I don't want more than one wife, but am looking at maybe not having a choice

[MemeFan]

In one sense I couldn't care less because I'm a thousand percent fine with just her, easily. But being alone is HORRIBLE and I feel like I can't take it. I feel like if I married another woman, I'd have a hard time doing it through the realization that I'd slam the door on a marriage The big difference here is what it would mean for me to do that: an incredibly hard time getting her back if she changed her mind to a miraculous extent. She hates my theology as I stated, thinks I'm far from God, etc. She thinks that the laws of the land create the covenant which I think is nuts; I mean if the government can't decide the END of a marriage and God doesn't recognize divorces just because a government grants it, then why is the government in charge of deciding when a marriage begins?

1) Goverment gave itself right to decide what marriage is. Where such thing is written in Bible? Marriage is right and command given to us in Genesis. When did God transfer deciding about marriage from individuals/family to state?

Answer is never. You must teach your girl such things and have confidence that you are speaking truth because you know truth.

2) Woman hates idea of polygyny and she is still willing to stay with you? It must be true love. Otherwise, she would leave. In my experience she will get used to polygyny idea with time (years, not month) if you don't give her a inch. It will become just "you are such man with this not so strange idea".

3) You are suffering from oneitis. If your finance leaves you, you will never find such special girl. Otherwise, why would be so afraid of being alone? If she was just average girl for you, next average girl you could find next door. There is help for such cases, but I doubt this forum is right place for such discussion.

 

[DiscipleOfChrist]

So, are you formally betrothed to this woman?
- Did you pay her father for her?
- Did you sign a written contract to this effect?
- Failing that, did you buy her as a slave?

What makes you think you are betrothed?

I didn't say I considered myself betrothed as in Jewish customs.

The fact that rituals and legalities varies implies that those customs can be changed. But as for the covenant that God actually witnesses, I explained in my first post how I've come to see it.

 

[DiscipleOfChrist]

1) Goverment gave itself right to decide what marriage is. Where such thing is written in Bible? Marriage is right and command given to us in Genesis. When did God transfer deciding about marriage from individuals/family to state?

Answer is never. You must teach your girl such things and have confidence that you are speaking truth because you know truth.

That's indeed what I was trying to explain.

I gave an example: what if you gave some item to a friend, but then someone steals that item from your friend? The government recognizes it as stealing from your friend even though they had nothing to do with deciding that the item belonged to your friend. Likewise, the government should protect marriage, but they aren't the ones who decide that it begins, and for the same reasons neither should some ritual. But what do we see? People making an agreement, which is what I believe God sees.

 

[DiscipleOfChrist]

3) You are suffering from oneitis. If your finance leaves you, you will never find such special girl. Otherwise, why would be so afraid of being alone? If she was just average girl for you, next average girl you could find next door. There is help for such cases, but I doubt this forum is right place for such discussion.

No, I think I unknowingly fouled up as I was trying to explain, as I was in flux in my understanding of God's marriage law and questioned her availability to me (won't get into that). But the other side of it was the question of when marriage began. So now I'm in a spot where I was trying to convince her otherwise.

If God wants her with another man, then that's up to Him too and I want absolutely whatever is best for her also. My desires come in third place behind what God wants and then what's best for her.

 

[FollowingHim]

I didn't say I considered myself betrothed as in Jewish customs.

The fact that rituals and legalities varies implies that those customs can be changed. But as for the covenant that God actually witnesses, I explained in my first post how I've come to see it.

I think you are getting "betrothal" and "engagement" mixed up, and this is a fundamental error that is causing all of your worries.

Betrothal, scripturally, was a very formal affair - when the marriage paperwork was done. From that point, the woman was the legal property of her betrothed husband. Which is why having sex with a betrothed woman was such a serious offence, equivalent to having sex with a fully married woman - it meant stealing the property of another man.

