On August 27, 2019, I made a decision to take what I thought would be either a couple-months break from posting on the forums or perhaps a permanent one with a commitment to restricting my Biblical Families interactions to only retreats and private messages. That temporary-break length has now nearly tripled, but my time reading, studying and focusing on face-to-face relationships has been more than its own reward – and I have come out the other end even more convinced that the greatest value of Biblical Families is what occurs at conferences and other gatherings. Nonetheless, I remain of a mind to interact online as well.
Immediately after making my parting posts on August 28, though, I sent a private communication to a Biblical Families man I deeply revere; I will refer to him here as ZenEven. That message was a ranting response to something he’d written in a thread entitled something like, “Everyone’s Not for Polygamy.” Because I eventually knew I wasn’t going to publish it publicly – and because I trusted I could count on him to not only comprehend where I was coming from but follow that up with giving me sage counsel – I spent the better part of a day editing and editing the message, dumping nearly every frustration I had with anyone else participating in the thread into my more reasonable prose – adding one thing after another until I’d exhausted myself. Before I sent the message, I left some of it on the cutting floor. @ZenEven very wisely spoke with resonance to my heart, advising me to refrain from posting any of it in what was then a highly-charged atmosphere. Thus, much of even what I sent will never see the light of day. That’s a good thing.
What follows is a reconstituted version, mostly old but some new to replace the parts that simply had to go. I’m including this in my series of new postings, because (a) I thoughtfully contributed to the “Everyone’s Not for Polygamy” thread, but then (b) my thoughts were misrepresented; (c) ultimately I failed to correct that misrepresentation; (d) it’s a puzzle piece of the explanation for why I disappeared; and, (e) just prior to starting back up this month I required of myself that I do a fairly thorough review of the forum threads since August; in that process I discovered the “Sexual Duties & Children” thread – a real doozy – and, rather than attempting to respond to 17 pages of postings, I simply suggest that this recasting of my August 28 private message is relevant to that discussion as well:
*************
ZenEven said (on 8/27/19 in response to a partially-quoted post moved elsewhere because it was deemed tangential): ↑
I'm not a Torah Keeper, so, as far as I’m concerned, I Corinthians 7:3-5 would normally start off with some advantage (I consider Clyde Pilkington, Jr.’s Due Benevolence to be an incredibly valuable research tool in this regard), but ICor7 is powerfully tempered by Torah – despite the fact that I do not believe I, as a non-Israelite, am at all compelled to fully adhere to Torah. William Luck (in his brilliant Divorce and Remarriage) cites the following Scriptures as having been considered definitive at the time of Torah (all quotes CVOT, but, in these instances, not substantively different from the KJV):
Those, along with the contexts surrounding them, were the sole texts used at that time and in their wake by judges, rabbis, Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes and the like to reinforce (1) that a man owed his wife conjugal rights throughout their marriage [nowhere is it written in Torah that she owed him the same] and (2) that her corollary requirement was to grant him exclusivity to her conjugal delights [nowhere is it written in Torah that he owed her his virginity]. Period. Wives did not owe their husbands sex. If a man didn't like how much he was getting, he could have appealed to the rabbi for a divorce, and, being a man, it might in rare instances have been granted to him – but the Law leaned toward the protection of women, so don't fool yourself into thinking a treacherous divorce would have been based on Scripture; it would have been a matter of pure worldly self-justification.
Also, what we polygamy-promoters sometimes skirt around is that Paul's epistles were written during a time in which polygamy had already become predominantly unpopular, which was particularly true among the peoples of 1st-century Corinth, gung-ho Greco-Roman sympathizers by that time, to be sure. The Gentile culture in which the Early Christians were immersed was decidedly pro-monogamy-only (given that the Greeks were essentially the first to prohibit polygamy half a millennium earlier), so Paul was speaking in I Corinthians from the point of view of how real-life people in that era and locale should approach their conjugal responsibilities (context, context, context) – and his message would be the same today to any community that expects monogamy-only. If you start keeping score on this kind of thing, you’ll discover, in fact, that I Cor. 7:3-5 is one of the most commonly-quoted Bible verses in support of the mistaken notion that polygamy was outlawed in the New Testament.
Especially for Torah Keepers, because it could have impact on acceptance of strict rule-following and the degree to which I Corinthians 7:3-5 conflates due benevolence with antipathy toward polygamy, it is folly for polygamous patriarchs to disregard the fact that Paul's admonition was almost a total cave-in to the monogamy-only cultural mindset, which occurred because Paul had much bigger fish to fry at that moment, given that Christ had singled Paul out to spread his peculiar Gospel of the Mystery. So there's a bit of selfish convenience to looking backward to Torah to justify polygamy while preferring to expect our wives to live up to strictures promoted by the decidedly-non-Torah pro-monogamy-only 1st-century A.D. Gentiles. Citing the cafeteria-standard about how this might be one of those places where the old rule was replaced with a new one isn’t going to be helpful.
