• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

More response videos...


Not a response video, but big shoutout to BibFam in two places. More in depth discussion of BibFam in the full Patreon video. Enjoy!
 
I'm really enjoying your videos bud! Keep up the good work!
 
I'm also really enjoying these videos. They are helpful (and you know I don't agree with you on everything).
Please keep them coming. Celebrity pastors sometimes need a smackdown. 😉
 
 
@PeteR I didn't see a thread or post for your polygyny and reproach or orphans and widows videos, so I'm going to put this here. In regards to defining reproach I wanted to bring up a couple scenarios I have had trouble reconciling in regards to the application of the state of reproach, not disagreeing with your conclusion but more-so trying to figure out exactly when it applies to someone. A man has no obligation to remove reproach from a woman desiring it, single or widowed. Men are not obligated to take a woman, let alone more than one with the exception being Levirate marriage and/or specific commanding by Yah (rare?, think Hosea). But when a man does takes a woman as a first or consecutive he needs to consider that he will be obligated to meet and continue in Exodus 21:10's precepts right?

At the risk of sounding shallow and superficial, being holden to Exo. 21:10 a wise man is obviously going to want the most attractive women he can get from at least a motivational stand point. While attractive attributes can vary, beauty is pretty much universal for a man. The saying "men fall in love through their eyes" comes to mind, but perhaps it is also that women were created to be desirable, beauty being their primary attractive attribute. Referencing Gen. 6:2, the main motivator cited was the woman's beauty. However not everyone is equal in this department, some being more and some less attractive, in both genders but obviously this being more of a consideration towards women. Whether born that way, or made that way (maimed, handicapped, ect), women's primary attractor is attributed to her beauty, while men's is his wealth/status/ability to provide.

History shows that it was more common for men to go through life single vs women, but considering that unattractive men can boost their appeal by becoming more successful/wealthy, unattractive women or women who may be older (widow or not) cannot as easily increase their desirability. While both parties typically have to agree on it, the man is the one with the final say towards a woman joining his house, with the stronger motivation to join a man lying with the woman, as her purpose is fulfilled when joined to a man (1 Corinthians 11:9). He can choose her (war brides or w/fathers permission), but she can't forcibly join him and neither can her father [or current covering] force him to take her (rape, seduction, ect excluded). Now I think a man knowing he is also the one accountable under Yah for any woman he takes, he should consider the above when vetting a potential woman, especially if he may be adding more later to avoid favoritism or neglect for less attractive wives (Rachel and Leah scenario). At least to avoid strife and be able to be motivated to keep Exo. 21:10.

This is where the water gets muddy, what can be said to those who are less fortunate here and are in "reproach" not by choice, but by chance? Excepting the holdouts and women who are unattractive from past choices (dishonorable behavior). When a woman finds herself undesired, having no husband not from a lack of want, but because she may lack the traits to attract one, even if polygyny is permissible. What consoling or solution can be offered them? Are they still in "reproach"?

Widows being a special category here, but qualifying under the above, citing Exo. 22:22-27 and also 1 Tim 5:3-14, they are certainly to be handled with care, but is the widow under 60 who chooses singleness choosing "reproach"? Does it only apply to the childless or the woman with children or grandchildren as well? Where do the widows over 60 who do not meet the stated requirements for the list of widows fall in regards to Exo. 22:22-27? Is Paul saying they exempt themselves by choosing to live for pleasure? Which is more desirable being "covered" or provided for? As the widow with children may not be in need like the widow without, but both are "uncovered".

Something that has been bouncing around in my head regarding "reproach" is the possibility it is more in reference to a lack of children/family/belonging than a lack of a "covering". Is that the true definition of conjugal rights in Exo 21:10? Rather than sex as it is commonly interpreted. If it is only a "covering" then Solomon's wives would be something to consider in that he may not have gotten to know every one (conjugal rights) but they were all covered by him. Then considering Ruth and Boaz brings me to the question is it better to be "covered" then provided for seeing as Exo 21:10 permits her to go free but does not command her to go? Its late and I'm starting to blabber hopefully this makes sense...
 
