Meat I kissed Joshua Harris good-bye

[Well loved wife]

I think you would be hard pressed to squeeze that out of the verse found in Proverbs. It simply states that [if] she is wise, she builds [up] her home, and [if] she is foolish, she tears it down with her own hands.

Well, I’m not trying to prove anything by that verse, which should be obvious, since I didn’t quote it. I’m simply bringing to men and women’s attention why a woman is doing what she is doing. I’m NOT justifying it, either.
Also another observation: men can tear down their homes too.

 

[rockfox]

I think we are all in agreement that a man should strive to be godly. We got off track from the OP, because when it comes to a book like IKDGB, I read that thing and went "OK, sounds good, but what woman is going to just marry me if I approach her and ask her to do so?" Then of course, no man should feel trapped in a relationship with a woman he is considering for marriage, when she is doing hurtful things to him, which is how a man can feel (trapped) after having read that garbage.

I dare say most of the men here at BF, dated at least one other woman before they met and married their current wife, but IKDGB, frowns on that practice. I bet 99% of the men here, dated their current wife for at least one year before marrying her or even proposing to her FTM. I bet these men did so, because they wanted to make sure that she is the right woman, before making that huge of a commitment, but IKDGB, and Elizabeth Elliot, and that other book I read, "Choosing God's Best", all discourage this notion that you should make sure she is the right woman before you marry her. How sad!

All these folks (who wrote these books) are trying to address the question of why we have so many marriage failures in the US, and their solution to the problem, is not based on evidence or even proper use of the Scripture, but rather Eisegesis and opinion and antiquated ways of courtship that could never work today. They have good intentions and some of the stuff they promote is useful, where they don't deviate from Scripture into their own concept of how to make love work, but today's women are not like the women whom men courted, back when divorce was rare. Feminism has poisoned the minds of people in our society to such a degree, that it is an imperative to weed out the wise women from the foolish ones!

So getting back to the OP's point, it is interesting to see how God has separated the wheat from the tares, and that should be a wake up call to the entire Christian community.

Lots of men today date their women for at least a year, and look how successful the average marriage is! Arranged marriages in the past, where sometimes even the groom first met the bride at the wedding, were more often successful than today. But I don't think that had to do with how long, or short, they 'dated' but rather the societal expectations and pressures relating to marriage formation and dissolution.

However you are right that in today's context, it is imperative to weed out women. But that also isn't a sustainable long term solution so in the context of creating a new system, something other than long term dating is going to need to be done (possibly some form of courting).

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Also another observation: men can tear down their homes too.

And when they aren’t providing a roof over their women’s heads, they have de facto torn down their house and the women are free to go if they so choose. Exodus 21:10

 

[The Revolting Man]

And when they aren’t providing a roof over their women’s heads, they have de facto torn down their house and the women are free to go if they so choose. Exodus 21:10

And this is a total falsehood.

 

[cnystrom]

And when they aren’t providing a roof over their women’s heads, they have de facto torn down their house and the women are free to go if they so choose. Exodus 21:10

Your point is clearer if you add in verse 11.

Does free to go mean free to leave, or free to remarry, or both?

The idea that it means free to remarry seems to go against NT teaching where it is taught that a woman is bound as long as her husband is alive.

 

[cnystrom]

Well, Chris should know me better.

Again, it is not personal. I was discussing "the miserable husband".

 

[cnystrom]

No man is perfect, ever. That's an unrealistic standard and one commonly used to absolve women of all blame when she tears down her house.

Missing the point I was trying to make. Since no man is ever perfect that is always more work for him to do, and that is in fact all in can do since he can not "work on his wife".

What people seems to missing is that force is not the only form of power. Influence is also a form of power, and by doing a good job on himself he can be an influence on this supposed horrible wife who destroys her own house, even if she digs her heals in.

It is the same way a "powerless wife" can hope to influence her unbelieving husband. By doing a great job with herself and win him over by influence. It is the same principle.

It is the same principle of slaves winning over their masters. The "powerless" can influence and thus gain power for the good over their masters.

I keep saying the story is not over. If you are still married there is still hope.

Don't be miserable and powerless. Be a man. Have self control. Develop influence. Fix it. Be someone she looks up to and admires. You will not get this by whining and complaining about it.

Again, I am not discussing blame. I am discussing possibilities.

And if you can not do this, the answer is not "find another wife". That would confirm the horrible stereotype that a man is interested in a second wife, because he is dissatisfied with the first. Which is what most first wives think and greatly fear when they first hear about polygamy.

Real polygamists do not do this.

Real polygamists obtain second wives because of how much they treasure and cherish their first wives, and suspect that God is so loving that he might even bless them with another such treasure.

 

[steve]

And if you can not do this, the answer is not "find another wife". That would confirm the horrible stereotype that a man is interested in a second wife, because he is dissatisfied with the first. Which is what most first wives think and greatly fear when they first hear about polygamy.

