-
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.
1st wife doesn't need to be legally married?
- Thread starter Steph
- Start date
When you say 'married' do you mean has to have a legal document from the government declaring the union?
Did Abraham and Sarah have a marriage license? How about when they added Hagar?
How many of David's wives had a marriage license?
Did Jacob have a marriage license for Rachel or Leah either one?
I know what you are asking, I just want to make sure that you understand that a marriage license doesn't make you any more married in God's sight than standing in a garage makes you a car.
Blessings,
Doc
Did Abraham and Sarah have a marriage license? How about when they added Hagar?
How many of David's wives had a marriage license?
Did Jacob have a marriage license for Rachel or Leah either one?
I know what you are asking, I just want to make sure that you understand that a marriage license doesn't make you any more married in God's sight than standing in a garage makes you a car.
Blessings,
Doc
In most of our families, the first wife has a legal marriage, because they were married before the thought of poly ever entered into the situation. No one needs to be "legally" married. The committment is between a man, a woman and God.
SweetLissa
SweetLissa
Hi Steph,
As Lissa said, practically speaking, what often happens is that the husband and first wife are legally married long before they come into an understanding of plural marriage, or even covenant marriage. Covenant marriage, is the idea, currently growing in Christian circles as gay marriage and easy divorce assert themselves, that our marriages are before God, and should not involve the state. ("Give unto Caesar what is Ceasar's", not everything that Caesar asks for. Marriage clearly belonging to God, not Caesar.)
So the first wife does not "need" to be legally married, any more than the second, and in fact there are some families on our forums that have gotten a legal divorce, (with no intention of a "real" divorce), just to get the state out of their marriages. (That raised some eyebrows among friends - when it was published in the local newspaper "divorce notices" section...)
And some have not done that, due to the financial and other reasons you are thinking of. In those cases the husband needs to make it clear that the state-license is in no way is symbolic of his actual covenants with his wives, and be sure that he does what is necessary to make each wife similarly provided for. (A will, multiple beneficiaries on life insurance policies, etc.)
Some others have even given a legal marriage to the 2nd wife only, for some practical reasons.
So it's really up to each family to work this out, being sure that no one is made to feel like a "2nd-class" wife.
Hope that helps, feel free to ask harder questions!
Welcome to Biblical Families, too.
As Lissa said, practically speaking, what often happens is that the husband and first wife are legally married long before they come into an understanding of plural marriage, or even covenant marriage. Covenant marriage, is the idea, currently growing in Christian circles as gay marriage and easy divorce assert themselves, that our marriages are before God, and should not involve the state. ("Give unto Caesar what is Ceasar's", not everything that Caesar asks for. Marriage clearly belonging to God, not Caesar.)
So the first wife does not "need" to be legally married, any more than the second, and in fact there are some families on our forums that have gotten a legal divorce, (with no intention of a "real" divorce), just to get the state out of their marriages. (That raised some eyebrows among friends - when it was published in the local newspaper "divorce notices" section...)
And some have not done that, due to the financial and other reasons you are thinking of. In those cases the husband needs to make it clear that the state-license is in no way is symbolic of his actual covenants with his wives, and be sure that he does what is necessary to make each wife similarly provided for. (A will, multiple beneficiaries on life insurance policies, etc.)
Some others have even given a legal marriage to the 2nd wife only, for some practical reasons.
So it's really up to each family to work this out, being sure that no one is made to feel like a "2nd-class" wife.
Hope that helps, feel free to ask harder questions!
Welcome to Biblical Families, too.
Though the author of the article below is not friendly to Polygyny, the content of the article I believe does a good job of laying some foundation for the "legal marriage" related comments above.
http://www.nogreaterjoy.org/articles/ge ... trimony-2/
I will also say that their resources on rearing children have also been a great blessing to our family. The book "To Train Up a Child", that they publish, is one of the books we buy by the case and "Created to be His HelpMeet" being another.
Curtis
http://www.nogreaterjoy.org/articles/ge ... trimony-2/
I will also say that their resources on rearing children have also been a great blessing to our family. The book "To Train Up a Child", that they publish, is one of the books we buy by the case and "Created to be His HelpMeet" being another.
