Breaking faith with the potential second wife

[aineo]

Interesting thread.

FollowingHim - I really appreciate the wisdom you add to the forum.

 

[FollowingHim]

Thanks Aineo. Further thinking on the supposed "rights" of the potential wife:

If the wife and the potential wife have the same rights, then every woman he looks at is just as important as his wife. In her mind, how is she special? Any day he could look at another woman and decide they're just as important as her. The more women he looks at, the more her value to her husband is undermined in her mind.

But if the potential only gains equal rights when she actually becomes a wife, then the husband looking at other women is less difficult for the first wife, because her value is reinforced. Yet still very difficult for her. This is a hard enough position to put her in, and women bail out of marriage in even this situation. Choosing to make it even more difficult for her, by giving the potential equal rights from the start, is just plain foolishness.

Not to mention I cannot see a single scripture that ever mentions rights of a "potential" wife, just the rights of a wife. The verses quoted in the original post (Ex 21:8) specifically refer to a woman who has been "betrothed", which at the time was a firm marriage commitment to the point where sleeping with a betrothed woman was considered adultery. The promises were made at betrothal, then they came together sexually later - so to put it in a modern context a "betrothed" woman is basically a wife between saying the vows and having sex for the first time. In our culture that is a few hours, in theirs it could be months, but the process was the same - commitment (betrothal), followed by consummation (marriage). It even refers to the man as her "master" - so she isn't some random potential woman off the street, she's already in the household and under this man's authority.

 

[Wesley]

Thanks Aineo. Further thinking on the supposed "rights" of the potential wife:

Either the potential wife has the same rights as the wife or she has no rights whatsoever?

I'm glad I'm not limited to that kind of black and white thinking.

 

[Wesley]

Matthew 22:37-40 NIV
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

How is the statement "I can no longer consider you as a potential wife because my first wife is too busy preaching the doctrine of demons (1 Timothy 4:1-3) to be bothered with loving her neighbor" in any way related to the concept of "love your neighbor as yourself"?

Let's put this another way: If you were applying for a job and you were told that 'You are being passed over for the position, not because you're not qualified or because of anything that you've done wrong, but solely because one of the other employees is being difficult' would you feel like you had been treated fairly?

 

[yoderfamily]

Matthew 22:37-40 NIV
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

How is the statement "I can no longer consider you as a potential wife because my first wife is too busy preaching the doctrine of demons (1 Timothy 4:1-3) to be bothered with loving her neighbor" in any way related to the concept of "love your neighbor as yourself"?

Again if the husband is loving his neighbor ( wife ) he would have realized she was not on board and would have put the potential on hold. If the potential could not understand that then the marriage was bound for failure anyway and should have never occurred.

This thing of taking another wife so lightly and so many plural marriages failing has taken most successful marriages off this forum. If the foundation is leaking because the righteousness of Christ isn't the sealer it will crumble. So quit trying to build until the foundation is firmly established.

I enjoy biblical discussions but feel like some of these discussions are left open for misinterpretations. And like the Holiness and Righteousness of Christ is overlooked through lack of integrity. ( I am not trying to run anyone off this forum) I am not pointing fingers just deduction from this forum.

I would love to post more and participate in the research but its rather a distraction while driving. So forgive me if I don't always post in context or fullness.

Aaron

 

[Wesley]

Again if the husband is loving his neighbor ( wife ) he would have realized she was not on board and would have put the potential on hold.

This assumes that the first wife can NEVER be the one in the wrong. The word "never" is a strong word.

If we are not applying the word "never" then the possibility that the first wife is the one in the wrong bears discussion.

If we are applying the word "never" then I would ask what evidence you have to support that position? Are women perfect? Are they without sin? What circumstance prevents a woman from ever being the one in the wrong?

 

[yoderfamily]

I was referring to the instances where the wife is in the wrong and the husband responds contrary to the love your neighbor context. Something very easy to do and I speak from experience.

