• 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.

Calling a Marriage a Marriage and a Divorce...

Let's try and go back to the original post idea here and keep this topic on track. I'm going to re-post the original topic and then work my way backwards to roll back some of the posts that are not per se directly connected to it.

The humor is great and fun and important for us all. No problems there. But sometimes it can sidetrack the conversation if it goes on too long. People have to read tons of non-related posts to actually get back to the topic at hand. They thus get lost in the maze or lose interest in the post itself. The original post does deal with a topic that is an important one for the whole PM movement.

And besides, the funny and humerous posts are for temporary purposes anyway, a jovial laugh. So rolling back some of those is not to suggest in any way that we don't need or enjoy humor (we do). It is only to help keep the flow of the conversation on track and a little more on a topic that is a serious one for those examining this lifestyle or in this lifestyle.

Here is the original post again:
____________________________

Edit postDelete postReport this postWarn userInformationReply with quoteCalling a Marriage a Marriage and a Divorce...
by ylop » Wed Jan 12, 2011 10:45 pm

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"A puppy is for life, not just for Christmas"
 
I see. Hmmm. Guess the folks in control have spoken.
 
"one of the things that i see is lacking in our culture is the concept of a katubah, or contract."

I agree with you Steve...my wives all have appropriate signed and witnessed ketubahs. Here is the sequence I follow which to the best of my ability through research is one of the most common ways a man can take a wife or an additional wife:

The first step of course is to obtain consent from the woman (although some do believe in arranged marriages I prefer to have the situation be mutually agreed to).

I make this statement: 'Be thou my wife according to the law of Moses and Israel, and I will work for thee, honor, support, and maintain thee in accordance with the custom of Jewish husbands who work for their wives, honor, support, and maintain them in truth. And I will set aside for thee $XXXX.00 dollars (current value of 100 pieces of silver), in lieu of thy promise, which belong to thee (according to the laws of Moses), and thy food, clothing, and necessaries, and live with thee in conjugal relations according to universal custom.'

If she accepts then we are betrothed and she is sanctified to me but we are not allowed to live together or sleep together until the marriage is completed by ceremony, signing of the contract, and consummation.

Here is the ceremony I use:

Betrothal in its legal sense ("erusin") is performed in the following manner:
 
(While under a canopy - a covering of some type - symbolizes the covering protection of the Lord - could be an actual canopy outside somewhere, a large umbrella, or a sheet pinned to the ceiling and wall at an angle for us to be under)
 
Your father* will say the ordinary benediction with his hands held above the wine:
 
"The LORD bless you and keep you;
the LORD make his face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
the LORD lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace."
 
*could also be the mother, a pastor, or another who is responsible for "giving away" the bride.

Then he will lift one of the silver cups with wine and say:
 
"Blessed art Thou, O Lord, our God, King of the universe, who hast sanctified us with Thy commandments and given us commandments concerning forbidden connections, and hast forbidden unto us those who are merely betrothed, and permitted unto us those lawfully married to us through huppah (the canopy) and kiddushin (the betrothal). Blessed are Thou, O Lord, who sanctifies Thy people Israel through huppah and kiddushin"
 
Then he will put that cup back down.
 
Then as I place the ring on the index finger of your right hand I say:
 
"Be thou betrothed unto me with this ring in accordance with the laws of Moses and Israel".
 
Then the Ketubah (marriage contract shown at the bottom) is read by one of the two witnesses that will be signing it.
 
