One of the benefits of the public stance I have taken regarding the Biblical positions of patriarchy and polygyny have been the number of people who have reached out to me with questions, support, or to share their story in how the Father opened their eyes in this challenging area. Currently, I am blessed to see the breadth of what the Father is doing as my connections and contacts now span the globe and cross multiple languages.
The recent video series on YouTube has been a particularly good connector with others, especially Torah teachers and keepers.
Benjamin, in a recent email conversation, shared some extremely insightful thoughts on rightly framing the argument. In his own words (and with his permission), here are the significant portions of one email:
Evenin’.
I must say to you that there is an important perspective… which is: that it is usually unwise to allow the opponent or enemy to define the terms of the dispute or to pick the battlefield.
There is no such thing as “monogamy only”… because those sinners (for adding to the Torah, which is something expressly forbidden) are drawing a line in the sand, and then demanding that everyone proceed to discuss, from one side or the other of that line.
They drew their line between the number “1” and all numbers greater than “1”.But, their line is a false one. It doesn’t describe nor define the realities. In a free society (and the beloved Torah of Yhwh is the free-est that we can become), those men who have 1 (exactly one) wife, are not in monogamy. They just happen to have one wife, while perhaps their neighbors happen to have 3 or 5 or 2. The men with one wife are doing the same thing as their neighbors are… not something different.
What I am trying to convey is that having one wife is just a sub-set of all the different numbers of wives. “Monogamy” is simply a sub-set of “polygyny”. They are the same thing.
The bad guys are drawing the line in the wrong place, and intentionally.
I suggest that all men who are pursuing the sharing of the truth on these matters, would do well to speak of these matters in terms of the light of the truth, rather than in the terms and boundaries set by the opponents.
I support normal marriage. Natural families. Monogamy isn’t a different thing from polygyny (family). It is simply one example of it.
But, these people who teach the doctrine of demons, forbidding men to marry (I am referring to the letter to Timothy) , by pushing that pagan heresy, which had to be given a name because it is so ridiculous, unnatural and unintuitive, “monogamy”… they want us to keep fighting on their terms and within their framework.
My buddy back out in —– always says, “The devil always likes to say, “Hey! Let’s you two fight!” I always say, “the devil’s favorite game is to draw a line in the dirt, and tell everybody to stand on one side or the other, and then tell them ‘OK, now fight!’ “. But, they were just buddies, a minute ago! Before somebody drew a line.
So, to repeat myself, It isn’t that I support polygyny alongside monogamy, while my opponents support “monogamy only”. It is that there is no such thing as monogamy. It’s a fiction, made up out of whole cloth.
What those sons-of-guns call “monogamy” is just one of many normal, possible examples of a man’s family. (of course!).
I support family; I support the reign of the father. And anyone who comes up with some cock-a-mamie balderdash, like telling other men how many women they can bring into their households; he can see his way out, before we throw him out.
I feel and think that we keep accepting the burden of proof. Nope. Those other sons of Belial have the burden upon them of proof.
Yep, I support Bill over there, who has 3 women (it’s none of my business). I support Sam over there who has one woman. We’re together, we’re not apart. We’re not on opposite sides of the line. We’re buddies. We’re on the same team. And our opponent is the one who is trying to divide us upon lines that have absolutely no meaning.. which are fictions… and which constitute an adding to the Torah.
…….
Shalom, Chag Sameach, and Laila tov.
Reign of the Father
Benjamin makes an exceptionally good and important point, one I have touched on, but not nearly so strongly or eloquently. I’ve said, both in print and the video series above “God doesn’t care if you have one wife or more than one wife. He only cares that you are a covenant keeper and fulfill your obligation to each woman you have.”
The fact that the adversary has long had this fictional line in the sand that has led to so much confusion and destruction is telling! It is deception, a favorite tactic of the adversary.
I’ll not add to Benjamin’s email. Take it and ponder!! He is exactly right! Monogamy is simply a subset of polygyny, and both are simply what Scripture defines as the relationship between a man his woman or women.
And, his comments referring to the adversary drawing lines…. Guard against division in this and other areas!!
Shalom!!
11:3 Restoration 
Very helpful thanks Pete. I agree; God hasn’t set limits and He even allows people to remain single!