The normal response is a reaction which has a domino effect. The man has a greater responsibility therefore God will hold him accountable if what God brought together tears asunder.

Not dismissing the wife's sin just saying he who is without sin gets to throw the first stone. If you're not without sin you're part of the problem.

Biblical Headship is far more responsibility than us (weak) men want to take over and the whole culture wars against us. I firmly believe God won't lead us into more responsibility till we have proven honorable in the talents he has set us over.

Aaron

 

[Wesley]

I was referring to the instances where the wife is in the wrong and the husband responds contrary to the love your neighbor context. Something very easy to do and I speak from experience.

The normal response is a reaction which has a domino effect. The man has a greater responsibility therefore God will hold him accountable if what God brought together tears asunder.

Not dismissing the wife's sin just saying he who is without sin gets to throw the first stone. If you're not without sin you're part of the problem.

I'll see your John 8:7 and raise you a 1 Corinthians 7:15.

1 Corinthians 7:15 NIV
15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace.

Personally, because of my experience as a spouse abuse victim, I'm a bit sick of hearing people put a woman's emotions up on a pedestal and throw a man's emotions in the trash can. There is no difference between these two statements...

• "You just made me so mad I couldn't help myself" (said by a man trying to make excuses for why he hit his wife)
• You just made me so jealous I couldn't help myself" (said by a woman trying justify leaving because her husband is interested in another woman)

They both constitute trying to make the other partner responsible for controlling the person's emotions and they both belong on the ground in a cow pasture near the South end of a North-bound bull.

All a man has to do is be willing to work through the problems and support her as she learns to cope with her own emotions. They are "her own" emotions however and thus she bears the ultimate responsibility for managing them just like a man with a temper bears the ultimate responsibility for managing his own temper.

The man has to be wiling to do three things...

1. work on repairing the relationship that he has with her
2. repent from any actual sins that he is committing (interest in polygyny is not a sin)
3. and support her as she works through the emotional triggers that society has left her with

If he is willing to do those three things but she chooses to leave in spite of his willingness then that is on her not on him. If she chooses to separate from her husband for any reason, including his interest in another woman, she is under the rules given in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 and Romans 7:2-3. Those passages do not say unless he is interested in another woman.

He must be willing to reconcile, and that will take work from both parties, but if she isn't willing to put the effort into reconciliation then there is no scripture in the Bible that puts the responsibility for her unwillingness on him.

Biblical Headship is far more responsibility than us (weak) men want to take over and the whole culture wars against us. I firmly believe God won't lead us into more responsibility till we have proven honorable in the talents he has set us over.

I agree but I don't see this as a relevant point. We don't stone sinners in the New Testament era. Wives are to submit to their husbands but the word "submit" is a verb not a noun. It is something that a woman does rather than something that is done to her.

If a woman chooses not to submit then that is her sin not her husband's. He is not called to enforce her obedience in any way. Since he has no enforcement authority, any sin of disobedience is totally hers rather than his.

 

[Jack P.]

Well I have read this thread and made comments in it, and have admitted that I am in no way an expert on plural marriage.

But my past has taught me a few things about women. ( having had three wives before this one). Some say that I am domed to hell for that in and of it self, but I digress ( different thread different time). So the. The first thing that catches my eye in this is and this is just what I see it may not be the point. Nowhere in the Bible does God give as a commend that men "shall" take more than one wife, it just isn't writen that a man will be judged a sinner for having more than one. And there are some who will say that it is the duty, responsibility of a man to take care of the widows and husbandless women. There are many ways that a man can take care of and love their neighbor without calling her his second wife. ( and that is a discussion for a different thread , if you don't agree). So that leaves us with the want or "called " to have a second wife. Second suggesting you have a first or current wife.

