next »

[Travis]

It seems as though polygamy has stirred emotion throughout history.

In a recent trip to central Tennessee, I saw a marker at the side of a country road relating the deaths of 5 Mormons at least in part because of their polygamous beliefs.
Read more here: http://www.lewistn.com/MORMON%20MASSACRE.HTML

I'm starting this thread in an attempt to explore the good, bad and ugly of polygamy throughout history - including accounts related in Scripture. 

To be clear, this is not a place for condoning or condemning the practice.

[AndysDad]

To be clear, this is not a place for condoning or condemning the practice.

That's not going to be easy, but I don't want this post deleted, so I'll try.

To go back to the beginning, we have to start with Adam, the first man (all quotations and allusions from Genesis 1-3 unless otherwise specified). God saw that he needed a wife, so he made one out of Adam's side. Adam had 2 sides, so God could have made him 2 wives, but God saw that he needed a wife, and made him only one.

As time went on, the First Couple had a lot of kids; Jewish history says a total of fifty-six. That would have been a lot of work, without anyone else around to help.  God could have looked down and said, "Wow, Eve sure has her hands full with that huge passel of kids. It must get awfully lonely during the day when Adam is off pulling weeds, not having any adult conversation. I'll just put old Adam back to sleep and make another wife out of the other side so Eve will have some help and companionship."

But that didn't happen, so the History of Polygamy has to wait a couple more chapters to begin . . .

[Travis]

No better place to start than The Beginning! 

[Beth]

So....what happened next? Jk. I couldn't resist. If I remember right it was one of Cains sons that was the first to take two wives?

[AndysDad]

So....what happened next? . . . If I remember right it was one of Cains sons that was the first to take two wives?

I can't remember that far back myself, but according to Genesis 4, Cain had a wife, like his father did.  With all those sisters to pick from, he seems to have picked just one--at a time anyway. Actually,  if the number of sons and daughters were  pretty equal, there wouldn't have been any additional wives available to him--given that Abel's widow, if he left one, would not have been in any mood to marry her husband's murderer.

Of Cain's descendants, we hear no more direct mention of wives until we get to his great-great-great grandson Lamech, who is specifically said to have taken two wives, Adah and Zillah. Both brought forth sons, so infertility doesn't seem to have been a reason for doing this. Polygamy seems to fit in with the general immorality which characterized the line of Cain and increasingly infected the line of Seth as God's judgment against all flesh drew nigh.

[Beth]

didn't Lamech also kill a man and sort of bragged about it to his wives? Not that that has anything to do with polygamy except maybe to at least say this particular polygamist was not a very moral man.
    but many were Abraham, David, etc. So maybe that has nothing to do with it.

[MrsHope]

I have always found this interesting...

Genesis 6:1-2: And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

Which is the beginning of the description of the earth being corrupt before God and then the flood and ark...which included Noah and his sons, all with one wife each, from what I understand.

Don't know if that all means anything or not.

[AndysDad]

I think you're on the right track, Mrs. Hope. The language certainly seems to indicate the Sons of God taking as many beautiful wives each as they could get their hands on.
This tendency is still around today; it is called The Trophy Wife Syndrome.

Andy'sDad

Mod Note: Interesting topic that deserves it's own thread: The Trophy Wife Syndrome

[AndysDad]

Got snowed out of Bible Study tonite, so we'll do some online.

Okay, we're studying the topic of wives in the Bible, and contrasting the character and circumstances of those with more than one wife to those with only one. So far the score is:
One wife (not like they had any choice): Adam and Cain
Two wives: Lamech
However many they wanted: Sons of God

Now we come to Noah, who found grace in the eyes of the Lord. We really don't know anything about Noah's early life; the story picks up when he is around 500 years old and married, with three sons. But we do find something very interesting about this whole story, and that is the enforced monogamy aboard the ark.

Every animal had only one mate. Every man only had one wife. Despite the risks of starting the world over again with only three fertile couples--and only one of the vast majority of animals--God didn't see fit to throw in an extra mate or two just in case.

Now, there were obviously more than two of each clean animal.   After all, the carnivores needed something to eat while they were waiting for the next generation of prey to come along! But despite the fact that these kinds are typically extremely polygamous, there were still only seven pairs of each. The language is very clear: The Male (singular) and his Female (singular).

Now I admit, Bible translators have a hard time determining for sure whether there were seven of each clean animal, or seven pairs. The Hebrew just says something like seven, seven, male, female--so we're not sure if it's seven males and seven females, or seven total--even the KJV wisely carries the ambiguity of the Hebrew over into English. But even if it was three pairs and a spare, the spare was probably for sacrificing afterward (other than the raven and dove), and that still left 3 pairs to more widely propagate the post-flood world.

After the flood, many animals no doubt assumed polygamous ways. But for Shem, Ham, and Japheth, the wife they came off the ark with was the only one that would ever likely be available to them. I think it highly unlikely that any would ever consider marrying a full niece. I'll get to the reason why in a later post.

Andy'sDad

[AndysDad]

The eleventh chapter of Genesis starts with Babel and ends with the family of Abram, ten whole generations removed from Noah, who died around the time Abram was born. So in the lifespan of a single man we have the entire world populated. During this time all the ancient nations of the world emerged: China, India, Chaldea, Sumer, Assyria, Anatolia, Greece, and Egypt.  Polygamy was a way of life in virtually all these cultures, while Noah and his sons remained monogamous.

We do see that intermarriage was common; both Abram and his brother Nahor took as wives the daughters of their older brother Haran (See Josephus). Abram made much of this relationship when it suited him, but did admit that he was related to Sarai only on his father's side in Genesis 20:12--as if to say he would not have married a full niece. 

This could imply a couple of things: one, that Abram and Nahor were only half-brothers to Haran. Two, that the line of consanguinity was drawn so close that a man could marry a paternal niece so long as her mother wasn't a close relative.  Either way, we can't exclude the possibility that Terah was polygamous. If he wasn't, he was going against the general culture of his day, which allowed all the sorts of marriage relationships that his son Abraham was eventually involved in.

I think it's important to note that God called Abram out of the idolatrous culture that he was raised in, and reflective of that call is the notable fact that Abram had only one wife. He was a rich man (which of necessity goes along with polygyny) and a childless man (which almost invariably leads to polygyny in a culture where it is practiced), but there he was, one decade after another, faithfully married to only one wife.

