Of wives, vows, permission, and Gibeonites

[Bartato]

@Earth_is- recently had a post on the fact that a man does not need his wife's permission in order to take an additional wife.

I generally agree with his statement on Biblical moral law, but think there are exceptions (and one probably includes a majority of us).

The Gibeonites may illustrate such an exception. God seems to require us to keep (at least certain) improper vows.

Most married men made a vow of monogamy at the wedding (vow to forsake all others). We made this vow in ignorance. We did not properly understand the Biblical definition of marriage. We had been misled by our parents, teachers, broader culture, churches, and pastors.

We were wrong to make such a vow.

Nonetheless, we made it.

I believe the wife can (and should) release her husband (and lord) from this improper vow. She may be sinning if she refuses to release him.

Still, unless released, I think that vow should still be honored.

The vow made by Joshua (and Israel) to the Gibeonites was not only improper, it actually violated God's command to cleanse the promised land of all Canaanites. This vow was sinful in that it prohibited Israel from obeying God's direct command.

Apparently that didn't matter once the vow was made. Israel had to honor it.

Later on, king Saul tried to eradicate the Gibeonites (explained in 2nd Samuel 21) and this brought bloodguilt and judgement onto Israel.

It's very strange.
1.God said to wipe out the Canaanites (including Gibeonites).
2. Israel made a covenant with the Gibeonites.
3. Centuries later, Saul tries to wipe out the Ginbeonites.
4. God punished Israel for this, and relents after seven of Saul's sons and grandsons were put to death for the crime.

If God required Israel to keep a covenant vow that directly violated His instructions, we are also probably bound by our marriage vows in a similar way.

Thoughts

 

[Earth_is-]

If the vow was made without the monogamy deception from the 501c3 churches - and the man knew full well that polygyny is allowed by the Creator - and made that monogamy only vow; then the man should keep his vow - unless they both come to an agreement to revoke that vow.


However, if the vow was made through deception, because the truth was hidden from the man; and over the course of the marriage the man learns the truth; and likewise teaches the truth to his wife; then why should such a vow remain in place? I would completely understand if there were enough godly men out there, but there isn’t. If the wife knows her husband is faithful and capable on taking on a 2nd wife - and women out there need husbands - then what is the issue? Is she not instructed to be fully submissive, faithful, loving, kind, gentle, and caring? Does the Word not say - blessed are those that walk in the truth? Not to conform to the ways of the world, but let the Creator transform you into a new person? It’s a demonstration of faith.

 

[Bartato]

If the vow was made without the monogamy deception from the 501c3 churches - and the man knew full well that polygyny is allowed by the Creator - and made that monogamy only vow; then the man should keep his vow - unless they both come to an agreement to revoke that vow.


However, if the vow was made through deception, because the truth was hidden from the man; and over the course of the marriage the man learns the truth; and likewise teaches the truth to his wife; then why should such a vow remain in place?

That's what I also believed, until I noticed the example of the Gibeonites.

The vow that Joshua and Israel made was also based on deception. The Gibeonites intentionally deceived them.

It still seems like God required them to keep the improper oath.

 

[Bartato]

I would completely understand if there were enough godly men out there, but there isn’t. If the wife knows her husband is faithful and capable on taking on a 2nd wife - and women out there need husbands - then what is the issue? Is she not instructed to be fully submissive, faithful, loving, kind, gentle, and caring? Does the Word not say - blessed are those that walk in the truth? Not to conform to the ways of the world, but let the Creator transform you into a new person? It’s a demonstration of faith.

I agree that the wife should release the man from the improper vow. I believe it is the right thing for her to do.

 

[MeganC]

a man does not need his wife's permission in order to take an additional wife.

I agree. But it's a good idea to first get her approval. As I have said many times before just because the Bible says a thing does not mean the divorce court judge will agree.

 

[Bartato]

I agree. But it's a good idea to first get her approval. As I have said many times before just because the Bible says a thing does not mean the divorce court judge will agree.

