Heresy of Polygamy Has Infiltrated the Netzarim!

[Dawid]

Shlama all,

I felt this was enough to put the fear of God into any man's soul! It literally took my breath away when I read it. It was like getting conked over the head. It has such a "prophetic tone" to it -

As the the only girl here (well most of the time) I'd like to clarify where I stand concerning this polygyny issue:

I as well do not throw out the Torah but the Torah is NOT above YHWH Himself. YHWH made only one woman for Adam, and Yeshua, who IS the creator, YHWH in the flesh hammers this point home when he answers the Preesha ("...when the CREATOR made them male and female..."). The Tanakh is clear that monogamy is YHWH's creation while polygany was man's idea! Also Shaul is absolutely clear that a wife has COMPLETE authority over her husband's body and vice versa, IOW:

My husband's body belongs to me and I decide what he can do with it! I say he is NOT to have sex with anyone but me until I'm dead, AND because Shaul state earlier that sex is a requirement in marriage, that means he can't take another wife. IF he goes against my wishes (and YHWH's btw) then he commits adultery and I therefore have grounds to divorce him, end of story!

And I felt that this was enough to put the fear of God into any human's soul - Who, seriously, can argue with Scripture properly exegeted? I once lingered on a thought that 'true exegesis is the martial art'. I can't read The Refiner's Fire material without getting the sense of a true exegete drawing out from Scripture -

There are other mechanisms I could bring to bear for the rest of what you said, but I want you focus on what I wrote here. I also wish you would read my article on the Refiners Fire because it is clear you are not seeing the Scripture. I say this again all respect and peace, but Torah commands that I lovingly rebuke error, and this is a big one.

I really do not like mutual admiration clubs.

[Amatsyah]

Dawid,

Andrew said:
There are other mechanisms I could bring to bear for the rest of what you said, but I want you focus on what I wrote here. I also wish you would read my article on the Refiners Fire because it is clear you are not seeing the Scripture. I say this again all respect and peace, but Torah commands that I lovingly rebuke error, and this is a big one.

I am part of no club -
that is, unless YHWH were to have one available to join?

"The hoary head is a crown of glory and is exalted in the way of righteousness."
~Prov. 16:31

- and again, with parenthetical gloss -

"The hoary head is a crown of glory and is exalted [when] in the way of righteousness."
~Prov. 16:31

I say again that I am part of no club -
that is, unless YHWH were to have one available to join?

You brother, bear the burden of proving Andrew wrong, but to do this, you're going to have to "find the time".


Respectfully,

Ryan

[Christina]

Anyone thought of taking the law of the land into consideration? In my country and the USA polygamy is ILLEGAL, Moshe K & Altaf are encouraging their followers to break the law of the land, and in direct disobedience to what Shaul said:

Romans 13:1-2 Every one should be subject to greater authorities, for there is no authority that is not from God and these who are authorities were ordained by God. Therefore, he who stands against an authority stands against an ordinance of God and those who stand against them will receive judgment.

[Dawid]

Dawid,

Andrew said:
There are other mechanisms I could bring to bear for the rest of what you said, but I want you focus on what I wrote here. I also wish you would read my article on the Refiners Fire because it is clear you are not seeing the Scripture. I say this again all respect and peace, but Torah commands that I lovingly rebuke error, and this is a big one.

I am part of no club -
that is, unless YHWH were to have one available to join?

"The hoary head is a crown of glory and is exalted in the way of righteousness."
~Prov. 16:31

- and again, with parenthetical gloss -

"The hoary head is a crown of glory and is exalted [when] in the way of righteousness."
~Prov. 16:31

I say again that I am part of no club -
that is, unless YHWH were to have one available to join?

You brother, bear the burden of proving Andrew wrong, but to do this, you're going to have to "find the time".


Respectfully,

Ryan

It was an expression. What I was saying is that it bothers me when someone quotes a post, not to add any new information, but just to ditto. The second post serves no purpose but to pat someone on the back. If you have something to add, add it. If you do not, let the post stand or fall on its own without your ditto. If it is a good post it does not need seconding. All dittoing serves to do is make the opponent feel ganged-up on.

No hate or disrespect to anybody here. I am attempting to respectfully disagree with Akhnu Andrew's opinion of the halacha regarding polygyny, unless we forget, "let no man (what?) because of your youth."

[Dawid]

P.S. to Amatsya, technically speaking, the burden of evidence is on Mr. Roth, since the plain reading of the Torah contradicts his opinion of polygyny, and since he is affirming the negative.

Anyone thought of taking the law of the land into consideration? In my country and the USA polygamy is ILLEGAL, Moshe K & Altaf are encouraging their followers to break the law of the land, and in direct disobedience to what Shaul said:

Romans 13:1-2 Every one should be subject to greater authorities, for there is no authority that is not from God and these who are authorities were ordained by God. Therefore, he who stands against an authority stands against an ordinance of God and those who stand against them will receive judgment.

Now, Christina, you might say that there is something of a loophole here. whether you agree with this interpretation of Romans 13:1-2 or not. (personally, I do not, but it doesn't matter.) The government can only make laws about "marriage" as defined by the government. As long as you do not have a "legal" marriage, you can marry as many people of whatever gender or species you so desire. It's just called a "common law" marriage. As long as you do not register as married with the government, they can't touch you.

[Andrew Gabriel Roth]

Shlama Akhi Dawid,

Actually since I have done the work on it, the burden is on you to read it. The fact that you haven't is not my fault. I have done my part.

Bottom line is this: If you have time to read all these posts and write yours, you have time to read my article on Refiner's Fire. If you don't read the article on Refiner's Fire, then you are not giving me the attention this topic deserves. It is not like the article is long. It is also a fact that you still have not really dealt with the linguistic issues I have raised or even a better interpretation of the Scripture as I have put it out.

So listen dear brother, as long as you agree with me that either partner has veto power to prevent plural marriage, a point which I thought you disputed before with Christina when she mentioned that same passage, we should leave the rest of this alone. I cannot keep going back and forth on this when the core of the problem in my view is that you have not looked at exactly how I parsed out when plural marriage was allowed and when it wasn't and why. Until you are ready to have that discussion, espeicially with respect to portions of Jeremiah and Malachi, I really don't have anything to add.

Better yet, you can wait a little longer for the longer discussion of the topic in Mari but it is essentially the same series of facts.

Please take the time to assess the evidence or we will have to move on. I say this with all respect and love to you.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth

[Christina]

Romans 13:1-2 Every one should be subject to greater authorities, for there is no authority that is not from God and these who are authorities were ordained by God. Therefore, he who stands against an authority stands against an ordinance of God and those who stand against them will receive judgment.

Now, Christina, you might say that there is something of a loophole here. whether you agree with this interpretation of Romans 13:1-2 or not. (personally, I do not, but it doesn't matter.) The government can only make laws about "marriage" as defined by the government. As long as you do not have a "legal" marriage, you can marry as many people of whatever gender or species you so desire. It's just called a "common law" marriage. As long as you do not register as married with the government, they can't touch you.