Engagement is very different. Engagement is a stated intention to marry in the future. It may be very sincere, but it is informal as it involves no legally binding paperwork. If you make an agreement to marry a woman, with no formal paperwork associated with it, then you are engaged. You are not married.

Engagement is so informal it is not overtly discussed in scripture - though such informal intentions have no doubt occurred all through history. But an example would be Saul's daughter Merab. Saul stated his intention to give her to David as a wife (1 Samuel 18:17) - this informal intention is the closest thing I see in scripture to an engagement. As the offer was informal, David was able to back out of it (v18), and when the time came for her to marry she was given to another man (v19). No sin occurred - no marriage existed so no marriage was broken.

On the other hand, when Saul later gave Michal to another man, this was adultery as Michal was David's wife, and David rightly demanded her back. (2 Samuel 3).

In my understanding, we have three stages to a marriage: Engagement (informal intention), Betrothal (formal agreements) and Marriage (consummation). In modern culture, Betrothal is equivalent to the wedding ceremony where vows are exchanged, formal paperwork is signed etc - and in a culture where dowries are paid, this would occur at that ceremony too. The marriage itself is sealed that evening when it is consummated.

The key point is that betrothal is formal and public, while engagement is informal. Betrothal involves paperwork and ceremony, engagement does not. The precise nature of that paperwork changes enormously from culture to culture - but the fundamental point is that some formality is involved in a betrothal. In modern Western culture, the formal paperwork occurs at a wedding ceremony - so that is the betrothal.

And in our culture, if you had sex with a bride on the afternoon of her wedding, after the ceremony but before consummation, you would be having sex with a betrothed woman and subject to the penalties given in scripture for that.

As far as I can see, you may be engaged - but you are almost certainly not betrothed.

 

[steve]

I will ask again

Question, how well do you know the NZ babe?

Has your relationship been long distance only?
Have you spent time with her in person?

 

[The Revolting Man]

"If I lusted after someone's wife, I committed adultery."
Nonsense.
You need far less prayer than you do education. I don't say this lightly, or without empathy, but it's true.

First of all, Lusting after someone's wife is not looking at a pretty girl and wanting to take her home. It takes a LOT more than that. And the verse you were talking about, Matthew 5 27/28, well, it's not as cut and dry as you would think. Lusting after someone is far more than thinking she's pretty, and it's more than wanting to talk to her. It's more than actually talking to her and it's more than having a fantasy about her. It's when you want her and start acting on it KNOWING that she is bound to another.

Think of a marriage bond as a real tangible thing. Imagine it as a physical glowing link between two people and it helps understand what I'm talking about. When you have that between two people the cord is bright, beautiful, vibrant. Then when you pollute it, it becomes dull, sickly and wrong. If you want her and don't care if she's married, and act on taking her away, then you have already committed adultery in your heart even though you haven't yet gotten her. See why now? It's because in your heart, to want something that bad, you visualize it and it pollutes you and ignores her safety, her existing bad, and in a way you're threatening to murder a marriage and ACTING ON IT.

The next issue is when does marriage start and the history of the Jews tells this. It's the oath you make. Marriage is a CHOICE you make. You can choose to not marry and some do. You can choose to be monogamous, and some do that as well. You can choose to be polygynous and you very well may be someday. But it takes two or more witnesses to make a marriage legitimate. Just having sex does not do it. It creates the bond, but it doesn't legitimize it. It's also a feminine noun, there is a different word or men who fornicate. It's a word that seems to mean a women who engages in sex with no promises and is used for prostitutes who sell themselves. So to make it concise, you meet missus woman, you have dinner... you're not married. You go to your place, and get frisky... you've now bound to her with a bond. You can legitimize that bond or walk away from it. Walking away from it harms HER. You can bond many, she can bond ONE. So now, she has your bond and each time she has sex after that, she has also bonded another man TO YOU. This is why the root term for a male fornicator means Male Prostitute or someone that gives away something precious for pennies. When you legitimize the marriage and you do it in front of two witnesses, then that marriage is a real thing. It takes two witnesses to make a thing real - even the accusation of murder.