Now all the reading I have done about plural marriage says that it is a union between a current marriage and a new member (potential wife) in my mind and way of thinking this means that not only you but your current wife must love, except, and want this new person in your life - house - marriage it is a union of three or more. So it is common knowledge that you can not force someone to love. You may be able to force them to live together, but what kind of home would that be? I would say not a very loving house. So I have to ask myself as well as "You" ( you being whoever is going to respond) why do you want a second wife? Or more than one wife? For me ( at the risk of sounding boastful ) I feel like I have a lot to offer a woman love, understanding, kindness, compassion, comfort help in raising her (our) children teaching the family as a whole how to be productive members of society, led by example how to be Godly and praise and worship the one and only true God. How about you? Are any of your reasons the same as mine? All? Some? None? Those are the questions a man has to ask, what is my true motivation here? Is it to be a Godly man or to collect women that are under my control? Personally I prefer to follow Jesus's led and gather people with an open loving heart. Not by force " I AM MAN HERE ME ROAR AND OBEY" I tried that three times with only one woman at a time and, well that's why I have to say I tried it three times. If you can find females that are willing to be forced to live with you and other females and that is the kind of house you want then brother go for it and I wish you good luck. Myself, I feel I must fight for everything on the outside of my house, I refuse to live in my home ( my sanctuary) in turmoil. God bless all who read this. And my hope for each of you is that the Lord will lay on your heart what he has planned for your life. Thank you for the time in your day to read this. Please know this is not meant to anger insult or attack anyone or anyone's personal choices

Jack P.
In His name

 

[Wesley]

Well I have read this thread and made comments in it, and have admitted that I am in no way an expert on plural marriage.

If anyone claimed to be an "expert" on plural marriage I would probably figure him/her for a crackpot rather than an expert. I don't claim to be an expert either. Experienced, yes. Expert, no.

But my past has taught me a few things about women. ( having had three wives before this one). Some say that I am domed to hell for that in and of it self, but I digress ( different thread different time).

I think that someone just stated, or at least implied, that having multiple exes means that a man doesn't know what he's doing in marriage. The person who said it denied that he was directing it at any one person even though up till now I was the only one who admitted to having multiple exes.

If that's true then you and I are in the same boat. I don't think it's true in every case though. I don't know your situation well enough to judge. In my case I doubt it but I don't argue with those who think that way. It's just not worth my time.

Nowhere in the Bible does God give as a commend that men "shall" take more than one wife

I can think of three places, four if we count Levirite marriage.

1. A man whose wife leaves him is free to remarry (1 Corinthians 7:15) but if he does and then his first wife wants to reconcile he is required to reconcile without sending the second wife away. The only exception is if one of the wives has committed adultery. (Matthew 5:32 and 19:9)
2. Isaiah 4:1, turning the women away would be a violation of the Second Greatest Commandment
3. and if the woman wants to marry to avoid the temptation to sexual immorality turning her away would be putting a stumbling block in front of her.

it just isn't writen that a man will be judged a sinner for having more than one.

That's correct but not quite complete. 1 Timothy 4:1-3 states that anyone who forbids another person from marrying is a hypocrite whose conscience has been seared with a hot iron and is teaching the doctrine of demons.

I've heard a lot of people try to insert exceptions into that passage. They try to say that that's true UNLESS...

• unless the person doing the forbidding is the first wife,
• or unless the man is already married,
• or unless the person is a catholic priest,
• or unless they don't like the person's motives,
• or unless it's a woman who wants the disgrace of being single taken away (i.e. Isaiah 4:1),
• etc.

The problem with that is that the text doesn't support any of those exceptions. 1 Corinthians 7:9 directly endorses the motive of being horny, or "burn[ing] with passion" as the NIV and ESV put it. There's no exception there either so if a married man is still "burn[ing] with passion" for whatever reason it is better for him to marry than to "burn with passion" and forbidding such a marriage is the doctrine of demons. (1 Timothy 4:1-3)

We're supposed to read out of the Bible not into it. Since there are no words in those passages to support any exceptions to the rule then inserting such exceptions is reading into the Bible rather than out of it.

