Posted on 07/04/2015 2:11:54 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Just to magnify your question somewhat, you’ll note that Torah presents the original paradigm of marriage—that of Adam and Eve—as monogamous. Furthermore, virtually every instance of polygamy recounted in the Torah is related directly by the narrative to some sort of calamity—whether strife between competing wives, as was the case with Hannah and Peninah,1 or between rivaling half-siblings, e.g. Jacob’s2 and King David’s sons.3 Even the very verse4 in which the Torah provides a green light for polygamy frames it within an undesirable circumstance: “If a man will have two wives, one beloved and the other hated . . .”
Why, then, make room for trouble? If the ideal union of man and woman is an exclusive one, why should “a nation of priests and a holy people” compromise?
The simple answer is that Torah deals with life on earth, and the gamut of social life and human experience over all of history and world geography is too diverse to be restricted to one narrow ideal. Take, for example, an agrarian society whose male population has been decimated by war. How are women to survive, and how is the population to replenish itself, without the mechanism of polygamy? Similarly, a man married to a barren woman who could not produce sons to help in the field and defend the fort would find himself ill-put to survive in those times. In an exclusively monogamous society, his wife would find her position insecure. Although in normative circumstances being “only one of many” compromises a woman’s value as a person, in these situations a permit for polygamy is a form of compassion.
The only case of a polygamous rabbi recorded in the Talmud5 provides an excellent illustration: Rabbi Tarfon married 300 women. Why? Because there was a famine in the land. But Rabbi Tarfon had plenty of food, since he was a kohen and received the priestly tithes. The wife of a kohen is also permitted to eat those tithes. Those 300 women were very happy that the Torah permitted polygamy.
Torah discourages abuse of this permit—not just by recounting the calamitous narratives mentioned above, but also by placing requirements on the husband. For every extra wife, no matter how lowly her status, a man must provide “food, clothing and conjugal rights” commensurate to her needs and his capacity, and equal to any other wives.6 Additionally, the husband must provide separate housing for each wife. Divorce requires involvement of a scribe, and the sages later instituted the ketubah as a further impediment of divorce. (See also Why is Jewish Marriage So One-Sided?) We see that these means were in fact effective—polygamy in Jewish circles was historically a rare exception.
Rare, but necessary nevertheless. Even when Rabbi Gershom and his rabbinical court assembled to declare a ban on polygamy due to the conditions of their time (see previous link for more on this injunction), they nevertheless left the door open for extenuating circumstances. That loophole has proven vital in many an instance—for example, the case of a wife who has become (G‑d forbid) mentally incapacitated and is not halachically qualified to receive a divorce.
You may wish to think of Torah as the DNA of a highly resilient organism called the Jewish people. Whenever circumstances change, this organism looks back into its DNA and finds some code that allows for an adaptive modality. There’s plenty off limits, but there is enough leeway to provide for every situation human life on planet Earth can throw at you. Proof is, we’ve been through it all—nomadic, agrarian, civilized, industrial, technological—and in every part of the world, and we’re still here, strong as ever.
FOOTNOTES 1. I Samuel ch. 1.
2. Genesis ch. 37.
3. I Kings ch. 1.
4. Deuteronomy 21:15.
5. Jerusalem Talmud, Yevamot 4:12.
6. Exodus 21:10; Maimoindes, Laws of Marriage 14:3.
Yes, the family disruption is very damaging at both ends, so to speak: the ones left in the source country and the often ad-hoc relationships in the U.S. On top of that, I know of several families where the man has been deported, leaving a wife and children in the U.S.
I was quoting Dallas/Ft Worth to Manila, PI.
Sex ratio stands at 102 males for every 100 females
Of the 92.1 million household population in the Philippines, 50.4 percent were males and 49.6 percent were female. This resulted in a sex ratio of 102 males per 100 females. The sex ratio in 2000 was 101 males per 100 females.
http://web0.psa.gov.ph/content/age-and-sex-structure-philippine-population-facts-2010-census
Fortunately for the Philippines, they have neither widespread polygamy nor female infanticide.
I would not willingly permit either --- not here, not there, not anywhere.
We saw this problem fairly frequently. Wife #1,kids, and elderly relatives in Mexico and shack-up #2 with American born kids here.
The problem is that with outflow of young and healthy males, the families and towns in Mexico are defenseless.
Re: Deportation
Yep! We saw that, too.
Wouldn’t it be up to the consenting adults involved in these potential relationships to make the choices for themselves?
In neither case is "adult consent" the only or the most important consideration.
Female infanticide, prenatal or postnatal,is murder.
Polygamy, though it has a negative impact on culture, is probably not going to be eradicated by its being illegal, but it should remain illegal. There's no reason for society to give an official stamp of approval to a practice with such disruptive effects on behavior and basic societal functioning.
