Should a first wife be accepting before...

[Mark C]

I am convinced that 1.B. is the most Scriptural position, that is, I am a Complementarian that believes that my wife/wives is/are to submit to me unless I am asking her/them to disobey clear Scripture."

I agree as well, Randy. That is an excellent summary.

The only (more pragmatic) point that I was attempting to make above is that a husband who has a wife who will NOT accept his headship in that marriage has some very significant issues to deal with already. To paraphrase Paul, "such will have troubles" in marriage. My personal advice (and again, as Paul noted, speaking for me, not for Him ) would be for such a man to get his own house in order before he expands his tent...

 

[seekHim1]

he only (more pragmatic) point that I was attempting to make above is that a husband who has a wife who will NOT accept his headship in that marriage has some very significant issues to deal with already. To paraphrase Paul, "such will have troubles" in marriage. My personal advice (and again, as Paul noted, speaking for me, not for Him ) would be for such a man to get his own house in order before he expands his tent...

A husband could argue that bringing another wife into the family will get the first wife in order...can anyone vouch for this? The presence of another woman could teach the first wife a lot of lessons. Also, a husband could view a marriage to a rebellious wife a mess already after repeated issues based on his headship so there is nothing for him to lose by moving ahead with yet another leading of the LORD. If the rebellious wife leaves...that would be on her...but perhaps the marriage would dissolve eventually over another issue due to her rebellious nature.

SweetLissa...loved your post and your questions about Jesus getting approval from the disciples. Great points!!!

 

[sweetlissa]

One should not engage in this form of marriage to "teach" lessons to a wife. If there are issues with the first wife, adding a second wife will only make everything that is wrong seem bigger and more dramatic. This is not to say that wives can't learn from each other because they can and do, but this seems like using a person (the new wife). We know a family that was looking for a third wife, one that would bridge the gap between the first two. To me that seems like the third wife would be brought in for the wrong reasons.

So I guess I wonder if the question is

Can a two wives learn from each other? Yes. or

Should a husband marry a second wife to teach the first one a lesson? This seems like it would be using one wife to discipline another. Not fun. I wouldn't want to be that second wife for sure.

Thanks SeekHim1.

 

[Hugh McBryde]

Adding a second wife might serve to control the rebellion of a wife that does not submit. She can be ignored for lack of better description, when she acts out.

 

[Doc]

Been reading the comments on here. I am reminded of one of my favorite verses:

Amos 3:3 - "Can two walk together unless they are agreed?"

Blessings,

 

[sweetlissa]

I think that this scenario would only serve to add to the general opinion of the world the polygamy is bad.

SweetLissa

 

[Hugh McBryde]

A rebellious wife is a product of sin. Wives are told by Paul that they are to be submissive to their husbands for a lot of reasons, none having to do with sin, but then Paul does mention sin as well, saying the woman was deceived first. I don't think we can pretend this is not a reason given. I don't think we can also pretend that if a man does what he is supposed to do, or can do while a wife is essentially, "pitching a fit," that this then becomes a reason for the man to NOT do what he can or is supposed to do. From a purely behavioral standpoint, it only reinforces the bad acts of his wife.

I rebel.

I get what I want.

Having said all of that, I am mindful of the fact that I am not charged with the task of insuring my wife's submission to me. I am charged with the task of loving my wife.

By definition, if polygyny is perfectly fine as a family practice, then doing what I can or ought to do should not be a problem to any existing wife, so long as I do right by her. Doing right by her does not mean, acceding to her unreasonable demands, behavior or wishes. Nevertheless, I am to take all of her concerns into account.

 

[sweetlissa]

Adding a second wife might serve to control the rebellion of a wife that does not submit. She can be ignored for lack of better description, when she acts out.

Your previous post was beautifully written. The above quote sounds like the husband would be using the 2nd woman to discipline or cover up the actions of the first wife. That would not be a good reason to have a second wife.

