• 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.

Man taking another wife to fix a problem

Lila

Lila

Member
Female
This is a continuation of another thread (http://www.biblicalfamilies.org/forum/threads/tidying-up-the-faqs.12975/) as it was off topic there I am copying it over here.

Eristhophanes, I must say that your responses get too long and you did lose me several times whilst reading your comment to my question. So just a thought - you may want to keep it more concise in order to keep on board people like me.

Having said that I'm not sure what point exactly did you try to cover because obviously if you are trying to reconcile how things have been back then and how they are now there is no way to conclude anything without contradictions.
I do not see how it was a common practice in Biblical times to add another wife to an existing marriage to fix a problem (and thinking about it from today's point of view, I would think no wise man would do that). I do not know why reference Chinee pictogram to back up adding another wife under same roof will apparently lead to quarrels.

What I really wanted to get back to, however, is this:
Eristhophanes said:
...Observe all the unintentionally polygynous families in which a Christian wife left (divorced) her Christian husband and he later married another woman. According to 1st Peter 3:1 and 1st Cor. 7:10-11, wife #1 is still married to him and he now has 2 wives. If wife #1 ever repents of what she did and wants to come home, her husband has no choice but to reconcile to her (Ephesians 5- "love her like Christ would, He never turns away a repentant sinner" and 1st Peter 3 "live with your wives").
Click to expand...

Even though it's used in today's terms like that, Biblically the wife cannot divorce her husband, it's just the husband that can divorce his wife. I would consider the following understanding of 1 Cor 7:11:
if the wife separates from her husband, remains single, changes her mind and wants to reconcile with the husband, she is free to do that. I would not take for granted what the husband would be willing to do at that point. He may as well want to write her a bill of divorce.

I believe that as per the Scripture if a man divorces her wife, he cannot re-marry her later on.

Eristhophanes said:
....(Yes, Moses permitted divorce, and then Christ forbid it to Christians but this isn't the place for a discussion of divorce.)
Click to expand...
What makes you say that as I don't see how this could possibly be true?
 
There seem to be a lot of moving parts in this post. Am I right in assuming that your question concerns divorce and remarriage between a Christian man and woman who are both eligible to remarry?

The last line of your post asks Eristophanes how Moses could have permitted divorce and Christ forbidden it.

Deuteronomy 24:1 seems to me to be written for the protection of a righteous woman who has been divorced for reasons other than adultery. It does not appear to be statement on the husband's righteousness in the action. Of course if scripture allows something then we must accept it. Divorce is legal. Remarriage is legal. Other scriptures will inform some of the particulars and define exceptions and forms, but it is allowed in the Law, capital L.

So did Christ then forbid divorce? No. He would never contradict the Law. But He made it very clear that only a hard hearted man would avail himself of the option. It is very easy to find a lot of scripture about what God thinks about hard hearts.

The obvious conclusion becomes that a man who divorces his wife for reasons other than adultery is on very shaky spiritual ground and demonstrating a faith that is weak and in danger of collapse. This reflects the New Testament reality that we must live in Spirit and in Truth. We must add love to Law keeping and that while you can't keep the Law without doing so lovingly, we can't love without the Law either. The Law shows us what actions are loving and unloving, but we have to intend to love when we obey these loving Laws. We have to do the right things for the right reasons.

So divorce for reasons other than adultery is one of those things (like stoning adulteresses) that has been put out of practical application for any man who takes his faith seriously. It's not forbidden but it becomes almost impossible for a Christian to fulfill both the spirit and the letter of the Law in this case and so a wise man would avoid the situation altogether.

For me this gets in to a whole other area now that I don't think probably needs to be gone into here but I think the take away is simple. Can you divorce your wife for reasons other than adultery and not be sinning? Yes, technically. But the cases would be few and far between, very extreme and probably better remedied through other measures.
 
Last edited:
Lila, do forgive me for being longwinded, I'm an acquired taste.

From Genesis 2:24, the marriage standard is the man gives permanent but not exclusive commitment. Which means no divorce, marriage is permanent, forever, period. end of discussion. Moses screwed that up. Matthew 19 has a fascinating dialogue and if one understands the standard of Genesis 2:24, the words "but from the beginning it has not been this way" help one to understand the impact of 1st Corinthians 7:10-11. For married Christians, there is no divorce.

