“Only The Man Has A Right To Jealousy In Marriage”

My Response To @sarahneeds1683

By Mike Allen of ‘Diggin’ In The Word’

Oftentimes I get comments on my video feed from women seeking to correct and put men in their place on this subject of polygamy. However, instead of just responding in the feed, I decided to make this into an article to demonstrate how far from Scripture these comments can be. Please click the link of this particular video to get the context. Here we go:

•Link of Video in Full: “Part 2, Refuting 10 Common Objections Against Polygamy”:  https://youtu.be/QWeUE8k1mgs

Here’s her comment:

To @sarshneeds1683’s first point, yes, it’s true that “Yahweh is a jealous El, wants all of our hearts and we can’t give our hearts to another.” She’s also correct in saying that “we are called to take on His nature.” However, if “A woman has every right to require her husband’s heart belong to her alone,” then is @sarahneeds1683 somehow equating a woman’s exclusive rights with The Most High here? Is she somehow saying that a woman’s position is on the same level as Yahweh in the marriage over the man? Has she not considered all these questions, because Yahweh stands in the ownership position of His creation. He has an exclusive right to be jealous over His servants in His relationship to them. No different than a songwriter has over his own lyrics and intellectual property and a father who hears his own child calling another man father. However, a songwriter can have multiple songs, and not the other way around, and a father can have multiple children and not the other around. This is why Numbers 5:11-31 points out that a husband has the exclusive right to be jealous over his wife and not the other way around. Therefore, a woman has no biblical grounds for being jealous over her man taking on another woman in marriage.

Surely, @sarahneeds1683 must be familiar with the fact that in marriage, it is the man who reflects Yah’s headship of authority over the woman and not the other way around. The Apostle Paul put it this way in 1 Corinthians 11:3,6-10, saying,

“3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered.

7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.

8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man.

9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.

10 For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.”

In other words, what I think @sarahneeds1683 is missing here, folks, is the fact that, domestically, it is the man who reflects Yah’s exclusive authority. It is he who becomes the unique figure in the home just as Yah is with His relationship with humanity. He’s allowed multiple worshippers, while humanity is only allowed One Creator to worship. Period. Also, if the woman somehow has the same level of exclusive authority that the man has in the marriage, then what about Ephesians 5:22-24, that says,

“22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.

23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.

24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.”

Here, it is clear that the Husband’s authority over his wife is to be respected and regarded on the same level as The Messiah’s over His assembly. She must respect this fact and be subjected to him in everything. That means, everything would include, just as Messiah chooses to take on more virgins than only one within His assembly, so too does the man have that same right to more than woman in his household. Now could this be why Yeshua spoke of Himself as being The Bridegroom Coming for 10 virgins in Matthew 25:1-13? I think so.

One thing we have to grasp is the fact that Yeshua is the express image/reflection of The Most High in Hebrews 1:1-4. In Matthew 25:1-13, His whole point is that He is the Husband of each believer who bears the individual responsibility to prepare themselves for Him, upon His return. Now if this is the responsibility of each believer to individually prepare themselves for His return and to accept the fact that they only share the One True Messiah, so too does the woman reflect a shared ownership of a shared husband. That is; if he ever decides to take on additional women for himself, her duty to prepare for and submit to him in this regard is obligated.

Could this be why a closer look into the Greek Paul uses in Ephesians 5:24 for ‘her own’ (husband) is ‘idios’ in Greek, while in 5:25, ‘your’ (wife) is ‘heautou’ in Greek, these words are different. ‘Idios’ in the Greek here means that she can only have one

husband, while ‘heautou,’in the Greek, means that he can have multiple husbands.  Paul used two distinct terms between the man and the woman to show that his exclusive authority differs from hers. Buried in the Greek, under Roman Catholic transliteration into English, the church has hidden the fact that the rules differ between men and women in their domestic roles. Another place, RCC interpolation takes place with these two buried Greek terms is found in 1 Corinthians 7:2, which reads,

“2 Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.”

Clearly, English translators didn’t want readers to come away with the fact that Paul acknowledged in his writings a distinction that the man has from the woman to be able to take on as many wives as he can.

Yahweh spoke of Himself of having multiple brides in at least 5 places in Scripture (Ezekiel 231-7; Jeremiah 3; 31:31-32; Ezekiel 37; 1 Kings 12:24). Could this be why He was in the business of building in Israel patriarchal homes where men possessed multiple wives? Could this be why Israel populated far more rapidly than their counterparts in Egypt in Exodus 1. In fact, it was Yah Himself Who intentionally built the house of Jacob through 4 women for this purpose in Genesis 33:1-7 & Ruth 4:11. Also, in Ruth 4:11, it was clear from the leadership on down in Bethlehem that this was the case.

Now if the man is to reflect Yah in the home, doesn’t polygyny highlight this fact more than anything else. I mean, the man is likened to farming and shepherding in numerous parabolic metaphors throughout Scripture. And if so, what farmer do you know plants only one seed in only one field and never has the right to purchase more land to plant in? What shepherd is allowed to only acquire only one sheep to herd? Do these scenarios even make any sense? No. This is why Yah allows men to take on additional wives, providing they supply to each wife’s respective rights. And that does not mean that these wives somehow have some right to exclusive devotion. They only have right to “food, clothing and sexual intimacy (Exodus 21:7-11).”

