• 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.

Man taking another wife to fix a problem

When a woman loses her virginity to an eligible man, she's married to him. That right there causes contention and there are differing "interpretations" because a long time ago it was in the church's interest to claim that only the church could make one married and a man and woman had to appear in a ceremony and consent to marriage in order for the church to bless the union. Yet, that isn't what the Word says.

Genesis 2:24 states how a marriage begins, and what it doesn't say describes the standard of marriage. Scripture is best interpreted by Scripture and Matthew 19 speaks volumes on the interpretation of Genesis 2:24. It is inescapable that Genesis 2:24 did not restrict a man to a single wife, nor did it provide him the authority to divorce his wife once he married her. Thus, the standard is a permanent but not exclusive commitment by the man.

Then came Moses. Notice the text of Matthew 19. "Moses permitted you." Christ is clearly pointing out that is not a command from God. That is Moses, acting in his judicial capacity as the Judge of Israel making a decision to change the standard of Genesis 2:24 to allow divorce. Perhaps the tone was not one of contempt when He said "Moses permitted you" but it was certainly possible, I would say probable.

People look at the text and see "except for porneia" and see a justification. No, He was talking about all the divorces for other reasons. Unless it was for adultery, incest, idolatry... it wasn't legitimate. They were still married. That was the issue and if you could read it like a judge you'd see that.

Then we have Christ, in the only place between His ascension and the Book of Revelation, popping in to give instruction to His church on the subject of marriage in 1st Corinthians 7:10-11. The only place in which the Risen and Ascendent Lord gives instruction to His church prior to the book of Revelation. And compare what He said to the comments from Matthew 19. This screams for attention. But that's too contentious. The truth is one is no longer under the Law but under Christ. And He said not to do certain things...
 
Eristhophanes said:
When a woman loses her virginity to an eligible man, she's married to him.
Click to expand...
Wrong. Her father must give permission first. And he can refuse.
Exodus 22:16"If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife. 17"If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the dowry for virgins.
Click to expand...
Have you read Samuel's booklet Marriage From The Bible Alone? I would suggest you have a look at it, it's very good.
 
Yes, he said not to do certain things - but a command not to do something does not mean that the thing has not been done. As I said previously, just because I should not burn down my neighbour's garage does not mean that I did not do so. And just because I should not divorce my wife would not mean that I had not divorced her, if I handed her a certificate of divorce and sent her away.

And I do look at things with a legal mindset, yet don't get the meaning you take from Matthew 19:9. That doesn't mean I'm right necessarily, but I think you go too far in your assertion that if I just looked at it the "right" way I'd see it exactly how you see it.
 
FollowingHim2 said:
Wrong. Her father must give permission first. And he can refuse.
Click to expand...

Have you read Deuteronomy 22:28-29 lately? Or Exodus 22:16-17? He has the authority to review her decisions (Numbers 30:3-5) and he can review the action and even annul it after that fact, but that doesn't make them any less married from the point he breaks her hymen.

FollowingHim said:
but a command not to do something does not mean that the thing has not been done
Click to expand...

That, I suppose depends on your perspective. As far as He is concerned, one is either married or not. He told us what His standard for marriage is. He has stated what His standards for divorce are. He will judge. He has commanded not to commit adultery.

The question of whether she is divorced is before you. Will you choose to go with the opinion of a court judge somewhere, or the real Judge?
 
Eristhophanes said:
Have you read Deuteronomy 22:28-29 lately? Or Exodus 22:16-17? He has the authority to review her decisions (Numbers 30:3-5) and he can review the action and even annul it after that fact, but that doesn't make them any less married from the point he breaks her hymen.
Click to expand...
Here you are still making the assumption that marriage is formed solely through sex, that the virgin woman has the authority to instigate a marriage, and that the father's right to refuse is a right to alter her decision. This is an assumption.
The alternative view is that marriage is formed by both covenant and consummation, with covenant being critical. This is why a betrothed woman (covenanted but not consummated) is considered an adulteress if she sleeps with a man other than her betrothed husband, because she is already considered married even though her hymen may be completely intact (to put it back into your terminology). The father's right to disallow a daughter's decisions is irrelevant, as this was his decision to make from the start, not hers.
In other words, you are simply reiterating your assumptions without addressing the objections being raised.
Eristophanes said:
The question of whether she is divorced is before you. Will you choose to go with the opinion of a court judge somewhere, or the real Judge?
Click to expand...
Yes, that is a very difficult question, for anybody considering marrying a woman with a complex past. And there are many things to consider that influence the answer, depending on the details of the situation.
 
The only problem with all of this covenanting is that its not shown anywhere in scripture. You get a lot of "he laid with her," but not so much with the "he covenanted with her."

Also, a woman could walk away from an unconsummated marriage. She can't walk away from a consummated but uncovenanted marriage. Her father can rescue her, although even that seems to imply that the father has to make it stick. It sounds like if the fellow can get hold of her he can keep her.
 
Marriage is like pregnancy, one either is or isn't.

The penetration, in the case of the virgin, initiates the marriage if she is eligible. Genesis 2:24 contains no other requirements. The agreement between the man and the father is a contract and it is voluntary. I am a father and I have daughters. Do you think I take this lightly? The covenant is something God is party to, which is between the man and woman and that is initiated with shed blood. Her consent is not required. I know, everyone hates that, but the Word says what it says.

Again, one is either married or one is not. Can we agree on that?
 
