually means - that seems the point of conflict. Perhaps we have different standards or expectations than what ought to be. As one foreign saying goes "they aren't hungry and they aren't homeless"... in other words, no reason to complain. The cultural practice of monogamy gives such luxury to individual spouses, maybe the idea of making do with less is not understood...?

Of course, Solomon was King, so I assume a lot of his marriages were women who gained financial benefit that set them up for life. There are women who go into monogamous relationships for the same reason, marry a rich man even if, or especially if, he's about to kick the bucket, and be set for life... something like that. Different women are happy with different things. Women have been pumped with the idea of expecting certain things... I just question whether it's valid.
Click to expand...

Solomon violated it as far as I see it.

10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.
Exodus 21:10-11 NIV 2011

8If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.
Exodus 21:8 KJV

14 When you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you and have taken possession of it and settled in it, and you say, “Let us set a king over us like all the nations around us,” 15 be sure to appoint over you a king the LORD your God chooses. He must be from among your fellow Israelites. Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not an Israelite. 16 The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the LORD has told you, “You are not to go back that way again.” 17 He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold.

18 When he takes the throne of his kingdom, he is to write for himself on a scroll a copy of this law, taken from that of the Levitical priests. 19 It is to be with him, and he is to read it all the days of his life so that he may learn to revere the LORD his God and follow carefully all the words of this law and these decrees 20 and not consider himself better than his fellow Israelites and turn from the law to the right or to the left. Then he and his descendants will reign a long time over his kingdom in Israel.
Deuteronomy 17:14-20 NIV 2011
Click to expand...

It does not say any women were deprived of food, clothing, or marital rights. It does not say Solomon took any brides by conquering. Those that were conquered became slaves. But a woman from that group could be married instead. They just couldn't be sold after that. That scripture doesn't apply.

He did take many wives and his heart was led astray. God said it was a bad idea, and he did it anyway, and faced the consequences of his actions. Even so, his sin was idolatry, not marriage. That's what was stated as his sin. This was simply the cause of it, that God warned about.

I'm sure he read the scriptures all the days of his life. I don't think he saw himself as better than his fellow Israelites. It certainly does not state that in scripture.

As for Beta's point of view, I agree. This is a culture that grew up on the selfishness and self-centeredness of monogamy. It's a very spoiled culture. Trying to fit that mentality that was formed by monogamy, into polygamy... just brings stress, I would say.
 
Solomon must have only had ___ all day not to violate Exodus 21 or the woman really did not want ___ ever, and he happened to find a strange anomaly or the women got enough ___ to satisfy from each other or something strange?
 
You can believe or not believe that all cultures are exactly like your culture when it comes to the requirements of 'marital rights'... I don't have to share what lessons I happen to know INTIMATELY... Going weeks or months or years without such 'rights' is not considered anything by many people of other cultures... they lived for other reasons, having and raising children mainly (the 'rights' being the right to have a child). They married to have children and financial stability, not ---, as you say. Judging a Bible character's life by your own life's or culture's standards is usually wrong, even if you happen to think you MUST be right. Let the Judge say if something was wrong.
 
Beta said:
You can believe or not believe that all cultures are exactly like your culture when it comes to the requirements of 'marital rights'... I don't have to share what lessons I happen to know INTIMATELY... Going weeks or months or years without such 'rights' is not considered anything by many people of other cultures... they lived for other reasons, having and raising children mainly (the 'rights' being the right to have a child). They married to have children and financial stability, not ---, as you say. Judging a Bible character's life by your own life's or culture's standards is usually wrong, even if you happen to think you MUST be right. Let the Judge say if something was wrong.
Click to expand...


I totally agree with this, you cant compare an Ancient -era King, with all the political expectations required of that role, with us ordinary mortals.

B
 
Isabella said:
... us ordinary mortals.
Click to expand...

Speak for yourself, Bels. I happen to be EXTRAORDINARILY BIZARRE! :roll: :shock: :o :lol:

... AND I'm working on that "mortal" thang.
 
CecilW said:
Isabella said:
... us ordinary mortals.
Click to expand...

Speak for yourself, Bels. I happen to be EXTRAORDINARILY BIZARRE! :roll: :shock: :o :lol:

... AND I'm working on that "mortal" thang.
Click to expand...

I am SO not surprised............. :)
 
Beta said:
You can believe or not believe that all cultures are exactly like your culture when it comes to the requirements of 'marital rights'... I don't have to share what lessons I happen to know INTIMATELY... Going weeks or months or years without such 'rights' is not considered anything by many people of other cultures... they lived for other reasons, having and raising children mainly (the 'rights' being the right to have a child). They married to have children and financial stability, not ---, as you say. Judging a Bible character's life by your own life's or culture's standards is usually wrong, even if you happen to think you MUST be right. Let the Judge say if something was wrong.
Click to expand...

and her duty of marriage, h5772
עונה `ownah

1) cohabitation, conjugal rights

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex ... 5772&t=KJV

http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cf ... JV#conc/10

The husband should not deprive his wife of sexual intimacy, which is her right as a married woman, nor should the wife deprive her husband. 1 Corinthians 7:3 NLT
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cf ... &t=NLT#top

If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife.
Exodus 21:10 NLT

http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cf ... LT#conc/10
 
The original link is bad but here is some more information (his family is even bigger now).

https://www.therichest.com/rich-list/the-biggest/the-10-biggest-polygamous-families/

article-1358654-0D434280000005DC-607_964x553.jpg


wiki info:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ziona
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christianity_in_Mizoram

Over 127 kids now: (more pictures)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...itician-make-sure-receive-dozens-ballots.html
 
Beta said:
Going weeks or months or years without such 'rights' is not considered anything by many people of other cultures... they lived for other reasons, having and raising children mainly (the 'rights' being the right to have a child). They married to have children and financial stability, not ---
Click to expand...

Thank you, that's really fascinating. Sarah, Leah and Rebekah were totally "unselfish" (taking a modern, Western, cultural context) in putting the extension of their husband's family before their own perceived interests (again in a modern, Western, cultural context).

Years later, this sentiment still prevailed in the time of Ruth:
Rth 4:11 And ALL THE PEOPLE that were in the gate, and the elders, said, We are witnesses. The LORD make the woman that is come into thine house like Rachel and like Leah, which two did build the house of Israel: and do thou worthily in Ephratah, and be famous in Bethlehem:
Rth 4:12 And let thy house be like the house of Pharez, whom Tamar bare unto Judah, of the seed which the LORD shall give thee of this young woman.

If all the people in our culture had that same scriptural insight, this web site probably wouldn't exist, and if it did, a lot of us probably wouldn't have been looking for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top