I am not a libertarian, but from a libertarian point of view, there's arguably no reason for the state to be in the marriage-defining business at all. Marriage is an institution which far predates the state, and (up until 15 minutes ago) has always been in the conjugal form, i.e. man/woman, whether polygamous or monogamous. Any "redefinition" of marriage is outside of the competence of the state.
Yes, but the state has redefined it already, and not just here.
Whether the wife and children can keep things together depends on whether they have other family in the area.
That (the re-definition of sex AND marriage) is contributing to the collapse of civilization in every place where it has happened.
I'm not just talking about "gay". I'm talking about the combined impact of many factors (such as male unemployment, long-term welfare, juvenile sex experimentation, the average age of marriage approaching the age of menopause, contraception, sterilization, abortion, etc.) which make stable conjugal family-formation and childbearing much more unlikely.
Individual choice? It's more a result of government social engineering, both the intended and unintended outcomes thereof.
Greece as a nation is on the ropes as we speak. Strongly affected by their sui-genocidally (or we could say geno-suicidally) low fertility rate. (Greece is 1.3) This is going to hit every country with family-formation and fertility rates so low that no nation in history has ever been known to recover.
“Consent,” the only moral principle. That’s going to - does - work out very poorly for all but the most powerful.
It means the war of all against all, or what we used to call “barbarism” before it became inappropriate to believe that some cultures were absolutely better than others.
Yes, “Col. Sam Colt made us all the same size,” but can’t we have something better than that?
Interestingly (or maybe not, to you,) the Jewish commentators say that Ketura was Hagar...she waited for him and kept her womb ketura.... “tied” except for Abraham.
There's nothing to discuss. This is all governed by the Torah which G-d gave Israel at Sinai.
As rare as polygyny has been among Jews for millenia, it is still technically permitted by the Torah and any attempt to deny this or to claim that G-d has since changed this rule is to engage in "adding to or subtracting from" the Torah--forbidden activities.
Indeed. Not one jot or tittle.
God does not breathe. He has no need of oxygen to sustain Himself.
In the millennium, after Christ’s return, God will reinstate polygamy -for a time.
Isaiah 4:
1 And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.
You think that because Isaiah 4 prophecies a future situation where seven woman will beg one man to be his wives that this one proof text means that God will approvingly "reinstate" polygamy for a time?
Polygamy can be righteously practiced if God commands it.
Uh, "but because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband."
1 Corinthians 7:2
Cordially,
Huh? ttp://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/7-2
Can God eat or taste?
God does not eat or taste. God is Spirit. The divine nature of God is not altered by the Incarnation of Christ The divine nature is still divine and the human nature is still human.
Why in the world do you think Isaiah would waste his time prophesying about a single situation? What's possible significance could it have if that were the case?
What makes you think Isaiah in verse 1 refers to the millennial reign of Christ? To the contrary, "that day" refers to the calamitous period described at the end of the previous chapter; the chastisement of the daughters of Zion. There is no reason for the chapter separation of the first six verses of Isaiah 4 from the previous chapter.
And that it verse on does not refer to a time after Christ's return when there is no evil in the world is evident from what the women say, "To take away our reproach." Why would their be any reproach when there is no evil in the world?
Isaiah's words affirm that the true prophets know the true significance of marriage and that it has eternal consequences.
Isaiah's words affirm that the true prophets know the true significance of marriage and that it has eternal consequences.
No, some of Isaiah's words ripped out of context might give a false appearance of such, but that's about it.
But certain of the Sadducees, who deny that there is any resurrection, came to Him and asked Him, saying, “Teacher, Moses wrote to us that if someone’s brother die having a wife, and he die childless, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed to his brother. There were therefore seven brothers, and the first took a wife, and died childless. And the second took the wife, and he died childless. And the third took her, and likewise the seven also, and they left no children, and died. And last of all the woman died also. In the resurrection therefore, whose wife of them is she? for the seven had her to wife.” And Jesus answering said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage; but they who shall be accounted worthy to obtain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage; for they cannot any more die; for they are equal to the angels, and are the sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.”
Luke 20:27-38
Even Jesus alluded to it in the parable of the ten virgins. 10 virgins coming to marry the one bride groom at His coming.
The 10 young women in the parable be the bridal party, not additional brides.
Cordially,
Interestingly (or maybe not, to you,) the Jewish commentators say that Ketura was Hagar...she waited for him and kept her womb ketura.... “tied” except for Abraham.
God was reestablishing the importance of the family as society’s fundamental element. Hence, rule number one.”
That is where the 12 tribes got started, and before that the Arabs started becoming a nation because of the polygamy of our ancestors.
Anyone who interprets their reading of The Bible “allowing” polygamy has a reading for comprehension problem.
Show me where Polygamy is prohibited and I will admit to having a reading problem.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.