I'm not bashing you UG. Please don't take it that way.
I have to highlight that there is no two Testaments. This is one book called God's word and the so-called new is built on the old as a continuation. This is why the whole of scripture does not conflict if you dig in properly.
The Messiah said he came to fulfill not condemn the law. That means everything he did is a continuation.
It is the reproach of the law that was taken away. IE. If you commit adultery you do not die for it by the hands of your local community. It is a matter that you take up before the Messiah because of the blood he shed. And your salvation / forgiveness is in his hands.

Word of warning to those to take advantage of this. It's not an anything-goes Claus.
 
Of course I use OT and NT for ease of reference, but there is very clearly stated a new covenant.

However, instead of arguing the point, as has been done fruitlessly in the past, I suggest we just agree to disagree on it Romans 14 style. If this was the first time this debate has come up, that might be different. I just wanted to ensure in my with original post it was obvious that not everyone on the forum believes the Torah must be strictly kept.
 
UntoldGlory, what if the new covenant is about our relationship to the whole word of God rather than the idea that seemingly parts of the Bible have been invalidated?

I hear you wouldn't want to discuss this further as per your conviction but mind you all the readers which may be in search of the Truth regarding the validity of the whole word of God...
 
I totally get what you're saying TLS. Nothing but respect there. We have a difference of opinion on what the truth is. I can tell you (and other Torah keepers) have spent a lot of time in the word, and have based your beliefs off of your interpretations of what was found there, yet so have I. I don't think most of us here post based on feelings vs research.

And Lila, I very specifically stated that I believe that the old covenant is still valid. I just also believe that the new covenant referred to in Hebrews 8 is also valid.

I really don't mind debating the topic, it's just that historically it has been a topic that goes quickly from debate, to heated debate, to argument. Which is pretty much what Zec referred to and what Slumber has referred to elsewhere.
 
Untold Glory is right. I tend to err on the side of the Law to the point that if I can't explain why a Law doesn't apply I obey it, but scripture is clear; all we must do to be saved is to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be baptized. Everything after that is simply a journey on the road from milk drinker to meat eater. And we know for sure that we are not to let these things divide the Body.

Conscience does compel me to say that I think we should obey those Laws that have not been expressly fulfilled, but I can't put that burden on anyone.
 
UntoldGlory said:
..And Lila, I very specifically stated that I believe that the old covenant is still valid. I just also believe that the new covenant referred to in Hebrews 8 is also valid.
Click to expand...

I sure think also that Hebrew 8 is valid, the New Covenant is about better promises not the Law which is perfect already (Ps 19:7).
I think it makes sense to suggest that if one adds or takes away from something that is perfect, it becomes less perfect (Deu 4:2)

UntoldGlory said:
I really don't mind debating the topic, it's just that historically it has been a topic that goes quickly from debate, to heated debate, to argument..
Click to expand...

I hear you. I have read about this concern so many times on this forum by now and I hope even a taboo can become untaboo-ed.
After all, we need to be faithful in the small things from heart to be true servants and Yahwe will take care of the rest.

ZecAustin said:
..Conscience does compel me to say that I think we should obey those Laws that have not been expressly fulfilled, but I can't put that burden on anyone.
Click to expand...

I agree. It's no intention of mine either to put any burden on anyone that hasn't come to that understanding themselves but surely if we work out our salvation, we can accept the invitation of Yahwe: “Come now, and let us reason together” (Is 1:18)
 
Well I'm not a moderator but if I were to participate in that kind of debate at very least it would have to be in the private forum and have heavy moderator influence.
 
Those discussions are actually far better to have in person. Internet forums are terrible places to debate anything, because everyone talks at cross purposes with heaps of misunderstandings very slowly with a conversation taking weeks. If we all sat down and had a chat for an hour, or even 5 minutes, we'd get far further ahead with far less offense being taken than we could ever do online. This is why the retreats are so important. I spend much of my time at retreats discussing theology with other men, until very late at night, and hardly ever mention polygyny at all. We already agree on polygyny, there's little to discuss there - but issues such as Torah keeping are serious meat that I really appreciate the opportunity to discuss in person with other solid brothers who are willing to actually read scripture and believe it (as evidenced by their acceptance of polygyny).

The forum is good to have while we are apart physically, but is a very poor substitute for true physical fellowship.

So, anyone keen on a trip to New Zealand to discuss this? I've got a spare room you can stay in, until I fill it with another wife! ;)
 
Lila said:
I hope even a taboo can become untaboo-ed.
Click to expand...
It's not a question of any topic's being "taboo". As Samuel stated, come to a retreat and you'll find us discussing just about anything.

It's a question of mission and focus and resource allocation. This group and this board exist to promote a biblical understanding of marriage and family. There are other platforms on the internet dedicated to the issue of law-keeping, where someone who is not Torah-observant but considers polygamy to be a top priority would be seen as a foreign and disruptive influence. In the same manner, we want to stay focused on our mission and purpose.

This is a diverse group, and we like it that way! We welcome our more messianic brothers and sisters into fellowship, and most of us enjoy a friendly debate, while some of us enjoy the kind of debate that resembles martial artists sparring. But anyone promoting an agenda other than a biblical understanding of marriage and family becomes a distraction at best, if not a threat to the unity-in-diversity of the group. (I'm not speaking specifically about Torah-keeping here. Trust me, there are LOTS of ways followers of Christ interested in biblical marriage can get crosswise when other subjects come up.)

So please don't think in terms of whether a topic is "taboo"; there's nothing you could mention that's "forbidden" in the sense "taboo" means. Think instead in terms of the unity that is the natural by-product of a clear mission focus, and keep the conversations here within that unity. (See our Doctrinal Statement page for more information.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top