Should a first wife be accepting before...

[CecilW]

Dory,

That sounds nice. But what if she went into their marriage as Buddhists, and he becomes a practicing Christian? Or within Christianity, what if they started out as, say, Baptists? And he becomes a Seventh-day Adventist? In your view does the way they started out have sway, and give her power to veto his choice?

If not, then why in this area? New spiritual light has shown upon his pathway and he is following it.

As to vows ... it is just a wee bit more complicated than that, don't you think?

A vow to do good should be kept, even if it to one's hurt.
A vow not to do wrong should similarly be kept.
A vow to do wrong, or to not do right, however, should be broken. Wouldn't you agree?

How about a vow that is later discovered to have the potential of hurting another? Should it be blindly kept, regardless of consequences to another? A vow of monogamy has the potential of hurting another, in that someone whom God intends for you to husband would be left husbandless.

How about a vow that, given in ignorance, turns out to be at cross purposes with a larger, deeper, more important vow? As a Christian, our basic, foundational vow is to accept Christ's leading no matter where it takes us. Since God gives a man a wife or wives (see Proverbs 18 and 19), a vow of monogamy prestates the response of "No" if God chooses to ask you to husband more than one. Should a man say "No" to God?

*scratching head* 'Tisn't always so easy to do black-and-white on these issues, methinks.

 

[steve]

i proly ain't never gonna get that Diplomacy Merit Badge "sigh"

 

[DaPastor]

If we truly pray this prayer with a submissive heart, "Your Kingdom Come, Your Will Be Done", then we need to repent of any vow that is contrary to Scriptural princples. Making a vow to only one wife is not a kingdom value. It is a secular value! There are people who make vows that they will never forgive another person for sins committed against them. Does this mean they are to follow that vow even if God's Word plainly teaches that unforgiveness may cause one to not have eternal life? I believe that any vow that is contrary to the Word of God should be completely repented of and replaced with submission to Scriptural truth.

 

[dory007]

It has to do with vows. if buddhists marry and marry as monogamists and then convert, their marriage vows to each other were still for monogamy. i personally don't believe in forced polygyny. i don't see it as biblical. if a woman knows a man is poly she can choose not to marry that man. if he says he is monogamous and vows to monogamy in marriage vows, he is bound by those vows no matter what religion he made those voes under unless she releases him from the vow of monogamy.

When the Israelites were taking the promised land, they made an error and didn't inquire of God and made a treaty of peace with the Gibeonites. God did not allow them to break the treaty even when they realized they had done wrong. (Joshua 9)

in Gal 3 Paul says that one cannot set aside a human covenant that has been duly established. Gal 3:15.

Dory,

That sounds nice. But what if she went into their marriage as Buddhists, and he becomes a practicing Christian? Or within Christianity, what if they started out as, say, Baptists? And he becomes a Seventh-day Adventist? In your view does the way they started out have sway, and give her power to veto his choice?

If not, then why in this area? New spiritual light has shown upon his pathway and he is following it.

As to vows ... it is just a wee bit more complicated than that, don't you think?

A vow to do good should be kept, even if it to one's hurt.
A vow not to do wrong should similarly be kept.
A vow to do wrong, or to not do right, however, should be broken. Wouldn't you agree?

How about a vow that is later discovered to have the potential of hurting another? Should it be blindly kept, regardless of consequences to another? A vow of monogamy has the potential of hurting another, in that someone whom God intends for you to husband would be left husbandless.

How about a vow that, given in ignorance, turns out to be at cross purposes with a larger, deeper, more important vow? As a Christian, our basic, foundational vow is to accept Christ's leading no matter where it takes us. Since God gives a man a wife or wives (see Proverbs 18 and 19), a vow of monogamy prestates the response of "No" if God chooses to ask you to husband more than one. Should a man say "No" to God?

*scratching head* 'Tisn't always so easy to do black-and-white on these issues, methinks.

 

[dory007]

not all marriages blessed by God are polygamous. God blesses monogamist too. nowhere in the Bible does it state that polygamy is God's one true way to do marriage.

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

 

[dory007]

one more vow that was kept even when it was a stupid one.
Judges 11:
29 Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah. He crossed Gilead and Manasseh, passed through Mizpah of Gilead, and from there he advanced against the Ammonites. 30 And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD : "If you give the Ammonites into my hands, 31 whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the LORD's, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering."

32 Then Jephthah went over to fight the Ammonites, and the LORD gave them into his hands. 33 He devastated twenty towns from Aroer to the vicinity of Minnith, as far as Abel Keramim. Thus Israel subdued Ammon.

34 When Jephthah returned to his home in Mizpah, who should come out to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of tambourines! She was an only child. Except for her he had neither son nor daughter. 35 When he saw her, he tore his clothes and cried, "Oh! My daughter! You have made me miserable and wretched, because I have made a vow to the LORD that I cannot break."

