The last Installment was published ten days ago. There are several reasons for me not publishing any Installment during the last ten days. Oddly, all of these seemed to intersect with the Feast of Tabernacles.
During the Feast, I took the time to pray, contemplate, meditate, reflect, and discuss things with Mary. During the Feast, I was consumed with these things so I didn’t publish anything.
I’m not going to go through the entire process of why I am where I am at this moment, here on this day, but suffice it to say that I have trouble believing that what I have experienced is actual.
Look, no matter how it’s tried, Biblically, monogamy-only cannot be substantiated. I’ve done the research. I’ve done the studies. Monogamy-only is dogma, not Bible.
I know there are those who dispute me, but they dispute for two main reasons.
One, monogamy is the preference of most people. But monogamy literally means “one marriage”. The prefix mono means “one”. The root word gamy means “marriage” from the Greek word γαμος (G1016), which depending on the NT context is translated as “marriage” or “wedding”.
By its very construction, monogamy does NOT mean “one man and one woman”. But *monogamy* has been redefined to mean “one husband and one wife”
If bible students and cultural students and lingual students cannot address the difference between what “monogamy” literally means and what “monogamy” colloquially means, then how on earth am I ever going to have a conversation of any substance.
Importantly, polygamy literally means “many marriages”. It comes from the prefix poly meaning “many” and the root word “gamy” meaning marriage.
Look, if you want to know something you have to be willing to look beyond the colloquial, you have to see the technical. While there are many men who practice polygamy, where they truly have many marriages, because he has a marriage to wife number one, and then a different marriage to wife number two, and some men have subsequent marriages, where he has another marriage to wife number three, and so on it goes.
A man could marry the woman he dated in college. They get married. Then he divorces her. Then later he takes a second wife, and let’s say she was never married. The man is, technically, polygamous – bigamous, really, because he only had two marriages. But if he divorced the second wife, and later married a third woman, he would fit the technical definition of polygamy, even though he fits the social definition of monogamy.
That is the entire problem of this discussion. We have no real way of discussing the issue because actual word meanings, the inherent meaning of monogamy, bigamy, polygamy, become confused and conflated with social, colloquial definitions. The definitions are not the same, and are used in widely different ways.
So for a man to marry his sweetheart from college, remain with her all his life, to survive her death, yet he never takes another wife, that situation was truly monogamous, because he had only “one marriage”.
So here’s the real kicker, pay attention, it’s important and is based completely on definitions – a man can have “one marriage” yet have two wives.
That’s not possible, says my reader. That impossibility is because the colloquial definition has triumphed over the actual definition.
Technically speaking, when a man has multiple wives he is a polgynist, but he may or may not be a polygamist. This is because the prefix “poly” means “many” but the root word “gyny” is from the Greek word γυνη (G1135) which mean “woman” or “wife” where NT context usually determines if the Greek word is referring to a woman in general or to a man’s wife.
Importantly though, when a man has more than one girlfriend, technically, he is a polygynist. This simply means that a man doesn’t have to have a marriage to be a polygnist.
Importantly, if a woman has two or more boyfriends, she is technically a polyandrist. The prefix “poly” meaning “many” and the root word “andr” sourced in the Greek word ανηρ (G435) which means “man” or “husband” depending on the NT context. She could see multiple men at once, or multiple men during her lifetime, or be married to multiple men during her lifetime, yet be married to one man at any given time.
These are the complexities of the terminologies. The complexities do not make for easy discourse, but that is because colloquial use has overtaken technical use. I am simply revealing the more complex truth of the meaning inherent in the words.
Therefore, it stands to definitional ability that a man can both be a monogamist and a polygynist at the same time. That is because if he has a relationship with multiple women in a martial context and that marital context is considered “one marriage” then he is a man married to multiple women operating within one marriage.
That simply means that he does not have multiple marriages. Instead, he has “one marriage” (monogamy) but that one marriage is shared with “multiple women/wives” (polygyny).
What makes it so difficult is that is not how most people view a situation where a man has multiple wives. But that is most assuredly possible according to technical definitions.