(continued in Post B)
Immediately after making my parting posts on August 28, though, I sent a private communication to a Biblical Families man I deeply revere; I will refer to him here as ZenEven. That message was a ranting response to something he’d written in a thread entitled something like, “Everyone’s Not for Polygamy.” Because I eventually knew I wasn’t going to publish it publicly – and because I trusted I could count on him to not only comprehend where I was coming from but follow that up with giving me sage counsel – I spent the better part of a day editing and editing the message, dumping nearly every frustration I had with anyone else participating in the thread into my more reasonable prose – adding one thing after another until I’d exhausted myself. Before I sent the message, I left some of it on the cutting floor. @ZenEven very wisely spoke with resonance to my heart, advising me to refrain from posting any of it in what was then a highly-charged atmosphere. Thus, much of even what I sent will never see the light of day. That’s a good thing.
What follows is a reconstituted version, mostly old but some new to replace the parts that simply had to go. I’m including this in my series of new postings, because (a) I thoughtfully contributed to the “Everyone’s Not for Polygamy” thread, but then (b) my thoughts were misrepresented; (c) ultimately I failed to correct that misrepresentation; (d) it’s a puzzle piece of the explanation for why I disappeared; and, (e) just prior to starting back up this month I required of myself that I do a fairly thorough review of the forum threads since August; in that process I discovered the “Sexual Duties & Children” thread – a real doozy – and, rather than attempting to respond to 17 pages of postings, I simply suggest that this recasting of my August 28 private message is relevant to that discussion as well:
*************
ZenEven said (on 8/27/19 in response to a partially-quoted post moved elsewhere because it was deemed tangential): ↑
Let’s be careful to not teach things that are unBiblical.
1 Corinthians 7:3-5 (KJV) 3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. 4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. 5 Defraud ye not one the other, except [it be] with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
I'm not a Torah Keeper, so, as far as I’m concerned, I Corinthians 7:3-5 would normally start off with some advantage (I consider Clyde Pilkington, Jr.’s Due Benevolence to be an incredibly valuable research tool in this regard), but ICor7 is powerfully tempered by Torah – despite the fact that I do not believe I, as a non-Israelite, am at all compelled to fully adhere to Torah. William Luck (in his brilliant Divorce and Remarriage) cites the following Scriptures as having been considered definitive at the time of Torah (all quotes CVOT, but, in these instances, not substantively different from the KJV):
Exodus 21:10: "If he is taking another for himself, he shall not diminish her meat, her covering and her cohabitation."
Leviticus 18:20: "And to the wife of your companion you shall not give your emission of semen, to be unclean with her."
Leviticus 20:10: "As for a man who commits adulter(s)y with another man's wife -- one who commits adulter(s)y with his associate's wife -- the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death, yea death."
Numbers 5:19: "Then the priest will adjure her and say to the woman: If no man has lain with you, and if you have not swerved in uncleanness while under your husband's authority, be innocent from the waters of bitterness that bring this curse."
Deuteronomy 22:13-24: "In case a man should take a wife, and he comes in to her, yet then he hates her, charges her with iniquitous words and brings forth an evil name on her and says: I took this woman, and I came near to her and did not find evidence of virginity on her, then the father of the maiden and her mother will take and bring forth the maiden's proof of virginity to the elders of the city at the gate. And the maiden's father will say to the elders: I gave my daughter to this man as wife, but he hates her. And behold, he charges her with iniquitous words, saying: I found no evidence of virginity on your daughter. Yet this is the proof of my daughter's virginity; and they will spread the raiment before the elders of the city. Then the elders of that city will the man and flog him, fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the father of the maiden, for he brought forth an evil name on a virgin of Israel. And she shall remain his wife; he cannot dismiss her all his days. Yet if this matter be true and no proof of virginity is found for the maiden, they will bring forth the maiden to the portal of her father's house, and the men of her city will stone her with stones so that she dies, for she committed decadence in Israel so as to prostitute herself while in her father's house. Thus you will take out the evil from among you. In case a man should be found lying with a woman espoused to her possessor, then they must die, indeed both of them, the who was lying with the woman and the woman. Thus you will take out the evil from Israel. In case there should be a maiden, a virgin, who is betrothed to a man, and another man finds her in the city, and he lies with her, then you must bring forth both of them to the gate of that city and stone them with stones so that they die, the maiden on the score that she did not cry out in the city, and the man on the score that he humiliated the wife of his associate. Thus you will take the evil from among you."
