Should a first wife be accepting before...

[PolyPride]

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.

When I become a husband, I would think of my happiness and satisfaction as a husband as being dependent or connected to my wife's happiness. With that said, I would not want to have my wife go through a big step that she definitely doesn't want to go through, so I personally would want her consent before I even think about starting a poly relationship. One problem that I have with your reasoning, Lissa, is that it allows a husband to easily tell his wife that God told him so, and by doing that it would COMPLETELY shut off her say in the decision process, since almighty God has spoken "according to the husband", so there is no going against that decision, whatsoever. The only thing left for the wife to do is to accept the decision and cope with it. You may consider it a sin for a wife not to obey her husband, but I consider it a sin for a man to lie about receiving a revelation from God. So when it comes to a life-changing decision that has big implications, would it hurt that a wife would seek extra confirmation for her husband's claim of revelation from God to gain some extra certainty, just in case there is dishonesty? I mean, I know that the husband can still take another wife without his wife's input, but as history has shown, having a husband make unilateral decisions that would effect the wife sets a bad precedent because then it can lead oppression (like keeping women from getting a education, restricting them to the house, etc.) and the wife is likely left with being hurt and unsatisfied, among other things.

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

As I've mentioned before, I don't have a perfect solution but I personally would want to have my wife have a say on decisions that would have big implications on her life. It's the best way to ensure that EVERYONE in the marriage is happy, I mean unless God really did reveal for the husband to take an additional wife but that's a different scenario.

 

[PolyPride]

Very good post, Lissa.

There are three basic views concerning husband/wife relationships:

1. Complementarians: The husband and wife are of equal worth before God, but the husband and wife have different functions and responsibilities in marriage. The husband is the head of the home and the wife is his helpmeet.

2. Egalitarians: The husband and wife are in full partnership as equals before God. There is no priority of one spouse over the other.

3. Feminists: The husband and wife are in full partnership as equals before God. However, sometimes the wife may actually lead the home.

Within Complementarianism, there are two categories:

A. Absolute Authoritarinism: The wife is to submit to her husband is ALL THINGS, no matter what he asks her to do.

B. Conditional Authoritarianism: The wife is to submit to her husband in all things unless he asks her to disobey the clear truths of Scripture.

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.

This is a helpful sum up, DaPastor. I'm somewhere in between 1 (conditional authoritarianism) and 2 (egaliterian). I only say this because there may situations not involving Scripture, where I believe a wife does not have to submit to me or go by my every decision. It's also because some decisions may be a product of "shared" decisions that both me and my future wife comes up with. If conditional authoritarianism doesn't exclude this, then I'm closer to it than your number 2 item.

 

[Mark C]

There are those on the board who believe not only is [polygyny] allowed but it is required. I don't.

I think I know what you mean, Lissa, (in which case I'm not one of 'em) and admittedly what follows is a bit different from that -- but it should be pointed out, for any new folks that haven't thought about it:

There IS such a requirement, and I'm not referring to the "Law of the Levirate". It doesn't require a man to take a SECOND wife, but can require him to take BACK a first wife! (And thus end up being a polygynist anyway.)

(See I Cor. 7:10-11 for the 'easy-to-read summary' )

A wife who ABANDONS he husband is required to remain celibate (to do otherwise, of course, is adultery). But he, as is clear from both the Torah, and Paul's re-teaching, is "not under bondage", and may well remarry.

Here comes the rub:

It is the NEW wife who must understand what the Bible teaches as well! If that first wife repents, and returns, and has NOT committed adultery* -- then her husband is REQUIRED to take her back! She is, after all, STILL his wife!

While I do not know personally of any such cases (yet) in the 'real world' - I do know of MORE THAN ONE 'believing husband' for whom a discussion like this has resulted in a sleepless night or two!



---------------------
* IF she has committed adultery, the husband MAY "put her away", with or without a certificate of divorce. But he SHOULD forgive her anyway, if at all possible.