"Common law" marriage is NO marriage in the eyes of YHWH Dawid! It is fornication and adultery! Plenty of couples practice common law "marriage", plenty of couples practice open "marriage" YHWH calls this debauchery, it is a sin!!! Shaul says that to go against the higher authorities is to go against YHWH Himself! The government will not recognize your 2nd, 3rd, ect. wife and neither will YHWH - therefore polygamy is adultery, plain & simple. That was the situation in Yeshua's day and that is the situation today, and I agree with akhan Andrew, the least you can do is read his article on The Refiner's Fire here: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.therefinersfire.org/multiple_wives_myth.htm">http://www.therefinersfire.org/multiple_wives_myth.htm</a><!-- m --> before you challenge him any further on this.

[*Albion*]

Christina,

You CAN'T talk to this man. He seems to listen to Andrew (G.R.), but he thinks that he knows better than anybody else on the Forum.

Look at his stupidity of thinking that Christians worship A DIFFERENT ELOHIM than do "Nazarenes".

He's "a know it all" as we say in Arkansas. <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/poketoungeb.gif" alt="" title="Poke Tounge" /><!-- s -->

So why waste your breath?

Shlama, Albion

[Dawid]

Romans 13:1-2 Every one should be subject to greater authorities, for there is no authority that is not from God and these who are authorities were ordained by God. Therefore, he who stands against an authority stands against an ordinance of God and those who stand against them will receive judgment.

Now, Christina, you might say that there is something of a loophole here. whether you agree with this interpretation of Romans 13:1-2 or not. (personally, I do not, but it doesn't matter.) The government can only make laws about "marriage" as defined by the government. As long as you do not have a "legal" marriage, you can marry as many people of whatever gender or species you so desire. It's just called a "common law" marriage. As long as you do not register as married with the government, they can't touch you.

"Common law" marriage is NO marriage in the eyes of YHWH Dawid! It is fornication and adultery! Plenty of couples practice common law "marriage", plenty of couples practice open "marriage" YHWH calls this debauchery, it is a sin!!! Shaul says that to go against the higher authorities is to go against YHWH Himself! The government will not recognize your 2nd, 3rd, ect. wife and neither will YHWH - therefore polygamy is adultery, plain & simple. That was the situation in Yeshua's day and that is the situation today, and I agree with akhan Andrew, the least you can do is read his article on The Refiner's Fire here: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.therefinersfire.org/multiple_wives_myth.htm">http://www.therefinersfire.org/multiple_wives_myth.htm</a><!-- m --> before you challenge him any further on this.

Anything that is not an official government marriage is considered common law, no matter what kind of religious ceremony was performed. I have a number of friends who have one spouse, and a religious marriage, in a church or synagogue or whatever, but it is still considered "common law" because they don't have a liscence, whether or not they have a Ketuba the government doesn't care.
The government won't recognize it, but it is still not illegal. Maybe this is a loophole, like the forms of LSD that they're constantly changing the chemical formula, so it's always technically legal. But it's still a loophole that's there.

[Dawid]

Christina,

You CAN'T talk to this man. He seems to listen to Andrew (G.R.), but he thinks that he knows better than anybody else on the Forum.

Look at his stupidity of thinking that Christians worship A DIFFERENT ELOHIM than do "Nazarenes".

He's "a know it all" as we say in Arkansas. <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/poketoungeb.gif" alt="" title="Poke Tounge" /><!-- s -->

So why waste your breath?

Shlama, Albion

I really don't think so. For one thing, I never said that we serve different gods. That has never been my contention. I said we serve the same God, but different religions. I have told you this on multiple occasions.
I try very hard not to be a know it all, because I have a naturally rather arrogant disposition, and I don't think I am.
Please, akhi. Just listen to what I'm saying. My positions are carefully reasoned and constructed, but I will be the first to admit that they may all be as wrong as heck (as we say in Texas. <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: --> )

[Dawid]

