Polygamy for economic survival

[FollowingHim]

My thought is that if polygamy is needed for survival, it is a weak foundation.

And after observing so many train wrecks on this forum, my conclusion is that polygamy needs to be commenced from a situation of strength in all areas, as it will surely bring any weaknesses to the surface.

Fully agree. There are no rules - but there is common sense and learning from the mistakes of others.

 

[yoderfamily]

Amen on the last post

 

[Shadowjak's Dancer]

My thought is that if polygamy is needed for survival, it is a weak foundation.

And after observing so many train wrecks on this forum, my conclusion is that polygamy needs to be commenced from a situation of strength in all areas, as it will surely bring any weaknesses to the surface.

A thought on this: Perhaps a slightly different slant would add a new twist to this conversation. Perhaps 'polygamy for economic survival' isn't the only economic reason to engage in the practice. What about 'Polygamy for Economic Prosperity'? We often see in the text examples of Biblical polygynists who are very prosperous. Now, one may assume that the great prosperity necessarily preceded polygyny. Well, for the sake of the general discussion in this thread, I'll argue the possibility of the opposite. What if we're getting the cart before the horse, so to speak?
When considering the so-called 'pater familias' construct, and allowing for the fact that not every adult who came under the one leader was female, let alone a wife or a concubine, what if instead of a 'good model' vs. 'bad model' false dichotomy, we have the possibility that some models of family structure, and/or economic prosperity are stronger and more effective with larger groups of people?
After all, Abraham, when he went to rescue Lot armed his hundreds of trained servants. This guy was an economic and militaristic powerhouse in his day and age. Would he have had as much influence without so many people working towards his aims? I would say probably not. Would that have made him a worse leader, or less suitable to be a husband to more than one wife than a guy who just had pots of gold laying about? I would argue even more strongly against that idea, for the reason that this guy has the ability to manage a very large household indeed.
So, what if prosperity doesn't beget polygyny... what if polygyny (with good leadership) begets prosperity?

BTW, I'm not trying to make a specific case here... I'm not even looking to find another wife right now, just enjoying the debate.

 

[ylop]

I agree that a cohesive polygamous family running a business is a very strong and independent unit.

It is a virtuous circle, as long as the relationships are running smoothly.

I started my own business when mono, and now years down the track all family members work in it.

There is a great flexibility for our family with child rearing and study loads, and also in covering for staff absences.

ylop

 

[UntoldGlory]

That sounds pretty cool ylop! I kind of like the idea though of people working in different industries with different income sources. You know, not putting all the eggs in one basket kind of thing. But I do like the idea of what you describe a lot.

 

[Wesley]

That sounds pretty cool ylop! I kind of like the idea though of people working in different industries with different income sources. You know, not putting all the eggs in one basket kind of thing. But I do like the idea of what you describe a lot.

Well said. Putting all of our eggs in one basket is a very romantic, but very bad, idea in my opinion.

 

[ylop]

Diverse income streams are a good idea of course, particularly in times of economic uncertainty.

However to achieve expertise and excellence in starting and developing a business, focus is required.

Also I think business is a better option for poly minded people than being an employee, beholden to employers.

But business is not for everyone of course, better to be a successful employee than an overstressed struggling business owner.

 

[FollowingHim]

Robert Kiyosaki (Rich Dad, Poor Dad) basically says that if you want to be average, diversify, but if you want to be wealthy, put all your eggs in one basket and get to know that one basket really well. I like the sound of what you've managed to set up Ylop. I've recently moved to self-employment also, I do think it's definitely the way to go if you want the ability to provide for a large family.