Therefore, @sarahneeds1683 is correct in saying that a woman is “right requiring a man’s full faithfulness.” However, that right has nothing to do with her determining how many women he may acquire. The sheep, out of fear or jealousy, doesn’t get to tell the shepherd how many sheep he may amass no different than the land doesn’t get to tell the farmer how many lands he’s permitted to plant seed in. Therefore, I submit to you that inappropriate jealousy, that kind that cannot be substantiated in Scripture is preventing many women today from entering the Kingdom of Yah as it is listed among the many works of the flesh, according to Galatians 5:19-21, as it reads,

“19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, JEALOUSIES, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 ENVY, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.”

Now to @sarahneeds1638’s point that a wife “can never be forced to subject herself to polygamy, unless she consents,” again, she is coming from a perspective that places the woman into the driver seat in the home. Now let’s not get it twisted, a man shouldn’t be forcing his wife woman to do anything. Not even to make him breakfast or to give him sex. However, there is a biblical option for what to do with women like this that are called rebellious. It’s called a “Bill of Divorce.” Yes, Deuteronomy 24:1-4 teaches that the husband has the exclusive authority to divorce his wife if he finds some uncleanness in her. Uncleanness is an indecency which can simply mean if she refuses to obey him in everything, he can let her go. This is why Sirach 25:24-26 (GNT), reads,

“24 Sin began with a woman, and we must all die because of her. 25 Don't let a bad wife have her way, any more than you would allow water to leak from your cistern. 26 If she won't do as you tell her, divorce her.”

In other words, if a wife chooses to resist the direction a man decides to lead his home in, then she can be cut off just as one “wouldn’t allow water to leak from their cistern.” Such a woman can be lethal; therefore, Yah gives men recourse through the ‘power of the pen’ in divorce. The ‘power of the pen’ is Yah’s tool to husbands allowing them the ability to maintain law and order in their homes.

Now to @sarahneeds1683’s point on “if a man decides to take on another wife without the wife’s consent when they had an agreement to be monogamous, she has every right to leave him for dishonoring the covenant they agreed to enter into.” Wow, now I don’t know if @sarahneeds1683 even realizes that neither man nor woman possess the power to overturn and change Scripture.  However, that is exactly where this mode of thinking comes from, the Roman Catholic Church in 1563 CE, and not Scripture. Nowhere does the biblical text support “Prescriptive Monogamy” which means that a man can have only one woman at a time. No, it in is the RCC’s polity that requires there be a solemnization of a marriage in order for it to be legitimized and not Scripture. For no such requirement can be found in Scripture. However, this polity was created to restrict men from having multiple wives which marginalizes their ability to amass power and become independent of the Roman Empire. This is exactly why Yah commanded that any king in Israel must not trust in human power by “multiplying wives, horses, silver or gold (Deuteronomy 17:14-20).” Such interdependence falls short of trusting in Him. This is why the passage there says in vs. 16,

“16 “But he shall not multiply horses for himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt to multiply horses, for the LORD has said to you, ‘You shall not return that way again.’”

You see, the word multiply here means to increase excessively. Not that a king couldn’t have two or more horses, silver, gold or a woman. No. This command was given to prevent kings from trusting in human efforts over Yah. Exactly what happened when Israel stayed in Egypt, which led to its bondage. However, when a king amasses multiple (excessive) wives in ancient days, it was normally done to increase his power through forming alliances by taking on many nation brides. A practice Yah was against, but certainly not against a king or any man taking on as many wives as he could. This is also why Yah stated that it was He Who gave one king, in particular, the many wives he had. That was King David in 2 Samuel 12:7-8, as it reads,

“7 ¶ Then Nathan said to David, “You are the man! Thus says the LORD God of Israel: ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul.

8 ‘I gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your keeping and gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if that had been too little, I also would have given you much more!”

The Almighty El and our Messiah are not only practitioners of having multiple brides, the man also has been given authority in the home that reflects this same prerogative as he has the right to multiple wives, and neither the state, the church nor his woman has authority to undermine such a Yah given undertaken. Just because a man under false religion and state influence has been swindled into an agreement into a pagan construct of “prescriptive monogamy,” that doesn’t mean that he has to stay there. Clearly, he’s been snared by the words of his mouth and bonded to a covenant where he himself was in darkness. However, Paul said this about those who come to faith while in bondage to human institutions. He said in 1 Corinthians 7:21-24,

“21 Were you called while a slave? Do not be concerned about it; but if you can be made free, rather use it.

22 For he who is called in the Lord while a slave is the Lord’s freedman. Likewise, he who is called while free is Christ’s slave.

23 You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men.

24 Brethren, let each one remain with God in that state in which he was called.”

Brothers and Sisters, do not listen to women like @sarahneeds1683 who shouldn’t be attempting to teach or usurp authority over men, in the first place. For it was the woman who was deluded and sinned. For Paul said,

“11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submission.

12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.

13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.”

Women, stop coming onto the internet trying to teach men about things you have not fully grasped yourselves. Go get yourselves covering, which is a husband!

Shalom and Blessings!

Mike Allen