Calling a Marriage a Marriage and a Divorce...

[ylop]

Hi there.

I have some concerns about the terminology used for polygamous relationships; and the implications of that terminology for the durability of those relationships.

As a prelude I salute the courage of posters who reveal details of their own relationships, leaving themselves open to (sometimes harsh) criticism. Your openness allows me to obtain valuable insights into polygamy and hopefully learn from the positives and negatives.

So here is my concern:

I read of terms like commitment ceremony, trial, moving in, getting to know better, seeing how things go, added a new sister, etc.

My perspective is like this:
If a man takes another women and engages in sexual relations with her, he has taken a WIFE. That women is MARRIED to him. If that relationship ends, then that couple are DIVORCED. There are no grey areas or in-betweens here.

With those big words in mind, acting in haste and repenting in leisure should be our word of wisdom.

Your thoughts?

ylop

 

[The Duke Of Marshall]

ylop,
Not everyone believes that sexual relations is what marries a man and a woman. Personally I agree with that perspective so you'll not get any disagreement from me.

 

[T-C's Rebeka]

I would say that sexual relations is what takes an engagement or betrothal and 'seals' it as a marriage. Sexual relations with no intention of commitment (one night stands, etc.) is fornication (or adultery if the woman is married) but if there is some form of commitment then I think God views it as a marriage.

I disagree on the divorce.

If that relationship ends, then that couple are DIVORCED. There are no grey areas or in-between here.

I think a married couple could be separated for a long time (rest of life) and not be divorced. Of course the woman would not be allowed sexual relations outside of her existing marriage bed w/ her husband.
Similar to King David and his first wife Michal. She despised him for acting a fool in her opinion and the text implies that they separated...never having children, but it never says they divorced and it doesn't imply that her barrenness was a punishment of God. (By then David already had 2 other wives.)
Of course the husband is still responsible for his separated wife (alimony).

How things are handled in a legal system is not important, other than I think God would consider a couple married if they did so legally even if they did not bind it through sexual relations because the couple is "vowing" that they are married and God expects us to honor our vows.

 

[ylop]

Perhaps I should clarify my original post.

I wasn't seeking to debate whether sexual relations creates a marriage (although clearly that is my view), or whether a temporary separation is a divorce.

Rather, I was commenting on the disparity between the courtship and confirmations of (normal) marriages and those of polygamous relationships. Surely you remember when you were young - the list of required attributes, the cautious meeting, the friends and relatives, checking with the parents, the engagement, planning, talk about houses, children, the future etc, the vows, the wedding, etc etc etc. Versus finding a woman and she moves in. And then goes.

In particular the speed and ease of commencement, the lack of formalisation or reverence, and the summary justice upon termination.

Hope that makes sense.

ylop

 

[Maddog]

Ylop, You make a great point about the casual-ness that I also have perceived as well as the "interview" process(I hope I read into that correctly). This is not picking up a puppy from the local shelter and then kicking it to the curb if it doesn't work. Having read some of your previous posts I appreciate your slowness to add the wrong person to your busy-ness(and business) and jeopardize the whole lot. Blessings and wisdom to you. Maddog

 

[Lysistrata]

Folks, I am very glad that you brought this topic up. I am also sad to see the lack of commitment that some men and women have when they take a "second wife". Many people on this board seem to worry extensively about the first wife and her emotional turmoil. I am greatly concerned for the women who are taken into a marriage and then, as Maddog stated, they are kicked to the curb. This seems to be a common occurrence even when sexual relations have taken place.

Yes Ylop, single women and families are certainly acting haste and repenting in leisure. I wonder how second wives could be given some security within these relationships when the courtship period is finished? Even if the courtship and preparations are wonderful and done right, this does not guarantee that the marriage union is going to be stable, and that the husband is going to stand his ground and keep his wives even when emotional turmoil (jealousy, envy, bitterness) ensues. Do you suppose that commitment from men to their second wives (or third or fourth wives) would be more assured if there was a financial loss that would occur if he "kicked her to the curb"?