When we look at the issue of divorce, we are looking at a class issue. The Law applies to everyone and Christ could not change the Law. But, those whom He has redeemed are in a different class. What He did with 1st Corinthians 7:10-11 was re-institute the standard of Genesis 2:24 as "house rules" for those in service to Him. By definition, a Christian is one who is redeemed by Christ, He is their master, they are His servant. He has the authority to regulate their lives and if He cares to place additional restrictions on them He has that right. Think of the New Testament as "house rules" for servants. The Apostle Paul essentially restated the Law of the Bondservant in 1st Corinthians 7:12-15.

The problem began around the time Rome fell and the church was the last man standing, so to speak, with a desire to rule the world. Their problem, as Stalin so succinctly put it, was "how many divisions does the Pope command?" They did battle with the nobility through control of marriage, which was how legitimate heirs are produced. This is how and why things are the way they are. People are taught that sex does not make one married but Scripture clearly says that a virgin is married to the man who takes her virginity and her consent is not necessary. The idea that men and women are equal is the moral foundation of feminism and the church began it.

According to Numbers 30:5, a father has the right to annul his daughters marriage that he didn't approve of and that is a blessing, but it points to the fact that he has the authority to marry her off without her consent. With seven words he can set her free and they don't want to confess. When they do, it's amazing. Occasionally I have my success stories. Last week I arranged for a woman to wash her father's feet. They hadn't spoken in years. The icing on the cake is that she obeyed me and kissed her father's feet and dried them with her hair. He wept.
 
ZecAustin said:
..Am I right in assuming that your question concerns divorce and remarriage between a Christian man and woman who are both eligible to remarry?
Click to expand...

Not quite. Reading into that long comment from Eristophanes one could conclude that a man is obliged (by the Scriptures) to take back the same woman which he previously divorced. My point was specifically to that scenario as I retrieve the right opposite: "...her first husband who divorced her is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. " (Deu 24:4)

ZecAustin said:
The obvious conclusion becomes that a man who divorces his wife for reasons other than adultery is on very shaky spiritual ground and demonstrating a faith that is weak and in danger of collapse.
Click to expand...

If we are already talking about this, I was wondering the other day, even though the above is obviously agreeable what if the wife is a mental burden to the husband, say she doesn't submit and is selfish and rebellious (she doesn't happen to sleep with some other man though), would that also not account to a good enough reason to consider divorce to preserve his own sanity? Just asking..


ZecAustin said:
..This reflects the New Testament reality that we must live in Spirit and in Truth. We must add love to Law keeping and that while you can't keep the Law without doing so lovingly, we can't love without the Law either. The Law shows us what actions are loving and unloving, but we have to intend to love when we obey these loving Laws..
Click to expand...

I totally agree, after all the new covenant is about our relationship to God's law which is the bit that changed. God wants us to have desire for His ways which He Himself faciliates:

I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people. (Jer 31:33)
 
Eristhophanes said:
.. the marriage standard is the man gives permanent but not exclusive commitment. Which means no divorce, marriage is permanent, forever, period. end of discussion...
Click to expand...

See, as much as I have no issue with the man giving permanent but not exclusive commitment, we live on a sinful earth where problems arise so as I'm sure one can retrieve diverse thoughts from what's written, I was only concerned about the overall statement coming across from your comments as not everyone may query what you really meant and so read something which would not bring forth the good fruit.
I want to think there are basic requirements for a marriage such as for the wife to submit and reverence her husband and the man to love his wife as Christ loves His bride.

Eristhophanes said:
..For married Christians, there is no divorce.
Click to expand...

I wished it was that simple. :)

Eristhophanes said:
..By definition, a Christian is one who is redeemed by Christ, He is their master, they are His servant. He has the authority to regulate their lives and if He cares to place additional restrictions on them He has that right. .
Click to expand...

I would say there is more to it than just getting the label of being a Christian by accepting the redemption. We have to love God back. If all we focus on is His love to us without actually loving Him back, that's one sided.


Eristhophanes said:
..People are taught that sex does not make one married but Scripture clearly says that a virgin is married to the man who takes her virginity and her consent is not necessary. The idea that men and women are equal is the moral foundation of feminism and the church began it.
Click to expand...

Agreed. That's wrong for obvious reasons and the least one can do is to obey what we can obey along to the understanding of the Scriptures of every individual.
 
In what way were they not married? You previously said above that sex makes you married - now you are saying these women were not married. I'm struggling to see the consistent line of thought here.
 
Having said that, you are taking an extremely conservative view of divorce - that it is essentially never valid. This is not the way most of us would interpret these passages. As far as I can see, divorce exists - but should not be used in most circumstances. Nevertheless, the fact that divorce "should" not occur, does not mean that it "did" not occur. And people do get divorced. So this means that a woman with her second man can certainly be genuinely married to him - provided the original marriage was ended correctly.

For a divorce to be valid, the husband must decide that it is valid, as per Deuteronomy 24. So yes, if a woman runs off and claims she's "divorced" her husband, even has some papers to prove it, but his signature appears nowhere on those papers - then I agree that she isn't divorced. However, if he agreed to divorce her, she's divorced as per Deuteronomy 24. He may have been wrong to divorce her, he may have sinned in doing so, in which case he will bear the guilt of that sin and must seek forgiveness for it. But that doesn't necessarily invalidate it.

Just because I "should" not burn down my neighbour's garage, doesn't mean that I "did" not do it - there'd be a big pile of ashes to show that I actually did. The fact it is sin to do something doesn't mean that the thing does not occur. In the same way, just because a man "should" not throw away his marriage, does not mean that he "did" not do it.
 
FollowingHim said:
that it is essentially never valid.
Click to expand...

Words mean things, and as an example, the righteous are saved by faith.

Samuel, first, I don't think you're looking at the change in status that occurs when one becomes saved. Under the Law a person is held accountable according to the Law. In Christ, the individual is literally now a slave of Christ, justified by the righteousness of Christ. A bondservant who was under a sentence of death, redeemed from that condition. That doesn't mean the Law no longer applies because it is and always be the absolute standard. However, there are certain restrictions on Christians that do not apply to those under the Law. Under the Law, a man is free to use the services of a prostitute. A Christian is not. Under the Law, a man is free to divorce his wife for her porneia but under Christ he is not. Probably the most interesting part is that under the Law no woman could terminate a marriage for any reason. The instruction of Paul to "the rest" in 1st Corinthians 7:12-15 introduces the idea that a woman can be free from her non-Christian husband if he leaves her, for whatever reason.

To someone who does not get the change in the status, this is confusing. For the Law cannot be added to or subtracted from, but the Master is free to order His house as He wishes. Which is as it should be, He bought the right to do so, paying with His blood. And if He tells two of His bondservants who are married to each other that they are not to divorce... Who is Moses? His servant. Who are we to say anything but "Yes Master."

This pulls in 1st John 2 and the litmus test for a Christian. If the husband refuses to obey the Master and abandons his wife, is he really a Christian? If the answer is no, that means she is free and no longer bound. And I don't use the term "litmus test" lightly in this, because men and women are not the same. If a Christian wife leaves her husband she is to remain chaste or be reconciled to him and the text assumes there might be some reason she must. For the husband, no.

And just so we're all on the same page, when I use the word divorce I'm talking about terminating a marriage in the physical sense. But, the thing is, they have to have been married in order to get divorced.

For a divorce to be valid there must be the authority to divorce. Under the Law, the husband has grounds to divorce his wife for porneia. As a servant of Christ, he does not have that authority, the Master has forbidden it. While he can go before the courts of the world and do such a thing, he has no authority and what Matthew 19:9 and 5:32 make clear is that God will not accept an illegitimate divorce.

Reality says that at least 80% (and really more like 95%) of the so-called married women in the church are not actually married to the man they think they are. Because when an eligible man takes a woman's virginity, they are married. "Sex doesn't make you married, there has to be a ceremony" was Satan's master-stroke.
 
Eristhophanes said:
Under the Law, a man is free to divorce his wife for her porneia but under Christ he is not. ...
Under the Law, the husband has grounds to divorce his wife for porneia. As a servant of Christ, he does not have that authority, the Master has forbidden it.
Click to expand...
Matthew 5:32 said:
But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
Click to expand...
Matthew 19:9 said:
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
Click to expand...
In what way did Christ forbid divorce for porneia? Both of these passages appear extremely clear that he allows it for that - in fact, it is the only reason he allows it for (putting aside Paul's teachings for a minute as I just clarify this with you).
 
I rarely weigh in on these discussions, primarily because they are often between people who barely acknowledge anything past the Torah, much less the New Testament, and I don't like to argue, but frankly I don't see how you can be so knowledgeable about the scriptures yet believe you live under Law+, not just the law? We are repeatedly told in the NT how we have been released from the law (like in Romans 7), how our freedom is a measure of our faith (Romans 14), how we can move forward without worrying about the minutia of the law (1 Corinthians 10), how preaching adherence to the law being required is actually against the sacrifice of Christ (Galatians 5), how the covenant of Jesus is superior to the old covenant, not an "expansion pack" (Hebrews 8), and perhaps most telling, how people in the early church were called out for putting the yoke of the law on gentiles (that's most of us) when it was not required (Acts 15).

I think it is good to be familiar with the law, but being all wrapped up in being bound by it is un-Christlike. Our master did not hesitate to break tradition in order to love people. Whether he broke the law is up for debate. Are we not told Abraham was righteous by faith, not by law? (Romans 4)

Debating the minutia of the law is an interesting past time, and one that can lead to new insights, but I become concerned, even leery, when it takes on a judgmental air that is counter to the grace and sacrifice of Jesus. Then we begin to sound like the modern Pharisees who decry polygyny because they don't like it, or the Pharisees in the time of Jesus who could not see the grace of God through Jesus because of their own self importance and interpretations.
 
This is exactly what I meant when I said this leads to places that probably aren't best discussed here.

This is a complex topic and one that can be very destructive. I tend to fall into the Law camp. Most of the references I see to the Law being abolished or undone are talking law other than God's Law but Romans 14:1 and following make it clear we're not to argue about it.

The challenge for us in this forum is that so much of sex and marriage is only defined in the Law so we have to deal with it.

But again, probably not the place for an in depth talk about the place of the Law in the life of the Christian.
 
Personally I mainly aim for consistency. Either Yeshua did away with the law, or He didn't. I can understand the logic behind each position (although I obviously trend towards one of them myself). Either way, the rules are clear and consistent. Either the rules around marriage and divorce still apply, or they don't.

What really frustrates me is inconsistency and cherry-picking. Saying in some places the law is done away with, while in others saying it still applies, and in still others that we are now bound by new laws that are even stricter than in Torah. This is what most Christians do when it comes to polygamy (most will say "we can eat pork now because the law is done away with, but homosexuality is sinful because the law forbids it, and we can't have multiple wives because there's now a new law against it").

Either the law is done away with, and we can both eat pork and have MORE freedom when it becomes to marriage (ie the law is more liberal and "love-based", and depending how far we apply this can then allow MORE divorce, extramarital sex, maybe even homosexuality...). There are a range of views possible here, but all are less strict than Torah.
OR
The law still applies in some form (has only been "fulfilled" but we still must obey it), and we still need to pay attention to Deuteronomy when it comes to marriage and sex.

Either has aspects that can make us decidedly uncomfortable. Frankly the second makes far more sense to me, obviously, but either has a logical base of some sort, and I can have a rational discussion with someone of either perspective.

But once someone starts cherry-picking from either camp, taking the liberal approach in some places, the conservative approach in others, and adding even stricter rules in still more, their position rapidly becomes "what I think the rules should be" backed up by a few proof-texts. And the range of potential conclusions is as wide as the range of people's personal opinions.
 
Well said Zec. That's why I usually stay out of those/these debates as well. I just have trouble not saying anything when the pendulum swings too far.

To be perfectly clear where I stand, I believe that you can choose either covenant. That the law is still technically valid, but that the covenant of Jesus is the better option given to us. The law remains for reference and insight, but to me there are simply too many places we are told we are not bound by it and are freed from it for it to be a requirement. That does not mean everything is beneficial of course, thinking especially of FH's concerns about liberal, love-based interpretations, but that is why we have the Romans 14 principle, so that varying levels of freedom (what is a sin for one may not be a sin for another) do not cause division in the body. Some of the specifics, such as homosexuality, are taught on specifically in the NT, so I tend to refrain from a sky is falling outlook. However FH is correct, the mix and match and add and subtract approach is a terrible idea. My "litmus test" if you will is to test a thing against my spirit, as we are taught to in the NT, and determine if it will bring me closer to God (something like marrying a divorced woman could go either way, depends on woman and circumstance), create separation from God (something like sleeping around), or is neutral in and of itself (eating pork... in moderation). If someone chooses to live by the Torah, I can respect that, I just feel that it is counter to the Bible to then try to say everyone must live that way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top