 

[lutherangirl]

What if a Christian women married a man that believed in God and was baptized, then fell away from believing in God after the marriage, and decides a few years down the road he believes again and wants a pm marriage. Should the women still stay obedient without a say? The man was a believer in the beginning of the marriage, so I'm assuming divorce would not be an option.

 

[Hugh McBryde]

Honestly, I don't think there should be an objection to plural marriage. The fact that there shouldn't be, doesn't change the fact that often there is one. I don't see how you can divide the man's authority in this matter.

The only reasons to go slowly are: Love for your wife in her weakness, which frankly was the weakness of most of us men at one time, the idea that monogamy was mandated.

The fact that the Law will let that woman rip the living heck out of you and she just might (probably might) do so.

Because you love her, and because she probably is conditioned to believe the same nonsense you probably believed once, that's also a reason.

 

[lutherangirl]

Because you love her, and because she probably is conditioned to believe the same nonsense you probably believed once, that's also a reason.

I think your ending quote sums it up very well. I think it does take time to erase most of the garbage, that a huge majority of us on this site and around the world, were brought up to believe regarding Biblical marriage mono or poly. Plus, many of us didn't have Godly parent role models to follow as examples of marriage, so I do think it takes time and prayer to retrain our mind. I can't remember all the Scriptures that talk about God's time either in days, thousands, and years, only He knows the seasons and lengths we will all go through. I imagine both are different for everyone. Sorry for rattling on...

 

[Hugh McBryde]

The first part was for the men who might think they can just announce the new arrival, and there won't be some practical effects

 

[lutherangirl]

The first part was for the men who might think they can just announce the new arrival, and there won't be some practical effects

'
Gottcha These points are good to note even with a mono marriage as well.

 

[PolyPride]

Honestly, I don't think there should be an objection to plural marriage. The fact that there shouldn't be, doesn't change the fact that often there is one. I don't see how you can divide the man's authority in this matter.

The only reasons to go slowly are: Love for your wife in her weakness, which frankly was the weakness of most of us men at one time, the idea that monogamy was mandated.

The fact that the Law will let that woman rip the living heck out of you and she just might (probably might) do so.

Because you love her, and because she probably is conditioned to believe the same nonsense you probably believed once, that's also a reason.

These are some very good points, Hugh. I don't even want to think about the legal issues, lol.

 

[seekHim1]

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."

Amen SweetLissa! Love it...thanks for speaking the truth. This whole issue has really discouraged me from seeking counsel from most "Christians" because they are so off and do not want to believe we are to actually experience any of the hard stuff that we read all throughout the Bible. Like you said, PM is hardly that huge by Biblical standard (although it seems huge to us first wives nowadays lol!). How sad that we call ourselves Christians and can't even do the basics let alone the more extreme things?!? Like Jesus said we should respond, "...We are unprofitable servants...we have only done that which was our duty to do." (Luke 17:10)

 

[PolyPride]

Amen SweetLissa! Love it...thanks for speaking the truth. This whole issue has really discouraged me from seeking counsel from most "Christians" because they are so off and do not want to believe we are to actually experience any of the hard stuff that we read all throughout the Bible. Like you said, PM is hardly that huge by Biblical standard (although it seems huge to us first wives nowadays lol!). How sad that we call ourselves Christians and can't even do the basics let alone the more extreme things?!? Like Jesus said we should respond, "...We are unprofitable servants...we have only done that which was our duty to do." (Luke 17:10)

When it comes to myself, my problem does not involve what God tells me to do, whether it be extreme or not, but rather it is a matter of HOW you do it. I won't assume that your statement applies to me but I don't consider it sad that I call myself a Christian. I'm proud to be a Christian, and one that respectfully challenges and/or test traditional thought (if I honestly disagree or see a problem with a common understanding), rather than blindly following what someone is telling me I should believe.


--------------------------
Deuteronomy 18: 20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death."

1 John 4:1 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

Acts 17: 11 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

 

[Chaplain]

Great topic and discussion. Would like to direct all to this same type issue I sorta started and posted it way back when under " TESTIMONIES----WHAT THE LORD HAS SHOWN ME"----The discussion it created there might be an eye opener to those posting here.

Just a thought and suggestion.

