• 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.

And now, for something a little ‘different’...

FollowingHim2 said:
This is the most important part of that entire post. Don't rush to do something feeling that you have an obligation if wife 3 is going to freak out and walk out the door over it.
Click to expand...
I have and have always had a very strong confirming conviction regarding this. Thank you.

I am stunned at the comprehensive nature of your response to my grappling with this, FollowingHim. And incredibly grateful.

This is not a site populated by people trying to justify a premise or bias, clearly.

There is more information regarding wife 1 that I need to correct (not her parents, and definitely not her dad, and if her mom was at all even aware it would have been because she thought I left her. Which I didn’t. And if it was my mother, as much as I hate to bring this in, but it definitely played a role, it may have been out of jealousy.) and some other missing facts that need to be filled in.

But I can’t respond to this quickly. I have to really take my time with it. This is incredibly, impossibly, important. And I have a zoom meeting at 3pac and need to prep.

I want to state plainly that I have a great deal of hope that this will not be something I’m called to. That somehow God will resolve it in a way that is glorifying to Him. As emotionally invested as I am, I’ve been in love with W1 for 40 years and she with me, both of us thinking the other left, if His will is something different for us than plural marriage, I want that. We all do. Both of these women love our Lord with all their hearts, and want his will no matter what, as do I. Both will go with me wherever I go, I know that. They both repeatedly affirm this. That only makes me HAVE to get this right more, and I can’t. God has got to do this.
 
Longview said:
That only makes me HAVE to get this right more, and I can’t. God has got to do this.
Click to expand...
I was with you completely until this statement, I don’t understand and don’t want to assume what you mean.

Why can’t you get this right and what do you expect Yah to do?
 
Longview said:
There is more information regarding wife 1 that I need to correct (not her parents, and definitely not her dad, and if her mom was at all even aware it would have been because she thought I left her. Which I didn’t. And if it was my mother, as much as I hate to bring this in, but it definitely played a role, it may have been out of jealousy.) and some other missing facts that need to be filled in.
Click to expand...
You don't need to tell us everything, retain sufficient privacy for the comfort of all concerned. Just give us sufficient detail for us to give the feedback you need. We're here to help you figure this out.
 
steve said:
I was with you completely until this statement, I don’t understand and don’t want to assume what you mean.

Why can’t you get this right and what do you expect Yah to do?
Click to expand...
That’s a question I’ll have to leave the Lord to reveal to you. Not something explaining will lend much clarity to.
 
Longview said:
That’s a question I’ll have to leave the Lord to reveal to you. Not something explaining will lend much clarity to.
Click to expand...
I can only assume that we are misunderstanding each other.
 
FollowingHim said:
So I believe that if two people divorce, they are usually sinning by divorcing (because there is only one legitimate reason for divorce permitted by Jesus). But if they divorce anyway, they are truly divorced. The divorced woman is free to remarry as per Deuteronomy 24:2. If the divorce was sinful they will answer for this sin on the day of Judgement (and be forgiven for it of course if they are a follower of Jesus). Which means that your Wife 2 is no longer your wife.
Click to expand...

This is the only portion of that I can't reconcile with scripture, namely Matthew 5:32: "But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery."

I won't belabor the point, I only leave it here for @Longview's consideration.

Longview said:
I am stunned at the comprehensive nature of your response to my grappling with this, FollowingHim. And incredibly grateful.
Click to expand...

We've been working though these issues for some time now, you'll find a lot of useful information in past forum threads. We don't all end up in the same place but we all seem to be searching out an understanding based on scripture instead of worldly culture and fallen traditions.

FollowingHim said:
In all three cases, if they have subsequently remarried, they are no longer your responsibility. That might simplify a lot for you.
Click to expand...

Our society has trudged along out of step with scripture for so long that many have made a mess of their lives that is hard to be undone. When grappling with how to fix this upon new Biblical understanding sometimes it's helpful to remember Paul's admonition in 1 Cor 7 to "let each one remain with God in that state in which he was called...Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be loosed. Are you loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife." Read the rest of the chapter for context. But don't take from that that I'm saying you shouldn't welcome #1 under your wing, "But even if you do marry, you have not sinned"; rather this has more to do with sticky situations with no good options.
 
rockfox said:
This is the only portion of that I can't reconcile with scripture, namely Matthew 5:32: "But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery."

I won't belabor the point, I only leave it here for @Longview's consideration.
Click to expand...
Thankyou for this @rockfox. I am responding also not to belabor the point, but to draw @Longview's attention to key information he may wish to consider when trying to reconcile this for himself.