The next issue is leadership. You have no idea how. You don't study it, and it shows. You have the idea that it's about finding women and it's not. Gideon had many wives and was a fantastic leader. David was a leader. Solomon was a leader. The stronger the leader, the better the marriage. Being good, a lover, a nice guy will just get you ulcers. Forget women, study leadership. When you become a real leader thorugh study, and finding jobs or an environment that the skills are useful (I ran the production department for a theater, badly for a while, but better as time went on) and then you'll grow that inner confidence that will let you start leading people. Then, the women will find you, you won't need to really look. But right now, you need education.

You need more education. There is no oath required for a “marriage”. You can turn the Bible inside out looking for one and you won’t find.

 

[Matthew Hudson]

You need more education. There is no oath required for a “marriage”. You can turn the Bible inside out looking for one and you won’t find.

Shrugs. I took my information on a lot of word searches, as well as the verses on oaths. I also looked at past marriages, some extra-biblical texts, and come cultural items. I know what I know and really am not here to get into it with folks over doctrines. My advice stands.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Shrugs. I took my information on a lot of word searches, as well as the verses on oaths. I also looked at past marriages, some extra-biblical texts, and come cultural items. I know what I know and really am not here to get into it with folks over doctrines. My advice stands.

Your advice sucks. Show me these verses. They don’t exist. I don’t know what words you were searching but am guessing they were the words “not” and “doy doy doy”.

 

[frederick]

Some of that thought kind of occurred to me. The problem with looking at it quite the way that you put it is that, prudence aside, with our promise we DID make the covenant and so are bound as it is, is the way I see it.

As far as presuming on a miracle or not, I don't know what I'd do in the event that she changed her mind after I had another woman.

In what other countries can you manage polygyny? i.e. hopefully in the first world.

Consider the situation Jacob found himself in with taking Leah and Rachel as his wives. He had an agreement to work for seven years for Rachel but Laban gave him Leah instead. Because of the agreement Jacob had with Laban, once he had worked the first seven years, Then Jacob said to Laban, “Give me my wife, for my days are fulfilled, that I may go in to her” (Gen. 29:21). Jacob unwittingly went in to Leah but there was nothing wrong with that as she had been given to him by her father; she was his so he had the right to have sex with her. He fulfilled her week, then Laban gave him Rachel. Gen. 29:28 Then Jacob did so and fulfilled her week. So he gave him his daughter Rachel as wife also.

Jacob had these women as wives because they were given to him and once he had acquired them, they were his wives for all that involves.

I don't know all the details of your agreement with your NZ fiancée and those who she is under the authority of, so I will leave you to ponder how that might fit with the examples we have in the Bible. Shalom and may God grant you wisdom in these challenges.

 

[DiscipleOfChrist]

I think you are getting "betrothal" and "engagement" mixed up, and this is a fundamental error that is causing all of your worries.

Betrothal, scripturally, was a very formal affair - when the marriage paperwork was done. From that point, the woman was the legal property of her betrothed husband. Which is why having sex with a betrothed woman was such a serious offence, equivalent to having sex with a fully married woman - it meant stealing the property of another man.

Engagement is very different. Engagement is a stated intention to marry in the future. It may be very sincere, but it is informal as it involves no legally binding paperwork. If you make an agreement to marry a woman, with no formal paperwork associated with it, then you are engaged. You are not married.

And this is where I don't think that "paperwork" is what God actually sees when He considers the covenant in effect.

That's exactly what I'm saying: legal ceremonies differ, but surely you wouldn't try to argue that marriages DON'T ever begin unless we do the betrothal ritual, right? And that's my point: the legal process is just a layer on top of what's done in the heart for the sake of legalities, which is exactly why they might take various forms besides the Jewish Betrothal.