Now many would say that that is a very legalistic approach to scripture. They're right. I see no reason to deny it.

The problem with that assertion isn't that it is inaccurate. The problem with that assertion is that the legalism is justified in this case.

Matthew 7:1-5
“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye."

When a first wife, or someone acting in her stead, attempts to coerce a man to monogamy she, and/or whomever is supporting the effort, is practicing legalism. She is trying to force her husband to obey her and is using the Bible to do it. That is the very definition of legalism.

Christ condemned legalism. There are numerous examples in the gospels of Christ looking someone in the face and calling them a "hypocrite" and in every case the person that He was speaking to was trying to force his/her views on religion down someone else's throat. (e.g. telling Christ that He shouldn't let His apostles eat with unwashed hands (Matthew 15:1-9) or trying to trap Him with a question about taxes. (Matthew 22:17-22))

That is the example we are to follow. The reason is in Matthew 7:2 in the section that I emphasized in bold above, by the standard they judge they are also to be judged and they are judging by the standard of legalism. That's why Christ was not sinning when He called people hypocrites for practicing legalism and it's why we're not sinning when we do the same.

And there are some who will say that it is the duty, responsibility of a man to take care of the widows and husbandless women. There are many ways that a man can take care of and love their neighbor without calling her his second wife. ( and that is a discussion for a different thread , if you don't agree). So that leaves us with the want or "called " to have a second wife. Second suggesting you have a first or current wife.

Really? How do you explain Isaiah 4:1 then? What was the disgrace that was to be removed by using the man's name, i.e. marrying him?

Some say poverty but they weren't in poverty. They had their own food and clothing and were satisfied enough with both their existing sustenance and their income that they were going to continue relying on their own resources. They weren't asking the man for money, food or clothing. They said so.

The simple act of using his name, i.e. marrying him, was what was expected to take away their disgrace.

If being married will take away the disgrace then doesn't that mean that the disgrace is not being married?

Now all the reading I have done about plural marriage says that it is a union between a current marriage and a new member

I'm not normally one to challenge another person's beliefs but I don't see anything even remotely resembling that in the Bible. Maybe we're reading different Bibles.

Genesis 2:24 clearly states that each marriage is between exactly one man and exactly one woman. There is no other form of marriage in the Bible. A man can have more than one marriage covenant just like God has more than one covenant (Ezekiel 23, Matthew 25:1-12) but each of a man's marriage covanants is between him and EXACTLY one woman, no more an no less.

If you can find females that are willing to be forced to live with you and other females

Where did that come from? Who mentioned anything about forcing a woman to do anything?

I'm going to stop here before this turns into a set of encyclopedias instead of just a long book.

 

[Jack P.]

Thank you for your comments Wesley. I neither have the typing skills nor the thumb power to respond to everything you have quoted and commented on. I hope that it is in the lords will for us to meet someday, maybe at the retreat this summer. I say in brotherly love to you this. My hope is that Christ works in your life that you will receive blessing beyond measure. And that the joy in your life is over flowing. I would like to continue this discussion when we both can sit together and read from the Bible all of the scriptures you have quoted, but ask that we read before and after them understanding who is writing and to whom he is addressing just so I understand the context of the scripture. You are correct without argument that we must read out of and not into the word of the lord. But we can not glen a solitary scripture to make our point biblical. If we us who want PM to be accepted are ever going to realize it we will have to have a solid scriptural foundation to make our stand. Or we can choose to live our lives as we see fit residing in the knowledge that we are not sinning, without the worry or burden of converting the whole world, so we will have some kind of false sense of security. Because I believe the only one I have to be seen as pleasing to is my Lord and savior. The rest of the people in the end they and their opinions of me won't matter one bit in so far as my eternal life goes.

Jack P.
In His name

 

[Wesley]

Thank you for your comments Wesley.

You're welcome.