Akhi Andrew, I will go as far as I have time right now in responding to your article. I don't know how far I'll get, and I may cut off suddenly when I have to go, but I'll do as much as I can.Your bottom line is irrelevant. The reasoning behind taking a second wife is not an issue. Only whether or not it is legal.I have previously addressed the "Adam and Eve only" argument. It is not an argument, rather an interesting anectdote with no halachic value.Your first scriptural argument is a faulty application, as I pointed out before. Matt. 19 is giving laws on divorce, not polygyny. It says if he leaves his wife and takes another. The implication here (which is a valid interpretation of the vav prefix) is "in order to" take another wife.Now, the "law of the land" argument is slightly more valid, but I have already pointed out that religious plural marriages are not illegal. It's only illegal if you try to get a government certificate of marriage. You don't have to have the marriage liscence for it to be a valid marriage in the eyes of God.It annoys me how you accuse them of being "false teachers" before you give your arguments against their theology. That sounds like "Fossilized Customs" and the like.Your first argument is invalidated from my point of view because I never said it was the original model. I simply said that it was permitted according to the Torah.Your second is also invalid. First, note the phrase, "hates divorce." So the reference here, as in Matthew, is to divorce. Second, note the phrase "daughter of a foreign god." This is forbidden in the Torah, and was carried out in Ezra. Malachi is clearly referring to the fact that many Jews had taken pagan wives, and then divorced them in the time of Ezra. These are the two mitzvot that are being referred to, not polygyny.
To break faith with the wife of one's youth, as clearly stated here, is to divorce her. "So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth. "I hate divorce," says YHWH, Elohim of Israel,"Now, I do agree with your statement that the wife has veto power. So in that case you're not likely to have many polygynous marriages, and I do not blame the woman in the slightest. Of course, I have to stand with Jim from Huckleberry Finn and question the sanity of any man who takes more than one wife. <!-- s:lol: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/laugh.gif" alt=":lol:" title="Laugh" /><!-- s:lol: --> (My questioning Christina on this point was merely because I was unfamiliar with the passage, and wanted to know where it was. Once you quoted it, I saw the validity of this position, and acquiesced.)the only problem with your next argument is that you assume that the unity is transitive. Nice thought, but I see nothing saying that it is so.In order to validate your position you have overlooked the phrase "divorces and," altering the application of this halacha from divorce laws to polygyny laws. We must be more careful in our reading of the halacha. This is a law regarding divorcing a woman, and then taking another. It says nothing about taking two at the same time.
The partner is only considered adulterous if he divorces his wife in order to take another (a sister or mother, for instance)I completely agree that the ideal picture is one man and one woman. That is ideal, and there ought to be no question about it. The question, though, is whetehr or not the other is permisseable.Another interesting anecdote without halachic authority is the story of Lamech. "The Doones are pledged to support Monmoth. Is that the sort of company you want to keep?" Okay, that's true...but it's also not really a halachic argument. We cannot necessarily derrive from that fact that polygyny is evil. We might then suggest that all bug-shaped cars are evil since it was Adolf Hitler's idea to make the VW bug shaped like a beetle.You state that the line of Seth was entirely monogamous. I'm afraid we're never told that. We're not given specific instances where polygyny was practice, but if it was practiced it wasn't important to the story, so the author didn't bother.Again, with the line of Noah, we don't know that they were monogamous. Only a few women are ever mentioned in the geneologies, and they were very special cases. People like Ruth and other great women. We don't know how many wives these men may have had. You are arguing from silence, which is a very poor argument indeed.Now, the Hagar argument is a logical fallacy. It's called the Post Hoc fallacy. You assume that the result is evil because the means were evil. The result was evil simply because the offspring was not of promise, and the promise was through Sarai. This does not necessarily tell us anything about polygyny.We don't know that the practice started with Lamech, we just know that he's the first one mentioned.Now, we know that Egypt was an early center of polygyny, but we don't know how early. You're making an assumption that Avraham learned it from the nations around him, not the other way 'round. Or that they didn't both come up with it independantly. You cannot prove this. You are assuming that polygyny is evil, therefore was practiced by evil nations, therefore Avraham learned it from them. All of these are stretches for which you provide no proof whatsoever.So you put God in a bind, trapped by man, didn't see it coming. I don't think that's the way it works. The great paradox is that God declared from the beginning the end, but we still have control. He already knew ahead of time what was going to happen. I don't think He was in a bind.So the Torah is not "Perfect" as the Psalmist put it. He was confused. Rather, as the Rabbinical Council of America put it, Moses did some legislating himself. What the heck?He didn't want to add to the mess...in other words he didn't have the guts that Ezra and Nehemiah did to tell them to dump their foreign wives or get out. I don't think this argument is going to hold water, akhi. It just doesn't fit the pattern. Prophets of Israel are not renouned for compromise. Those that did compromise their missions wound up between a rock and a hard place. Jonah comes to mind as the most obvious example.I'm going to skip the whole section on Moses having two wives, because I don't think that this is good halacha, either. Moses did it, so it's okay. Not necessarily true, as we see with the incident of striking the rock.The limiting of marriages of a king, and the disastrous results are clearly recorded. We know that it was limited because the king would worship foreign gods. That simple. This is not God making a concession to the "norm." Rather, the Torah confronts the norms head on quite often. God did not have a problem with telling them directly not to do any practice that the pagans did to serve their gods. I don't think He made concessions to the norms of society. Rather, as David HaMelech stated, "The Torah of YHWH is perfect."We also see the prophets (especially Jeremiah) saying that God has two wives, if you really want to get into the nitty gritty of it, since He was married to both Judah and Israel. Again, this is haggada, interesting anecdotes for spiritual growth and understanding. Not halacha.
Not only that, but Israel is compared to the woman, who cannot take a second partner, not the man, who may.Again, this is about the mitzva to not intermarry with the nations. It has nothing to do with mitzvot about polygyny. This is another misappropriation of a passage that is quite clear.Where does the Torah demand this model? Reccomends it? No question. I want to see a demand.You were allowed to put away your wives. Note that this is "tongue-in-cheek" since Moses never allowed such a thing. He is referring to the Mishnah Torah, the so-called "Torah SheBa'al Peh" not the Torah of Moshe, which permits divorce only when you go into your wife and find there "an unclean thing," a clear referrence to an indication of adultery (more specifically, fornication, since an adulterer/ess would be executed).I think that this reference from I Corinthians clearly indicates that monogamy is vastly preferable, but it is not specifically speaking to the issue of polygyny, but rather that of lust, and so is not a hard halachic ruling on the issue.To one husband...okay. Naturally. There is no provision for a woman being allowed to have more than one husband. This proves nothing on the issue of polygyny.I Timothy also shows that it is preferable, just as a king not being allowed to multiply wives shows that it is prefereable to have only one wife. That does not show that it is not permisseable.So, again, you're stating that the Psalmist was wrong, and the Torah was not perfect. Not so. There was no discrimination against women in the Torah. There are clearly different roles, but they were considered different, but equal. (which is why I am of the opinion that you may have a minyan of either men or women, and that of women is equally as valid as that of men, but you may not have a mixture. Separate but equal, as the saying goes.)
The Torah is immutable, akhi, as it is written, "this is a statute forever for you" (Num. 15:15, for instance, though it appears many times). The point of this statement is not that all are congruent within the covenant (which would rather contradict the covenant) but that all are equal, and not to be looked down on because of their station. It is not that they are unequal, but rather that they are incongruent.The rest of your article is brilliant in pointing out the superiority of monogamy over polygamy.Please understand I have a great deal of respect for you and your work, akhi. I simply think that monogamy is something that has been ingrained in our culture to the point that it is very hard for people to realize that three thousand years ago it was not forbidden by the Eternal Torah of God. And when people do realize that it is permisseable they tend to go Mormon and think that it's prefferable. That makes me want to go <!-- stupid: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/withstupid.gif" alt="tupid:" title="Stupid" /><!-- stupid: --> (I've always wanted to use that emoticon, but I don't like calling ppl stupid, so I had to take the opportunity. lol.) Anywho, I think both positions are clearly contrary to what is plainly written in the Torah. We must pursue the rationalist course that it is permisseable and not preferrable. We must do away with our emotional bias against an unfair institution and pursue the objective reality that it is allowed, though with specific safe guards, and that the woman cannot be forced into it, which pretty much levels the playing field.Shabbat shalom,
David

[Andrew Gabriel Roth]

Akhi Andrew, I will go as far as I have time right now in responding to your article. I don't know how far I'll get, and I may cut off suddenly when I have to go, but I'll do as much as I can.

Shlama Akhi Dawid. First of all let me say that you make it hard to communicate with the super long mega paragraph and I wish you would go point for point in discussion as I do.


Your bottom line is irrelevant. The reasoning behind taking a second wife is not an issue. Only whether or not it is legal.I have previously addressed the "Adam and Eve only" argument. It is not an argument, rather an interesting anectdote with no halachic value.

Irrelevant based on what? What Scripture do you use to counter mine? If you can't do that, then you are just offering your opinion. Lamech was the first man to have two wives and he was a serial killer. That is a fact. Adam and Eve were monogoamous, and that is also a fact. I hardly think that is irrelevant, especially when the most basic tool of biblical interpretation is the rule of first mention.


Your first scriptural argument is a faulty application, as I pointed out before. Matt. 19 is giving laws on divorce, not polygyny. It says if he leaves his wife and takes another. The implication here (which is a valid interpretation of the vav prefix) is "in order to" take another wife.Now, the "law of the land" argument is slightly more valid, but I have already pointed out that religious plural marriages are not illegal. It's only illegal if you try to get a government certificate of marriage.

It says if he leaves a wife EXCEPT for adultery and takes another, it is adultery. Bringing in a second wife is leaving the first. And in this halacha, Y'shua is specifically talking about Adam and Eve who were MONOGAMOUS, ONE man leaving his mother and ONE WOMAN leaving her home. Therefore, your argument is the faulty one.


You don't have to have the marriage liscence for it to be a valid marriage in the eyes of God.It annoys me how you accuse them of being "false teachers" before you give your arguments against their theology. That sounds like "Fossilized Customs" and the like.Your first argument is invalidated from my point of view because I never said it was the original model. I simply said that it was permitted according to the Torah.

Operative word being "WAS permitted". It is not permitted NOW, and this I have shown quite clearly.


Your second is also invalid. First, note the phrase, "hates divorce." So the reference here, as in Matthew, is to divorce. Second, note the phrase "daughter of a foreign god." This is forbidden in the Torah, and was carried out in Ezra. Malachi is clearly referring to the fact that many Jews had taken pagan wives, and then divorced them in the time of Ezra. These are the two mitzvot that are being referred to, not polygyny.


