poly = selfish, unloving towards your wife

[DeathIsNotTheEnd]

I

The answer to this is best exemplified in Malachi 2:14-16. IF you are divorcing to trade up or get a newer different model, or if you are marrying a woman and putting the first aside (though still married to her) to favor the new wife that is dealing treacherously with the first. This is an abomination.

Think that's just called being unloving.

I also think this would need some serious study of what that unjustly putting away (even if technically married still... if Moses' reason for allowing certificates of divorce was hardness of heart... that is, divorced in spirit... can we really say putting away a wife is NOT divorce in God's eyes? Seems to me it would be, especially given these parallel verses. Who cares if a technical certificate has been given or not if for all intents and purposes she is being treated as 'divorced'?). Otherwise women could just argue that if they arent getting 100% of their husband's time, passion, etc... then they are being 'put away'

 

[Verifyveritas76]

I


Think that's just called being unloving.

I also think this would need some serious study of what that unjustly putting away (even if technically married still... if Moses' reason for allowing certificates of divorce was hardness of heart... that is, divorced in spirit... can we really say putting away a wife is NOT divorce in God's eyes? Seems to me it would be, especially given these parallel verses. Who cares if a technical certificate has been given or not if for all intents and purposes she is being treated as 'divorced'?). Otherwise women could just argue that if they arent getting 100% of their husband's time, passion, etc... then they are being 'put away'

It’s a study well worth pursuing. There are just “putting away’s” and unjust putting away’s, as there are just and unjust bills of divorce. There is a distinct difference between putting away and a bill of divorce.

 

[Phillip]

I read this verse yesterday and it provoked some anger regarding poly so I thought I'd mention it, "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” Matthew 19:9 NIV

Some people can read the scripture that says, “Jesus wept.” They can take that scripture and say, he didn’t really weep, he got dust in his eyes and his body was trying to clean out the dust. Or, it wasn’t really tears because of this or that. The truth is Jesus wept.

The scripture Mathew 19:9 is an excellent example of twisting what was said. And to understand this verse, it must be put together in context with the rest of scripture.

To get rid of the old wife for a newer model is what is the basic topic of conversation. However, since plural marriage is both permitted and an accepted practice by scripture, there is never a reason to get rid of the first wife. In this case, the man had the right to keep the wife of his youth while starting a new thread on his patriarchy.

It would be conceivable that a man like that would do the same thing to wife #2 or wife #3 when someone else comes along. As mentioned earlier, serial monogamy.

 

[Sean Miller]

Some people can read the scripture that says, “Jesus wept.” They can take that scripture and say, he didn’t really weep, he got dust in his eyes and his body was trying to clean out the dust. Or, it wasn’t really tears because of this or that. The truth is Jesus wept.

The scripture Mathew 19:9 is an excellent example of twisting what was said. And to understand this verse, it must be put together in context with the rest of scripture.

To get rid of the old wife for a newer model is what is the basic topic of conversation. However, since plural marriage is both permitted and an accepted practice by scripture, there is never a reason to get rid of the first wife. In this case, the man had the right to keep the wife of his youth while starting a new thread on his patriarchy.

It would be conceivable that a man like that would do the same thing to wife #2 or wife #3 when someone else comes along. As mentioned earlier, serial monogamy.

I like the reference to the wife of his youth. It puts that verse in a whole different light when relating it to poly, something I haven't thought about before until now. Thank you for your response! More so than his "right" to keep his wife of his youth it is his command by God, but I understand how your connecting it to the husbands right to have more than just his 1st wife.

My 1st might think or feel differently but I do not want to get rid of her or love her any less, I want our relationship to be closer as time goes on and no matter how many wives I might have, or how young they might be ( not referring to a minor btw, but a woman older than 20).

 

[Sean Miller]

It’s a study well worth pursuing. There are just “putting away’s” and unjust putting away’s, as there are just and unjust bills of divorce. There is a distinct difference between putting away and a bill of divorce.

Hum... I look at Jeremiah 3:8, "I gave faithless Israel her certificate of divorce and sent her away because of all her her adulteries". Clearly God didn't give a technical cert here. It was spiritual as well as physical, he removed himself from her, until she returned back to Him. But he didn't do it right away, take notice in verses 6-10.

To me putting away and divorce are the same thing, I think thats the way most see it as well, however that doesn't mean I am correct in my understanding. I agree, a study worth pursuing. Matthew 1:19 NIV says "divorce", KJV says "putting away", "was minded to put her away privily". So very possibly a translational issue here. Also interesting is that they were not married yet, it says they were pledged to be married, from the Law this was practically the same thing, Joseph shows that in this verse that he'd divorce her quietly (because he found her unpleasing to him?).