There was one weakness in Abram's marriage, and that was due to his consanguinity with Sarai. He was constantly tempted to pass her off as his sister and so expose her to the dangers of polyandry--twice she was actually taken into a harem due to his duplicity. But from the language used in ch. 12 and ch. 20, it's fairly clear that neither of the kings who 'took' Sara ever consummated the relationship--only because God intervened.

Note carefully: if we are going to excuse polygyny due to Abram's example, we had better be ready to excuse polyandry by the same token, because Abram was as prone to engage in one as the other when the pressure was on. Certainly Sara was as much a party to one as the other; their approaches differed only in that Abram suggested polyandry, and Sara suggested polygyny, as a solution to their respective problems.

We'll get more into Abraham's polygamy in a later post.

[Beth]

polandry? More than one husband? Now  you don't hear about that very often. In fact I can't think of a single culture where this is practiced. I'm sure its happened but not even close to polygamy. Wonder why? Maybe it has to do with finances. But....it might just have something to with what motivates men in general. Women are motivated by different things.

[boysmama]

There are many interesting leads on historical and current polygamous and polandrous marriage on wiki and national geographic.
I have witnessed this myself in countries overseas. As shocking as it is in our culture it is easy to understand there. Whether it is right/wrong I will not discuss. 

[khrys]

Note carefully: if we are going to excuse polygyny due to Abram's example, we had better be ready to excuse polyandry by the same token, because Abram was as prone to engage in one as the other when the pressure was on. Certainly Sara was as much a party to one as the other; their approaches differed only in that Abram suggested polyandry, and Sara suggested polygyny, as a solution to their respective problems.

I don't think of it as Abraham suggesting polyandry as a solution for them.  He wanted to pass her off as his sister to protect himself, but I don't think he plain suggested that Sarah take another husband.  That was only other men's responses to Abraham saying she was his sister and not admitting she was his wife (and those men was not trying to engage in polyandry either because they didn't know she was married).  On the other hand, Sarah did directly suggest polygyny and Abraham agreed to it.  Also, it is interesting to note that God twice directly interfered to prevent Sarah from being involved in a polyandrous relationship, but He apparently did not do anything to stop Abraham from having a polygynous relationship.  In Gen 20 (below), God says that he prevented Abimelech from sinning (polyandry) by keeping him from touching Sarah.  If polygyny is also sinful, why would God not also prevent Abraham from sinning by keeping him from having a relationship with Hagar?

Genesis 12
10And there was a famine in the land: and Abram went down into Egypt to sojourn there; for the famine was grievous in the land.
 11And it came to pass, when he was come near to enter into Egypt, that he said unto Sarai his wife, Behold now, I know that thou art a fair woman to look upon:
 12Therefore it shall come to pass, when the Egyptians shall see thee, that they shall say, This is his wife: and they will kill me, but they will save thee alive.
 13Say, I pray thee, thou art my sister: that it may be well with me for thy sake; and my soul shall live because of thee.
 14And it came to pass, that, when Abram was come into Egypt, the Egyptians beheld the woman that she was very fair.
 15The princes also of Pharaoh saw her, and commended her before Pharaoh: and the woman was taken into Pharaoh's house.
 16And he entreated Abram well for her sake: and he had sheep, and oxen, and he asses, and menservants, and maidservants, and she asses, and camels.
 17And the LORD plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai Abram's wife.
 18And Pharaoh called Abram and said, What is this that thou hast done unto me? why didst thou not tell me that she was thy wife?
 19Why saidst thou, She is my sister? so I might have taken her to me to wife: now therefore behold thy wife, take her, and go thy way.
 20And Pharaoh commanded his men concerning him: and they sent him away, and his wife, and all that he had.

Genesis 20
 1And Abraham journeyed from thence toward the south country, and dwelled between Kadesh and Shur, and sojourned in Gerar.
 2And Abraham said of Sarah his wife, She is my sister: and Abimelech king of Gerar sent, and took Sarah.
 3But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, Behold, thou art but a dead man, for the woman which thou hast taken; for she is a man's wife.
 4But Abimelech had not come near her: and he said, LORD, wilt thou slay also a righteous nation?
 5Said he not unto me, She is my sister? and she, even she herself said, He is my brother: in the integrity of my heart and innocency of my hands have I done this.
 6And God said unto him in a dream, Yea, I know that thou didst this in the integrity of thy heart; for I also withheld thee from sinning against me: therefore suffered I thee not to touch her.

[rejoicing]

  In Gen 20 (below), God says that he prevented Abimelech from sinning (polyandry) by keeping him from touching Sarah.  If polygyny is also sinful, why would God not also prevent Abraham from sinning by keeping him from having a relationship with Hagar?

edited for clarification...
Just my outlook, but I took it that  Abimelech would have been lied/tricked/misled into the act...not choosing outright to sin.  So God intervened to protect Abimelech. I feel this way because of v.5 and especially 6.
Where as Hagar knew what she was doing. No one was tricking her, Abram, or Sarai into this sin. They all actively participated. (Wouldn't this fall under free will, that's why God wouldn't intervene)-It is my personal opinion that God wasn't showing one sinful and one not, rather he was protecting one man's (Abimelech) innocent intentions with Sarai.  If you note, earlier, He didn't stop the Pharoh, just punished him after the fact.  (ch12)
No one can say the sitiuation with Hagar wan't without grief. Abraham troubled with what to do about Ishmael, but God reassured him.  Nevertheless, Sarah did not sit back and share her man and her son's inheritance. Rather, she had Hagar and Ishmael thrown out into the desert, once again restoring her marriage.
 Plus this occurred before God made his covenant with Abraham.
I don't know if this is how others would take this-just my 2c. 

[AndysDad]

I think it's clear that Abram knew full well what he was doing when he passed Sara off as his sister. You have to understand that in a polygamous society, the king is totally unlimited in the amount of women he can 'take', either as wives or concubines. The only thing that would hold him back was if a woman was already the wife of another man. But even this was little of a hindrance, as the king could always order the death of the woman's husband and snatch up the widow.  This is what Abram was hoping to avoid--getting killed in the process of the king taking his trophy-wife-for-life to wife.

Hmm, where else did we hear about this? Oh yeah, that's exactly what David actually did with Uriah. Except that God didn't protect him from jumping the gun a bit and 'taking' Bathsheba while Uriah was still alive.