Dawid you are very stubborn man. That's not always a bad thing but you just refuse to take into account my argument. It's like you don't even understand what I am saying--I suspect you are young in years, which is in no way intended as a slight on your dedication or learning, for it is impressive. But your methods of argumentation are another matter. Leaving that consideration aside, my point was, and has been, that the faithfulness model drawn by Malachi makes no sense in anything other than a monogamous template. There is only ONE YHWH and Malachi says Israel broke faith with ONE YHWH by following ANOTHER.


To break faith with the wife of one's youth, as clearly stated here, is to divorce her. "So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth. "I hate divorce," says YHWH, Elohim of Israel,"Now, I do agree with your statement that the wife has veto power. So in that case you're not likely to have many polygynous marriages, and I do not blame the woman in the slightest.

Then you should be the first person to stand with me and repudiate the perversion of Moshe K, not argue with me about intricacies like this. Do you have any idea how many lives have been shattered beyond recognition because of this teaching and I mean RECENTLY? You haven't talked to the brokenhearted women who WANTED to veto the polygyny and who, because of what Moshe K said, had their husbands cheat before their very eyes, ruin their homes and make them suicidal. I have. You have not read the tear-stained emails and pleas for help but I have. A MAN Dawid stands up for those weaker than himself.


Of course, I have to stand with Jim from Huckleberry Finn and question the sanity of any man who takes more than one wife. (My questioning Christina on this point was merely because I was unfamiliar with the passage, and wanted to know where it was. Once you quoted it, I saw the validity of this position, and acquiesced.)

So you see that, but you don't understand the use of KHAD???


the only problem with your next argument is that you assume that the unity is transitive. Nice thought, but I see nothing saying that it is so.In order to validate your position you have overlooked the phrase "divorces and," altering the application of this halacha from divorce laws to polygyny laws. We must be more careful in our reading of the halacha. This is a law regarding divorcing a woman, and then taking another. It says nothing about taking two at the same time.

Scripture please? If you don't understand though the definition of MARRAIGE, then the halacha on what DIVORCE is will also not make sense to you. And there are passages of Scripture in my article that specifically go AGAINST taking two wives at one time which I have given repeatedly. If you say no, then the burden is on YOU to prove where the Scripture doesn't say that. What is frustrating is that you don't quote sources and that is a problem.

The partner is only considered adulterous if he divorces his wife in order to take another (a sister or mother, for instance)I completely agree that the ideal picture is one man and one woman. That is ideal, and there ought to be no question about it.

That's a start.


The question, though, is whetehr or not the other is permisseable.Another interesting anecdote without halachic authority is the story of Lamech. "The Doones are pledged to support Monmoth. Is that the sort of company you want to keep?" Okay, that's true...but it's also not really a halachic argument.

Sure it is. Y'shua said "it was not that way in the beginning" and so it was NOT. Lamech kills two people and is the first person to have two wives. It is perfectly fine halacha. We are permitted to draw from examples of character, good and bad.


We cannot necessarily derrive from that fact that polygyny is evil. We might then suggest that all bug-shaped cars are evil since it was Adolf Hitler's idea to make the VW bug shaped like a beetle.You state that the line of Seth was entirely monogamous. I'm afraid we're never told that.

I'm afraid we are told that because when Scripture deals with someone with multiple spouses it always says so. In other cases, it lists one wife or is silent. Really Dawid, are you going to sit there and speculate that Seth MUST have had two wives or more just because it doesn't say he had only one? That is your choice, but it is an inconsistent one. You dance with me on the head of a pin with extreme rigidity in one area and then you speculate wildly here.

We're not given specific instances where polygyny was practice, but if it was practiced it wasn't important to the story, so the author didn't bother.Again, with the line of Noah, we don't know that they were monogamous.

Again, we are told Noah had one wife, and you are just determined to gloss over this fact. When Abraham went into Hagar it was mentioned. When Jacob married Rachel and Leah it was mentioned. And with Lamech it was mentioned too. If you acknowledge that monogamy is the IDEAL, then you should also allow for it as the DEFAULT, that if they don't say otherwise or if they say "his wife" that it is just one wife. I don't think that is speculative at all. Rather that is DRASHING, looking and comparing the parameters of the incdients in the Holy Writ.


Only a few women are ever mentioned in the geneologies, and they were very special cases. People like Ruth and other great women. We don't know how many wives these men may have had. You are arguing from silence, which is a very poor argument indeed.

No, no, no. I am arguing from the pattern of THE RECORD.


Now, the Hagar argument is a logical fallacy. It's called the Post Hoc fallacy. You assume that the result is evil because the means were evil. The result was evil simply because the offspring was not of promise, and the promise was through Sarai. This does not necessarily tell us anything about polygyny.We don't know that the practice started with Lamech, we just know that he's the first one mentioned.

See you are doing it again. You are telling me WE DON'T KNOW, but the scriptural evidence mentions Lamech first. Again you are willing to speculate when it serves you but allow not one scintilla of flexibility on the other side. That is NOT equal weights and measures. What other conclusion can you draw when you know it was just Adam with Eve but Lamech has two wives listed by name even as Eve was listed by name? Dawid, I don't think you are treating me or this topic correctly, and I will withdraw from this thread because of the way you are discussing this.

Now, we know that Egypt was an early center of polygyny, but we don't know how early. You're making an assumption that Avraham learned it from the nations around him, not the other way 'round. Or that they didn't both come up with it independantly. You cannot prove this.

I think I can. The archaeologoical record is quite clear, as are the Egyptian, Babylonian and Sumerian cutlural mores. You don't know what you are talking about, so I suggest you stop. Abraham was from Ur of the Chaldees or Hebron, and both places were polygamist centers centuries before his day. Dawid, do the work or withdraw. Look at the tomb walls of the Old Kingdom and read the inscriptions. Not only did the ancient Egyptians take many wives from time immemorial they did so incestuously.


You are assuming that polygyny is evil, therefore was practiced by evil nations, therefore Avraham learned it from them. All of these are stretches for which you provide no proof whatsoever.

I am following the standard of marital fidelity given in Scripture as well as explaining how and why that got off track and how it got back on track. And in the NT BTW you could not be more wrong.

So you put God in a bind, trapped by man, didn't see it coming. I don't think that's the way it works. The great paradox is that God declared from the beginning the end, but we still have control. He already knew ahead of time what was going to happen. I don't think He was in a bind.So the Torah is not "Perfect" as the Psalmist put it. He was confused.

I have not put YHWH in a bind at all. I have explained the situations that arose from man's limitations. To suggest I put that on YHWH is to prove you still don't understand what I am talking about.


Rather, as the Rabbinical Council of America put it, Moses did some legislating himself. What the heck?He didn't want to add to the mess...in other words he didn't have the guts that Ezra and Nehemiah did to tell them to dump their foreign wives or get out. I don't think this argument is going to hold water, akhi. It just doesn't fit the pattern. Prophets of Israel are not renouned for compromise. Those that did compromise their missions wound up between a rock and a hard place.

Non-sequitur. I have shown the total pattern and it fits just fine. The problem you have is you don't see the nuances and the thread has wound through history. Again, Abel brought the fat of the sacrific and Moshe the blood. I have said that over and over and you refuse to get it.