You conclude your article in the link saying, “And, his comments referring to the adversary drawing lines…. Guard against division in this and other areas!!” It brought to mind the verses from Proverbs 6;
16 These six things the Lord hates, Yes, seven are an abomination to Him:
17 A proud look, A lying tongue, Hands that shed innocent blood,
18 A heart that devises wicked plans, Feet that are swift in running to evil,
19 A false witness who speaks lies, And one who sows discord among brethren.
The lies and deception of those who set limits, in contradiction to God’s Word, have sowed much discord among brethren. To be involved in something God says He hates is a seriously bad thing and I agree with Samuel; we all ought to avoid doing the same with the vaccination debate or any other ungodly line people want to draw to sow discord.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Absolutely! Great point and Scripture application! Thanks!
LikeLike
Hey Pete,
I appreciate your work and the diligence with which you uphold truth. I would argue a point of technical precision, however, that I don’t think detracts from the point at all but will leave our opponents without the opportunity to give themselves an easy out from considering this: monogamy isn’t a subset of polygyny. They are both, but different, subsets of Godly family structures. That, I believe, was the main point, but the wording might lend our adversaries a tool to disagree on linguistic technicality.
Shalom.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Shalom and welcome,
A good point to ponder. Certainly, I can’t change his email, but understand the validity of your point. God never uses either term, He just defines what a Godly family structure is: man leading and keeping covenant with the woman or women who follow him and are under his authority and responsibility.
Brachot!
LikeLike
Or, as I point out… neither of them exists. They are both fictions.
However, I will repeat (and defend) what I wrote, only as a matter of “technical precision”.
Now, I’ll bet that I probably see, at least in part, some of these things through the lenses of my training and background.
As in some flavors of computer software and persistence design, I am looking at these relationships of a man and his women, in one of three models:
One-to-One
One-to-Many
Many-to-Many
These are (the) three basic ways that I can relate items of different types.
The relationships of a man with his wives, with his children, and with his servants, are mentioned together throughout the scriptures, as instances of One-to-Many relationships.
A man may have many sons and daughters. But, a son or daughter can have only one father.
A man may have many servants; but a servant cannot serve two masters.
These are One-to-Many relationships. (I see them through this lens. Although it may not be the only way to see them; it is certainly one “technique”.) Thus, “technically” I will say that a man’s having but one servant is just a subset of the various examples of men’s each having many servants.
Likewise, I suggest that a man who has but one wife, represents a subset of the faithful family structures (the man IS the family) that are all One-to-Many relationships. If I have but one wife, the sort of relationship has not changed… it is still one-to-many… it is still a polygynous “type” of relationship. It is simply a coincidence, a subset, a special case… that I happen to have but one woman in my polygynous (one-to-many type) marriage relationship.
Similarly, folks who have but one child are not monofilists (I am making that word up)… following the biblical rule of having only one son. It’s just a special case, a coincidence. It could be 5 or 12 or 15 sons.
The Monogamy Heresy, on the other hand, is a sin. It is adding to the Torah by introducing a false commandment, changing the nature of marriage from the one-to-many type, to the one-to-one type. That’s sin, and leads to immense damage and suffering.
Likewise, the promotion of polyamory is a sin that leads to great suffering and damage, by falsely trying to redefine marriage from being the one-to-many type, into being the many-to-many type.
I hope that this information (or these ideas) were refreshing and a blessing; and not any trouble for anyone.
If you love him; that is, if you obey his commands, then I pray that Yhwh eloheinu bless you and guard you, for Yeshua’s blessed sake.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you so much, Benjamin, for chiming in. Excellent additional clarification in keeping w the whole counsel oh YHWH’s Word!
May our Master bless and guard you and yours.
Shalom.
LikeLike
It is like saying there is a moral, spiritual, or Biblical difference between having 1 child or 2 children.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Are you comparing your WIFE to a *child* ?!”
“Are you comparing me to a SLAVE?”
Well, yes; of course.
There are comparisons and there are also contrasts… but, yes, there are comparisons to be drawn, and great similarities.
And, if that were not the case, then the same comparisons would not be made, right within the scripture, itself.
And those attributes which are the same… are more than most fellows (in the west) have the spine to say, out loud.
LikeLiked by 1 person