36 "My father," she replied, "you have given your word to the LORD. Do to me just as you promised, now that the LORD has avenged you of your enemies, the Ammonites. 37 But grant me this one request," she said. "Give me two months to roam the hills and weep with my friends, because I will never marry."

38 "You may go," he said. And he let her go for two months. She and the girls went into the hills and wept because she would never marry. 39 After the two months, she returned to her father and he did to her as he had vowed. And she was a virgin.
From this comes the Israelite custom 40 that each year the young women of Israel go out for four days to commemorate the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite.

Dory,

That sounds nice. But what if she went into their marriage as Buddhists, and he becomes a practicing Christian? Or within Christianity, what if they started out as, say, Baptists? And he becomes a Seventh-day Adventist? In your view does the way they started out have sway, and give her power to veto his choice?

If not, then why in this area? New spiritual light has shown upon his pathway and he is following it.

As to vows ... it is just a wee bit more complicated than that, don't you think?

A vow to do good should be kept, even if it to one's hurt.
A vow not to do wrong should similarly be kept.
A vow to do wrong, or to not do right, however, should be broken. Wouldn't you agree?

How about a vow that is later discovered to have the potential of hurting another? Should it be blindly kept, regardless of consequences to another? A vow of monogamy has the potential of hurting another, in that someone whom God intends for you to husband would be left husbandless.

How about a vow that, given in ignorance, turns out to be at cross purposes with a larger, deeper, more important vow? As a Christian, our basic, foundational vow is to accept Christ's leading no matter where it takes us. Since God gives a man a wife or wives (see Proverbs 18 and 19), a vow of monogamy prestates the response of "No" if God chooses to ask you to husband more than one. Should a man say "No" to God?

*scratching head* 'Tisn't always so easy to do black-and-white on these issues, methinks.

 

[Wesley]

That sounds nice. But what if she went into their marriage as Buddhists, and he becomes a practicing Christian?

1 Corinthians 7:12
"If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her."

 

[steve]

not all marriages blessed by God are polygamous. God blesses monogamist too. nowhere in the Bible does it state that polygamy is God's one true way to do marriage.

of course not, sorry if that seemed implied
the reality is that we must be willing to do what Yeshua asks of us which may include sharing of our resources including that which we previously thought and were taught was exclusive (Just The TWO Of Us)

 

[Tlaloc]

All this just reminds me why Christians shouldn't swear in the first place. We're just not omnipotent enough to always know weather what we promise is a good idea in the first place.

 

[steve]

for sure, my northern brother.
sometimes un-wringing the bell is no fun

 

[Wesley]

I believe in critiquing arguments not people. That allows us to discuss issues without insulting one another. In that spirit, here goes:

1. To the argument that women should have a choice in whether or not a second wife is added.

Matthew 25:1-12; Ephesians 5:29-32; and 1 Peter 3; and Revelation 19:7 all make the comparison between the marriage covenant between a husband and wife and the covenant between Christ and the church. Christ is the head. The church(es) are the body. That comparison carries over to the husband is the head and the wife or wives are the body.

The churches do not get a say in whom is allowed into God's house and who is not. Christ makes that decision because he is the head of the church as the husband is the head of the wife. Likewise if the husband decides to add a wife to the family then the husband's decision is final because he is the head of the wife or wives as Christ is the head of the church.

There really isn't any room for debate there.

2. To the idea that a husband can break his own promise whether it is to monogamy or not.

This one is a bit more complicated.

On the face of it we have Christ's response:
Matthew 5:37
"Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one."

And there is James' input:
James 5:12
"Let your "Yes" be yes, and your "No," no, or you will be condemned."

So if a man says 'yes' to monogamy with full knowledge that he is giving up the God given privilege of polygyny then he is bound by his own promise. His 'yes' has to be a 'yes' no matter what. There aren't any exceptions there.

But here's the rub. I'm not sure that any man could make such a promise in 21st century America. The false prophets have done so much to distort God's word and hide God's intent that most men don't know that a promise to monogamy is not necessarily God's will. And the false prophets didn't stop there. They've tried to coerce men into following the idea of enforced monogamy whether the men believe it or not.

Fraud and coercion invalidate promises that were made based on the fraud and coercion.

I will say this though.
Exodus 21:10-11
"If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money."

One of the most basic marital rights that must be given to the woman is honesty. If the man is dishonest with his wife in any way about adding a second wife to the marriage she is free to leave and it is on his head not hers.

 

[dory007]

All this just reminds me why Christians shouldn't swear in the first place. We're just not omnipotent enough to always know weather what we promise is a good idea in the first place.

