Why was is okay for men to marry multiple women but women couldn’t?

[dayhiker]

To answer the question of the OP .. I'd say the reason men could marry many wives and women couldn't have many husbands is because Israel was a patriarchal society.

 

[SwordmanJr]

Where does it say that a man married more than one wife...besides Jacob? Remember,concubines weren't wives and it was often the wife's idea for their husbands to go into their servants for procreation...the family line had to go on.

Abraham had more than one wife, and his concubines were still married to him. The only difference between what was called a "wife" and a "concubine" was that the offspring of the concubines were not entitled to any of the inheritance. Concubines having sex with other men was adultery just as it was for what was called the men's "wives".

Most of the Patriarchs of the Christian and Jewish faiths had multiple wives, so I'm not sure where you got the idea it was only Jacob who had plural wives. God even commanded the taking of a subsequent wife for those men whose brother's wife was widowed with no heir. The Lord even gave some men plural wives, so the idea that men having plural wives is some sort of "sin" are forced to accuse God Himself of having allegedly caused men to sin.

Additionally, the idea that men having plural wives somehow demeans women, well that's another one of those ethereal apparitions arising from feministic thinking that has so infused our culture with the idea of total equality in all things. Frankly, that makes God a liar given that the Lord himself established distinctions in not only function, but also physical attributes. A prime example of this is the hypocritical practice of the special forces in the military lowering the physical standards so that women can pass through to join those forces. I never could understand that the Lord's establishment within the Church and the family somehow is demeaning to women. It's hard enough being a woman of God without some trying to usurp what the Lord established as the responsibilities of men. Claiming that disallowance is somehow a declaration against ability and intelligence are nothing but red herring arguments.

But, hey, I'm not going to try and defend what the Bible teaches. Those who do not accept it for what it says will have to take that up with the Author. Some saying that it's only my "interpretation," well, we all will understand when the last day is here. It will no longer matter who was right and who was wrong. What matters the most is that we're all liars in relation to God's being True, as it is written.

Jr

 

[SwordmanJr]

To answer the question of the OP .. I'd say the reason men could marry many wives and women couldn't have many husbands is because Israel was a patriarchal society.

Actually, women marrying plural husbands (polyandry) is God's very definition of adultery.

Jr

 

[SwordmanJr]

Just because something is in Scripture doesn't mean it has God's seal of approval. Dont see in Scripture where men having multi-wives was God's idea So the same would hold true for multi-husbands.

Reading the Bible for what it says is quite revealing. God gave some men plural wives, and he also commanded the taking of subsequent wives in some cases, so why so many today have a problem with that, well, I simply don't understand.

Jr

 

[tturt]

Since God created Adam and Eve in the beginning, Gen 2 & 3,
"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." Gen 2:24
"Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge." Heb 13:4
"And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him" Gen 2:18
"...So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” Matt 19:4-6
"To sum up, each one of you is to love his wife as himself, and the wife is to respect her husband." Eph 5:33
"I Cor 7:2 "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."
"But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." Matt 5:28
"Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the Lord hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant." Mal 2:14 Dont mean to upset anyone but I didnt write it.
There are more Scriptures but the bottomline is One husband with One wife.

 

[SwordmanJr]

Dont mean to upset but I didnt write it
There are more but the bottomline is One husband with One wife. God would not go against His Word.

So, when God says to fathers, "Instruct thy son in all my commandments," does it follow, then, that what He means by that statement is that you can teach only one son among two or three the commands of God, or that you're only allowed to have one son in your family?

Do you see what you're doing? God's command to instruct one's son (singular) was not a silent command to all men that we are allowed to have only one son, nor to teach only one of several the commands of God. One must CONTRIVE in his own mind the other alternative meanings from what God said.

Additionally, if you're going to pit God's word against itself, then you have a hard road to travel, because relying upon the weaknesses of the use of plural versus singular upon which to base your theology, then you you're creating more problems than you're solving. God gave Adam one wife, but He gave King David plural wives. So what? God is God. If you have a problem with His sovereignty, then you're left with nothing more than a religion of subjective truths. You can rest assured that there are many, many people who follow after subjective teachings and theologies in this world.

