Should a first wife be accepting before...

[Wesley]

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.

Matthew 7:1-2
1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

Deuteronomy 1:17
Do not be afraid of any man, for judgment belongs to God.

2 Peter 2:9-11
... the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment. 10This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the sinful nature and despise authority.

2 Peter 3:15-16
15Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Perhaps you should rephrase your objection.

 

[PolyPride]

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 man's word is not final when it comes to what I quoted from 1 Corinthians 7:4 -5. That verse signifies that a man's word in that circumstance has to go along with his wife's say as well, so he can't just say to his wife you're only going to go by what I say on this matter. Also, a man's word is not final when the man is going against God's word. God's word is final and man is not God, nor will man ever be.

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."

1 Corinthians chapter 7 is riddled with Paul's opinions. I even would consider the verse you referenced, 1 Corinthians 7:9 to be Paul's opinion, since in the very next verse he had to clarify that he's not giving an opinion of his own but an actual command from God. Also look at 1 Corinthians 7:6.

I also don't quite understand what you mean by denying the release of passion to one's spouse, because Paul was clearly talking about people who are "SINGLE", not about someone who's already married. Refer to 1 Corinthians 7:8 which mentions, "To the unmarried and the widows I say:

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.

I don't deny that the husband's role is to be the head in the relationship, what I'm discussing with you is "how" the husband acts with that role. Leaders can give rights to the people that they're leading, as God gives rights to us, including husbands, otherwise husbands wouldn't be leading in the first place.

 

[PolyPride]

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.

Matthew 7:1-2
1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

Deuteronomy 1:17
Do not be afraid of any man, for judgment belongs to God.

2 Peter 2:9-11
... the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment. 10This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the sinful nature and despise authority.

2 Peter 3:15-16
15Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Perhaps you should rephrase your objection.

There's only two logically valid options, either the verse that I posted contradicts witih your verses or there are exceptions in which the verse I posted clarifies.
We are not to judge those outside of the Church, but only those "INSIDE" the "CHURCH". The instruction in Matthew and Deuteronomy may've only applied for judgements for those on the outside since there was no "church" established at the timeline of those verses. The verses you cite in 2 Peter do not exclude faithful believers from judging along side with God.

 

[Tlaloc]

Wesley,

I think in essence we agree on all points then, I admit the husband does indeed have the authority you say. I also agree that there are cases he may judiciously use that authority.

I would however point out (and hope and expect you would know and agree) that having the authority does not mean it is a good idea to use it. Rehoboam did indeed have the authority to say "My little finger shall be thicker than my father's loins. " and implement policies to back it, but he was still culpable for the revolt his actions helped to cause. A husband that used his authority to force polygyny and caused a revolt in his household because of it is equally culpable.

Angel,

Thank you so much for pointing out 1 Corinthians 6:2 - 3, I had long forgotten it and it can prove key to quite a few discussions I've had and am having. I really appreciate it.

On Judgment,

I maintain the Matt 7 passage is much less general than people take it to be. Don't judge or else you will be judged, by whatever standards you judge you will be judged. With verse 2 for context it only means that you shouldn't make hypocritical or snap judgments. If I judge someone by saying 'Hey, don't steal, that is wrong and you're sinning by doing it' I don't have any fear of this passage. I don't steal and if at judgment I am judged on theft I'm clean. But if I said to someone, 'Hey, Don't curse thats a sin' I would be in trouble, as I slip into it sometimes. I wouldn't pass my own judgment. I know there is more depth to the passage than that, but it doesn't mean 'don't make a judgment call ever'.


Deu 1:16 And I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between a man and his brother, and the sojourner that is with him.
Deu 1:17 Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; ye shall hear the small and the great alike; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God's: and the cause that is too hard for you ye shall bring unto me, and I will hear it.

Wesley, these passages are actually setting up a system of judgment and rules for judges, so it is definitely pro-judgment. Did you mean to quote another verse when you posted this? If anything it says don't be afraid of any mans rank or money when you judge because judgment belongs to God and goes beyond wealth and rank.

To be honest I think Angel has a good point, I haven't really thought of it much before though. Given the judgment of the believers is valid and scriptural it really seems to mean what he says it means.

 

[CecilW]

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.

Fair enough, Dory.