 

[The Revolting Man]

If you think about it the verse is actually endorsing polygyny because a man who didn't divorce his wife and then married another woman wouldn't run afoul.of.the statute at all. This should be one of our proof texts.

 

[Sean Miller]

I am sure that she is not interested in logic, but that verse shows how bankrupt the logic of the anti-poly church is. They swallow the camels of all of the divorces around them while straining at the gnat of the possibility that poly is adultery.

Actually she's pretty good in that regard, she works at applying logic fairly often, and truths are important to her, it just isn't always recognised immediately as feelings do play a part, but she's pretty fare in trying to overcome those feelings. If it weren't for her faith and belief in the Word I doubt we'd still be together, I am not sure that's based on logic but more so faith and trust in God vs. her feelings. I get what your saying though, logic often gets left out in regards to poly, especially in the church!

 

[rockfox]

she wants the pain to stop

What pain is that?

 

[Sean Miller]

The pain of losing stuff she valued: exclusivity, uniqueness, etc...

You know the interesting part about that, it's just a state of mind, for the husband she's still valued and unique by him, that doesn't change if he has more or only one. On a personal note I valued and saw a whole new uniqeness to my 1st after going into Poly, I actually valued and appreciated her more after marring another wife., so things did change but got the good.

 

[steve]

You know the interesting part about that, it's just a state of mind, for the husband she's still valued and unique by him, that doesn't change if he has more or only one. On a personal note I valued and saw a whole new uniqeness to my 1st after going into Poly, I actually valued and appreciated her more after marring another wife., so things did change but got the good.

Completely true, but it may be the control that she will miss.
When you are no longer the only game in town.....


Thankful for girls without those issues.

 

[rockfox]

The pain of losing stuff she valued: exclusivity, uniqueness, etc...

I count all things loss for Christ.

 

[Sean Miller]

Completely true, but it may be the control that she will miss.
When you are no longer the only game in town.....


Thankful for girls without those issues.

Very possible. They say what you don't know can't hurt you, so that implies it's a state beliefs which create the pain inside. I know satin targets our weaknesses, and our belief to use them against us. For the ladies the mind is weak to influences especially her own thoughts or those put into her head by the enemy, and the feelings hyper reactive to such. She can think or fear something and then react to it even though it doesn't exist. Some women have become more aware of this than others and learn how to better control it, this helps a husband and a marriage significantly, but it's been my experience most ladies don't possess this strength or even knowledge, so trying to teach it to a grown adult who has been living that way for most her life is very difficult and staining on a relationship.

Control is an element that deffintly exists but I don't think it's the root, I think her thoughts, fears and feelings initiate the desire for control, so she can then attempt to control how she thinks and feels. Us men know this logic is ass backwords (not to mention rejecting Christ for the soloution), but what do us men/husbands know....

 

[rockfox]

Very possible. They say what you don't know can't hurt you, so that implies it's a state beliefs which create the pain inside. I know satin targets our weaknesses, and our belief to use them against us. For the ladies the mind is weak to influences especially her own thoughts or those put into her head by the enemy, and the feelings hyper reactive to such. She can think or fear something and then react to it even though it doesn't exist. Some women have become more aware of this than others and learn how to better control it, this helps a husband and a marriage significantly, but it's been my experience most ladies don't possess this strength or even knowledge, so trying to teach it to a grown adult who has been living that way for most her life is very difficult and staining on a relationship.

Control is an element that deffintly exists but I don't think it's the root, I think her thoughts, fears and feelings initiate the desire for control, so she can then attempt to control how she thinks and feels. Us men know this logic is ass backwords (not to mention rejecting Christ for the soloution), but what do us men/husbands know....

It is unlikely she'll spontaneously learn this. But it is at least possible a man can teach her to become cognizant of and reflect upon her feelings to manage them rather than be controlled by them. To think about the feelings rather than just have feelings about the feelings.

But learning such introspection can be a painful process for them. Nor is it a fast one. And I have no idea what % of women are even capable of making the change.

 

[Sean Miller]

Although I think if you accept that you can make a vow to a wife you've already swallowed the poison pill. She has to submit in all things, just tell her to rescind the vow. Vows to wives are oxymoronic.

Explain this more to me, what do you mean? A husband shouldn't make a vow to a woman? Just curious what you mean.

 

[Pacman]

Explain this more to me, what do you mean? A husband shouldn't make a vow to a woman? Just curious what you mean.

I can’t speak for @ZecAustin but my position is that a man should not make a “vow” to her. I think this is an “extra biblical” idea. Perhaps I missed it but I’m not aware of any “positive” examples of that taking place in scripture. Except in the case of a widow or divorced woman the covenant is formed between the brides father and the bridegroom not between the woman and the man. Men should be very careful about even making promises to their women.
She is his “bond servant” her will should be conformed to his. The entire purpose of this thing we refer to as marriage is to “image” the relationship between YHWH and his people. That “image” runs far deeper than we typically apply it. The promises made to us from YHWH are kept because of his character not because we have some sort of authority to demand it. And those promises were made because they fit within his purpose and vision for his family.