Jr

 

[Norbert L]

I just don’t understand the things that God seems to let pass. Are women really beneath men? Do we not matter as much? Were we just put here for men’s pleasure?

Several thousand years ago mankind was dealing with under population. There was no health care, pension plans, antibiotics hadn't been discovered and civilization with its' people were living with threats to their livelihood unlike today.

Given those conditions it wasn't about being here for a man's pleasure. It was more about trying to find ways where a community can reproduce to survive and ensure their future.

 

[tturt]

If reproduction was the purpose, seems like God would have realized that and started with more folks than Adam and Eve.

As far as David, God gave - isn't defined. David became responsible for everything from Saul.

When there's one Scripture that doesn't fit with all the other Scriptures, we need to search it out imo.

 

[SwordmanJr]

Several thousand years ago mankind was dealing with under population.

Under-population? How does one gauge that in order to establish it as fact? Does the Bible say such? With all things considered, the Lord commanded to multiply and be fruitful, which was never rescinded anywhere in scripture. So, perhaps it can be said that the world is STILL under-populated, even though there are elitists who claim that it's now over-populated, and headed for catastrophe due to over-crowding. Never mind that there's plenty of room for us all, and room for far more, as well as food and water for all. However, we continue to hear from the dooms-dayers that the alleged "population explosion" and CO2 is going to rock the world into "Soylent Green" style living for us all. The whining of the elitists who want more power and control for themselves is old hat. We're heard it all before.

There was no health care, pension plans, antibiotics hadn't been discovered and civilization with its' people were living with threats to their livelihood unlike today.

Unlike today? Look at how many people today have no health care, pension plans and access to antibiotics, and fear for their lives every day? Are you serious? Outside the bubble of the West, there is a vast world of people who don't have to this very day what you're listed.

Given those conditions it wasn't about being here for a man's pleasure. It was more about trying to find ways where a community can reproduce to survive and ensure their future.

God gave to David plural wives NOT for his own pleasure, but because of the desires of a heart that God declared to be a heart after His own.

Jr

 

[tturt]

Couldnt disagree more. Already posted Scptures

 

[JackRT]

When a cultural philosophy, like patriarchy or homophobia or slavery, becomes dominant in a society it is unquestioned by the vast majority of people. The views are accepted as "that's just the way it is" or "this is the natural order of things" or even "this was ordained by God". To question the philosophy draws very negative attention, social pressures, persecution and even attention from religious or secular authorities. As such a society matures it sometimes is exposed to other points of view or even new knowledge that challenges the old ways of thinking. This leads to both personal and cultural cognitive dissonance. When this happens pressures build in society and a struggle ensues between the old dominant philosophy and the emerging understandings. We are just such a society. For the past 5,000 years or more patriarchy, slavery and homophobia have been the overwhelmingly dominant cultural philosophy. But that is being challenged. But it takes a very long time to change the understandings of a society --- centuries even. But once a cultural understanding is challenged, it will inevitably fail. Lord, give me patience.

 

[Norbert L]

Under-population? How does one gauge that in order to establish it as fact?
Jr

We know it took thousands of years to reach 1 billion population world wide and only 200 years to reach 7 billion. This is a fact. This 200 year dramatic change can also be used to in other important observable ways in the advancement of civilization. The industrial revolution, the end of slavery in the western world and to mention the major advancement in medicine.

Basically the world population changed, people no longer could discover underpopulated new lands to fill.

 

[SwordmanJr]

Basically the world population changed, people no longer could discover underpopulated new lands to fill.

Ah. I see. So the measure for determining at what point the world has reached its maximum capacity is the amount of undiscovered lands? So, in your estimation, what criteria establishes that method of measurement as the credible barometer for population limit? Elitists like the idea of population reduction because fewer people in the word are easier to control. I've heard talk of reducing world population down to one billion again. That can only happen by murdering billions, as you know. Do you suppose that would solve whatever problem some assume is lurking around the bend?