But what if you blatantly say, "I don't LIKE the idea of polygamy. I don't WANT it to be right. NO, I won't study the Bible with you as you might convince me and I don't want to be convinced. Hush! I don't care WHAT you find in the Bible -- I know what is right and wrong and that is wrong. No, it wouldn't matter if an angel came direct from the Father's throne to show me, I still wouldn't accept it!"?

What if you hold to this position for years, as your husband hopes and prays for you to change? Do you contend that this is your right? You have this control? You forever stand between that man and God on this issue, holding veto power over a transaction between God and your husband? Without obligation to seek and accept truth in some sort of timely fashion?

That is what your post seems to imply. And if so, you and I will forever disagree. All that I put in quotes is what my first wife said and maintains to this day, so far as I can tell. When I refused to repudiate PM on her say so, she divorced me. Cindy later married me. My first wife later decided she'd made a mistake in divorcing me, and that my new wife should leave me so that she could have me back -- still monogamously of course.

So far Cindy and I have been able to resist the temptation ...

 

[Mark C]

And fair enough, Cecil.

As one who acknowledges that God DOES indeed hold us (men) to our vows, I'd simply ask Dory, and any others who may find themselves in such a position, why the understanding that God's Word says that such a vow is improper -- for more than one reason, of course! -- is not sufficient in itself for her to release her covering from a vow which should never have been made?

To that end I will point out something; it seems very important in this context:

Read Numbers 30 -- the whole thing -- but especially verse 15. Note that a husband and father is held TOTALLY responsible (he "bears her guilt") for the vows of his wives and daughters. He literally has the authority to "cast down" any bad vows that they may make! Shouldn't a wife who "fears God", keeps His commandments, and honors her husband be willing, at a minimum, to release him voluntarily from a vow he obviously never should have made?


Blessings,

Mark

 

[Wesley]

The verses you cite in 2 Peter do not exclude faithful believers from judging along side with God.

Do you realize that if you're correct then Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and King David will be sitting beside God assisting with judgment? Moses gave laws that allowed women to be bought and sold without any mention of their consent. (Exodus 21:7) Moses also gave laws that allowed captive women to be married without any mention of obtaining the woman's consent. (Deuteronomy 21:10-14) And the penalty for rape under Mosaic Law was that a man had to marry the woman he raped. (Deuteronomy 22:29)

And all of the others were polygamists. I wonder how they would react to a woman telling a man "NO! There will be no polygamy in this house!"

 

[Wesley]

Also, a man's word is not final when the man is going against God's word. God's word is final and man is not God, nor will man ever be.

This is a given. The fact that you would even have to mention this makes me wonder about your resolve on the issue. But that's another story.

 

[CecilW]

And all of the others were polygamists.

So was Moses, Wesley. So was Moses.

 

[Wesley]

A man's word is not final when it comes to what I quoted from 1 Corinthians 7:4 -5. That verse signifies that a man's word in that circumstance has to go along with his wife's say as well, so he can't just say to his wife you're only going to go by what I say on this matter...

...I also don't quite understand what you mean by denying the release of passion to one's spouse, because Paul was clearly talking about people who are "SINGLE", not about someone who's already married. Refer to 1 Corinthians 7:8 which mentions, "To the unmarried and the widows I say:"...

As for 1 Corinthians 7:4-5 you are citing a very narrow exception to a rule that stands in almost all cases.

As for the idea that you don't understand what I mean, that's obvious.

If we were reading a 21st Century United States law book then what comes after would modify what went before. But this is the Bible not a US law book. And because that's the case 1 Corinthians 7:8 does not apply to 1 Corinthians 7:4-5. Paul uses the terms "husband" and "wife' numerous times in 1 Corinthians 7:1-5 so the passage clearly applies to married couples and it is a command that they are not to give each other the 'cold shoulder' in the bedroom.

Interpreting that passage any other way runs the risk of falling into the trap that Peter describes in his writings:

2 Peter 3:15-16
15Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

 

[Wesley]

And all of the others were polygamists.

So was Moses, Wesley. So was Moses.

The only wife I recalled him having was Miriam. But I won't disagree with you. I know he approved of polygamy because Mosaic Law approves of it.

 

[Wesley]

I would however point out (and hope and expect you would know and agree) that having the authority does not mean it is a good idea to use it. Rehoboam did indeed have the authority to say "My little finger shall be thicker than my father's loins. " and implement policies to back it, but he was still culpable for the revolt his actions helped to cause. A husband that used his authority to force polygyny and caused a revolt in his household because of it is equally culpable.