But, once we promise to something, or give our yes or no, we are bound by our own words. Matthew 12:36But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken. 37For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned."

 

[Hugh McBryde]

The Israelites bound themselves to a promise that was made in a condition of fraud and deception. They blamed themselves because they had not "inquired of the LORD."

You promise monogamy, you stick to it, unless you are released from that promise. You gave your word. That of course does not give grounds to the wife, to divorce. The marriage contract is unbroken since the marriage contract is a set of conditions described by God, and cannot be modified.

And the men took of their victuals, and asked not counsel at the mouth of the LORD. And Joshua made peace with them, and made a league with them, to let them live: and the princes of the congregation sware unto them. And it came to pass at the end of three days after they had made a league with them, that they heard that they were their neighbours, and that they dwelt among them. And the children of Israel journeyed, and came unto their cities on the third day. Now their cities were Gibeon, and Chephirah, and Beeroth, and Kirjathjearim. And the children of Israel smote them not, because the princes of the congregation had sworn unto them by the LORD God of Israel."

Later, Israel even defends the people that deceived them, instead of leaving them to be destroyed conveniently to be destroyed by others:

And the men of Gibeon sent unto Joshua to the camp to Gilgal, saying, Slack not thy hand from thy servants; come up to us quickly, and save us, and help us: for all the kings of the Amorites that dwell in the mountains are gathered together against us. So Joshua ascended from Gilgal, he, and all the people of war with him, and all the mighty men of valour."

The LORD, what does he think?

The LORD said unto Joshua, Fear them not: for I have delivered them into thine hand; there shall not a man of them stand before thee."

The LORD endorses the action of sparing, and defending those that deceived them.

If you vow to your wife, monogamy. You had best stick by it, unless you obtain from her a release from that vow.

 

[Tlaloc]

Dory,
Oh yeah, of course.

Wesley,

Marriage may be compared to Gods relationship with Man, it may even be an image of it, but its not exactly the same thing. The main difference pertinent to this topic is that Christ is Omniscient and Infallible, while men are not. Christ has perfect knowledge of who is right for his church and no amount of consulting us would help him decision process. We don't have such advantages and arn't as perfect leaders so we ought to make use of the perception of the people subordinate too us. Giving wives a vote is not a mandatory thing to do, but its not out of line either, its a mater of circumstances, personalities, and mode of administration.

 

[dory007]

not all marriages blessed by God are polygamous. God blesses monogamist too. nowhere in the Bible does it state that polygamy is God's one true way to do marriage.

of course not, sorry if that seemed implied
the reality is that we must be willing to do what Yeshua asks of us which may include sharing of our resources including that which we previously thought and were taught was exclusive (Just The TWO Of Us)

there is also the reality to expect a vow to kept once it is made. If someone made a vow to monogamy to me, i would expect it to be kept until i was convinced it was God's will to release my husband from that vow. many men use the threat of we are somehow going against God's will to get themselves out of a situation they themselves made. - monogamous vows. Again there is no sin in monogamy. So how can you use the argument that a woman is going against God's will by expecting monogamous vows to be honored? the sin lies with a man choosing to ignore the vows he has spoken and go ahead and break the covenant with his first wife by adding another without her consent.

Let us look at this from another perspective, should i give my child to a childless couple because i must be willing to share my resources that i think are mine alone?

 

[PolyPride]

I believe in critiquing arguments not people. That allows us to discuss issues without insulting one another. In that spirit, here goes:

1. To the argument that women should have a choice in whether or not a second wife is added.

Matthew 25:1-12; Ephesians 5:29-32; and 1 Peter 3; and Revelation 19:7 all make the comparison between the marriage covenant between a husband and wife and the covenant between Christ and the church. Christ is the head. The church(es) are the body. That comparison carries over to the husband is the head and the wife or wives are the body.

The churches do not get a say in whom is allowed into God's house and who is not. Christ makes that decision because he is the head of the church as the husband is the head of the wife. Likewise if the husband decides to add a wife to the family then the husband's decision is final because he is the head of the wife or wives as Christ is the head of the church.

There really isn't any room for debate there.

I disagree with your conclusion. Paul mentions that a believer does have some say on who's allowed in or out of the Church. He mentions that we can judge those inside of the Church and expel the wicked from the Church.

1 Corinthians 5: 12-13 12What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you.

I'm a guy, and I've used the line "and that's final" after telling some of my ex-girlfriends what to do or not do, and it didn't turn out so great. I ended up having to apologize. If you want to shut out your wife's opinions and her say "completely", then that is you, but I think there's a point to be made that this issue is not as black and white or as simple as you think. In addition to the verse I posted from 1 Corinthians, here's another verse that indicates that a husband does not have "absolute" power over his wife,

1 Corinthians 7:4 -5
4The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer.

Mutual consent implies a "shared" decision, and not a unilateral decision made by the husband. So that's one biblical precedent for the wife to have some say in decisions.

