We refer to "Biblical Marriage" as any marriage that is ordained by God. And that includes singleness. We are pro-marriage and pro-family and pro-relationships with God.
SweetLissa
SweetLissa
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
The Monogamy Pledge
- Thread starter Doc
- Start date
- Status
He could also be referrring to "force monogamy ONLY", and just not realizing the wording that he used is off in a rut when he uses the words "anti-monogamy". Most sane persons realize that even if poly were accepted as a normal structure, that poly-only is impossible due to the fact that there is never twice as many women as there are men.
I have met some that refer to themselves as anti-monogamy, but not monogamy as we see it, but "anti-monogamy" because of what the false belief in monogamy-only causes. Context is the key to these discussions, and here is a great example:
I believe in force polygamy. Why? Because my God believes in it and practices it. The Law of the Levirate, and the Laws regarding the defiling of virgins in the various circumstances...all show that the order is to be man and wife regardless of any and all circumstances, whether the man is already married and whether or not his current wife or wives approves. Sounds horrible, being forced into poly, but God wrote it, and there it stands. But nobody wants to talk about it in that way because the perception when you hear "force polygamy" is of compounds and marriages under circumstances of questionable ages, and doing something purposefully to force a family into polygamy structures. The phrasing is such that it makes the person sound like the husband can do whatever he wants, running roughshod over anyone and anything to get what he wants, and this is not what BF has ever been about.
Of course, in any group of any type, there are fringe looney weirdo crackpot creepys. Now that we have given differents excuses for that website's statement, it is very possible that he is a fringe looney weirdo crackpot creepy.
I have met some that refer to themselves as anti-monogamy, but not monogamy as we see it, but "anti-monogamy" because of what the false belief in monogamy-only causes. Context is the key to these discussions, and here is a great example:
I believe in force polygamy. Why? Because my God believes in it and practices it. The Law of the Levirate, and the Laws regarding the defiling of virgins in the various circumstances...all show that the order is to be man and wife regardless of any and all circumstances, whether the man is already married and whether or not his current wife or wives approves. Sounds horrible, being forced into poly, but God wrote it, and there it stands. But nobody wants to talk about it in that way because the perception when you hear "force polygamy" is of compounds and marriages under circumstances of questionable ages, and doing something purposefully to force a family into polygamy structures. The phrasing is such that it makes the person sound like the husband can do whatever he wants, running roughshod over anyone and anything to get what he wants, and this is not what BF has ever been about.
Of course, in any group of any type, there are fringe looney weirdo crackpot creepys. Now that we have given differents excuses for that website's statement, it is very possible that he is a fringe looney weirdo crackpot creepy.
redtheologian
New Member
Paul, and others,
I would suggest that we choose to follow the law of love priority here. Some of the NT laws change some of the OT laws. For example, we see that the laws regarding the Sabbath do not carry over exactly from the OT to the NT. No matter if you are a Covenant theologian (Mosaic Law applies) or a Dispensational theologian (NT law priority), or something in between the two versions, everyone agrees that some laws changed from the OT to the NT (we no longer make sacrifices, we are not bound to worship on Saturday the Sabbath, etc.). But everyone also sees the importance of the law of love in both testaments.
Any man today who manipulates or pressures his wife into a plural union is acting in an unloving way. There is continuity in this with both Testaments so the old saying of "well i follow the Mosaic Law" will not resolve the issue. Both the OT and NT show us that a man's wife must be in agreement with this. In the OT we see that Abraham's wife agreed to the plural union. This descriptive text (narrative exegesis) agrees with the doctrinal text (didadtic exegesis) in 1 Cor. 7:4 where the Bible goes into the relationship bonds of the two in a deeper way: "The 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 to her husband."
Thus, if a man gives his body to another without the agreement of the wife it is a sin in some way or another. Once married he is not the full owner of his body and both the OC and NC show us this, even though since we are in Christ the later revelation takes precedence in degree. But there is no difference in this from the OT to the NT. Why? Because it fulfills the law of love, which is the one solitary theme that builds the continuity between the testaments. The OT law was "Love God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself." The NT law was the same but to a higher degree of love because Christ now said: "My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:13). The standard in the OT was love my neighbor as myself. The standard in the NT went to love my neighbor as Christ loved us, which is so high none of us can claim we live up to this. But that is our law and our goal in all situations.
If a woman in a marriage is not mature enough to handle this then the man is sinning in his sacrificial area of love by trying to make a wife agree when she is not ready. It would be the same as if a pastor who has authority over his disciple tries to make the disciple serve in some leadership role before that disciple is ready or willing; it is a sin of lack of patience.
The text in 1 Cor. 13 on love gives us even a deeper description on how love is expressed. And any man who pushes his wife into something before she is ready is guilty of failing to love his wife as Christ loves us. The Bible specifically says, "Love is patient [if you push a wife that is not being patient], love is kind [if a man argues with his wife and is ugly about the poly view it is unkind], it does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking [if a man wants another wife at the expense of his first wife he is guilty here], it is not easily angered [if a man is angry because the wife is not to what he thinks is the mature level then think about how God looks at all of us who are still immature in areas], it keeps no records of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil, but rejoices with the truth. It always protects [which at least protecting your first wife as she grows like the Lord protects us while we grow], always trusts, always hopes [a man living in hope is one who can patiently endure while the first wife grows], always perseveres [a man can persevere and be patient.]"
There is a difference in a man who is not married who chooses not to mary a woman unless she believes in this poly position. That is a front end decision.
But if a man is already married and the woman entered into this under the monogamy idea then to require, demand, push, or throw the "I am the man and in authority" card is really immature and self-centered. How easy it would be for God to treat us that way but he does not. He works with us, gives us time, and even if we never arrive at a certain level in some area he never discards us or throws us away (unconditional love).
A man who does demand, push, or pressure his wife will likely face the consequences of what he sows because we cannot make someone grow. Only God can. The bible tells us "so neither he who plants nor he who waters is is anything, but only God, who makes things grow" (1 Cor. 3:7).
Lastly, it is this kind of position where the man tries to use his position as ruler which gives the poly position the barbaric idea that is so common among those who reject it. Instead of seeing the ruler (the head; the man) as a fair, kind, just, and gracious servant of Christ the man is seen as a a despot, monarch who is arbitrary, unkind, and demanding.
That is not how any view will be received by the masses of people. It is just like evangelism. If you approach someone demanding, commanding, and pressuring someeone to believe in Christ it rarely, if ever will turn out good. You have to loving win them over to the truth by grace, kindness, mercy, while allowing for time to work in their heart.
I imagine as with all things, there will be two lines of thought that develop. All movements face the same two issues. A fundementalism approach or an Evangelical approach. The Fundamentalists approach matters with an unqualified ethic or stance on doctrine and position. This position is historically been harsh, rigid, cold, and unwilling to see a scale of higher and lower laws in God's kingdom. The fruit of this has been church splits, angry people, and hurt people.
On the other end are the Evangelicals. They believe that there is a graded scale to God's laws. Some doctrines and some issues are higher and more important than other issues. In this they would affirm that salvation and a person's eternity is higher on the scale of importance that secondary or tertiary doctrines. These people, though not perfect or always on target, attempt to see what law is most important. As Jesus said there are the greater laws and the greater sins. There is a Graded Absolute scale (Matt. 23:23; John 19:11).
Thus, an evangelical eye looks at the matter of a marriage as higher than having two wives which could cost you the first wife. If you walk in the Spirit and wisdom shows you and you know or believe in your heart that your wife is not ready and you push the issue and pressure someone into this then you have failed to honor the law of love to the first wife and in doing so you have violated both God and her.
I hope this view makes sense. I'm not pointing fingers and saying any of you are acting in an unloving way because I have no idea. But I am saying that if anyone adopts any position that says a man can by his own "sovereign position as the man" just trump his wife and her wishes or needs that such a position and man is out of line both in the spirit of love and in the specific witness of Scripture.
Love, wisdom, logic, scripture, and experience testifies to the better approach where a man will not move ahead unless his wife is mature enough to agree with the man.
Dr. RED
I would suggest that we choose to follow the law of love priority here. Some of the NT laws change some of the OT laws. For example, we see that the laws regarding the Sabbath do not carry over exactly from the OT to the NT. No matter if you are a Covenant theologian (Mosaic Law applies) or a Dispensational theologian (NT law priority), or something in between the two versions, everyone agrees that some laws changed from the OT to the NT (we no longer make sacrifices, we are not bound to worship on Saturday the Sabbath, etc.). But everyone also sees the importance of the law of love in both testaments.
Any man today who manipulates or pressures his wife into a plural union is acting in an unloving way. There is continuity in this with both Testaments so the old saying of "well i follow the Mosaic Law" will not resolve the issue. Both the OT and NT show us that a man's wife must be in agreement with this. In the OT we see that Abraham's wife agreed to the plural union. This descriptive text (narrative exegesis) agrees with the doctrinal text (didadtic exegesis) in 1 Cor. 7:4 where the Bible goes into the relationship bonds of the two in a deeper way: "The 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 to her husband."
Thus, if a man gives his body to another without the agreement of the wife it is a sin in some way or another. Once married he is not the full owner of his body and both the OC and NC show us this, even though since we are in Christ the later revelation takes precedence in degree. But there is no difference in this from the OT to the NT. Why? Because it fulfills the law of love, which is the one solitary theme that builds the continuity between the testaments. The OT law was "Love God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself." The NT law was the same but to a higher degree of love because Christ now said: "My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:13). The standard in the OT was love my neighbor as myself. The standard in the NT went to love my neighbor as Christ loved us, which is so high none of us can claim we live up to this. But that is our law and our goal in all situations.
If a woman in a marriage is not mature enough to handle this then the man is sinning in his sacrificial area of love by trying to make a wife agree when she is not ready. It would be the same as if a pastor who has authority over his disciple tries to make the disciple serve in some leadership role before that disciple is ready or willing; it is a sin of lack of patience.
The text in 1 Cor. 13 on love gives us even a deeper description on how love is expressed. And any man who pushes his wife into something before she is ready is guilty of failing to love his wife as Christ loves us. The Bible specifically says, "Love is patient [if you push a wife that is not being patient], love is kind [if a man argues with his wife and is ugly about the poly view it is unkind], it does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking [if a man wants another wife at the expense of his first wife he is guilty here], it is not easily angered [if a man is angry because the wife is not to what he thinks is the mature level then think about how God looks at all of us who are still immature in areas], it keeps no records of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil, but rejoices with the truth. It always protects [which at least protecting your first wife as she grows like the Lord protects us while we grow], always trusts, always hopes [a man living in hope is one who can patiently endure while the first wife grows], always perseveres [a man can persevere and be patient.]"
There is a difference in a man who is not married who chooses not to mary a woman unless she believes in this poly position. That is a front end decision.
But if a man is already married and the woman entered into this under the monogamy idea then to require, demand, push, or throw the "I am the man and in authority" card is really immature and self-centered. How easy it would be for God to treat us that way but he does not. He works with us, gives us time, and even if we never arrive at a certain level in some area he never discards us or throws us away (unconditional love).
A man who does demand, push, or pressure his wife will likely face the consequences of what he sows because we cannot make someone grow. Only God can. The bible tells us "so neither he who plants nor he who waters is is anything, but only God, who makes things grow" (1 Cor. 3:7).
Lastly, it is this kind of position where the man tries to use his position as ruler which gives the poly position the barbaric idea that is so common among those who reject it. Instead of seeing the ruler (the head; the man) as a fair, kind, just, and gracious servant of Christ the man is seen as a a despot, monarch who is arbitrary, unkind, and demanding.