I wonder if we should encourage wives without legal status and protection to insist upon their name on the deed to the home and the title to the four wheel drive truck? Maybe a "bride price" that would leave with her if she was discarded? You see, husbands stand to lose a lot if they allow their first (legal) wives to leave the marriage. When the first wife gets her panties in a twist and demands, "kick her to the curb or I will leave with half of your worldly goods, your children, and I will chew your heart out and bury it along with your dignity.", men cave in. They retreat. They cower. Women contemplating the joys of being a "bonus wife" need to accept this reality and ask for some sort of worldly security even with men who seem heavenly.

Marriage is supposed to be about security. Love, and sex, compatibility, and companionship are all great benefits; but if we forget the security aspect of the relationship then the marriage union is worthless. I wonder what everyone else thinks of this? I know that there are successful and secure unions among the members of this board. How did you guys do it?

 

[Anonymous]

Folks, I am very glad that you brought this topic up. I am also sad to see the lack of commitment that some men and women have when they take a "second wife". Many people on this board seem to worry extensively about the first wife and her emotional turmoil. I am greatly concerned for the women who are taken into a marriage and then, as Maddog stated, they are kicked to the curb. This seems to be a common occurrence even when sexual relations have taken place.

Yes ! it's a very common occurrence. I've lost count how many times I have heard about 2nd wives being "kicked to the curb" when the 1st wife decides she doesn't want to live poly after all or when adjustment difficulties arise in the home. I don't think a 2nd wife's marriage should be controlled by the whims & mood swings of the 1st wife. The husband needs to be in control of the home and if need be, man up and put his foot down.

Marriage is supposed to be about security. Love, and sex, compatibility, and companionship are all great benefits; but if we forget the security aspect of the relationship then the marriage union is worthless.

I agree ! 2nd wives need some security. They are legitimate wives and they should be treated as such.
Blessings,
Fairlight

 

[Isabella]

Rather, I was commenting on the disparity between the courtship and confirmations of (normal) marriages and those of polygamous relationships. Surely you remember when you were young - the list of required attributes, the cautious meeting, the friends and relatives, checking with the parents, the engagement, planning, talk about houses, children, the future etc, the vows, the wedding, etc etc etc. Versus finding a woman and she moves in. And then goes.

Totally agree with this, it is pathetically common and the rush adds to the commonly held belief in the outside world that our relationships are transitory and unworkable.

re: Security, I am a firm believer in sorting out legal papers as soon as a family decide on a long term commitment, you wouldn't believe how many women give up their jobs, homes and local community to live in a home in which she has no financial independence and no security. It is madness. It is all well and good and to be trusting but you should also be realistic, without any legal protection at all, you might have to walk with nothing more than the clothes on your back.

I don't think a 2nd wife's marriage should be controlled by the whims & mood swings of the 1st wife. The husband needs to be in control of the home and if need be, man up and put his foot down.

Personally I think this is simplistic and absolves the first wife of her responsibilities to own her own feelings and deal with them. Of course it is important that the first wife feel secure but her inability to feel secure is down to her not making sure her needs are met and also for her placing responsibility on other people to not to cause her jealousy. Not realising or caring that jealousy is not a healthy thing, but a pathological reaction to insecurity.

If before people step in to this lifestyle, they accept that a) Everything will change and b) It is THEIR responsibility to make themselves happy, than a lot of these imploding hastily formed relationships can be avoided.

And here is a good rule of thumb, if it took 15 months from first meeting to marriage for your first marriage, why are you moving in with second wife within 15 days? Question that and then question your motives.

B

 

[Scarecrow]

It is the influence of our culture and ignorance of biblical truths that result in a wife either leaving or being sent away.

Marriage is a covenant between two believers for life:

Malachi 2:14 But you say, "Why does he not?" Because the LORD was witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant.

1 Corinthians 7:39 A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.

Not to get off-topic, but my studies have led me to fervently believe that God does not recognize man-made divorce between believers.

Galatians 3:15 To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified.

Luke 16:18 "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.

How could you commit adultery by marrying a divorced woman if God recognized divorce?