There are some possible implications to this.

But we're getting ahead of our history a bit here. Perhaps we should stop and at least list the possible conclusions that could result from this Bible Study:

1) Polyandry and polygyny are both sins against the one-flesh marriage designed by God in the Garden.

2) Polyandry and polygyny are both less than the ideal one-flesh marriage designed by God in the Garden, but not sins.

3) Polyandry is a sin, but polygyny isn't.

4) Polygyny is a sin, but polyandry isn't.

I think, just from what we have seen so far, that we can already eliminate #4 as an option. That would also put #2 in serious doubt, but we'll leave it on the table until we've gotten through all the polyandry examples in this Bible Study.

Andy'sDad

[AndysDad]

We're close to getting down to the brass tacks with Abraham. We know that he had sons by three different women and the question is, Did This Justify Polygamy In Any Way?

We are going to try not to answer that question directly, since this is a history thread, but it is obviously going to be in the back of our minds as we look at the story.

First of all, some definitions. While it's true that there is no distinctive word in the original languages of the Bible that means "wife" as opposed to just "woman", there is a reason for this. In the Biblical cultures, to be a woman was to be a wife, or at least an ex-wife. Single women just didn't fit into the culture. A female was either a daughter, for however long she lived with her father, or a wife, for however long she lived with her husband. They had other words for women who didn't fit either category.

One such word we find in Joshua chapter two, where a single women with her own house was called a harlot.  It was probably assumed that any single women with her own house was that kind of woman.  In fact, the Hebrew word seemed to have been used for any woman who had her own house, even if she didn't intend to use it for ill repute.  They had another word which was specifically used just for harlots, but the connotation carried over to the other word, whether the single women of the day liked it or not.  Without a man there to protect her, a woman living alone was considered fair game to any man who could manage to 'take' her (see the Book of Judith in the 1611 KJV for an example of an unremarried widow in just such a predicament).

So, a female in the Patriarchal age was expected to progress from daughter/maiden/virgin to wife/woman. Should she be widowed, her brother-in-law was expected to take her in (more on that later, when we get to Ruth).   But there were other options available: a girl could become either a harlot or a concubine, depending upon whether she was in business for herself, or bound to her employer.  And this was not often a decision that was left up to the girl herself.

Thus we come upon the scene in Genesis chapter 12.  Abram enters Egypt with Sara under the guise of being his virgin sister--and by the looks of her, it was high time he married her off. Pharaoh made a very attractive offer, giving Abram sheep, oxen, asses, slaves, and camels in compensation for taken his 'sister' into the royal harem.  Abram, according to plan, accepted the gifts, but, contrary to the custom of the day, didn't appear to take any of the female slaves he received as concubines.  Despite having lost his wife (although he may have held out some hope that she would be returned as damaged goods when it was discovered that she wasn't a virgin after all), he remained faithful to her memory-- despite the lack of faith that led to this fiasco. And God, for reasons of His own, restored Abram's wife to him undamaged by her brief stay in the harem.

But that's not the end of the story, because when Abram was firmly escorted out of Egypt, he took with him back to Canaan the endowment he'd received from Pharaoh--and among the loot appears to have been a young slave girl named Hagar.

[herbalmama]

Hey Andy's Dad , I just wanted to say  but I am really enjoying your thorough steps you are taking as you talk about polygamy is history .Very interesting.

[rejoicing]

Thus we come upon the scene in Genesis chapter 12.  Abram enters Egypt with Sara under the guise of being his virgin sister--and by the looks of her, it was high time he married her off. Pharaoh made a very attractive offer, giving Abram sheep, oxen, asses, slaves, and camels in compensation for taken his 'sister' into the royal harem.  Abram, according to plan, accepted the gifts, but, contrary to the custom of the day, didn't appear to take any of the female slaves he received as concubines.  Despite having lost his wife (although he may have held out some hope that she would be returned as damaged goods when it was discovered that she wasn't a virgin after all), he remained faithful to her memory-- despite the lack of faith that led to this fiasco. And God, for reasons of His own, restored Abram's wife to him undamaged by her brief stay in the harem.

But that's not the end of the story, because when Abram was firmly escorted out of Egypt, he took with him back to Canaan the endowment he'd received from Pharaoh--and among the loot appears to have been a young slave girl named Hagar.

Just wondering about this.   
Gen 12:16 -And he entreated Abram well for her sake: and he had sheep, and oxen, and he asses, and menservants, and maidservants, and she asses, and camels.
How do we know the maidservants were concubines and not just female servants?
How do we know he didn't take them with him?
How do we know she was returned undamaged? 
How do we know Hagar came from Pharoh and not just Egypt?

Thanks so much, just trying to follow along in my Bible at home! LOL!

[Beth]

   I have a question, is there a historical distinction between a concubine and a wife?  Were they both considered to be "his woman" for life?  At the time of Abraham, was it historically considered to be morally acceptable for a man to sleep with his concubines?
   That was more than one question....sorry. 

[rejoicing]

Ya, that's a good question....Did the Bible use different words for maidservant wife/woman, and concubine? Sorry, I would look it up myself, but I have no idea how? I tried using a website, but didn't know how to make it work? Thanks, and sorry for all the ?'s 

[AndysDad]

OK, it's time to stop a bit and look at the subject of concubines.  Specifically, we want to find out just what was a concubine during Abraham's day, and how his taking Hagar fit in to the culture in which he lived.

Abraham lived in at least 4 different cultures: that of Ur where he grew up; Haran where he emigrated with his family; the Horite culture of Canaan where he more or less settled, albeit in a nomatic fashion; and Egypt where he sojourned not long after moving to Canaan. Of these cultures, we have at least some cultural information from the Bible and contemporary records such as the Nuzi (Horite) texts and the Code of Hammurabi. And from all of these we can learn about how concubinage and marriage differed during the time of Abraham.

Of course, our standard wherever there is any doubt will be the Bible itself, where we read in Genesis 22 that Abraham's brother Nahor had eight sons by his wife Milcah and four more by his concubine Reumah.  Thus from the very first mention, the Bible makes a distinction between a wife and a concubine.