Then your father will lift up the other silver cup of wine and read the seven blessings:
 
Wine:
Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe, who creates the fruit of the vine.
(pause a few seconds)
The Purpose:
Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe, who has created all things for His glory.
(pause a few seconds)
Man:
Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe, Creator of man.
(pause a few seconds)
Woman:
Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe, who created man in His image, in the image of His likeness he fashioned his form, and prepared for him from his own self an everlasting edifice. Blessed are You Lord, Creator of man.
(pause a few seconds)
Jerusalem:
May the barren one, Jerusalem, rejoice and be happy at the ingathering of her children to her midst in joy. Blessed are You Lord, who gladdens Zion with her children.
(pause a few seconds)
Joy:
Grant abundant joy to these loving friends, as You bestowed gladness upon Your created being in the Garden of Eden of old. Blessed are You Lord, who gladdens the groom and bride.
(pause a few seconds)
Completion and Beyond:
Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe, who created joy and happiness, groom and bride, gladness, jubilation, cheer and delight, love, friendship, harmony and fellowship. Lord our God, let there speedily be heard in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem the sound of joy and the sound of happiness, the sound of a groom and the sound of a bride, the sound of exultation of grooms from under their wedding canopy, and youths from their joyous banquets, Blessed are You Lord, who gladdens the groom with the bride.
 
Then we are husband and wife and get to kiss...then we will each take a silver cup of wine and give each other a drink from their cup – I will give you a drink you will give me one. Then we drink from our own cups.
 
This is the Ketubah that is read:

"On Sunday, the 30th day of the month Tishrei in the year 5770 (October 18th, 2009) since the creation of the world, the era according to which we are accustomed to reckon here in the city of (city) how (my name) son of (my father's name) said to (her name) daughter of (her father's name) 'Be thou my wife according to the law of Moses and Israel, and I will work for thee, honor, support, and maintain thee in accordance with the custom of Jewish husbands who work for their wives, honor, support, and maintain them in truth. And I will set aside for thee $XXXX.00 dollars (current value of 100 pieces of silver), in lieu of thy promise, which belong to thee (according to the laws of Moses), and thy food, clothing, and necessaries, and live with thee in conjugal relations according to universal custom.' And (her name) this woman consented and became his wife. The dowry that she brought from her father's house, in silver, gold, valuables, dresses, and bedclothes, amounts to $XXXX.00 dollars, and (my name) the bridegroom consented to increase this amount from his own property with the sum of $XXXX.00 dollars, making in all $XXXXX.00 dollars. And thus said (my name) the bridegroom, 'I take upon myself and my heirs after me the responsibility of this marriage contract, of the dowry, and of the additional sum, so that all this shall be paid from the best part of my property, real and personal, that I now possess. All my property, even the mantle on my shoulders, shall be mortgaged for the security of this contract and of the dowry and of the addition made thereto.' (my name) the bridegroom has taken upon himself the responsibility for all the obligations of this ketubah, as is customary with other ketubot made for the daughters of Israel in accordance with the institution of our sages—may their memory be for a blessing! It is not to be regarded as an illusory obligation or as a mere form of document. We have followed the legal formality of symbolical delivery kinyan between (my name) son of (my father's name), the bridegroom, and (her name) daughter of (her father's name), this woman, and have employed an instrument legally fit for the purpose to strengthen all that is stated above, and everything is valid and established.
 
 
________________________________________________ Bridegroom.
 
 
________________________________________________ Bride
 
 
________________________________________________ Witnesses
 
 
________________________________________________

(The witness should not be relatives of either the bride or groom)
 
Scarecrow, I find your presentation very appealing.

You noted this to:

*could also be the mother, a pastor, or another who is responsible for "giving away" the bride.
Click to expand...

I was reading Ignatius (30 - 107 AD) the other day, a contemporary of most all of the apostles, and he advocated that the covenant needed someone to "sanction" or "authorize it." His specific words were as follows:

"
But it becomes both men and women who marry, to form their union with the approval of the bishop, that their marriage may be according to God, and not after their own lust. Let all things be done to the honour of God
Click to expand...
." (Ignatius to Polycarp, AnteNicene Fathers, Vol. 1, p. 95).

With him having been trained by apostle John and he and Polycarp doing ministry that close to the apostles I think there might be something worth cosnidering here.