As Tlaloc has eloquently expressed, leadership isn't always about taking up every responsibility for yourself, or making every single decision (esp. in some unilateral way). Men aren't perfect, we need all of the love and help that a wife can provide especially since the decisions will affect her life.

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.

 

[Wesley]

Giving wives a vote is not a mandatory thing to do, but its not out of line either, its a mater of circumstances, personalities, and mode of administration.

Tlaloc,
I never said, nor implied that giving women a vote or a veto in the issue is a bad idea. As a matter of fact, since you brought the subject up, I'll go one step further. In Leviticus 18:18 we, as men, are specifically commanded not to take a "rival wife." So taking a woman that the current wife can't be friends with as a second wife would be foolishness on the man's part. That pretty much requires consulting with her in the selection process.

The intent of my words was that it is not in a woman's purview to over rule polygamy completely. There is a big difference between a woman saying "I don't like her," versus "there aren't going to be any other women in your life."

The husband's decision is final. That much is plain and simple. And if the husband believes that the woman is abusing her privilege of vetoing a particular woman for the purpose of denying the entire concept of polygyny (i.e. she'll find an excuse to veto any woman who is suggested) then the husband is perfectly justified in reminding her that her veto is a privilege not a right and/or taking that privilege away temporarily.

While I'm at it I might as well go another step further in that direction. Exodus 21:10-11 states that a man is required to give his wife or wives "food, clothing and marital rights" and if he doesn't then the woman is allowed to leave. We can debate all day long what the phrase "marital rights" means but with Christ's dedication to honesty I'm figuring that honesty is one of the central marital rights being discussed. And that would mean that if a man lies to his wife about seeing another woman then the woman has the right to leave and it's on his head rather than hers. Or at least that's the way I see it. You're perfectly free to disagree.

 

[Wesley]

I disagree with your conclusion. Paul mentions that a believer does have some say on who's allowed in or out of the Church. He mentions that we can judge those inside of the Church and expel the wicked from the Church.

There is a significant difference between giving someone the left-foot-of-fellowship out of the church and deciding that they don't get to go to heaven.

In Matthew 25:1-12 Christ uses the words "kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins." So he's talking about admission into the Kingdom of Heaven not admission into the church. And that is what I was speaking of as well. Certainly the pastor of a church (or whatever he's called) can kick someone out of church. But when Judgment Day rolls around it is Christ alone who makes the decisions as to whom will be allowed to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

 

[Wesley]

Angel3,
As for the rest of your post I really think you should stop putting words into my mouth that I didn't say.

I will remind you that this discussion is about the behavior of a woman. The subject line is "Should a first wife be accepting before..." By definition that means that we are discussing what the woman does.

I can quote many, many, many scriptures that regulate how a man is to treat his wife. Chief among them is 1 Peter 3:7. But that isn't the topic of this discussion.

My statement was that the man's word is final. And out of context quotes about "mutual" decisions are not going to change that. Paul was speaking of "denying" yourself to one another. Marriage is not just for procreation. A few verses later Paul writes that it is better to marry than to burn with passion. (1 Corinthians 7:9) So denying the release of passion to one's spouse is tempting the person to sin. And that should not be done. Using this passage to refer to anything else is what is referred to in 2 Peter 3:16 where Peter writes: "which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."

Genesis 3:16; Ephesians 5:22; and 1 Peter 3:1-6, among other passages, make it plain who is the biblical head of the household. I will grant you that the wife does not answer to her husband regarding disobedience. But she will answer to God on judgment day for every word she has ever spoken to her husband. Matthew 12:36-37 makes it plain that a woman needs to be careful in choosing her words with her husband because she will account to God for every single one of them.

 

[PolyPride]

I disagree with your conclusion. Paul mentions that a believer does have some say on who's allowed in or out of the Church. He mentions that we can judge those inside of the Church and expel the wicked from the Church.

There is a significant difference between giving someone the left-foot-of-fellowship out of the church and deciding that they don't get to go to heaven.

In Matthew 25:1-12 Christ uses the words "kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins." So he's talking about admission into the Kingdom of Heaven not admission into the church. And that is what I was speaking of as well. Certainly the pastor of a church (or whatever he's called) can kick someone out of church. But when Judgment Day rolls around it is Christ alone who makes the decisions as to whom will be allowed to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

Actually, the NT mentions that we will help God judge the unrighteous and even angels (1 Corinthians 6:2 - 3). So if a pastor or a group of believers make a valid judgement that someone is being unrepentantly immoral, and needs to be expelled from the Church, then it logically follows that God wouldn't allow that unrepentant person into His kingdom neither.