Jonah comes to mind as the most obvious example.I'm going to skip the whole section on Moses having two wives, because I don't think that this is good halacha, either. Moses did it, so it's okay. Not necessarily true, as we see with the incident of striking the rock.

Again, based on what? Your opinion right? No Scripture given. No historical sources or even bible dictionary cited. You are not doing the work. You are just trying, on your own power alone, trying to show how "smart" you are.


The limiting of marriages of a king, and the disastrous results are clearly recorded. We know that it was limited because the king would worship foreign gods. That simple. This is not God making a concession to the "norm." Rather, the Torah confronts the norms head on quite often. God did not have a problem with telling them directly not to do any practice that the pagans did to serve their gods. I don't think He made concessions to the norms of society.

Again, I think I explain this totally. You just don't see it. And again, no Scritprue, no historical citation, just opinion. That's not how I do things.


Rather, as David HaMelech stated, "The Torah of YHWH is perfect."We also see the prophets (especially Jeremiah) saying that God has two wives, if you really want to get into the nitty gritty of it, since He was married to both Judah and Israel. Again, this is haggada, interesting anecdotes for spiritual growth and understanding. Not halacha.

Of course the Torah is perfect. But your understanding of it is not...

Not only that, but Israel is compared to the woman, who cannot take a second partner, not the man, who may.Again, this is about the mitzva to not intermarry with the nations. It has nothing to do with mitzvot about polygyny. This is another misappropriation of a passage that is quite clear.Where does the Torah demand this model? Reccomends it? No question. I want to see a demand.

Therefore a man shall leave his mother and a woman leave her home and they shall be ONE FLESH. There is your demand. Also 1 Corinthians, which quite honestly you have not dealt with at all. You didn't even see the veto thing until pointed out to you a second time, so right now you are not doing well.


You were allowed to put away your wives. Note that this is "tongue-in-cheek" since Moses never allowed such a thing. He is referring to the Mishnah Torah, the so-called "Torah SheBa'al Peh" not the Torah of Moshe, which permits divorce only when you go into your wife and find there "an unclean thing," a clear referrence to an indication of adultery (more specifically, fornication, since an adulterer/ess would be executed).

Don't let the fact that the Mishnah was compiled 200 years after Y'shua's time sway you. And besides which what was ORAL law back then was CONDEMNED by Y'shua directly. As I mentioned before, The Sermon on the Mount 6 times goes, "you have heard that it was SAID_________, but I SAY to you________. No, that doesn't mean all the oral rulings were bad in Y'shua's eyes (Matti 23:1) but only if they were BASED on Torah like Deut. 24:1. Otherwise they are "traditions of men" (Matthew 15). If I were you Dawid, I would instead focus on exactly what Y'shua said, his defintions and halacha from Tanakh. To my mind, you are not doing that.


I think that this reference from I Corinthians clearly indicates that monogamy is vastly preferable, but it is not specifically speaking to the issue of polygyny, but rather that of lust, and so is not a hard halachic ruling on the issue.To one husband...okay. Naturally. There is no provision for a woman being allowed to have more than one husband. This proves nothing on the issue of polygyny.I Timothy also shows that it is preferable, just as a king not being allowed to multiply wives shows that it is prefereable to have only one wife. That does not show that it is not permisseable.

KHAD, KHAD, KHAD, KHAD, KHAD. Look Dawid, show me ONE EXAMPLE of "righteous" plural marriage in the later prophets or the NT. Go on, find it. You asked me for a demand and I gave it. Now I ask you for one. Show me a righteous polygamist from the NT. In addition to the Aramaic grammar which clearly show exclusive sexual access along with the "veto power" that I have proven to you. You THINK this is what 1 Cor means, but where is your PROOF? Where is your GRAMMAR? Lest we forget:

Don't you know that your bodies are the members of the Mashiyach? Will one take a member of the Mashiyach, and make it the member of a harlot? May it never be! Or don't you know, that whoever joins himself to a harlot, is one body (with her)? For it is said, the two will be one body. But he that joins himself to our Master (Y'shua), is with him one spirit. Flee from sexual sin. (1 Corinthians 6:15-18)

And concerning the things of which you wrote to me, it is praiseworthy for a man not to approach a woman. But, on account of sexual temptation, let each have his own wife and let a woman have her own husband. (1 Corinthians 7:1-2)

HER OWN. HIS OWN. There is no sub-contracting out for carnality. And again:

I would that you could bear with me a little, that I might talk foolishly: and indeed, bear with me. For I am jealous over you, with a righteous jealousy for I have espoused you to a husband as a chaste virgin whom I would present to the Mashiyach. (2 Corinthians 11:2)

And besides which, if it is "preferable" that a leader have one wife, doesn't that also make it MORALLY SUPERIOR that he does so??? Think about it. The man who has MORE WIVES is not held to the same high standard, the same "well done--you are good" kind of pass.


So, again, you're stating that the Psalmist was wrong, and the Torah was not perfect. Not so.

No, I am not. I am saying that the complexities of the history and how YHWH dealt with man are beyond your understanding at present. I agree with the Psalmist that the Torah is perfect, and you quite honestly should know that. I also agree with the Psalmist here (and everywhere):

Blessed are all who fear YHWH, who walk in His ways. You will eat the fruit of your labor; blessings and prosperity will be yours. Your wife (SINGULAR) will be like a fruitful vine within your house; your sons will be like olive shoots around your table. Thus is the man blessed who fears YHWH. May YHWH bless you from Zion all the days of your life; may you see the prosperity of Jerusalem, and may you live to see your children's children. (Psalm 128:1-6)

There was no discrimination against women in the Torah. There are clearly different roles, but they were considered different, but equal. (which is why I am of the opinion that you may have a minyan of either men or women, and that of women is equally as valid as that of men, but you may not have a mixture. Separate but equal, as the saying goes.)

I agree. There is no discrimination against women as the Torah stands and as it was originally intended. As I said, Y'shua said, "it was NOT that way in the beginning." There is progressive revelation in Scripture but that doesn't mean the Scripture changed. YHWH says that if you go one way, one result happens, but if you choose another, then something else. That is what happened. But I wouldn't go quoting Plessy v. Ferguson if I were you. I've always been a Brown vs the Board of Education kind of guy, and if you don't get the reference, you should look that up.

The Torah is immutable, akhi, as it is written, "this is a statute forever for you" (Num. 15:15, for instance, though it appears many times). The point of this statement is not that all are congruent within the covenant (which would rather contradict the covenant) but that all are equal, and not to be looked down on because of their station. It is not that they are unequal, but rather that they are incongruent.

Fine, you show me where polygyny is given as an eternal statute like the moedim and I will change my opinion. I don't know what to say other than what I have already.


The rest of your article is brilliant in pointing out the superiority of monogamy over polygamy.Please understand I have a great deal of respect for you and your work, akhi. I simply think that monogamy is something that has been ingrained in our culture to the point that it is very hard for people to realize that three thousand years ago it was not forbidden by the Eternal Torah of God.

