-
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.
Why does the Husband Not Need Permission from his Wife?
- Thread starter OttoM
- Start date
Don’t look now, but I think that @Transformator Reformator just gave someone the bird.
In 2 Samuel 6:22-23, after David was disrespected by his wife Mical after he danced before the Lord, he said,
"And I will yet be more vile than thus, and will be base in mine own sight; and of the maidservants whom thou hast spoken of, of them shall I be held in honor.”
23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.
it is my interpretation of the situation and I hope to be corrected. But possibility exist that David was saying that "I will be busy having sex with these maidservants" and as a result Micah never got the opportunity to get pregnant due to David's response to disrespect from Micah. David punished Micah.
Too many times men could be wrongfully accused of sinful motives from their wives and in the process disrespect their lords, and then dishonor them before others. If this were to happen, husband does not need to exchange his position as assigned by God to get a morsel of food like Esau gave up his privilege for little bit of soup. For this reason, a husband could proceed with marrying additional women apart from wive's approval.
This may be painful for a woman to hear, but this is where a wife has opportunity for her faith to be examined. Without faith it is impossible to please God.
There is a reason rebuke on Moses' sister was more severe than the one for Aaron. That was after Moses took on additional wife.
I said all these without taking into account the vows. I am still evaluating arguments about this. (Perhaps by Providence at my wedding I did not utter those words because I selected Ukrainian pastor to do the ceremony).
"And I will yet be more vile than thus, and will be base in mine own sight; and of the maidservants whom thou hast spoken of, of them shall I be held in honor.”
23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.
it is my interpretation of the situation and I hope to be corrected. But possibility exist that David was saying that "I will be busy having sex with these maidservants" and as a result Micah never got the opportunity to get pregnant due to David's response to disrespect from Micah. David punished Micah.
Too many times men could be wrongfully accused of sinful motives from their wives and in the process disrespect their lords, and then dishonor them before others. If this were to happen, husband does not need to exchange his position as assigned by God to get a morsel of food like Esau gave up his privilege for little bit of soup. For this reason, a husband could proceed with marrying additional women apart from wive's approval.
This may be painful for a woman to hear, but this is where a wife has opportunity for her faith to be examined. Without faith it is impossible to please God.
There is a reason rebuke on Moses' sister was more severe than the one for Aaron. That was after Moses took on additional wife.
I said all these without taking into account the vows. I am still evaluating arguments about this. (Perhaps by Providence at my wedding I did not utter those words because I selected Ukrainian pastor to do the ceremony).
This is untrue. The apocryphal books have never been considered canon.
Just a reminder that this discussion takes place in a world where an unhappy first wife can sue you for divorce and justify it by demonstrating your adultery/bigamy/polygamy before the court.
So while it is true that a husband can do most anything without his wife's permission it is also true that she can retain a lawyer without the husband's permission.
So while it is true that a husband can do most anything without his wife's permission it is also true that she can retain a lawyer without the husband's permission.
And retain a lawyer at the expense to the state which is all too happy to help disintegrate the union.
It’s modern day Ashtoreth and Baal worship. “Happy wife, happy life.” If the husband does not submit to his wife’s will - she can simply go to the state (Baal), and they together can make life miserable for the husband. This has completely engulfed western society and thinking. So that’s why there are broken households and kids growing up broken as well. No father figure in the house. He has been kicked out. Just like they kicked out the Heavenly Father in the public schooling - so too in homes throughout western civilization.
Or, you know, it's treating women like people and not broodmares. I don't want to be married to someone who isn't happy with how I treat them and if I can make them happy, then why not...
Seems reasonable, until it becomes an expectation.
You may of mis-understood. A man should bring joy to his wife. A man should love his wife. This all in the torah as well:
Deuteronomy 24:5
“A newly married man must not be drafted into the army or be given any other official responsibilities. He must be free to spend one year at home, bringing happiness to the wife he has married."
I'm talking about the perversion of roles - where the man is in submission to his wife.
You do understand that poly is by definition a patriarchal practice, right?
While I do not hesitate to point out that Western society is not patriarchal and that men need to live and function in this reality there is also the truth that there's a very narrow spectrum in which men can be the patriarchal leaders of their families without running (too much) afoul of the governments that enforce secular feminism.
On a different topic you stressed that Muslims are individuals and here I will remind you that women are also individuals.
Treating some women as broodmares can be a necessary process of integrating them into a family. In the West the woman is always free to leave but if she wants to be part of a patriarchal family then she has to live by those expectations.
For some women this is exactly perfect. It's what they need is to have the uncertainty of secular feminism replaced by the certainty of religious patriarchy.
For others not so much. Most of them would never join such a family in the first place.
Yet the truth remains that for some women this life can be just what they needed even if they chafe against it at first.
May I add that as the family expands there is less time and energy that a man can focus on the happiness of each individual.
If a person’s focus is on their own happiness, it’s probably not going to happen in a polygynous family. And that goes double for the husband.
In pronatal culture women would with pride volunteer for being broodmare.
You do understand polgyamy doesn't mean you can't be kind to your wife(ves), right? I'd much rather they be happy than one or more be miserable.
It seems that you have the notion that being kind to a wife will make her happy?
Now that's a novel idea!
We should strive to be kind to everyone, our wives and children included. But NEVER at the cost of subordinating ourselves to them. That would be introducing confusion to everyone involved.
Side Note: It can be uncomfortable to us men to fully embrace our proper role when it means putting ourselves first over the demands of others. In Western culture, it is expected that men are to bow down to the desires of the females and children around them. To truly be a man may seem like it is self centered but it is the natural order that God established. Our societal norms has to be reversed starting with our individual lives first. Others will learn from observation and forums like this one.
Now try responding to what I posted and not trying to bait me into defending some nonsense I never said.