SweetLissa

 

[Anonymous]

The Word tells us that men are to love their wives the way Christ loved the church. Lets use the 12 apostles as an example...
Did Christ get their approval before going to a new place?
Did Christ get their approval before inviting a new disciple to join them?
Did Christ get their approval before going to the cross?
Did Christ beg them, plead with them or wait for them to "get it together" before he went on with his mission?

The answer to all of these questions is NO. Did the apostles complain and wonder what had gotten into their Lord and King? Absolutely.

The truth is that WE don't know what God has planned. If we follow Him we will find out and we will be blessed. If we don't follow him we are in Rebellion and we get to deal with that.SweetLissa

Well said, SweetLissa. This brought to my mind something that I think is a part of the problem between spouses, either mono or poly. That is the nature of the relationship between husband and wife. Many assume that "one flesh" equals one person. My wife received a wedding shower gift with a bookmark attached that read, "Marriage, there shall be such a oneness, that when one weeps the other will taste salt". Certainly, as longevity increases in a marriage we may get to know and appreciate each other more and more. Perhaps it is a 60's thing, but the idea of two people losing themselves in deep love with each other, while sounding nice is not realistic. There were unique attributes of the spouse that attracted us. Those attributes should be appreciated and respected. Relationship issues like headship and submission deny the possibility of fully reaching that sentimental goal of "becoming one person". It is not only possible, but desirable for a couple in marriage to be uniquely distinct in personality, but also to be inseparably bound to each other by love, commitment and purpose as you illustrated with the Lord and the apostles. Romantic thinking has distorted love, relationships and expectations to the point that most people find it difficult being happy in a marriage relationship.

 

[Hugh McBryde]

Adding a second wife might serve to control the rebellion of a wife that does not submit. She can be ignored for lack of better description, when she acts out."

"Your previous post was beautifully written. The above quote sounds like the husband would be using the 2nd woman to discipline or cover up the actions of the first wife. That would not be a good reason to have a second wife."

I didn't offer it as a reason to take a second wife. I was just mentioning taking a second wife may well serve to control a rebellious first wife. I would point to an exchange between David and Michal, his first wife, when she "dissed" him in public. He said he would be known better by the maids he was dancing with, than by her. I've always taken that to mean, "Be that way, if you want to, I can always get women."

That's rather harsh, but it is nevertheless right there in scripture.

Then David returned to bless his household. And Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David, and said, How glorious was the king of Israel to day, who uncovered himself to day in the eyes of the handmaids of his servants, as one of the vain fellows shamelessly uncovereth himself! And David said unto Michal, It was before the LORD, which chose me before thy father, and before all his house, to appoint me ruler over the people of the LORD, over Israel: therefore will I play before the LORD. And I will yet be more vile than thus, and will be base in mine own sight: and of the maidservants which thou hast spoken of, of them shall I be had in honour. Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death."

That "therefore" is an interesting word to place in the last verse. Like I said, Michal acts out, David, to me, seems to say "meh, see where that gets you" and then proceeds to take other wives and ignore Michal for the rest of her life, THEREFORE, "no children."

Forgive me if I seem "hard," but in this case I am not talking to my own wife, so I see myself as free to offer my view of a woman's duty to submit. It is not out of fear of my own wife, but out of love for her, that I would offer a greater preamble and different context when discussing the same topics with her, and we have spoken of all of these matters ourselves. She is my wife though, and she is clear that her duty before God is to submit to me, it is not my job to see that she does HER job, it is my job to see that I do MY job, loving her. Adam and Eve both tried this tactic, "HE/SHE/(snake) didn't do what THEY were supposed to do" in Eden, and it didn't work so well for them.

 

[PolyPride]

Susan B Anthony was a feminist.

If a woman is being abused, then of course there are options for her. But to say that she is being abused by religion is ridiculous. When you are told to do something you don't like, you either do it or you don't. If God tells you (or your husband) to do something and you do it, you get blessed. If you choose not to do it then you are in rebellion.