But again, you don't see, I KNOW it was not forbidden 3000 years ago. That is not the point. The point is the SCRIPTURE says it was a TEMPORARY CONCESSION that was SUPERSEDED later. Torah can encompass the preiesthood going from Melchisedec to the sons of Aaron and back again. Torah can accomodate what we did at altars in Haran, in the wilderness, in the Temple and later in the synagogue. If a child changes in appearance, in height, weigh, facial hair, etc, is he not the same person YHWH made? Did the requirements for sacrifice change when the Temple was gone? NO. Did the WAY we sacrifice change? YES. That is what you are not seeing. Whenever you come across something that doesn't immediately fit the easiest interpretation for you, what you do is go back to absolute statements on Torah immutability as if to suggest that I don't agree with that.


And when people do realize that it is permisseable they tend to go Mormon and think that it's prefferable. That makes me want to go (I've always wanted to use that emoticon, but I don't like calling ppl stupid, so I had to take the opportunity. lol.)

Well the Mormons will tell you probably that 95% of them outlawed the practice 100 years ago, but I get your point. This is a slippery slope though that you are on. You may use the "freedom" you suggest wisely, but from there it leads to death and broken hearts. Light cannot have fellowship with darkness, and I will stand halachically against this idea BECAUSE of the Scripture I have given, not in spite of it or in absence of it.


Anywho, I think both positions are clearly contrary to what is plainly written in the Torah. We must pursue the rationalist course that it is permisseable and not preferrable. We must do away with our emotional bias against an unfair institution and pursue the objective reality that it is allowed, though with specific safe guards, and that the woman cannot be forced into it, which pretty much levels the playing field.Shabbat shalom,
David

Yes but again, that wasn't YOUR position up until recently because you didn't read the Scripture and I would submit that now you still have not read it. I think I have done all I can here. I appreciate that you respect me and that you are zealous for your point of view, but I take exception with your methods and your presentation. Look at all the work I had to do just to break this mega-paragraph of yours up into a cogent form. I need more citation and less pure opinion from you my brother. As I have said, you are on a good path and have many admirable qualities, but you have not engaged me to the standard that I have for such. I should NOT have had to chide you so much to just read the article. You were very remiss in looking at this and very late and inadequate in the way you have responded to these issues.

And finally, if you don't see the exlcusivity of sexual access between man and wife in the grammar of the Aramaic NT, I can't help you at all.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth

[Dawid]

Shlama Akhi Dawid. First of all let me say that you make it hard to communicate with the super long mega paragraph and I wish you would go point for point in discussion as I do.

I know, but I'm on a friend's computor, never sure when I'll have to go, and without any of my normal resources, and with only a Hebrew version of Word. lol. It makes this whole deal a little difficult. I can't save anything and come back. I can't take the time to be as detailed or organized as I would like, and I don't have any of my normal resources here so I can look things up.

Irrelevant based on what? What Scripture do you use to counter mine? If you can't do that, then you are just offering your opinion. Lamech was the first man to have two wives and he was a serial killer. That is a fact. Adam and Eve were monogoamous, and that is also a fact. I hardly think that is irrelevant, especially when the most basic tool of biblical interpretation is the rule of first mention.

Dude, you didn't use any Scripture. You just stated that the bottom line was that it was based on their sexual desires, and that's really not the point.
I think that the rule of first mention is hardly a rule. It is sometimes helpful, but look at the first use of the word "Reshit." It is not helpful at all in telling us what it means, and it is a somewhat unique useage, at least in the Torah.

It says if he leaves a wife EXCEPT for adultery and takes another, it is adultery. Bringing in a second wife is leaving the first. And in this halacha, Y'shua is specifically talking about Adam and Eve who were MONOGAMOUS, ONE man leaving his mother and ONE WOMAN leaving her home. Therefore, your argument is the faulty one.

He specifically talks about them becoming one flesh. My argument isn't faulty. It talks about A man and A woman. It does not say "one woman" or "one man."

Operative word being "WAS permitted". It is not permitted NOW, and this I have shown quite clearly.

Poor choice of words on my part.

Dawid you are very stubborn man. That's not always a bad thing but you just refuse to take into account my argument. It's like you don't even understand what I am saying--I suspect you are young in years, which is in no way intended as a slight on your dedication or learning, for it is impressive. But your methods of argumentation are another matter. Leaving that consideration aside, my point was, and has been, that the faithfulness model drawn by Malachi makes no sense in anything other than a monogamous template. There is only ONE YHWH and Malachi says Israel broke faith with ONE YHWH by following ANOTHER.

No, I don't refuse to take it into account. I've already admitted that you and Christina were correct on saying that the woman has veto power, and I was wrong. lol. Let me say that again so it'll sink in. I was wrong.
The only problem with this is that you are not talking about polygyny here. You're talking about a woman leaving a husband to go after another. That has never been allowed. The question is about polygyny, not all forms of polygamy. Israel is described as the wife, and YHWH as the husband, not the other way 'round.
Oh, and I don't usually put my age out on the 'net, just 'cause I don't know who might be browsing around and see my info, but I am rather young relative to the other members of this forum. If you want to know my age, PM me. I don't have a problem with telling you.

Then you should be the first person to stand with me and repudiate the perversion of Moshe K, not argue with me about intricacies like this. Do you have any idea how many lives have been shattered beyond recognition because of this teaching and I mean RECENTLY? You haven't talked to the brokenhearted women who WANTED to veto the polygyny and who, because of what Moshe K said, had their husbands cheat before their very eyes, ruin their homes and make them suicidal. I have. You have not read the tear-stained emails and pleas for help but I have. A MAN Dawid stands up for those weaker than himself.

A man stands up for the person who cannot stand up for themselves. I think I do that pretty constantly on this website and I take a lot of crap for it.
I do not approve of what Moshe K does. I simply pursue the most accurate interpretation of Scripture that I know how, admitting that I may be wrong in the end.
But the above is an emotional argument, with a hint of an ad hominem. I still maintain the detatched, rational opinion that polygyny is permisseable.

So you see that, but you don't understand the use of KHAD???

Isn't that the fallacy of division?

Scripture please? If you don't understand though the definition of MARRAIGE, then the halacha on what DIVORCE is will also not make sense to you. And there are passages of Scripture in my article that specifically go AGAINST taking two wives at one time which I have given repeatedly. If you say no, then the burden is on YOU to prove where the Scripture doesn't say that. What is frustrating is that you don't quote sources and that is a problem.

I don't see where it was necessary to quote a Scripture there. I simply said that I don't see anywhere that says that this unity is transitive, and then pointed out that Matthew is clearly referring to divorce, as it says, "divorces and."
I don't have any Scriptural resources with me. I'm pretty much fighting with one hand tied behind my back here. It is seriously crippling my style. I don't like it any more than you do.

Sure it is. Y'shua said "it was not that way in the beginning" and so it was NOT. Lamech kills two people and is the first person to have two wives. It is perfectly fine halacha. We are permitted to draw from examples of character, good and bad.

Again, in that case he was referring to divorce laws.
Correction: he is the first person mentioned to have two wives. It is perfectly good haggada, but not halacha.

I'm afraid we are told that because when Scripture deals with someone with multiple spouses it always says so. In other cases, it lists one wife or is silent. Really Dawid, are you going to sit there and speculate that Seth MUST have had two wives or more just because it doesn't say he had only one? That is your choice, but it is an inconsistent one. You dance with me on the head of a pin with extreme rigidity in one area and then you speculate wildly here.