Real polygamists do not do this.

Real polygamists obtain second wives because of how much they treasure and cherish their first wives, and suspect that God is so loving that he might even bless them with another such treasure.

This might be more complicated than it seems at first blush.
You see, I have an estranged second wife who, I was told, denied my right to marry Karin until after I had reconciled with her.
Maybe the rules only apply to first wives?
Second wives don’t matter in the same way?
I realize that the dynamic is different, but I think that if it’s a one-size-fits-all, it would have had to applied to my situation also. Which I highly doubt that anybody thinks that it does.
So what I am saying is that it shouldn’t be a strict rule.

 

[rockfox]

You see, I have an estranged wife who, I was told, denied my right to marry Karin until after I had reconciled with her.

Things that make you shake your head.

 

[steve]

amended to “estranged second wife “ just to clear up any misimpression.

 

[cnystrom]

This might be more complicated than it seems at first blush.
You see, I have an estranged second wife who, I was told, denied my right to marry Karin until after I had reconciled with her.
Maybe the rules only apply to first wives?
Second wives don’t matter in the same way?
I realize that the dynamic is different, but I think that if it’s a one-size-fits-all, it would have had to applied to my situation also. Which I highly doubt that anybody thinks that it does.
So what I am saying is that it shouldn’t be a strict rule.

Of course, any rules from what you are told or that I make mean crap. It is all about what the Bible says.

Knowing you, I am sure you did give up and did everything in your power to make your marriage a success, and later marriage was not motivated due to dis-satisfaction with faults of your existing wife. These are the values I am trying to encourage.

 

[steve]

Knowing you, I am sure you did give up and did everything in your power to make your marriage a success, and later marriage was not motivated due to dis-satisfaction with faults of your existing wife. These are the values I am trying to encourage.

It’s not that I gave up, it’s just that I recognize that nothing short of capitulation on my part will suffice for her so I have just continued on with my life.
The same way, in some cases, that a man whose wife was intractable might.

 

[PeteR]

That is the worst saying ever! Every man should banish it from their language.

It leads husbands to become women pleasers, catering to the whims of her emotions in a vain attempt to make her happy. All it accomplishes is to enslave men while encouraging women to be discontent, bitter, and naggy (dripping faucets).

Solid gold.

My job, according to Scripture is NOT to make my wife happy. My job is to make her righteous.

If I am walking in righteousness and leading her in righteousness, it should lead both of of us to joy and contentment among other fruit. Happiness isn't on the list...

In fact, happiness, from our cultural perspective, is deeply rooted in selfishness precisely because the picture most have (particularly women) is rooted in Disney fairy tale Cinderella, Snow White ideology with a marinade of social media perfect images of everyone else's best life now.

Most people's idea of happiness is entirely disconnected with holiness and righteousness. @Judgemenot and I had some throwdowns over this before she quit wrestling me for control of the wheel.

Nobody has a right to happiness. That is entirely unscriptural.

*To be sure, I work hard to make my wife's life pleasant and rewarding within the journey the Father has layed before us. This particular leg of the journey includes growth and understanding of marriage and, in His timing, may include one or more additional wives. For now, we assume nothing, embrace the journey and suck the marrow out of the lessons knowing that He is teaching us some things for our good and His purposes/glory.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

And this is a total falsehood.

And this ^ is total ignorance according to both Exodus 21:10,11 and Leviticus 6:2-8
If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against the LORD, and lie unto his neighbour in that which was delivered him to keep, or in fellowship,†or in a thing taken away by violence, or hath deceived his neighbour;
[All of these apply to a man who has gained a wife through her fathers assistance]

Or have found that which was lost, and lieth concerning it, and sweareth falsely; in any of all these that a man doeth, sinning therein: [This applies to a daughter separated from a covering]

[And the remedy for his trespass against his neighbor and daughter]
Then it shall be, because he hath sinned, and is guilty, that he shall restore that which he took violently away, or the thing which he hath deceitfully gotten, or that which was delivered him to keep, or the lost thing which he found,
Or all that about which he hath sworn falsely; he shall even restore it in the principal, and shall add the fifth part more thereto, and give it unto him to whom it appertaineth, in the day of his trespass offering.

If he wanted to take his case before a bet dien and present his case, and lost, he would then be required to pay her ketubah which amounted to 200 zus and add 20% to that. If he was guilty and knew it, it was better for him to either let her go without strings, or try to reconcile the marriage without getting the courts involved.

Your point is clearer if you add in verse 11.

Does free to go mean free to leave, or free to remarry, or both?

The idea that it means free to remarry seems to go against NT teaching where it is taught that a woman is bound as long as her husband is alive.