Concubinage has been a common practice throughout human history. It is a status lower than a wife but higher than a mistress, and the main distinction is a legal one. A man had legal rights to his concubine; she was not free to leave him. Judges 19 tells the story of a man and his concubine in which from our perspective she is indistinguishable from his wife. He loved her, missed her, went to see her, mourned her, etc. But underlying the tragic story is the fact that she had no legal right to leave him, although he had the right to take her or leave her (it took him all of four months just to get around to going after her)!  And when his own safety was at stake, he felt quite free in "throwing her to the dogs."

Egyptian culture had what they called a "half-wife" which meant a concubine, whose sons did not stand to inherit from their father. A son of concubinage could, however, be elevated to the status of full son should no other heir be available. But there doesn't seem to be any provision for elevating a concubine to the status of wife. Wives were obtained by marriage, and concubines by purchase. In other words, a concubine was any female slave with whom the owner had conjugal relations. In this sense, both Bilha and Zilpah were concubines, although Joseph had, according to the wishes of his two wives, elevated their sons to the status of heirs. In Genesis 32:22, Jacob "took his two wives, and his two womanservants, and his eleven sons."  Even after having borne him heirs, Bilha and Zilpah were still his concubines.

So, the only difference between a slave who was simply a womanservant, and one who was a concubine, was the conjugal act itself.  When Sara gave Hagar to Abram as his concubine, she was officially authorizing what was already a legally acceptable custom, for a maidservant to bring forth children as heirs to her master and mistress  (as noted in the Nuzi texts). This tells us that Abram had not heretofore exercised his rights to Hagar's body. Perhaps it was because he thought she was still young; we don't know that Abram had moral scruples against the local custom. But given that Hagar was from Egypt, and that Abram had just come back from Egypt with female slaves, it's both likely that Hagar was one of those slaves, and unlikely that none of the other maidservants were of sufficient age for Abram to have taken them as concubines, should he have so chosen. It's a likely explanation that he had moral scruples against taking any other women without his wife Sara's permission.

To answer one other question: How did we know that Sara never had conjugal relations with the kings who took her to wife? Because the text specifically says that God didn't allow them to touch her. He intervened, as it were, between the wedding and the honeymoon, and Abram got her back each time.

Andy'sDad

[rejoicing]

Thank  ;)s!
Are there different words used for maidservant, concubine, and wife that I could look up?

[AndysDad]

Are there different words used for maidservant, concubine, and wife that I could look up?

1a. maidservant is usually the translation of the Hebrew word amah (519), which basically means 'girl'. It therefore has a wide range of meanings, but occupies a different semantic range than the word for 'woman'. That is, this word can refer to any female of marriageable age that is not a full wife (with rare exceptions).

Exodus 21:7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant (519), she shall not go out  as the menservants (5650) do.

Here the connotation is of a man selling his daughter to be a concubine.  God gives rules for treating a concubine:

1) She cannot be sold again; if 'the shoe doesn't fit', he has to release her.
2) Once he decides to keep her, he can't 'trade her in for a newer model'; even if he marries another woman, he has to continue meeting all her needs, or he has to release her.

1b. maidservant is also used to translate the Hebrew word shifkhah (8189), which seems to be more specifically used for a female servant, without any other connotation:

And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that [is] behind the mill; and all the firstborn of beasts.

We know that maidservants were not necessarily concubines, because two slaves could be married by their master to each other (and, by implication, so divorced):

Exodus 21:4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.

2. There is one word translated 'concubine' in the OT, and that is the Hebrew word piylegesh (6370).  We know from Genesis 25:6 that Abraham had (at least) two of them, who would be Hagar (whom he divorced, the law in Exodus not yet having been given) and Keturah--whom Genesis 25:1 also calls his 'wife', so the word can be used for either a full wife or a half-wife.

Bilha is called Jacob's concubine in Genesis 35:22. The word seems to be specifically used when it is the conjugal relationship that is being emphasized.

What's interesting about piylegesh is that it's not originally a Hebrew word. Thus the concept itself seems to have come from another culture, along with the word for it.

2. The Hebrew word translated 'wife' is 'ishshah (802), which is the feminine form of ish, the word for 'man'.  So it is also the word translated 'woman' in the OT.  It can even be a woman who is not yet a wife:

Gen 24:5 And the servant said unto him, Peradventure the woman will not be willing to follow me unto this land: must I needs bring thy son again unto the land from whence thou camest?

In conclusion: the word 'concubine' is the most specific, thus always translated the same way; the word 'maidservant' has a more specific, and a less specific meaning; the word 'wife' can mean any female of marriageable age whose status is not otherwise specified.

[AndysDad]

1 Chronicles 1:32
"Now the sons of Keturah, Abraham's concubine . . ."

Genesis 25:1
"Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah. And she bore him . . . . sons . . . Abraham gave gifts, and sent them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived, eastward, unto the east country."

The question arises, was Keturah a wife or a concubine? The clue seems to lie in the fact that she bore him six sons, none of whom were heirs of Abraham's estate. In that they were not heirs, she was a concubine at the time she bore him sons; in that she is called a wife after the death of Sarah, it appears that he may have elevated her to the position of wife once Sarah died, but by then she was past her childbearing years.

It's commonly thought that Abraham married Keturah after Sarah died, and this is indeed the interpretation that would naturally arise from a straightforward reading of Genesis 23-25.  But the problem with this interpretation is twofold: one, it doesn't account for the low status of Keturah's sons, and two, it doesn't account for all the verses (such as 24:1) that emphasize how old Abraham was by the time Sarah died (he was 137).

Scholars would point out, however, that God supernaturally enabled Abraham and Sarah to conceive Isaac, and that this rejuvenation could have, at least in Abraham's case, carried over into his relationship with Keturah.  Romans 4:19 speaks of the deadness of both Abraham's and Sarah's bodies for reproductive purposes.

At any rate, the existence of Keturah's sons by Abraham remains somewhat of an enigma. It's possible that they were born after Sarah died, but it also seems likely that Abraham took Keturah as a concubine and begat her sons after it became clear that Sarah would not bear again after weaning Isaac (which was also the timeframe in which he divorced Hagar). Only after the death of Sarah, over thirty years later, did he elevate Keturah to wifehood, but sent away all her sons without including them in his will.

Why would Abraham have taken another concubine even after his wife Sarah produced him an heir? Maybe he wanted "an heir and a spare," or maybe he was just in the habit by now of having multiple women and couldn't give it up. The latter option seems less likely, as Hagar herself never produced another son after Ishmael was born, fourteen years ahead of Isaac.

