• 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.

Ecclesiastes 9:9 ???

  • Thread starter Thread starter Anonymous
  • Start date Start date
A

Anonymous

Guest
I was reading some comments from an anti-polygyny person today and one verse he was using to suggest that polygyny was neither God's will or ideal was, Ecclesiastes 9:9. Solomon uses the singular "wife" here, instead of "wives".

"Live joyfully with the wife whom you love all the days of your vain life which He has given you under the sun, all your days of vanity; for that is your portion in life, and in the labor which you perform under the sun."

My own "non-expert" opinion is that King Solomon seems very depressed here and while his statement may be a "true statement" in that it was recorded correctly...it isn't a "Statement Of Truth", due to his mental state. In any case, I would certainly be interested in hearing what others have to say here, in regards to it's effect on the validity of polygyny.

Blessings,
Fairlight
 
As another non-expert, I think you have a good handle on what is going on here. Solomon's writing in the book of Ecclesiates is a record of his experiments as one of the richest, most powerful men in the world. He tried everything and recorded the resulting conclusions in this book. He also shared many of the satiated points of view that led him to his major conclusions. This verse is one of those thoughts that resulted from trying everything and finding it all unsatisfying. He is essentially saying just enjoy yourself while you can, because it doesn't matter, life is empty and no matter how hard you try, this is it. This verse is the musings of a man that is seeking and not finding. It is no reflection on polygamy at all and should be dismissed as the sighing of a man that has given up in his quest for real joy in life. Ecclesiates is a dangerous book to use a verse at a time, it should be read all at a time to really be understood. It is key to understand that he found all that he tried, to be vanity (empty, meaningless and unsatisfying). Only life in concert with God made sense, that was his major conclusion.
 
First of all, Solomon put the "poly" in polygyny so it is absurd to intimate that he would be one to promote monogamy, but if you are desperate to defend a false theology you will grasp at almost anything.

Second, the words used for wife, wives, woman, and women are used interchangeably throughout the Old Testament and throughout the New Testament. The doctrine that the translator wishes to convey tends to lead to the choice of the word used if not based on absolute grammar requirements due to the sentence structure:

H802
נשׁים אשּׁה
'ishshâh nâshı̂ym
ish-shaw', naw-sheem'
The first form is the feminine of H376 or H582; the second form is an irregular plural; a woman (used in the same wide sense as H582).: - [adulter]ess, each, every, female, X many, + none, one, + together, wife, woman. Often unexpressed in English.

Hosea 2:2 Plead with your mother, plead: for she is not my wife (H802), neither am I her husband: let her therefore put away her whoredoms out of her sight, and her adulteries from between her breasts;

Zechariah 5:7 And, behold, there was lifted up a talent of lead: and this is a woman (H802) that sitteth in the midst of the ephah.

Zechariah 12:14 All the families that remain, every family apart, and their wives (H802) apart.

Zechariah 14:2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women (H802) ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.

G1135
γυνή
gunē
goo-nay'
Probably from the base of G1096; a woman; specifically a wife: - wife, woman.

Matthew 15:28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman (G1135), great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

Matthew 15:38 And they that did eat were four thousand men, beside women (G1135) and children.

Matthew 18:25 But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife (G1135), and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made.

Matthew 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives (G1135); but from the beginning it was not so.

And third, in dealing with the relationship to a wife the singular is often used to express the relationship of a husband to his wife on an individual basis even by those with more than one wife. A man with more than one wife would not point to one of his wives and state "She is my wives", the singular form would be used to indicate that she is his wife. Another way to express the use of language is like the way it is used in this verse:

Exodus 20:17 "You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's."

Following the monogamy only doctrine we can logically conclude that a man may have only one house, wife, male servant, female servant, ox, donkey, or anything that he is able to posses.

Just try to tell a guy with 5 beers in a cooler and a big screen TV on a Sunday afternoon that he can have only one beer...you might find that this logical monogamy doctrine is overruled rather promptly.
 
Dumb....

Do these types of people not realize that we are supposed to compare scripture with scripture? In situations like this I like to ask, "How to you support that interpretation when it conflicts with other scripture, specifically God's LAW?"

Some of the lesser used but most effective means for refuting the "not the best/not really what God wanted/God does not approve or bless" type of argument is like the following:

Are children a blessing from the Lord?
Were Rachael and Hannah Barren?
Did God open their wombs and give them children?
So God gave His blessing of a child to them and their husbands?
Were Rachael and Hannah the wives of polygamous men?
So God gave His blessing (children) to a polygamous man, his second wife, and their union, and He did it in two different situations, right?

This has nothing to do with the verse that you posted, i am just rambling. :|
 
... And if the wise one had used the plural, as in "live happily with the WIVES of your youth all the days of your life," would your antagonist have read that as a poly imperative? Every man MUST have two or more wives, or he's not fulfilling Solomon's command?

Or would he have decided that the point was the wives OF YOUR YOUTH, and therefore you weren't allowed to marry any more once middle age had set in, (oh! woe is me!), or at least to not dwell HAPPILY with therm?

At some point, some folks' arguments become so silly that there's no sense in answering them with much more than, "Would you like fries with that?" :lol:

Most folks DO have one wife. And for each woman, her relationship with her husband is such that she is his wife, singular. But if it comforts the poor dear man to hold onto and misuse this verse, I suppose there's no real harm done. He gets his comfort, and no thinking person is bothered by his facsimile of logic.
 
Looks pretty much like the same stuff different day to me...goes back to the basic questions. Does he understand what adultery actually is according to the scriptures? Were any of the men in the Bible accused of being in sin or sinful for having more than one wife...just because there are no Christian polygamists mentioned does that mean they didn't exist? Obviously polygamy was practiced during the time when Jesus walked the face of the Earth, and where he walked; so if it is such a hideous practice why is it that Jesus never addressed it? On and on it goes...where the argument stops we may never know...Yet again I have to ask: Why is it that those who do not wish to practice polygyny feel the need to prevent anyone from practicing it?
 
I tend to look at it in a different way. Polygyny was practiced during the time but it wasnt the majority. The major part of the people couldnt support more than one wife and the kids that the extra wives would have. So he would have addressed something like this to what the majority were doing at the time. Monogamy. It still doesnt say that one has to have ONLY one wife. They are only assuming that its meant in that way. Sounds like people who try to use that scripture are the ones who are mistranslating.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top