But since no one seems to care about technical definitions, I wonder why I even try to explain. The truth is the church is filled with acrimonious leaders and lay people who use colloquial definitions instead of the technical definitions, providing critical judgment from an uninformed perspective.
All of that leads me to the second main reason.
Religious types (Jews, Messianic Jews, and Christians) are filled with dogma instead of the Bible.
The issue is while God created Eden and “from the beginning” it was man and woman, for those who have not, let the following sink in – humanity lost Eden. Eden is so far removed from humanity, it’s not just ancient history, it’s impossible to regain. Has anyone *read* the text of Genesis?
God kicked humanity out of Eden. God then put a protective measure at Eden to prohibit humanity from eating from the tree of life. But that wasn’t enough. Ultimately, God destroyed Eden via the flood.
This means that Eden, and its life-giving tree, along with its principals (nakedness, unashamedness, veganism, garden tending, undivorced-one-man-one-woman-marriages, and life without death) cannot be regained.
Does anyone read? My conclusion, no, they simply repeat the dogma of earlier generations, and this is why we cannot have a discussion.
Years after the flood, years after Abraham, years after Isaac, years after Jacob, years after Joseph, God -through Moses- made known to the nation of Israel and to those gathered with them, what He considered acceptable and unacceptable ethical, familial, legal, social, and theological behavior.
God declared several things an abomination. Deuteronomy 24.1-4 itemizes specific unacceptable behavior regarding marriage and divorce. Leviticus 18.17-18 itemizes specific unacceptable marital behavior involving multiple women when those women are blood relatives.
But God NEVER declared a man’s martial relationship to multiple women to be an abomination – NEVER, not through a Prophet, not through Jesus, not through an Apostle.
To declare such requires a misapplication of Jesus’ teachings about divorce. To declare such requires a misapplication of Paul and his teachings about the body of Jesus.
I know that the “history” of Judeo-Christian religion emphatically teaches only monogamy. Frankly, I don’t care. If the Bible is the sole source of information about what is acceptable to the Almighty, then by God, use the Scriptures and rely on it. Otherwise, what’s the point?
This is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of dogma. It is a matter of interpretation. When it comes to matrimony, a God-given requirement for monogamy-only is NOT to be found in the Scriptures. The requirement for monogamy-only is found in the Judeo-Christian religious bodies, but it cannot be found or substantiated via the Scriptures.
At this stage of the discussion, it simply doesn’t bother me that some are bothered by that truth. People of Judeo-Christian religious persuasions tell me that truth, God’s TRUTH, matters. Guess what? Practical experience tells me they believe otherwise.
Religious persuasions based on the Scriptures are “persuasions”. To find the truth of the marital reality means that one is no longer persuaded to their particular brand of persuasion.
I have learned that people are afraid. You know what? So am I.
But if truth, God’s TRUTH, matters, then it doesn’t matter to me, not one iota, not one yud, that dogma demands monogamy-only, because God, HaShem, The Almighty, El Shaddai, himself, never demands such.
The other day I was asked why I am unhappy. Want to know why I am unhappy? The very people who say they are for God and his truth, don’t give a rip about how God reveals his TRUTH in the Scriptures.
I can accept the world being upside down and turned about. But it has become nigh-on impossible to have conversations with those who believe God defines truth, when they practice anything but that.
For them, in practice, it is the religious persuasion that defines God’s truth. That is NOT how I was trained up, and that is NOT how I am going to live.
I was trained up that it is God who defines truth. It is from that perspective that I live and breathe. I work with religion. I work with society. But truth, God’s TRUTH, is external to humanity, and is external to religious dogma, no matter how genteel and pleasant the dogma might be.
As for me and the Feast days, I prayed, I rested, I contemplated, but I also worked.
I have confusion about some of my experiences during the last five years. But I am NOT confused about the Scriptures and its presentation about marriage. Not the Scriptures, not God, not Jesus, demand monogamy-only.
It is religious dogma that has muddied the waters of acceptable marriages.
The best, and I mean the best, that the Judeo-Christian religion could do is teach the actual truth about matrimony, and let adult believers decide for themselves what it is that they want to do with their matrimony.
I am uncertain how I will proceed with my Installments, but I wanted to share a portion of what culminated within the last few days.
Blessings and Shalom