The 1 Cor. 7 text does not spell out who the person in authority over the bride was. And as you noted it could be more than just the physical father. The authority is there but not specific as to who it was and this would fit with the covenant transition from the ethnic Jewish earthly line focus to the spiritual family focus motif of which we see in the NT.

Might it be that in the NT church era they as disciples of Christ went to their bishop (or elders) before to gain the approval and thus the bishop or elder was the one responsible for giving the bride away or approving the union?

Clearly Ignatius lived long before the corruption of Rome came into the scene. So for him to say this at this early period in history seems like a point that needs to be carefully weighed.

We know that in the OT authority figures, father, another lady, brothers, maybe even the elders or priests in some cases oversaw the union as it developed. Maybe this became the common expectation for the saints in the NT when so many families were divided by following Christ.

I can for sure see the wisdom in Ignatius' point. So many unions turn south and had there been a respected man (bishop) or group of men (elders/bishops) over the people entering into the union it might have provided a safety net that prevented some of the harsh realities that sometimes come forth from hasty unions where certain sins might have been seen and called out before the union was sealed.

I wonder if this was what Ignatius was thinking when he said that.
 
"I wonder if this was what Ignatius was thinking when he said that."

I think it is likely that that was the case. Again all your reading has been beneficial...especially to me.

Sometimes I am questioned about the Jewish nature of the ceremony and I remind people:

Romans 2:28-29 For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.

Romans 11:17-18 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you.
 
bishop??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Where are you going to find one of those in a country where polygyny is illegal and so many pastors are liars?

Furthermore as I see it and I could be wrong there was supposed to be a chain of successors tracing all the way back to the first Church leaders. I believe this chain died out in the Roman Catholic Church sometime (if the Catholic Church ever was a part of the chain to begin with) although I do not know if it was continued in another line (one of the other Orthodox Churches), but I do know it did not continue in the Roman Catholic line. Martin Luther, John Calvin and other protestants have no right to claim to be a part of this chain unless, they are self-appointed or claim God personally appointed them, which is something just about anyone could claim, but who could prove and how?

That being said, I doubt it would be easy to find a bishop today depending on how you define bishop of course.

So the bottom line is, what original denomination can claim a line of succession from the first followers to have a bishop to marry people into polygynous marriages that still exists today?

First it is very difficult to find a bishop and second it is very difficult to find someone in support of polygyny at least in the U.S.
 
A friend of mine is part of a Baptist church that claims to be able to trace their roots to the Apostle Paul...if that counts...I will have to get in touch with him and see if I can get a little more information...
 
bishop?????????????????????
Click to expand...

The claim of so-called "apostolic succession" is arguably based far more on the desire of men to "add to", "subtract from", and generally rewrite Scripture according to their own traditions than anything supported by Him. And while people may choose to submit themselves to others by contract, or make any number of inadvisable "treaties with the inhabitants of the land", the general lesson of the Bible is that we cannot serve two masters, and instead should "serve Him alone".

More importantly, however, there is nowhere in Scripture where ANYONE other than the father of his daughter is given authority over her vows. (I am supportive of the concept that a woman who engages in becoming 'one flesh' with a man is consenting to his authority over her; the only question is whether that consent is valid or not.)

Numbers 30 explains explicitly that a daughter under her father's covering may have her vows either confirmed or cast down (and references to marriage requiring the father's consent elsewhere confirm the fact); widows (or women who have a certificate of divorce from their former husband) are no longer under covering, and are responsible for their own vows. (Numbers 30:9)

And while the example of Yakov and Rebecca demonstrated the pattern that "brought her into his mother Sarah's tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her", so far as I am aware there is no instance whatsoever in Scripture of some other civil, 'priestly', or governmental authority ever permitting a marriage, or properly usurping the authority outlined in Numbers 30.

Speaking for myself, when and if I take another bride, the only "transfer of authority" that will occur will be from the woman herself, or the covering of her father...whichever applies.
 
Hummmm....I wonder what the women who have no physical fathers should do? Who would be a legitimate overseer for them? Seems like to me there are other options such as a spiritual overseer, a brother, extended relative, or even their pastor.