That is not how any view will be received by the masses of people. It is just like evangelism. If you approach someone demanding, commanding, and pressuring someeone to believe in Christ it rarely, if ever will turn out good. You have to loving win them over to the truth by grace, kindness, mercy, while allowing for time to work in their heart.
I imagine as with all things, there will be two lines of thought that develop. All movements face the same two issues. A fundementalism approach or an Evangelical approach. The Fundamentalists approach matters with an unqualified ethic or stance on doctrine and position. This position is historically been harsh, rigid, cold, and unwilling to see a scale of higher and lower laws in God's kingdom. The fruit of this has been church splits, angry people, and hurt people.
On the other end are the Evangelicals. They believe that there is a graded scale to God's laws. Some doctrines and some issues are higher and more important than other issues. In this they would affirm that salvation and a person's eternity is higher on the scale of importance that secondary or tertiary doctrines. These people, though not perfect or always on target, attempt to see what law is most important. As Jesus said there are the greater laws and the greater sins. There is a Graded Absolute scale (Matt. 23:23; John 19:11).
Thus, an evangelical eye looks at the matter of a marriage as higher than having two wives which could cost you the first wife. If you walk in the Spirit and wisdom shows you and you know or believe in your heart that your wife is not ready and you push the issue and pressure someone into this then you have failed to honor the law of love to the first wife and in doing so you have violated both God and her.
I hope this view makes sense. I'm not pointing fingers and saying any of you are acting in an unloving way because I have no idea. But I am saying that if anyone adopts any position that says a man can by his own "sovereign position as the man" just trump his wife and her wishes or needs that such a position and man is out of line both in the spirit of love and in the specific witness of Scripture.
Love, wisdom, logic, scripture, and experience testifies to the better approach where a man will not move ahead unless his wife is mature enough to agree with the man.
Dr. RED
redtheologian said:
Thank you for your comments, Dr. Red. However, while everyone here agrees on the law of love in both testaments, we do NOT all agree with the rest of your statements in this paragraph. In fact there is considerable disagreement.
And, in fact, there are disagreements as to the points you raised.
For example, does a wife's right/ownership of her husband's body constitute a right of ACCESS or a right of CONTROL? If the former, she has a right to him, whether he continues to love her or becomes disenchanted. If the latter, she gets to stand between him and God, the giver of wives, and veto God's choice. You seem to take this latter approach. I and others take the former.
You mentioned it being wrong/sinful for a man to go forward based on his "sovereign position as a man." It would seem, however, that what you advocate is the right of any woman in the marriage to hold him back based on her "sovereign position as a woman." While no-one here (hopefully) advocates riding roughshod over the emotions of our wives, particularly when they have been brought up in a monogamist mindset, the NT is equally clear (1Cor 11:3) that there IS a line of authority. Popular or not. So if a man has spent the time in prayer and listening to his own Head that he should, and if his Head is telling him to move forward, he'd best obey, let the chips fall where they may.
Nonetheless, we welcome your contribution.
redtheologian
New Member
Let me see if this may help to clarify and shed light on what I see as the better approach to this subject. I'll comment in between your lines to correspond to your words I'll highlight your words in italics and my words in bold. However, just know that I am not yelling or emphasizing with the bold. I will emphasize my points with capital letters. Also, if nothing else, please read the parable/story at the end. I know all of this is long so I hope you will all seriously contemplate this.
You said:
Thank you for your comments, Dr. Red. However, while everyone here agrees on the law of love in both testaments, we do NOT all agree with the rest of your statements in this paragraph. In fact there is considerable disagreement.
I say:
Understandably so. Covenant theologians, Dispensational Theologians, Progressive Dispensationalists, Promise theologians such as Dr. Walter Kaiser, and New Covenant Theologians all differ in specifics in this area. I would never debate that issue in here because there is no way one post or several could change someone's mind when they have placed themselves in some position on this. Only time and many hoursof dialogue would help in that.
My point is that love is something we can all agree to. I'll explain more below.
You Say:
And, in fact, there are disagreements as to the points you raised. For example, does a wife's right/ownership of her husband's body constitute a right of ACCESS or a right of CONTROL? If the former, she has a right to him, whether he continues to love her or becomes disenchanted. If the latter, she gets to stand between him and God, the giver of wives, and veto God's choice. You seem to take this latter approach. I and others take the former.
I say:
You are approaching Scripture here it seems to me on a grid or philosophical table that the Jewish mind would not understand or recognize. I'm not sure if you are reading the Greek directly or if you are looking up words in the Greek dictionary or lexicon but in either case the idea behind this phrase is straight forward. Whatever nuance or distinction you want to draw out in this phrase the point of it is solitary and encompassing. In other words, the word has no limitations in regard to sexual relations (which is the context and the primary mode of thought or the semantical domain).
Our golden rule of hermeneutics, whether reading scripture, legal texts such as a constitution or legal code, is to allow the immediate context to define a word if at all possible.Thus, the man when he marries is pledging to give up rights to his body. Ownership goes to the wife. She has as much say over his body as he does. Likewise, ownership of the wife's body goes to the man. he has as much say over it as the man does.
This is neither nor, as in your offer above and below. It is not access right or control rights but MUTUAL RIGHTS among the two. For Paul, and the Jewish theological system of thought, when a man and woman come together they formed the "ONE FLESH" union. This was the OT thought as well as the NT thought of Christ and the apostles. Thus for one to disregard the other and to move ahead is a severe violation of the one flesh union. One could just as easily argue that it is sin for the wife to hold the man back as it is for the man to hold the wife back. True indeed. But that is the issue at hand because of the union.
To exaplin it any other way would leave us with a disharmonious God/Trinity. The Trinity is the base to where we build our idea of perfect harmony among relationships. Suppose we were to say, since the Father is the head of the Son that if the Son does not like the Father's plan the Father has the right to just go ahead without the Son's persmission. Though this would never happen because of the impeccability of Christ, we can see that even though the Father is the Head of Christ, and Christ is the head of man, and man is the head of woman (1 Cor. 11) we would never contemplate God the Father doing something that he and his Son were not in agreement upon. Even when the Son was going to the cross we see harmony in that he consented to the will of the Father. And yet he still said that no one took his life but that he laid it down willingly. Christ did not want the pain of the cross, but he also consented to it. It was MUTUAL HARMONY even though the Father was the HEAD over Christ.
Let me move this to the practical level. Suppose a man "feels" or "thinks" he has met another woman who should be his next wife. After prayer he thinks this is right. But he and his wife have yet to reach an agreement. Should the man move ahead regardless of what it might do to his first wife? Absolutely not lest we ignore the law of love for both God and neighbor. There is no COMMAND in Scripture for a man to take another wife if he knows the first wife is clearly not ready. For that matter there is no command in Scripture that a man even has to marry at all. A man can choose to remain single and celibate for the kingdom work, but if one is not able to do this then marriage is not a sin and it is holy, good, honorable, and pleasing to the Lord. But again, a man cannot go to his wife and say: "Wife, God has commanded for me to marry again." The man is not functioning underneath the headship of Christ at that point and he has stepped outside the bounds and thus is no longer a good authority. He should continue to pray, seek the Lord, love his wife, and work with her to mature her in whatever area that is holding her back from following him.
Also, when you place this in a logical syllogism step by step it becomes clear as to the higher law in this matter:
Scenario:
In a One Flesh Union that was Based on Monogamy
The first wife is not yet mature enough to handle a change in the original covenant terms
If the man goes ahead the wife has said she cannot handle this and she will divorce.
Man has a choice to exercise mercy and patience or use the law and position to move ahead.
Mercy triumphs over justice in the laws of God's kingdom. James says: "Speak and act as those who are who going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over justice" (James 2:12).
It would violate the laws of love, mercy, grace, patience, and a persevering humble spirit to move ahead when there is not unity, or at least enough unity for the one flesh relationship to remain in tact.
This is also a safeguard against the issue of Malachi's day. God knew the intent and deceptive ways of all of man's heart. A man who disregards this wisdom and rule of love could easily plow ahead and use this as an excuse in his heart to simply put away a younger wife. God who is omniscient did not fail to see the intent and future actions of men. If a man knows he can just move ahead and if a wife does not like it and she leaves then he has "legally" or "morally" gotten rid of his wife and such is a serious violation. God hates divorce and thus when God wrote his Bible he made sure not to give this type of right to man. No man can go to God and before man and say, "I am the man and God has told me to marry another wife regardless of what my first wife thinks." There is no biblical support for this and a man who does this is most likely walking in either ignorance, deception (mysticism as if God speaks in such a way that is contrary to his written revelation), or willfull rebellion. Again, there is not a single text that demands or commands that a man has to marry. And if a man purposefully moves ahead knowing that this will hurt his wife and possibly lead her into sin (such as her leaving) then the man is guilty of being harsh, unkind, unloving, and he violates the law Peter gave to the man when he said to men: "in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the WEAKER partner" (1 Peter 3:7).
Since the woman is weaker the mercy law applies. It violates the law to do to others as you would have them do to you if one moves ahead without the other being on board.
You Say:
You mentioned it being wrong/sinful for a man to go forward based on his "sovereign position as a man." It would seem, however, that what you advocate is the right of any woman in the marriage to hold him back based on her "sovereign position as a woman." While no-one here (hopefully) advocates riding roughshod over the emotions of our wives, particularly when they have been brought up in a monogamist mindset, the NT is equally clear (1Cor 11:3) that there IS a line of authority. Popular or not. So if a man has spent the time in prayer and listening to his own Head that he should, and if his Head is telling him to move forward, he'd best obey, let the chips fall where they may.
I Say:
First, I commend you for wanting to honor the emotions of a wife. Your intent is good. i am grateful and thankful for that positive note.
Secondly, your teleological ethic is very disturning in the next few phrases. Judaiam and Christianity is not a teleological ethic but a deontological ethic. And thus we draw our conclusions by the written revelation that supersedes all inner promptings and ideas in our minds. The ultimate authority is in something that has ALREADY be SPOKEN in a WRITTEN REVELATION. Should anything I pray about contradict or go against what has already been written then the inner prompting or guidance is wrong.
For example, Above is my point. A man is doing the exact same thing he is saying his wife should not do when he says: "My head is telling me I must marry this other woman." If that is so then a text or example in the bible must be directly stated that there is a requirement for a man to marry another even when the first wife is not in harmony. NO SUCH text or example exists. It is a mystical or feelings based error on the man's part to press ahead. It is teleological ethics instead of deontological ethics. By teleological ethics I mean the man looks to prayer and a supposed direct guidance from his HEAD to justify the end or the goal, to gain another wife.
That is not the biblical ethic or love or the biblical ethic of allowing what God has ALREADY said to be the deontological (duty bound, highest law required) rule to guide the decision of the man.
If a man operates in this domain he could place anything he wanted above that of what his wife really needs and then use the "authority" line to be his justification. Such is not how harmony, love, or good relationships develop. The Trinity is again the base for how we build relationships. All the members of the Trinity are ONE yet each member is also a distinct being. The Father has AUTHORITY over the Son yet the Son and Father do not do anything without mutual agreement together because they operate in a sphere of ultimate love for one another. No member of the Trinity would ever dare contemplate doing something without the other members being in agreement. To do so would destroy their relationship and unity. We too should follow that model in our own personal lives.
Now let me address the levirate law. Some men who are not thinking it through may run to this and say: "this law gives me the right to marry another even if my first wife does not agree."