Curtis
Re: 1st wife should NOT be 'legally' married
Others here have already posted appropriate responses which summarize my own opinion on this subject, Steph. This is probably a Good Thing, since I'm admittedly (having long rescinded any such license before Caesar with the first wife of my youth) a bit more hard-core on the issue. After all, "friendship ofthe world is enmity with God." (James 4:4)
But I believe that this is an important enough topic, particularly for those who have begun to see already that what the "world" and even "the church" teach about marriage has been contaminated by mixing the clean with the profane, to "utterly destroy" certain idols, once they have been exposed.
So I'd probably do a bit of re-phrasing of the question, in order to make the point even a bit more obvious, as per the subject line:
I would advise my son, among others, that he should join NO wife by "legal marriage", via a license before ANY earthly master. While most people know about reading the "fine print", and can see there are "strings attached", those lessons just don't go far enough.
After all, what is "legal marriage" in a nation which has decided to reject God and redefine what He Wrote, by doing things that are in utter and direct violation of His Word? (And here I include not only obvious -- Deut. 4:2 and 12:32 -- but the whole concept of "calling good, evil, and evil, good".)
Would you rather have a Covenant before Him, and Him alone, or before a Caesar who claims "legal authority" over his own to license that which God calls "abomination"?
I do not need a "civil union" or any other form of coupling permitted by any entity which falsely claims the authority* to redefine what He has already Written.
The implications for such slaves are clear, and more than a bit shocking, for those who read the warnings of Exodus 21, I conclude. Note that a man who ever departs from the house of that master may NOT take the wife, or the children of that licensed union with him, because "If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's..."
Can anyone who has watched what Child Protective Services and other organs of that same master have done to people who actually think their children belong to them not see a connection? Note, of course, that the 'master' obviously doesn't think he need permission (much less a warrant any more) to take what is already his. (But, that master DOES give great "insurance" and other material blessings, eh? I guess "ya pays yer money, and ya makes yer choices" still applies. :twisted: )
And remember this line, from long before the days when God was forced out of the "legal" process?
"Who gives this woman?" It was once her Father; now it can be Caesar instead.
(there is a thread by this name which has discussed the issue at length:
viewtopic.php?f=17&t=563 )
I realize that's all of that may seem a bit harsh, Steph. Those who have already entered into anything that might even remotely be perceived as a "deal with the devil" will need to examine their own situation prayerfully, and "seek His face".
I do not for one second attempt to teach that our Savior cannot redeem us from ANY failure, any deception, "spare us from the snare" of the Adversary, and protect us from evil in what is to come.
But, to whom much is given, "much is expected". It is SO important that we "choose this day Whom we will serve", and that, as our Savior demonstrated when He was tested by a very similar offer, that we serve YHVH only.
Blessings in Him,
Mark
---------------------------
* Note that this claim is protected by the First article in the "Bill of Rights", in the prohibition against any prohibition of the "free exercise" of obedience to God. Consider why that solemn promise, sworn by oath to those who claim to "serve" a government which once unanimously declared that it held such Rights from our Creator to be "self-evident", now no longer matters. I contend that the only possible explanation, in a nation of "Law, not of men", is that "My people are destroyed by lack of knowledge". They have chosen another master, who their fathers did not know. They traded those Rights from Him for privileges from a liar.
Others here have already posted appropriate responses which summarize my own opinion on this subject, Steph. This is probably a Good Thing, since I'm admittedly (having long rescinded any such license before Caesar with the first wife of my youth) a bit more hard-core on the issue. After all, "friendship ofthe world is enmity with God." (James 4:4)
But I believe that this is an important enough topic, particularly for those who have begun to see already that what the "world" and even "the church" teach about marriage has been contaminated by mixing the clean with the profane, to "utterly destroy" certain idols, once they have been exposed.
So I'd probably do a bit of re-phrasing of the question, in order to make the point even a bit more obvious, as per the subject line:
I would advise my son, among others, that he should join NO wife by "legal marriage", via a license before ANY earthly master. While most people know about reading the "fine print", and can see there are "strings attached", those lessons just don't go far enough.