Oh, I very much agree that it is a good idea to receive her blessing on the additional marriage. I think it would generally be very dangerous and foolish to do otherwise.

My statement concerned the moral law, not the practical considerations.

 

[NBTX11]

I agree that the wife MUST release the man from the improper vow. I believe it is the right thing for her to do.

Correction. Fixed it for you. Once properly taught the biblical teachings on marriage, to hold to a vow that is in total contrast to the words of God, is wrong. To not do so is in direct defiance of the teaching of the word and holds the husband to an unbiblical, extra biblical vow.

A bigger question might be, since the husband has complete authority and the wife must submit in everything. Can the husband order the wife to forsake an unbiblical vow. I would say that he could.

This is not how I personally approached it. I asked my wife to in a calm way and she agreed to forsake the vow.

 

[Bartato]

Correction. Fixed it for you.

We basically said the same thing. The right thing for the wife to do is to release the husband from the improper vow.

Once properly taught the biblical teachings on marriage, to hold to a vow that is in total contrast to the words of God, is wrong. To not do so is in direct defiance of the teaching of the word and holds the husband to an unbiblical, extra biblical vow.

A bigger question might be, since the husband has complete authority and the wife must submit in everything. Can the husband order the wife to forsake an unbiblical vow. I would say that he could.

This is not how I personally approached it. I asked my wife to in a calm way and she agreed to forsake the vow.

I appreciate and honor the fact that you requested and received a release from the improper vow. I believe you operated in a God honoring manner.

Now,
Regarding the Gibeonites...

Do we think there is a parallel situation with these people?

They held Israel to the improper vow, and it seems like God did as well.

I guess the only alternative in their case would have been suicide, or perhaps voluntary exile from the land.

Suppose the wife sins, and refuses to release the husband. Suppose he orders her to release him, and she still refuses.

She is sinning, but is he still bound by the oath in the sight of God? I think he is.

 

[Earth_is-]

Oh, I very much agree that it is a good idea to receive her blessing on the additional marriage. I think it would generally be very dangerous and foolish to do otherwise.

My statement concerned the moral law, not the practical considerations.

I agree in terms of "who" the 2nd wife is. Not "whether" the man has authority to do so.

A house divided can not stand, so it would be foolish to bring a 2nd wife that brings division.

 

[Earth_is-]

That's what I also believed, until I noticed the example of the Gibeonites.

The vow that Joshua and Israel made was also based on deception. The Gibeonites intentionally deceived them.

It still seems like God required them to keep the improper oath.

Joshua 9:18
But the Israelites could not kill them, because their leaders had made a solemn promise to them in the name of the Lord, Israel's God.

Deuteronomy 23:21
“When you make a vow to the LORD your God, you shall not delay to pay it; for the LORD your God will surely require it of you, and it would be sin to you.

Most marriage covenants are not made to YHVH. But to an un-specified "God." There's a million gods out there.

The real one does not want women ruling over his people:

Isaiah 3:12
12 Childish leaders oppress my people, and women rule over them. O my people, your leaders mislead you; they send you down the wrong road.

 

[Bartato]

Joshua 9:18
But the Israelites could not kill them, because their leaders had made a solemn promise to them in the name of the Lord, Israel's God.

Deuteronomy 23:21
“When you make a vow to the LORD your God, you shall not delay to pay it; for the LORD your God will surely require it of you, and it would be sin to you.

Most marriage covenants are not made to YHVH. But to an un-specified "God." There's a million gods out there.

The real one does not want women ruling over his people:

Isaiah 3:12
12 Childish leaders oppress my people, and women rule over them. O my people, your leaders mislead you; they send you down the wrong road.

I suppose I should have clarified that I am talking about people who believe in the God of the Bible, even if they lack a perfect understanding of Him (like I obviously did when I got married in a 501c3 church 25 years ago).

I still lack a perfect understanding since I'm still in a 501c3 church.

