Could wives want a BH 4 their DH?

[CecilW]

If men are so constituted that some percentage of us want 2 or more wives, (a SW 4 our DW -- a sister-wife for our dear wife,) and that is morally ok, then could not a wife want a brother hubby (BH) for her dear hubby (DH)?

This was asked in a thread in the Ladies Only forum, but I started it as a separate thread here both because then a male (that would be ME ) could respond to it, and because it's kinda off topic for the original thread, and finally because it is, well, a darn good question.

Here's the original question:

What about women then? Do women not posses this same quality? What if a woman has a desire or need to love and be loved by more than one man? Just asking... Not that I do, just wondering.

To this, Bels wisely gave a human answer, to wit...

Some do and there are often women/couples looking for another husband (not in the Biblical community though) so you are unlikely to see it. It appears to be quite popular.

I have to agree. From a human point of view, it is entirely possible. May even work. Certainly, I have known several women who found it very difficult to restrict both their emotional & sexual involvement to just one man.

But since, as Christians, we believe the Biblical model, Patriarchy, is God's order, it becomes unworkable. Why? Mandatory Male Headship is involved. And 2-headed beasts die.

Fair? No. "Fairness" is a human concept. God isnot necessarily "fair". He is merciful & just, loving & long-suffering. His ways always prove to be best. But they are not subject to our human concept of fairness.

There are things that all of us want, maybe even yearn for, that we know we can't have. We can butt our heads bloody against a wall over them, or redirect our emotional energy elsewhere. It seems that this is one of them.

At the risk of enraging someone, I'll go so far as to offer the following hypothesis: In Gen 3 God said that a woman's heart would be toward her husband. Singular.

Is it then possible that when a woman is experiencing a desire for more than one husband, it is an anti-Word impulse being given her by an anti-Christ spiritual force? One that battles to turn the God-breathed Biblical order on its head?

Those women I mentioned who wanted more than one man? Interestingly enough, they were some of the loudest in proclaiming that they'd NEVER consider polygyny. They wouldn't share! No way! Yet wanted and professed to love more than one man themselves. Upside down!

Dunno if that helps or not. Someone else feel free to jump right in, though a long scholarly dissertation may be more than is needed. :lol:

 

[captainjonathan]

I like words. Words have meanings, words are finite in definition. Even the word infinite has a finite definition. That said, I like to look at God's choice of words. Helper, the word used in reference to wife. I can have quite a few Helpers. Every time Husband or Head or Christ (who we are supposed to emulate) is used it is singular leadership. I had my wife challenge me one time as she was debating Biblical legitmacy of polygyny and she asked why not more than one hubby. I referenced a (wo)man cannot serve two master's, he will love one and hate the other. Every reference to the men we are called to be is an example of loving leadership, the wife of reverent service. Women are not called to lead men, thus no headship or mastering.

I could go on... it boils down to either agreeing with God and His design despite human desire to pervert it or with turning our back on our Creator. There is no middle ground. We are either in His realm or out of His realm.

 

[Isabella]

Not sure if this is saying anything more different than what was said on the Original thread, yes some people do it, no it is not acceptable to those who follow the Bible. I think that is fair to say, it is not very nice to somehow imply any woman who desires it is following an evil impulse though, since she may get her moral convictions from some place other than you do. This does not make her evil or misguided, it just makes her different.

Some of those Polyandry women may be interested in being the Queen Bee, but far more are in relationships in which partners can, if they want, seek other relationships also. People are, on the whole much more amiable to the idea of egalitarianism than hierarchy and so, you may find a lot more people feeling more comfortable with Polyandry as it is more commonly practised in the West, than Polygyny as it is more commonly practised amongst religious people.

It does no one any good to call these women guided by any other force than simply what suits her temperament the best....

B

 

[CecilW]

Perhaps, Bell. And some may well be merely egalitarian, as you say. Yet others driven by a influence.

Amongst those who CLAIM to be Christian, yet exemplify a determined contra-Word spirit, I suspect that the latter may be more likely in play.

But that is my own limited observation. I could be proved wrong. Yet if I believe, as I do, that God set certain things within our nature based upon gender, then I am forced to suspect that anything opposing God's plan comes from the other source, however benign it appears upon the surface.

That doesn't mean that I'm going crusading through the streets waving signs and Bibles at anyone who disagrees, mind. More like continuing to observe, answer a question when asked, point to the stated plan, and lead my family rather than drive them. And love those around me whether we see eye to eye or not.