After all, what is "legal marriage" in a nation which has decided to reject God and redefine what He Wrote, by doing things that are in utter and direct violation of His Word? (And here I include not only obvious -- Deut. 4:2 and 12:32 -- but the whole concept of "calling good, evil, and evil, good".)
Would you rather have a Covenant before Him, and Him alone, or before a Caesar who claims "legal authority" over his own to license that which God calls "abomination"?
I do not need a "civil union" or any other form of coupling permitted by any entity which falsely claims the authority* to redefine what He has already Written.
The implications for such slaves are clear, and more than a bit shocking, for those who read the warnings of Exodus 21, I conclude. Note that a man who ever departs from the house of that master may NOT take the wife, or the children of that licensed union with him, because "If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's..."
Can anyone who has watched what Child Protective Services and other organs of that same master have done to people who actually think their children belong to them not see a connection? Note, of course, that the 'master' obviously doesn't think he need permission (much less a warrant any more) to take what is already his. (But, that master DOES give great "insurance" and other material blessings, eh? I guess "ya pays yer money, and ya makes yer choices" still applies. :twisted: )
And remember this line, from long before the days when God was forced out of the "legal" process?
"Who gives this woman?" It was once her Father; now it can be Caesar instead.
(there is a thread by this name which has discussed the issue at length:
viewtopic.php?f=17&t=563 )
I realize that's all of that may seem a bit harsh, Steph. Those who have already entered into anything that might even remotely be perceived as a "deal with the devil" will need to examine their own situation prayerfully, and "seek His face".
I do not for one second attempt to teach that our Savior cannot redeem us from ANY failure, any deception, "spare us from the snare" of the Adversary, and protect us from evil in what is to come.
But, to whom much is given, "much is expected". It is SO important that we "choose this day Whom we will serve", and that, as our Savior demonstrated when He was tested by a very similar offer, that we serve YHVH only.
Blessings in Him,
Mark
---------------------------
* Note that this claim is protected by the First article in the "Bill of Rights", in the prohibition against any prohibition of the "free exercise" of obedience to God. Consider why that solemn promise, sworn by oath to those who claim to "serve" a government which once unanimously declared that it held such Rights from our Creator to be "self-evident", now no longer matters. I contend that the only possible explanation, in a nation of "Law, not of men", is that "My people are destroyed by lack of knowledge". They have chosen another master, who their fathers did not know. They traded those Rights from Him for privileges from a liar.
hey there, I am new to this form, I have studied what it is to be husband and wife scripturally and non, I have been studying it for quite a few years. I just got my first wife one year ago(I am 26). I performed and set up the whole wedding my self(even though a wedding its self is not needed, Your word is your word after all). We did not have a paper from the state, It was between Me, The Almighty and my bride(I wont go into legal terms here).
I knew ahead of time the problems that would come if people new about not having a government contract, so I kept it hush hush tell the day. There were many people that went up in arms about it after the fact. Had a few people tell me if they knew that I would not have had a peace of paper then they would not have attended. That list of people included Family, friends, my work at the time, Brad Scott, Walid Shoebat, Michael Rood, Glinn McWilliams and a fist full of other Christians, Messianic and Mormons, Jim Phillips(a Great man I suggest all to google) was among the only men there that excepted a husband and wife according to scriptures(non paperwork)
If you want, You can always give your spouse legal power of attorney and that will get them(you) more man made rights then a marriage license.
FYI, the word Marriage or Married is never used in the Greek or Hebrew and therefor is a non scriptural Term. It is also illegal to say you are Married if you do not have the man made government contract called a marriage license. According to the Bible, when you take a wife, you are not married, you are Husband and Wife. Any way, there is to much legal and scriptural banter to go over in this post regarding this topic.
I knew ahead of time the problems that would come if people new about not having a government contract, so I kept it hush hush tell the day. There were many people that went up in arms about it after the fact. Had a few people tell me if they knew that I would not have had a peace of paper then they would not have attended. That list of people included Family, friends, my work at the time, Brad Scott, Walid Shoebat, Michael Rood, Glinn McWilliams and a fist full of other Christians, Messianic and Mormons, Jim Phillips(a Great man I suggest all to google) was among the only men there that excepted a husband and wife according to scriptures(non paperwork)
If you want, You can always give your spouse legal power of attorney and that will get them(you) more man made rights then a marriage license.