RemnantResilience said:
@PeteR I didn't see a thread or post for your polygyny and reproach or orphans and widows videos, so I'm going to put this here. In regards to defining reproach I wanted to bring up a couple scenarios I have had trouble reconciling in regards to the application of the state of reproach, not disagreeing with your conclusion but more-so trying to figure out exactly when it applies to someone. A man has no obligation to remove reproach from a woman desiring it, single or widowed. Men are not obligated to take a woman, let alone more than one with the exception being Levirate marriage and/or specific commanding by Yah (rare?, think Hosea). But when a man does takes a woman as a first or consecutive he needs to consider that he will be obligated to meet and continue in Exodus 21:10's precepts right?

At the risk of sounding shallow and superficial, being holden to Exo. 21:10 a wise man is obviously going to want the most attractive women he can get from at least a motivational stand point. While attractive attributes can vary, beauty is pretty much universal for a man. The saying "men fall in love through their eyes" comes to mind, but perhaps it is also that women were created to be desirable, beauty being their primary attractive attribute. Referencing Gen. 6:2, the main motivator cited was the woman's beauty. However not everyone is equal in this department, some being more and some less attractive, in both genders but obviously this being more of a consideration towards women. Whether born that way, or made that way (maimed, handicapped, ect), women's primary attractor is attributed to her beauty, while men's is his wealth/status/ability to provide.

History shows that it was more common for men to go through life single vs women, but considering that unattractive men can boost their appeal by becoming more successful/wealthy, unattractive women or women who may be older (widow or not) cannot as easily increase their desirability. While both parties typically have to agree on it, the man is the one with the final say towards a woman joining his house, with the stronger motivation to join a man lying with the woman, as her purpose is fulfilled when joined to a man (1 Corinthians 11:9). He can choose her (war brides or w/fathers permission), but she can't forcibly join him and neither can her father [or current covering] force him to take her (rape, seduction, ect excluded). Now I think a man knowing he is also the one accountable under Yah for any woman he takes, he should consider the above when vetting a potential woman, especially if he may be adding more later to avoid favoritism or neglect for less attractive wives (Rachel and Leah scenario). At least to avoid strife and be able to be motivated to keep Exo. 21:10.

This is where the water gets muddy, what can be said to those who are less fortunate here and are in "reproach" not by choice, but by chance? Excepting the holdouts and women who are unattractive from past choices (dishonorable behavior). When a woman finds herself undesired, having no husband not from a lack of want, but because she may lack the traits to attract one, even if polygyny is permissible. What consoling or solution can be offered them? Are they still in "reproach"?

Widows being a special category here, but qualifying under the above, citing Exo. 22:22-27 and also 1 Tim 5:3-14, they are certainly to be handled with care, but is the widow under 60 who chooses singleness choosing "reproach"? Does it only apply to the childless or the woman with children or grandchildren as well? Where do the widows over 60 who do not meet the stated requirements for the list of widows fall in regards to Exo. 22:22-27? Is Paul saying they exempt themselves by choosing to live for pleasure? Which is more desirable being "covered" or provided for? As the widow with children may not be in need like the widow without, but both are "uncovered".

Something that has been bouncing around in my head regarding "reproach" is the possibility it is more in reference to a lack of children/family/belonging than a lack of a "covering". Is that the true definition of conjugal rights in Exo 21:10? Rather than sex as it is commonly interpreted. If it is only a "covering" then Solomon's wives would be something to consider in that he may not have gotten to know every one (conjugal rights) but they were all covered by him. Then considering Ruth and Boaz brings me to the question is it better to be "covered" then provided for seeing as Exo 21:10 permits her to go free but does not command her to go? Its late and I'm starting to blabber hopefully this makes sense...
Click to expand...
Just out of curiosity, are you married?
 
RemnantResilience said:
@PeteR I didn't see a thread or post for your polygyny and reproach or orphans and widows videos, so I'm going to put this here. In regards to defining reproach I wanted to bring up a couple scenarios I have had trouble reconciling in regards to the application of the state of reproach, not disagreeing with your conclusion but more-so trying to figure out exactly when it applies to someone. A man has no obligation to remove reproach from a woman desiring it, single or widowed. Men are not obligated to take a woman, let alone more than one with the exception being Levirate marriage and/or specific commanding by Yah (rare?, think Hosea). But when a man does takes a woman as a first or consecutive he needs to consider that he will be obligated to meet and continue in Exodus 21:10's precepts right?

At the risk of sounding shallow and superficial, being holden to Exo. 21:10 a wise man is obviously going to want the most attractive women he can get from at least a motivational stand point. While attractive attributes can vary, beauty is pretty much universal for a man. The saying "men fall in love through their eyes" comes to mind, but perhaps it is also that women were created to be desirable, beauty being their primary attractive attribute. Referencing Gen. 6:2, the main motivator cited was the woman's beauty. However not everyone is equal in this department, some being more and some less attractive, in both genders but obviously this being more of a consideration towards women. Whether born that way, or made that way (maimed, handicapped, ect), women's primary attractor is attributed to her beauty, while men's is his wealth/status/ability to provide.

History shows that it was more common for men to go through life single vs women, but considering that unattractive men can boost their appeal by becoming more successful/wealthy, unattractive women or women who may be older (widow or not) cannot as easily increase their desirability. While both parties typically have to agree on it, the man is the one with the final say towards a woman joining his house, with the stronger motivation to join a man lying with the woman, as her purpose is fulfilled when joined to a man (1 Corinthians 11:9). He can choose her (war brides or w/fathers permission), but she can't forcibly join him and neither can her father [or current covering] force him to take her (rape, seduction, ect excluded). Now I think a man knowing he is also the one accountable under Yah for any woman he takes, he should consider the above when vetting a potential woman, especially if he may be adding more later to avoid favoritism or neglect for less attractive wives (Rachel and Leah scenario). At least to avoid strife and be able to be motivated to keep Exo. 21:10.

This is where the water gets muddy, what can be said to those who are less fortunate here and are in "reproach" not by choice, but by chance? Excepting the holdouts and women who are unattractive from past choices (dishonorable behavior). When a woman finds herself undesired, having no husband not from a lack of want, but because she may lack the traits to attract one, even if polygyny is permissible. What consoling or solution can be offered them? Are they still in "reproach"?

Widows being a special category here, but qualifying under the above, citing Exo. 22:22-27 and also 1 Tim 5:3-14, they are certainly to be handled with care, but is the widow under 60 who chooses singleness choosing "reproach"? Does it only apply to the childless or the woman with children or grandchildren as well? Where do the widows over 60 who do not meet the stated requirements for the list of widows fall in regards to Exo. 22:22-27? Is Paul saying they exempt themselves by choosing to live for pleasure? Which is more desirable being "covered" or provided for? As the widow with children may not be in need like the widow without, but both are "uncovered".

Something that has been bouncing around in my head regarding "reproach" is the possibility it is more in reference to a lack of children/family/belonging than a lack of a "covering". Is that the true definition of conjugal rights in Exo 21:10? Rather than sex as it is commonly interpreted. If it is only a "covering" then Solomon's wives would be something to consider in that he may not have gotten to know every one (conjugal rights) but they were all covered by him. Then considering Ruth and Boaz brings me to the question is it better to be "covered" then provided for seeing as Exo 21:10 permits her to go free but does not command her to go? Its late and I'm starting to blabber hopefully this makes sense...
Click to expand...
Simply, every woman is desirable to some man. Polygyny opens up opportunities such that men can afford not to be so hyper focused on finding the 'perfect' woman. Instead, each man can add according to his ability to provide/protect and suddenly there is room at the table for every single woman.
 
Additionally, beauty is only something that initially attracts the man.
Note that Jacob’s attraction was primarily to Rachel, but Leah got pregnant.
 
steve said:
Just out of curiosity, are you married?
Click to expand...
Yes
PeteR said:
Simply, every woman is desirable to some man. Polygyny opens up opportunities such that men can afford not to be so hyper focused on finding the 'perfect' woman. Instead, each man can add according to his ability to provide/protect and suddenly there is room at the table for every single woman.
Click to expand...
While I don't disagree with this, it is perfect world thinking, its a one sided version of soul mates or "the one", which at best makes polygyny a solution to a fallen world rather than original design, as it serves no purpose otherwise. Logistically not every woman is desirable to everyman, neither does every woman have access to able men. Even if polygyny was socially acceptable it does not guarantee a husband for a desiring woman, as a man is not obligated to take a woman.

What I was trying to convey was a scenario where a woman may find herself under the husbandless defintion of reproach while not necessarily by choice. A better understanding of what exactly constitutes reproach was what I was trying to promote through thought expirement.
 
 
I saw some comments about biblical slavery in your most recent video. I have been reflecting on that topic as of recent and something I think that is often overlooked in this area is all the restitution/fines that the law requires for wrong doing or carelessness. Just accruing one of those and then trying to pay it, could be enough to cause someone to sell themselves into slavery. Hence the need for a proper outlining of how it should be conducted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top