 

[golden2seal]

Very interesting ideas concerning polygyny. I fully support it. Polygyny is the Creator's Idea before STATE corporations existed. A man can possibly become to powerful to be controlled by the STATE, therefore,. the reason for the STATE to ban a man from having multiple wives, but private Contracts can't be banned, so says the constitution.
Not too many moons ago, a woman didn't have too much say in who she married, her father had that say, but, of course, that was when fathers was still respected by the family and television had not appeared on the scene. At that time marriages was arranged for bloodlines and inheritance. Today, bad is good, and good is bad, that's our problem.
Pursuant to all I can find concerning what the Creator says about being an employee, don't do it, unless you get paid every evening. A man is supposed to learn a trade to support his family, whether he's a farmer or an engineer. The increase a family makes is not supposed to be calculated in fiat currency, but in land, wheat, corn, beans, honey, and oil, etc. All wealth comes from the ground. If a man has enough land, and enough family to produce the crops, he can become very well off. The land produces a huge increase when properly handled. Consider, how many grains of corn is on 1 ear of corn, each grain will produce at least 2 more ears of corn, you can't make that kind of increase being an employee.
One man alone, cannot tend, and preserve what 1 acre of land will produce, but the man and one wife can easily do that, but that 1 acre of land will produce more food than 5 or 6 people could possibly use. A man and 2 wives could easily tend and preserve the produce from 2 acres of land which would be enough for as many as 12 people. Consider the offspring that would eventually be extra labor, as time goes by the family would be well off. That's what the Creator of the whole universe figured out a long time ago, He put man in a garden, not in a house.

 

[Shadowjak's Dancer]

Not too many moons ago, a woman didn't have too much say in who she married, her father had that say, but, of course, that was when fathers was still respected by the family and television had not appeared on the scene. At that time marriages was arranged for bloodlines and inheritance. Today, bad is good, and good is bad, that's our problem.

From a pure Biblical perspective, I don't see the young woman as not having a say in whom she married, but rather the fact that the father of the young woman had the right to veto certain suitors. I don't see a convincing argument that he had the God-given right to command her to marry anyone, though.
I think this created a good safeguard when dad didn't want daughter running off with the guy who abandoned his last six wives and their kids, etc., no matter how much she thought he wouldn't do the same to her.

 

[Wesley]

Not too many moons ago, a woman didn't have too much say in who she married, her father had that say, but, of course, that was when fathers was still respected by the family and television had not appeared on the scene. At that time marriages was arranged for bloodlines and inheritance. Today, bad is good, and good is bad, that's our problem.

From a pure Biblical perspective, I don't see the young woman as not having a say in whom she married, but rather the fact that the father of the young woman had the right to veto certain suitors. I don't see a convincing argument that he had the God-given right to command her to marry anyone, though.
I think this created a good safeguard when dad didn't want daughter running off with the guy who abandoned his last six wives and their kids, etc., no matter how much she thought he wouldn't do the same to her.

Then how do you interpret Exodus 21?

Exodus 21:7-9 NIV
7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter.

Christians of Gentile descent aren't bound by the Mosaic law but nothing that was commanded, or authorized by God, in the Mosaic law can be considered sinful. God would neither permit nor command a sinful act.

So how do you interpret...

• Selling a daughter into marriage (Exodus 21:7-9)
• Marriage by capture (Deuteronomy 21:11-13)
• Marriage by rape (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

I will agree that violence is anathema. (John 8:7) Christ took the violence out of everything. (Matthew 5:21-22, 39-42 and 6:15)

Christ did not use violence when He called Peter and Andrew to be His apostles however. Can you show me a scripture that says a woman isn't supposed to go along if a man calls her to be his wife the same way that Christ called Peter and Andrew to be His apostles though? (1 Corinthians 11:3, Ephesians 5:23)

Not saying that I'm dumb enough to try it. I'm just making a scriptural point.

 

[ylop]

Christ did not use violence when He called Peter and Andrew to be His apostles however. Can you show me a scripture that says a woman isn't supposed to go along if a man calls her to be his wife the same way that Christ called Peter and Andrew to be His apostles though? (1 Corinthians 11:3, Ephesians 5:23)

Those two bible verses are about the relations between a husband and wife, in other words, their marriage union already exists.

In no way can they be stretched to develop some kind of 'marriage calling' doctrine whereby a man goes for a walk and spots two sisters, and calls out to them "Marry me. You will cook fish for tea". That is a maridge too far.

Knowing that "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?" (Jer 17:9), if someone approached my daughters in that way, I would place my daughters behind me and give that person his marching orders in no uncertain terms.

If the man is serious he can stick around and work for seven years or something like that.