FYI, the word Marriage or Married is never used in the Greek or Hebrew and therefor is a non scriptural Term. It is also illegal to say you are Married if you do not have the man made government contract called a marriage license. According to the Bible, when you take a wife, you are not married, you are Husband and Wife. Any way, there is to much legal and scriptural banter to go over in this post regarding this topic.
I find the word many times using the search function in E-sword. Some of the words are uncertain but others seem quite clear in the New Testament. And in our favorite scripture, Exodus 21:10 it uses the word Marriage.
SweetLissa
SweetLissa
Though I'm not in front of my Greek or Hebrew text I do know there is indeed a Greek word for marry in the Bible. I recall having to repeat it over and over while in Greek classes to memorize my vocabulary. If I recall correctly it is GAMEO. If you can read Greek or look it up in a Concordance you can see this term throughout much of the NT.
And technically the term "husband and wife" does mean the two are joined or GAMEO'ed to coin a term there. But the term husband and wife is an English made set of words. The literal Hebrew and Greek is simply my woman and my man to show ownership of each other. In other words the terms are in the possessive case grammatically. Also if I recall my Hebrew correctly there is the term "laqach" that means to marry or to be joined.
Scarecrow
Member
G1060
γαμέω
gameō
gam-eh'-o
From G1062; to wed (of either sex): - marry (a wife).
H3947
לקח
lâqach
law-kakh'
A primitive root; to take (in the widest variety of applications): - accept, bring, buy, carry away, drawn, fetch, get, infold, X many, mingle, place, receive (-ing), reserve, seize, send for, take (away, -ing, up), use, win.
γαμέω
gameō
gam-eh'-o
From G1062; to wed (of either sex): - marry (a wife).
H3947
לקח
lâqach
law-kakh'
A primitive root; to take (in the widest variety of applications): - accept, bring, buy, carry away, drawn, fetch, get, infold, X many, mingle, place, receive (-ing), reserve, seize, send for, take (away, -ing, up), use, win.
My Memory is not as long as yours, Even though it has only been 9 years sense My Greek and Latin class, I still have to look things up
I can get more detailed information if you would like? It would just take me looking things up and may take a few days for me to get back with it.
The word marriage is found in most English bibles, but not in the Hebrew text or Greek text. Let us look and see what the passages say in Hebrew and Greek.
Genesis 29:21-23 22 And Laban gathered together all the men of the place, and made a feast. 23 And it came to pass in the evening, that he took Leah his daughter, and brought her to him;
This is one teaching that is overlooked, we see that Jacob made a non scriptural contract with a man, this non scriptural bond caused many problems in Jacobs life. Many commentators have tried to justify why Jacob took this bond. Lets look at facts, Jacob had nothing, no home, no job. It would have been wise to trust in YHWH and keep the Job(money) separate from the commands of YHWH(marriage).
John 2:1-9 And the third day there was a feast in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Yahushua was there9 When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, he called the new husband/bridegroom“”
Even Yahushua acknowledges the festive feast of a man and women becoming husband and wife. I fined it interesting that the Greek word for wedding is festive. This word is used in more ways then just a wedding, it’s a joyous time, a feast of some sort is in order. One more interesting fact, the Greek word for bridegroom is, a man trained to have a wife. The English word bridegroom dose not hold the same meaning, it means a man or boy that takes care of horses…?
It is true that Yahushua followed the Law of YHWH and not even one time did he brake a law of the land or a law of YHWH. It is also true that all the Hebrew people at this time period had full religious freedom.
I can get more detailed information if you would like? It would just take me looking things up and may take a few days for me to get back with it.
The word marriage is found in most English bibles, but not in the Hebrew text or Greek text. Let us look and see what the passages say in Hebrew and Greek.