Even though I didn't precisely specify that I was vowing in the Name of YHWH, I fully intended to make a promise in the Sight of the God and Father of the Messiah, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the One and Only, the Creator of Heaven and earth.

 

[Earth_is-]

I still lack a perfect understanding since I'm still in a 501c3 church.

That's fine - but know that a 501c3 sold their free speech for tax benefits. You can't trust a 501c3 organization to preach the real one:

2 Corinthians 11:4 NLT
You happily put up with whatever anyone tells you, even if they preach a different Jesus than the one we preach, or a different kind of Spirit than the one you received, or a different kind of gospel than the one you believed.

The point I'm making is we've inherited big lies. A monogamous only Jesus where adultery is looking at 'any' woman; is much different than a pro polygynous Jesus where adultery must involve another man's wife. Those lies have caused tremendous damages to Christian households. To men. To women. To children. To the Christian nations. Is it because they didn't see the truth? Are we just so much wiser and knowledgeable than they are? Or is it because they are being blinded by the money? They should be sued for their negligence - but it is written - "Vengeance is mine. I will repay."

Matthew 6:24
You cannot serve both God and money.

These 501c3 churches are worth billions and trillions. Why would they rock the boat by preaching a truth that fundamentally goes against the culture, and state public policy - plus they could lose their tax exemption status - pay fines to Uncle Sam - lose big donors - and lose their paychecks?

 

[Bartato]

That's fine - but know that a 501c3 sold their free speech for tax benefits. You can't trust a 501c3 organization to preach the real one:

2 Corinthians 11:4 NLT
You happily put up with whatever anyone tells you, even if they preach a different Jesus than the one we preach, or a different kind of Spirit than the one you received, or a different kind of gospel than the one you believed.

The point I'm making is we've inherited big lies. A monogamous only Jesus where adultery is looking at 'any' woman; is much different than a pro polygynous Jesus where adultery must involve another man's wife. Those lies have caused tremendous damages to Christian households. To men. To women. To children. To the Christian nations. Is it because they didn't see the truth? Are we just so much wiser and knowledgeable than they are? Or is it because they are being blinded by the money? They should be sued for their negligence - but it is written - "Vengeance is mine. I will repay."

Matthew 6:24
You cannot serve both God and money.

These 501c3 churches are worth billions and trillions. Why would they rock the boat by preaching a truth that fundamentally goes against the culture, and state public policy - plus they could lose their tax exemption status - pay fines to Uncle Sam - lose big donors - and lose their paychecks?

You know that the New Living Translation of the Bible is published by the "Tyndale House Foundation" right?

That is a 501c3 nonprofit organization.

Honestly, I know there are problems with nonprofit organizations (especially churches), but we don't want to throw out everything about them.

 

[NBTX11]

The NLT takes a lot of liberties. I like it for reading long passages but I wouldn’t base your doctrines off it. In the parable of 10 virgins, they change virgins to bridesmaids

 

[Earth_is-]

You know that the New Living Translation of the Bible is published by the "Tyndale House Foundation" right?

That is a 501c3 nonprofit organization.

Honestly, I know there are problems with nonprofit organizations (especially churches), but we don't want to throw out everything about them.

No translation is perfect. Not surprised they are 501c3 as well. They also translated the Greek word for "wife" to "woman." Meanwhile - Tyndale who was persecuted to the death for translating the New Testament (before KJV) - was more faithful to the Word, and translated it to "wife."

Honestly, I know there are problems with nonprofit organizations (especially churches), but we don't want to throw out everything about them.

I don't advocate throwing everything out. They do tell you that Jesus Christ is the Master, King, Savior, and High Priest. They give you the scriptures, and tell it's the truth. Now - it's your choice whether to put your faith in these men for all truth - or do as the Word commands - test all things. And elsewhere -- Let the Word of God be true and every man a liar.

 

[Earth_is-]

Correction. Fixed it for you. Once properly taught the biblical teachings on marriage, to hold to a vow that is in total contrast to the words of God, is wrong. To not do so is in direct defiance of the teaching of the word and holds the husband to an unbiblical, extra biblical vow.