All of my comments that you're referencing were in the context of abuse and NOT doing God's will. I also wasn't just speaking about Christianity but for all religions in general. I should also clarify that my comment, in part, was to reference people who abuse or misuse Christianity to oppress others. This is obviously not true Christianity but yet people have used God's name to start false religions, to kill, oppress women, etc. I believe God can and has spoken to people, but I'm not the gullible type that would believe every man who claims that God told him to do some thing. Some people can lie to get their way, and will especially use God's name to make it sound more convincing.

Of course in a perfect world a man will go to the ends of the earth to please his wife. But this is not a perfect world. Many men got here by messing up. Should their wives have left them? Should they not be forgiven for their mistakes?

I haven't said that a woman should go against her husband for every mistake that he makes. Men should also not do that to their wives. Both should bear with each other and give each other chances, just as long as there's no harmful abuse.

The Word tells us to forgive as we want to be forgiven.
The Word tells us women to submit to our husbands. (Not when we feel like it)
The Word tells us that men are to love their wives the way Christ loved the church. Lets use the 12 apostles as an example...
Did Christ get their approval before going to a new place?
Did Christ get their approval before inviting a new disciple to join them?
Did Christ get their approval before going to the cross?
Did Christ beg them, plead with them or wait for them to "get it together" before he went on with his mission?

The answer to all of these questions is NO. Did the apostles complain and wonder what had gotten into their Lord and King? Absolutely.

The truth is that WE don't know what God has planned. If we follow Him we will find out and we will be blessed. If we don't follow him we are in Rebellion and we get to deal with that.

SweetLissa

I agree.

 

[CecilW]

*Ack*

 

[sweetlissa]

Cecil,
I never said that a wife should not be given a chance. I said very clearly that a man should definitely care about what his wife thinks. I also addressed the fact that men are people too and they make mistakes for which we as women and followers of Christ have to forgive. I never said that it was easy or anything of the sort. I simply said that the command is to follow our husband wherever he leads us. I am NOT without compassion and you know it. I simply showed in God's word that it is not necessarily a cause for divorce or disgust as some of the people who answered on this thread have implied.

LEST ANYONE MISUNDERSTAND ME

I absolutely believe that wives (any denomonation of wives) should be given notice and warning and a lot of chance to come to belief about PM. But when all is said and done, it is the husband's right and duty to lead his family wherever he believes God is calling him. It is not the wife's duty to say "No you are wrong, I don't like this." Because often we don't like where God takes us at the moment. Does anyone think that Joseph enjoyed 15+ years in Egyptian dungeon waiting for God to do his will with him? Does anyone think he liked being thrown down in the pit and sold to slavers? Yet, God had a plan all along and if Joseph had said "No God, I don't believe this is what you really want to do" the bible would have been altogether different.

Moses didn't want to go back to Egypt. Mary didn't want to have a baby out of wedlock. Joseph didn't want to marry a woman who had a baby out of wedlock. Saul didn't want to follow Christ. In each of these cases, there was obedience to the leader even though it was hard and uncomfortable and dangerous. But none of these things even compare to PM? These situations are less important than PM so a woman can say "No Way" even when specifically commanded to submit to her husband. Imagine the amazing blessing if the "rich young ruler" had obeyed Christ's command to sell everything, give it to the poor and follow Me."

Please don't be saying that you think I have no heart. But in the end, I have to support the Word for what it is, God's command.

SweetLissa

 

[sweetlissa]

Instead of this how about I ask a hypothetical question.

Suppose a woman comes to you and Cindy for counsel. It seems that her husband has taken a second wife and has given her no notice. Now she has gone through the bible with him and agrees that there is no sin involved. So what does she do?

Scripturally, she is commanded to follow him, right?
Scripturally, she cannot divorce him, right?

So as a believer and a patriarch and as a patriarch's wife, what do you tell her?

I would tell her, "Honey, I know you are hurt and I know this seems so unfair. But, God commands us to submit to our husband and follow his lead." Isn't that pretty much what you would have to say, if you were to follow God?