At the least, the story of Abraham and Keturah tells us that Abraham only had one full wife--the mother of his sole heir. During Sarah's lifetime, his relationship with any other woman never rose above the level of concubinage.

[AndysDad]

We got a little ahead of ourselves with Abraham's three women and skipped over Lot. We need to get back to him, because according to the record of Scripture, Lot was like his Uncle Abraham in that he had children by three different women, but only had one full wife.

Everyone has heard of "Lot's Wife," although we don't know her name. But when God sent angels to extract Lot and his family from Sodom, it was his wife--not wives--who was in that number. So Lot clearly only had one wife. This despite the strong hints in Genesis 19 that Lot had no sons.  These are:
1) The angels asked him if he had any sons or sons in law in Sodom, but all he had was sons in law.
2) His daughters felt a need to "preserve seed of our father" as if there were no sons outside of Sodom either--although  they may have been exaggerating on this point.

At any rate, despite the sexual debauchery all around him, and even with the possibility of his name going extinct, Lot--that wealthy, influential, naturalized citizen of Sodom--had only one wife.

Lot did manage to pass on his seed, through the conniving of his next to youngest daughter and the cooperation of the youngest. But this was no marriage, or even concubinage; it's apparent that Lot set the example that Judah later followed and never went in to his daughters again, although he evidently helped to raise their respective sons.

[AndysDad]

Ishmael won't take up much time in our historical study of the wife/wives record of Scripture, as he is only recorded as having one wife, an Egyptian (21:21). We do know that he approved of polygamy, though, as he gave his daughter Mahalath to be the third wife of his nephew Esau.  So it's assuming too much that he was monogamous, especially given that he had 12 sons recorded in 25:16. The question arises, then, whether he may have had more than one full wife to produce that many legitimate sons. While these may well have been a series of one-at-a-time wives, it certainly seems possible that they were contemporaneous, as we will see later in the case of Esau.

Thus we move on to Isaac. In his case, the record is very explicit.  Abraham determined not to get him a wife of the neighboring nations (24:3), and sent his head servant/provisional heir  (if Eliezer is thus identified) back to Haran to get a descendant of Terah as Isaac's wife.  Rebekah fit the job description, and accepted the position. But there was a small glitch in the plan, as aging Abraham watched, year after year, and no grandson appeared. Having learned by hard experience to pin all his hopes on Isaac for the multitudes of descendants the Lord had promised him, it must have been yet another trial of faith for Abraham to watch two full decades pass with still a single heir; Rebekah was childless.

And meanwhile, Isaac seemed to be falling into his father's old habit of  attempted polyandry (chapter 26 appears to have been set earlier in their marriage, when they had no children to betray their relationship).  But this time he didn't get so far into it as his parents had. For one thing, he didn't stray as far from the Promised Land, obeying God's command not to go to Egypt (26:2). For another thing, Rebekah was never taken from him, although the danger of it happening was clearly stated.  Thus they were able to stay together while in exile, to the extent that the real nature of their relationship was exposed.  But without any real or imagined harm having been done by his lie, he was allowed to stay on in the land of the Philistines for at least another year.  And there, by the sweat of his brow, he earned his own riches--no maidservants were part of the package, either.

Isaac returned from Gerar with great wealth, but still without an heir. Yet his faith in God's promise to Abraham, and the negative example of his parents' own failings, appears to have kept him and Rebekah from succumbing to the temptation of 'helping God out' by bringing forth seed from a concubine. Isaac remained a one-woman man.

Their faith, and specific prayer for a son, were doubly rewarded when Isaac and Rebekah finally discovered that they were expecting twin sons. So, with Isaac already sixty and Rebekah far past the age at which a woman could expect to begin childbearing, Abraham, with only fifteen years left to live, finally saw his legitimate descendants triple in number.  And so he died at the age of one hundred and seventy-five, still full of faith that God would take those three and make of them a multitude.

This would happen, but not without the involvement of a lot more polygyny, as we shall see.

[AndysDad]

Remember the first case of polygamy in our study? It was long enough after Creation for an abundance of not-closely-related women to have become available to a single man, and sure enough, Lamech had two of them. Concubinage had not yet arisen, so every wife was a full wife (although not one flesh with her husband, to the conclusion of all others, unless she was in fact his only wife at the time). This, interestingly enough, was in the line of Cain--a line that was further corrupted by demonic marriages until it was wiped out by the flood.

Commencing with the flood, polygamy once again became physically impossible for a while, but sooner or later it was bound to creep in again--this time, as a two-tier system of polygyny/concubinage. So far we haven't seen any full-fledged cases of polygyny, but we're about to encounter one in the Line of Promise, Abraham's Seed through Isaac.

Esau, our first example of full-fledged polygyny in 1300 years, leaves a pretty poor example to follow--and, as in so many other things, his brother was right behind him (the topic of a later chapter).  Before he was even born, he was in conflict with his twin brother, Jacob. The Lord's analysis of that situation was that it was a harbinger of a centuries-long conflict between two nations that would spring from the prospective brothers--and in that prophecy was the promise that God would grant each of them a multitude of descendants.

Like their father and grandfather before them, Esau and Jacob had God's word on it that they would not die childless.  No fears of a ticking biological clock here! And indeed, the boys certainly took their time getting married. A fine head of the household Esau would have made, anyway--always out hunting. And Jacob--what a momma's boy! He was the daughter she'd never had.  So it went, decade after decade: Esau always on the hunt for a bigger and more impressive kill, Jacob always puttering around the cooking fire, trying out some new delicious recipe for bean stew. And Isaac, already ninety years old when they came of age, kept patiently waiting for God's promised seed to make its appearance in the next generation.

It finally happened, with Esau taking the initiative. In all his wanderings he'd had the opportunity to make an acquaintance with the other nomads circuiting the area, and no doubt stopped by many a tent for a cool drink and a neighborly chat. Esau was well-known in the area as the heir of the famous chieftains Abraham and Isaac, making him quite the eligible bachelor. So eligible, in fact, that two local chieftains would rather have him as half a son-in law rather than none at all, and gave their daughters to him in marriage. Thus it was that at the age of forty, Esau took up housekeeping with two different women at pretty much the same time (local custom seems to have required at least a week between weddings--29:27). Since he was always out hunting anyway, that gave each wife someone to keep her company during his extended absences. One thing's for sure, they didn't get along with their mother-in-law (26:35, 27:46)!