 

[Shadowjak's Dancer]

Perhaps a woman could desire to have more than one husband, just like a woman might rather have a wife, or a man might want to have a husband... people have all sorts of desires. And, let's be honest, the world is full of people who have their fill of such things, but from a Biblical standpoint, certain practices are acceptable, but others are not.

 

[JesseHasQuestions]

Perhaps a woman could desire to have more than one husband, just like a woman might rather have a wife, or a man might want to have a husband... people have all sorts of desires. And, let's be honest, the world is full of people who have their fill of such things, but from a Biblical standpoint, certain practices are acceptable, but others are not.

True, and I understand what you are saying, But the bible clearly states that having relations with the same sex, the way one would with the opposite sex is an abomination, it does not say that having 2 husbands (at least to my knowledge) is an abomination.

 

[JesseHasQuestions]

But since, as Christians, we believe the Biblical model, Patriarchy, is God's order, it becomes unworkable. Why? Mandatory Male Headship is involved. And 2-headed beasts die.:

My understanding was Father/Son/Holy Spirit But that God created us in his image, Male/Female, meaning God has no gender. Men are the head of the household with their wives their "ezer kenegdo" which means more than just "helper", more along the lines of "life saver" if you go by how God uses it elsewhere in the bible. Kenegdo means alongside, or opposite to, a counterpart. This is why I brought up the question. Every "corporation" (for lack of a better term) has to have a president, a leader, a figure head; but often the decisions made are made by him and and his CEO, or counterpart and not him/her alone. Isn't it true too with marriage?

Again I am asking and playing devils advocate here (ironic huh?) but it does make me curious!

 

[FollowingHim]

Jesse, a woman having two husbands is directly prohibited in the Bible. This is because "adultery" in the Bible means to lie with a woman who is married to another man (check any concordance). This means that Exodus 20:14 is a direct prohibition of a woman having two husbands, because both of them would be committing adultery in sleeping with her - as for each of them she is the wife of another man. This definition of adultery is outlined more clearly in Leviticus 20:10.

In addition to this, the man is the head of the woman (1 Cor 11:3), and you cannot serve two masters (Matthew 6:24).

 

[FollowingHim]

My understanding was Father/Son/Holy Spirit But that God created us in his image, Male/Female, meaning God has no gender. Men are the head of the household with their wives their "ezer kenegdo" which means more than just "helper", more along the lines of "life saver" if you go by how God uses it elsewhere in the bible. Kenegdo means alongside, or opposite to, a counterpart. This is why I brought up the question. Every "corporation" (for lack of a better term) has to have a president, a leader, a figure head; but often the decisions made are made by him and and his CEO, or counterpart and not him/her alone. Isn't it true too with marriage?

The idea that God is genderless and marriage is a partnership of two individuals with similar authority has been popularised over recent decades by the feminist movement. However both ideas are contrary to scripture, and are used to justify the false doctrine of monogamy only.

Remember first that God is always throughout scripture referred to as a male, and never as a female. Would this be the case if He were truly genderless?

Check the actual wording of Genesis 1:26-27 again, most people don't read it very closely:

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Noticed the words "him" and "them" before? God created "him", Adam, in the image of God, but made "them", humankind, both male and female!

Genesis 2 explains the actual creative process in more detail. Verse 7 shows that God breathed the breath of life directly into the man, Adam. Adam's body was created from dust, but his breath, or spirit, came directly from God. Then God formed Eve, not directly from himself, but rather from Adam (v21-23). So man was made in the image of God, and woman in the image of man.

Man was given authority over the woman, right from the act of creation. The Bible states that even the fact that he was formed first placed him in authority to the woman (1 Titus 2:12-13). Furthermore, the facts that the woman was formed from the man, and for him, also put her under his authority (1 Cor 11:8-9). Right back at the time of Creation, God directly stated that the man was in authority (Genesis 3:16). Finally, this authority is not just figurative, but the woman is commanded to obey her husband in "every thing" (Ephesians 5:24), even if they do not follow God (1 Peter 3:1).

This is clearly a hard teaching to come to grips with when it isn't what you've heard for much of your life, most pastors are very wishy-washy on this because they don't want to scare anyone away! But it's there, it's scripture. This is how God outlines marriage. And it is the foundation for why polygyny is ok (one head can have multiple people under him), as is monogamy (one head can have one person under him), but polyandry (one woman with multiple husbands) is not.