There are two separate actions that can be referred to as "divorce":
  • Physically sending away a woman (stopping the physical relationship, separating into different houses etc).
  • Formally severing the marriage by giving a formal writing of divorcement (Deuteronomy 24:1).
These are unfortunately conflated in most English translations. In Matthew 5:32, the word used for both "divorces" and "divorced" is apolyō (G630), which means "send away", "set free", "dismiss". It refers to physically sending away a woman.

Matthew 5:31-32:
"It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away (apolyō) his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement (apostasion, G647):
But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away (apolyō) his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced (apolyō) committeth adultery."

There are basically two ways this verse is understood, and I'll paraphrase it in both ways:
  1. Moses said that you can send away your wife and formally divorce her. But I say that you should only do this for sexual immorality, and even if you do this, any man who marries her will be committing adultery.
  2. Moses said that if you send away your wife, also give her a formal writing of divorcement. And I reinforce this by saying firstly that you should only divorce for the cause of sexual immorality, and secondly that any man who marries a woman who has been only sent away, so does not have a writing of divorcement, commits adultery, because she has only been informally separated from her husband but is still married to him since the marriage has not been formally dissolved.
I'm in camp 2, and therefore don't see this as a contradiction. However, this is not the universal understanding and I would encourage you to pay attention to the perspectives of others also.

Note that the word translated "But" at the start of v32 can also be translated "And". So Jesus is not necessarily contradicting Deuteronomy 24, He may be simply adding clarifying commentary. @frederick, if I am wrong on this and this word must be translated "But" in this context, please correct me.
 
Last edited:
Someone observed that a gathering of armed people tends to be a gathering of respectful people. Same here, those armed with truth have a degree of confidence, and are not threatened by others. ;)

We live and let live.
 
Joleneakamama said:
Someone observed that a gathering of armed people tends to be a gathering of respectful people. Same here, those armed with truth have a degree of confidence, and are not threatened by others. ;)

We live and let live.
Click to expand...
Of course, I've always felt quite safe at retreats for the same reason. I tend to assume that a hypothetical poly-hating-terrorist wouldn't get very far around you lot... :)
 
FollowingHim said:
Of course, I've always felt quite safe at retreats for the same reason. I tend to assume that a hypothetical poly-hating-terrorist wouldn't get very far around you lot... :)
Click to expand...
Well, since the murder last year....and because the murderer has family just a few miles from us....these menfolk like to carry. Just in case there are hypothetical our-clan-hating-terrorists out there. Lol :p

I actually feel quite safe most everywhere outside of hospitals. Lol. And I felt protected when we had to go there too. :)
 
FollowingHim said:
Note that the word translated "But" at the start of v32 can also be translated "And". So Jesus is not necessarily contradicting Deuteronomy 24, He may be simply adding clarifying commentary. @frederick, if I am wrong on this and this word must be translated "But" in this context, please correct me.
Click to expand...
'But' is translated from δέ, which is a conjunctive particle. It marks the superaddition of a clause, whether in opposition or in continuation, to what has preceeded, and it may be variously rendered, but, and, also, now, on the one hand, etc. I trust this helps. Shalom
 
frederick said:
'But' is translated from δέ, which is a conjunctive particle. It marks the superaddition of a clause, whether in opposition or in continuation, to what has preceeded, and it may be variously rendered, but, and, also, now, on the one hand, etc. I trust this helps. Shalom
Click to expand...
Thankyou. I'm always nervous about making broad statements of "this word can mean X or Y" when I'm going by a concordance, since often the concordance is referring to the root word only and there are actually slight variations in the word in a specific verse which mean that only one of the range of potential meanings is permissible.
 
FollowingHim said:
often the concordance is referring to the root word only and there are actually slight variations in the word in a specific verse which mean that only one of the range of potential meanings is permissible.
Click to expand...
Yes indeed. Even a simple failure to correctly parse a verb and/or seeing only the various possible meanings of a word can lead to serious errors in interpretation of a passage of Holy Scripture.
 
Welcome. Thank you for your transparency and expressions of respect toward us.
 
FollowingHim said:
I think you'd find the various discussions we have had here on what constitutes marriage quite interesting. There are two schools of thought that never fully see eye-to-eye. Check out this discussion:
https://biblicalfamilies.org/forum/threads/0-when-does-marriage-begin-structured-discussion.13233/

Basically, the two views on this are:
  • Sex = marriage. If you have sex, and she is available, you're married (if she wasn't available it's adultery).
  • Sex + Covenant = marriage. If you have sex, you are obliged to take her as your wife (including getting her father's permission). If you fail to take her as your wife you are sinning - but she's still not your wife.
I'm firmly in the second camp for a range of reasons.

Consider your current wife, who was not a virgin when you married. If sex = marriage, then she truly became the wife of the first man she slept with. If divorce does not exist, then she still is the wife of that man, and you are living in adultery. So she cannot be your wife. But that is not correct. You know that cannot be correct - you refer to her as your wife. And we know it is not correct - many of the men here have married non-virgin women. Most women today are not virgins - we live in a screwed-up society.