As for bishop that is simply another term for "pastor/elder."

DTT, I am fully with you that there is no such thing as an unbroken succession of apostles or even bishops. God calls out elders/pastors, equips them, and places them in service by his holy Spirit.

I think what I am pondering, and even with Ignatius' statement, is is it something that Ignatius saw in his day where people were rushing into unions with people who were not yet ready. His terms approve and order seem like it might be he was seeing a need for outside objective guidance to those who were becoming emotionally involved. I think there might be a case to be made that he was not endorsing a sacerdotal system, but was rather seeing a practical need for people in the faith to have someone on the outside of the union looking in to give spiritual aid as it developed. With him being a pastor I bet it is probable that he was dealing with a lot of disorder in unions and thus he felt, thought, or was taught by his leaders that one means unto that end was by having people value the need for biblical guidance from their pastors.

From my readings of Ignatius it did not seem to me he that he was saying a marriage could not exist without the pastor's approval. It looks like to me he was saying that for their to be order (maybe harmony?) in the church there needed to be an orderly transfer of the lady to the man or something close to that.

If those ladies under his care had no believing physical father, or for those whose father was dead, it seems like he took the idea that the spiritual overseers would be in that role in the absence of the fathers or if the ladies were no longer nder the guidance of the father.

What makes it difficult to tell so often is that we only have some scant records as we do not have all of their writings.

In any case though, it seems like if we look a the Bible and practicality of it there is some wisdom in having objective guidance from mature people or a mature leader that a person or set of persons desire to have over them as they progress in any relationship. The key is voluntary of course but it looks like to me these early disciples valued having the guidance of spiritual leaders that they thought were wise, godly, and loving men who were looking out for their own good.

I can testify to it for sure. Pastor John has been a very helpful shepherd to me and to many others on this journey. I find it very helpful to be able to have pastoral guidance and leadership in life. I wonder if that was the essence of Ignatius' point, i.e. did he know it to be a very valuable thing for all of the people involved to have someone or set of people who could be called upon to give biblical and spiritual guidance as a union progressed or in such related matters of life as relational tensions?
 
Dr. K.R. Allen said:
Hummmm....I wonder what the women who have no physical fathers should do?
Click to expand...

Read it carefully. Numbers chapter 30 used the word "ab" or "abba", and not an adjective like "physical"; to somehow imply that adoptive fathers don't rate the same authority over their daughters is not supported by the text, or by history. Adopted children inherited, were very much a part of the house, and under covering...just as those who are adopted into the Father's house today understand.

But that is indeed a far cry from the claim of some in the history of 'the Church' to exercise such an authority over them anyway.

The difference which was being highlighted was between Authority in accord with Scripture, and 'authority' claimed on behalf of some doctrine based on traditions of men rather than what is actually Written. I would submit that when Yahusha said "call no man 'father' upon the earth", He wasn't denying His own Word, or undermining His own commandment to "honor your father...", but making a similar distinction. (Matthew 23)

The problem with confusing a "bishop" or pastor, or even some cleric having the title "father", with what is being described in Numbers chapter 30 is readily seen in our post-Biblical society. Most MEN simply don't understand either their authority OR responsibility as husbands and fathers, and marriages suffer as a result*.

A prospective wife under the authority of any such father should know whether or not her vows can be freely given to the man who seeks to become her covering. And the prospective husband himself, I submit, should understand the responsibility he seeks to take on as well. If it is a TRUE transfer of Biblical authority over her vows which is being contemplated, he is planning on doing a lot more than just replacing some "elder" or honorary male figure in her life.

I agree with the general concept that "sex is not specifically equal to marriage". But a BIG part of the concept of what turns mere sex into a real marriage is the proper understanding of the transfer of authority before Him.



-----------------------------
* PS> "Modern" marriage ceremonies which answer the Biblically-derived question "Who gives this woman to be wed?" with the egalitarian PC response that, "her mother and I do", illustrate the point, in more than one way.
 