You wouldn't say, "Oh, honey, of course you can abandon him." Or "he will just have to abandon the new wife until you agree to it." Would you? Because neither of those would be scriptural. So the KINDEST thing we can do it share the TRUTH in LOVE but we have to make sure it is the TRUTH.

See what I mean? Of course we want our men to be compassionate, but many are not. Lack of compassion is not a divorceable offense.

See what I mean? Shall we be sweet and kind and tell women that of course they have to agree before their husband brings home another wife? Then what happens when he doesn't follow our command? We have to be truthful. The other is wishful thinking.

SweetLissa

 

[PolyPride]

I absolutely believe that wives (any denomonation of wives) should be given notice and warning and a lot of chance to come to belief about PM. But when all is said and done, it is the husband's right and duty to lead his family wherever he believes God is calling him. It is not the wife's duty to say "No you are wrong, I don't like this." Because often we don't like where God takes us at the moment. Does anyone think that Joseph enjoyed 15+ years in Egyptian dungeon waiting for God to do his will with him? Does anyone think he liked being thrown down in the pit and sold to slavers? Yet, God had a plan all along and if Joseph had said "No God, I don't believe this is what you really want to do" the bible would have been altogether different.

Well, I don't have an issue about the husband telling his wife about wanting to start a poly relationship, but my only issue is when the husband or any man adds God's name to the matter. It's one thing for a husband to tell his first wife that he'd like to add a second wife to the family, but it's another thing for him to say that God revealed to him that he should. So I am by no means saying that a wife should test, disagree, judge her husband for every single decision that he makes, but I do believe that when it comes to an important decision, like one that would change the structure of the marital relationship (like polygamy would), then I would be behind a wife who would want to seek extra confirmation for her husband's claims of God's revelation. If a wife was okay with the decision, then obviously she may not care for that confirmation and would just go along with the decision.

Part of my skepticism of accepting someone who says, "God told me so" is that people have lied throughout history and using God's name, and that at times has led to people being misled and other consequences. Jim Jones did it, some have claimed that Joseph Smith did it, and rest assured some people are STILL doing it today. While I have no perfect solution myself to be able to always tell when someone is truly receiving revelation from God or not, but I would at least say that when it comes to a life-changing decision or one that would have big implications, then it may sometimes be wise for a wife or anyone else to seek extra confirmation from God, from His word, etc.

Please don't be saying that you think I have no heart. But in the end, I have to support the Word for what it is, God's command.

SweetLissa

I've read a lot of your posts, and I see that you speak wisely and from a good heart.

 

[Mark C]

Instead of this how about I ask a hypothetical question.

Suppose a woman comes...[goes] through the bible...and agrees that there is no sin involved [in polygyny]. So what does she do?

Scripturally, she is commanded to follow [her husband], right?
Scripturally, she cannot divorce him, right?

So as a believer and a patriarch and as a patriarch's wife, what do you tell her?

I would tell her, "Honey, I know you are hurt and I know this seems so unfair. But, God commands us to submit to our husband and follow his lead." Isn't that pretty much what you would have to say, if you were to follow God?

You wouldn't say, "Oh, honey, of course you can abandon him." Or "he will just have to abandon the new wife until you agree to it." Would you? Because neither of those would be scriptural. So the KINDEST thing we can do it share the TRUTH in LOVE but we have to make sure it is the TRUTH...

SweetLissa

Excellent points, Lissa, and they strike a chord with me.

It was my SECOND wife, B, who studied the Word, and concluded that polygyny was acceptable before YHVH. She entered into Covenant with me, and joined my first wife as a beloved helpmeet in my house -- over ten years ago.

And I will tell you that "of course you can abandon him" is EXACTLY what secular and even allegedly "Christian" counselors will ALL tell her; it is what TV, and popular culture, and even the family who abused her and ignored her as a child will tell her. It is EXACTLY what Satan will try to make sure she hears!

Be ready for it.