No, in some cases we are told that some ppl had multiple spouses. Maybe it tells us every time. Maybe it doesn't. We don't know either way.
No, I did not say that someone before Lamech MUST have had multiple wives. I simply stated that we do not know one way or the other. We are not told. We have no way of knowing who did and did not except in cases that are specifically mentioned as being polygamous or monogamous.
I am not speculating on anything. I am refusing to speculate, in fact. I simply said that it says X and does not say Y. Therefore we know X and we cannot know Y.

Again, we are told Noah had one wife, and you are just determined to gloss over this fact. When Abraham went into Hagar it was mentioned. When Jacob married Rachel and Leah it was mentioned. And with Lamech it was mentioned too. If you acknowledge that monogamy is the IDEAL, then you should also allow for it as the DEFAULT, that if they don't say otherwise or if they say "his wife" that it is just one wife. I don't think that is speculative at all. Rather that is DRASHING, looking and comparing the parameters of the incdients in the Holy Writ.

I am not glossing over it at all. Rather, it strengthens my point. Some cases of polygamy are mentioned, and some cases of monogamy are mentioned. The vast majority of cases are left unmentioned because they were not important to the story.
Of course it is the default, but that does not mean that it is true in every unmentioned case.
It is still rather a stretch. Some drashim are carefully constructed, others are quite open to speculation.

See you are doing it again. You are telling me WE DON'T KNOW, but the scriptural evidence mentions Lamech first. Again you are willing to speculate when it serves you but allow not one scintilla of flexibility on the other side. That is NOT equal weights and measures. What other conclusion can you draw when you know it was just Adam with Eve but Lamech has two wives listed by name even as Eve was listed by name? Dawid, I don't think you are treating me or this topic correctly, and I will withdraw from this thread because of the way you are discussing this.

You are correct. It MENTIONS him first. It does not state that he was the first.
I have not speculated on anything. I have simply pointed out the division between what we know and what we do not know.
No offsense, akhi, but I've heard a lot of people talk about withdrawing from threads, and I've said it myself, but most of us are too opinionated to actually do it. lol.

I think I can. The archaeologoical record is quite clear, as are the Egyptian, Babylonian and Sumerian cutlural mores. You don't know what you are talking about, so I suggest you stop. Abraham was from Ur of the Chaldees or Hebron, and both places were polygamist centers centuries before his day. Dawid, do the work or withdraw. Look at the tomb walls of the Old Kingdom and read the inscriptions. Not only did the ancient Egyptians take many wives from time immemorial they did so incestuously.

You are correct that I am unqualified to speak to this issue, but it still does not necessarily prove anything.

I am following the standard of marital fidelity given in Scripture as well as explaining how and why that got off track and how it got back on track. And in the NT BTW you could not be more wrong.

Naturally, that is how you see it, because we all have the beginning assumption that we are right, but I still say that this standard offidelity has not be adequately proven.

I have not put YHWH in a bind at all. I have explained the situations that arose from man's limitations. To suggest I put that on YHWH is to prove you still don't understand what I am talking about.

Then please do me the favor of explaining what you did mean.

Non-sequitur. I have shown the total pattern and it fits just fine. The problem you have is you don't see the nuances and the thread has wound through history. Again, Abel brought the fat of the sacrific and Moshe the blood. I have said that over and over and you refuse to get it.

Only a non-sequitur if, as is entirely possible, I have misunderstood what your point was. Please do explain.

Again, based on what? Your opinion right? No Scripture given. No historical sources or even bible dictionary cited. You are not doing the work. You are just trying, on your own power alone, trying to show how "smart" you are.

Based on standard halachic principles (you know the seven laws of Peshat interpretation.) I was actually siding with you on this one, if you'll read what I said instead of assuming you know what I'm going to say. I said that taking an example from what Moshe did or did not do is not viable halacha. So if he married two women, so what? Moshe wasn't perfect, so it doesn't prove that it is okay to be polygynous.

Again, I think I explain this totally. You just don't see it. And again, no Scritprue, no historical citation, just opinion. That's not how I do things.

I could cite midrashim and historical accounts and TN"K if I was at my house with all my resources. I trusted that you knew the Midrashim about Shlomo, and the laws regarding kings taking multiple wives. You know these accounts as I do. I should not need to cite them.

Of course the Torah is perfect. But your understanding of it is not...

Of course it isn't. Neither is yours.

Therefore a man shall leave his mother and a woman leave her home and they shall be ONE FLESH. There is your demand. Also 1 Corinthians, which quite honestly you have not dealt with at all. You didn't even see the veto thing until pointed out to you a second time, so right now you are not doing well.

That proves nothing. One flesh is used as halacha regarding divorce, but it does not refer at all to our present topic.

[quoe="AGR"]Don't let the fact that the Mishnah was compiled 200 years after Y'shua's time sway you. And besides which what was ORAL law back then was CONDEMNED by Y'shua directly. As I mentioned before, The Sermon on the Mount 6 times goes, "you have heard that it was SAID_________, but I SAY to you________. No, that doesn't mean all the oral rulings were bad in Y'shua's eyes (Matti 23:1) but only if they were BASED on Torah like Deut. 24:1. Otherwise they are "traditions of men" (Matthew 15). If I were you Dawid, I would instead focus on exactly what Y'shua said, his defintions and halacha from Tanakh. To my mind, you are not doing that.[/quote] No, my point was that he was roasting the Mishnah, mocking it saying "Moses allowed this *instert eye-rolling*" in other words, Moshe never actualy said this. You made it up on your own "because of the hardness of your hearts." I am not a fan of Torah SheBa'al Peh. Quite the opposite.
And when I say "Mishnah Torah" you know what that means. The Second Torah, which is a term used to refer to the entire body of rabbinic legislation.
I have to run now, but somebody please remind me to reply to the rest of this later.

[Christina]

Then you should be the first person to stand with me and repudiate the perversion of Moshe K, not argue with me about intricacies like this. Do you have any idea how many lives have been shattered beyond recognition because of this teaching and I mean RECENTLY? You haven't talked to the brokenhearted women who WANTED to veto the polygyny and who, because of what Moshe K said, had their husbands cheat before their very eyes, ruin their homes and make them suicidal. I have. You have not read the tear-stained emails and pleas for help but I have. A MAN Dawid stands up for those weaker than himself.

A man stands up for the person who cannot stand up for themselves. I think I do that pretty constantly on this website and I take a lot of crap for it.
I do not approve of what Moshe K does. I simply pursue the most accurate interpretation of Scripture that I know how, admitting that I may be wrong in the end.
But the above is an emotional argument, with a hint of an ad hominem. I still maintain the detatched, rational opinion that polygyny is permisseable.

Let's go back to the beginning shall we:

Matthew 19:4-5 4 Now he answered and said to them, "Have you not read that he who made [them] from the beginning made them male and female?" 5 And he said, "Because of this, A MAN SHOULD LEAVE HIS FATHER AND HIS MOTHER AND SHOULD CLEAVE TO HIS WIFE AND THE TWO OF THEM WILL BECOME ONE FLESH.

