Should a first wife be accepting before...

[redfox]

Critters, to the best of my knowledge, don't have free will. Thereby making it much easier to know and understand what is expected of them, without worrying about whether their antennae or feathers are the right color for that season. They know exactly what their job duties are and don't need to check in constantly.

Oh, if only it were that easy for us some days We have so much to fight against, incorrect teachings and concepts, decades of feminism, denominationalism, etc.

 

[Mark C]

Interesting discussion, folks. I'd take exception to one apparently minor thing, Hugh, but I contend that it "makes the point":

God in practice doesn't ask that much of us really and Esther was able to bend the rules.

Esther did not in fact "bend the rules" at all! She was submitted...and accepted in advance the consequences of her decision. It was her obedience to BOTH YHVH, and to her husband as king, that mattered.

God asks quite a bit of us as well, especially as husbands. Our submission to Him is what helps our wives, by example, understand why they should be submitted, in turn, to proper headship as well.

 

[DaPastor]

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.

Of course, many would suggest that Adam was the person given the command to not eat of tree, not Eve. Therefore, Adam, as the head, must have communicated this truth to Eve. Eve not following the command of God through Adam did eat. Adam did not stop Eve. Adam was the first to be confronted by God. He was the head. The implication is that Adam should have stopped this sin. What further confirms this is that Adam is the example, not Eve, of one falling into sin.

 

[DaPastor]

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.

Speaking of animals, I find it extremely interesting that the two animals that have the greatest spiritual meaning in the Bible, sheep and lions, both are polygynous by nature.

 

[Hugh McBryde]

A super strict interpretation of the Kings law was, "Don't go into his presence without being summoned, or you die." Perhaps my terminology is unfortunate in saying Esther "bent" the law. Esther was aware that the King could extend mercy to someone who came unbidden into his presence, but she was by no means assured of that. Death is a penalty in this context. Esther knew of an immoral act about to be perpetrated on her people, and went against the King's general standing order to express her displeasure with that immoral act.

She relied on the King's mercy, but was ready to take the punishment. Fortunately for Esther, she received mercy, and I point to this as evidence of the slack between the absolute letter of the law and it's narrow interpretation, and what is allowed in the home between husband and wife. There are other evidences in places like Numbers 30:10 & 11:

And if she vowed in her husband's house, or bound her soul by a bond with an oath; and her husband heard it, and held his peace at her, and disallowed her not: then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she bound her soul shall stand."

This more than strongly implies that a woman was expected to go about speaking for her husband, without necessarily checking with him every time. Word would get back to him eventually of his wife's actions, and if he ratified them when they were questioned, they stood. Both the King (Esther's husband) and the man of Numbers 30 are relying on their wives to act generally in accordance with their wishes. Thus Ahasuerus figures that if Esther came unbidden into his presence, something unusual is going on and he gladly extends the Scepter to her and exempts her from death. The woman of Numbers 30 makes oath and contract, and the man essentially says "What? She speaks for me..." or he doesn't.

You get the impression that Ahasuerus would extend his Scepter every time Esther came unbidden because, it's Esther, the reason HAS to be good as it has been in the past or she wouldn't BE here, right? I also get the impression that there were men covered by the Numbers 30 provision that rarely if ever, second guessed their wives. This is born out by the good woman of the Proverb, who buys and sells land, which had to be done under the cover of Numbers 30. Proverbs 31:15 & 16:

She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens. She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard."

These are not the actions of a woman under tight control. She sounds pretty free to me.

Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land." (verse 23)

This guy has an easy job, he's letting his wife do a huge chunk of it, and whatever she says, generally goes, because she knows her husband's heart.

 

[sweetlissa]

She relied on the King's mercy, but was ready to take the punishment. Fortunately for Esther, she received mercy, and I point to this as evidence of the slack between the absolute letter of the law and it's narrow interpretation, and what is allowed in the home between husband and wife. There are other evidences in places like Numbers 30:10 & 11:

Isn't this what we all do every day in the Kingdom? We all are sinners and we all rely on the mercy of our King. Wow!

SweetLissa

 

[Mark C]

...These are not the actions of a woman under tight control. She sounds pretty free to me.

Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land." (verse 23)

This guy has an easy job, he's letting his wife do a huge chunk of it, and whatever she says, generally goes, because she knows her husband's heart.

Very good, Hugh...

That makes for a pretty reasonable summary of what it means to someday hopefully hear, "Well done, good and faithful servant."

 

[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."

Fascinating, it would appear we have an audience, or rather, I do. A blow by blow of my moral failings, in the eyes of militant monogamists, both Christian and otherwise, is being played out here:

If a woman had to approve of the next wife and sign the license in the courthouse, the number of actual polygynist marriages would drop to a very, very small number. I doubt any man would have more than three wives ever, because that’s about the limit on the number of wives who could all agree."

Interesting. Based on the conversation there, I drag a wake of seagulls around behind me.

 

[PolyPride]

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."

Fascinating, it would appear we have an audience, or rather, I do. A blow by blow of my moral failings, in the eyes of militant monogamists, both Christian and otherwise, is being played out here:

If a woman had to approve of the next wife and sign the license in the courthouse, the number of actual polygynist marriages would drop to a very, very small number. I doubt any man would have more than three wives ever, because that’s about the limit on the number of wives who could all agree."