It was the "world", and the consistent pressure from the adversary that wore B down, at least in part. (There are also strongholds of the enemy that result from childhood abuse, and remain in place so long as unforgiveness has a place in us; throw in fear and you have the "rest of the story".) But the problem ultimately was, and remains, rebellion. As our Savior also said, "If you will not believe His Writings, neither will you believe my words."

I pray that she will eventually hear "two or more witnesses" who will confirm for her exactly what you advised above!

My own story is essentially the "opposite" (in almost every way) from the scenario posited in this thread. But part of the moral is the same, from a pragmatic (as opposed to only a Biblically-permissible) perspective.

Marriage is already "hard" in a pagan society that puts egalitarian "tradition" ahead of what the Word actually says. My advice is to husbands: unless you hear directly from God (which I have no authority to judge), don't make it worse, don't surrender ground to the enemy up front, by alienating the helpmeet of your youth.

Not only is it important for two to "walk together in agreement", but a cord of three strands is not easily broken.

 

[sweetlissa]

I know that some men say God has called them to PM. I am not sure I believe that God specifically wants them to have more than one wife. There are those on the board who believe not only is it allowed but it is required. I don't. But regardless, a man can choose to have a second wife. If he does, even if God doesn't specifically say he should, it still is not something that a submissive wife can really say NO to.

I believe that my husband is called to PM. I believe it because of how God is using PM in our lives. That doesn't mean that every man is called to PM. But regardless, if it isn't a sin, then how can a submissive wife say they will leave because of it? And how can women say they are submissive and still say that they would refuse their husband if he didn't consult them on the choice of a wife or on the addition of a wife. The two are mutually exclusive. Either a woman is submissive or she is not. If she is, then she obeys her husband as long as he isn't leading her to sin.

That is my objection. Of couse I want my husband to consult me when it comes to adding to our family. But if he doesn't, it is between him and God. I gave my life to this man and God. If I trust God with my life then I have to trust my husband with my life. That is all there is to it. Or I should not have gotten married.

SweetLissa

 

[CecilW]

hmm

 

[sweetlissa]

Okay. I apologize if I read more into the post than was there. I have to admit that some of the previous posts regarding what they will and won't accept in a marriage got me a little bent out of shape. After all, we married for better or for worse.

Anyway, I reread your post and realized that you were essentially agreeing with me. Just when you said you had a heart I felt you were saying I didn't. Ooops on me. Mea Culpa?

SweetLissa

 

[Hugh McBryde]

There's a big difference between "owing" an explanation to your wife and giving one to her. I'm going to have to come down on the side that your husband "owes" you nothing, if you're a first wife, other than to continue to be the husband described in Exodus 21.

All of this "love, not force" philosophy I am hearing comes from the practical effect of living in a society that has empowered women, probably (almost certainly) in ways that it ought not have empowered them. Men therefore gives their wives explanations for a lot of reasons that having nothing to do with loving her, or providing for her.

Probably the man has children with his current wife. The practical upshot of what Mark has said about egalitarian society is that she will find plenty of "Bible Believing Christian" friends and pastors who will tell her that she can leave, and most of them will probably tell her she OUGHT to leave. She's going to get the house and the kids, probably in spite of any prior agreement we've made, legal or otherwise. All she has to do is try that cad of a first husband in the press and he might well end up in jail for a spell and I guarantee she gets everything.

Speaking from personal experience in a divorce (which was NOT due to the taking of a second wife), if you try to follow God through the process, you'll probably lose everything. I did, including visitation rights, and I was not a "bad father." I was an obedient to God, Christian, Church Going man.

So practically speaking, you end up consulting your first wife, not because you owe it to her, but because society empowers her to destroy you and your children and wreck your life if you don't, and practically speaking, most women will.

Then there is the business that I do love my wife, and being married again, I realize she has been raised in and lives in a culture that thinks polygyny is wrong. A prudent man does things he doesn't have to do, because before God, he is charged with loving his wife, and in fact, he does love his wife and wants to see her happy, and wants to please her.