That is not the CONTEXT of CULTURE of the levirate law in the OT. If you recall ALL WOMEN who with their fathers agreed to marry in Israel were giving consent to plural marriage because that WAS THE CURRENT SYSTEM.
In other words, if you were a woman in the OC your consent to marriage was consent to the possibility of having in the future multiple sister wives. That was how the LEGAL CONTRACT OR COVENANT WAS ENTERED.
There are numerous laws today that when you sign up to something by signing up to it you have given your consent to many regulations and rules that come along with it. If you don't want those regs and rules then do not sign up. That is how it worked in the OC with the law of marriage. Every woman in Israel knew hat if she married that the rule was for the possibility of a plural union.
But, if a man enters a covenant or legally binding contract based upon a stipulation that later changes then it is a contractual, covenant, and legal error for the man to push, press, or demand that the wife has to go along with it. Though the man may suffer his honestly and integrity and his dedication to his HEAD, Christ, is at stake if he fails to honor the original covenant and then he or she is in violation of the law of love in the Bible and also the legal stipulations of either scripture and/or the land or authority that oversees the contract.
Now if a man comes to the doctrine and believes it and the wife leaves him then so long as the man was not trying to force his way or what he believes to be Christ's way then he has not sinned and the wife then bears the burden.
But to do press, force, or move ahead without the first wife's agreement is a terrible violation of covenant, contract, and biblical law because when the woman who entered the covenant, contract, or legal arrangement entered it she did so based upon something else. The covenant a man enters into in marriage, consciously or unconsciously is a life long union. If these issues were not dealt with before then whatever was the ideas expressed between the two when entering the contract, covenant, or union it is those ideas that bind and when new ideas arise until harmony can be established, such as with this area, it is foolish for a man to move ahead.
Remove the issue from plural marriage. Suppose a man and woman agreed to marry and they pledged to one another that they would always live inside of the USA. This was the agreement that both pledged. But then the man felt the calling to go overseas to do missions work. As the man he could simply say: "I am the head. Either come with me or else I'm going with or without you."
A man could argue this based upon the reasoning and logic presented above because you are saying the man gets some type of direct revelation from God that can trump or go over what has already been specifically stated in the bible (or in the origianal covenant, contract, or legal agreement). But the wise man, the loving man, the man who understands and lives with his wife in a considerate way will say: "Ya know, I did agree to this. I was not wise or knowledgeable in how I set this marriage up. I ask you to forgive me and I ask the Lord to forgive me. I pray you will change and adjust and see the need to do this. But until the Lord moves in your heart I will trust that he is sovereign and that in time he will change your heart on this matter. Until then I'll wait and see what the Lord does."
A man who understands that God is totally sovereign over the heart of all people (Prov. 21:1; Eph 1:11) will not go back on his promise. He will entrust himself to God who has authority over the hearts and lives of all people. If he entered in a promise agreement with his first wife based upon monogamy he will not demand and command that she comply with his desires. He WILL teach, guide, pray with, encourage, and disciple but he will not break the union in order to do something that no text in the Bible ever demands nor was it the original agreement that the woman entered into (unlike it was in the OC)
In legal theory we call this simply: "breach of contract." The rules cannot change in the middle unless both parties agree to he new set of rules. This was in Paul's mind when he wrote 1 Cor. 7. It applies to so much more than just plural marriage. It is a wisdom principle that when defied many rough days, hardships, and splits in unions (marriages, business partnerships, etc) occur, which need not be. God did not intend for it to be that way.
His goal and his will is for there to be harmony. it is not about one's rights over or under another's rights. That is based upon justice. In that code people work on a justice standard. God's code is now more than ever about love and respect. The only way for a couple to ever get past my right versus his rights arguments is for the two to come to grips with the mercy and love doctrine. Sure, man is the head. The woman is to submit and follow. But if the head leads the woman into something that she is not ready for and without her being in harmony with the word and the man then greater damage will occur than if there is only one error, which would be a person's not understanding or agreeing to something in Scripture. Compunding that error with a breach of contract or a breach of the covenant is unloving, unkind, and is not in agreement with the laws of love as specifically spelled out in Scripture.
I'll close with these two stories :
A young man I have taught said he had discovered that he was the head of his wife and that she was not obeying him. She would not follow. He was all about headship, authority, rule, submission, obedience. I told him then I as his professor and authority wanted him to run a mile for his final exam. But he said, "I'm not ready. Professor that was not in the original sylllabus!" Oh I know, I said but I'm over this class and you must either obey or fail. You are under my authority. He cried: "I'll go to the Dean." I said that will do you no good because I have already prayed about it with him and he supports me. Now go along, get to running." So he goes out to run (more like walk his mile with a few yards of running huffing and puffing). He let's me know when he returns that he will never tell another person to take this course. I'm the worst person ever.
I knew he could not run a mile. Looking at him would tell anyone that. So then I said: "well since you did not run the mile you fail. How do you like me changing the rules in the middle of the game? Oh sure, I have the right to do so just like you have the right to demand your wife to follow you. But were you ready to run the mile? No! How do you think your wife is ready to run the mile with you yet when she has not been prepared just like this class had not prepared you to run the mile? See, there is a difference in having the right and authority to do something and the wisdom and skill in knowing when and how to do it. If the subject in the class of life, whether classroom or marriage, is not ready for the HEAD's instruction then the body cannot really handle it. The fellow hung his head and understood. Just because the HEAD is in the position of authority does not mean the body is ready and capable of following the head, especially when the body signed up for something different and then it changed in mid stream. I told the student that had this been a class where each day they had to run 25 to 50 yards that by the end heen ready. Also, had this been in the original syllabus then it would not have been a shock.
In reality, the student did not fail. He passed and went away with something more than knowledge. He went away with wisdom, skill, and understanding. A wise and loving man would never require his flesh, his body, his love to do something that she is not ready for. He would suffer himself, just like Christ suffered for us, before he damaged his bride and lead her into sin. Just like that student did not sign up for gym many wives and husbands entered their contract/covnenants and then the rules changed in midstream. Many of which are not ready and if a man is forcing his rights onto his body, who is not ready, she will fail and the man will have pushed her into such a failure.
I don't see how any man of love and integrity could feel, think, or claim that such honors God. A man can be so harsh and so cruel that he leads his wife into sin and he is the cause of her adultery (Matt.5:32).
God forbid that any who associate with this group would fall into that and have ot give an account for that on judgment day. Let it not be so. It does not have to be so if the law of mercy and love leads the way over the law of position and authority or personal rights.
Dr. RED; Th.D.
You said:
Thank you for your comments, Dr. Red. However, while everyone here agrees on the law of love in both testaments, we do NOT all agree with the rest of your statements in this paragraph. In fact there is considerable disagreement.
I say:
Understandably so. Covenant theologians, Dispensational Theologians, Progressive Dispensationalists, Promise theologians such as Dr. Walter Kaiser, and New Covenant Theologians all differ in specifics in this area. I would never debate that issue in here because there is no way one post or several could change someone's mind when they have placed themselves in some position on this. Only time and many hoursof dialogue would help in that.
My point is that love is something we can all agree to. I'll explain more below.
You Say:
And, in fact, there are disagreements as to the points you raised. For example, does a wife's right/ownership of her husband's body constitute a right of ACCESS or a right of CONTROL? If the former, she has a right to him, whether he continues to love her or becomes disenchanted. If the latter, she gets to stand between him and God, the giver of wives, and veto God's choice. You seem to take this latter approach. I and others take the former.
I say:
You are approaching Scripture here it seems to me on a grid or philosophical table that the Jewish mind would not understand or recognize. I'm not sure if you are reading the Greek directly or if you are looking up words in the Greek dictionary or lexicon but in either case the idea behind this phrase is straight forward. Whatever nuance or distinction you want to draw out in this phrase the point of it is solitary and encompassing. In other words, the word has no limitations in regard to sexual relations (which is the context and the primary mode of thought or the semantical domain).
Our golden rule of hermeneutics, whether reading scripture, legal texts such as a constitution or legal code, is to allow the immediate context to define a word if at all possible.Thus, the man when he marries is pledging to give up rights to his body. Ownership goes to the wife. She has as much say over his body as he does. Likewise, ownership of the wife's body goes to the man. he has as much say over it as the man does.
This is neither nor, as in your offer above and below. It is not access right or control rights but MUTUAL RIGHTS among the two. For Paul, and the Jewish theological system of thought, when a man and woman come together they formed the "ONE FLESH" union. This was the OT thought as well as the NT thought of Christ and the apostles. Thus for one to disregard the other and to move ahead is a severe violation of the one flesh union. One could just as easily argue that it is sin for the wife to hold the man back as it is for the man to hold the wife back. True indeed. But that is the issue at hand because of the union.
To exaplin it any other way would leave us with a disharmonious God/Trinity. The Trinity is the base to where we build our idea of perfect harmony among relationships. Suppose we were to say, since the Father is the head of the Son that if the Son does not like the Father's plan the Father has the right to just go ahead without the Son's persmission. Though this would never happen because of the impeccability of Christ, we can see that even though the Father is the Head of Christ, and Christ is the head of man, and man is the head of woman (1 Cor. 11) we would never contemplate God the Father doing something that he and his Son were not in agreement upon. Even when the Son was going to the cross we see harmony in that he consented to the will of the Father. And yet he still said that no one took his life but that he laid it down willingly. Christ did not want the pain of the cross, but he also consented to it. It was MUTUAL HARMONY even though the Father was the HEAD over Christ.
Let me move this to the practical level. Suppose a man "feels" or "thinks" he has met another woman who should be his next wife. After prayer he thinks this is right. But he and his wife have yet to reach an agreement. Should the man move ahead regardless of what it might do to his first wife? Absolutely not lest we ignore the law of love for both God and neighbor. There is no COMMAND in Scripture for a man to take another wife if he knows the first wife is clearly not ready. For that matter there is no command in Scripture that a man even has to marry at all. A man can choose to remain single and celibate for the kingdom work, but if one is not able to do this then marriage is not a sin and it is holy, good, honorable, and pleasing to the Lord. But again, a man cannot go to his wife and say: "Wife, God has commanded for me to marry again." The man is not functioning underneath the headship of Christ at that point and he has stepped outside the bounds and thus is no longer a good authority. He should continue to pray, seek the Lord, love his wife, and work with her to mature her in whatever area that is holding her back from following him.
Also, when you place this in a logical syllogism step by step it becomes clear as to the higher law in this matter:
Scenario:
In a One Flesh Union that was Based on Monogamy
The first wife is not yet mature enough to handle a change in the original covenant terms
If the man goes ahead the wife has said she cannot handle this and she will divorce.
Man has a choice to exercise mercy and patience or use the law and position to move ahead.
Mercy triumphs over justice in the laws of God's kingdom. James says: "Speak and act as those who are who going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over justice" (James 2:12).
It would violate the laws of love, mercy, grace, patience, and a persevering humble spirit to move ahead when there is not unity, or at least enough unity for the one flesh relationship to remain in tact.
This is also a safeguard against the issue of Malachi's day. God knew the intent and deceptive ways of all of man's heart. A man who disregards this wisdom and rule of love could easily plow ahead and use this as an excuse in his heart to simply put away a younger wife. God who is omniscient did not fail to see the intent and future actions of men. If a man knows he can just move ahead and if a wife does not like it and she leaves then he has "legally" or "morally" gotten rid of his wife and such is a serious violation. God hates divorce and thus when God wrote his Bible he made sure not to give this type of right to man. No man can go to God and before man and say, "I am the man and God has told me to marry another wife regardless of what my first wife thinks." There is no biblical support for this and a man who does this is most likely walking in either ignorance, deception (mysticism as if God speaks in such a way that is contrary to his written revelation), or willfull rebellion. Again, there is not a single text that demands or commands that a man has to marry. And if a man purposefully moves ahead knowing that this will hurt his wife and possibly lead her into sin (such as her leaving) then the man is guilty of being harsh, unkind, unloving, and he violates the law Peter gave to the man when he said to men: "in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the WEAKER partner" (1 Peter 3:7).
Since the woman is weaker the mercy law applies. It violates the law to do to others as you would have them do to you if one moves ahead without the other being on board.
You Say:
You mentioned it being wrong/sinful for a man to go forward based on his "sovereign position as a man." It would seem, however, that what you advocate is the right of any woman in the marriage to hold him back based on her "sovereign position as a woman." While no-one here (hopefully) advocates riding roughshod over the emotions of our wives, particularly when they have been brought up in a monogamist mindset, the NT is equally clear (1Cor 11:3) that there IS a line of authority. Popular or not. So if a man has spent the time in prayer and listening to his own Head that he should, and if his Head is telling him to move forward, he'd best obey, let the chips fall where they may.
I Say:
First, I commend you for wanting to honor the emotions of a wife. Your intent is good. i am grateful and thankful for that positive note.
Secondly, your teleological ethic is very disturning in the next few phrases. Judaiam and Christianity is not a teleological ethic but a deontological ethic. And thus we draw our conclusions by the written revelation that supersedes all inner promptings and ideas in our minds. The ultimate authority is in something that has ALREADY be SPOKEN in a WRITTEN REVELATION. Should anything I pray about contradict or go against what has already been written then the inner prompting or guidance is wrong.
For example, Above is my point. A man is doing the exact same thing he is saying his wife should not do when he says: "My head is telling me I must marry this other woman." If that is so then a text or example in the bible must be directly stated that there is a requirement for a man to marry another even when the first wife is not in harmony. NO SUCH text or example exists. It is a mystical or feelings based error on the man's part to press ahead. It is teleological ethics instead of deontological ethics. By teleological ethics I mean the man looks to prayer and a supposed direct guidance from his HEAD to justify the end or the goal, to gain another wife.
That is not the biblical ethic or love or the biblical ethic of allowing what God has ALREADY said to be the deontological (duty bound, highest law required) rule to guide the decision of the man.
If a man operates in this domain he could place anything he wanted above that of what his wife really needs and then use the "authority" line to be his justification. Such is not how harmony, love, or good relationships develop. The Trinity is again the base for how we build relationships. All the members of the Trinity are ONE yet each member is also a distinct being. The Father has AUTHORITY over the Son yet the Son and Father do not do anything without mutual agreement together because they operate in a sphere of ultimate love for one another. No member of the Trinity would ever dare contemplate doing something without the other members being in agreement. To do so would destroy their relationship and unity. We too should follow that model in our own personal lives.
Now let me address the levirate law. Some men who are not thinking it through may run to this and say: "this law gives me the right to marry another even if my first wife does not agree."
That is not the CONTEXT of CULTURE of the levirate law in the OT. If you recall ALL WOMEN who with their fathers agreed to marry in Israel were giving consent to plural marriage because that WAS THE CURRENT SYSTEM.
In other words, if you were a woman in the OC your consent to marriage was consent to the possibility of having in the future multiple sister wives. That was how the LEGAL CONTRACT OR COVENANT WAS ENTERED.
There are numerous laws today that when you sign up to something by signing up to it you have given your consent to many regulations and rules that come along with it. If you don't want those regs and rules then do not sign up. That is how it worked in the OC with the law of marriage. Every woman in Israel knew hat if she married that the rule was for the possibility of a plural union.
But, if a man enters a covenant or legally binding contract based upon a stipulation that later changes then it is a contractual, covenant, and legal error for the man to push, press, or demand that the wife has to go along with it. Though the man may suffer his honestly and integrity and his dedication to his HEAD, Christ, is at stake if he fails to honor the original covenant and then he or she is in violation of the law of love in the Bible and also the legal stipulations of either scripture and/or the land or authority that oversees the contract.
Now if a man comes to the doctrine and believes it and the wife leaves him then so long as the man was not trying to force his way or what he believes to be Christ's way then he has not sinned and the wife then bears the burden.
But to do press, force, or move ahead without the first wife's agreement is a terrible violation of covenant, contract, and biblical law because when the woman who entered the covenant, contract, or legal arrangement entered it she did so based upon something else. The covenant a man enters into in marriage, consciously or unconsciously is a life long union. If these issues were not dealt with before then whatever was the ideas expressed between the two when entering the contract, covenant, or union it is those ideas that bind and when new ideas arise until harmony can be established, such as with this area, it is foolish for a man to move ahead.
Remove the issue from plural marriage. Suppose a man and woman agreed to marry and they pledged to one another that they would always live inside of the USA. This was the agreement that both pledged. But then the man felt the calling to go overseas to do missions work. As the man he could simply say: "I am the head. Either come with me or else I'm going with or without you."
A man could argue this based upon the reasoning and logic presented above because you are saying the man gets some type of direct revelation from God that can trump or go over what has already been specifically stated in the bible (or in the origianal covenant, contract, or legal agreement). But the wise man, the loving man, the man who understands and lives with his wife in a considerate way will say: "Ya know, I did agree to this. I was not wise or knowledgeable in how I set this marriage up. I ask you to forgive me and I ask the Lord to forgive me. I pray you will change and adjust and see the need to do this. But until the Lord moves in your heart I will trust that he is sovereign and that in time he will change your heart on this matter. Until then I'll wait and see what the Lord does."
A man who understands that God is totally sovereign over the heart of all people (Prov. 21:1; Eph 1:11) will not go back on his promise. He will entrust himself to God who has authority over the hearts and lives of all people. If he entered in a promise agreement with his first wife based upon monogamy he will not demand and command that she comply with his desires. He WILL teach, guide, pray with, encourage, and disciple but he will not break the union in order to do something that no text in the Bible ever demands nor was it the original agreement that the woman entered into (unlike it was in the OC)
In legal theory we call this simply: "breach of contract." The rules cannot change in the middle unless both parties agree to he new set of rules. This was in Paul's mind when he wrote 1 Cor. 7. It applies to so much more than just plural marriage. It is a wisdom principle that when defied many rough days, hardships, and splits in unions (marriages, business partnerships, etc) occur, which need not be. God did not intend for it to be that way.
His goal and his will is for there to be harmony. it is not about one's rights over or under another's rights. That is based upon justice. In that code people work on a justice standard. God's code is now more than ever about love and respect. The only way for a couple to ever get past my right versus his rights arguments is for the two to come to grips with the mercy and love doctrine. Sure, man is the head. The woman is to submit and follow. But if the head leads the woman into something that she is not ready for and without her being in harmony with the word and the man then greater damage will occur than if there is only one error, which would be a person's not understanding or agreeing to something in Scripture. Compunding that error with a breach of contract or a breach of the covenant is unloving, unkind, and is not in agreement with the laws of love as specifically spelled out in Scripture.
I'll close with these two stories :
A young man I have taught said he had discovered that he was the head of his wife and that she was not obeying him. She would not follow. He was all about headship, authority, rule, submission, obedience. I told him then I as his professor and authority wanted him to run a mile for his final exam. But he said, "I'm not ready. Professor that was not in the original sylllabus!" Oh I know, I said but I'm over this class and you must either obey or fail. You are under my authority. He cried: "I'll go to the Dean." I said that will do you no good because I have already prayed about it with him and he supports me. Now go along, get to running." So he goes out to run (more like walk his mile with a few yards of running huffing and puffing). He let's me know when he returns that he will never tell another person to take this course. I'm the worst person ever.
I knew he could not run a mile. Looking at him would tell anyone that. So then I said: "well since you did not run the mile you fail. How do you like me changing the rules in the middle of the game? Oh sure, I have the right to do so just like you have the right to demand your wife to follow you. But were you ready to run the mile? No! How do you think your wife is ready to run the mile with you yet when she has not been prepared just like this class had not prepared you to run the mile? See, there is a difference in having the right and authority to do something and the wisdom and skill in knowing when and how to do it. If the subject in the class of life, whether classroom or marriage, is not ready for the HEAD's instruction then the body cannot really handle it. The fellow hung his head and understood. Just because the HEAD is in the position of authority does not mean the body is ready and capable of following the head, especially when the body signed up for something different and then it changed in mid stream. I told the student that had this been a class where each day they had to run 25 to 50 yards that by the end heen ready. Also, had this been in the original syllabus then it would not have been a shock.
In reality, the student did not fail. He passed and went away with something more than knowledge. He went away with wisdom, skill, and understanding. A wise and loving man would never require his flesh, his body, his love to do something that she is not ready for. He would suffer himself, just like Christ suffered for us, before he damaged his bride and lead her into sin. Just like that student did not sign up for gym many wives and husbands entered their contract/covnenants and then the rules changed in midstream. Many of which are not ready and if a man is forcing his rights onto his body, who is not ready, she will fail and the man will have pushed her into such a failure.
I don't see how any man of love and integrity could feel, think, or claim that such honors God. A man can be so harsh and so cruel that he leads his wife into sin and he is the cause of her adultery (Matt.5:32).
God forbid that any who associate with this group would fall into that and have ot give an account for that on judgment day. Let it not be so. It does not have to be so if the law of mercy and love leads the way over the law of position and authority or personal rights.
Dr. RED; Th.D.
Tlaloc
Member
Actually, I had the Anti Monogamy category, I made it for my blog because a lot of what I've studied deals with the repulsive beliefs that established monogamy and pernicious effects of the doctrine of monogamy. But this line of conversation brought to my attention the odd way words are used compared to what they mean. Monogamy means one wife, polygamy means many, we here at Biblical Families allow for both, but are considered polygamists simply for allowing the later. The doctrine of Monogamy does not allow polygamy, but there is no doctrine of Polygamy outside the FLDS, we here do not teach such things at all. That is, when we use the term monogamy only it is redundant, because monogamy intrinsically means monogamy only.
Monogamy is an incorrect doctrine and like any other incorrect doctrine it leads to general and specific harm and thus needs to be opposed. But to assume that being anti monogamy means one believes everyone must be polygamous is a false dichotomy.
Anyway, that blog category is about breaking down the propaganda around monogamy, hence it starting with "Probably the most irritating thing to me when I read about things against polygamy is the constant assumption that monogamy is better for women or somehow in womens best interests." I mean to eventually fill it out in more detail, but its been a busy spring
@ Red
I'm surprised at the stark generalizations and unsure how much you know people who would call themselves either fundamental or evangelical. The terms themselves aren't even mutually exclusive, so its very odd to pit the terms against each other. Do you know any actual people who believe there is no difference between one law and another in terms of value to the kingdom? Well, I do, they maintain (correctly, at this point) all sin is worthy of death, and they thus tend to have a much easier time dealing severe offenders other Christians often won't come near. They kind of see everyone as the same sinner, and while the people I'm referring too have some doctrine I disagree with, its one of the few doctrines I've seen that I don't know of any splits over. Though I will say you're readiness to generalize is cold, rigid, and harsh. Its better to be eager to help and co-operate than eager to split and separate.
I posted a little after you're reply, if I have time I'll see if you said anything pertinent to this.
Good post overall, for the fun of nitpicking I would say that written revelation does not supersede inner promptings, but merely subordinates them by providing a means for discerning their quality. While the conclusion " Should anything I pray about contradict or go against what has already been written then the inner prompting or guidance is wrong. " is the same, the practical application is quite different. If promptings where superseded we wouldn't any means to make decisions on any matter Scripture did not directly address, if they are subordinated then Scripture guides us through the promptings of the Holy Spirit (often directly to our minds)
Secondly Christianity can be described as a Teleological ethic, for example Finney's Systematic Theology deals with it as such. Teleological ethics get a bad wrap because the world does terrible things with them, but our ultimate goals are very different than theirs, thus our ethics are different. You could never justify committing atrocities 'for the greater good' with a Finniest teleological ethic. Of course it is deontological, but once again that isn't a dichotomy, one can very much have moral duty with a purpose.
But these are trifling quibbles, I generally agree that under otherwise normal North American circumstances a man should get his wife's agreement for a number of reasons.
Monogamy is an incorrect doctrine and like any other incorrect doctrine it leads to general and specific harm and thus needs to be opposed. But to assume that being anti monogamy means one believes everyone must be polygamous is a false dichotomy.
Anyway, that blog category is about breaking down the propaganda around monogamy, hence it starting with "Probably the most irritating thing to me when I read about things against polygamy is the constant assumption that monogamy is better for women or somehow in womens best interests." I mean to eventually fill it out in more detail, but its been a busy spring
@ Red
I'm surprised at the stark generalizations and unsure how much you know people who would call themselves either fundamental or evangelical. The terms themselves aren't even mutually exclusive, so its very odd to pit the terms against each other. Do you know any actual people who believe there is no difference between one law and another in terms of value to the kingdom? Well, I do, they maintain (correctly, at this point) all sin is worthy of death, and they thus tend to have a much easier time dealing severe offenders other Christians often won't come near. They kind of see everyone as the same sinner, and while the people I'm referring too have some doctrine I disagree with, its one of the few doctrines I've seen that I don't know of any splits over. Though I will say you're readiness to generalize is cold, rigid, and harsh. Its better to be eager to help and co-operate than eager to split and separate.
I posted a little after you're reply, if I have time I'll see if you said anything pertinent to this.
Good post overall, for the fun of nitpicking I would say that written revelation does not supersede inner promptings, but merely subordinates them by providing a means for discerning their quality. While the conclusion " Should anything I pray about contradict or go against what has already been written then the inner prompting or guidance is wrong. " is the same, the practical application is quite different. If promptings where superseded we wouldn't any means to make decisions on any matter Scripture did not directly address, if they are subordinated then Scripture guides us through the promptings of the Holy Spirit (often directly to our minds)
Secondly Christianity can be described as a Teleological ethic, for example Finney's Systematic Theology deals with it as such. Teleological ethics get a bad wrap because the world does terrible things with them, but our ultimate goals are very different than theirs, thus our ethics are different. You could never justify committing atrocities 'for the greater good' with a Finniest teleological ethic. Of course it is deontological, but once again that isn't a dichotomy, one can very much have moral duty with a purpose.
But these are trifling quibbles, I generally agree that under otherwise normal North American circumstances a man should get his wife's agreement for a number of reasons.
redtheologian
New Member
Tlaloc said:
I would love to go into the details that distinguish an Evangelical from a Fundamentalist but that is not the reason for this post. To be sure some evangelicals are fundamentalists and some fundamentalists are evangelicals because the terms are sometimes not defined properly or historically. In any case, basically, Dr. Lloyd Jones, Dr. Chafer, Dr. Bob Jones Sr and Jr, J. Frank Norris, Dr, Norman Geisler, Dr. Carl Henry, and the various colleges and seminaries founded in the 1900's around the time of the modernist and fundamentalist controversy have all built their systems of thought along the lines of evangelicalism or fundamentalism. Those men listed above provide good cases of literature on this which show the differences of the two traditions. Basically it boils down to the type of ethical position they embrace (Unqualified Absolutism; Conflicting Absolutism; and Graded Absolutism). But that is an oversimplication for the sake of time since this is not the issue in this post.
Additionally, as for teleological ethics God is the only one who operates in that methdology. Since he is absolute and the absolute perfect soveriegn he operates with the end goal to bring ultimate glory to himself (which hundreds of verses show that his glory is the ultimate goal of all history). Thus, as an essentialist theologian (God's actions are right because it flows from his own perfect character) and not a voluntaristic theologian (might is right), only God operates upon that standard. We, because of a written revelation and our finite condition (plus a sin problem) operate primarily in deontological ethics. We are duty bound to follow God's character but God is perfect and looks to the end whereby the universe will display his glory (thus teleological). But again all of this is also very brief and too simplistic and not the purpose of this post so I'll leave it here. I'll leave Finney out of this post though I do have much I could say about his theology and methdology.
Your quote above is the real issue for this post and it displays good wisdom, though I would not arrive at the conclusion the same way you would it seems. Love, in the form of mercy and grace, ranks higher in the graded scale or the hierarchy of laws in God's kingdom. That is the essential point I am making, to which I think we both agree.
I'm deeply concerned for those who fail to see such wisdom and see the mercy/grace principle at work. I've spent too much time in counsel with men who have emotionally abused their wives. To be sure I've met some rebellious women too. Nonetheless, the word HEAD is the precise term God used, and for good reason. The HEAD is what on our bodies takes care of the rest of the body. If the HEAD pushes the body in a way it has not agreed to go the body will rebel and be pushed into all kinds of avenues that are self-destructive. A good head on a body takes care of the body, protects the body, and does not push the body beyond its limits. Any head that does will soon find a body that is damaged and in bad shape. This analogy carries over into the realm of the spiritual world with the HEAD over his body, his wife.
Dr. RED; Th.D
Tlaloc
Member
The proper definition is not necessarily the historical one, and given the passed time its quite reasonable for someone to hold a perfusion of elements of the views of the turn of the century and the 70's.
As to the ethical positions you've been focusing on, all three have a tendency to de-emphasize discernment and expediency merely to differentiate themselves from the forms of secular modernism in their times. They should have known that any secularist claim to absolute practicality would (and did) fall apart as ridicules. Instead they abandon their own claims on teleological morality and went further to demonize Christians that maintained it. What a capitulation to atheism! They folded for the most obvious bluff! But while you see the graded absolutist position as the opposite of the unqualified absolutist position I see it as merely a variant or derivative of the same anti-practical reaction. Its rather ironic to say unqualified absolution causes splits when you adhere to the group that split. Such a thing is merely rebels blaming the king for the rebellion. It may be true, but the rebels are not in the best position to judge.
But, while none of these positions is my own, I do not seek to demonize or villinize either position. I have seen the use in both of them, (not Conflicting Absolutism as I know no person that holds such an odd view) and it is only in rather extreme circumstances that these ethical models would actually produce different results. Mainly a unqualified absolutist would have a greater tendency towards pacifism or inaction in the face of persecution or danger. If it wasn't for egos on both sides this conflict would almost cease to exist. Hence my objection to you purveying the conflict by coming in and characterizing you're opposition as harsh, rigid, and cold. Don't you know they might say things about you? But worse for you if they didn't, and addressed you're objections without slander.
Now, given God's ethics are teleological and our duty is to serve him thus our duty must be teleological. Thus God, and all who serve him, operate teleologically. It is our duty to operate with ultimate ends in mind, to lay up our treasures in heaven. Written revelation and the guiding of the Holy Spirit are our tools for discerning what action promotes that ultimate end. The ethical conflicts which exist in the models you mention exist only because the models themselves where created in order to promote some kind of empty deontology without respect for the effect or goal of ones actions. The reason they wanted such an empty denotology was to blindly oppose modernistic practically. The modernists where ends focused and the fundamentalists opposed their method, but really their method is fine, its their ends that are corrupt. They prejudicialy opposed the wrong thing, and you're school of thought maintains their prejudices because it is immediately derived from them.
Thank God we are not asked to preform mindless duty, but we do things with purpose. Do not eat for the day you eat of it you will surely begin to die. Keep my commandments and you will have My protection and blessing. When you fast don't appear to men to fast but do it before God that he may reward you openly. Duty with purpose. Both temporal and eternal. Any moral duty which is not teleological is not duty to God but only the men that want to enforce it.
But all this is an aside, you've come here with open hostilities to groups that do not share you're methodology. That is my main concern. If you truely follow Mercy and Grace you need to leave the pot shots at the people you disagree with at the Cross (something a lot of people, myself included, need to do). I would also very much like you to take a minute to think about how theologically close you are to the group you villinized.
Now, to the matter at hand,
A leader must do his best to know what effects his decisions will have on those he leads. Assuming a forcibly bad reaction to polygamy (which we may say is normal in North America) a husband has to try to take pre-emptive action to quell the problem or simply not take the action. Obtaining consent may be a means to quell the bad reaction. I think it needs to be pointed out that it is not enough in every case. I know of some where the wife agreed and then found she didn't like it and things went badly anyway. On the other hand even in North America there are cases where relationship trust is such that a husband would not need the consent of the wife because she would trust him implicitly to promote her best interests as well as the families. Like Cecil was trying to get at and I think you also know it's not as clean cut as merely obtaining consent. Consent may be irrelevant because it is unnecessary and it may be irrelevant because it is ineffective. Often it is relevant and a powerful tool to prevent a conflict. Either way the heart of what we're talking about is avoiding and mitigating potential emotional and relationship damage. Obtaining a second wife at the cost of the wellbeing of the first is unacceptable. We've got to deal faithfully with one before we think of more.
As to the ethical positions you've been focusing on, all three have a tendency to de-emphasize discernment and expediency merely to differentiate themselves from the forms of secular modernism in their times. They should have known that any secularist claim to absolute practicality would (and did) fall apart as ridicules. Instead they abandon their own claims on teleological morality and went further to demonize Christians that maintained it. What a capitulation to atheism! They folded for the most obvious bluff! But while you see the graded absolutist position as the opposite of the unqualified absolutist position I see it as merely a variant or derivative of the same anti-practical reaction. Its rather ironic to say unqualified absolution causes splits when you adhere to the group that split. Such a thing is merely rebels blaming the king for the rebellion. It may be true, but the rebels are not in the best position to judge.
But, while none of these positions is my own, I do not seek to demonize or villinize either position. I have seen the use in both of them, (not Conflicting Absolutism as I know no person that holds such an odd view) and it is only in rather extreme circumstances that these ethical models would actually produce different results. Mainly a unqualified absolutist would have a greater tendency towards pacifism or inaction in the face of persecution or danger. If it wasn't for egos on both sides this conflict would almost cease to exist. Hence my objection to you purveying the conflict by coming in and characterizing you're opposition as harsh, rigid, and cold. Don't you know they might say things about you? But worse for you if they didn't, and addressed you're objections without slander.
Now, given God's ethics are teleological and our duty is to serve him thus our duty must be teleological. Thus God, and all who serve him, operate teleologically. It is our duty to operate with ultimate ends in mind, to lay up our treasures in heaven. Written revelation and the guiding of the Holy Spirit are our tools for discerning what action promotes that ultimate end. The ethical conflicts which exist in the models you mention exist only because the models themselves where created in order to promote some kind of empty deontology without respect for the effect or goal of ones actions. The reason they wanted such an empty denotology was to blindly oppose modernistic practically. The modernists where ends focused and the fundamentalists opposed their method, but really their method is fine, its their ends that are corrupt. They prejudicialy opposed the wrong thing, and you're school of thought maintains their prejudices because it is immediately derived from them.
Thank God we are not asked to preform mindless duty, but we do things with purpose. Do not eat for the day you eat of it you will surely begin to die. Keep my commandments and you will have My protection and blessing. When you fast don't appear to men to fast but do it before God that he may reward you openly. Duty with purpose. Both temporal and eternal. Any moral duty which is not teleological is not duty to God but only the men that want to enforce it.
But all this is an aside, you've come here with open hostilities to groups that do not share you're methodology. That is my main concern. If you truely follow Mercy and Grace you need to leave the pot shots at the people you disagree with at the Cross (something a lot of people, myself included, need to do). I would also very much like you to take a minute to think about how theologically close you are to the group you villinized.
Now, to the matter at hand,
A leader must do his best to know what effects his decisions will have on those he leads. Assuming a forcibly bad reaction to polygamy (which we may say is normal in North America) a husband has to try to take pre-emptive action to quell the problem or simply not take the action. Obtaining consent may be a means to quell the bad reaction. I think it needs to be pointed out that it is not enough in every case. I know of some where the wife agreed and then found she didn't like it and things went badly anyway. On the other hand even in North America there are cases where relationship trust is such that a husband would not need the consent of the wife because she would trust him implicitly to promote her best interests as well as the families. Like Cecil was trying to get at and I think you also know it's not as clean cut as merely obtaining consent. Consent may be irrelevant because it is unnecessary and it may be irrelevant because it is ineffective. Often it is relevant and a powerful tool to prevent a conflict. Either way the heart of what we're talking about is avoiding and mitigating potential emotional and relationship damage. Obtaining a second wife at the cost of the wellbeing of the first is unacceptable. We've got to deal faithfully with one before we think of more.
Hardly, red.
While there has been a lot of text in the meanwhile, this should be addressed again, because such generalizations deserved to be firmly rejected.
Perhaps that is the reason that I would much prefer to be considered a "Berean" than any type of "theologian", or something "in between".
Even if "everyone" were to agree to something that stands in contradiction to the Word of YHVH, the facts do not change. And, according to witnesses like Malachi 3:6 and Hebrews 13:8, neither does He.
PS> The following statements are false.
See Deut. 22:29, ETC. The principle is arguably similar to that of restitution: while theft is prohibited, once an act (arguably including copulation) is COMMITTED, there are in fact commands which come into play.
(While the obvious - and best - solution to all such problems is not to engage in the acts to begin with, this nation is not one which has lately made a habit of paying much attention to the Bible at any stage.)
Goodness gracious! Look at all them 75 cent words.
Am I mistaken, or has someone done some holy name calling? And said stuff like, "Ifn y'all don' see it MAH way, y'all're jist plain SINFULL!"?
Now, no-one here is so dad-blamed stupid as to think that things don't go BETTER when the BODY agrees with the HAID! That jist stands to simple reason. Don't have ter put letters arter yer name ter figger that un out, though they must be raht comfortin'.
But sometimes, the haid jist gotter speak on up and MAKE the rest ob da body git ter moving in de raht direcshun. Take mah own ol' body, fer instance. It'd jist as soon spend its time RE-laxed on a sofa with a W E B Griffin novel and a cooler of iced up birch beer. Matter o' fack, it tends to complain MIGHTILY, with groanings that really SHOULDN'T be uttered, when mah haid say, "Time ter go fer a walk." Mah body spick right up an' say, "Mr. Haid, 'W-A-L-K' is a 4-letter word!" But mah haid say, "Now y'all get on up off'n yer over-fed BE-hin' and go on, anyhowz." And ya knows what? It's de right thing ter do!
An' hows about that there Jonah feller. He done had the PERFICT HAID over him. That 'uz God His Ownself! An' God done tole ol' Jonah ter git on down ter Ninevah and act WEIRD fer the next 40 days. Jonah di'n't wanna DO dat! Tried ter take off'n a diff'rent direction. God had ter toss him in the drink, and stuff him in a whale of a taxi fer three days ter git his attenshun. No way, no how, could I call this the sort of "let the body lead" idear that you'uns seem to be talking about. But, He did it fer the good o' not only that whole poor city of Ninevah, but also ol' Jonah hisself -- even ifn Jonah didn't unnerstan' til later. An' ain't dat jist da way o' it?
So ... much as I admire alla them 75 cent words, and envy them thar letters arter yer name, Ah'm'a still agonna hafter disagree, an' let the haid be the haid. An da body arter follow along. Even ifn there IS a whole cooler o' birch beer an' a new novel waitin'!
Am I mistaken, or has someone done some holy name calling? And said stuff like, "Ifn y'all don' see it MAH way, y'all're jist plain SINFULL!"?
Now, no-one here is so dad-blamed stupid as to think that things don't go BETTER when the BODY agrees with the HAID! That jist stands to simple reason. Don't have ter put letters arter yer name ter figger that un out, though they must be raht comfortin'.
But sometimes, the haid jist gotter speak on up and MAKE the rest ob da body git ter moving in de raht direcshun. Take mah own ol' body, fer instance. It'd jist as soon spend its time RE-laxed on a sofa with a W E B Griffin novel and a cooler of iced up birch beer. Matter o' fack, it tends to complain MIGHTILY, with groanings that really SHOULDN'T be uttered, when mah haid say, "Time ter go fer a walk." Mah body spick right up an' say, "Mr. Haid, 'W-A-L-K' is a 4-letter word!" But mah haid say, "Now y'all get on up off'n yer over-fed BE-hin' and go on, anyhowz." And ya knows what? It's de right thing ter do!
An' hows about that there Jonah feller. He done had the PERFICT HAID over him. That 'uz God His Ownself! An' God done tole ol' Jonah ter git on down ter Ninevah and act WEIRD fer the next 40 days. Jonah di'n't wanna DO dat! Tried ter take off'n a diff'rent direction. God had ter toss him in the drink, and stuff him in a whale of a taxi fer three days ter git his attenshun. No way, no how, could I call this the sort of "let the body lead" idear that you'uns seem to be talking about. But, He did it fer the good o' not only that whole poor city of Ninevah, but also ol' Jonah hisself -- even ifn Jonah didn't unnerstan' til later. An' ain't dat jist da way o' it?
So ... much as I admire alla them 75 cent words, and envy them thar letters arter yer name, Ah'm'a still agonna hafter disagree, an' let the haid be the haid. An da body arter follow along. Even ifn there IS a whole cooler o' birch beer an' a new novel waitin'!
redtheologian
New Member
Cecil,
First, let me go back to the statement of various laws changing. No person who is in Christ would argue that we are obligated to keep making sacrifices of animals for sin. If a person does this then they are not in Christ and they need to be born again! So no matter how much you dislike my statement, if you are in Christ, you do believe some laws change. Christ is now the "fulfillment" of the law and thus in Christ we no longer have to make sacrifices because He has become the ultimate sacrifice. This is at least one change that no Christian would deny. The honest debate is over to what extent do the laws change and how many of the 613 laws change, alter, go to a higher degree, or are canceled from the OT to the NT. Every honest man in Christ admits there is a change, but we do legitimately debate the extent of the change. Scholars who have spent years researching this (some who have formal degrees and some who do not have any formal degrees) call this the Continuity and Discontinuity debate. The question is: how much continues and how much is discontiuned from one Covenant to another Covenant. The dishonest man who will not admit a change either has to reject Christ and go back to making sacrifices only, or he has to claim there is no change while being a hypocrite as he claims and confesses Christ while not making literal, actual, physical animal sacrifices as specifically required throughout hundreds of OT verses.
Second, I sense that you are being or wanting to show a sense superiority in your "I'm a Berean" instead of a theologian comment. I'm sad over that type of comment because the Bereans were theologians. A theologian is simply one who studies Scripture and comes to conclusions about who God is and what he does. The word theos (Greek word for God) and ology (study of) is an accurate term to simply describe one who has spent time in study to discover something about God. As Dr. Charles Ryrie so well said: "Everyone is a theologian. There is nothing wrong with being an amateur theologian or a professional theologian, but there is everything wrong with being a sloppy theologian." I'm not sure why you would want to use that comment as a way to apparently discredit me or my points. Maybe something I have said has convicted you, or possibly hurt you (not my goal and I'm sorry if I did), or maybe you just simply do not like (maybe burned by?) those who have spent many years of time in discipleship under godly spiritual fathers/teachers who take time to train us (Matt. 10:24-25; Matt. 28:18). But in any case, I think that type of comment is not necessary or productive to the discussion at hand. I'm not your enemy and my education and training is not something I am seeking to use to abuse you or make you look bad. In other words, I'm not out to try and show me up and put you down. My purpose here is to use my training in love to edify, to build up, so that love and harmony among relationships can be maintained, which leads me to my points at hand.
Third, and to the real point at hand, love is the highest law of God in his kingdom. The greatest picture of this was in his incarnation. Because of love Christ became man and came to earth to display the holiness of God in love. Love is what motivates a man to treat his wife and family in an honorable way, which means being considerate of your wife and her needs and desires. You use Deut 22:29 to try and prove that a man must marry someone. Seven points show your error in thinking.
(1) Your logic is off here because the man was under no command to have sex with the woman in the first place. So as I said, if a man knows that his wife is not ready he should not have sex with any other woman but his wife. There is, therefore, no COMMAND anywhere in the Bible whereby a man must marry another woman if his wife is not ready.
(2) To unite with a woman in sexual intercourse is to ACTUALLY MARRY her. To "marry" her simply means to unite and cleave with her in one flesh. The next verse shows us this (Deut. 22:29) when a man enters into the woman that she is to be "his wife." Meaning he shall from that point cleave to her and not leave (divorce her). You begin the marriage by holding fast to the woman (intercourse). You continue to hold fast to her throughout your life (maintaining). This one flesh union does not go away until one partner dies (Rom. 7:2; 1 Cor. 7:38).
(3) This position is also bolstered by the text we have in Gen. 24:67 we see that Isaac went into Rebekah and she became his wife. It was through the intercourse that Isaac became one with Rebekah and thus that was the means to the marriage union. There is no text that says there has to be any ceremony or anything other than a sexual union with a cleaving. If a man has a sexual union but does not cleave then it is immoral. It is immoral because it bonds but then breaks the bond and thus makes the woman commit adultery. But if a man has a sexual union and cleaves it is called a marriage in Scripture.
(4) The same took place in Gen. 16:4 where it says that Abram took Hagar as his wife. Again if we take a literal translation of the text, which is the only proper hermeneutic, then we cannot say there was any ceremony. Abram and Sarah and Hagar agreed (gave consent) and thus the union took place which brought the one flesh bond and they cleaved to one another which is the display of a marriage.
(5) Someone who would be of the Covenant/Calvinist tradition has spoken correctly on this, as it seems, concerning the marriage act. Tom Shipley's work speaks to this very issue that it is the actual sexual union that unites the two in the one flesh relationship. Tom Shipley would be on the very few laws change from the OT to the NT (the Continuuity side of the theological spectrum).
(6) Christ spoke of as the one flesh relationship in Matthew 19:5-6 showing that it was when a man "holds fast" that he becomes one flesh with the woman.
(7) Apostle Paul taught this same thing as well, just within a negative context. He writes in the same construct the idea that "do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one flesh/body with her? For, as it is written, 'The two will become one flesh.' "(1 Cor. 6:16). The words "he who is joined" is the same construct and ideology presented by Christ when he spoke of this in Matthew 19. Also it is the same ideology behind the Hebrew phrase in Gen. 2:24 where the text says, "hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." The idea is simple: IF YOU HOLD FAST TO A WOMAN (sexual intercourse) SHE IS ONE FLESH WITH YOU. Thus, it makes sense why in Deut. Moses said he could not divorce her. To not hold fast, is to let go, which is what so many do. They unite, become one flesh, and leave one another, which is immoral.
Therefore, and fourth in my points, today if a man knows that uniting with another woman EQUALS a ONE FLESH UNION, which Christ and Paul taught (1 Cor. 6:16), then he is under NO obligation or universal command of God to actually unite with any woman but his wife. To the contrary, if a man knows that by entering into another woman that it would hurt his wife and damge her, he is obligated and mandated by Christ not to do that until there is agreement because of the principles of love as outlined in 1 Cor. 13 as well as the agreement nature of the husband and wife (see 1 Cor. 7:4 where the two mutually own one another).
Fifth, in closing, I return to what I have referenced earlier. A man who pushes his wife, his flesh, his body into something that the flesh/body is not ready for is doing something harmful and unloving. It is unkind, uncaring, and ungodly and there is NO COMMAND by God anywhere that a man has to do this. Those who do such things as this are expressing a sinful, self-centered, narcissistic, authoritarian (instead of authoritative), despot mentality that does not reflect the humble, gracious, merciful, kind, patient, honorable, considerate, and loving character of Christ within the marriage union. A man who claims God has told him to marry another wife even when his wife is obviously opposed, not ready, and unwilling is making a claim that has no solid, verifiable, and direct connection to any command of the Lord. And thus, when a man forces his way onto the woman he will suffer the consequences of his actions; he will reap what he sows in relational discord, disharmony, and possibly even divorce and the loss of his first wife.
This is the principle that God gave to us in the reaping and sowing laws. God says: "Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life" (Gal. 6:7-8). A man who forces this onto a woman who has not agreed to it is sowing to his flesh. In many cases, if not all, the man will reap his first wife acting out as well in the flesh because she has been abused and pushed into something without the Spirit orchestrating it.
And, to be sure, I could (but for confidentiality reasons I will not) to men who have done just this. There testimony is that they went to fast, pushed it onto their wives and today are paying for the sins of being impatient. The Bible promises and tells us that the fruit of the Spirit is "love, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law" (Gal. 5:22). A man whose wife is not ready should obey those life principles; he should be patient, use self-control and not engage another woman sexually, which would be read to the woman as kindness, goodness and faithfulness, and he should exercise self-control over his emotions and sexual drive while he disciples his wife in gentleness. That is sowing in the Spirit. But if he tries to claim he must (the ole manipulation trick of "God has told me") then he is out of step with the Spirit.
Dr. RED; Th.D
First, let me go back to the statement of various laws changing. No person who is in Christ would argue that we are obligated to keep making sacrifices of animals for sin. If a person does this then they are not in Christ and they need to be born again! So no matter how much you dislike my statement, if you are in Christ, you do believe some laws change. Christ is now the "fulfillment" of the law and thus in Christ we no longer have to make sacrifices because He has become the ultimate sacrifice. This is at least one change that no Christian would deny. The honest debate is over to what extent do the laws change and how many of the 613 laws change, alter, go to a higher degree, or are canceled from the OT to the NT. Every honest man in Christ admits there is a change, but we do legitimately debate the extent of the change. Scholars who have spent years researching this (some who have formal degrees and some who do not have any formal degrees) call this the Continuity and Discontinuity debate. The question is: how much continues and how much is discontiuned from one Covenant to another Covenant. The dishonest man who will not admit a change either has to reject Christ and go back to making sacrifices only, or he has to claim there is no change while being a hypocrite as he claims and confesses Christ while not making literal, actual, physical animal sacrifices as specifically required throughout hundreds of OT verses.
Second, I sense that you are being or wanting to show a sense superiority in your "I'm a Berean" instead of a theologian comment. I'm sad over that type of comment because the Bereans were theologians. A theologian is simply one who studies Scripture and comes to conclusions about who God is and what he does. The word theos (Greek word for God) and ology (study of) is an accurate term to simply describe one who has spent time in study to discover something about God. As Dr. Charles Ryrie so well said: "Everyone is a theologian. There is nothing wrong with being an amateur theologian or a professional theologian, but there is everything wrong with being a sloppy theologian." I'm not sure why you would want to use that comment as a way to apparently discredit me or my points. Maybe something I have said has convicted you, or possibly hurt you (not my goal and I'm sorry if I did), or maybe you just simply do not like (maybe burned by?) those who have spent many years of time in discipleship under godly spiritual fathers/teachers who take time to train us (Matt. 10:24-25; Matt. 28:18). But in any case, I think that type of comment is not necessary or productive to the discussion at hand. I'm not your enemy and my education and training is not something I am seeking to use to abuse you or make you look bad. In other words, I'm not out to try and show me up and put you down. My purpose here is to use my training in love to edify, to build up, so that love and harmony among relationships can be maintained, which leads me to my points at hand.
Third, and to the real point at hand, love is the highest law of God in his kingdom. The greatest picture of this was in his incarnation. Because of love Christ became man and came to earth to display the holiness of God in love. Love is what motivates a man to treat his wife and family in an honorable way, which means being considerate of your wife and her needs and desires. You use Deut 22:29 to try and prove that a man must marry someone. Seven points show your error in thinking.
(1) Your logic is off here because the man was under no command to have sex with the woman in the first place. So as I said, if a man knows that his wife is not ready he should not have sex with any other woman but his wife. There is, therefore, no COMMAND anywhere in the Bible whereby a man must marry another woman if his wife is not ready.
(2) To unite with a woman in sexual intercourse is to ACTUALLY MARRY her. To "marry" her simply means to unite and cleave with her in one flesh. The next verse shows us this (Deut. 22:29) when a man enters into the woman that she is to be "his wife." Meaning he shall from that point cleave to her and not leave (divorce her). You begin the marriage by holding fast to the woman (intercourse). You continue to hold fast to her throughout your life (maintaining). This one flesh union does not go away until one partner dies (Rom. 7:2; 1 Cor. 7:38).
(3) This position is also bolstered by the text we have in Gen. 24:67 we see that Isaac went into Rebekah and she became his wife. It was through the intercourse that Isaac became one with Rebekah and thus that was the means to the marriage union. There is no text that says there has to be any ceremony or anything other than a sexual union with a cleaving. If a man has a sexual union but does not cleave then it is immoral. It is immoral because it bonds but then breaks the bond and thus makes the woman commit adultery. But if a man has a sexual union and cleaves it is called a marriage in Scripture.
(4) The same took place in Gen. 16:4 where it says that Abram took Hagar as his wife. Again if we take a literal translation of the text, which is the only proper hermeneutic, then we cannot say there was any ceremony. Abram and Sarah and Hagar agreed (gave consent) and thus the union took place which brought the one flesh bond and they cleaved to one another which is the display of a marriage.
(5) Someone who would be of the Covenant/Calvinist tradition has spoken correctly on this, as it seems, concerning the marriage act. Tom Shipley's work speaks to this very issue that it is the actual sexual union that unites the two in the one flesh relationship. Tom Shipley would be on the very few laws change from the OT to the NT (the Continuuity side of the theological spectrum).
(6) Christ spoke of as the one flesh relationship in Matthew 19:5-6 showing that it was when a man "holds fast" that he becomes one flesh with the woman.
(7) Apostle Paul taught this same thing as well, just within a negative context. He writes in the same construct the idea that "do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one flesh/body with her? For, as it is written, 'The two will become one flesh.' "(1 Cor. 6:16). The words "he who is joined" is the same construct and ideology presented by Christ when he spoke of this in Matthew 19. Also it is the same ideology behind the Hebrew phrase in Gen. 2:24 where the text says, "hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." The idea is simple: IF YOU HOLD FAST TO A WOMAN (sexual intercourse) SHE IS ONE FLESH WITH YOU. Thus, it makes sense why in Deut. Moses said he could not divorce her. To not hold fast, is to let go, which is what so many do. They unite, become one flesh, and leave one another, which is immoral.
Therefore, and fourth in my points, today if a man knows that uniting with another woman EQUALS a ONE FLESH UNION, which Christ and Paul taught (1 Cor. 6:16), then he is under NO obligation or universal command of God to actually unite with any woman but his wife. To the contrary, if a man knows that by entering into another woman that it would hurt his wife and damge her, he is obligated and mandated by Christ not to do that until there is agreement because of the principles of love as outlined in 1 Cor. 13 as well as the agreement nature of the husband and wife (see 1 Cor. 7:4 where the two mutually own one another).
Fifth, in closing, I return to what I have referenced earlier. A man who pushes his wife, his flesh, his body into something that the flesh/body is not ready for is doing something harmful and unloving. It is unkind, uncaring, and ungodly and there is NO COMMAND by God anywhere that a man has to do this. Those who do such things as this are expressing a sinful, self-centered, narcissistic, authoritarian (instead of authoritative), despot mentality that does not reflect the humble, gracious, merciful, kind, patient, honorable, considerate, and loving character of Christ within the marriage union. A man who claims God has told him to marry another wife even when his wife is obviously opposed, not ready, and unwilling is making a claim that has no solid, verifiable, and direct connection to any command of the Lord. And thus, when a man forces his way onto the woman he will suffer the consequences of his actions; he will reap what he sows in relational discord, disharmony, and possibly even divorce and the loss of his first wife.
This is the principle that God gave to us in the reaping and sowing laws. God says: "Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life" (Gal. 6:7-8). A man who forces this onto a woman who has not agreed to it is sowing to his flesh. In many cases, if not all, the man will reap his first wife acting out as well in the flesh because she has been abused and pushed into something without the Spirit orchestrating it.
And, to be sure, I could (but for confidentiality reasons I will not) to men who have done just this. There testimony is that they went to fast, pushed it onto their wives and today are paying for the sins of being impatient. The Bible promises and tells us that the fruit of the Spirit is "love, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law" (Gal. 5:22). A man whose wife is not ready should obey those life principles; he should be patient, use self-control and not engage another woman sexually, which would be read to the woman as kindness, goodness and faithfulness, and he should exercise self-control over his emotions and sexual drive while he disciples his wife in gentleness. That is sowing in the Spirit. But if he tries to claim he must (the ole manipulation trick of "God has told me") then he is out of step with the Spirit.
Dr. RED; Th.D
Wow, red - that was quite a bit of propaganda, there. I didn't count just exactly how many times you called those of us who might put more faith in the Words of our Messiah than that of any Prestigious Doctor of Theo-whatever "dishonest", or in need of being reborn "in Christ", liars -- or worse -- but it did make me want to go back and re-read Romans 3:4 before taking a shower.
Those who are "in the Bible" would know (like King David did, for those who understand Psalm 51, etc) that "we were NEVER obligated" -- or able -- to make animal sacrifices for INTENTIONAL sin. That distinction is critical, and consistent throughout Scripture. I would have expected better from someone so enamored of high-falutin' Theology.
I guess those of us who read Yahushua the Messiah -- places like Matthew 5:17-19 -- and TAKE Him at His Word, instead of your assertion to the contrary, must not be "in Christ".
And for someone who seems to put such emphasis on titles and long Greek-based English words, I'm admittedly a bit surprised that you seem to have such a misunderstanding of a relatively simple Hebrew word like "torah". It is His "teaching and instruction" that matters. It was in fact the Pharisees who had such difficulty recognizing the difference between His instruction and their own additions to it, which they nevertheless still tried to call "law".