And I will set aside for thee $XXXX.00 dollars (current value of 100 pieces of silver)
Click to expand...

What is the current price of 100 pieces of silver? Or better, how many ounces or grams of silver would that be? (The price per ounce is rising as the dollar plummets...) I should buy that much silver for my wife rather than set aside $XXXX.00 dollars, and have put it in a safe-deposit box or under her mattress.

Excellent work, Scarecrow. Thank you for posting the ketubah &etc. Very helpful! In fact, one of the more informative posts on BFF. Maybe someone could put the ketubah and covenant in a form that can be easily printed after downloading. Me being a "computer geek," I might have just volunteered for the job... :o ...so how does PDF sound? Seemed to work great for my dissertation.

Also, maybe someone who is a financial wiz kid (I'm not...) could keep us informed about the current value of 100 pieces of silver. ($XXXX.00 for x.xx oz / xx.xx grams. Maybe include currencies of other nations where BFF has members, as well.) Maybe a "ticker" on the home page or something?

Any suggestions for the downloadable/printable covenant, ceremony, and ketubah? Any proposed changes from what Scarecrow put in it?
 
Mark C said:
bishop?????????????????????
Click to expand...

The claim of so-called "apostolic succession" is arguably based far more on the desire of men to "add to", "subtract from", and generally rewrite Scripture according to their own traditions than anything supported by Him. And while people may choose to submit themselves to others by contract, or make any number of inadvisable "treaties with the inhabitants of the land", the general lesson of the Bible is that we cannot serve two masters, and instead should "serve Him alone".

More importantly, however, there is nowhere in Scripture where ANYONE other than the father of his daughter is given authority over her vows. (I am supportive of the concept that a woman who engages in becoming 'one flesh' with a man is consenting to his authority over her; the only question is whether that consent is valid or not.)

Numbers 30 explains explicitly that a daughter under her father's covering may have her vows either confirmed or cast down (and references to marriage requiring the father's consent elsewhere confirm the fact); widows (or women who have a certificate of divorce from their former husband) are no longer under covering, and are responsible for their own vows. (Numbers 30:9)

And while the example of Yakov and Rebecca demonstrated the pattern that "brought her into his mother Sarah's tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her", so far as I am aware there is no instance whatsoever in Scripture of some other civil, 'priestly', or governmental authority ever permitting a marriage, or properly usurping the authority outlined in Numbers 30.

Speaking for myself, when and if I take another bride, the only "transfer of authority" that will occur will be from the woman herself, or the covering of her father...whichever applies.
Click to expand...

No, not just father, father or husband. Unless the woman is divorced or a widow and not married, her father or husband has authority over her. Her Father, if she is not yet married, and her husband if she is married. And I think there is also another exception, if a man owns a woman as a slave he can marry her and he only needs permission from himself or he can give her to marry another man if he has not yet married her himself at least that is how I understand it. So when you take a woman as plunder as a slave, she is yours to marry at least how I understand it.

10 “If a woman living with her husband makes a vow or obligates herself by a pledge under oath 11 and her husband hears about it but says nothing to her and does not forbid her, then all her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand. 12 But if her husband nullifies them when he hears about them, then none of the vows or pledges that came from her lips will stand. Her husband has nullified them, and the LORD will release her. 13 Her husband may confirm or nullify any vow she makes or any sworn pledge to deny herself. 14 But if her husband says nothing to her about it from day to day, then he confirms all her vows or the pledges binding on her. He confirms them by saying nothing to her when he hears about them. 15 If, however, he nullifies them some time after he hears about them, then he must bear the consequences of her wrongdoing.”
Numbers 30:13 Or to fast
Numbers 30 NIV 2010

8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself,[a] he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights.
[a] 1. Exodus 21:8 Or master so that he does not choose her
Exodus 21:8-10 NIV 2010

10 When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.
Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NIV 2010
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top