Interesting. Based on the conversation there, I drag a wake of seagulls around behind me.

I'd agree with their comment insomuch that polygamy is not for everyone, so of course not everyone would agree to it. Where this starts to become unreasonable is when these strictly monogamist women want to speak for "every" women, as if women aren't entitled to think differently than them. That's a classic example of bigotry.

 

[Hugh McBryde]

Angel3,

Because in their minds polygyny is necessarily oppressive, any woman participating in one is responding as a product of that oppression, and is not truly speaking for herself. As their reasoning goes, she could not possibly have an independent voice.

 

[PolyPride]

Angel3,

Because in their minds polygyny is necessarily oppressive, any woman participating in one is responding as a product of that oppression, and is not truly speaking for herself. As their reasoning goes, she could not possibly have an independent voice.

That does have some basis in fact when it comes to some women, like those who are part of the FLDS sects. I'd remind them that that only speaks for those women though, and drawing conclusions on "all" poly-practicing women based on the actions of "some" poly-practicing women is unreasonable. It's fairly easy to find documentaries of women "choosing" to live poly lifestyles and quite happily, but I just wonder if these people care to look at all sides, rather than just looking at the negative examples which do not represent all poly families.

 

[Hugh McBryde]

This is why "polyamory" is being represented as the next sexual revolution, and when it is portrayed, it is portrayed mostly as a polyandry.

 

[Craig Skinner]

Great thread.

Lots of spiritual meat to chew over.

Thanks.

 

[Revgill87123]

Wow I am glad I have known that God has led me to live a plural life! I knew from a child, and told any woman growing up that this is what I believe Including my wife whom I told the first day I met her I told her how and what I believe. At first she was like ok were cool, but I can't be with you. Then next thing I know we are dating married and having children we now have 5 children together. She is also supportive of me finding a second wife 'cause she knows I will not leave her. I will how ever take into account that it is only right that my wife and I find a second in wich she has a lot in common with. Such as reading cause she loves too read and talk about the books she has read. Cooking also cause My wife loves too cook! I can't imagine what it would be like to start too decide polygyny after the fact. I am sure it is a hard road too just suddenly have this revalation. I am glad I don't have to deal with that. I thank God for the revalation early in life! I hope the best for every one!

 

[The Revolting Man]

Alright, this is why I believe steadfastly that there can not be a workable Christian polygamy without a strong doctrine of headship. The whole idea of a woman having veto power or certain extra-Biblical rights or control makes it unworkable. The entire idea of Christian polygyny is predicated on the idea of a dominant patriarchy and women surrendering control to their husbands the way the church surrenders control to Christ. Until that foundational principle is established then there is no point in even talking about marriage of any kind because it is those principles that marriage was, in my humble opinon, originally instituted to demonstrate and reinforce. I think a lot of us are putting the cart before horse in other words.

 

[Tlaloc]

Zephyr,
I believe that point of view comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of what good leadership and properly administered authority looks like. Monogamists might get away with strict limitations on rights and control for their wives but that's only because the group they have authority over is small enough that they can do everything themselves. Its like a small business where the boss takes half the shifts and does all the accounting by himself, he might work himself silly, but the business can still run smoothly. With polygamy we have more women, more children, more people, more authority. We have to be better leaders and one of the biggest keys to that is learning to effectively delegate. That means we have to give rights, responsibilities, and control to others in order for everything to run smoothly. You just can't run a chain without good managers.

Having authority not only means that you can delegate, but that you must do it and do it responsibly and judiciously. We wouldn't even have authority over our wives if God himself did not delegate it to us.

So while we may choose to retain the bulk of the work in deciding whether a new woman is right for the family, its prudent to give veto power to the other women. Giving them that power is effectively asking them two questions: Can you love her? Can you get along with her? If either of those is a no the relationship will be a long term headache a good leader would avoid.

I don't see what the big deal is anyway, if she has a well reasoned objection its good to heed it and if she's being sentimental then its just a mater of changing her mood.

I think putting an emphasis on leadership and headship without taking the time to study and understand how a good leader acts is putting the cart before the horse.

 

[cnystrom]

I will how ever take into account that it is only right that my wife and I find a second in wich she has a lot in common with. Such as reading cause she loves too read and talk about the books she has read. Cooking also cause My wife loves too cook!

I think what you really need in common is a relationship with Jesus and common values. While I can see the value in common interests I also think different interests would be interesting and valuable. I would hate to limit myself before I have even met someone.

 

[Tlaloc]

I agree cnystrom, its good to have a general sphere of things you all like to do together but in the long run different interests are very valuable too. Its good if she has something she likes to do herself when she needs personal space and its good for her to add her own flavour to the family.

 

[dory007]

to me the answer is it depends. what if the first wife went into the marriage and the vows were for monogamy? she has the right to monogamy because her husband made her a vow before God and a man is obligated to fulfill his vows to the Lord. If he breaks his vow to the Lord he is in sin. If she agrees to change the vows then he may go ahead and have plural marriage.

if she went in knowing it was a plural marriage then technically he can bring in another without her consent. Practically though, there will be much more harmony in the family if everyone agrees to new additions.

 

[steve]

If she agrees to change the vows then he may go ahead and have plural marriage.

and if she does not agree to bring it in line with YHWH's plan for marriage.... well, then they have a whooooole different set of problems to work on before they ever get to the subject of an additional wife