I hope that it is in the lords will for us to meet someday, maybe at the retreat this summer.

That would be pleasant. I don't know if I'm going to make it to the retreat this summer or not. I know that I want to. I'm looking for work right now however so I don't know what my work schedule will be and I'll be the low man on the totem pole with regard to getting vacation time (if available) so I don't know.

I know that if it is God's will then it will happen.

I say in brotherly love to you this. My hope is that Christ works in your life that you will receive blessing beyond measure. And that the joy in your life is over flowing. I would like to continue this discussion when we both can sit together and read from the Bible all of the scriptures you have quoted, but ask that we read before and after them understanding who is writing and to whom he is addressing just so I understand the context of the scripture.

I've heard others say this as well. I'm not sure where I stand on this. Context matters and sometimes instructions are for one specific group of people (e.g. many portions of the Mosaic Law was solely for Israel) but at the same time Christ quoted snippets of scripture without bringing the context into the discussion.

One example of this is the Two Greatest Commandments. They weren't presented separately. They're buried in the scripture along with other general laws. Christ didn't present the context around them however. He focused on them. He focused on a few words and left out the surrounding verses.

The Greatest Commandment is first presented in Deuteronomy 6:5 as part of a speech by Moses before Israel. It wasn't given in conjunction with the Ten Commandments. It wasn't inscribed on the stone tablets. It was part of a speech and the placement within the speech makes it seem like almost an afterthought. It wasn't until Christ pointed out that it is in fact the Greatest Commandment that it takes on real prominence within the scripture.

The first presentation of the Second Greatest Commandment (Leviticus 19:18) is mixed in with various laws such as laws about not sowing two kinds of seed in the same field. Further it isn't even a sentence by itself. The context presented in the sentence is not holding grudges. It would be easy for a person to read that as a minor law that is limited solely to the issue of not seeking revenge based on the surrounding scriptures, at least until Christ points out that it is in fact the Second Greatest Commandment.

So I'm really not sure about the whole 'read around it for context' thing. We definitely need to keep the context of the words but sometimes broad, widely sweeping commands are buried in with lesser issues such as not sowing two kinds of seed in a field.

Because I believe the only one I have to be seen as pleasing to is my Lord and savior. The rest of the people in the end they and their opinions of me won't matter one bit in so far as my eternal life goes.

On this point we agree, as you said 'without argument.' If Christ tells you one thing and I tell you another then follow Him not me. I will do the same.

People laugh when I say that I don't want my Master (Colossians 4:1) mad at me because He's bigger than me. Realistically, I phrase it that way to get chuckles. The point is deadly serious however.

As a nineteen year old sailor I considered suicide. I actually stood beside the rail of my ship and because I was in the Engineering department I knew enough about how the ship was designed to know exactly where to jump so that I would have been pulled into the ship''s screws and chopped into fish bait before anyone even knew what I had done.

I walked away from the rail for Christ. I've been living for Him ever since. When the depression that comes with my PTSD is at its worst and I start thinking about ending it I remind myself that when God is ready for that to happen He will make it happen and He doesn't need my help. Until then I need to stay here and work toward the goal of taking care of His other children, my brothers and sisters in Christ. It works. Consistently. The healing power of Christ is awesome.

Christ is literally the reason that I'm alive. Christ is the reason I live. Christ is the difference between living and existing for me.

So when you say that you will follow Him rather than any sinful human I can certainly relate and I would encourage you to do so.

 

[ylop]

We have read a lot recently about the wife's role . Now what if the husband role of loving his wife trumps that of her submitting?

I really like this quote.

Yes.

I also like the word "uxorious" - having or showing a great or excessive fondness for one's wife.

Furthermore I super like my wives, and hate it if I do something that makes them sad. In general I would rather not do that thing, even if it is technically a permissible thing to do.

 

[UntoldGlory]

Furthermore I super like my wives, and hate it if I do something that makes them sad. In general I would rather not do that thing, even if it is technically a permissible thing to do.