We must not hold to a legalistic view of this that is so strict it doesn't actually make sense in our own life, and then think that our own life is the one exception to the rule but the rule applies to everyone else. If we say "sex = marriage, so any other woman having sex with a man is bound to her - yet my specific wife isn't bound to her old fling and is free to be mine" we say that the law really doesn't work, isn't important, and can be ignored. Or, we say we're somehow above the law that everyone else must comply with.

Far better to find an understanding of the law that doesn't mean we end up just ignoring it.

And this I find in the understanding that sex does not automatically constitute marriage, but rather creates an obligation to marry. With marriage being a covenant, an agreement, a state of being. Most simply, marriage is the state of (for want of a better word) "owning" a woman - being able to honestly say "this is my woman".

Exodus 22:16-17:
"And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.
If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins."

The verse does not say "she is now his wife". Rather, it commands the man to make her his wife. And her father has the option of refusing to give her to him - once again this shows she is not yet his wife.

A virgin daughter is her father's property / responsibility. She cannot be lawfully taken from him against his will, by just sleeping with her - that would be theft. Even if she is slept with, she is still his, not yours. He must agree to give her to you, if he doesn't give her to you she's not your woman.

However, theft happens. I don't think any of us would argue that a woman who was taken against her father's will and has been married to you for many years is not your wife - she is your wife. Because if you steal something it ultimately, to all practical purposes, becomes yours (if it hadn't become yours, it wouldn't be stolen!). If you steal somebody's hamburger and start eating it, they're hardly going to ask for it back - it's now your hamburger. Nevertheless, it was sinful to take it in the first place, and you still owe the person you took it from compensation for stealing it.

So if you sleep with a woman when she's in her father's house, you have an obligation to marry her. But if her father does not allow this, and takes her away from you, she is not your wife. He disallowed it, and he has full authority to disallow it. On the other hand, if you eloped with her anyway and you both settled down together, she is your wife - you sinned in stealing his daughter, you owe him an apology and maybe even financial compensation, but she is now your wife.

Based on this, I would say that the woman you are calling "wife 1" is not necessarily your wife, because you never took her as a wife, you never formed a committed relationship with her and this was by the sound of it specifically disallowed by her parents. However, if she has not subsequently married anyone else and her father's objection is no longer relevant, you do have an obligation to offer her a position as wife. I'd be simply taking the position that your door is open to her if she wants to join your family.

Also, divorce happens. The Bible does give provision for divorce under certain limited circumstances (e.g. Deuteronomy 24:1-4) - which means that divorce is real. Heavily restricted for certain, but it does exist.

If marriage is a covenant / agreement, then divorce makes sense. Divorce is the dissolution of the covenant of marriage. If is something we should not do, because what God has put together we should not separate (Matthew 19:6). However, if we do divorce, the divorce is real. It may have been sinful to divorce, but that doesn't mean the divorce didn't occur.

It was sinful to steal your friend's hamburger and eat it - but the fact it is a sin does not mean that the theft never occurred. It means it did occur - and it was sinful.

So I believe that if two people divorce, they are usually sinning by divorcing (because there is only one legitimate reason for divorce permitted by Jesus). But if they divorce anyway, they are truly divorced. The divorced woman is free to remarry as per Deuteronomy 24:2. If the divorce was sinful they will answer for this sin on the day of Judgement (and be forgiven for it of course if they are a follower of Jesus). Which means that your Wife 2 is no longer your wife.

I hope those musings help as you try and mentally organise all the complex threads of your own past!

Our primary obligation is to live correctly from this day forward. The past may be a mess which we cannot fully comprehend - but what matters is today.

Wife 3 is your first responsibility. If you managed to get Wife 1 but lost Wife 3 in the process, you would have achieved nothing. Keep Wife 3.

Then, you can consider obligations to past women:
  • Wife 2 was divorced. You chose to divorce her, so she is truly divorced (rightly or wrongly). If she has subsequently remarried, she is not your responsibility and you actually cannot remarry her (Deuteronomy 24). If she has not remarried, taking her back is an option.
  • Wife 1 was never actually a wife as her father disallowed it. However, if she has not married anyone else, you by default have obligations to be open to have her as your wife.
  • Wife 2.5 was not your wife either as you never committed to her - but like Wife 1 you may have an obligation to take her as your wife if she has not subsequently married anyone else.
In all three cases, if they have subsequently remarried, they are no longer your responsibility. That might simplify a lot for you.

Please note that I state all this knowing others will disagree with this perspective, and that's ok, they can post other perspectives for you to consider if they like. This is what I believe.
Click to expand...
Man that was a fun thread! It has to be one of my top five favorites. It almost makes me miss a certain someone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top