A bigger question might be, since the husband has complete authority and the wife must submit in everything. Can the husband order the wife to forsake an unbiblical vow. I would say that he could.

This is not how I personally approached it. I asked my wife to in a calm way and she agreed to forsake the vow.

I do believe that the husband should practice patience and love, however. I don't think it should be an immediate thing. The man should show love, and show patience to his wife. This is a lie that starts off when we're young in the Western Christian world. Through programming in the media. Television. "Tell a Lie Vision." When have you've ever seen a disney movie showcase a polygynous household? It's always monogamy. The only real time you hear about polygyny is if something bad happened. The adversary is indeed crafty. He knows that Christian polygyny would be a threat to him, so he doesn't even like talking about it. He made it illegal. And then you have all these pastors and priests dancing with the dragon - deceiving billions of christians through the twisting of scripture - to convince you that polygyny is un-righteous, and/or even sin.

But should that patience be a lifetime of patience? As the scriptures say,

1 Chronicles 29:15 NLT
We are here for only a moment, visitors and strangers in the land as our ancestors were before us. Our days on earth are like a passing shadow, gone so soon without a trace.

Just like that - old age creeps in. What you did. You did. What you didn't do. You didn't. Then comes judgement day. And if we make it into his Kingdom - did not Yahushua (Jesus) say that there is no giving off to marriage? But we become like angels? So if you believe in his Word - why is there jealousy? Why is there division within the household? As John the Baptist said - if someone has extra - give to the one that doesn't have any. Wouldn't that same logic apply to the wives - if you see a sister in Christ needing a husband - and you have a good husband that can take on another wife - get her in! So the adversary doesn't come in and deceive her and snatch her away:

1 Peter 5:8
Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour.

There's many tools the adversary has to snatch her away. It's spiritual warfare. Get her fornicating. Get her knocked up by non-believers in Christ. Let her settle down with a non-believer. And then what's going to happen to the kids?

That islamic woman showed more love and fruit of the spirit than so many christian women/wives. How many christian wives would go into a jealous rage fit - threatening their husband and head of house? Even though the Creator clearly gives the man the authority, and commands the wives to be fully submissive to their husbands; just as the church submits to Yahushua. Imagine if the church goes into a jealous rage fit against Yahushua? This is the result of spiritual warfare done by the adversary.

 

[Shiloh.F]

@Earth_is- recently had a post on the fact that a man does not need his wife's permission in order to take an additional wife.

I generally agree with his statement on Biblical moral law, but think there are exceptions (and one probably includes a majority of us).

The Gibeonites may illustrate such an exception. God seems to require us to keep (at least certain) improper vows.

Most married men made a vow of monogamy at the wedding (vow to forsake all others). We made this vow in ignorance. We did not properly understand the Biblical definition of marriage. We had been misled by our parents, teachers, broader culture, churches, and pastors.

We were wrong to make such a vow.

Nonetheless, we made it.

I believe the wife can (and should) release her husband (and lord) from this improper vow. She may be sinning if she refuses to release him.

Still, unless released, I think that vow should still be honored.

The vow made by Joshua (and Israel) to the Gibeonites was not only improper, it actually violated God's command to cleanse the promised land of all Canaanites. This vow was sinful in that it prohibited Israel from obeying God's direct command.

Apparently that didn't matter once the vow was made. Israel had to honor it.

Later on, king Saul tried to eradicate the Gibeonites (explained in 2nd Samuel 21) and this brought bloodguilt and judgement onto Israel.

It's very strange.
1.God said to wipe out the Canaanites (including Gibeonites).
2. Israel made a covenant with the Gibeonites.
3. Centuries later, Saul tries to wipe out the Ginbeonites.
4. God punished Israel for this, and relents after seven of Saul's sons and grandsons were put to death for the crime.

If God required Israel to keep a covenant vow that directly violated His instructions, we are also probably bound by our marriage vows in a similar way.

Thoughts

I think you pretty much nailed it.