I don't think we have any disagreements here. But in this day and age where there are so many challenges to the idea of Biblical Patriarchy sometimes it needs to be pointed out that men really do have this authority.

I maintain the Matt 7 passage is much less general than people take it to be. Don't judge or else you will be judged, by whatever standards you judge you will be judged. With verse 2 for context it only means that you shouldn't make hypocritical or snap judgments. If I judge someone by saying 'Hey, don't steal, that is wrong and you're sinning by doing it' I don't have any fear of this passage. I don't steal and if at judgment I am judged on theft I'm clean. But if I said to someone, 'Hey, Don't curse thats a sin' I would be in trouble, as I slip into it sometimes. I wouldn't pass my own judgment. I know there is more depth to the passage than that, but it doesn't mean 'don't make a judgment call ever'.

That's not exactly the way Christ applied it. It seems to me that you're dealing in extremes here. You don't have to commit the exact same sin that a person does in order to be caught by Matthew 7:1-2. Consider this passage:

Matthew 23:23
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former."

Let's say for instance that a woman legitimately does not understand that she is expected to obey her husband. And when it comes time for God to weigh the issue of "I didn't know" versus "It was your responsibility to find out" He decides in her favor. Her lack of knowledge is legitimate and thus the sin is forgiven.

If you have stood in judgment over her for failing to follow a portion of the Bible that she does not correctly understand then now you can be held accountable for the entire Bible, including the parts you don't understand.

That would seem to be the context in which Christ is applying the concept to the "teachers of the law and Pharisees" in the passage I quoted above.

 

[CecilW]

The only wife I recalled him (Moses) having was Miriam. But I won't disagree with you. I know he approved of polygamy because Mosaic Law approves of it.

Miriam was a Midianite. The Midianites were relatives, Semites. Offspring of Abraham through his son Midian. Gen 25:2. They lived in what is now Saudi Arabia.

A few weeks or months into the Exodus, Moses took another wife, an Ethiopian. Black. From Africa south of Egypt. Ticked his big bro and sis off. Numbers 12. God took Moses' side.

That's 2. *grin*

 

[Wesley]

Wesley, these passages are actually setting up a system of judgment and rules for judges, so it is definitely pro-judgment. Did you mean to quote another verse when you posted this? If anything it says don't be afraid of any mans rank or money when you judge because judgment belongs to God and goes beyond wealth and rank.

To be honest I think Angel has a good point, I haven't really thought of it much before though. Given the judgment of the believers is valid and scriptural it really seems to mean what he says it means.

Tlaloc,
The point I was trying to make is that man's judgment is here on Earth. Angel was trying to claim that humans will sit with God and offer input on whom is to be allowed into Heaven on Judgment Day. I was disagreeing and pointing out scriptures that gave man authority on Earth but authority in Heaven to God. Angel even admitted that the passage he cited (1 Corinthians 6:2-3) seemed to contradict the passages I was citing.

But Christ says that any kingdom divided against itself will fall. So the Bible can not contradict itself. And that means that if any passage seems to contradict another passage then we are misunderstanding one or both of the passages in question. And I also pointed out that Peter writes that Paul is hard to understand (2 Peter 3:15-16) so if one passage is being misunderstood then the one from Paul is the most likely candidate.

Consider these passages:

Revelation 20:11-15
11Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. Earth and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. 14Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

Revelation 21:27
27Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life.

I don't see anything in there about Christ consulting humans, living or dead, on the issue of whom to allow into the Kingdom of Heaven. "The Lamb's book of life" seems to be the sole authority.

And since the Bible can not contradict itself that would mean that Angel's understanding of Paul's writing in 1 Corinthians 6:2-3 is incorrect.

 

[PolyPride]

The verses you cite in 2 Peter do not exclude faithful believers from judging along side with God.

Do you realize that if you're correct then Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and King David will be sitting beside God assisting with judgment?

Well, if it's what the Bible says then so be it.

Moses gave laws that allowed women to be bought and sold without any mention of their consent. (Exodus 21:7) Moses also gave laws that allowed captive women to be married without any mention of obtaining the woman's consent. (Deuteronomy 21:10-14) And the penalty for rape under Mosaic Law was that a man had to marry the woman he raped. (Deuteronomy 22:29)

Yes, I've already read the stories. Women being treated like property, and Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is even more interesting since some read it as it being okay for a man to rape a woman who's not pledged to anyone for marriage. Worse yet, the woman has to be married to her attacker for the rest of her life since her attacker can NEVER divorce her. Interesting ethics to say the least.