*side note of interest...Erasmus added "en" into the manuscripts when compiling them into a "Bible" adding in the "fornication clause" Matthew 5:32, 19:9 (which he strongly supported)...seems he forgot to change Luke 16:18 however. The scriptures actually state - Anyone who divorces his wife even in the event of sexual immorality commits adultery. Jesus was firmly stating that even in the worst possible circumstances divorce was not allowed, which is supported by Paul in Galatians 3:15. Considering that the man and woman were to be stoned to death it is unlikely there would be any need for divorce anyway. Divorce - just one more Roman/heathen practice (divorce - remarriage - divorce - remarriage...) that has become a common church practice.

The only exception I have been able to find is during the betrothal period (before consummation):

Matthew 1:19 And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly."

Now if one of the individuals is not a believer it is not a covenant before God and the non-believing spouse is allowed to leave.

1 Corinthians 7:15 But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace.

Now to get to my point...if a believing man takes a believing woman to be his wife, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc...then he is in a lifetime covenant with her whether he/she likes it or not.

Putting a wife away...

H7971 שׁלח shâlach shaw-lakh'
A primitive root; to send away, for, or out (in a great variety of applications): - X any wise, appoint, bring (on the way), cast (away, out), conduct, X earnestly, forsake, give (up), grow long, lay, leave, let depart (down, go, loose), push away, put (away, forth, in, out), reach forth, send (away, forth, out), set, shoot (forth, out), sow, spread, stretch forth (out).

...is the breaking of the covenant and therefore adultery.

However, I do not believe a woman is forced to stay with a man that is not providing her food, clothing, and shelter:

1 Corinthians 7:10 To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.

...and it is difficult for me to believe an abusive spouse (I have seen male and female) is truly a believer and therefore 1 Corinthians 7:15 comes into play where it may be the abused believing spouse leaving for reasons of safety.

 

[ylop]

This is not picking up a puppy from the local shelter and then kicking it to the curb if it doesn't work.

Thanks Maddog, you have read my thoughts 100% correctly and inspired my canine conclusion concerning choosing a consort: "A puppy is for life, not just for Christmas".

ylop

 

[steve]

one of the things that i see is lacking in our culture is the concept of a katubah, or contract. the first wife, with the power of law behind her, has a de-facto contract. the second one typically does not and the situation is treated in a less serious fashion, no more protection than if they were shacking up.

what i propose is a "marriage broker" ministry similar to the ones in older jewish culture that a single woman could turn to. the "broker" would negotiate the contract between the two parties that would provide protection and security in a document that the courts would take seriously.

I wonder if we should encourage wives without legal status and protection to insist upon their name on the deed to the home and the title to the four wheel drive truck? Maybe a "bride price" that would leave with her if she was discarded? You see, husbands stand to lose a lot if they allow their first (legal) wives to leave the marriage. When the first wife gets her panties in a twist and demands, "kick her to the curb or I will leave with half of your worldly goods, your children, and I will chew your heart out and bury it along with your dignity.", men cave in. They retreat. They cower. Women contemplating the joys of being a "bonus wife" need to accept this reality and ask for some sort of worldly security even with men who seem heavenly.

Marriage is supposed to be about security. Love, and sex, compatibility, and companionship are all great benefits; but if we forget the security aspect of the relationship then the marriage union is worthless. I wonder what everyone else thinks of this? I know that there are successful and secure unions among the members of this board. How did you guys do it?

exactly, but it will only come about as we embrace a culture of valueing a katubah type instrument. making it available and EXPECTED. girls, organize, make sure that your sisters get one rather than just hoping for the best.

someone please start a thread on katubahs, i do not know much about them other than the fact that they are essential.

 

[Anonymous]

I don't think a 2nd wife's marriage should be controlled by the whims & mood swings of the 1st wife. The husband needs to be in control of the home and if need be, man up and put his foot down.

Personally I think this is simplistic and absolves the first wife of her responsibilities to own her own feelings and deal with them. Of course it is important that the first wife feel secure but her inability to feel secure is down to her not making sure her needs are met and also for her placing responsibility on other people to not to cause her jealousy. Not realising or caring that jealousy is not a healthy thing, but a pathological reaction to insecurity.