This.

All things are permissible, but not all things are good right?

Making a woman I love happy makes me happy, and I like doing it as often as I can.

 

[Wesley]

Furthermore I super like my wives, and hate it if I do something that makes them sad. In general I would rather not do that thing, even if it is technically a permissible thing to do.

Making a woman I love happy makes me happy, and I like doing it as often as I can.

I can relate to the feeling expressed in these quotes. I don't like seeing my wife cry either and would do quite a bit to prevent her from doing so, or failing that to comfort her. I like seeing her happy, especially if I've caused it.

We have read a lot recently about the wife's role . Now what if the husband role of loving his wife trumps that of her submitting?

No passage of scripture can trump another. For one to be able to trump another then the House of God would have to be divided against itself. That cannot happen. (Matthew 12:25, Mark 3:24-25, Luke 11:17)

 

[yoderfamily]

No passage of scripture can trump another. For one to be able to trump another then the House of God would have to be divided against itself. That cannot happen. (Matthew 12:25, Mark 3:24-25, Luke 11:17)[/quote]

I totally disagree Wesley but give grace to the possibility of being of the same heart but different page.
I would submit that you have used " a house divided" out of context.

The Scriptures make a clear point of varying levels of importance to the heart of God. Otherwise there would be no headship order.
No sin unto death or not unto death.

Scripture would only mention each subject once unless there was more importance attached to that specific subject. Take the subject of Love. Cor : 13 faith, hope, charity, and the greatest of these is love. So does the command of Love trump the others? Obviously! :idea:

Aaron

 

[Wesley]

No passage of scripture can trump another. For one to be able to trump another then the House of God would have to be divided against itself. That cannot happen. (Matthew 12:25, Mark 3:24-25, Luke 11:17)

I totally disagree Wesley but give grace to the possibility of being of the same heart but different page. I would submit that you have used " a house divided" out of context.

One of us is certainly taking it out of context. We may have to wait until we stand before God to learn which. Till then you run your house your way and I'll do the same and we'll both be brothers in Christ.

The Scriptures make a clear point of varying levels of importance to the heart of God. Otherwise there would be no headship order.
No sin unto death or not unto death.

Scripture would only mention each subject once unless there was more importance attached to that specific subject. Take the subject of Love. Cor : 13 faith, hope, charity, and the greatest of these is love. So does the command of Love trump the others? Obviously! :idea:

Speaking of taking things out of context, here is another one where I'm just as certain that you're the one taking things out of context as you are that I am.

 

[ylop]

We may have to wait until we stand before God to learn which.

I have this sneaking suspicion that when we are dead and facing judgement, all these doctrinal issues and biblical interpretations will fall away, as the shadow that they are.

And the only really important things will be, how did we relate to God, and how did we relate to others.

Which ties into my caution at doing anything that might cause suffering to my wives.

Of course it is important for me to relate decently to any potential additional wife, but my existing wives are my primary responsibility.

Thinking out loud, perhaps I should be extremely conservative when relating to any potential wife (relax dear, its a hypothetical scenario, there is no one), and lay it all out up front, and not create any false expectations. I mean, when people are in love, they can take the smallest things and project them forward so far, and before you know it there is a broken heart (or two, or three...).

 

[Wesley]

Which ties into my caution at doing anything that might cause suffering to my wives.

Of course it is important for me to relate decently to any potential additional wife, but my existing wives are my primary responsibility.

I don't know about you but my primary responsibility is to serve God. Serving God includes but is not limited to...

• taking care of my existing family including my wife (1 Timothy 5:8)
• taking care of all of God's children (Matthew 25:40,45) which includes my sisters in Christ

I don't intend to neglect either role. Of course that's just my take on it.

 

[ylop]

The responsibility to your own family is more important than that owed to others.

There are plenty of ways to take care of sisters in Christ without taking them on as a wife.