Mark 10:6-8 6 but from the beginning GOD MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE. 7 Because of this, A MAN WILL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND HIS MOTHER AND JOIN TO HIS WIFE 8 AND THE TWO OF THEM WILL BECOME ONE FLESH. So then, they are not two, but one flesh.

This is what Y'shua uses to base HIS halakha on marriage!

Genesis 2:23-24 23 Then the man said, "This one at last Is bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh. This one shall be called Woman, For from man was she taken." 24 Hence a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, so that they become one flesh.

The only halakha that matters is Y'shua's because HIS interpretation of the Torah is the ONLY ONE we KNOW we can trust. I trust Y'shua ONLY, not Rambam, Hillel, Shamai or Rashi. Now does Rav Shaul agree with Meshiakh? Yes, look at this:

Ephesians 5:25-31 25 Men, love your wives alas also Messiah loved his assembly and delivered himself up for it, 26 to make it holy and to cleanse it by the washing of water and by the word 27 and to establish the assembly for himself, being glorious and having no spot and no wrinkle and nothing like these, but rather to be holy [and] without blemish. 28 So it is right for men to love their wives as their [own] bodies, for he who loves his wife loves himself, 29 for no one ever hates his body, but nourishes it and cares for his own [body]. [It is] even as Messiah [nourishes and cares] for his assembly, 30 because we are members of his body, and we are of his flesh and of his bones. 31 Because of this, A MAN SHOULD LEAVE HIS FATHER AND HIS MOTHER AND SHOULD BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE AND THE TWO OF THEM SHOULD BECOME ONE FLESH.

This is impossible with polygyny!!! A man CANNOT love more than one woman at the same time, and Y'shua explains why:

Matthew 6:24 24 No man is able to serve two lords. For either he will hate the one and will love the other or he will honor the one and will treat the other with contempt. You are not able to serve God and wealth.

Luke 16:13 13 There is no servant that is able to serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other or honor the one and despise the other. You are not able to serve God and wealth.

Granted you might argue "this is about money not marriage", actually this principle CAN apply to marriage. You CANNOT serve two woman the WAY you're COMMANDED to in Ephesians! The commandment for husbands to love their wives, is exactly that - a COMMANDMENT which is to be OBEYED no questions asked!!! Polygynous men CANNOT obey this commandment, because it's IMPOSSIBLE to serve two womens' needs, he'll always end up having a favourite wife whom he serves while he neglects the other/s. Ya'akov is an excellent example of this: although he was married to Leah and Rachel he loved ONLY Rachel, he could not love Leah too, even if he tried. That is the way YHWH has built the human heart which is WHY Y'shua & Shaul keep referring to Genesis 2, they UNDERSTOOD this. If a man practices polygyny he CANNOT obey the commandment in Ephesians to love his wife, and therefore he sins because he is unable to obey.

And another thing:

Matthew 5:27-28 27 You have heard that it was said: YOU SHOULD NOT COMMIT ADULTERY. 28 But I say to you, anyone who looks at a woman as desiring her immediately commits adultery with her in his heart.

In order for a man to consider taking another wife, he has to first "check the other woman out", so to speak. BUT Y'shua says that even this is adultery, and it doesn't matter whether or not he wants to marry her or just have sex with her, it is adultery because:

1 Corinthians 7:2-5 2 But because of fornication, a man should hold fast to his [own] wife and a woman should hold fast to her [own] husband. 3 A husband should pay to his wife the love that is owed. So also, the wife to her husband. 4 The wife [has] no authority over her body, but her husband. So also, the man [has] no authority over his body, but his wife. 5 Therefore, do not deprive one another, except when both of you consent for a time to be devoted to fasting and to prayer and return again to the same arrangement, so that Satan will not tempt you because of the desire of your body.

The message is clear alright, married couples are commanded to have sex, sex is a requirement for marriage, and of course there's the "veto power" that both spouses possess which akhan Andrew has hammered home and you agree with. Since sex is a requirement for marriage, even if a man "looks at" a woman other than his wife, he has already committed adultery even if his desire is to marry the other woman.

And btw how do you "leave your father and mother and unite to your wife" if you are already married??? In order for you to do that a 2nd, 3rd, ect. time you must be divorced! Which brings me to:

Matthew 5:31-32 31 It was said: HE WHO DISMISSES HIS WIFE MUST GIVE HER A WRITING OF DIVORCE. 32 But I say to you, anyone who dismisses his wife outside of the case of fornication makes her commit adultery and he who marries a dismissed woman commits adultery.

Matthew 19:9 9 But I say to you, he who forsakes his wife, except [for] adultery, and takes another, commits adultery. And he who takes a forsaken woman commits adultery."

Mark 10:9-12 9 Therefore, that which God has joined together, man should not separate." 10 And his disciples asked him again in the house about this [matter]. 11 And he said to them, "Whoever dismisses his wife and takes another commits adultery. 12 And if a woman should dismiss her husband and be [a wife] to another, she commits adultery."

Who says women can't divorce their husbands???

Luke 16:18 18 Everyone who dismisses his wife and marries another commits adultery, and everyone who marries a forsaken woman commits adultery.

I really don't understand how you don't see the connection Dawid. Polygamy/polgyny is adultery which results in breaking the 7th commandment, it really couldn't be any clearer:

Exodus 20:13 13 You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not steal. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

Deuteronomy 5:17 17 You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not steal. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

And finally, the penalty for adultery:

Hebrews 13:4 4 Marriage is to be honored by all and the [marriage] bed is to be kept pure, for God will judge fornicators and adulterers.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 9 Or do you not know that wicked [ones] will not1 inherit the kingdom of God? Do not err. Neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor corrupt [ones] nor homosexuals 10 nor wrong-doers nor thieves nor drunkards nor revilers nor extortioners, these will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Oh, and one more thing: what's the major difference between fornication and adultery? Fornication is sexual sin in general which means it INCLUDES adultery, that means that if fornication is grounds for divorce then SO IS adultery. Interesting how the NT keeps lumping the "fornicators" and "adulterers" together.

[Andrew Gabriel Roth]

Shlama Akhi Dawid,

So let me see if I have this correct:

You admit that you don't have:

1) The resources to be able to type cogently.
2) The quality library of biblical resources that I do.
3) The historical expertise that I have (with respect to how this topic squarely relates to the wider biblical world)
4) The translation ability that I have (you still don't get KHAD).

BUT---

Your view is correct and mine is wrong?

Look "dude", since you called me this, you can't assume equal credibility here and then cry you don't have equal resources. If you don't know the history, you need to look it up. If you don't have the Scripture you need to get it. If you can't challenge my facts when they are RELEVANT then your view that is LACKING THOSE FACTS cannot be on an equal footing with mine. It is as simple as that. A better argument in line with your position may theoretically be out there, but you are not in a position to deliver it with your issues here.

If you feel your view is as scriptural as mine, you need to prove it. You have not. Instead you have spoken of "mutual admiration societies" as if there isn't genuine information being shared with you.

If you can't stand the Scriptural heat, get out of the halachic kitchen. I need citations and evidence, not lofty opinion-speak without proof.

I don't think you will prevail here. I admit I am not perfect, but I think I have proven my case on multiple fronts that you have honestly not dealt with.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth