Why does the Husband Not Need Permission from his Wife?

[Bartato]

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

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).

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.

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 to different functions (and one is explicitly the written commands of Yah).

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.

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.

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 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...

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".

With your approach, you cannot even truly guard the authority of the Torah. Much of Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers are historical narratives written by Moses, like Judges, Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles were written by later authors. Little was presumably written on stone tablets by the Finger of God.

It is helpful to understand your view of Scripture. You seem to regard the writings Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Peter, Paul, and John, plus the Psalms of David somewhat like I regard the writings of C.S. Lewis, John Bunyan, Augustine of Hippo, and Charles Spurgeon, plus the hymns of Charles Wesley, or the songs of Keith Getty.

They are spiritually helpful, but not God breathed as 2 Timothy 3:16 tells us the Scriptures are.

 

[Michael Moon]

With your approach, you cannot even truly guard the authority of the Torah. Much of Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers are historical narratives written by Moses, like Judges, Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles were written by later authors. Little was presumably written on stone tablets by the Finger of God.

Torah is instruction. I'm not referring to the Pentateuch. I'm referring to the specific instructions of Yah. A book of recipes will also contain histories and stories from the author. Is it a book of history? An Autobiography? Or a recipe book?

And then if I say, "those are good recipes". Am I saying that those are only good recipes if the history is 100% accurate? If the stories are good?

It is helpful to understand your view of Scripture. You seem to regard the writings Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Peter, Paul, and John, plus the Psalms of David somewhat like I regard the writings of C.S. Lewis, John Bunyan, Augustine of Hippo, and Charles Spurgeon, plus the hymns of Charles Wesley, or the songs of Keith Getty.

Accurate.

They are spiritually helpful,

Certainly can be, though the general epistle of Peter pretty clearly states my opinion on how some view the letters of Paul.

but not God breathed as 2 Timothy 3:16 tells us the Scriptures are.

2 Timothy 3:15 is often ignored when that scripture is quoted. Is Paul truly stating that the letter he was penning right then was part of the "sacred writings" or "holy scriptures". Sacred writings he described as being known by the people he was writing to since childhood? ("that from a child thou hast known")

 

[IndianaLife]

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.

Genesis 16:1-3 isn't the bible?

 

[IndianaLife]

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.

Sure, and Genesis 16:1-3 if you read it as more than a footnote of what happened one afternoon.

 

[IndianaLife]

@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.

Perhaps in the mainstream Church, but if you don't throw out doctrine just because the government said you had to for statehood, then no it's a core part of our beliefs and doctrine and practiced by many outside of the mainstream Church in SLC. They literally discontinued living plural marriage for statehood, but that doesn't keep people from still having more than one spiritual wife. The current head of the Chruch in SLC is "sealed" to two women; one is just dead and similar to several others of the leaders of the Church.

Not unlike with modern society, many in the early restored Church were all "ewww polygamy, that's of the devil, you vile woman collector!" so it was easy for the bulk of the members to turn their back on the practice as soon as the federal government demanded it.

It's like a whole rabbit hole man. Every time the Church tweaks something you get split offs and at this point you have a handful of offshoots with decent numbers, then literal hundreds more that are much smaller. Under our roof we adhere to the full teachings but publicly appear as mainstream Mormons.

Anyway, I don't want to derail the thread.

 

[FollowingHim]

Genesis 16:1-3 isn't the bible?

This passage does not require a man to seek his wife's permission to take an additional wife. It is a single account of one event in the life of one family, where Sarah suggested that her husband marry another woman. It does not say Abraham needed her permission, and certainly does not comprise a law saying all men need their wife's permission.

Now, obviously it's good advice. Most things that people add to scripture as new laws are good advice. Some churches say not to smoke tobacco, or not to drink alcohol, and both of those things are said because they are considered by those who made the rules to be good advice. Even the teaching of monogamy came about because it was considered good advice, at least in the opinion of those who set the rules for denominations that forbid it. I expect that like most church leaders, Joseph Smith took things that he thought were good advice, such good advice he felt they must be inspired by God, and so wrote them down as the teachings of God. Hence why he said men need permission from their wife - it truly is good advice.

It's just not LAW.

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

And they're good books. Have you read them? If not, start with Tobit, since we're all interested in marriage, as it has the most detailed description of an ancient Hebrew wedding of any scripture. Fascinating stuff.

 

[IndianaLife]

This passage does not require a man to seek his wife's permission to take an additional wife. It is a single account of one event in the life of one family, where Sarah suggested that her husband marry another woman. It does not say Abraham needed her permission, and certainly does not comprise a law saying all men need their wife's permission.

Per your interpration, from a 21st century mindset in a culture far removed from the culture that wrote it.

It is not a tweet, it is not a Facebook status, things are not arbitrarily written in the Bible, and it is not a "went to the mall today, had a great sandwich!" it is there with purpose and intent and in the storytelling that was common with that culture, in that time, has an illustrative purpose.

 

[frederick]

Per your interpration, from a 21st century mindset in a culture far removed from the culture that wrote it.

It is not a tweet, it is not a Facebook status, things are not arbitrarily written in the Bible, and it is not a "went to the mall today, had a great sandwich!" it is there with purpose and intent and in the storytelling that was common with that culture, in that time, has an illustrative purpose.

Above all else, it is essential we understand authorial intent and not read into a passage what one might want it to say. To do so is eisegesis which all too frequently leads to error. @FollowingHim is quite correct with this comment...

This passage does not require a man to seek his wife's permission to take an additional wife. It is a single account of one event in the life of one family, where Sarah suggested that her husband marry another woman. It does not say Abraham needed her permission, and certainly does not comprise a law saying all men need their wife's permission.

Genesis 16:1-3 is an account of something that occurred in the life of Abram, not a law or instruction for what must occur for anyone else. Shalom

 

[Bartato]

2 Timothy 3:15 is often ignored when that scripture is quoted. Is Paul truly stating that the letter he was penning right then was part of the "sacred writings" or "holy scriptures". Sacred writings he described as being known by the people he was writing to since childhood? ("that from a child thou hast known")

I agree that Paul isn't talking about his epistle or other "New Testament" books here. He is talking about the sacred writings that preceded them. I think he meant the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, etc, and wisdom literature such as Proverbs and Psalms, and even historical narrative books like Joshua, Nehemiah, and Kings, as well as the earlier and more foundational direct command type instruction found in the books of Moses.

 

[steve]

Per your interpration, from a 21st century mindset in a culture far removed from the culture that wrote it.

It is not a tweet, it is not a Facebook status, things are not arbitrarily written in the Bible, and it is not a "went to the mall today, had a great sandwich!" it is there with purpose and intent and in the storytelling that was common with that culture, in that time, has an illustrative purpose.

Please be careful with what you attempt to reach on this site.
I wouldn’t want you to have to be censored.

Yah never gave us anyone’s history and expected us to practice it as Law. Remember that Abraham also gave his wife to the king when he desired her.
“Go and do likewise” doesn’t apply to every situation.

 

[IndianaLife]

Above all else, it is essential we understand authorial intent and not read into a passage what one might want it to say. To do so is eisegesis which all too frequently leads to error. @FollowingHim is quite correct with this comment...

Genesis 16:1-3 is an account of something that occurred in the life of Abram, not a law or instruction for what must occur for anyone else. Shalom

Well, it wasn't written in English for a 21st-century audience, so ignoring the original language and the culture of the time takes huge chunks of meaning away from the words. People also try to argue that Jesus wasn't married despite the fact he is referred to as "Rabbi," trying to cite it as an honorary title which simply was not a thing back then, "oh but it means teacher" when, in reality, for the custom of the time (and until very very recently) a Rabbi *had* to be married. and they *did not* use the title for anyone other than an actual Rabbi, an easy mistake when the culture and historical context is removed.

Similarly, that's why in Islam, they say that there is no such thing as a "translation" of the Qur'an. Instead, they are "commentaries," as you lose meaning when it is taken out of the Quranic Arabic.

 

[IndianaLife]

Please be careful with what you attempt to reach on this site.
I wouldn’t want you to have to be censored.

Yah never gave us anyone’s history and expected us to practice it as Law. Remember that Abraham also gave his wife to the king when he desired her.
“Go and do likewise” doesn’t apply to every situation.

Are you seriously threatening me because I'm taking into consideration historical and cultural context?

 

[steve]

Well, it wasn't written in English for a 21st-century audience, so ignoring the original language and the culture of the time takes huge chunks of meaning away from the words. People also try to argue that Jesus wasn't married despite the fact he is referred to as "Rabbi," trying to cite it as an honorary title which simply was not a thing back then, "oh but it means teacher" when, in reality, for the custom of the time (and until very very recently) a Rabbi *had* to be married. and they *did not* use the title for anyone other than an actual Rabbi, an easy mistake when the culture and historical context is removed.