The first thing to be absolutely clear on is that this does not make men "better" or more important than women. They are just different. They have a different role. Is the CEO of an organisation more important, as a person, than the cleaner? No, both are equal in God's sight. But they have different roles, and as they fulfil these roles they allow the organisation to run smoothly. Likewise, the different roles God has ordained for men and women allow marriage to function effectively.

Furthermore, with authority comes great responsibility, just as the CEO has a lot more responsibility than the cleaner. This isn't all a positive thing for men, it's actually a great burden. Wives are simply to obey their husbands. But what is the husband to do? Ephesians 5:25:

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it

A husband is to love his wife so much that he is willing to die to keep her safe. Just as Christ did to us. He is to put her first so much that he considers her very life more important than his own. This is a much tougher call than obedience.

Sorry for the long post, just trying to turn your understanding of God, man and woman on its head, and that is hard to do in a couple of lines! I hope this is helpful.

 

[Isabella]

.

Remember first that God is always throughout scripture referred to as a male, and never as a female. Would this be the case if He were truly genderless

That is because Hebrew is a gendered language, not that God is male, that in itself is a heretical idea.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Noticed the words "him" and "them" before? God created "him", Adam, in the image of God, but made "them", humankind, both male and female!

This proves the exact opposite of what you are saying, the placing does not matter, male and female are both made in the image.... you are being creative in your interpretation to push a false idea that God is some white beard in the sky. That is pretty alarming and I would have expected better from someone that likes to push that they are so learned.

B

 

[FollowingHim]

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Noticed the words "him" and "them" before? God created "him", Adam, in the image of God, but made "them", humankind, both male and female!

This proves the exact opposite of what you are saying, the placing does not matter, male and female are both made in the image.... you are being creative in your interpretation to push a false idea that God is some white beard in the sky. That is pretty alarming and I would have expected better from someone that likes to push that they are so learned.

Bels, I cannot follow your logic, the passage clearly states that God created "him" in the image of God, NOT that he created "them" in the image of God. Although I do concede that the correct translation of the passage is debated by some scholars, as the odd translation does say "they" twice (e.g. NIV, NLT), the majority of reputable translations (such as the KJV, ESV, NASB, YLT, and many others) all use "him". Remember too that this is only a sub-point I am using to lead to the point that a man is in authority over his wife, something that is clearly stated in many places in the Bible.

This is one of those issues where the Bible says it, so that's what we teach on this website. You do not accept the Bible, and are happy for a woman to have two husbands. Please feel entirely free to point out that emotionally some women do have this desire, and in the secular world such relationships do occur - those are topics on which I do appreciate your input, as it is very interesting and valuable, and I do not dispute these facts with you.

However I am presenting the clear teachings of Scripture about a theological matter, on a Christian website. This is another question entirely, please leave the discussion on that particular issue to those who do accept the Bible, and refrain from personal attacks. There is nothing "alarming" about saying that God is "some white beard in the sky" - that's the basic position of Christianity (and Judaism, Islam etc for that matter) throughout history. Furthermore I never "push" that I am "so learned" - I'm just a humble student of the Word, as were all the apostles, and learn more every day.

 

[Isabella]

It just shows you have a fundamental ignorance of Hebrew, it is a gendered language, it can only say Him or Her it doesn't have a word for they or it, but God is not gendered. Both Judaism and Islam state that God has no gender, but sometimes they symbolically refer to god as a Father, not in the genitals way and not as a bearded man in the sky, that is Heretical to both religions.

Although God is referred to in the Hebrew Bible with masculine imagery and grammatical forms, Jewish philosophy does not attribute to God either sex or gender.

The oneness of God is of primary importance in the Qur'an and Islam. In Qur'an, Allah is most often referred to with the pronouns Hu or Huwa, and although these are commonly translated as him, they can also be translated gender-neutrally, as it. This is also true of the feminine equivalent, Hiya. Allah is neither male nor female. It is considered blasphemy for Allah to be placed in a human or animal sexual gender category

The language comes from Hebrew, not Greek and not English. Learn Hebrew and stop slandering other religions that appear to understand the scripture better than you do, there is NO BODY therefore there can be no gender, gender is a physical body experience.....if you cannot possibly understand how god exists how dare you try to gender god. That is thoroughly shocking and probably a lot closer to Mormonism than you would care to admit.



B

 

[CecilW]

Out of line, Bels. This is neither a Judaism nor an Islam site. We dare.

The Bible says that we were made in the image of God. There must, therefore, be something to copy.

The scriptures contain multiple references to body parts of God ... hands, feet, face, chest. This site is not constrained and never will be by the philosophy of Islam nor quotes from some Jewish folks who disagree. Sorry. Ain't happening.

Further, Jesus always referred to God in masculine terms, as Father. Did NOT switch off with calling Him Mother. Nor does the Scripture do so elsewhere. Not gonna happen here.

Further, the scripture specifies that the male is to lead the home, and the home is a micro of which the whole family of God is the macro. He leads it. Back to male.

So it seems that God has gendered Himself. We didn't make it up.

Shocking or not, THIS site has always been on this page, and isn't budging. And no, that does not make us Mormons.

 

[Isabella]

Out of line, Bels. This is neither a Judaism nor an Islam site. We dare.

It was Samuel who said that Jews and Muslims agree with him therefore I was correcting him, I am well aware this is a Christian site. I don't him not to slander those other religions.

The Bible says that we were made in the image of God. There must, therefore, be something to copy.

It is about the spirit or else we would be nothing more than animals.....wow, I can't believe you don't get this, I thought this was obvious...wow.

The scriptures contain multiple references to body parts of God ... hands, feet, face, chest.

This is how humans relate, or do you really think that there is a big old hairy chest in the sky? :?

Further, Jesus always referred to God in masculine terms, as Father.

Jesus was a Jew and that is part of Hebriac tradition as was stated in the quote, that does not mean that Jesus thought there was a physical body of god in the heavens....do you think God needs a hair cut too?

Further, the scripture specifies that the male is to lead the home, and the home is a micro of which the whole family of God is the macro. He leads it. Back to male.

Humans are not gods, it is about leading, not about gender, to associate them as one in the same is simplistic.

So it seems that God has gendered Himself. We didn't make it up.

That is your interpretation, obviously a lot of people do not agree with it including the currently fasting growing religion on the planet. I would be a bit less proud if I were you.

Shocking or not, THIS site has always been on this page, and isn't budging. And no, that does not make us Mormons.

Wow, well I am exceedingly disappointed, I expected better of you.

B

 

[steve]

actually, from what i have read, the jews (or at least some of them) see the shekinah as the feminine side of YHWH. thus He had the attributes of both genders.

adam being made in His image also had both before the feminine was removed from him.

 

[Isabella]

actually, from what i have read, the jews (or at least some of them) see the shekinah as the feminine side of YHWH. thus He had the attributes of both genders.

adam being made in His image also had both before the feminine was removed from him.

That's a nice way to look at things Steve

 

[FollowingHim]

Further, the scripture specifies that the male is to lead the home, and the home is a micro of which the whole family of God is the macro. He leads it. Back to male.

Humans are not gods, it is about leading, not about gender, to associate them as one in the same is simplistic.

Bels, leading in Christianity is not identical to gender, but tightly associated with it. 1 Cor 11:3 as just one of numerous examples. I know you don't agree with this, and frankly I don't care that you don't. I'm teaching the words of scripture here.

Steve, thankyou for clarifying the Jewish perspective, I am not a student of either Judaism or Islam so my one minor comment on those religions that Bels has jumped on could well be incorrect. And yes there are differing perspectives on the nature of God in Christianity, He may well express female aspects as He is complete in Himself, so I don't entirely disagree with you here. However I'm sure you'll also agree that He is always referred to as male in scripture. Remember that the key question here is about whether a male human is the head of his home or not, and I am sure we both agree on that one.

 

[cnystrom]

The interesting question to me is how common is it in women?

Are men and women basically the same in this regard and the Bible grants men special privileges that are denied women?

Or is it ultra rare in women, and basically men and women different in this regard?

I tend to think it is the latter and basically it is not something that women are normally interested in, but perhaps I am not associating with a representative crowd?

 

[JesseHasQuestions]

actually, from what i have read, the jews (or at least some of them) see the shekinah as the feminine side of YHWH. thus He had the attributes of both genders.

adam being made in His image also had both before the feminine was removed from him.