 

[Hugh McBryde]

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."

Of course, in the case of the "Rich Young Ruler," it was his wealth that he held back. There is nothing wrong with wealth, though it is difficult for sinful rich men to release their grasp on wealth when the alternative is...anything, including following Christ. Plural Marriage is no big deal because for one thing, the numbers don't support everyone doing it.

It is however, a big deal when we hold back, and Christianity flirted with recognizing plural marriage during the Reformation, and then political pressure extinguished it's widespread practice. Then several generations pass and "monogamy only" becomes, once again, "settled doctrine," much as we are offered anthropogenic global warming as "settled science."

It is the stumbling block now, much as the "Rich Young Ruler's" wealth was his stumbling block. God asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, and Abraham offered all, and God restored it to him. Solomon asked for wisdom, and got wealth too. Today's church wants to save and sanctify marriage, and in refusing to recognized what is legitimate undefiled perfectly acceptable marriage, they lose everything. They are much like the Rich Young Ruler, and not like Solomon, or Abraham.

 

[seekHim1]

When it comes to myself, my problem does not involve what God tells me to do, whether it be extreme or not, but rather it is a matter of HOW you do it. I won't assume that your statement applies to me but I don't consider it sad that I call myself a Christian. I'm proud to be a Christian, and one that respectfully challenges and/or test traditional thought (if I honestly disagree or see a problem with a common understanding), rather than blindly following what someone is telling me I should believe.

I'm sorry Angel 3 - I was not referring to you or anyone in particular. I apologize if I came across that way. I was really just talking about myself - that with my perceived trials in life, it has shown me how shallow my faith has been and has challenged me as far as taking up a cross...declaring Christianity but not being willing to do anything uncomfortable on the flesh.

I totally agree with you about HOW something is done, but I also agree wholeheartedly with SweetLissa that even if a husband does something in not the best way, that doesn't give a wife justification to divorce or hold a grudge, etc. As a wife, I should love and forgive and move on. That's all I was referring to. Sorry for the misunderstanding!!!

 

[DaPastor]

Very good post, Lissa.

There are three basic views concerning husband/wife relationships:

1. Complementarians: The husband and wife are of equal worth before God, but the husband and wife have different functions and responsibilities in marriage. The husband is the head of the home and the wife is his helpmeet.

2. Egalitarians: The husband and wife are in full partnership as equals before God. There is no priority of one spouse over the other.

3. Feminists: The husband and wife are in full partnership as equals before God. However, sometimes the wife may actually lead the home.

Within Complementarianism, there are two categories:

A. Absolute Authoritarinism: The wife is to submit to her husband is ALL THINGS, no matter what he asks her to do.

B. Conditional Authoritarianism: The wife is to submit to her husband in all things unless he asks her to disobey the clear truths of Scripture.

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.

This is a helpful sum up, DaPastor. I'm somewhere in between 1 (conditional authoritarianism) and 2 (egaliterian). I only say this because there may situations not involving Scripture, where I believe a wife does not have to submit to me or go by my every decision. It's also because some decisions may be a product of "shared" decisions that both me and my future wife comes up with. If conditional authoritarianism doesn't exclude this, then I'm closer to it than your number 2 item.

Hello brother,

I would suggest that even if you make decisions together, God will hold YOU ultimately accountable for all the decisions, so whether you consider yourself sometimes egalitarian, God does not!

 

[Hugh McBryde]

In a sense, God is egalitarian in practice, bargaining with Abraham over whether or not he would destroy Sodom and Gomorrah over the number of righteous men that lived there. Not in the sense that he ought to give us "our say" as it were, but he regularly permits us to have our input.

Again I would point to Esther the Queen had no right to enter the King's presence, but did, knowing fully it could be at the cost of her life. The King who could have let her die, and would have been entirely right to do so, did not.