 

[Wesley]

Christ did not use violence when He called Peter and Andrew to be His apostles however. Can you show me a scripture that says a woman isn't supposed to go along if a man calls her to be his wife the same way that Christ called Peter and Andrew to be His apostles though? (1 Corinthians 11:3, Ephesians 5:23)

Those two bible verses are about the relations between a husband and wife, in other words, their marriage union already exists.

Show me the word 'marriage' in 1 Corinthians 11:3. You claim it is about marriage. Show me the Greek word that confirms that claim.

Both of those verses state that a man (Greek: ἀνήρ meaning 'man') has authority over the woman (Greek: γυναικὸς meaning 'woman') as Christ has authority over men.

Please do not forget that the words 'husband' and 'wife' do not exist in the Koine Greek language. The words mean 'man' and 'woman' and do not take on the context of 'husband' or 'wife' unless there is a possessive or membership modifier in the sentence.

We are to read out of the Bible not into it. If there is no Greek word that creates a particular context then the context is an assumption that is being read into the Bible rather than out of it.

 

[Shadowjak's Dancer]

Then how do you interpret Exodus 21?

Exodus 21:7-9 NIV
7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter.

Verse 8 is rather telling in that the man has broken faith with the young woman. It is common knowledge that whether we're talking about wives or concubines (which I am of the opinion that this refers to the latter), the father would be paid a dowry, or a so-called 'bride-price'. This doesn't necessarily imply that the Father ever had the right to force the girl to marry anyone. As for the other verses you mentioned, none of them have anything to do with the father forcing a girl to marry anyone.

As a Torah keeper, I am often astonished by the assertions people make about what the 'Old Testament' says. They take one verse without considering the whole context and balance of text, and come up with some pretty wonky notions. I remember one criticism that all the women have to remain virgins before marriage, but none of the men have to... Now, let's do a little math here: subtracting women from the equation of potential sex partners, all you have left is other men and animals. Since it is completely unacceptable for men to sleep with one another or the animals...
Now we can get into all the details of polygyny, widow(er)s, and whatever else, but please don't just take verses out of context.

If you want to talk about the over-simplified "marriage-by-rape" argument, consider Amnon and Tamar. He wanted to have her, she seemed okay with the idea, but wanted to first get married. He didn't want to wait. He took her against her wishes to be married first. After, she still wanted to marry him, to make it all legitimate, but we know the rest of the story...
Or take Dinah and Shechem as another example of a young man who after he had Dinah still had to go to her father to try to make it legit. Now, I don't know about you, but if my daughter actually wanted to marry the douche even through all this... I'd have to consider whether it was a case where she really wanted to wait to be married first, but didn't feel abused or violated by the man... I'd have to consider her thoughts, etc. If, however, it was a bad situation, I'm going with the right of the father to refuse as stipulated in Exodus 22:16-18.

Furthermore, on the marriage by captive thing, that also has naught to do with a father's rights. Also, it never implies that she has no say in the matter. People get a lot of strange ideas about the text because the text reveals what is within one's own heart. Go and learn what this means, "Do what is right in your eyes."

 

[Wesley]

As a Torah keeper, I am often astonished by the assertions people make about what the 'Old Testament' says. They take one verse without considering the whole context and balance of text, and come up with some pretty wonky notions.

I don't want to get into the whole "Torah keeper" vs Gentile Christian debate. I don't have an issue with all Torah keepers, only the ones who try to convert me to their religion. I don't want to be as bad as they are so I'm not going to try to convert you. If you accept Christ as your savior then we are brothers regardless of the details because Christ forgives our mistakes regardless of which one of us (or more likely both) are making mistakes.

With that said however, I can certainly relate to the feeling of astonishment at the assertions that are made by people who twist the Bible out of context.

For instance...

• In Exodus 21:7-9 it is not selling his daughter into marriage that is breaking faith with her. It is the act of divorce by the buyer that is considered breaking faith.
• The application of the stories of Amnon and Tamar or Dinah and Shechem to this issue is absurd. We do not make law from history. If we did then the legalistic monogamists would be legitimate in their use of the story of Adam and Eve for the purpose of banning polygamy.
• You are correct that Exodus 22:16-18 gives the father the option of refusing to allow his daughter to marry. Numbers 30 gives a father or husband the right to nullify ANY vow that a woman makes. And Deuteronomy 22:28-29 identifies the father as the wronged party when a virgin is raped. I would challenge you however to find even a single verse that says that a woman is the wronged party in a case of rape or that she can make a vow, such as a marriage vow, that cannot be nullified by either her father or husband, whichever is applicable. I see a lot of authority given to the father. I'm curious as to what verses give it to the woman.