Jr

 

[tturt]

David was a man after God's own heart because he repented before Him PSA 51

Repentance isn't popular today but in Scripture nonetheless

 

[SwordmanJr]

Couldnt disagree more. Already posted Scptures

I assume you were addressing my post since you didn't address anyone specifically, and it immediately followed my post...

You are free to disagree and refuse to offer a rebuttal of the clear scriptures I mentioned. That doesn't mean you are right, but then, generally speaking, many people these days don't care that they are wrong about a biblical topic, but will cling to what they believe in spite of the facts.

As a firm believer in live and let live, I will rest upon the clear language of scripture, even when it disagrees with the many socially-based theologies that seem have gained a tremendous foothold in the thinking of many. I've demonstrated the fallacies in your interpretational style, and it seems to matter not at all. It is what it is.

Jr

 

[SwordmanJr]

...For the past 5,000 years or more patriarchy, slavery and homophobia have been the overwhelmingly dominant cultural philosophy. But that is being challenged. But it takes a very long time to change the understandings of a society --- centuries even. But once a cultural understanding is challenged, it will inevitably fail. Lord, give me patience.

Homophobia? Given your personal spin on things, you forgot to mention how you seem to have fallen headlong into the post-modern tendency for the chaos in word meaning. Labeling disagreement with the homosexual agenda as a form of phobia, and claiming it to be culturally based rather than something that the Giver of all moral absolutes commanded of all mankind...that oversight is striking. How is it a matter of an irrational fear to disagree with the claims made by the pro-homosexuals and their agenda?

Am I understanding your post correctly? What's wrong with Patriarchy? Do you dislike it because it defies feminism and egalitarianism? There's nothing new about them. Frankly, ignoring the God-given functions within families and in the Church panders very heavily to the liberal departure from the clear language of scripture. So, culture and society have nothing to do with the words of the One who never changes. Additionally, it's not a matter of hate to recognize that there's something very wrong with military special force units to be forced into lowering their physical requirements simply to let women into their ranks. There's nothing cultural about the fact that the problems with that philosophy are very real and apparent irrespective of culture and society.

What say you?

Jr

 

[Norbert L]

Ah. I see. So the measure for determining at what point the world has reached its maximum capacity is the amount of undiscovered lands? So, in your estimation, what criteria establishes that method of measurement as the credible barometer for population limit? Elitists like the idea of population reduction because fewer people in the word are easier to control. I've heard talk of reducing world population down to one billion again. That can only happen by murdering billions, as you know. Do you suppose that would solve whatever problem some assume is lurking around the bend?

Jr

This has nothing to do maximum capacity and population reduction. You're reading things into what I've written that are not there. This is about why people that lived thousands of years ago behaved in the manner that they did. It's pretty much like trying to figure out what's going on in a civilization that exists on another planet.

 

[SwordmanJr]

This has nothing to do maximum capacity and population reduction. You're reading things into what I've written that are not there. This is about why people that lived thousands of years ago behaved in the manner that they did. It's pretty much like trying to figure out what's going on in a civilization that exists on another planet.

Let's just call it conversational meandering.

 

[JackRT]

What say you?

Thank you for your opinion.

 

[SwordmanJr]

Thank you for your opinion.

Opinion? Really? Hmm. I've seen quite a number of people use that and another dirty bomb called "interpretation" as their dodge to avoid what scripture clearly condemns. If you believe the Bible supports it, then I'd like to see the reference(s).

Now, don't get me wrong. I understand why people avoid the clear language of scripture, especially when it contradicts their socially engineered theologies. I'm speaking expansively when saying that rather than a direct accusation. I assume you have reason to claim it's my opinion, which would indicate you have something more solid to base your contradiction to what I said is written in God's word.

Please. Elaborate.

Jr