Similarly, that's why in Islam, they say that there is no such thing as a "translation" of the Qur'an. Instead, they are "commentaries," as you lose meaning when it is taken out of the Quranic Arabic.

No matter, you still have no grounds for insisting that it means what you think it means.

 

[IndianaLife]

No matter, you still have no grounds for insisting that it means what you think it means.
View attachment 8210

Real mature. "I don't agree with you, here's a meme!" you're entitled to your opinion, but if you aren't taking historical and cultural context into consideration when reading the scriptures, then you're missing a LOT.

 

[steve]

Real mature. "I don't agree with you, here's a meme!" you're entitled to your opinion, but if you aren't taking historical and cultural context into consideration when reading the scriptures, then you're missing a LOT.

It is a good precedent, of course.
But that doesn’t make it Law.

 

[frederick]

Well, it wasn't written in English for a 21st-century audience, so ignoring the original language and the culture of the time takes huge chunks of meaning away from the words.

Then perhaps you can explain the authorial intent of the passage for me? Please start with the intent of the Book and then your understanding of the passage to keep it in context. Cheers

 

[Bartato]

Is it a good precedent, of course.
But that doesn’t make it Law.

I agree, that precedent is not the same as Law.

I've been thinking about the precedent that @IndianaLife raised when Sarah gave her maidservant Hagar to be a wife to Abraham.

We see something similar with Leah and Rachel offering their maidservants Bilhah and Zilpah to Jacob.

Perhaps the issue wasn't that the first wife was giving the husband permission to take an additional wife. She was instead giving him permission to take her maidservant.

We never see Leah give Jacob permission to marry Rachel.

Rachel didn't belong to Leah, she belonged to her father Laban who gave her to Jacob.

 

[Earth_is-]

I agree that Paul isn't talking about his epistle or other "New Testament" books here. He is talking about the sacred writings that preceded them. I think he meant the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, etc, and wisdom literature such as Proverbs and Psalms, and even historical narrative books like Joshua, Nehemiah, and Kings, as well as the earlier and more foundational direct command type instruction found in the books of Moses.

He also quoted books such as Hosea and Psalms.

 

[Earth_is-]

If a man has a brother that passes away - leaves his wife behind with no sons - the instruction is that he marries her and gives her children for his brother. The instruction does not say - “unless your wife refuses.”

Likewise if a man takes a woman’s virginity - the instruction is he “MUST” marry her. Unless her father denies it because her father has authority.

In both cases the man’s wife is not in the picture in terms of the decision making.

Are there passages in scripture that show a house divided can lead to division and conflict? Of course - we saw that with Solomon when he married pagan women. It divided the kingdom, and his household.

“Iron sharpens iron” - that’s in proverbs. The Creator wants us discussing these things. When the Creator was here in the flesh - he also loved discussing scripture. It’s good to talk scripture. But we must always come back to the Rock. We have to be careful that we're not adding or subtracting. Doesn’t mean we can’t give additional advice. Even Paul gave suggestions - but then he went back to the Word of YAH as the foundation Rock.

So you cannot say “a man needs his wife’s permission.” That’s adding to the Word of YAH. That's sin. A man does not require his wife's permission. Could you suggest it would be a good idea? Yes - you can say that.

Edit: Another location where the man’s wife is not in the picture:

Isaiah 4:1 NLT
4 In that day so few men will be left that seven women will fight for each man, saying, “Let us all marry you! We will provide our own food and clothing. Only let us take your name so we won’t be mocked as old maids.”

Notice how they mention food and clothing? It goes back to Exodus 21:10:

If he takes another wife, he must not reduce the food, clothing, or marital rights of his first wife.

 

[The Revolting Man]

With your approach, you cannot even truly guard the authority of the Torah. Much of Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers are historical narratives written by Moses, like Judges, Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles were written by later authors. Little was presumably written on stone tablets by the Finger of God.

It is helpful to understand your view of Scripture. You seem to regard the writings Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Peter, Paul, and John, plus the Psalms of David somewhat like I regard the writings of C.S. Lewis, John Bunyan, Augustine of Hippo, and Charles Spurgeon, plus the hymns of Charles Wesley, or the songs of Keith Getty.

They are spiritually helpful, but not God breathed as 2 Timothy 3:16 tells us the Scriptures are.

This.