Note: Once again, I'm not stupid enough to actually do any of this. I'm just making a biblical point.

 

[Shadowjak's Dancer]

Wesley, you're actually making my case for me. The father has the right to nullify the vow. Yes. Exactly my point. You have yet to show how he has the right to force her to marry anyone.

As far as the divorce is concerned where the man is breaking faith with the young woman. Again, you're not contradicting my point. You're just trying to ignore the one side of it. The man is breaking faith with HER, not just some deal he made with her father. Anytime an individual marries a wife or a concubine, he gives her father a bride-price. Show me exactly where it specifies in the text that she has no say in the matter...

To think that history and other legal context is not relevant in how we interpret the text is beyond ludicrous. Jesus very strongly criticized the Pharisees for some of the perspectives for how they were applying matters of Torah at their point in history, how they're traditions were in fact making the Commandments null and void. Why do you think that Jesus laid out the Greatest and Second Commandments, or weightier matters than tithing anise and cumin, such as mercy and justice? What is more important: what does God desire, mercy or sacrifice? Now explain the sacrifice of Jesus for your sins...

It's like stating that the purpose of a Law Enforcement Officer's gun is for shooting criminals, and not considering any of the qualifiers. Suddenly, jay-walking four-year-olds are getting mowed down in the streets because they are breaking the law.

Divorcing Bible Commandments from their context is not right. Examine for me please, the case of the daughters of Zelophehad, and you will see that there is in fact a way to uphold a single command and do injustice to another party. The case of the daughters of Zelophehad is beautiful in how it shows that one should seek a harmony between all the laws so that my right, according to Torah, doesn't cause injustice to someone else. That is why the love of God is the first commandment, and the love of one's neighbor is the second. One has to make judgment calls on how to walk out one's daily life. When you're considering how to keep any instruction, Jesus' for example, should you choose to follow in a way that is more or less loving of God? Should you choose a way which is more or less loving of your neighbor? Should you trample justice for others, or uphold the cause of the defenseless? None of the commands of the Almighty, Genesis to Revelation, were meant to license people to act outside of the hierarchy of the two greatest commands. What is the point of keeping the Sabbath in a way that is hateful to your neighbor? What is the point of keeping any law or instruction of Jesus if the love for God is not at the core?

Go figure out what it means to "do what is right in your eyes", and then I invite you to bring out what you may think is a strong argument and discuss the case of Lot's daughters. First, however, lest this drag on interminably, find out what a double entendre is.

 

[Shadowjak's Dancer]

I would challenge you however to find even a single verse that says that a woman is the wronged party in a case of rape...

Furthermore, have you never read Deuteronomy 22:25-27?

 

[Wesley]

I would challenge you however to find even a single verse that says that a woman is the wronged party in a case of rape...

Furthermore, have you never read Deuteronomy 22:25-27?

I've read it. It seems that you may not have if you think it designates the woman as the wronged party. The words don't support that idea.

 

[Wesley]

Wesley, you're actually making my case for me.

Not even close.

The father has the right to nullify the vow. Yes. Exactly my point. You have yet to show how he has the right to force her to marry anyone.

How does selling her into marriage (Exodus 21:7) not equate to forcing her to marry? The father sells the daughter as a servant and then it is up to the buyer whether he marries her or keeps her as a servant. What word in that passage are you using to give the woman a choice in the issue.

We have to read out of the Bible not into it. If there is no word(s) there that gives the woman a choice then it is something that you are reading into the Bible rather than out of it.

As far as the divorce is concerned where the man is breaking faith with the young woman. Again, you're not contradicting my point. You're just trying to ignore the one side of it.

The Bible very clearly contradicts your point. You're the one who is choosing to ignore reality and read into the Bible rather than out of it, not me.

I don't argue with people who choose to ignore reality. I'm done with this. May God bless and keep you all the days of your life.

 

[ylop]

I think polygamy can be good for economic survival