Genesis 29:21-23 22 And Laban gathered together all the men of the place, and made a feast. 23 And it came to pass in the evening, that he took Leah his daughter, and brought her to him;
This is one teaching that is overlooked, we see that Jacob made a non scriptural contract with a man, this non scriptural bond caused many problems in Jacobs life. Many commentators have tried to justify why Jacob took this bond. Lets look at facts, Jacob had nothing, no home, no job. It would have been wise to trust in YHWH and keep the Job(money) separate from the commands of YHWH(marriage).
John 2:1-9 And the third day there was a feast in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Yahushua was there9 When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, he called the new husband/bridegroom“”
Even Yahushua acknowledges the festive feast of a man and women becoming husband and wife. I fined it interesting that the Greek word for wedding is festive. This word is used in more ways then just a wedding, it’s a joyous time, a feast of some sort is in order. One more interesting fact, the Greek word for bridegroom is, a man trained to have a wife. The English word bridegroom dose not hold the same meaning, it means a man or boy that takes care of horses…?
It is true that Yahushua followed the Law of YHWH and not even one time did he brake a law of the land or a law of YHWH. It is also true that all the Hebrew people at this time period had full religious freedom.
Forgive me if I am missing something but do you affirm all 66 books of the Bible to be the Word of God? Because if you do then there is no way to miss the fact that in both Hebrew and Greek the inspired prophets and apostles used the term "to join, to bond or to marry" which is from the Greek word Gameo and Laqach of the Hebrew.
Do you recognize or believe in the same books that we do here? Just curious because it seems like we are not even reading the same set of words.
Dr. Allen
Do you recognize or believe in the same books that we do here? Just curious because it seems like we are not even reading the same set of words.
Dr. Allen
Maybe I should post this question somewhere else.
If you do not want to get a marriage certificate, because that could be an obstacle to polygyny then does that mean you should not marry women who are not citizens of your country.
If I marry a woman who is not a U.S. citizen (there is not yet such a specific woman who I have personally met as of when I posted this), how do I keep her from being sent back to her country when she did not marry me on paper but only spiritually and physically?
Does that mean that if I am a U.S. citizen I should only consider marrying other U.S. citizens and avoid marrying, (or even discussing marriage with) women without U.S. citizenship if I plan to have multiple wives?
If you do not want to get a marriage certificate, because that could be an obstacle to polygyny then does that mean you should not marry women who are not citizens of your country.
If I marry a woman who is not a U.S. citizen (there is not yet such a specific woman who I have personally met as of when I posted this), how do I keep her from being sent back to her country when she did not marry me on paper but only spiritually and physically?
Does that mean that if I am a U.S. citizen I should only consider marrying other U.S. citizens and avoid marrying, (or even discussing marriage with) women without U.S. citizenship if I plan to have multiple wives?
DTT,
Right now it does indeed mean that a person could ONLY marry a foreign woman with a marriage license. This is a part of the break down in regard to the laws of the land and the international law codes.
Outside of the nation (internationally) if a person wants to become a citizen they would have to obtain a license here by this country in a marriage (the marriage license) or they would have to go through the legal citizenship process to become a legal resident/citizen.
Right now it does indeed mean that a person could ONLY marry a foreign woman with a marriage license. This is a part of the break down in regard to the laws of the land and the international law codes.
Outside of the nation (internationally) if a person wants to become a citizen they would have to obtain a license here by this country in a marriage (the marriage license) or they would have to go through the legal citizenship process to become a legal resident/citizen.
Dr. K.R. Allen said:
How risky is it to marry a woman and have children with her before she completed her citizenship and have her work on her citizenship while living with you?
142rum8s
New Member
Scarecrow said:
It is my understanding, and it should be clear from the above (by Scarecrow) that the term "marriage" refers to the bilical acquisition of a woman/women for a mate(s) by a man; (i.e. finding/acquiring a mate). The "Law" in the term "Lawful" refers to God's law and not necessarily the law of the land.
I suggest that any other basis for marriage such as "legal marriage certificates, ceremonies etc is to miss the point of what marriage is really about!