I don’t see any restrictions in Exodus 21:11 on the freedom. In their culture, the judges said she was free just as if he’d never Covenanted with her. Her status was that of a single woman without requiring a ‘get’ (written divorce) even if she’d born children . . . . and they left with her.

A guy that tried to fight it and was found guilty of not providing food, covering and marital duties would have been considered a Torah breaker, a covenant breaker (adulterer) and worse than an infidel at best. At worst, he’d have been declared cut off from Israel, thus considered dead under the law and she’d be free anyway.

Obviously, we’ve been thru this before. I really see no reason to hash this one out on this thread. I’m obviously fine with you guys holding your point of view, cause that leaves more candidates for me, and it really doesn’t affect my life or beliefs. Obviously there’s an underlying reason why this topic strikes a nerve. Might wanna check up on that.

Toodles.

 

[PeteR]

@Verifyveritas76 you say all that predicated on your original ambiguous 'provide a roof over her head' line. Unfortunately, 'covering' or 'shelter' is a bit broader and is not defined according to whatever she feels like... you are creating a strawman with your initial oversimplification, then when called on it want to get huffy.

There's a lot of distance between the original statement you made and the assumptions you build your above retort on.

 

[rockfox]

cause that leaves more candidates for me

That sort of thing invariably comes up with this subject, leading me to think it is what this is really about.

 

[The Revolting Man]

And this ^ is total ignorance according to both Exodus 21:10,11 and Leviticus 6:2-8
If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against the LORD, and lie unto his neighbour in that which was delivered him to keep, or in fellowship,†or in a thing taken away by violence, or hath deceived his neighbour;
[All of these apply to a man who has gained a wife through her fathers assistance]

Or have found that which was lost, and lieth concerning it, and sweareth falsely; in any of all these that a man doeth, sinning therein: [This applies to a daughter separated from a covering]

[And the remedy for his trespass against his neighbor and daughter]
Then it shall be, because he hath sinned, and is guilty, that he shall restore that which he took violently away, or the thing which he hath deceitfully gotten, or that which was delivered him to keep, or the lost thing which he found,
Or all that about which he hath sworn falsely; he shall even restore it in the principal, and shall add the fifth part more thereto, and give it unto him to whom it appertaineth, in the day of his trespass offering.

If he wanted to take his case before a bet dien and present his case, and lost, he would then be required to pay her ketubah which amounted to 200 zus and add 20% to that. If he was guilty and knew it, it was better for him to either let her go without strings, or try to reconcile the marriage without getting the courts involved.


I don’t see any restrictions in Exodus 21:11 on the freedom. In their culture, the judges said she was free just as if he’d never Covenanted with her. Her status was that of a single woman without requiring a ‘get’ (written divorce) even if she’d born children . . . . and they left with her.

A guy that tried to fight it and was found guilty of not providing food, covering and marital duties would have been considered a Torah breaker, a covenant breaker (adulterer) and worse than an infidel at best. At worst, he’d have been declared cut off from Israel, thus considered dead under the law and she’d be free anyway.

Obviously, we’ve been thru this before. I really see no reason to hash this one out on this thread. I’m obviously fine with you guys holding your point of view, cause that leaves more candidates for me, and it really doesn’t affect my life or beliefs. Obviously there’s an underlying reason why this topic strikes a nerve. Might wanna check up on that.

Toodles.

There are simple rules concerning divorce and remarriage. They are laid plainly by Christ Himself. A woman who leaves her husband can not remarry. There are no caveats or addendums. None of the scriptures you quoted contradict that. It’s fine if you want to commit adultery but I will put forward the truth every time I see you try to advance this false and dangerous teaching. It’s nothing personal brother. You get a lot of other things right but this critical issue you are very wrong on.

 

[steve]

There are simple rules concerning divorce and remarriage. They are laid plainly by Christ Himself. A woman who leaves her husband can not remarry. There are no caveats or addendums. None of the scriptures you quoted contradict that. It’s fine if you want to commit adultery but I will put forward the truth every time I see you try to advance this false and dangerous teaching. It’s nothing personal brother. You get a lot of other things right but this critical issue you are very wrong on.

I love you, brother, but I just have to go on record as not seeing it that way. I won’t be defending that position here.

 

[cnystrom]

Is it time to label this a MEAT thread?

 

[Verifyveritas76]

That sort of thing invariably comes up with this subject, leading me to think it is what this is really about.

For me, its definitely not (though I wont lie, it does remove some pretty impressive competition) There are divorced women I wouldn’t touch with a 10 ft pole. Some that I’d consider, and few that I’d consider long for various other reasons. For me the dividing line is justifiable vrs unjustifiable.

It is definitely not as simple a topic as some would like to think. In my understanding, the only difference the New Testament makes is that Christ restricted and more clearly defined what constitutes justifiable.

And then you have mutual. Which is a whole ‘nother Basket not really addressed in the NT.