Then you also have Isaac and Rebekah or Jacob and his two wives. Was there paperwork there? Does it matter?

I'll repeat my example again: someone can gift you an item off the record, but if someone steals it, the government recognizes it being stolen from YOU. So it's not the formal ritual, some official signing, some gesture in front witnesses that is the actual beginning of the ownership, but all of that is just there for worldly enforcement of what is done in the heart already.

 

[DiscipleOfChrist]

I will ask again

Has your relationship been long distance only?
Have you spent time with her in person?

Yes I've met her in person. She's wonderful.

 

[FollowingHim]

I'm doing my best to help show you a way out of the situation you feel you are in, but as you're not interested in it I'll stop trying to persuade you! I'll just finish by bringing this back to what you said at the start of this thread:

It became my belief that marriage begins not at the legal marriage office or at a ceremony, but when a couple agrees together that they "will" get married.

The long and short of it is this: the act begins in the heart in God's sight.... if two people agree together with their hearts that they will "become one flesh,"
...
So after some of the utmost painful turns of events, my fiancee in New Zealand didn't want to come to me.

You said multiple times that your agreement with this woman was that you "will" get married - some day in the future. And you did not call her your wife, you called her your fiancee.

In other words, you did not agree with her that you "were currently" married - you agreed that you intend to get married in the future. You do not have an agreement that she is your wife, you have an agreement that she will become your wife one day.

You are trying to simultaneously believe that you married her in the past, and that you are not yet married but will marry her in the future - that marriage begins when people decide they will get married in the future. This is "doublethink" - believing two contradictory things at the same time. It's like me believing that my meeting with a client begins the moment I set the date for the meeting as next Tuesday - so it begins now, and also won't begin until Tuesday.

You're welcome to believe that though if you like, I'll stop trying to persuade you otherwise!
If at any point in the future you want to get out of this confusing mire, come back and read this again.

 

[steve]

Samuel, I disagree with the lad on some of his thinking, but I accept that making an agreement to be married is a solid step in the process of becoming married. It doesn’t make them fully married, but it is the embryo of the marriage.
He should honor his word if at all possible, unless he finds that she isn’t who she represented herself to be in a significant way.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Yes I've met her in person. She's wonderful.

Well hopefully this all works out for you. It sounds like you have some details to hammer out with the Kiwi girl first though. He who finds a woman finds a good thing!

 

[FollowingHim]

Samuel, I disagree with the lad on some of his thinking, but I accept that making an agreement to be married is a solid step in the process of becoming married. It doesn’t make them fully married, but it is the embryo of the marriage.
He should honor his word if at all possible, unless he finds that she isn’t who she represented herself to be in a significant way.

I agree - but I do feel he's twisting himself in emotional knots, when he could be relaxing and trusting the future to God's hands.

 

[steve]

I agree - but I do feel he's twisting himself in emotional knots, when he could be relaxing and trusting the future to God's hands.

Definitely

 

[frederick]

I agree - but I do feel he's twisting himself in emotional knots, when he could be relaxing and trusting the future to God's hands.

It is the conflicting terms used which makes me wonder how sure they both were of the sort of agreement they reached. Normally saying "Fiancée" doesn't equal possession of the woman as one's own.

 

[steve]

It is the conflicting terms used which makes me wonder how sure they both were of the sort of agreement they reached. Normally saying "Fiancée" doesn't equal possession of the woman as one's own.

Understood, but if he identifies fiancée with betrothed, then his reality is that he is already partially married.
It doesn’t matter what the words mean to someone else.

 

[frederick]

Understood, but if he identifies fiancée with betrothed, then his reality is that he is already partially married.
It doesn’t matter what the words mean to someone else.

Exactly, but I'm wondering how sure they both were in their understanding at the time. What exactly did each know and believe any words said meant? It would be more certain if what was believed was consummated, if that was indeed the understanding they had.