Biblically speaking, a certificate only applies in the case of a man deciding to divorce a wife (and not at the point of acquisition of a wife); and that is even frowned upon by El Shaddai. In the bible, we will find mention of a "certificate of divorce", but no mention of a "certificate of marriage".
I welcome comments!
I don't know if this part got moved or not but I'll drop it here and yawl can move it if it has...
Regarding marriage to a non-citizen...
I do wonder how this would work if the man had an existing citzen wife. Even with a divorce (legal) and then marrying the non-citzen, there are issues. Thanks to our Department of Homeland (in)Security, things are very tough here now. It takes a very, very long time to gain citzenship and the paperwork and financial aspects are enourmous. Additionally, having watched my (non-polygamous) sister-in-law marry a British citizen, I realized quickly it would be hard. In order to get status even temporarily based on a marriage, they want pictures, history, and can and will do home visits to make sure the marriage is "legit". How would one explain the presence of another woman and children in the home during those visits? It could quickly be labeled fraud and seen as suspect that you only married her so she could stay in the country. No matter how honorable your intentions are, it is risky with the government sticking its nose in.
The only other workable solution is a student visa but that would require the foreign wife to continuously attend school while working to obtain citzenship.
Maybe this would be less of an issue if you had 2 households, but financially that could get nasty fast with the cost of 2 homes and the expense of lawyers, immigration fees, fingerprinting, etc. My brother-in-law was required to have a physical at one of their approved doctors (who wasn't on the insurance of course) and be finger printed EVERY YEAR. It got to be so much they gave up and moved to England, where they now are and trying to sell the house here in the states. Other countries seem to be less of a problem, so if you want to marry a lady from another country, perhaps consider what it would take to move there instead? It seems easier to get permissions to live in another country than in the US.
Just mulling it over with what I've seen within our own extended family and the challenges they face. My SIL had dated the guy for a few years but when they got married and he elected to reside here, they suddenly needed to produce photo albums validating their entire relationship and undergo home visits and separate interrogations, uhh, interviews, regarding their relationship to make sure the details matched, etc. It was insane.
~Becca
Regarding marriage to a non-citizen...
I do wonder how this would work if the man had an existing citzen wife. Even with a divorce (legal) and then marrying the non-citzen, there are issues. Thanks to our Department of Homeland (in)Security, things are very tough here now. It takes a very, very long time to gain citzenship and the paperwork and financial aspects are enourmous. Additionally, having watched my (non-polygamous) sister-in-law marry a British citizen, I realized quickly it would be hard. In order to get status even temporarily based on a marriage, they want pictures, history, and can and will do home visits to make sure the marriage is "legit". How would one explain the presence of another woman and children in the home during those visits? It could quickly be labeled fraud and seen as suspect that you only married her so she could stay in the country. No matter how honorable your intentions are, it is risky with the government sticking its nose in.
The only other workable solution is a student visa but that would require the foreign wife to continuously attend school while working to obtain citzenship.
Maybe this would be less of an issue if you had 2 households, but financially that could get nasty fast with the cost of 2 homes and the expense of lawyers, immigration fees, fingerprinting, etc. My brother-in-law was required to have a physical at one of their approved doctors (who wasn't on the insurance of course) and be finger printed EVERY YEAR. It got to be so much they gave up and moved to England, where they now are and trying to sell the house here in the states. Other countries seem to be less of a problem, so if you want to marry a lady from another country, perhaps consider what it would take to move there instead? It seems easier to get permissions to live in another country than in the US.
Just mulling it over with what I've seen within our own extended family and the challenges they face. My SIL had dated the guy for a few years but when they got married and he elected to reside here, they suddenly needed to produce photo albums validating their entire relationship and undergo home visits and separate interrogations, uhh, interviews, regarding their relationship to make sure the details matched, etc. It was insane.
~Becca
Thailand I heard charges thousands of dollars per day, of illegal visit.
I heard rumors someone tried to marry someone there and they had to pay a lot of money like tends of thousands of dollars because they stayed over there too long.
I heard rumors someone tried to marry someone there and they had to pay a lot of money like tends of thousands of dollars because they stayed over there too long.
libertarianwhacko
New Member
What an exciting, gutsy discussion! Keep up the good work, folks!