B

I wasn't attempting to absolve the 1st wife of her responsibilities. I agree with you that she needs to be responsible for her own feelings, behavior and actions. "BUT" when a 1st wife goes ballistic and becomes manipulative in her demands then the "Ephesians 5 head of the home" husband needs to refuse to be manipulated, step up to the plate and issue some "executive orders".
Blessings,
Fairlight

 

[CecilW]

When the first wife gets her panties in a twist and demands, "kick her to the curb or I will leave with half of your worldly goods, your children, and I will chew your heart out and bury it along with your dignity.", men cave in. They retreat. They cower.

Some men don't. They say, "Do what you believe you must. I WILL love you until the day I die, but you will NOT control what God is doing in my life. HE does that."

They then accept the consequences mentioned above and go on loving, caring, and perhaps providing, though that last might justly be a casualty of the choice to go her own way.

They continue, even when a new wife enters their life and would prefer that the first be forgotten. Even when it is a matter of years before that occurs.

This track record might be of comfort to a new wife, who might find security in the thought, "You will NEVER be kicked to the curb. Once you are 'in the door', you are there forever. If you engage in a power struggle with hubby, you will be allowed to go your own way, alone, but without harassment. But you will ALWAYS be welcome to return, so long as you do not turn to another man as husband in the meantime."

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Scarecrow,

Have you read Bill Luck's book on divorce and remarriage. His treatment of the Matthew divorce clause has been one of the best I've found thus far.

I would encourage you to read it and I'd like to hear your thoughts on it afterwards. If for some reason the text of it does not make sense I'll get you in touch with him to let him explain it live.

I'm curious as to what you think of his work in that text of Scripture.

 

[lutherangirl]

Ylop, You make a great point about the casual-ness that I also have perceived as well as the "interview" process(I hope I read into that correctly). This is not picking up a puppy from the local shelter and then kicking it to the curb if it doesn't work. Having read some of your previous posts I appreciate your slowness to add the wrong person to your busy-ness(and business) and jeopardize the whole lot. Blessings and wisdom to you. Maddog

I got a kick out of the wives situation being compared to puppies that can be bought. I guess the comparison to a puppy and wife can be the same, since I do "fetch" a lot for my husband, and my husband says that I do "bark" at him from time to time. :lol: :lol: Bring on the popcorn, Cecil.

 

[Maddog]

Lutherangirl, I do understand humor as my own life is filled with it. I wish to convey to men with very callous attitudes the idea "You shouldn't DO that!" Perhaps if they treat their huntin' dawg the way they treated their "covenant wife of their youth", dawg would have left looong ago. Stop kissin the dawg and kickin the wife!

Unless of course dawg IS the husband :lol:

Maddog

 

[lutherangirl]

Lutherangirl, I do understand humor as my own life is filled with it. I wish to convey to men with very callous attitudes the idea "You shouldn't DO that!" Perhaps if they treat their huntin' dawg the way they treated their "covenant wife of their youth", dawg would have left looong ago. Stop kissin the dawg and kickin the wife!

Unless of course dawg IS the husband :lol:

Maddog

Maddog, thanks for making my Friday night. Your post was too funny and, sadly true, that the dog can get more and better attention then the wife/wives at times. You offer good advice to those type of "caveman" mentalities out there.

 

[steve]

but a good dog NEVER barks at its master

well, maybe in happiness :!:

besides, without those opposable thumbs, the dog cannot open his can of alpo. my wife can open her own

"ah, sweatheart, can you open up a can for me while you are at it? just set it on the back porch, i can come over from the doghouse to get it. (the chain should reach that far)"

 

[CecilW]

Putting our feet more squarely in our moths for LutheranGirl's general amusement ...

A dog's a man's best friend ... :roll:

 

[steve]

where do you get those moth slippers? they sound comfortable


btw: i do not have a dog, but my wife has been filling in nicely as far as a best friend :lol: