Why does the Husband Not Need Permission from his Wife?

[Earth_is-]

When the Creator gave instructions to the man on adding an additional wife - the one thing that is never mentioned is the man's current wife. She is not factored into the requirements (at all).

Matthew 6:10
May your will be done on earth, as it is in heaven.

The Father in Heaven is the husband. His wife = the people of Israel. The Creator does not need permission from his wife when making decisions. In agreement, his wife says:

Psalm 115:3 NKJV
But our God is in heaven; He does whatever He pleases.

Imagine if salvation coming to the gentiles - the good news - was dependent on the Father in Heaven first receiving permission from his wife?

What if Israel said: “You don’t love us anymore.” “Are we not good enough for you?” “We will leave you.”

Would the gentiles have to continue to walk on this earth without knowing the Creator and without hope?

Likewise with the relationship between a husband and his wife. If the wife is against it - is she okay with sisters in Christ getting devoured physically and spiritually by the adversary? Plenty of Christian women end up in college instead of finding a husband (or none available) - so they follow the course set forth by the prince of this world - and today’s college is not for those weak in the faith.

On Earth as it is in Heaven:

Ephesians 5:22
22 For wives, this means submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23 For a husband is the head of his wife as Christ is the head of the church. He is the Savior of his body, the church. 24 As the church submits to Christ, so you wives should submit to your husbands in everything.

 

[Bartato]

The wife's "permission" is not required.

Also keep the following principle in mind.

"Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered." (1st Peter 3:7)

 

[paterfamilias]

Could not have managed the quote myself but it reflects my own sentiment.

I wish to work hand in glove with wife/wives.
In fact, as difficult as it has been for me to believe, there have been a double fist full of women that we came to know who were willing and interested in becoming my second wife. One got the thumbs up from my wife.
I value her opinion and analysis, so it is a path we walk together in our search

 

[Earth_is-]

One got the thumbs up from my wife.
I value her opinion and analysis, so it is a path we walk together in our search

Jesus said - "A house divided can not stand." The man has to be careful who's he bringing in. Treating her more like a sister in the beginning is not a bad idea - so the man can examine her fruit, and how she gets along with the rest of the household.

She should be a blessing to the man's household, and the man's household a blessing to her. There's plenty of examples in scripture (monogamy and polygynous relationships) of what happens when a man marries someone that wasn't a blessing. For example - what happened with Samson (monogamous relationship) and king Solomon (polygynous relationship).

 

[Earth_is-]

The wife's "permission" is not required.

Also keep the following principle in mind.

"Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered." (1st Peter 3:7)

2 Timothy 4:2 NLT
Preach the word of God. Be prepared, whether the time is favorable or not. Patiently correct, rebuke, and encourage your people with good teaching.

1 Corinthians 13:4
Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud

Ephesians 5:25-26
25 For husbands, this means love your wives, just as Christ loved the church. He gave up his life for her 26 to make her holy and clean, washed by the cleansing of God’s word

The answer is patience, love, and being washed clean by the Word.

What if the Father in Heaven had that same same mindset? Ignored the gentiles because Israel's feelings may be hurt? There would be no salvation for the gentiles. Same way for the women that are unable to find good husbands. They're unable to enjoy the fruit of a stable household - the way the Creator intended it. Instead they're falling victim to being woke.

 

[Bartato]

2 Timothy 4:2 NLT
Preach the word of God. Be prepared, whether the time is favorable or not. Patiently correct, rebuke, and encourage your people with good teaching.

1 Corinthians 13:4
Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud

Ephesians 5:25-26
25 For husbands, this means love your wives, just as Christ loved the church. He gave up his life for her 26 to make her holy and clean, washed by the cleansing of God’s word

The answer is patience, love, and being washed clean by the Word.

What if the Father in Heaven had that same same mindset? Ignored the gentiles because Israel's feelings may be hurt? There would be no salvation for the gentiles. Same way for the women that are unable to find good husbands. They're unable to enjoy the fruit of a stable household - the way the Creator intended it. Instead they're falling victim to being woke.

I'm not arguing with you this time.
I'm just pointing out that there are multiple considerations.

 

[Earth_is-]

I'm not arguing with you this time.
I'm just pointing out that there are multiple considerations.

I know - and I agree with you on those considerations.

 

[IndianaLife]

Being a fundamentalist Mormon, I point to the Law of Sarah, which says a man does need his wife's permission.

 

[MeganC]

The wife's "permission" is not required.

Still, it's a good idea to get her approval so you don't end up having to discuss the finer points of Scripture with the nice people at the divorce court.

 

[NBTX11]

Still, it's a good idea to get her approval so you don't end up having to discuss the finer points of Scripture with the nice people at the divorce court.

Discuss with her, yes. “Approval”, no. Getting “approval” from the wife is unbiblical.

We’re probably saying the same thing. I do agree it’s wise to discuss extensively and it would be best to make sure she’s generally on board. However, no he does not and should not seek “approval”. See 1 Cor 11:3

 

[MemeFan]

Because leader doesn't require permission from follower.

 

[NBTX11]

Being a fundamentalist Mormon, I point to the Law of Sarah, which says a man does need his wife's permission.

This is contrary to ample scripture in the Bible (the 66 books that make up the Christian canon). There are exactly zero biblical passages that require a man to seek a wife’s approval prior to adding a wife.

 

[Bartato]

Being a fundamentalist Mormon, I point to the Law of Sarah, which says a man does need his wife's permission.

That's from "Doctrine and Covenents" right? That is not authoritative, and neither is the book of Mormon. The 66 books of the Bible are the source of our doctrine.

 

[Michael Moon]

This is contrary to ample scripture in the Bible (the 66 books that make up the Christian canon). There are exactly zero biblical passages that require a man to seek a wife’s approval prior to adding a wife.

That's from "Doctrine and Covenents" right? That is not authoritative, and neither is the book of Mormon. The 66 books of the Bible are the source of our doctrine.

We can all sit here and say "your source is stupid" till we're blue in the face. It won't help anything unless more substantial arguments are presented against the source.

Although that would probably require a different thread.

@IndianaLife as far as I understand, according to Mormon doctrine, the Law of Polygamy (and as part of that, the Law of Sarah) is only to be applied at certain times (when the people are divinely commanded to be polygamous by a prophet), otherwise the rule is monogamy.

This, if I'm understanding it correctly, seems to contradict Torah (as monogamy is never commanded in Torah) and the Prophets (as no Prophet ever called for a time of polygamy or the end of polygamy for a time).

Furthermore, past the giving of instruction by Moshe, only one had any authority to give new instructions (Messiah Yeshua, the Prophet like Moshe) and he said not one jot or tittle would change until all was fulfilled.

Nothing in Torah, the prophets, or even the historical writings detailing Yeshua's ministry permits Paul (as many protestants believe), Peter (as many protestants and catholics believe), Joseph Smith, nor any other man to modify, subtract from, or add to the word of Yah.

Please correct me if I'm wrong on any LDS doctrine, and explain to me how you work around these contradictions.

 

[Bartato]

We can all sit here and say "your source is stupid" till we're blue in the face. It won't help anything unless more substantial arguments are presented against the source.

We can do that if we want, but as this is "Biblical families", not "Koran families", "Book of Mormon families", or "Bhāgavata families", I am going to assume that the Bible is our authoritative text.

Although that would probably require a different thread.

Yes it would

Nothing in Torah, the prophets, or even the historical writings detailing Yeshua's ministry permits Paul (as many protestants believe), Peter (as many protestants and catholics believe), Joseph Smith, nor any other man to modify, subtract from, or add to the word of Yah.

When you say that the apostles may not add to the word of YHWH, you are explicitly rejecting the the authority and the Divine inspiration of the New Testament texts.

Are you really intending to argue that the Revelation given to John is not from YHWH? Do you mean to say that Acts, Romans, Hebrews, Jude, James, Ephesians, etc are not the Bible?

That is what you said.

This is a very different argument than saying that the apostles cannot modify or subtract from the already existing Scriptures.

I would also strongly advise you not to lump the hand picked, and faithful servants of Christ (Peter and Paul) in with Joseph Smith or Mohammed.

I should also point out that "Biblical families" is a different concept than "Torah families", or "New Testament families". We believe that all of the Bible speaks to us.

 

[Michael Moon]

We can do that if we want, but as this is "Biblical families", not "Koran families", "Book of Mormon families", or "Bhāgavata families", I am going to assume that the Bible is our authoritative text.

The original Bible contains 73 books then. Remember that the Roman Catholic Church is what created the "canon".

Yes it would

Pretty sure there have been threads about what is and what is not scripture. Alot of it would be rehashing (and I'm aware that my beliefs would tend to put me in the minority on this forum, I'm okay with that).

When you say that the apostles may not add to the word of YHWH, you are explicitly rejecting the the authority and the Divine inspiration of the New Testament texts.

Let me clarify, I was using "word of Yah" as a substitute for saying "Torah" or "Law" to try and not use those buzzwords (so that my meaning would hopefully not be misconstrued). As to authority, I can't say much on that without getting moderated, so I'll simply state that if you believe the apostles had authority to change the Law (something I don't believe they did) then I suggest you look into Catholicism.

Are you really intending to argue that the Revelation given to John is not from YHWH?

You're assuming things, I believe the gift of prophecy is still alive and well - I believe Revelation is an example of the type of Divine inspiration so quickly attributed to most New Testament letters. They simply are not the same, I would never compare Leviticus to the book of Kings. They served two different functions (and one is explicitly the written commands of Yah).

Do you mean to say that Acts, Romans, Hebrews, Jude, James, Ephesians, etc are not the Bible?

Put in the book called the Bible whatever you believe to be consistent with Torah, the proven Prophets, and all trustworthy historical sources of the ministry of Yeshua (along with the historical writings from before and the letters detailing the New Testament Church). Add anything you believe to be beneficial to the Christian to read. But make sure everyone understands that the collection (not every writing therein) is manmade.

This is a very different argument than saying that the apostles cannot modify or subtract from the already existing Scriptures.

Not particularly, they can preach all the sermons and write all the letters they'd like. It was profitable for them to do so, as the early church required their wisdom, and their explanations of Torah and of Yeshua's ministry. As well as assistance applying it all to their lives while in an exile.

I would also strongly advise you not to lump the hand picked, and faithful servants of Christ (Peter and Paul) in with Joseph Smith or Mohammed.

You're just getting frustrated at me for no reason now. That was clearly said because I was communicating to a Mormon (who assumedly hold Joseph Smith in high regard) that if even the "hand picked, and faithful servants of Christ" Peter and Paul could not change Yah's Law, certainly a man from nearly 2000 years later could not.

I should also point out that "Biblical families" is a different concept than "Torah families", or "New Testament families".

I certainly hope it isn't a different concept, as I believe all of the New Testament lines up with Torah. Careful what you're accusing the New Testament authors of there...

We believe that all of the Bible speaks to us.

As it should. It's a good book. I quite like it! I also find many of the comments on this forum to be uplifting, inspiring, instructive, and overall, just plain beneficial to my understanding of and service to God. But I won't put any of the "letters" (read, threads) here up next to the written commands and instructions of Yah and say, "these are of the same value and authority".

 

[NBTX11]

We can all sit here and say "your source is stupid"

I didn’t say his source was stupid. I said it wasn’t in the Bible as virtually all Christians know it.

 

[Michael Moon]

I didn’t say his source was stupid. I said it wasn’t in the Bible as virtually all Christians know it.

Apologies, I was being hyperbolic (and just a little bit sarcastic). Your point is valid, but only serves to assert that there is a disagreement, not combat the disagreement in any way or attempt to explain why there is a disagreement.

If I am attempting to teach an unbeliever about the gospel and they say, "I don't believe in the Bible", I give them some proof of the historicity and impossible predications (that have come true! Praise Yah!). I don't just inform them that I do believe it and move on. That only asserts that we disagree and doesn't help the issue.

 

[paterfamilias]

Still, it's a good idea to get her approval so you don't end up having to discuss the finer points of Scripture with the nice people at the divorce court.

I am myself an advocate for your wife/wives being on board and participating in the process.
My own notion is very much marriage but even more importantly family building. To my mind, family should be harmonious.
I have had non harmonious and I can't say I would give it a positive review.

 

[paterfamilias]

(and I'm aware that my beliefs would tend to put me in the minority on this forum, I'm okay with that).

Oh boy...get on my level heh.
That said, I do find Mormonism interesting. Partially the plyg element and some of the things I have been told about their visions of the afterlife but a goodly amount on the cultural side.