And all of the others were polygamists. I wonder how they would react to a woman telling a man "NO! There will be no polygamy in this house!"

Good question. Not all of the commandments required a death punishment if they were broken. So I wonder, what would happen to a woman who refused to marry a person who raped her? I'd give her a pat on the back but I know you would question my "resolve" for that as well.

Also, a man's word is not final when the man is going against God's word. God's word is final and man is not God, nor will man ever be.

This is a given. The fact that you would even have to mention this makes me wonder about your resolve on the issue. But that's another story.

Am I suppose to care about you questioning my resolve?

 

[Wesley]

A few weeks or months into the Exodus, Moses took another wife, an Ethiopian. Black. From Africa south of Egypt. Ticked his big bro and sis off. Numbers 12. God took Moses' side.

That's interesting but it also seems to support my point that women are not allowed to speak against polygamy. Both Aaron and Miriam spoke against Moses for taking a Cushite wife. But only Miriam was punished. Aaron got off without being stricken with leprosy as Miriam was. So apparently the sin was somehow worse for her in God's eyes.

 

[CecilW]

Whooaaa!!! Gentlemen!

We are ALL resolved to follow God as revealed to our own understanding through His word. No need to question that.

The fact that we arrive at different conclusions as to its meaning at points merely means that God made us diverse, for His own reasons. And possible enjoyment.

No need to turn it personal, amigos. We ALL be seein' through a glass -- darkly!

 

[PolyPride]

A man's word is not final when it comes to what I quoted from 1 Corinthians 7:4 -5. That verse signifies that a man's word in that circumstance has to go along with his wife's say as well, so he can't just say to his wife you're only going to go by what I say on this matter...

...I also don't quite understand what you mean by denying the release of passion to one's spouse, because Paul was clearly talking about people who are "SINGLE", not about someone who's already married. Refer to 1 Corinthians 7:8 which mentions, "To the unmarried and the widows I say:"...

As for 1 Corinthians 7:4-5 you are citing a very narrow exception to a rule that stands in almost all cases.

You can call it "narrow" but to me an exception is an exception.

As for the idea that you don't understand what I mean, that's obvious.

If we were reading a 21st Century United States law book then what comes after would modify what went before. But this is the Bible not a US law book. And because that's the case 1 Corinthians 7:8 does not apply to 1 Corinthians 7:4-5. Paul uses the terms "husband" and "wife' numerous times in 1 Corinthians 7:1-5 so the passage clearly applies to married couples and it is a command that they are not to give each other the 'cold shoulder' in the bedroom.

1 Corinthians 7:1-5 applies to marriage, but he initially started off in vss. 1 and 2 talking to someone who is single and telling them that they should have a wife and a woman should have a husband so that they can avoid sinful sexual temptations. He's not talking about polygamy there since the "wife" is singular, and are you saying that he's telling an already married woman to have another husband?

Also read 1 Corinthians 7:6, that clearly indicates that the preceding passages (vss. 1-5) are all Paul's opinions rather than being commands from God, otherwise, Paul should've married as well since he did say each man should marry in vs. 1.

Interpreting that passage any other way runs the risk of falling into the trap that Peter describes in his writings:

2 Peter 3:15-16
15Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

I'm not worried about this passage. It doesn't apply to me.

 

[nathan]

I'm locking this thread, and we may revisit it toward rolling it back. Our public forums are not a debate site, and we expect absolute kindness and respect in all discussions. Don't post if you are feeling snide, sarcastic or rude please. We'll try to get some more clear guidelines up for the forums this month.

 

[Wesley]

Miriam was a Midianite. The Midianites were relatives, Semites. Offspring of Abraham through his son Midian. Gen 25:2. They lived in what is now Saudi Arabia.

A few weeks or months into the Exodus, Moses took another wife, an Ethiopian. Black. From Africa south of Egypt. Ticked his big bro and sis off. Numbers 12. God took Moses' side.

That's 2. *grin*

I'm working on researching the issue right now but my wife was under the impression that Miriam was dead by the time Moses married the Cushite woman.