I must confess, when I see a post start out with such ridiculous, and, yes - offensive, assumptions, I don't pay much attention to the rest.
Those who are "in the Bible" would know (like King David did, for those who understand Psalm 51, etc) that "we were NEVER obligated" -- or able -- to make animal sacrifices for INTENTIONAL sin. That distinction is critical, and consistent throughout Scripture. I would have expected better from someone so enamored of high-falutin' Theology.
I guess those of us who read Yahushua the Messiah -- places like Matthew 5:17-19 -- and TAKE Him at His Word, instead of your assertion to the contrary, must not be "in Christ".
And for someone who seems to put such emphasis on titles and long Greek-based English words, I'm admittedly a bit surprised that you seem to have such a misunderstanding of a relatively simple Hebrew word like "torah". It is His "teaching and instruction" that matters. It was in fact the Pharisees who had such difficulty recognizing the difference between His instruction and their own additions to it, which they nevertheless still tried to call "law".
I must confess, when I see a post start out with such ridiculous, and, yes - offensive, assumptions, I don't pay much attention to the rest.
Tlaloc
Member
Actually, Jay actually dealt briefly with the topic of sacrifices in his blog, to quote it
Obviously its a starting point to think about, but it should provide enough of a starting point. It would take Jay or Mark to flesh that out. It seems you are unfamiliar with theologies which are not OT\NT division focused. At very least you need to consider that completion does not constitute a change in plan or nature, Jonah was sent to Nineveh and sinned by not going. We are not required to go, and are not sinning by not going. It is an absurdity to say God changed because he does not require us to go to Nineveh.
Now, you do come off as pretentious because of broad brush statements tied up in somewhat technical jargon (that is, the absolutism you focus on are peculiar to cretin schools of theology and their internal conflicts). I would recommend in the future trying to leave you're problems with unqualified absolutism and its adherents aside when you want to make a point about something only somewhat related. Do a little relationship building before you smear another group, or better yet leave the smears aside.
Mark is stating a reactionary mandate, if someone has sinned and had sex with someone he should not have he has a responsibility to that second relationship as well. He hadn't said there was such a command. Though I tend to opine we would do better for widows if we had a system providing them with obligatory marital support.
Try not to take Cecils tone the wrong way, he's light heartedly asking you to tone down the jargon and be a little more poinient, though I think may come off extremely rude in text. I believe there is productive discussion to be had here if we can keep civil.
*Mark, you posted while I was writing, sorry if anything I said was redundant.
Obviously its a starting point to think about, but it should provide enough of a starting point. It would take Jay or Mark to flesh that out. It seems you are unfamiliar with theologies which are not OT\NT division focused. At very least you need to consider that completion does not constitute a change in plan or nature, Jonah was sent to Nineveh and sinned by not going. We are not required to go, and are not sinning by not going. It is an absurdity to say God changed because he does not require us to go to Nineveh.
Now, you do come off as pretentious because of broad brush statements tied up in somewhat technical jargon (that is, the absolutism you focus on are peculiar to cretin schools of theology and their internal conflicts). I would recommend in the future trying to leave you're problems with unqualified absolutism and its adherents aside when you want to make a point about something only somewhat related. Do a little relationship building before you smear another group, or better yet leave the smears aside.
Mark is stating a reactionary mandate, if someone has sinned and had sex with someone he should not have he has a responsibility to that second relationship as well. He hadn't said there was such a command. Though I tend to opine we would do better for widows if we had a system providing them with obligatory marital support.
Try not to take Cecils tone the wrong way, he's light heartedly asking you to tone down the jargon and be a little more poinient, though I think may come off extremely rude in text. I believe there is productive discussion to be had here if we can keep civil.
*Mark, you posted while I was writing, sorry if anything I said was redundant.
redtheologian
New Member
"It seems you are unfamiliar with theologies which are not OT\NT division focused. At very least you need to consider that completion does not constitute a change in plan or nature"
The above is the point to another matter but since it keeps coming up I'll briefly make a point. The very word "complete" shows that there is something more, an addition that is or was not there originally.
Pleroo, Greek for fulfill, does mean that Christ has come to complete the law. There is something called "progressive revelation." That means the Bible was written progressively and with time more and more of God's will unfolded in history.
Take for example, in Jeremiah the inspired prophet used the words new covenant. The entire book of Hebrews shows us that there is a new and better covenant. Terms that the Bible uses forces us to realize that there is addition, more, adjustments, or alterations to God's revelation. At one point under the Mosaic Code/Testament now in a New Code/Testament; or under the Old Covenant and now under a New. If Scripture uses those designations, such as in Jeremiah, then we should as well.
Plus, the point I was making is that the OT Jews in the Lord were REQUIRED TO MAKE SACRIFICES. That is not something anyone can dispute. If a Jew or priest refused to make offerings for sin judgement fell on the people. Today we do not have to make offerings for sin, NONE. The final sin offering has been given. Thus, no matter how we try and nuance it or cut it, there is something different in this age that was not in the age before. As I have said, the debate is one over degree. I agree that God HAS NOT changed. His character and his heart and his essence never changes. But his will is made known not all at once but progressively over time. The words change in plan could mean a lot of things. I would AGREE that GOD's plan never changes if we broadly describe his plan to glorify himself. That is the ultimate plan of God in both testaments. The nature of God does not change. That is something any Christian would agree to.
However, that does not address the specifics. Numerous adjustments to the law code have happened over the progressive time periods. The issue with sacrifices is just a very clear one that everyone who is born again realizes. Those of us who are born again do not have the same obligation to have animals offered up year after year because now Christ has become the final sacrifice. Sure, the sacrifices did not saved (only the Lord saves). But that is what we call a "cop out statement." The Bible still demands in the OC that sacrifices HAD to BE OFFERED. Ask those who failed to apply the blood over their door posts if God was serious about the need for animal offerings in the OC. The death angel killed those who did not have the blood of animals over their door posts. But that admission automatically makes the new revelation of Christ's death the completion of that which was not complete and finalized. Thus, with this addition there has become a change in how we operate. The only other two options if this is not admitted is to again say: (1) We MUST have animals sacrificed as offerings, or (2) Christ is the final sacrifice and no other sacrifices are required today. The issue is not who saves; the Lord saves in both covenants the same way (by grace through faith). But the specific laws on sacrifices certainly did change.
Ironically, even Dr. J. Rushdoony, who is one of the most ardent teachers that the OC still applies, admits (if I recall it's p.7 or so in vol 1) that the New Covenant revelation by the apostles can and does alter and change God's laws. There has never been another theologian to make a stronger case that there is NOT a division in God's law or his covenants. Yet even he is forced to admit that the book of Hebrews and writings of the apostles does indeed through new revelation from the apostles, who were inspired with new words from God, change some things from the past covenant. Why because if he does not admit this then he is firced to accept Judaism as his religion and he must reject the NC, the new revelation in Christ.
But my points are more about the law of love that applies to both testaments and to all people at all times in all places. The above debate, as I said, is not the issue here. Love shows us that a man who pushes his wife into something that she has not agreed to is sin. The Bible requires MUTAUAL AGREEMENT, just like with the Trinity. That is the purpose and issue of this post, to which I keep coming back to. There is nothing in the bible that justifies a man to force his wife into such a union. If he does so it is unwise, sinful, and out of step with the written revelation of Christ and the testimony of the Spirit, not to mention the testimony of those who have injured their families by ignoring this wisdom and teaching of Scripture.
Dr. RED
The above is the point to another matter but since it keeps coming up I'll briefly make a point. The very word "complete" shows that there is something more, an addition that is or was not there originally.
Pleroo, Greek for fulfill, does mean that Christ has come to complete the law. There is something called "progressive revelation." That means the Bible was written progressively and with time more and more of God's will unfolded in history.
Take for example, in Jeremiah the inspired prophet used the words new covenant. The entire book of Hebrews shows us that there is a new and better covenant. Terms that the Bible uses forces us to realize that there is addition, more, adjustments, or alterations to God's revelation. At one point under the Mosaic Code/Testament now in a New Code/Testament; or under the Old Covenant and now under a New. If Scripture uses those designations, such as in Jeremiah, then we should as well.
Plus, the point I was making is that the OT Jews in the Lord were REQUIRED TO MAKE SACRIFICES. That is not something anyone can dispute. If a Jew or priest refused to make offerings for sin judgement fell on the people. Today we do not have to make offerings for sin, NONE. The final sin offering has been given. Thus, no matter how we try and nuance it or cut it, there is something different in this age that was not in the age before. As I have said, the debate is one over degree. I agree that God HAS NOT changed. His character and his heart and his essence never changes. But his will is made known not all at once but progressively over time. The words change in plan could mean a lot of things. I would AGREE that GOD's plan never changes if we broadly describe his plan to glorify himself. That is the ultimate plan of God in both testaments. The nature of God does not change. That is something any Christian would agree to.
However, that does not address the specifics. Numerous adjustments to the law code have happened over the progressive time periods. The issue with sacrifices is just a very clear one that everyone who is born again realizes. Those of us who are born again do not have the same obligation to have animals offered up year after year because now Christ has become the final sacrifice. Sure, the sacrifices did not saved (only the Lord saves). But that is what we call a "cop out statement." The Bible still demands in the OC that sacrifices HAD to BE OFFERED. Ask those who failed to apply the blood over their door posts if God was serious about the need for animal offerings in the OC. The death angel killed those who did not have the blood of animals over their door posts. But that admission automatically makes the new revelation of Christ's death the completion of that which was not complete and finalized. Thus, with this addition there has become a change in how we operate. The only other two options if this is not admitted is to again say: (1) We MUST have animals sacrificed as offerings, or (2) Christ is the final sacrifice and no other sacrifices are required today. The issue is not who saves; the Lord saves in both covenants the same way (by grace through faith). But the specific laws on sacrifices certainly did change.
Ironically, even Dr. J. Rushdoony, who is one of the most ardent teachers that the OC still applies, admits (if I recall it's p.7 or so in vol 1) that the New Covenant revelation by the apostles can and does alter and change God's laws. There has never been another theologian to make a stronger case that there is NOT a division in God's law or his covenants. Yet even he is forced to admit that the book of Hebrews and writings of the apostles does indeed through new revelation from the apostles, who were inspired with new words from God, change some things from the past covenant. Why because if he does not admit this then he is firced to accept Judaism as his religion and he must reject the NC, the new revelation in Christ.
But my points are more about the law of love that applies to both testaments and to all people at all times in all places. The above debate, as I said, is not the issue here. Love shows us that a man who pushes his wife into something that she has not agreed to is sin. The Bible requires MUTAUAL AGREEMENT, just like with the Trinity. That is the purpose and issue of this post, to which I keep coming back to. There is nothing in the bible that justifies a man to force his wife into such a union. If he does so it is unwise, sinful, and out of step with the written revelation of Christ and the testimony of the Spirit, not to mention the testimony of those who have injured their families by ignoring this wisdom and teaching of Scripture.
Dr. RED
Guys, we've 'been there, done that.' I'm asking that we not do it again, in this fashion. Locking this thread while we decide what to do about it - I want to roll it back to the original topic only, but will confer with some other moderators first.
I will concur with Nathan on this. One of the fundamentals of our forums has been and continues to be the mutual respect for our differences. I would warmly ask with sincerity that we seek to continue our fellowship on those things that we hold in common, not those things that divide us. Personally, I want to see Jesus lifted up in all our threads and forums, because when we lift up Jesus, all will be drawn to Him.
Relocking the thread.
Relocking the thread.
- Status