We men should be doing the same and setting the vision and direction for our families future. And any “promises” made should only be fitting with that vision, not because she wants it. Her purpose in life is to support that vision full stop. If she has her own vision she isn’t fully submitted to him. Same principle applies for our relationship with our Heavenly Father.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

I can’t speak for @ZecAustin but my position is that a man should not make a “vow” to her. I think this is an “extra biblical” idea.

The entire purpose of this thing we refer to as marriage is to “image” the relationship between YHWH and his people. That “image” runs far deeper than we typically apply it. The promises made to us from YHWH are kept because of his character not because we have some sort of authority to demand it. And those promises were made because they fit within his purpose and vision for his family.

Ezekiel 16:8
Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness: yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord GOD, and thou becamest mine.

Why should a woman ever contemplate submitting to a man (through this construct of marriage) without some semblance of a guideline or authority that he is under and without a vow from him? As a father, I would remove a man that attempted to get one of my daughters to covenant under those conditions and I would negate her vow in the day I heard of it. Period. The consequences for him would be Biblical at the least.

I get what you’re saying @Pacman, and I understand where you’re trying to get, but this idea that a husband should not vow to a wife to reflect the image of God is fundamentally wrong on so many levels. Every covenant that God creates involves swaring and oaths on both sides.

True, be careful what you say and what you agree to with your wife or anyone else, but, IMO your wife and family should be the one that you keep your word to, whether you do to anyone else or not. Why should a wife be an exception to the instruction to let your yea be yea and your nay be nay?

It’s probably also important to keep in mind that the father allowed her vow or assent on the betrothal/wedding day because of the husband to be’s vow. Leviticus 6 comes into play in a big way.

 

[Pacman]

Why should a woman ever contemplate submitting to a man (through this construct of marriage) without some semblance of a guideline or authority that he is under and without a vow from him?

Your misrepresenting or misunderstanding what I’m trying to say. But to answer your question... Partly because it’s not her decision. It’s her fathers decision. And the idea that the man I’m talking about wouldn’t be under God’s authority is ridiculous and you know that’s not what I meant. Did you read the last line of my post?

this idea that a husband should not vow to a wife to reflect the image of God is fundamentally wrong on so many levels.

Again that vow wouldn’t be made to her it’s made to God. And its implied in the fact that he is a Godly man. Not sure why that would need to be verbalized as a “vow”

Every covenant that God creates involves swaring and oaths on both sides.

And the promises or “oaths” that God makes are in line with his vision and purpose for his family. Just like I pointed out...

Why should a wife be an exception to the instruction to let your yea be yea and your nay be nay?

Straw man arguments much? Where did I say that?

It’s probably also important to keep in mind that the father allowed her vow or assent on the betrothal/wedding day because of the husband to be’s vow.

Care to back that up from scripture? 66 books.

Leviticus 6 comes into play in a big way.

So again you are assuming that I’m talking about a dishonest man... why? Where did I say that?

 

[Pacman]

Again that vow wouldn’t be made to her it’s made to God. And its implied in the fact that he is a Godly man. Not sure why that would need to be verbalized as a “vow”

I guess this comes across badly. I should add that promising to love her and protect, provide etc. is fine to do but it shouldn’t be necessary. If the man is a follower of Yah this is understood.

1 Timothy 5:8 NASB
[8] But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

All this being said I do believe that we should keep our word so if we have made a vow we shouldn’t break it, but instead seek to be released from that vow by the person it was made to even if it was made in ignorance.

 

[rockfox]

Why should a woman ever contemplate submitting to a man (through this construct of marriage) without some semblance of a guideline or authority that he is under and without a vow from him?

Just because he does not vow, doesn't mean he is not under authority. He is under Christ's authority; who directed him not to make any vows at all...

“Again, you have heard that the ancients were told, ‘YOU SHALL NOT MAKE FALSE VOWS, BUT SHALL FULFILL YOUR VOWS TO THE LORD.’ 34“But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is THE CITY OF THE GREAT KING. 36“Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. 37“But let your statement be, ‘Yes, yes’ or ‘No, no’; anything beyond these is of evil.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Explain this more to me, what do you mean? A husband shouldn't make a vow to a woman? Just curious what you mean.

If a woman is to be submitted to her husband in all things then a vow becomes meaningless. He can just tell her to release him from the vow (assuming he can't just declare it null which I would say he could) and she has to obey. She is to submit as to Christ, what exactly is the limits of how much we're to submit to Christ?