 

[DaPastor]

Hi

Amen SweetLissa! Love it...thanks for speaking the truth. This whole issue has really discouraged me from seeking counsel from most "Christians" because they are so off and do not want to believe we are to actually experience any of the hard stuff that we read all throughout the Bible. Like you said, PM is hardly that huge by Biblical standard (although it seems huge to us first wives nowadays lol!). How sad that we call ourselves Christians and can't even do the basics let alone the more extreme things?!? Like Jesus said we should respond, "...We are unprofitable servants...we have only done that which was our duty to do." (Luke 17:10)

I totally agree. If Christian women today had a Biblical Worldview, then a man taking a second or third wife would not be a huge issue. The problem is that we have moved so far from a Biblical worldview that man Christian women, although believing the man is the head, are in essence the head themselves, for if the head of the house does anything that rocks the boat, she will attempt to control him through manipulation. On the other hand, if a Christian man had a more Biblical worldview, he would desire to become the main spiritual leader and teacher of his family, which would require him to bring daily devotional experiences to his family, spending more time with his children, and making sure that his family understands the priciples of God's Word above all else.

 

[DaPastor]

In a sense, God is egalitarian in practice, bargaining with Abraham over whether or not he would destroy Sodom and Gomorrah over the number of righteous men that lived there. Not in the sense that he ought to give us "our say" as it were, but he regularly permits us to have our input.

Again I would point to Esther the Queen had no right to enter the King's presence, but did, knowing fully it could be at the cost of her life. The King who could have let her die, and would have been entirely right to do so, did not.

Hi Hugh,

I believe that you are right, in a sense. However, the head of the household still has the final say. God still has the final say. The King still had the final say. Egalitarianism says that "both have the final say", and that the decision cannot be made until we all agree. Scripture does not advocate that kind of leadership. It does advocate listening, caring, and understanding. However, there can only be one bus driver.

 

[Hugh McBryde]

I think we are agreeing Pastor. I think it's important to note that it would probably have been hard to know who was boss, if we were introduced to Adam and Eve, before the fall. Eve I think, up until the point where she fell for the serpent's trick, would seem to function with Adam, not subject to Adam. Namely, her sensibilities were so tuned to her role that where his command would leave off and her submission would pick up, would be nearly impossible to discern.

After sin, the difference is more apparent. Men make unloving commands, bad commands and on rare occasion, downright sinful requirements of their wives. Women for their part have more opinions than they should, rebel, sin on their own and so on and think they really are, better than men.

God has often been known to "consult" with us, though he certainly knows our answers as author of them. It a way it must have been amusing to know what Abraham was going to do and watch him bargain fruitlessly for the safety of Sodom and Gomorrah when he knew Abraham would never name a low enough number.

As a limiting human being, of limited talents, even discounting the whole notion of my sinful nature, what my wife wants and thinks is important to me. As I said, I love her and care about what she cares about, even if it is wrong. I need her because I can't do everything. Besides all of that, she's often right when I can't see it myself and so she serves as a great sounding board, bare minimum.

We were put in the Garden with minimal commands. "Do anything you want, just don't eat of that tree." A loving God in his law made fewer restrictions on his people Israel than the Federal Government makes in just in the regulation of the construction of a Catalytic Converter for an automobile. Ultimate authority may do as it wishes. God in practice doesn't ask that much of us really and Esther was able to bend the rules.

 

[Anonymous]

I think we are agreeing Pastor. I think it's important to note that it would probably have been hard to know who was boss, if we were introduced to Adam and Eve, before the fall. Eve I think, up until the point where she fell for the serpent's trick, would seem to function with Adam, not subject to Adam. Namely, her sensibilities were so tuned to her role that where his command would leave off and her submission would pick up, would be nearly impossible to discern.

As I read this good description of perfectly functioning leadership at work, I had a flash of recognition. I have been frequently amazed at watching birds. Large flocks of Canadian Geese flying in formation change direction without breaking ranks. I have also seen flocks of some unknown (to me) species fly in an apparently disorganized group change direction or destination frequently with no obvious commander. Ants toil effectively in combined effort with out a noticable boss.
It makes me wonder what the critters know that we don't. Practically speaking, if a husband and a wife or wives, were to know and fulfill their own responsibilities to the best of their ability as a service to God, what a blessed union marriage would be.