Esau continued to grow in wealth and influence, and it wasn't too long before he became a king in his own mind. His was the power to kill, or let live; to make alliances for peace, or for war; to add wife to wife; to set up a dynasty that would rule for centuries a kingdom named after him. There's no telling how many wives he ended up with; the Bible names at least three and possibly six.  By using marriage as a tool of political alliance, Esau set the example that would be followed by multitudes of his brother's descendants, to their great detriment.

As for Esau's descendants, we shall eventually come to the sordid tale of one king in his line whose family life was so depraved and degraded that it was said of him that to be his sow was safer than being his son.

[AndysDad]

[Note: I am following Clarke's chronology for this study, in which Jacob marries Leah at age sixty-four]

Esau and Jacob had been rivals since their shared time in Rebekah's womb, and Jacob was born literally pulling on his brother's leg--an act of foreshadowing memorialized in the meaning of his name.  In seeking the top spot of family favor, Esau gravitated toward the position of daddy's hunting buddy, and Jacob accepted the second spot of momma's boy.  As Esau grew in power and influence with the local chieftains, Jacob patiently bided his time around the campfire, perfecting his recipe for bean stew. Sooner or later the prophecy would come true that Jacob would gain the ascendancy.

The time finally came one day when Esau came home from hunting, starving for some food (the hunt hadn't gone all that well). This must have been before the twins turned forty, or he would have asked one of his wives to feed him. At any rate, Jacob saw his opportunity and sold his brother the stew at what to him seemed a windfall price: the rights to his brother's share of the inheritance. Esau may well have been engaged by now and, heady with the thought of joining the local chieftaincy, figured he could do just fine on his own without any help from Old Dad. At any rate, he thought the deal a bargain enough, and made the trade.  Step One of the prophecy was complete.

Now for Step Two. This took a few more years, maybe a couple of decades. By now Esau was the head of a growing clan, but hadn't yet struck out to form his own nation of Edom. Jacob was still the momma's boy, perhaps working on publishing his own cookbook. But Step Two was never out of his mind, and--more importantly--his mother's.

Rebekah was ready when the time came for Step Two. Issac, now 117 years old, having grown feeble and blind, figured it was finally time to pass on his patriarchal blessing before he forgot how it was supposed to go. Abraham, after all, had been dead for over 40 years.  So he sent for Esau, that aspiring chieftain, and offered him his blessing in exchange for a meal of venison steak. Esau, having conveniently forgotten about his deal with Jacob those many years hence, promptly set off to carry out his part of the bargain.  Meanwhile, Rebekah quickly set in motion a plan of her own--apparently trying, like so many had before her, to 'help God out' in fulfillment of the prophecy of half a century earlier.

While Esau was studying antelope tracks in the Negev, Jacob and Rebekah were catching, slaughtering, skinning, butchering, and otherwise preparing two young goats to be part of a full-fledged feast to celebrate the passing of the patriarchy from Isaac to the next generation. Only, the two of them had a different idea than Isaac and Esau did as to which of the twin sons would get it.

Well, the steak dinner was finally done, and, strategically draped in the skins of the goats, Jacob cleared his throat, tried to make his voice sound as deep as Esau's, and carried the tray containing Isaac's share of the steak dinner into his father's tent.  Jacob--"Leg-Puller"--was now about to fulfill the figurative meaning of his name. And Isaac was to now about to reap a harvest of the deceptive seed he'd earlier sown, but instead of "she's my sister," the lie was now "I'm my brother."

Blind, feeble Isaac was not yet so blind and feeble not to be suspicious of the act Jacob was putting on. Apparently in his encroaching senility, though, he had forgotten all about the prophecy that the elder would serve the younger, and was determined to pass on the blessing to Esau. It was only after feeling the gamy hides in which Jacob was wrapped that he suppressed his suspicions and went ahead with the meal and the blessing ceremony that followed--but oops, he left the name blank, and all the blessings rested upon his leg-pulling son Jacob. Ironically, among them was the explicit prophecy that his brother would serve him--a prophecy that would have contradicted what the Lord had predicted, had Esau's name been attached to the blessing.

No sooner had Jacob rushed back to share his great success with Momma, but in came Esau--having probably stopped by his own encampment to have his wives fix up a tasty steak dinner from the venison he'd bagged. Crestfallen at having been duped by his own wife (alas, he'd taught her well--too well), Isaac could only stammer out a back-handed blessing to Esau--one that Esau could hardly appreciate:

"You shall dwell in a dry and desolate land,
The leader of a bandit tribe,
A tributary to your brother's throne.
But your descendants shall someday grow in power
And break free from its oppressive sovereignty."

Some blessing, huh. And with that we leave Esau to his growing collection of wives, by which he might hope to enlarge his nation rapidly enough to overtake the thrice-prophesied legacy of his now-hated brother Jacob, the sooner to throw of his yoke.

Little did he know that fawning Jacob, too shy to even ask outright for his father's blessing, was soon to become kissing cousins--and more--with two of their mother's nieces, and would go on to sire a nation that would overtake that of his brother.

A population explosion in which polygyny, along with concubinage, would play a major role.

[AndysDad]

In studying the story of Jacob and his four women, it's helpful to take a look at the legal situation in that time and place.  While Haran may not have been in the Babylonian Empire, it was a trading post that would have seen a lot of traffic with Babylon and the culture must have been similar.

This is what a synopsis of  The Code of Hammurabi says about marriage and concubinage:

"Throughout the Ancient World childlessness was considered to be a serious problem.  If a wife failed to bear children she might give her maidservant to her husband.  If the maidservant produced a baby it counted as the wife’s child.  If such a maidservant started to take on airs and act the equal of the wife she could not be sold but she would be kept strictly as a slave.  If neither wife nor maidservant produced a child a man was permitted a second wife but again she was not allowed to be equal in status to the first wife.  If his wife acquired a long-term illness he could take a second wife but he must continue to look after his first wife for as long as she lives.  She could take her dowry and return to her father’s house if she wanted to do so: the choice was hers. (144-149)

"A man divided his estate among his sons after having provided a suitable dowry for each daughter and an appropriate bride price for each son.  If he died before arranging all of this his heirs were expected to do so before dividing the balance of the estate.  If a man had children by two wives, all of his sons shared his estate  equally; they got a portion of their birth mother’s dowry but nothing from their stepmother.  (166-167, 183-184) 

"If in life the father acknowledged sons by a slave or concubine, they were entitled to share equally in his estate.  If he had not acknowledged them they had no right to inherit, but the slave or concubine and her children were freed on his death.  (170-171)"

We can see distinct parallels to Jacob's case. He paid a dowry of a little over the going rate (7 years of shepherding vs 6) for Rachel, but Laban pulled a switcheroo and sold him Leah instead.  Due to Laban's willingness and Jacob's eagerness, a legal loophole was found in Leah's "tender eyes," by which she was considered damaged property (which was why no one had married her yet) and Rachel was offered in compensation. Thus he had the unusual situation of having two full wives, who would always be in competition for his affection. Leah, moreover, having held the sole-wife position for a week, was loathe to ever give it up. She never quite looked on Rachel as anything more than a secondary wife, albeit somewhat above a concubine, so it irked her that Jacob continued to favor Rachel. Their situation demonstrated that an arranged marriage can never displace one built on affection, and that in the case of full wives, two are not better than one.

Well, as each full wife proved less than fecund, they offered their handmaidens as concubines to Jacob. For reasons which we are never given, but perhaps to keep pace with Uncle Ishmael's twelve sons, Jacob accepted them all as legitimate heirs. This situation doesn't appear to have put any stress on Jacob's twin marriages, but it did turn out to the detriment of peace and harmony among the half-brothers. Joseph was the odd man out, with no full siblings for most of his childhood, and had the added misfortune of being the favored son of the favored wife. Naturally, one thing his half-brothers could all agree on was that they hated Joseph. Anyone who has tried to blend two families together can identify with the problem of half-siblings, but in this case it was not a situation forced upon Joseph, but one which he lived with his entire childhood. He had no happy memories of a nuclear family, and the birth of his only full brother was closely entwined with the death of their mother. So even his full brother  was raised by a different mother than Joseph was, and whoever that may have been, it was in competition with her own sons.

The brothers had a major incentive for killing Joseph: it was obvious that Jacob intended to give him the double portion of the inheritance--or more--and with him out of the way their own share stood to gain quite a bit. There was always the risk that the sons of the concubines would be disinherited--what hope was there, if Reuben himself had been fired as firstborn?

Thus we see Jacob's clan growing more rapidly than Esau's, in fulfillment of the prophecy--but without God's direct intervention,  the family problems inherent in Jacob's polygynous approach would have soon splintered the nascent nation into twelve tribes, all at each other's throats.

[AndysDad]

Having taken a glance at the historical milieu for Jacob's polyandry, now let's take a closer look at the story itself.

The story begins with Esau on the warpath and Jacob on the run.  The twins are now in their mid-fifties. Esau has been married over 15 years, long enough to have several growing sons and a growing host of retainers. Jacob, on the other hand, has nothing but God's promise that he and his seed will prevail. But the fulfillment of this promise seems to be in jeopardy, and once again, it's time to 'help God out'.

Rebekah goes to Isaac and pleads for him not to let Jacob marry one of the local women. Note that Isaac, unlike his father, has taken no responsibility for finding wives for his sons. He's not one to feel a need to 'help God out'!  But at his wife's urging, he sends--not a servant to go find a wife, but Jacob himself to acquire one of his brother-in-law Laban's daughters, somehow knowing after all these years  that there will still be a daughter or two available (he and Rebekah have already celebrated their Diamond Anniversary).  And note that he didn't send him with a caravan laden with riches to pay for the bride; Isaac is obviously still miffed over Jacob's leg-pulling and is going to make him earn his own way in life until Dear Old Dad finally dies and leaves two-thirds of the inheritance to him--which, given the lifespan in those days, is likely to be a while.

So off Jacob sets for a place he's never been, to meet a man he's never seen, and ask for a daughter he has to assume is still available to marry.  But when he does get her, she will be his full wife, the mother of his promised seed, and presumably a lot like his own mother--her aunt. Given how well he and Mom always got along, it should work out.

It's interesting to note that Esau took notice of this plan and finally realized that marrying the daughters of the local chieftains wasn't the way they did things in his family. Hoping to impress his monogamous parents, he added his cousin Mahalath to his harem.  This meant that their children would be closer cousins to Jacob's seed than any of their half-siblings.  I note in passing that there must be a reason why the Bible mentions this event (28:8-9), as it really has nothing to do with the plot of our story. And I also note that in giving us this information, the Bible specifies that in an attempt to make things right in his married life, Ishmael didn't get rid of his other wives first, but added the 'right woman' to those he already had.

Meanwhile, Jacob is visited by God on his way to Haran and the Promise is reiterated: Jacob's seed shall be both numerous and mighty, and will possess the land.  So two things to keep in mind throughout the rest of Jacob's story is that no matter how things may seem to be headed, he can always count on giving birth to a mighty nation, and he can always count on them returning to possess the land. In fact, God's promise was pretty specific, that Jacob would return with his family.  Thus there is no danger of happening with Jacob what Abraham feared would happen with Isaac: that if he returned to Haran to find a wife he'd never come back to the Land of Promise (24:7-8).

So, Jacob arrives in the vicinity of Haran to find that his relatives have extensive holdings in the countryside, and he won't have to go quite so far to find a well at which to look for his bride.  And unlike his grandfather's servant, he takes his own sweet time disclosing the ostensible reason for his visit: it's a whole month before he brings it up, at Uncle Laban's urging. Yes, at the age of fifty-seven, Jacob is in fact interested in a wife. And yes, he does in fact have his eye on one maiden in particular, despite the vast age difference: Rachel, Laban's youngest daughter.  In fact, he's madly in love with her, still treasuring the memory of their first kiss.

But sly Laban is about to pull the leg of the Leg-Puller. Not about to be left with Leah as an old maid, he connives to pass her off as Rachel on the wedding night seven years later (this was a whole lot easier before electric lights).

Let's step back from the story a moment and notice the elements of a marriage ceremony in that time and place:

1. The suitor must be of the appropriate lineage and social class. As Isaac's heir and Rebekah's son, Jacob was eminently qualified, despite his present poverty. Cousins were encouraged to marry each other, and it had been Isaac's specific instructions for Jacob to do so.

2. The appropriate bride price must be paid.
Given his penury, Jacob had to work off the contract in advance. These were Laban's last two daughters, and he wasn't selling them cheap--nor was he about to move up the wedding date to convenience the happy couple. Poor Jacob had to wait until he was 64 to finally tie the knot! And Leah herself must have been up in years by then--well into her 20's at least.

3. A celebration was held.
Laban invited the neighbors in for a feast, thus publicly signifying that he'd given his daughter in marriage. Which daughter, however, was conveniently left unspecified on the invitations.

4. The marriage was consummated.
At that moment, Mr. and Mrs. Isaacson became man and wife. Too bad for the mister that it wasn't the missus he'd had in mind!

Now, another look at the rules. Laban is able to force Jacob into keeping Leah in hopes of getting Rachel as soon as the honeymoon is over:

     "It frequently happened that the bride remained in her father’s house for as much as a year after the contract was signed.  If in the course of that time the groom changed his mind he did not have to marry her but he lost the full bride price. (159)   The bride’s father might also have changed his mind, in which case he would have been required to refund the purchase price in full (160).  If a wife died before giving birth to a son the dowry, less the bride price, was returned immediately to her father’s house (163-164). . . .

"A man could divorce his wife without giving a reason, but if she had borne him children there were some serious conditions:  she kept the children; she got the dowry; she also got the use of a field or property so she could raise her children. When her ex-husband died she got a portion of his estate equal to that given to each of her sons and was free to marry someone else. (137)  If a wife had no children she could be divorced by simply returning her dowry along with a sum equal to the purchase price.  If there was no purchase price he had to give her one mina of gold.  A shepherd could expect to take about six years to earn such a sum so in theory at least it could have been invested to go some way to maintain her. (137-140)"


So, if Jacob rejected Leah, he'd be out the seven years of work, and no doubt would be refused marriage to Rachel anyway. Plus, he'd half to work another seven years just to compensate Laban for handing back a used asset! Leg-Puller, consider your own leg pulled in equal measure.

But Laban was willing to strike a deal. If Jacob agreed to keep Leah at least until she had a child, he could always divorce her later, as long as he kept up on the child support. Meanwhile, he could have Rachel in a week, and only have to pay another 7 years of labor for her. Thus Jacob's three choices were:

1) Keep the wife he didn't love, but lose any chance of marrying the one he did;
2) Work 7 more years just to go back to being a free man again;
3) Work 7 years each for two wives--one he loved, and one he didn't.

Given this dilemma, and his family history of polygyny as a backup solution, Jacob lost faith in God's promise of a mighty nation coming from his loins and decided to take the only humanly reasonable approach: he selected Option 3. 

Obviously, God could have raised up a mighty nation through Leah. Or Leah could have died--perhaps in childbirth (such events were, after all, fairly common back then), and Rachel would then have been available to marry as a second sole wife.  God really didn't need Jacob's help in working this out! But like his mother before him, and his grandmother before her, Jacob fell into the trap of trying to apply man's solution to what was only God's problem.  Starting out at the gate with two wives, Jacob soon had four. And yes, God used those four matriarchs to bring forth the mighty nation He had promised--but He didn't need all four of them to accomplish it. 

As our study to date has shown us, one wife would have sufficed. Just look at the nations monogamous Adam and Noah were able to spawn just in their lifetimes!

Advanced search

• 1 Timothy 3:16 GOD was manifest in the flesh, or the Vatican versions "he"?: Translation Questions and Discussion byandiclare (3)
• Revelation 18:20 - Bible critics and "ye holy apostles and prophets": Translation Questions and Discussion bybrandplucked (0)
• What About the 2011 NIV Old Testament?: Translation Questions and Discussion bybrandplucked (0)
• 1 Samuel 6:19 Is your Bible the 100% historical truth of God? 50,070 or 70 slain: Translation Questions and Discussion bybrandplucked (3)
• What About the new NIV 2011?: Translation Questions and Discussion bybrandplucked (2)
• Answering the Typical Anti-KJB Only sites: Translation Questions and Discussion bybrandplucked (0)
• We are Gods?: Bible Discussion bySoffi (0)
• Every Man For Himself Bible Versions: Translation Questions and Discussion bybrandplucked (0)
• Answering James White's Question - Which KJV?: Translation Questions and Discussion byAndysDad (6)

• Japanese/English Bible?: Translation & Publishing—Resources, Questions & Interaction byGarlicMomma (5)
• Beka....?: Announcements & Updates byandiclare (0)
• HELP? Hubby can't sleep (I tried to search this): Healthcare @ Home byandiclare (1)
• Where is everyone?: Nothing Deep byGarlicMomma (5)
• Introduce Yourself!: Nothing Deep bypiperjameson (325)
• The scoop on Soap: House and Home byCherika Four Seasons (1)
• Ideas: Children serving each other: Parenting byjenibee (0)
• My husband needs help with something I think is wrong: Relationships byjackiee (4)
• like minded moms?: Parenting byHomeschool_Newbie (2)
• "Courtship" discussions/questions: Relationships byHomeschool_Newbie (15)
• Announcing....: Announcements & Updates byBJ_BOBBI_JO (5)
• 80 days dream: Announcements & Updates bybasething (16)
• strabismus: Healthcare @ Home byFree Woman (10)
• Prayer Requests -- Health Related: Healthcare @ Home byBJ_BOBBI_JO (640)
• Translations in Guatemala...: Translation & Publishing—Resources, Questions & Interaction byAndysDad (5)
• Boring christian life: Sarah's Daughters byBJ_BOBBI_JO (6)
• Is this site for real?: Relationships byandiclare (2)
• Emergency food: canned or powder?: Nothing Deep byGarlicMomma (9)
• A heart issue for my children?: Parenting byandiclare (9)
• Keeping Warm, Heating Tips & Tricks: House and Home byherbalmom (60)

[Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.Did you miss your activation email?]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

February 07, 2012, 05:00:11 PM

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Members

• Total Members: 6893
• Latest: ROxidRe4

Stats

• Total Posts: 243886
• Total Topics: 21906
• Online Today: 33
• Online Ever: 437
• (April 01, 2008, 03:09:36 PM)

Users Online

• Users: 0
• Guests: 29
• Total: 29