Leviticus 18:20: "And to the wife of your companion you shall not give your emission of semen, to be unclean with her."
Leviticus 20:10: "As for a man who commits adulter(s)y with another man's wife -- one who commits adulter(s)y with his associate's wife -- the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death, yea death."
Numbers 5:19: "Then the priest will adjure her and say to the woman: If no man has lain with you, and if you have not swerved in uncleanness while under your husband's authority, be innocent from the waters of bitterness that bring this curse."
Deuteronomy 22:13-24: "In case a man should take a wife, and he comes in to her, yet then he hates her, charges her with iniquitous words and brings forth an evil name on her and says: I took this woman, and I came near to her and did not find evidence of virginity on her, then the father of the maiden and her mother will take and bring forth the maiden's proof of virginity to the elders of the city at the gate. And the maiden's father will say to the elders: I gave my daughter to this man as wife, but he hates her. And behold, he charges her with iniquitous words, saying: I found no evidence of virginity on your daughter. Yet this is the proof of my daughter's virginity; and they will spread the raiment before the elders of the city. Then the elders of that city will the man and flog him, fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the father of the maiden, for he brought forth an evil name on a virgin of Israel. And she shall remain his wife; he cannot dismiss her all his days. Yet if this matter be true and no proof of virginity is found for the maiden, they will bring forth the maiden to the portal of her father's house, and the men of her city will stone her with stones so that she dies, for she committed decadence in Israel so as to prostitute herself while in her father's house. Thus you will take out the evil from among you. In case a man should be found lying with a woman espoused to her possessor, then they must die, indeed both of them, the who was lying with the woman and the woman. Thus you will take out the evil from Israel. In case there should be a maiden, a virgin, who is betrothed to a man, and another man finds her in the city, and he lies with her, then you must bring forth both of them to the gate of that city and stone them with stones so that they die, the maiden on the score that she did not cry out in the city, and the man on the score that he humiliated the wife of his associate. Thus you will take the evil from among you."
Those, along with the contexts surrounding them, were the sole texts used at that time and in their wake by judges, rabbis, Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes and the like to reinforce (1) that a man owed his wife conjugal rights throughout their marriage [nowhere is it written in Torah that she owed him the same] and (2) that her corollary requirement was to grant him exclusivity to her conjugal delights [nowhere is it written in Torah that he owed her his virginity]. Period. Wives did not owe their husbands sex. If a man didn't like how much he was getting, he could have appealed to the rabbi for a divorce, and, being a man, it might in rare instances have been granted to him – but the Law leaned toward the protection of women, so don't fool yourself into thinking a treacherous divorce would have been based on Scripture; it would have been a matter of pure worldly self-justification.
Also, what we polygamy-promoters sometimes skirt around is that Paul's epistles were written during a time in which polygamy had already become predominantly unpopular, which was particularly true among the peoples of 1st-century Corinth, gung-ho Greco-Roman sympathizers by that time, to be sure. The Gentile culture in which the Early Christians were immersed was decidedly pro-monogamy-only (given that the Greeks were essentially the first to prohibit polygamy half a millennium earlier), so Paul was speaking in I Corinthians from the point of view of how real-life people in that era and locale should approach their conjugal responsibilities (context, context, context) – and his message would be the same today to any community that expects monogamy-only. If you start keeping score on this kind of thing, you’ll discover, in fact, that I Cor. 7:3-5 is one of the most commonly-quoted Bible verses in support of the mistaken notion that polygamy was outlawed in the New Testament.
Especially for Torah Keepers, because it could have impact on acceptance of strict rule-following and the degree to which I Corinthians 7:3-5 conflates due benevolence with antipathy toward polygamy, it is folly for polygamous patriarchs to disregard the fact that Paul's admonition was almost a total cave-in to the monogamy-only cultural mindset, which occurred because Paul had much bigger fish to fry at that moment, given that Christ had singled Paul out to spread his peculiar Gospel of the Mystery. So there's a bit of selfish convenience to looking backward to Torah to justify polygamy while preferring to expect our wives to live up to strictures promoted by the decidedly-non-Torah pro-monogamy-only 1st-century A.D. Gentiles. Citing the cafeteria-standard about how this might be one of those places where the old rule was replaced with a new one isn’t going to be helpful.
(continued in Post B)