WOW! This went on a tangent I didn't foresee! I was raised in a rather liberal state, but in a conservative church before I walked away. When I returned to the Church while living in Idaho, I found a messianic Christian Church there in Boise called 26:8. (yes that is the name of the church- it is in meridian Idaho now if anyone lives there you should check it out, it is wonderful). Anyways, They follow ancient Hebrew law, but from a Christian perspective. So when I ask the questions I have, it truly was to play "devils advocate". I believe that when God made Adam, He created him in his image, but that God, from the Hebrew texts (as was stated above) really has no gender, but tends to the more masculine. SO when life was breathed into Adam, and God took the rib and created Eve, eve was the more "feminine" representation of God. This is why she is Adams Ezer Kegnendo, his "life safer" and his counter point. Or how some would say "soul mate" Remember, her command to "serve" and "want" her husband didn't come into play until sin came into play as well, and Adams "toiling over the earth" save her at all costs even his own life" didn't come in until then either. Both of these "curses" (a mans drive to provide, a woman's to rule her husband) didn't come into play until sin did)

That said, What I have found a struggle in our single marriage home, is that my new Christian husband, has a very warped idea of what it means to be "head of the house" He thinks it means he can do whatever he wants, whenever, with no consequences and no thoughts to anyone but what he wants and we all just submit. And on my part, I try to do so, to show him respect, and love. When we were in Idaho, there were other men around who could step in and guide him when he was out of line, but now there is no one. and it has been very hard (especially since he has me do finances) to find a balance in areas of our lives. We agreed MANY years ago NO credit cards, all cash. I found out a few months ago he has 4 credit cards with over 2k in debt on them I now have to figure out how to pay off. Things like that. He turned them over to me, but when I asked him to take over the money completely (since he said the reason he did it is I never let him spend anything- which isn't true) He refused to do it. How do you honor his wishes in impossible situations? especially ones you thought were dealt with years ago?

We really need a new church home. But I cannot force him to go to church again either. So for now I just pray. and wait. and call out to God.

 

[FollowingHim]

That said, What I have found a struggle in our single marriage home, is that my new Christian husband, has a very warped idea of what it means to be "head of the house" He thinks it means he can do whatever he wants, whenever, with no consequences and no thoughts to anyone but what he wants and we all just submit. And on my part, I try to do so, to show him respect, and love. When we were in Idaho, there were other men around who could step in and guide him when he was out of line, but now there is no one. and it has been very hard (especially since he has me do finances) to find a balance in areas of our lives. We agreed MANY years ago NO credit cards, all cash. I found out a few months ago he has 4 credit cards with over 2k in debt on them I now have to figure out how to pay off. Things like that. He turned them over to me, but when I asked him to take over the money completely (since he said the reason he did it is I never let him spend anything- which isn't true) He refused to do it. How do you honor his wishes in impossible situations? especially ones you thought were dealt with years ago?

I'm going to go back to my illustration of the husband as the CEO of the company, and lets make you the accountant.

The CEO is the head of the company. But can he do whatever he wants? Not at all, because he is not ultimately in charge. He doesn't own the company. It is the Board of Directors, that are appointed by the shareholders, who represent the owners and are over the CEO.

The Board sets the direction and overall tasks that the company is to achieve. They might say "Buy a new warehouse in India", "Ensure all your employees have adequate healthcare cover", "Close the branch in Manilla" - or whatever.

The CEO takes those general instructions, and works out HOW to do them. He will look at different warehouses to buy, and take the best proposal back to the board for approval. He will look into what insurance and other conditions are required to ensure employees have "adequate" healthcare cover, he has to work out what that means in practice. He will sort out all the complex issues around closing the branch in Manilla - who is fired, who is relocated, what business activities are moved where.

The accountant does what the CEO instructs. The accountant works out the financial side of the warehouse proposal, costs out the new insurance scheme, tries to make sense of the mess in Manilla. She cannot do this with only partial information, the CEO needs to be open with her about everything she needs to know to do her job. She reports to the CEO - but ultimately is working for the board, not for him.

In marriage, the husband is the CEO. But God is the Board. God sets the general parameters within which a husband must run his home, he can't just do whatever he likes. He must treat his wives and children as God requires, and must focus the ultimate goal of his family to be God's ultimate goal - winning souls for Christ. The wife is under the husband. She obeys the husband, because God has established the general parameters that the marriage works within and He has said that the wife is to obey the husband. But he needs to be open with her.

Why would a strong man hide credit cards from his wife, if she ran the finances, because she "wouldn't let him spend money"? He wouldn't. A strong leader would just overrule his wife and tell her "actually, I have decided to spend this money there". His wife might disagree with the decision - but she would at least know it. Only a weak husband who was scared of his wife would skulk around behind her back hiding things from her that were supposedly her job. A CEO can make a decision that his accountant doesn't like - but will tell the accountant so she is aware of it. The same goes for marriage.

Does this way of looking at marriage help you understand the role of a Godly husband in leadership?